The debate about gun ownership rumbles on in Switzerland. Recently it has centred on the possession and storage at home of army weapons. This is a long standing tradition - every male between 20 and 42 does compulsory military service every year, and keeps his weapon and ammunition at home. He is also entitled to keep it after his military service ends. This amounts to a significant level of private gun ownership - and these are not popguns. Given this, there is a low murder rate in Switzerland.
I come from Edinburgh in Scotland, and although this is well known for its cultural and historical heritage, it has it's darker sides. People of Edinburgh might wonder what it would be like if every young man in Muirhouse or Craigmillar had a piece of automatic weaponry in his wardrobe. What this boils down to I guess is that the Swiss are expected to exhibit a high degree of responsibility when it comes to things like this. I don't claim to be an insider when it comes to Swiss society, but this is my personal impression having lived and worked here for a while. Some commentators, especially among the English, put this down to sheepish obedience to rules and regulations. However the English will usually be able to tell you exactly what the French, Italians, Germans etc are like even if they haven't been further than Torremolinos. (I sometimes wonder how the English became such experts on the psychology of foreigners - picked up during football matches I expect).
Interior minister Samuel Schmid chipped in at the weekend with an interview in Tages Anzeiger. He said that there would be no revision of the policy regarding army weapons, and made two points that I noted. The army is not responsible for people murdering others. (He was of course referring only to the Swiss army). This seems pretty obvious to me. He also said that guns were not an issue - if people wanted to kill themselves or others they would find a way, guns or no guns. I wonder if Herr Schmid has ever tried killing someone with his bare hands. I remember in Hitchcock's Torn Curtain, Paul Newman and a female accomplice try to kill someone without a gun, and find it rather difficult. This was Hitchcocks declared intent - to show how difficult it is. Herr Schmids phrase echoes the raving mantra of the US gun lobby, that it is people that kill, not guns. On the face of it his is true, but it's a damn sight easier with a gun. I wonder if the so-called sniper-killings in the US would have been as terrorising and effective if restricted to catapults or some such thing.
I'm not going to go into the statistics here - go to google and search on "gun ownership". With one exception. Suicide attempts made with a firearm are 70% successful, some studies say 95%. Attempts by other means are 17% successful. A lot of the Swiss debate is concerned with the suicide statistics, and Switzerland does have quite a high suicide rate. Now let me say that I have personal experience of the suicide of a close family member. Not with a firearm, but nevertheless I have been through the heart searching that must be common in people affected by suicide cases, and the one big question you come back to again and again is could it have been prevented. Someone in a moment of despair with a gun will rarely be giving themselves a second chance to reflect. In dark moments we are all capable of anything. I remember Bernard Levin using the phrase "to fall asleep in despair, and to wake up in hope". What he called one of the redeeming possibilities of human nature is denied all successful suicides.
To get back to the Swiss issue. I think there is another aspect of this decision which may or may not have been at the back of Herr Schmids mind, but it has occurred to me. If the law is changed, and army weapons are no longer allowed at home, in effect the Swiss are saying that they can no longer trust themselves. That the tradition of personal accountability and responsibility has crumbled. That would be a much more difficult decision to make. For this reason I find myself unexpectedly siding with Herr Schmid, if not for the same reasons.