Swiss voters have rejected proposed tighter controls on gun ownership, exit polls and partial results suggest.

If confirmed, it means that the voters decided during the referendum to retain the current system, which allows army-issued weapons to be kept at home.

Supporters of the tighter controls want to have weapons kept in armouries and demand stricter check on gun owners.

Opponents say the move would undermine trust in the army. The final result of the vote is expected soon.

Exit polls indicate that about 57% of the Swiss voters rejected the proposal in Sunday's vote, while 43% backed it.

Five out 26 cantons are reported to have voted against, according to early results.

But Geneva and Basel both bucked the trend by approving it, according to the Swissinfo website.

For the proposal to be passed, it requires the support of the majority of Swiss citizens and the cantons.

There are an estimated two to three million guns circulating in Switzerland, but no-one knows the exact number because there is no national firearms register, says the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.

In addition to the semi-automatic assault rifle that all those serving in the army store at home, there are thousands of hunting rifles and pistols.

Serving and former soldiers have been allowed to keep their weapons at home since World War II.
National institution

The proposal to end that custom is backed by a coalition of doctors, women's groups and police associations.

Although Switzerland's overall crime rate is low by European standards, the country has the highest rate of gun suicide in Europe.

The proposal's backers say keeping soldiers' firearms locked up in armouries would reduce the suicide rate.

A number of high-profile killings in recent years - such as the shooting of ski star Corinne Rey-Bellet by her estranged husband in 2006 - have also lent support for greater gun control.

But the Swiss army is a national institution, and changing anything about it is controversial, says our correspondent.

Opponents of the proposals say taking soldiers' guns away would undermine the military and could open the door to abolishing Switzerland's citizen army all together.

"If the "Yes" goes through, it really risks destroying the country," Xavier Schwitzguebel, an army reservist officer, was earlier quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.

"If we take away the weapon, which represents this trust, that means that we are breaking the sacred union between democracy and citizen."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12441834

I admit to being ignorant of the circumstances, but I can't really see why army weapons should ever be stored in people's houses

The swiss have conscription and after wards they all are available for draft, if they were attacked they form a resistance. Though that ignores the Swiss Nuclear Deterrent -"Attack us and we burn your money."

I think that's much more likely than their army fighting anyone off tbh

Sorry Ernie, but I suspect you don't actually know the history of the Swiss Army?

Ok, quick version. We're back in olden days and the monarchies of France, England, Spain and Germany(ish) are all fighting each other for control of the various bits of Europe. Your hundreds years war, your Armardas, all of that. At this time for any given land battle, you can pretty much tell the outcome at the start - whoever paid the Swiss the most money wins. The Swiss army was effectively a mercenary force - they worked for whichever monarchy was at the time paying them the most. And they were very very good. Arguably 2 to 3 times better per man than any other army in Europe. And because people paid them a lot of money to fight, they also tended to have the best arms and armour. That survives today - Swiss Army Knives have a great reputation still because the Swiss army always used to have the best knives. And swords. And axes. And great big hammers.

Eventually, the various royal families - who all actually got on fine most of the time and even had a habit of marrying their children off between them - got together and decided this had to stop. First of all, it wasn't getting them anywhere because the Swiss wouldn't stick on one side for very long so it was all kind of canceling out and secondly because it was costing them all a ruddy fortune.

So in the end had a meeting and decided - the Swiss had to be kept out of it from now on. But of course they didn't really trust each other - they all knew that if they just all agreed not to hire the Swiss, sooner or later (and probably sooner) someone would go behind the rest's back and get the Swiss in on the quiet to fight for them. So the only alternative was to all get together and tell the Swiss they would have to be neutral from now on - no getting involved in everyone else's fights, on pain of all the rest ganging up on them at once.

Another piece of 'evidence' if you like - back in the day the single richest organisation in Europe (and therefore probably the world) was the catholic church and it's 'head office' is the Vatican and it's Chief Executive is The Pope. Who are the guys who make sure nobody takes a pop at him? The Swiss Guards. They're there because back in the day they were the best soldiers in Europe and only the best was good enough for His Holiness. And besides, only the Pope could afford to hire them as bodyguards.

So that's why the Swiss don't fight. It's not because they are cowards, or because their army is rubbish, it's because they were actually so good that even in small numbers they would tip the balance in any fight they got involved in so they were told to naff off. It's also why a lot of banks are in Switzerland in the first place - it was the safest place for them to be, because while The English and French and Spanish were off around the continent raising armies and ransacking cities, none of them were daft enough to pick a fight with the Swiss on their own. This was long before the ideas of tax havens even existed.

Nowadays? Obviously at the height of the Cold War the Swiss wouldn't have been able to take on the USSR or NATO, they just don't have the numbers. But even today the Swiss army knows it's history and anyone who even thought of picking a fight with them would find it cost them a lot more than it would be probably be worth.

I've seen the Swiss Guard up close in St. Peter's Square.
And silly costumes or not, I wouldn't be up for picking a fight, I can tell you that.
"Yes, I may look like a court jester but see this pike with the oh-so-shiny blade on the end? I'll have your face off and you probably won't even see me move."

No, that's kinda what I meant at the start when I said I was ignorant of the situation with the army, I was thinking more of the likelihood of the sort of scrap that would involve them* - sorry, this always happens when I make a short post in response

*Especially these days, who could afford it?

Further weird fact - the Swiss Guard you see in the daft outfits in the vatican are actually still soldiers. They're all current Swiss Army troopers. It's effectively a tour of duty, like a British solider being stationed in Gibraltar. And, obviously, its a pretty cushy number so the competition to get it is quite fierce. So it goes to the blokes who impress the most when doing normal soldier-y things. The guy in the Andy Pandy outfit holding the giant toothpick is not only an actual soldier he's probably the equivalent of, if not the SAS/SBS, then at least as good as a paratrooper or royal marine.

Jon

I can quite believe that - I saw one 'telling' an American woman to get back behind the barrier, and that no she couldn't take his photo.
I'd have moved behind the barrier, given him all my cash, my first born, the deeds to the house, my car keys and cried like a little girl and promised never to do it again.