In the right to bear arms debate, pro-gun Americans point to Switzerland,
where almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of
the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the
United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime. Therefore, argue the
pro-gunners, America doesn't need gun control.
Yet Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), in its brochure "Handgun Facts," points
to Switzerland as one of the advanced nations with strict handgun laws." The
brochure states that all guns are registered, and handgun purchases require
a background check and a permit. Gun crime in Switzerland is virtually
non-existent. Therefore, concludes Handgun Control, America needs strict gun
control.
Who's right? As usual, Handgun Control is wrong, but that doesn't
necessarily make the pro-gun side right. Gun ownership in Switzerland defies
the simple categories of the American gun debate.
Like America, Switzerland won its independence in a revolutionary war
fought by an armed citizenry. In 1291, several cantons (states) began a war
of national liberation against Austria's Hapsburg Empire. In legend, the
revolution was precipitated by William Tell, although there is no definitive
proof of his existence.
Over the next century, the Swiss militia liberated most Switzerland from
the Austrians. The ordinary citizens who composed the militia used the
deadliest assault weapons the time, swords and bows. Crucial to the Swiss
victory was the motivation of the free Swiss troops.
From the very first years of Swiss independence, the Swiss were commanded
to keep and bear arms. After 1515. Switzerland adopted a policy of armed
neutrality. For the next four centuries, the great empires of Europe rose
and fell, swallowing many weaker countries. Russia and France both invaded,
and the Habsburgs and later the Austro Hungarian Empire remained special
threats. But Switzerland almost always retained its independence. The Swiss
policy was Pr�vention de Ia guerre par Ia volont� de se d�fendre During
World War I, both France and Germany considered invading Switzerland to
attack each other's flank. In World War II, Hitler wanted the Swiss gold
reserves and needed free communications and transit through Switzerland to
supply Axis forces in the Mediterranean. But when military planners looked
at Switzerland's well-armed citizenry, mountainous terrain, and civil
defence fortifications, Switzerland lost its appeal as an invasion target.
While two World Wars raged, Switzerland enjoyed a secure peace.
At home, the "Swiss Confederation" developed only a weak central
government, leaving most authority in the hands of the cantons or lower
levels of government. The tradition of local autonomy helped keep
Switzerland from experiencing the bitter civil wars between Catholics and
Protestants that devastated Germany, France and England.
In 1847-48, liberals throughout Europe revolted against aristocratic
rule. Only in Switzerland did they succeed, taking control of the whole
nation following a brief conflict called the Sonderbrund War. (Total
casualties were only 128.) Civil rights were firmly guaranteed, and all
vestiges of feudalism were abolished.
Despite the hopes of German reformers, the Swiss did not send their
people's army into Germany in 1848 to assist popular revolution there. When
the German revolution failed, autocratic Prussia considered invading
Switzerland, but decided the task was impossible.
As one historian summarises: "Switzerland was created in battle, reached
its present dimensions by conquest and defended its existence by armed
neutrality thereafter." The experience of Swiss history has made national
independence and power virtually synonymous with an armed citizenry.
Today, military service for Swiss males is universal. At about age 20,
every Swiss male goes through 118 consecutive days of recruit training in
the Rekrutenschule. This training may be a young man's first encounter with
his countrymen who speak different languages. (Switzerland has four official
languages: German, French, Italian and Romansch.)
Even before required training begins, young men and women may take
optional courses with the Swiss army's M57 assault rifle. They keep that gun
at home for three months and receive six half-day training sessions.
From age 21 to 32, a Swiss man serves as a "frontline" troop in the
Auszug, and devotes three weeks a year (in eight of the 12 years) to
continued training. From age 33 to 42, he serves in the Landwehr (like
America's National Guard); every few years, he reports for two-week training
periods. Finally, from ages 43, to 50, he serves in the Landsturm; in this
period, he only spends 13 days total in "home guard courses."
Over a soldier's career he also spends scattered days on mandatory
equipment inspections and required target practice. Thus, in a 30-year
mandatory military career, a Swiss man only spends about one year in direct
military service. Following discharge from the regular army, men serve on
reserve status until age 50 (55 for officers).
By the Federal Constitution of 1874, military servicemen are given their
first equipment, clothing and arms. After the first training period,
conscripts must keep gun, ammunition and equipment an ihrem Wohnort ("in
their homes") until the end of their term of service.
Today, enlisted men are issued M57 automatic assault rifles and officers
are given pistol, Each reservist is issued 24 rounds of ammunition in sealed
packs for emergency use. (Contrary to Handgun Control's claim that "all
ammunition must be accounted for," the emergency ammunition is the only ammo
that requires accounting.)
After discharge from service, the man is given a bolt rifle free from
registration or obligation. Starting in the 1994, the government will give
ex-reservists assault rifles. Officers carry pistols rather than rifles and
are given their pistols the end of their service.
When the government adopts a new infantry rifle, it sells the old ones to
the public.
Reservists are encouraged to buy military ammunition (7.5 and 5.6mm-5.56
mm in other countries-for rifles and 9 and 7.65 mm Luger for pistols, which
is sold at cost by the government, for target practice Non-military
ammunition for long-gun hunting and .22 Long Rifle (LR) ammo are not
subsidised, but are subiect to no sales controls. Non-military non-hunting
ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as .38 Spl.) is registered at the
time of sale.
Swiss military ammo must be registered if bought at a private store, but
need not be registered if bought at a range The nation's 3,000 shooting
ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition. Technically, ammunition
bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known
and almost never obeyed.
The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank
weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these
weapons require an easily obtained cantonal license, and the weapons are
registered, In a nation of six million people, there are at least two
million guns, including 600,00 fully automatic assault rifles, half a
million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun.
Besides subsidised military surplus, the Swiss can buy other firearms
easily too. While long guns require no special purchase procedures, handguns
are sold only to those with a Waffenerwerbsschien (purchase certificate)
issued by a cantonal authority. A certificate is issued to every applicant
over 18 who is not a criminal or mentally infirm.
There are no restrictions on the carrying of long guns. About half the
cantons have strict permit procedures for carrying handguns, and the other
half have no rules at all There is no discernible difference in the crime
rate between the cantons as a result of the different policies.
Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Swiss gun lobby, semi-automatic rifles
require no purchase permit and are not registered by the government. Thus,
the only long guns registered by the government are full automatics. (Three
cantons do require collectors of more than 10 guns to register.)
Gun sales from one individual to another are regulated in five cantons
and completely uncontrolled in all the rest.
Retail gun dealers do keep records of over-the-counter gun transactions;
transactions are not reported to or collected by the government. (This is
also the policy in the U.S. during those periods the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms feels like obeying the law.) In Switzerland, purchases
from dealers of hunting long guns and of smallbore rifles are not even
recorded by the dealer. In other words, the dealer would not record the sale
of a .30-06 hunting rifle, but would record the sale of a .30-06 Garand.
Thus, Handgun Control's assertion that all Swiss guns are registered is
just plain wrong, and its claim that "Switzerland and Israel strictly
control handgun availability" is more than a little inaccurate.
Anybody, including this author, can make mistakes about the complexities
about foreign gun laws. Nevertheless, even the most careless authors ought
to do better than Handgun Control's brochure "Handgun Facts," in which
almost every "fact" about Switzerland is wrong.
But Handgun Control's misstatements are no worse than those contained in
a highly biased Library of Congress book Gun Control Laws in Foreign
Countries (which tax dollars paid for). That book claims that in Switzerland
"the policy is not to provide automatic guns and other dangerous weapons to
the general population"-an utter untruth, at least if one considers adults
to be part of "the general population." The book also asserts that "the sale
of handguns to individuals is restricted and reflects a clear Swiss
government policy of keeping this strict control." Yet the only individuals
who are "restricted" from buying handguns are children, the insane and
ex-criminals.
If ever a nation had "a well-regulated militia," it is Switzerland.
Nineteenth-century economist Adam Smith thought Switzerland the only place
where the whole body of the people had successfully been drilled in militia
skills.
Indeed, the militia is virtually synonymous with the nation. "The Swiss
do not have an army, they are the army, says one government publication.
Fully deployed, the Swiss army has 15.2 men per square kilometre; in
contrast, the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. have only .2 soldiers per square
kilometre. Switzerland is 76 times denser with soldiers than either
superpower. Indeed, only Israel has more army per square kilometre.
Switzerland is also the only Western nation to provide shelters fully
stocked with food and enough supplies to last a year for all its citizens in
case of war. The banks and supermarkets subsidise much of the stockpiling.
The banks also have plans to move their gold into the mountainous center of
Switzerland in case of invasion.
The nation is ready to mobilise on a moment's notice. Said one Swiss
citizen-soldier, "If we start in the morning, we would be mobilised by late
afternoon. That is why the gun is at home, the ammunition is at home. The
younger people all have automatic rifles. They are ready to fight."
Citizen-soldiers on their way to mobilisation points may flag down and
commandeer passing automobiles.
Since 1291, when the landsgemeinden (people's assemblies) formed circles
in the village squares, and only men carrying swords could vote, weapons
have been the mark of citizenship. As a Military Department spokesman said,
"It is an old Swiss tradition that only an armed man can have political
rights." This policy is based on the understanding that only those who bear
the burden of keeping Switzerland free are entitled to fully enjoy the
benefits of freedom.
In 1977, the M�nchenstein Initiative proposed allowing citizens to choose
social or hospital work over military duty. It was rejected at the polls,
and in both houses of parliament (the Bundesversarnmlung's Nationalrat and
St�nderat). There are provisions for conscientious objectors, but this group
only numbers .2% of conscripts.
In 1978, Switzerland refused to ratify a Council of Europe Convention on
Control of Firearms. Since then, Switzerland has been pressured by other
European governments, which charge that it is a source for terrorist
weapons. As a result, in 1982 the central government proposed a law barring
foreigners in Switzerland from buying guns they could not buy in their own
countries and also requiring that Swiss citizens obtain a license to buy any
gun, rather than just handguns.
Outraged Swiss gun owners formed a group called "Pro Tell," named after
national hero William Tell. In 1983, the Federal Council (the executive
cabinet) abandoned the restrictive proposal because "the opposition was too
heavy" and suggested that the cantons regulate the matter. A few months
earlier, the Cantonal Council of Freiburg had already enacted such a law by
a one-vote margin. A popular referendum overturned the law the next year, by
a 60%-40% vote.
Whatever the effect of Swiss guns abroad, they are not even a trivial
crime problem domestically. Despite all the guns, the murder rate is a small
fraction of the American rate, and is less than the rate in Canada or
England, which strictly control guns, or in Japan, which virtually prohibits
them. The gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The suicide rate, though, is almost double the American rate. Guns are
used in about one-fifth of all Swiss suicides compared to three-fifths of
American and one-third of Canadian suicides.
It is not Switzerland's cultural makeup, or its gun policies per se, that
explain that low crime rate. Rather, it is the emphasis on community duty,
of which gun ownership is the most important part, that best explains low
crime rate.
In Cities With Little Crime, author Marshall Clinard contrasts the low
crime rate in Switzerland with the higher rate in Sweden, where gun control
is more extensive. The higher Swedish rate is all the more surprising in
view of Sweden's much lower population density and its ethnic homogeneity.
One of the reasons for the low crime rate, says Clinard, is that Swiss
cities grew relatively slowly. Most families live for generations in the
same area. Therefore, large, heterogeneous cities with slum cultures never
developed.
Proud to have the weakest central government in the West, Switzerlan is
governed mainly by its 3,095 Einwohrnergemeinde (communes, sub-states of a
canton). Several cantons still make their laws by the traditional
Landsgemeinden system, whereby all eligible voters assemble in annual
outdoor meetings.
Unlike the rest of Europe, the police force is decentralised. Judges and
jurors are popularly elected. With less mobility, and more deeply developed
community ties, there is less crime.
Most democratic nations impose long prison terms more frequently than
does America, but Switzerland does not. For all crimes except murder, the
Swiss rarely inflict a prison term of more than a year; most serious
offenders receive suspended sentences. As in Japan, the focus of the
criminal justice system is on the reintegration of the offender into the
community, rather than punishment.
As for the non-criminal Swiss, the saying is that everyone is his own
policeman. Foreign visitors are surprised to see Swiss pedestrians always
waiting at traffic lights, even when there is no traffic. The mass transit
systems successfully depends on voluntary payment.
Clinard infers that strong central governments weaken citizen initiative
and individual responsibility. He concludes: Communities or cities that wish
to prevent crime should encourage greater political decentralisation by
developing small government units and encouraging citizen responsibility for
obedience to the law and crime control."
In Nations Not Obsessed With Crime, Freda Adler comes to many of the same
conclusions as Clinard. She, too, emphasises the communal system of
government-in which all laws are enacted by popular vote-and the stability
of residential patterns.
Most Swiss still live in traditional patriarchal families. In fact,
Switzerland has the lowest percentage of working mothers of any European
country. While America was debating the Equal Rights Amendment, Switzerland
was wondering whether women should be allowed to vote. (The long delay in
female suffrage may have something to do with the equation of civil rights
and militia service.)
Schools are strict, and teenagers have less freedom than in most of the
rest of Europe. Studies shows that Swiss teenagers, unlike teenagers in
other countries, feel closer to their parents than to their fellow
teenagers. Communications between the generations are open.
Among the factors contributing to the inter-generational harmony is
military service, which provides an opportunity for all groups of males to
interact. Adults and youth share many sports, such as skiing and swimming.
Target shooting is another important shared pastime, with community
awards and team trophies often displayed in restaurants and taverns. At the
annual Feldschiessen weekend, more than 200,000 Swiss attend national
marksmanship competitions.
In the home, writes John McPhee, "while a father cleans his rifle at the
kitchen table his son is watching, and 'the boy gets close to the weapon' ".
Marshall Clinard explains that because army weapons must be kept in the home
much activity associated with the proper care of weapons, target practice,
or conversations about military activities become common in the family. All
of this, together with the other varied activities carried out in
Switzerland across age lines, has served to inhibit the age separation,
alienation, and growth of a separate youth culture that has increasingly
become characteristic of the United States, Sweden, and many other highly
developed countries. Although these factors represent only one aspect of a
total Swiss way of life, they play no small part in the low crime rate and
the crime trend."
Close analysis of Swiss gun laws also shows how silly it is for Handgun
Control to point to Switzerland as a model. If-as Handgun Control
claims-Switzerland's lenient licensing system is the reason Switzerland has
so little handgun crime, then Handgun Control ought to commit itself to
reform of several American laws.
First of all, Handgun Control should oppose the gun prohibition laws in
Washington, D.C., and other cities-since Switzerland proves that lenient
licensing is all that is needed to stop gun crime.
Second, Handgun Control should work to repeal laws which prohibit
Americans from owning howitzers, anti-aircraft guns, and other military
weapons. Switzerland allows ownership of these weapons by anyone who can
meet the simple requirements for a handgun license. And thanks to the
"howitzer licensing" system there is no howitzer crime in Switzerland. Since
Swiss-style handgun licensing is the main reason Switzerland has no handgun
crime (claims Handgun Control), a Swiss-style system of howitzer licensing
would also be a good idea for America.
Lastly, Handgun Control should reverse its policy, and work for repeal of
America's ban on the possession of machine guns manufactured after 1986.
Handgun Control should push America to adopt the Swiss policy: having the
government sell machine guns at discount prices to anyone with an easily
obtained permit.
It is not likely, though, that Handgun Control will follow the logic of
its advertising, and work to let Americans own licensed machine guns and
howitzers. But until Handgun Control does so, it should stop talking about
what a good handgun licensing system Switzerland has.
If Handgun Control should stop its rhetoric about Switzerland, what
should pro-gun Americans do? They can talk about Switzerland, but they
cannot expect to win the American gun argument with the Swiss example.
Analysis of Switzerland does demolish the simplistic notion "more guns,
more gun crime." More important than the number of guns is their cultural
context. In Switzerland, guns are an important element of a cohesive social
structure that keeps crime low.
While Switzerland is clear proof that guns are not in themselves
"daemons" (as one Denver priest recently claimed), Switzerland does not by
itself prove the ease against gun control in America. Indeed, author Clinard
argues that strict gun controls are necessary in the U.S.
Clinard's argument cannot be dismissed out of hand. After all, few
readers of this magazine would want America to adopt the lenient criminal
sentencing practices of Switzerland. Opponents of lenient sentencing would
argue, correctly, that America does not have the stable, integrated
community structures of Switzerland. Thus, the American government must take
a more coercive, authoritarian role in controlling prisoners, to make up for
the lack of community controls.
The same point might be made about guns. Although guns are more available
to the Swiss, Swiss gun culture is more authoritarian than America's. Gun
ownership is a mandatory community duty, not a matter of individual free
choice. In Switzerland, defence of the nation is not a job for professional
soldiers or for people who join the army to learn technical skills for
civilian jobs. Defence of the nation is the responsibility of every male
citizen.
Thus, American gun owners must win the gun control argument based on
conditions in America, not conditions in Switzerland. The implicit argument
of Clinard (and of most American gun controllers) is that while the Swiss
may be responsible enough to own even the deadliest guns, Americans are not.
Before rejecting this argument, American gun owners might wonder if an
unmanned American mass transit system could count on payment by the honour
code. Further, America obviously has a large criminal class of gun abusers,
and Switzerland does not.
If strict gun control could actually disarm that criminal element in
America, there might be an argument for gun control. But as Josh Sugarmann,
former communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns
(NCBH), wrote in The Washington Monthly: "handgun controls do little to stop
criminals from obtaining handguns."
Sugarmann and NCBH favour gun control not to disarm criminals, but
because they believe that non-criminal Americans cannot be trusted with
handguns. The coalition's political affairs director, Eric Ellman, has said
that "the majority of gun owners are not responsible." Yet a look at the
facts shows that more than 99% of American citizens who are not professional
felons are just as suited for gun ownership as any Swiss militiaman.
Ordinary American citizens use guns competently. Every 48 seconds,
someone uses a handgun to defend himself against a crime (according to
Florida State University's Gary Kleck, using data collected by liberal
pollster Peter Hart in a poll paid for by the anti-gun lobby).
Regular American citizens do not shoot each other in moments of passion;
the vast majority of such shootings are perpetrated by thugs with a record
of violence and substance abuse.
And contrary to the claims of the anti-gun lobby, Americans are not so
careless that they cannot be trusted with potentially dangerous objects like
guns. Gun accidents account for less than 2% of the nation's 92,000
accidental deaths annually.
Suicides have little to do with gun availability. Japan has no guns,
while Switzerland is deluged with every gun in the book, and both nations
have the same suicide rate.
Of course the more that U.S. governments can do to make gun use in
America even more responsible, the better. Switzerland shows how successful
governments can be in promoting responsible gun use.
Elementary schools in America should have gun safety classes which teach
children never to touch a gun unless a parent is present, and they should be
taught to tell an adult if they see an unattended gun. The NRA actively
promotes this idea, and the National Association of Chiefs of Police
endorses it. But Handgun Control opposes this reasonable, sensible safety
measure. Has HCI gone off the deep end?
High schools and colleges wishing to offer target shooting as a sport
should be allowed to do so. Unlike football or swimming, scholastic target
shooting has never resulted in a fatality. The anti-gun groups oppose the
sensible step of allowing the schools to offer students the safest sport
ever invented. Have they gone off the deep end'? Finally, local governments
should enact reasonable zoning laws, which allow the construction of indoor
shooting ranges (properly ventilated and sound insulated) in urban areas. In
some cases, governments should subsidise the building of ranges. At target
ranges, Americans can take lessons in gun responsibility, and practice safe
gun handling skills. As you might expect, the anti-gunners oppose this
simple safety measure too. They've gone off the deep end.
What have we learned from Switzerland?' Guns in themselves are not a
cause of gun crime; if they were, everyone in Switzerland would long ago
have been shot in a domestic quarrel.
Cultural conditions, not gun laws, are the most important factors in a
nation's crime rate. Young adults in Washington, D.C., are subject to strict
gun control, but no social control, and they commit a staggering amount of
armed crime. Young adults in Zurich are subject to minimal gun control, but
strict social control, and they commit almost no crime.
America-with its traditions of individual liberty-cannot import
Switzerland's culture of social control. Teenagers, women, and almost
everyone else have more freedom in America than in Switzerland.
What America can learn from Switzerland is that the best way to reduce
gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership. While America cannot
adopt the Swiss model, America can foster responsible gun ownership along
more individualistic, American lines. Firearms safety classes in elementary
schools, optional marksmanship classes in high schools and colleges, and the
widespread availability of adult safety training at licensed shooting ranges
are some of the ways that America can make its tradition of responsible gun
use even stronger.
Single Mother Households
On average, over
nine of ten persons lived togetherwith both parents during their
childhood, i.e. to the age of 15 years. This percentage decreased for
recent classes, however: nearly 16% born between 1970 and 1974 who
were surveyed experienced the separation of their parents before 20,
compared to 6% of the women who were born between 1945 and 1949. These
numbers reflect the relatively strong increase in partnerships dissolved
by divorce beginning with the marriage class of 1955.
When men and women of recent generations first leave their
parents' house clearly takes place later. More than 60% of the women
born before 1965 had left their parents' house before reaching age 20,
compared to 46% between 1970 and of the 1974. Men usually leave
their parents' house later than women, which is reflected in the median
disparity in age of approximately two years. The percentage of men
leaving their parents' house before reaching age 20 in the most recent
Geburtsjahrg�ngen (1970-74) is less than a quarter [compared to 55% in
1945-49].
Altogether 74% of the women and 70% of the men surveyed lived together
with their husband or wife, whereas 16% and/or 18% were not married.
Approximately half of the persons surveyed (52% of the women and
48.5% of the men) lived in a traditional family, i.e. lived together as
man and wife with one or more children. Of these, almost 96% were
married.
The persons surveyed were selected depending upon age and their personal
history at different times of their family and reproductive life. The
following situations are to be differentiated:
Persons, who live still in the parents' house. This involves mainly
younger people: 36% the 20-24 year old women and 58% of the men
the same age group are in this situation;
However-living persons: These are to be found mainly under the
20-29-j�hrigen Mrs. (16%) and under the 25-29-j�hrigen men (19%);
Persons, who - whether married or not - lives in a partner relationship
without children. Particularly frequently this comes with women and men
above the age of 25-29 year old (37% in both cases);
Persons, who - usually married - live in a partner relationship with one
or more children. This is the dominant factor way of life of the 30 year
old and older: Approximately 70% of the men and women surveyed who were
35-39 years old at the time of the data collection were in this
situation, and 66% were married;
Persons without partners but live with one or more children (a parents
families). These are mainly 35 year old and older women. A tenth of the
women at age 40-44 years lived alone with one or more children. Most
alone-educating women are divorced.
Interactive Data Selection - Results
Downloadable table in CSV / Excel format:
623460.CSV
