Only 57%?

The forces of victim disarmament have managed to change the culture of Switzerland somewhat in the last several years, but not too much, yet. They did manage to get a referendum on the ballot to prohibit ex-military personnel (Switzerland has compulsory service for young males) from keeping their military-issue weapons at home. When mustering out, the Swiss government offers thir soldiers the opportunity to buy their issued weapons at rock-bottom prices. Since they act as the reserve, doing so makes tactical and strategic sense. The government used to issue them sealed spam=cans of ammunition for those weapons, but as I understand it, that was changed a while back. I'm not sure what the rules are now.

Anyway, the referendum was yesterday. It failed by 57% overall, 70% in some cantons.  This was the pertinent part, I thought:

For decades, Swiss militiamen kept their army-issued firearms stashed in closets or under beds at home. But support for keeping so many guns at home has eroded, with opposition led by women, doctors and police, who claim that the easy availability of arms facilitates domestic violence, suicides and homicides. They contested the need to keep guns at home given that Switzerland hasn't come under threat since World War II.

Opponents of the referendum argued that the initiative was tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the Swiss army. Each side used stark images to sway voters. The referendum's supporters used a teddy bear with blood dripping from a hole in its chest, brandishing the motto, "Protect your family."

I am reminded of that piece I linked yesterday:

First of all, they persuade people that some Damned Thing is immoral. Then they show that the free market allows or encourages that immoral thing. Then they can say, “well, we wish we didn’t have to do this, but I’m afraid we’re going to have to intervene in that part of the economy, to stop the Damned Thing, sorry”. This leaves the free marketeer floundering around having to try to justify the continuance of the Damned Thing in the name of some nebulous “liberty”. And then they say, “so your selfish desire for “liberty” means this Damned Thing must go on?” and you lose the argument in public, because most of the audience have been persuaded that there is a moral crisis that must be addressed, and you are a heartless asshole who just doesn’t care.

See? it's being done everywhere.

I was reminded of this, too, in response to "They contested the need to keep guns at home given that Switzerland hasn't come under threat since World War II.":

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.