Some thoughts from the real “reality-based community.”
24 thoughts on “What If We Encouraged Gun Ownership?”
“Switzerland has a culture based on an armed populace. It kept the French and the Germans from invading during World War I, and it kept Hitler from invading during World War II.”
Switzerland doesn’t get invaded because the terrain is murderous and a neutral Swiss is useful for many players.
Napoleon did not invade Switzerland and he had lots of troops.
Was it in Switzerland where they once asked a man, what would happen if the Germans invaded, since their army was three times larger. His answer? Fire three times.
“Was it in Switzerland where they once asked a man, what would happen if the Germans invaded, since their army was three times larger. His answer? Fire three times.”
It was fire three times each and go home.
Gee jack, you think it might be both terrain and the fact that the Swiss were trained and equipped to outlast any seige?
Study Yugoslavia in WWII and realize any attempt to invade Switzerland would have made that look like a child’s picnic by comparison.
“Napoleon did not invade Switzerland and he had lots of troops.”
Napoleon didn’t have to invade Switzerland – it was already under the control of France. It was invaded by the French revolutionary government, a puppet government installed, and the country renamed the Helvetic Republic.
“Study Yugoslavia in WWII and realize any attempt to invade Switzerland would have made that look like a child’s picnic by comparison.”
But note, Mike, that while Yugoslav partisans made the German occupation of Yugoslavia expensive it did *nothing* to prevent the occupation in the first place. The Germans conquered Yugoslavia about as easily as the US conquered Iraq.
You think Yuglsavia was expensive for the Germans, it would have been 10 times so for Switzerland. More so than they were willing to pay.
The ultimate goal of defense is to make the cost so high, it exceeds the benefits.
“Si iv pacaem, para bellum.”
It was invaded by the French revolutionary government, a puppet government installed, and the country renamed the Helvetic Republic.
I guess you can invade switzerland. The swiss Govt website only lists 2 invasions both in the 10th century, the saracens and the huns
Sounds more like a coup than an invasion. What army did the French revolutionary bring with him?
“Sounds more like a coup than an invasion. What army did the French revolutionary bring with him?”
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Helvetic Republic
French République Helvétique, republic constituting the greater part of Switzerland, founded on March 29, 1798, after the country had been conquered by Revolutionary France. The new republic excluded both Geneva, which was annexed to France (April 1798), and the three provinces of Valtellina, Chiavenna, and Bormio, which went to the Italian Cisalpine Republic. In 1802 Austrian Frickthal was added to the republic, and Valais was detached and made into an independent republic (later, in 1810, annexed to France). The Helvetic Republic was recognized in the Franco-Austrian Treaty of Lunéville (1801).
The government was patterned after that of the Directory in France. So many factional disputes arose that delegates from the republic called on Napoleon Bonaparte to mediate. He promptly dictated the Act of Mediation (Sept. 30, 1802; amplified on Feb. 19, 1803), which substituted a new Swiss Confederation for the Helvetic Republic, forcing it into close association with France.”
Had the Germans won the Second World War Switzerland would have received a similar deal.
The government was patterned after that of the Directory in France. So many factional disputes arose that delegates from the republic called on Napoleon Bonaparte to mediate. He promptly dictated the Act of Mediation (Sept. 30, 1802; amplified on Feb. 19, 1803), which substituted a new Swiss Confederation for the Helvetic Republic, forcing it into close association with France.”
Hmmm… Glad that this was not done by Italy or it would have been the Times New Roman Republic.
……..
“What If We Encouraged Gun Ownership?”
How about: “What if gun safety and training was a standard piece of the high school curriculum?”
How about: “What if gun safety and training was a standard piece of the high school curriculum?”
That might take time from sex education, and we all know that abstinance doesn’t work for sex, but does for gun control.
I wouldn’t use the Swiss as an example. Gun ownership is highly, highly regulated in Switzerland. Yes everyone owns a gun but it is also registered to the owner. Ammunition is issued in sealed cartons with each serial number registered to the owner. If the carton is opened or lost or the weapon discharged outside the context of national defense then you have committed a serious crime and may be imprisoned. I think I would prefer to do without that kind of regulation.
What gun advocates need to keep sight of is that while the right to bear arms is important, the right to discharge them is even more so. The castle doctrine and the right to defend yourself with lethal force are, strictly speaking, not protected by the second amendment. I foresee that the next battle will be to circumscribe how and where you may legally discharge a weapon. I can see gun control advocates making it a crime to defend yourself in nearly all circumstances and, by expanding torts, bankrupting you, even after you have legally defended yourself.
Agree with Jardinero. The issue of self-defense with lethal force is already a problem in the UK. Here’a a story of a person using barb wire to defend his property, being required to take it down because it might hurt an intruder. There’s another story from 2001 of a man being convicted and given a life sentence (reduced on appeal to 5 years) for killing a burgler on his property.
Joe Horn got lucky. But what’s happening, regarding self-defense limitation, in Europe is making its way to the US. Newark, NJ has a ban against barbed wire. If you can’t use passive defense measures, how long before you can’t use active defense?
I’m a gun owner, and speaking from anecdotal evidence only. Every gun owner I know treats them with the utmost respect for the power that they hold, and they value human life enough to be willing to take someone else’s to defend their own, or the lives of their family.
Those who would walk around waving a gun as proof of manhood have likely never fired one, have never been trained to what a gun can do, and have little concept of the value of a human life. I know one man who had to draw his gun to scare off two men who came after him and his daughter. Just having to draw it haunts him still.
> Ammunition is issued in sealed cartons with each serial number registered to the owner.
Yes, the Swiss govt requires that the owner keep ammunition ready.
Govt also makes other ammunition readily available, subsidizing its purchase.
In other words, Jardinero1’s suggestion that Swiss guns are restricted so as to be not used is completely wrong.
What I was saying was that comparing universal gun ownership in Switzerland to anywhere else is flawed because the issued weapon and ammo cannot be used for any purpose other than national defense. You can’t use it to hunt or for home defense or anything else. If you use the issued weapon or ammo, you will face a penalty.
We used to have de facto mandatory training in that no parent would allow their offspring to grow up with out a familiarity in safe gun handling.
With regards to the French coup of the Swiss. At least they put a good typeface on it.
The swiss can use their issue weapon to practice any time they like. They however, cannot use up their 40 round stipend and must use other ammo. They are in no way limited to only that ammo.
The reason is not gun control, it is to make sure their rifle does not become a club in time of emergency. That stipend is so the soldier can fight his way to his mobilization point in case of an emergency. It is his duty to keep his weapon operational and in a firable state at all times. Ammo is essential to that end.
So why isn’t Iraq so safe? The iraqi’s all have Machine guns and yet still a foreign army invaded and occupied them.
Perhaps a certain minimum standard of quality is necessary in their aptitutde jack. Firearms are more effective by many orders of magnitude when you understand the concept of aligning the front and rear sights with the target. A skill almost zero Iraqis possessed prior to training from the US Military.
Ammo that works would be nice too. Iraqi ammo is pure garbage that even a Kalashnikov cannot overcome.
“The iraqi’s all have Machine guns”
False.
If it was anywhere near true, casualties on both sides would have been ridiculously high. Snipers – the lone gunman type, not the highly trained Marine type – were one of the bigger problems early on. That’s -one- guy with a gun and a tiny bit of training.
After awhile, the US troops with guns outnumbered the snipers by a high enough amount that they could surround the sniper’s building and remove all the weapons. That’s 20-30 guys a building. The only buildings where that was a problem were “strongholds.” Which, shockingly, had a lot more than one guy firing out.
Twenty-five million Iraqis. If there had been even single shot rifles for every adult, we’d still be trying to pacify Baghdad. There were generals on television prior to the actual tanks rolling into Baghdad predicting -50,000- casualties to take the city (on the theory that the entire army was dispersed as hiding snipers). On the US side alone.
PS: The AK47 is a pretty silly excuse for a “machine gun.” They can qualify – and do legally if fully automatic. But it’s like calling a stock VW Bug a race car. Most people would call it an assault rifle.
> What I was saying was that comparing universal gun ownership in Switzerland to anywhere else is flawed because the issued weapon and ammo cannot be used for any purpose other than national defense.
We know what you’re saying – we’re pointing out that you’re wrong.
The issued weapon can be, and is, used for other purposes. While the issued ammo can’t (legally) be used for other purposes, other ammo is readily available.
Note that the premise of gun control is that folks can’t be trusted with guns because they might do bad things. That premise assumes that “don’t do bad things with guns” laws can’t work because folks will do bad things if they have access.
The swiss experience proves them wrong.
Note that it is reasonable to quibble with whether the “don’t do bad things” laws actually do anything, but since the US has them too….
This is great post.I would say now if responsible gun ownership was encouraged. Crime would decline, as it has over the last eight years. The Bush administration was very pro gun, many states enacted Right To Carry Laws.Thanks.
“Switzerland has a culture based on an armed populace. It kept the French and the Germans from invading during World War I, and it kept Hitler from invading during World War II.”
Switzerland doesn’t get invaded because the terrain is murderous and a neutral Swiss is useful for many players.
Napoleon did not invade Switzerland and he had lots of troops.
Was it in Switzerland where they once asked a man, what would happen if the Germans invaded, since their army was three times larger. His answer? Fire three times.
“Was it in Switzerland where they once asked a man, what would happen if the Germans invaded, since their army was three times larger. His answer? Fire three times.”
It was fire three times each and go home.
Gee jack, you think it might be both terrain and the fact that the Swiss were trained and equipped to outlast any seige?
Study Yugoslavia in WWII and realize any attempt to invade Switzerland would have made that look like a child’s picnic by comparison.
“Napoleon did not invade Switzerland and he had lots of troops.”
Napoleon didn’t have to invade Switzerland – it was already under the control of France. It was invaded by the French revolutionary government, a puppet government installed, and the country renamed the Helvetic Republic.
“Study Yugoslavia in WWII and realize any attempt to invade Switzerland would have made that look like a child’s picnic by comparison.”
But note, Mike, that while Yugoslav partisans made the German occupation of Yugoslavia expensive it did *nothing* to prevent the occupation in the first place. The Germans conquered Yugoslavia about as easily as the US conquered Iraq.
You think Yuglsavia was expensive for the Germans, it would have been 10 times so for Switzerland. More so than they were willing to pay.
The ultimate goal of defense is to make the cost so high, it exceeds the benefits.
“Si iv pacaem, para bellum.”
It was invaded by the French revolutionary government, a puppet government installed, and the country renamed the Helvetic Republic.
I guess you can invade switzerland. The swiss Govt website only lists 2 invasions both in the 10th century, the saracens and the huns
Sounds more like a coup than an invasion. What army did the French revolutionary bring with him?
“Sounds more like a coup than an invasion. What army did the French revolutionary bring with him?”
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Helvetic Republic
French République Helvétique, republic constituting the greater part of Switzerland, founded on March 29, 1798, after the country had been conquered by Revolutionary France. The new republic excluded both Geneva, which was annexed to France (April 1798), and the three provinces of Valtellina, Chiavenna, and Bormio, which went to the Italian Cisalpine Republic. In 1802 Austrian Frickthal was added to the republic, and Valais was detached and made into an independent republic (later, in 1810, annexed to France). The Helvetic Republic was recognized in the Franco-Austrian Treaty of Lunéville (1801).
The government was patterned after that of the Directory in France. So many factional disputes arose that delegates from the republic called on Napoleon Bonaparte to mediate. He promptly dictated the Act of Mediation (Sept. 30, 1802; amplified on Feb. 19, 1803), which substituted a new Swiss Confederation for the Helvetic Republic, forcing it into close association with France.”
Had the Germans won the Second World War Switzerland would have received a similar deal.
The government was patterned after that of the Directory in France. So many factional disputes arose that delegates from the republic called on Napoleon Bonaparte to mediate. He promptly dictated the Act of Mediation (Sept. 30, 1802; amplified on Feb. 19, 1803), which substituted a new Swiss Confederation for the Helvetic Republic, forcing it into close association with France.”
Hmmm… Glad that this was not done by Italy or it would have been the Times New Roman Republic.
……..
“What If We Encouraged Gun Ownership?”
How about: “What if gun safety and training was a standard piece of the high school curriculum?”
How about: “What if gun safety and training was a standard piece of the high school curriculum?”
That might take time from sex education, and we all know that abstinance doesn’t work for sex, but does for gun control.
I wouldn’t use the Swiss as an example. Gun ownership is highly, highly regulated in Switzerland. Yes everyone owns a gun but it is also registered to the owner. Ammunition is issued in sealed cartons with each serial number registered to the owner. If the carton is opened or lost or the weapon discharged outside the context of national defense then you have committed a serious crime and may be imprisoned. I think I would prefer to do without that kind of regulation.
What gun advocates need to keep sight of is that while the right to bear arms is important, the right to discharge them is even more so. The castle doctrine and the right to defend yourself with lethal force are, strictly speaking, not protected by the second amendment. I foresee that the next battle will be to circumscribe how and where you may legally discharge a weapon. I can see gun control advocates making it a crime to defend yourself in nearly all circumstances and, by expanding torts, bankrupting you, even after you have legally defended yourself.
Agree with Jardinero. The issue of self-defense with lethal force is already a problem in the UK. Here’a a story of a person using barb wire to defend his property, being required to take it down because it might hurt an intruder. There’s another story from 2001 of a man being convicted and given a life sentence (reduced on appeal to 5 years) for killing a burgler on his property.
Joe Horn got lucky. But what’s happening, regarding self-defense limitation, in Europe is making its way to the US. Newark, NJ has a ban against barbed wire. If you can’t use passive defense measures, how long before you can’t use active defense?
I’m a gun owner, and speaking from anecdotal evidence only. Every gun owner I know treats them with the utmost respect for the power that they hold, and they value human life enough to be willing to take someone else’s to defend their own, or the lives of their family.
Those who would walk around waving a gun as proof of manhood have likely never fired one, have never been trained to what a gun can do, and have little concept of the value of a human life. I know one man who had to draw his gun to scare off two men who came after him and his daughter. Just having to draw it haunts him still.
> Ammunition is issued in sealed cartons with each serial number registered to the owner.
Yes, the Swiss govt requires that the owner keep ammunition ready.
Govt also makes other ammunition readily available, subsidizing its purchase.
In other words, Jardinero1’s suggestion that Swiss guns are restricted so as to be not used is completely wrong.
What I was saying was that comparing universal gun ownership in Switzerland to anywhere else is flawed because the issued weapon and ammo cannot be used for any purpose other than national defense. You can’t use it to hunt or for home defense or anything else. If you use the issued weapon or ammo, you will face a penalty.
We used to have de facto mandatory training in that no parent would allow their offspring to grow up with out a familiarity in safe gun handling.
With regards to the French coup of the Swiss. At least they put a good typeface on it.
The swiss can use their issue weapon to practice any time they like. They however, cannot use up their 40 round stipend and must use other ammo. They are in no way limited to only that ammo.
The reason is not gun control, it is to make sure their rifle does not become a club in time of emergency. That stipend is so the soldier can fight his way to his mobilization point in case of an emergency. It is his duty to keep his weapon operational and in a firable state at all times. Ammo is essential to that end.
So why isn’t Iraq so safe? The iraqi’s all have Machine guns and yet still a foreign army invaded and occupied them.
Perhaps a certain minimum standard of quality is necessary in their aptitutde jack. Firearms are more effective by many orders of magnitude when you understand the concept of aligning the front and rear sights with the target. A skill almost zero Iraqis possessed prior to training from the US Military.
Ammo that works would be nice too. Iraqi ammo is pure garbage that even a Kalashnikov cannot overcome.
“The iraqi’s all have Machine guns”
False.
If it was anywhere near true, casualties on both sides would have been ridiculously high. Snipers – the lone gunman type, not the highly trained Marine type – were one of the bigger problems early on. That’s -one- guy with a gun and a tiny bit of training.
After awhile, the US troops with guns outnumbered the snipers by a high enough amount that they could surround the sniper’s building and remove all the weapons. That’s 20-30 guys a building. The only buildings where that was a problem were “strongholds.” Which, shockingly, had a lot more than one guy firing out.
Twenty-five million Iraqis. If there had been even single shot rifles for every adult, we’d still be trying to pacify Baghdad. There were generals on television prior to the actual tanks rolling into Baghdad predicting -50,000- casualties to take the city (on the theory that the entire army was dispersed as hiding snipers). On the US side alone.
PS: The AK47 is a pretty silly excuse for a “machine gun.” They can qualify – and do legally if fully automatic. But it’s like calling a stock VW Bug a race car. Most people would call it an assault rifle.
> What I was saying was that comparing universal gun ownership in Switzerland to anywhere else is flawed because the issued weapon and ammo cannot be used for any purpose other than national defense.
We know what you’re saying – we’re pointing out that you’re wrong.
The issued weapon can be, and is, used for other purposes. While the issued ammo can’t (legally) be used for other purposes, other ammo is readily available.
Note that the premise of gun control is that folks can’t be trusted with guns because they might do bad things. That premise assumes that “don’t do bad things with guns” laws can’t work because folks will do bad things if they have access.
The swiss experience proves them wrong.
Note that it is reasonable to quibble with whether the “don’t do bad things” laws actually do anything, but since the US has them too….
This is great post.I would say now if responsible gun ownership was encouraged. Crime would decline, as it has over the last eight years. The Bush administration was very pro gun, many states enacted Right To Carry Laws.Thanks.