You don't have to be convinced of it as long as anybody ever considering it is convinced of it. Just out of curiosity, short of nuking them what exactly do you think a full on invasion by a modern military force would do in a country that has a terrain more forbidding than Afghanistan with people that are actually militarily trained marksmen and has mountain bunkers full of their own modern military equipment? Besides, what would be the purpose. Not like there are any natural resources worth fighting over.

 

Which kind of coincides with my point, doesn't it? Nooone bothers invading Switzerland not because they have a gun in every household, but because there is nothing there worth invading it for.

 

A comparison to Afghanistan doesn't stand on many levels:

1. We (and Soviets before us) had no problem whatsoever invading Afghanistan. The problems begin when you engage into nation-building and try to lift that godforsaken country out of a feudal status and build some order that is not tribes-based.
   
2. Conversely, a modern fighting force would have no problem whatsoever knocking Switzerland back into feudal order.
   
3. With that said, it's worth remembering that Afghanistan is about 10 times as big and 4 times as populous as Switzerland. I think it was Richard Feynman who said that if you multiply the complexity of a given problem by an order of magnitude, you get a fundamentally different problem.
   

In short. It's easy to romanticize that guns make everything better. And maybe, for the sake of argument, they actually do. Sometimes. It's just not one of those cases.

In Switzerland, target shooting is much more of a national sport than in most other countries, to the point that there is a holiday for youth shooting called Knabenschiessen.