Talk:Gun politics in Switzerland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... period of service in the Auszug (the active-duty field army), after.... What the hell is "Auszug"??? I'm a Swiss and I've been in the Army, but I've never ever heard of this word in context with the army. Can anyone give proof that this word is used properly here?

And advocates of victim disarmament persist in efforts to attribute the relative dearth of firearms-related crime in Switzerland to laws and regulations when in fact it is the cultural and individual attitude toward weapons (and their role in the preservation of Swiss independence as a nation and Swiss citizens' rights as individuals) that is the true controlling factor.

Between universal military service (including decades of personal obligation to the militia following initial training and active duty) and direct voter control of civil government via frequent referenda, the Swiss are continuously reminded that the source of sovereignity in their democracy is the individual citizen, and they do not fear that citizen being armed and capable. The fact that Swiss society is a gun culture is merely a consequence of historical and social factors that have long fostered a prevailing sense of civic authority and personal responsibility that has become part of the Swiss national character.

The hoplophobe, by contrast, has no such trust in the moral or civic validity of the individual citizen, and persists in an unreasoned terror of firearms in the hands of anyone other than an officer of government. This fear is such that the victim disarmament fanatic is not only willing but eager to do away with democracy and the principles of government limited by law in order to secure an illusory "social peace."

No.

Yes, it is true that in Switzerland, gun ownership is easier than in the rest of Europe. Yes, it is true that universal military service does something to discipline. It is however stretching it way too far to contemplate any similarity between the US and Swiss situations. For most Swiss having a weapon is a Duty, an annoying one at that. Not a Right. Also those weapon are meant to defend the State in case of an external aggression. No set of circumstances would save your ass in a Swiss court if you shot someone in "self-defense". Weapons are simply not meant for that.

The source of sovereignty is the People, especially in a direct democracy as Switzerland -- but it has nothing to do with the people being armed. The people are armed as a measure of protections against the Powers surrounding Switzerland. Please go read the Swiss Constitution before spouting stupid nonsense. Also go look up the meaning of Social Contract.

Oh, and Switzerland is not a gun culture. It is a Sovereign Nation. And its citizens have a general dislike for the so-called gun culture in the US.

Interesting choices of pompous capitalization ("Duty" and "State" and "People" and "Powers"), don't you think? And if "having a weapon is a Duty, an annoying one at that," what accounts for the high rates of private ownership - at each individual's own cost and upon such an individual's own voluntary election - of military battle rifles, modified assault rifles, service pistols, and semi-automatic carbines in Switzerland? These are not sporting firearms (such as shotguns or hunting rifles), and yet their owners take pains to acquire them and to maintain proficiency in their use (which last effectively defines a member of a gun culture).

Simple. You get attached to your gun. At the end of your duties, you may retain the gun and many do so. Shooting in a range is fun, and no one has anything against that. And shooting ranges are built for the usage of those weapons.

Ah, human nature. After decades of familiarity with the tools of military mayhem, the militiaman finds nothing mysterious or totemic about things that go bang. Neither do his neighbors and family members, you might note. The average Swiss child grows up watching Daddy (and occasionally these days, Mommy) spreading an oilcloth across the kitchen table to clean and lubricate either a militia weapon or a privately-owned MIL-SPEC firearm. They learn familiarity with and respect for the capabilities of these tools of war, much as do American children brought up in the gun culture. And to what extent does it do them harm? Further the deponent sayeth not.

And where have I drawn a similarity between the American situation and circumstances prevailing in Switzerland? Except for the fact that human nature is a universal constant, there need be no presumption of deliberate correspondence between civil society in the Confœderatio Helvetica and that which predominates in these United States of America.

You know, only an American Gun Nut has those kind of discourse. The very oriented nature of your edits identifies you as such.

Indeed, only an arrant constitutionalist among the American population would hold or profess such opinions. One need not be a "Gun Nut" to articulate sound arguments for government limited by rule of law, or for the right of the individual to acquire and utilize those weapons suited to the exercise of self-defense. Encountering such a disputant bothers the daylights out of you, doesn't it? Tsk. You really should get out more.

No actually what annoys me is some guy from Virginia explaining to me (returning from my military service) what the prevalent attitude is in Switzerland. Towards weapons. Or the Army. CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Admittedly, the American Founding Fathers purposefully drew upon the Swiss experience when drawing up the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution, and the Swiss relied heavily upon the U.S. Constitution when undertaking revision of their own federal constitution in 1891, but it would be a mistake to conclude that the circumstances coloring the histories of these two nations are in any way identical. Austrians and Burgundians coming across the borders to murder, rape, and loot are not Mohawk and Abenaki tribesmen coming across the frontier to murder, rape, and loot.

See, this is the difference. No one in their right mind in Switzerland actually believes in a foreign invasion anymore. And though the People is very attached to its army, for reasons which are partly rational and partly emotional, not so with guns. Last time there was a votation restricting rights of ownership as a side-effect, this argument did not even register. Weapons are there, in the collective psyche to defend the Country, not the individuals.

And what is "the Country" if not the individuals making up the population thereof? In the words of Professor Bernardo de la Paz, "concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals." By all means, please provide support for your "collective psyche" argument. The characterization of the human being as something akin to a hive-dwelling insect is something I've never seen adequately explained. And if there is no belief in the need to defend against foreign aggression, how does the Federal government in Switzerland justify the considerable expense of universal military service, the maintenance of border and internal redoubt fortifications, and so forth? Why do not the citizens of the various Cantons simply vote the Auszug out of existence?

Switzerlend is by no means a homogeneous entity. Less so, for example than the US. The universal service exists still because a significant part of the population is in favour. For reasons of social cohesion, because it allows for a large army, which is useful in case of disaster relief, because some think it is necessary to provide protection against external aggression, etc. Note that for the militia to be disbanded, the vote of both the People and the Cantons would be required.CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

With regard to a Swiss citizen's use of a firearm in self-defense, please provide references proving that such utilization in extremis is prosecuted in the Swiss cantons so vigorously and so harshly as to effectively foreclose all exercise of such an option. The "social contract" is not a suicide pact.

There is a principle of right called proportionality. You may of course defend yourself. If some madman attacks you with an assault rifle, you may replicate. Not with government provided ammo, though. You are guilty of the damage you did, but the judge may freely reduce your sentence.[1].

Such a principle of proportionality obtains in common, case, and statute law throughout the Western world. Given the legal citation you courteously provide, there can be no argument that the right to self-defense is curtailed in its practical and actual exercise in the Swiss Confederation. At most, the inappropriate employment of military-issue firearms and/or ammunition would compound a tortious or criminal action with an additional charge of misuse of government property.

Actually, if a burglar drowns in your swimming pool while you weren't there, you are responsible for his accident. If you defend your "property" with guns, you are liable. You do not understand very well how it works, I see...CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

As for the Swiss federal constitution, initially adopted in 1848 following the Sonderbundskrieg and subsequently revised to keep the government of the Confederation under the control of direct democracy, you would do well yourself to review this charter.[2] Your statements thus far cast into grave doubt your appreciation of Swiss history and law - not to mention human nature itself.

Actually, it is you who have no understanding of the law.

By all means, please elucidate.

The modern form of the constitution is from 78. But it gets revised nearly yearly to keep it current. Again, you apparently have no experience of direct democracy in a federal system. Please refrain from spouting unfounded opinions.CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

151.204.10.59, I would appreciate it if you could avoid making personal attacks to other contributors; your inferring of their opinions are not acceptable, and speaking of this, I would appreciate if you could spare us your racist views yourself.

I would like to point out that your only contributions to Wikipedia have been a handful of very tendencious and ill-informed edits, while CyrilleDunant can easily prove that he is not a purposeful monomaniac.

I would like to suggest that you either try and contribute in a constrictive manner here, or go contribute your rants to somewhere where they are welcome. Thank you very much in advance. Rama 13:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Addressing the arguments of contending commentators - as opposed to succumbing to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem - can only be considered "making personal attacks" by someone unfamiliar with the principles and practices of debate.

As for your perception of racism on my part, I hope you will join me in lamenting the fact that it is currently politically popular in many circles to obliterate the memory of certain historical conflicts, particularly with regard to those in which Native Americans fought against European settlers and the governments of nations in North and South America. Would you consider it similarly "racist" if I were to discuss just as egregiously vicious struggles between other ethnic groups and conquering nation-states, such as the Zaporozhie Cossacks' wars with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 17th Century? How about the Ottoman Empire's conquest (and religious subjugation) of the Balkans and their recurring assaults upon Vienna?

Political correctness is properly viewed as a form of self-inflicted psychological wounding. Is it inappropriate to say so? Or do you consider it "tendentious" or "ill-informed" simply to offer a point of view contrary to your own personal prejudices? Pertinent to your risible ad hominem effort to condemn as monomania my focus upon the subject presently at hand (hardly a "constructive" notion, I should think), do you please consider your own fixations herewith demonstrated. Were you not acting upon baseless bigotries, you would not so casually and sloppily speak of my writings as "racist" or "ill-informed" without adequate proof of your accusations.

If I am "ill-informed," by all means inform me. If it is "racist" to speak of the bloody raids and the battles between Native Americans and European settlers that occurred up and down the Mohawk Valley in the 18th Century, by all means provide logical proof thereof. I'm perfectly willing to do you such a service. Reciprocity would merely serve as a manifest of your willingness to participate in civil discourse. Much obliged.

151.204.10.59, this page is intended for talk about how to improve the article Gun politics in Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you are so keep to put you lengthy discourses on the Internet, I suggest you start a blog. Rama 15:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Caliber Debate 1.1 Calibre and Cartridge Designations 2 Language and intro 3 Landwehr/Landsturm? 4 Black Powder

[edit] Caliber Debate

I have moved the debate on the chambering of the SIG SG550, adopted by the CH as Gw.90, here. The argument is unnecessary: 5.6x45mm, currently Swiss GP90, is the same cartridge case as 5.56 x 45 mm NATO. It was adopted under the name 5.6x45mm for political reasons; namely, that Switzerland did not want to appear to be adopting a NATO standard caliber in the 1980s. 208.40.64.2 15:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I take note of the article's revision to restore much of the previous erroneous content (including the gormless notion that the SIG 550 assault rifle is chambered in 5.6 mm rather than 5.56 mm, said error having been freely admitted by CyrilleDunant above). Such censorship is a stark and wonderfully clear manifest of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy behind gun control, isn't it? When factual reality gets in your way, by all means obliterate every thought of factual reality. Quod erat demonstrandum.

This only means that unlike you, I am open the reflection, doubt, and subsequent facts comming into play. Now, having asked a couple sergents, a first lieutenant, and a lieutenant-colonel, I will revert it back to 5.6. As per what is indicated in army manuals.CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have seen absolutely nothing to tell me that the ammunition for the Sig 550 is of anything else than 5,6 mm, as shown of the photograph of a box.

If you have anything factual and constructive to contribute on this site, you are welcome to do so; this said, your rants are not. Rama 17:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that a small PS is in order:

* the "moral and intellectual bankruptcy" of anyone is not the topic of the discussion here, but you bringin this sort of talking in is quite symptomatic of the tendency of some people to have a very extensive knoweldge of the conclusions they want and then be ready to jump to the "facts" that will back up this pre-determined images of the world. I would have expected that with the recent example of the Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction", for instance, people who be more keen to adapting their conclusions to the facts at hand rather than the converse.

Professional politicians lie for a living. This is news? And this is supposed to make anyone feel more comfortable about allowing these same professional politicians to violate (as a matter of public policy) the Second Amendment of the U.S. charter of government? If you don't trust these lying sons-of-many-sorts, think about the sentiments of those of us who live and raise our families under their direct jurisdiction.

* About the minute question about the chambering of the Sig 550, it so turns out that all the people who know nothing of the question say that the rifle is a 5,56mm, half the site of Sig say that is it 5,56 mm and the other half say it is 5,6mm, and all military documentation and matériel say 5,6 mm.

I've been through the SIG Arms AG Web site, including the page specificaly describing the SIG 550[3]. Where on that Web site have you found any assertion on the part of the manufacturer to the effect that this weapon is chambered in 5.6 mm?

** I can't possibly imagine why they would round the number of the calibre

They wouldn't. Indeed, they didn't.

** The bullet is quite heavier than the 5,56mm

It is certainly heavier than the bullet in the standard 5.56 x 45 mm NATO cartridge, but that is accomplished not by increasing bullet diameter but by differences in other charactaristics of the projectile, both in length and in material composition. One purpose of this modification is to change the in-flight ballistic profile of the GW90 round so as to better satisfy the requirements of the Swiss military when the government of the Confederation elected to transition from the SIG 510 to the SIG 550 as their standard military long arm.

** in either case, the chambering would still be compatible with the 5,56mm

Nope. See the current RUAG Web page[4] on the company's rifle ammunition, including the GW90 series.

** it is very possible that the rifle be advertised as a 5,56mm weapon in foreign countries to comform the would-be buyers with the idea that they will be able to fire standard and cheap 5,56 ammunition with it. Therefore...

*I would think that it is safe to assume that the rifle is in 5,6mm before having more substential facts; substential facts of which, may I remind, you have brough nothing more here than lengthy rants about the Founding Fathers of some foreign country. Note that I have no need to introduce the "moral and intellectual bankruptcy" of anyone in my reasoning. Note also that I will, as will CyrilleDunant, make actual and first-hand inquiries to acertain the matter -- rather than engage into wishful out-of-place rants.

I have repeatedly provided robustly branded and reliable citations (authored and promulgated by the manufacturer) on this matter. Please see below. Consider that RUAG sells its products in these United States, the world hotbed of tort law insanity. Do you honestly think that they would advertise and sell 5.6 mm ammunition as readily interchangeable with 5.56 x 45 mm (Remington .223 caliber) cartridges where such rounds would undergo catastrophic failure (i.e., they would blow up in the receiver) on a consistent and reliable basis? Do you know anything about how firearms work?

* One last thing about the "moral and intellectual bankruptcy behind gun control" (I assume it is safe to assume that this is intented for me) : I am neither pro or contra "gun control", because this is not an issue in the country in which I live, precisely like in Switzerland. It is your failure to understand this which makes your understanding of the problem completely absurd, and your so-called "contributions" totally worthless. Rama 17:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the physical characteristics of the SIG 550, please see the manufacturer's branded Web site.[5] Regarding the Gw Pat 90 round, please see that manufacturer's branded Web site.[6] By Rama's lights, of course, this note is a "rant."

Regarding the moral and intellectual bankruptcy implicit in gun control and repeatedly demonstrated by its advocates, there is the observation that simple ignorance is always perfectly excusible (and is eminently remediable; one simply has to seek reliable verification of the facts pertinent to any particular matter). People who repeatedly deny readily verifiable factual information, however (absent the demonstration of diagnostic criteria reliably congruent with the diagnosis of a psychotic condition), are simply lying.

On the basis of repeated examination of gun control literature (including the self-admittedly flawed publications authored by Kellerman et al in The New England Journal of Medicine and in J Trauma as well as the utterances of such gun control advocates as Bellesiles on the subject), I have yet to be presented with reliably supported evidence-based assertions that justify government interference with the individual right to acquire, maintain, and carry firearms as effective means whereby one may exercise that right to self-defense which is an inescapable corollary to the right to life itself. To say the least, I would expect persuasive fact-based assertions on such a pervasive public policy issue at least as robust and thorough as those supporting an antiretroviral regimen or a surgical technique. Regrettably, there appears to be nothing underlying the gun control argument other than ill-informed wishful thinking fumbling in search of something that can masquerade in lieu of fact.

If I come to the subject with a natural and entirely explainable tendency to view the "default state" - i.e., that it is not only personally but politically desirable that the private citizen be held involate in the exercise of his/her right to keep and bear arms - it is simply that the burden of proof regarding the efficacy (indeed, the viability) of victim disarmament is entirely upon the shoulders of those advancing this radically new and historically hazardous proposition.

And in this forum, thus far, none of those voicing opinions in contention with my own have even made a serious attempt to provide support on that central point. In this light (and with the intent "to improve the article Gun politics in Switzerland on Wikipedia"), would it not appropriate for those insisting upon censorship to publish at the head of this Web page a notification to the effect that the neutrality of this article is disputed?

Indeed, the factuality of at least one the assertions upon which you insist is most certainly - as I have demonstrated here - such that neither of you appear to know as much as I do about firearms. And my principal proximal experience with such weapons is almost exclusively confined to the assessment and emergency management of gunshot wounds. You don't make a very credible showing.

And if you had cared to read the other links provided as reference in Gw Pat.90, you would see that this ammunition is also labeled as 5,6mm [7] and [8]. You can also see on these photograph, for instance, that the official label is 5,6mm. This all is exactly what I said above.

As for the rest of your rant, I am sorry but I can't remotely see the connection with the subjet at hand, which is the fireams policy in Swiutzerland, not in your head. Rama 20:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the Gw Pat.90, you're citing an RUAG press release while I have previously cited (via the company's online index[9] page) the actual Web site describing the specific product.[10] The manufacturer's English-language product brochures on their "P" ammunition line[11] and their .223 Rem ordnance ammunition[12] are immediately available to you in PDF. Congratulations. You've caught the RUAG public relations department in a factual error.

You might be interested to know that RUAG has done a substantial update of their Web site (available here[13], whence you can find both English[14] and German[15] language Web pages describing the GP90 ammunition produced for the Swiss military.

It's 5.56 mm (or .223 Remington), not 5.6 mm. If you were a "shooter" (or actually knew anything about which end of the weapon whence the pointy end of the bullet exits), you'd know that a cartridge containing a slug of 5.6 mm in diameter cannot be fed into a firearm chambered to accept 5.56 mm x 45 mm cartridges, and you might pursue factual verification far more vigorously (and with far less stubborn blindness) than you persist in demonstrating.

Yes, this is a very good point. It actually proves that this ammo is 5.6. 'cause it just won't work in a M16. (try it out, you'll stop bothering people, then...) CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Pertinent to your other reference,[16], you're citing a page from a private individual's Web site,[17] not the more reliably branded Internet promulgation of the manufacturer.[18]

Are you even familiar with the concept of branding as it pertains to online research? When I use the Web to cite an article from a medical journal, I make use of reliably branded Internet information sources, such as the National Library of Medicine's Medline service and/or the journal's own World Wide Web site to verify the content and citation data pertinent to that article. When dealing with the intellectual property of a specific manufacturer - such as Swiss Arms AG or RUAG - it is critically important to rely on the accurate citation of that manufacturer's own statements regarding their product or service. In this case, I've applied the same standard of caution and responsibility I would exercise in the citation of a pharmaceutical manufacturer's current product labeling in a particular government jurisdiction.

You, by contrast, demonstrate a lack of fastidiousness and intellectual rigor combined with precisely the sort of pig-headed refusal to seek (or acknowledge) objective verification in a point of argument that so consistently marks the advocate of gun control and other government policies breaching the exercise of individual rights. You do nothing whatsoever to shore up even the illusion of credibility upon which your position in this exchange relies.

1) Can't you stop for just one second with your American petty politics ? We don't give a damn about your Second Amendment, this is the page about Switzerland !

Point taken. Pertinent to firearms law and custom in Switzerland, please see comments you have made above, to which I have replied without any demonstration of response on your part. In particular, you claim that I have no understanding of the law in Switzerland, and yet you fail to cite statutes contrary to my understnding of that law. You've long since begun to sound like a compulsive participant in a life lived as a Monty Python skit.

I did not say this; that comment was made by CyrilleDunant. Rama 07:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. An honest mistake.

Well, inasmuch as we can admit that thinking that you can defend yourself with a gun in any circumstances is not in the least frowned upon by anyone is an honest mistake...CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

2) I know that we have contradicting informations about the calibre of the bullet this is not the question (I have found sources saying 5,56mm myself). The question is why the website of RUAG, the ammunitions boxes of the army and the manual of the rifle all say 5,6mm.

Contradicting? Indeed! Let's see, you keep citing a private individual's Web page and an out-of-date manufacturer's press release, and I've provided you with links not only to technical specifications published on RUAG's older Web site but also Web pages on the manufacturer's entirely new replacement site.[19] I've also given you functional URLs leading to the Swiss Arms AG Web page[20] on the SIG 550. I now gift you with a link at which you will find access to not one but two English language PDF versions of the SIG 550 manual.[21] Guess how both versions characterize the chambering of the weapon? Do you want to get into a different argument now? Perhaps something about your knowledge of the proper position of Phlogiston on the periodic table?

WHAT ABOUT THE BLOODY ARMY MANUALS AND THE BOXES ? WHAT SORT OF DOCUMENT DO I HAVE TO STICK IN YOUR FACE SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING ? Rama 07:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Any online link to the Army manuals you keep mentioning would do. I have (as you have seen) found manufacturer's manuals online. If Internet availability of official Army publications is lacking, even information on how a copy of such a manual might be obtained would be welcomed as an honest of your good intentions. Thus far, the overwhelming preponderance of open-source reference information that can be readily located through routine search engine use confirms that the weapon in question (and the cartridges manufactured specifically to facilitate its adoption by the Swiss military) were indeed designed to confer the advantages of the lighter weight and lower recoil of a 5.56 mm selective-fire long arm without the disadvantages implicit in creating a special 5.6 mm weapon that would severely limit sales of the rifle, its derivatives, and RUAG's GP90 ammunition on the international market. The same can be said for the ammunition boxes. Nothing escept the single press release on the old RUAG Web site (to which you continuously refer) can be found to speak of GP90 ammunition in 5.6 mm diameter, and nothing whatsoever on the new RUAG Web site confirms the existence of any 5.6 mm rounds in any of their product lines.

They have designed a new ammunition anyway. Swiss manuals are not availbale online, as far as I know, and I don't have one handily, but you have several high-resolution images of ammunition boxes right under your nose. Why the bloody hell would I be inventing all that, do you really think that it is fun to discuss that with you ? Rama 08:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I've seen the photograph to which you refer, but I've not been able to locate any sort of corroboration anywhere. For reasons I've mentioned, the adoption of an assault rifle chambered in such a damned odd caliber simply doesn't make sense. (Please bear in mind that in medicine as in science, the sound of discovery is something along the lines of "Jeez, that's funny...").

I fully appreciate the Swiss military's desire to field a weapon with a ballistic profile compatible with the shooting ranges designed for their earlier 7.62 mm long arm, the SIG 510. But that could readily be accomplished within the 5.56 mm caliber through design specifications in other characteristics of the projectile, the propellant, and the SIG 550 rifle itself. I've just sent an e-mail to RUAG to seek clarification directly from the manufacturer. I'll let you know what I find.

No. Actually, you cannot. The SIG was (a new sniper rifle was just introduced) also the standard army sniper rifle (with optics). With standard ammo. The design is simply not the same. It just happens to be very near.CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be exceptional in the extreme for any national command authority to specify the adoption of a standard-issue firearm like the SIG 550 in a decidedly non-standard caliber. In addition to the international marketing handicaps mentioned above (and the Swiss have always been conscious of the advantages of foreign sales in defraying the costs of their own domestic armaments purchases), there is the fact that non-standard chambering would put them at a terrible disadvantage if, in extremis, they should need to purchase ammunition on the international market and 5.56 x 45 mm NATO was the only gunfodder they could find.

And of you could spare us neverending rants, stick to the subject and avoid wild guesses about my personal life, I would be keener to actually read your comments in the future. Rama 05:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Machts nichts. For some people, the inability to refute a sustained and well-supported contention automatically makes it a "rant." And your out-of-left-field blathering about Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" (above) was not? Delightful.

if you contiune like this, this page will be archived and your comments ignored. Rama 07:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You are, of course, a system administrator empowered to censor in this forum. To whom are you responsible?

Appenrently, to common sense...CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not a forum, this is a talk page. Its purpose is to discuss possible improvements to the article, not political views. Here for instance, the most constructive part of your comments should be at Talk:Gw Pat.90. Rama 08:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I use the term "forum" to describe any virtual location online in which opinions and information can be exchanged. It's a holdover from BBS participation twenty-odd years ago. If you don't mind, I'll keep to this site for the nonce, at least until I've resolved the questions involved in this technical matter to a degree of certitude much higher than that presently obtaining. After that, if the facts prove that the photograph of that ammunition package is not an accurate reflection of the GP90 projectile's diameter, there will be a bunch of corrections to be made, here and elsewhere.

Now that's a good idea (what was I saying a gazillon lines above ?) Rama 09:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calibre and Cartridge Designations

To anyone who waded through all this stuff some of it very accurate and some extreamly argumentative and technically clueless. An Army's military designations of it's own ammunition may not agree with civilian designations of the same cartridge. i.e. US designation of cartridges for older M-16, M-16A1 rifles was "Cartridge, Ball, 5.56 mm, M-193". Note that there is NO mention of the cartridge length in millimeters. That 5.56 x 45 stuff is for technical comparison and is very nice to have in a list, but doesn't denote actual commonly used designations -- military or civilian in every country. If the Swiss want to round off the designation to 5,6 mm who's to question that? Besides that, it's common in German speaking countries to round off some measurements to one decimal place. They aren't a member of NATO, nor the NATO military standards. It's not changing the actual dimensions of the cartridge, the weapon's chamber or bore.--TGC55 08:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language and intro

The introduction should be re-worked a little bit; it goes too quickly, too deep and too specifically into the subject of military weapons.

It think that the plethora of German words here and there should simply go. German is not the only language of Switzerland, and since I think it impractical to label all terms in German, French, Italian and Romanche, I would suggest simply dropping them, possibly linking from the English wording for terms like Landwehr. Rama 06:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Military weapons are the primary weapons that are in the Swiss civilian community. Hunting weapons and other civilian weapons are just not that common.--TGC55 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

German is the language of the majority of the people in Switzerland. I think that some if not all of the terms have been translated into English with the German language terms left in parenthesis. Romansche is not a required Swiss language as far as I know - German, French and Italian are required languages. --TGC55 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landwehr/Landsturm?

The section "army-related arms" mentions that Swiss conscripts stay in the Landwehr/Landsturm until 42 or 52. Now I am by no means an expert in the field, but nonetheless Swiss of military age, and this assertion strikes me as odd at the very least. I was under the impression that these reserve denominations were done with ages ago, and I have certainly never been told that I shall serve until 52! Does anyone have more information on this? JREL 20:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You may be Swiss of military age and may have served at Recruit School and further training and service and so on, but you currently are a resident of the United Kingdom and I strongly suspect you have deregistered from your community (Gemeinde) as a Swiss resident and consequently have taken some form of seperation from the Army and turned in your equipment. And yes, I understand that if/when you return to CH you are subject to completion of your remaining training time. However, as following post indicates, there was a big change to the service obligation about 1995 or so (is 10 years -- "ages ago"?) and the lower ranks are completing their service in their middle 30's. BTW, there are much better places to get this kind of information than a non-officia English language www site. See here [22] for the Confederation Defense, Civil Defense and Sport Department. TGC55, 0855 Z, 25.5.06

There was a modification called Army 21, also there were some modifications to the law, i'm no expert either but some of the facts in the article are old and irrelevant by now.

[edit] Black Powder

I have a hard time believing that switzerland is the only country in which it is legal to produce one's own black powder. First of all, using 'country' in this context is slightly problematic. 'State' would probably be better. Take Somalia a few years ago: lacking a government, or any apparatus of state, the country of Somalia was a place where it was not illegal to manufacture black powder. There were no laws. Perhaps the author meant Switzerland was the the only EU state to allow black powder manufacture? There should at least be a cite on this.