Previous Post
Next Post

“Five people have been found dead after a shooting in northern Switzerland that may have resulted from a family dispute, reports. “The dead included the suspected gunman. Residents heard shots in the small town of Wuerenlingen northwest of Zurich shortly after 11 p.m. Saturday, leading police to find five bodies in a residential neighborhood. The shooting appears to have been a ‘relationship crime,’ Aargau canton (state) police chief Michael Leupold told reporters, adding that investigators ruled out any links to terrorism. TTAG reader John in Ohio responds . . .

I cringe when the pro-gun movement focuses too heavily upon lower crime rates and situations where there are a lot of firearms in individual hands. What if those crime rates go up, for whatever reason? What if there is a perceived increase in crime involving firearms in places like Switzerland? None of it would convince me to relinquish my natural right to keep and bear arms. If I were to rely heavily on falling crime rates and gun ownership in Switzerland to support my staunch belief in the individual right to keep and bear arms, it would be somewhat deceptive for me.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. >adding that investigators ruled out any links to terrorism

    Ugh, I figure the Swiss would do better than stoop to “terrorism” pandering and fearmongering.

    • You’re talking about a country that voted in a referendum to ban construction of minarets…

      • Yeah but that whole referendum was never about “terrorism”, whereas the US government uses “terrorism” to justify every atrocity they inflict on the American people. Unlike the US, the Swiss government isn’t run by mass-murderers and psychopaths, so why need a bogeyman?

        • So harboring Nazi war criminals was cool? How about acting as a bank for them before and after the war? Helping them conceal ill gotten and plundered treasures? Thats all cool I suppose. Open a book once in a while.

        • @Vitsaus Heh, the irony of telling others to read a book when your own historical account is highly suspect. The accusation against Switzerland is the harboring of evidence and capital, not the alleged war criminals themselves. Furthermore, financial dealings with both sides is the definition of “neutrality”, i.e. Swiss banks dealt with the Allies as well as the Axis powers. Yours is little more than outrage incited by victors’ histories.

          Your criticism of the Swiss ring hollow when all Allied governments both harbored and employed Axis war criminals. The Soviets stole pretty much anything of value after they raped and pillaged entire German towns. Where’s the outrage?

        • @Vitsaus.


          I will admit, as the swiss spoke german, they may have had relatives in germany and specific individuals (not the whole country) may have harbored fugitives. However, A great deal of Switzerland also speaks french and likely harbored french fugitives as well as italian.

          Henri Guisan (French pronunciation: ​[ɑ̃ʁi ɡizɑ̃]; 21 October 1874 – 7 April 1960) was a Swiss army officer who held the office of the General of the Swiss Army during the Second World War. He was the fourth and the most recent man to be appointed to the rarely used Swiss rank of General, and was possibly Switzerland’s most famous soldier. He is best remembered for effectively mobilizing the Swiss army and Swiss people in order to prepare resistance against a possible invasion by Nazi Germany in 1940.

          At the outbreak of World War II in 1939, Switzerland immediately began to mobilize for a possible invasion. The entire country was fully mobilized in only three days. The Swiss government began to fortify positions throughout the country.


          In the course of the war, detailed invasion plans were drawn up by the German military command,[7] such as Operation Tannenbaum, but Switzerland was never attacked. Switzerland was able to remain independent through a combination of military deterrence, economic concessions to Germany, and good fortune as larger events during the war delayed an invasion. Attempts by Switzerland’s small Nazi party to effect an Anschluss with Germany failed miserably, largely as a result of Switzerland’s multicultural heritage, strong sense of national identity, and long tradition of direct democracy and civil liberties[citation needed]. The Swiss press vigorously criticized the Third Reich, often infuriating its leadership. In turn, Berlin denounced Switzerland as a medieval rudiment and its people renegade Germans. Under General Henri Guisan, a massive mobilization of militia forces was ordered. The Swiss military strategy was changed from one of static defence at the borders, to a strategy of organized long-term attrition and withdrawal to strong, well-stockpiled positions high in the Alps known as the National Redoubt. This controversial strategy was essentially one of deterrence. The idea was to cause huge losses to German forces and render the cost of invading too high. During an invasion, the Swiss Army would cede control of the economic heartland and population centres, but retain control of crucial rail links and passes in the National Redoubt.


          Nazi Germany repeatedly violated Swiss airspace. During the Invasion of France, German aircraft violated Swiss airspace at least 197 times.[9] In several air incidents, the Swiss shot down 11 Luftwaffe planes between 10 May 1940 and 17 June 1940.[9] Germany protested diplomatically on 5 June 1940, and with a second note on 19 June 1940 which contained clear threats. Hitler was especially furious when he saw that German equipment was shooting down German pilots.

          I disagree with your statement, as it most certainly cannot be applied to the whole of Switzerland.

        • “Unlike the US, the Swiss government isn’t run by mass-murderers and psychopaths…”

          All governments are run by psychopaths. Some are just better at hiding it.

        • True, but the Swiss have not engaged in an aggressive war of conquest since the Early Renaissance, so perhaps they are somewhat less murderous and psychopathic than the Washington DC criminal cabal.

        • “Raped and pillaged entire German towns.” The “innocent” German civilians got caught in the worlds oldest payback cycle. Their .gov gave orders and committed atrocities in the names of those ‘innocent” civilians and when the bill came due those same civilians cried and wrung their hands and said, “It wasn’t us, it was our evil gubmint.”

          We had better pray that our .gov never suffers a major loss in a war. Raped and pillaged ain’t fun.

        • LOL @ “their” gov

          Government represents no one but itself. No civilian is responsible for the crimes committed in their name, since all consent is manufactured and fabricated.

        • Tranny, you live in a different world from the rest of us. Your own example of Russians taking revenge on Germans pretty much covers it. The .gov of germany did what it did in the name of the German people and the German people paid the price for it.

          Just as the American people would pay a price, you included, if we ever lose a major war and the .govs crimes come home to us. If you think all you have to do to escape the retribution is to point out to the nice winning soldiers that the .gov wasn’t acting on your behalf you truly are in a fantasy world.

          You better start lobbying your reps to increase military spending and grow the military. That or move to another country and hope your past doesn’t catch up to you.

    • No government would ever not take advantage of “terrorism”. It’s the boogeyman for adults.

      “Go to sleep or the boogeyman is going to get you” and “You’ll embrace dragnet surveillance or the terrorists will get you” are one and the same.

      While I’m at it I’ll toss “increase police funding or pedo’s will rape your kids” into the mix too.

      Society is precariously hanging on thanks to fearful people and a government that derives all of its authority from threatening said fearful people.

  2. What’s interesting is that the shooter allegedly used a non-issue privately owned pistol. (Not an easy thing to acquire in Switzerland, given that all private firearms require permitting.)

    • True. I should have said “good” example in many ways in my below post about Switzerland, rather than “great”. If you were healthy enough for mandatory military service, and a couple generations of your family were, too, it’s in many ways easier to have a couple full auto and/or select fire rifles in your gun safe than a pistol. True, a select fire rifle is a far better self-defense weapon than a pistol, but you’re also far less likely to have one with you or be able to conceal it when necessary.

      • Well, any given rifle in the home is only likely to be select fire if the owner is between 20 and 30 years old. Otherwise, it is reconfigured by the armory to be semi-auto only one the owner is discharged. Don’t get me wrong, I think that every American has the right to own a select fire rifle. (It’s not like it has been a significant issue at any point in the past 80 years.)

    • 1. It is not that hard to get a private firearm in Switzerland, it is still easier than getting one in Germany and even here it is not that hard.

      2. Owning guns and being allowed to carry those in public are two different beasts.
      You usually have to have a increased threat scenario to be granted a permit

      For Germany that would be for example being a jeweler or a leading member of the Central Council of Jews or anything in between.

      • I didn’t say it was difficult, but you have to admit that it’s definitely harder than Texas where you can walk into a store, show them your CPL and walk out with any non-NFA item they have on the shelf. In my experience, most privately owned semi-automatic rifles and pistols in Switzerland started their lives in Swiss Army armories.

        • Yeah, after I typed that I put myself into the boots of an american and realized, that the effort of getting a gun in switzerland is definitely higher than in the US.
          For you guys it must look differently looking at it, that it is for a german.

        • Unless said American is in NYC, Boston, Baltimore, Washington D.C., San Fran, New Jersey and a few other places.

      • You usually have to have a increased threat scenario to be granted a permit

        Ugh, that is just disgusting.

        • This comment “Semiautomatics, which have caused havoc in the U.S., can be legally purchased” in the linked article reveals the political bias of the reporter/editor. How, exactly, have semiautomatics caused “havoc” in the U.S. ? How many people, total have been killed by semiautomatic weapons ? Take away the gang violence
          and suicides (which could be accomplished with a single shot weapon, pills, poison, a vehicle or many other methods) and how many violent homicides are we really talking about ? And in how many of those would it make any difference if the weapon was a semiautomatic, or not ?

  3. Note to John in Ohio: I agree with you in principle, but again, you’d rather be right than politically successful (or be realistic about when we’d certainly be politically UN-successful). I’m not giving up my RKBA, either, but you’d best believe that whether we argue more guns/less crime now, if gun ownership and crime both GREATLY go up over a sustained period of time, the opposition can and will be able to secure more restrictions on our rights, almost certainly. It “plays” politically, and if that happens, we’d best look out. But I’m convinced it won’t. Yes, isht happens everywhere, because evil and/or mentally unstable people are everywhere, but on the whole, I remain convinced that even now, “an armed society is a polite society.” I’m gonna continue to tout Switzerland as a great example.

    • I’m not talking about throwing the baby out with the bath water. That’s why I wrote “when the pro-gun movement focuses too heavily.” I, too, sometimes use examples and point to crime in anti-RKBA zones within the United States. However, I also try to slip in the notion that the exercise of the individual right does not really depend upon such things.

      There have been far too many times when I’ve been conversing with pro-2A individuals only to watch as they hit a boundary (mandatory training, no OC, background checks, etc) because it didn’t fit the model of this or that example or they believed that it could increase crime or decrease public safety. At its core, the right is not about crime or public safety (as the term is used today). Over the years, I’ve met many people who support the RKBA to some degree that don’t seem to really understand it. If they don’t understand then they will pass on to others information that is faulty and weakened at the root.

    • I remain convinced that even now, “an armed society is a polite society.”

      I believe that is mostly true for the United States because of a variety of cofactors with “armed” being a main component. I don’t believe that armed=polite universally. So, what if an armed society didn’t result in a polite society; would you still support the individual exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?

  4. Thankfully the RKBA among all our other rights is not dependent on a cost-benefit analysis, otherwise the benefit to public safety, security, and well-being would clearly and obviously be best served by a totalitarian police state, where our actions are entirely dictated and controlled by the government, and everyone labors for the public good and derives happiness solely from knowing they’ve done their part. Arbeit macht frei.

    • Precisely.

      I have no problem with the “PR department” using crime rates and examples to get them in the door. But, the main pitch ought to be about the true product. At minimum, the sales force shouldn’t loose touch with the core truths and certainly shouldn’t try to hide them.

  5. Granted that using Switzerland as an example doesn’t go the principle of the natural right to protect oneself, but it does counter the claim by the other side that we have crime because of all the guns. Switzerland shows that it isn’t the guns, but other factors such as culture, religion, upbringing, etc.

    • +1

      I agree. With such extreme availability of guns (regardless of their gun control) Switzerland proves that gun ownership and crime rate have nothing to do with one another. It is all about the people, their education, their poverties, their misfortunes, and the vast other cultural differences that highlight the decision for individuals to commit criminal acts.

  6. Crime rate has nothing to do with gun ownership. The progressive freedom-hating statists want to make the relationship so they can try to achieve their statist utopia. Homicide rate is somewhat dependent on availability of guns in my opinion, but they only use this relationship in a small narrow minded window excluding the big picture and the interconnecting relationships. Regardless of any of this – they continually treat people as they are metrics, statistics, numbers on a sheet of paper that need to be improved upon. However, we are not – we are people, people with rights that enjoy their freedom.

    It may sound cruel, but the gruesome fact is – we are here living this life for an extremely short time, we are all going to die eventually, we should be free to enjoy that life doing what we like to do so long as we are not harming/hurting anyone else. Suicide killers were killing people and then killing themselves long before firearms existed and trying to control the whole body of people and all their individual lives in attempt to attenuate these people’s actions and mitigate risk does more harm than good.

    • In the end, the insanity is not that a small fraction of a body of people want total dictatorial control over everyone like the statists and liberal/ regressives.

      The insanity is that the vast majority of any population will alow something like five percent of an armed group have total dictatorial control over the other ninety five percent.

      This is why I say that most people really don’t want the freedom to run their own lives. . Most people WANT to be told what to do. Othewise, dictatorships wouldn’t be the world wide norm.

      • “It’s the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.” Loki in the Avengers.

        For some reason, that quote resonates with me because it seems that you’re right, 95% appear to be willing to be controlled by the 5%.

      • True. It appears that whenever freedom loving thinkers through the ages wanted their freedom, they had to drag a mass of frightened statists along just to get there. There is nothing new under the Sun.

  7. The Swiss with their guns are like the Germans with their cars.
    Wrecks are rare but when they happen they are bad.
    My ancestors are Swiss.

  8. Abborant people live everywhere and they manage to engage in domestic slaughters using whatever tools are available. If the headline said “French father stabs family of five . Then self. All dead.” It would not get any coverage outside of France and probably not the major papers in France.

  9. So, does this mean that now all of Switzerland will lose what little gun rights they have because of this? You know, like the rest of Europe?

  10. Swiss Miss makes pretty good pudding and hot chocolate mix. I’d say better than Jell-O.

  11. This is what happens when the dad tells the kids to eat their pizokel and the kids tell dad to fondue.

  12. “Unless said American is in NYC, Boston, Baltimore, Washington D.C., San Fran, New Jersey and a few other places.”

    Yes, but are those places really America anymore, or more supposed utopian Vatican like city-states carved out of America by the statists?

    • Except Baltimore is subordinate to Maryland gun laws and does not get a special carve out like the other cities do. Heck it does not even try like Philadelphia to fight the state’s preemption laws and obeys them even before FSA2013 passed.

      Also except for handguns and certain banned “assault weapons” since many are still legal all Title One long guns are treated like any other gun sale in the rest of free-er America. 4473 at the gun store and out you go with private sales also being legal, no background checks at all.

  13. Robert, I don’t have time to do a proper google search now and provide link, but the day it happened I read in Swiss online newspaper that the perpetrator:

    (1) had a criminal record, which would prevent him from legally obtaining guns in Switzerland,
    (2) had a restraining order issued for the protection of the victims,
    (3) was in the police’s cross-hairs, the police had apparently even gotten judicial warrant and conducted house search of the perpetrator, looking for any guns.

    If anything, this shooting in Switzerland is primary example of why gun rights are important, since nothing else could have saved the family than being armed.

    If anything, this shooting is a primary example why home carry is important, especially for someone who is in the position the victims were in. CC is hard to get in Switzerland, but I’d like to believe that for someone in such situation getting it even there should be doable.

Comments are closed.