> Many own a war weapon at home (that is strictly forbidden to take out without orders)

That's not entirely true. You can take your own military weapon and use it in your free time on a shooting range or event.

You don't even need a special permission to do so.

Indeed. There is very strict regulation around army-issued ammo however.

That's only because amry-issued ammo is free. The ammo you buy for shooting at the range you have to pay and they must prevent that people use army ammo instead. You can buy amo and take it home anytime you want if you are at least 18 years old.

And those weapons somewhat regularly feature in suicides and "family tragedies".

In about 25% of all cases where firearms are involved they are military firearms (pistols or rifles). That does not include suicide unless connected with some sort of violent crime where a firearm was involved.

The "normal" suicides trough a firearm probably have a higher rate of military firearms because people probably choose the firearm with the higher success rate. Also because suicide is more likely to be committed by younger persons and younger male persons usually do own a military rifle. If one completely finished military service and you want to keep your rifle you can do that. It will be converted to a semi-automatic rifle. This then would not count as suicide my military firearm anymore. Depending on military function this can be anywhere between the age of 30 up to the age of 40.

No they don't. We Swiss are a little more responsible with our guns than Americans.

They certainly did:

> In 83.1% (n = 1112) of the 1338 suicides by firearm between 2000 and 2010 in Switzerland, the firearm could be categorised as an army weapon or a non-army weapon. The army weapon was used in 39.1% of these suicides.

https://smw.ch/article/doi/smw.2018.14646

But that is not surprising. Suicides often happen out of an impulse and then people use the best available and easiest accessible means to kill themselves. And an army weapon fulfills those conditions much better than anything else people have at home.

I don't know if there are already newer studies that take into account that the ammunition isn't storaged at home anymore.

I also couldn't find any numbers on "family tragedies".

Can they simply buy ammo for it somewhere else?

Yes, you can easily buy ammo. But again, most suicides are not really planned. The studies about suicides are quite consistent that only about 10–15% of attempters eventually die by suicide.

That means if you don't have an effective way of ending your life at hand, it's likely that you will not try again successfully.

If you need ammunition, you are not likely to go out and get it. That's inconvenient and even if you go out and want to get it, that takes time in which you might reconsider.

It's worth noting that this is a trend, not a black and white rule. Some people _do_ plan it ahead of time, in some form or another.

E.g. my uncle specifically bought rope and carabiners prior to his suicide, and, apparently, had googled instructions on how to tie a noose several days ahead of the actual thing.

I imagine it comes in waves. And even if one wave just pushes someone to the point that buys ammo, the next has to push it only to load the gun, and the final one just has to push it to pull the trigger a little harder. :/

Though I have no data about this.

They certainly did until it was forbidden to take ammunition home. In 2000 suicide by guns was 27% and in 2016 it was 20% of all suicides in Switzerland. Compared to other countries with more restrictive policies that is a lot more...

That says nothing about the use of the service rifle. Firearm ownership is much higher in Switzerland than the rest of Europe.

Surely there's a relationship between giving all your citizens a gun and higher firearm ownership. If the policy is deadly, does it matter whether the death happens with a service rifle or a weapon they bought because of their happy memories?

I mean, it's not exactly as if the Swiss militia let them operate an independent foreign policy last time they felt threatened with invasion.

Still "somewhat regularly".

The simple truth is that an accessible gun has a higher chance of being abused or involved in an accident than one that is locked in an arsenal or doesn't exist in the first place.

Even in law enforcement, even though they often need guns, no matter what country, guns are abused regularly.

Which reminds me of the video of an FBI officer that accidentally discharged his weapon while break dancing.

Very rarely actually.

It's relatively easy to find such incidences online. It's also easy to forget that Switzerland is quite a small country and underestimate the relative frequency.

well, not so easy. it used to be the case. but now you can't keep ammunition for no reason.

You can't keep army issued ammunition. You can still buy your own ammo.

The Swiss army is mostly based on myths. Yes, the army reserve does undergo regular training, but most of that is a joke and they would be nowhere near ready for actual attacks.

I mean, even our air force only operates only during office hours.

We do have some geographic advantages though (the Alps).

It is mandatory (for men) army service. If you are found as "unfit for army" during admission, you are obliged to pay tax that amounts to min 600 chf p.a (if the young person has no fixed income) or 3% of his salary until he reaches 40y old. Essentially, you have minor health condition and you pay for this for the next 20 years.....This is one of the most unfair tax I have seen.

Based on recent experience I would say army commissions are quick to pronounce someone unfit, easy money...

The worst is that they can have their cake and eat it too.

My case: initially deemed fit to serve, did my recruit school and most of my WKs, had only a few days of service left to do. And then; "sorry, you are actually unfit to serve". And now, I get to pay the tax as if I did nothing. Ok, not really; I have a reduction because of the days of service I already did, but it's nowhere near a pro-rata rate. After the sacrifices I had to do to accomodate them, I am rather disgusted.

Is there any kind of appeal? Do they actually get the money directly (i.e. they declare you unfit = they get a bigger budget)? Do you have any kind of chance to make it up (e.g. you're unfit because your BMI exceeds some value or you can't run up a hundred steps, so you get to spend six months working on it and then they let you do your last few days)? Or the first you learn about it is the big bill end of story?

I know the army isn't meant to sound like a walk in the park, but it sounds not just unfair, but genuinely unjust.

Admittedly, I'm a bit of a special case: I have a chronic condition since my teenage years, but it was only diagnosed recently. And the decision of the army did appear with the bill. But usually, most people don't try to get in the swiss army, but rather out. The military service is not exactly popular among the young generation, and a lot of people would prefer to do an alternative service (civilian service or civil protection) to avoid the military tax. A trend in politics is to make those alternatives as unattractive as possible (from an economic perspective, or the number of days you have to servce). The army seems to have difficulties to fill their ranks (or so they claim, at least). As far as my experience goes, there aren't picky on the medical part during the recruitment. Trying to cheat the medical experts with all kind of stuff (claiming to do drugs, to be suicidal, ...) is a common way to try to avoid the military service.

A reason I'm so bitter about it is the fact that, while my condition _did_ seriously affect me during the recruit school from a physical point of view (long walks and stuff like that, but it was still undiagnosed, and the military medics at the time simply judged that I was a "simulator"), using it as a pretext to have me pay the tax now, when my militaries duties are hardly more than office work, after I struggled so much to actually overcome my disease and complete the hard part, feels... unfair.

It's noteworthy that Switzerland was called out by the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) on the matter, judging it discriminatory[0]. Following that, a system to allow people with disabilities to candidate for the army service has been introduced[1]. I'm currently trying to be reintegrated. However, they still reserve the rights to refuse anyone for any reason. So, I guess I will see if it's real, or just a mock to please the ECHR.

[0] https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2012/glor-v-switzerland [1] https://www.estv.admin.ch/estv/de/home/direkte-bundessteuer/...

This sounds way worse than it is. You get exactly 50% less to pay if you did 50% of your service + you pay less long because you start to pay when you drop out instead of directly after you turn 18. Paying 18 to 40 is clearly not the same as paying 30 to 40.

Sorry, but your number are wrongs. The very _maximum_ biggest reduction you can get is 40%, and, thanks to the recently passed new law, the duration is the very same for everyone.

In hindsight, it was sloppy of me to not precise that I was speaking specifically for a private in the standard service model. For people with higher number of days to serve, it's possible to have more than 40%.

The "office hour" argument really grinds my gears.

It was originally a deliberate political decision to collaborate with neighboring air forces to save costs and work around the fact that there weren't enough pilots and material ready (again a cost issue). When this was more publicized due to some incident when the french airforce had to intervene at night, everyone acted surprised, especially political parties that keep on demanding cost reduction.

Currently, the times have been extended from 6am to 10pm, and in beginning of 2021 a 24h/365d coverage will be implemented.

But if Switzerland can't afford enough pilots and material to run a twenty-four hour airforce, does it matter that it's a cost issue that prevents them from running a 24 hour airforce? I mean, will Switzerland be running a top quality defensive air force from 2021 or will they be running two thirds of a top quality defensive air force? Is Switzerland able to afford it?

Far from defending Switzerland against the charge of running a half rate airforce, you raise legitimate concerns. If I wanted to invade a country, I probably wouldn't pick Switzerland. But if I wanted to invade Switzerland, being unable to afford an airforce in a time of wealth is awfully encouraging.

It's not "can't afford". It's "as a landlocked country surrounded by allies with whom it has extensive defence agreements, it can't justify spending the money it takes to run its airforce at full capacity."

From a financial perspective, Switzerland could definitely afford a larger military force (defence expenditure is around 0.6% of the GDP, as a comparison the NATO sets the guideline to 2% of the GDP [Note: Switzerland is not part of the NATO, but it is a useful comparison to neighboring countries]).

The question is solely political, how much money is Switzerland willing to spend for an army/airforce? And this question undoubtedly correlates with the current feeling of safety and threat of conflict.

Anyone that would be interested in invading Switzerland has to go through an aweful lot of other countries first. Or do you really believe Switzerland needs to be ready to defend against France, Germany, Italy, Austria or Lichtenstein?

There simply is currently no conceivable threat scenario that needs to be countered.

First of all, the exactly same reasoning was used after the horrors of WWI, when everyone believed another European war will never be repeated, with known results on the readiness of the Swiss Army at the beginning of WWII.

Second, conflicts are on a gradient, from scattered terrorist attacks to a full on military invasion, there is a lot in between.

The statement that there is no conceivable threat scenario is ridiculous.

So what kind of threat scenarios do you have in mind?

A few years ago, Switzerland did have a war game on a French invasion scenario.

> Currently, the times have been extended from 6am to 10pm

That should be more than enough. It's not like anybody ever launched a war at 5:45 AM…

https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_speech_to_the...

>Many own a war weapon at home

Although its worth noting that since 2007 the vast majority aren't allowed to keep ammunition for their weapons at home.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/soldiers-can-keep-guns-at-home-...

  aren't allowed to keep ammunition for their weapons at home

They aren't issued take-home ammunition by the army, but they can buy for their own use.

Not true. You are not allowed to take military (free) ammo home. You can however legally buy amo if you are 18 years old and legally own the compatible firearm to the ammo you buy.

> Most citizens are army reserve and regularly go for training. FTFY: Most male citizens are forced to serve in the army and are forced to regularly go for training, or pay a hefty fine each year.

Uh? And what's the difference between what you said and what he said? I mean it's expected that, if they refuse, they'd have to pay a fine. Otherwise nobody would go

Women can be citizens in Switzerland, too.

It's an army we are talking about here; even if Switzerland is not expected to ever face a serious threat, let's be serious.

Sure okay, let's be serious. The fittest and strongest Swiss woman is fitter and stronger than the least fit and weakest Swiss man. How much overlap does there need to be before it's a serious concern?

Hopefully diet and health today are much better than in the past - probably there's a huge overlap between the tail of women who are not in top decile today, and men who were fit enough to join a century ago. To the extent that there's not, since woman ore exclude, there probably could be with a small amount of training. If a person of a certain strength a century ago was capable of serving their country, why isn't an equivalently strong person today capable?

Moreover, there's many duties in the army that don't directly require top decile strength. Naturally, some of these will need to be done by people who are recovering (since, having recovered, perhaps they will be top decile again). But the amount of technical skill in modern warfare is considerable. A woman could control a drone strike fair easier than a man in recovery.

Aside from snide comments, do you have any reason to think half an army is better than a whole one?

Fortunately, we don't have to faff about with probablies and suppositions. We have the distributions measured, and political factors aside, it is settled.

Anybody that can get through the training and meet the standards ought to be able to serve. Putting people that can't perform in combat is going to get them, and others, killed though.

Izrael doesn't seem to have any problems with women in army