The measures, which are in the consultation
process until the end of the year, include
tighter controls on members of the public
wishing to buy guns from licensed gun shops
and private individuals, as well as a ban on
imitation and soft air guns.
It would also be forbidden to sell arms though
the Internet or newspaper advertisements, and
the possession of dangerous objects such as
baseball bats in public places would be
outlawed.
But although a permit would be needed to buy a
gun, Swiss men would still be allowed to bring
their rifles home after leaving the army and
in between periods of active service.
|
|
|
 [The
Zug killer] had an assault
rifle and this sort of rifle
will be restricted in
future. 
|
|
|
|
Paul
Günter, Social
Democrat
|
|
Self defence
The proposal has been criticised by some for
not going far enough towards preventing
another massacre like the one in Zug because
it does not tackle what they believe is the
essential issue: the right to keep a gun at
home.
The tradition of having weapons at home
stems from the long-held notion that if
Switzerland is invaded, every reservist
could be called up, armed and ready to
defend the country.
About 500,000 Swiss keep a rifle at home,
mainly because the militia system
requires men over 20 to be ready for
military service.
Soldiers who have been demobilised have the
right to keep their rifles for annual summer
shooting practices held in nearly every
Swiss town and village.
Army guns
The gunman who ran amok in Zug, Friedrich
Leibacher, used a Swiss army-issue assault
rifle – a 5,6 mm SIG “Strumgewahr 90”
- to kill his victims.
Social Democrat parliamentarian, Paul
Günter, thinks any revision of the gun law
should ban Swiss soldiers from taking their
guns home when they leave active service.
“What in Zug was really bad was that this
man had an assault rifle and this sort of
rifle will be restricted in future,”
Günter told swissinfo.
“But one of the problems which is not
solved in the new proposal is that up till
now the soldiers of the Swiss army, which is
every man, could keep their own gun when
they left the army. And those who are coming
out now have an assault rifle.”
No link
But the gun lobby, Pro Tell, is firmly
against any changes to the law, arguing that
putting them into practice would mean too
much red tape.
It also says the state would have too much
power to decide whether an individual should
have the right to carry a gun.
Ferdinand Hediger, a spokesman for Pro Tell,
says there is no need to reform the 1999 gun
law and maintains that it is impossible to
make a direct link between the Zug shootings
and the country's liberal gun laws.
“With all the military weapons that are
given to the soldier when he quits army
service, there are many guns scattered all
over Switzerland,” said Hediger.
“We have hundreds and thousands of guns
around and yet the crime rate is among the
lowest in Europe. Whereas in countries like
Italy, they have much tighter gun laws and
they still have a much higher crime rate.”
“So it cannot be linked together. There
are so many factors that lead to increased
crime that have nothing to do with the gun
law.”
Right direction
The strength of feeling on both sides may
explain why Switzerland has not rushed to
change its gun laws since the Zug killings.
But for Günter the proposed revision is at
least a first step in the right direction.
“I think that times have changed. But the
reason that it moves so slowly in
Switzerland is that the right to have a gun
at home is a very long tradition in our
history.”
swissinfo, Isobel Johnson
|
