switzerland
switzerland makes a great title for anything related to gun regulation, as achieving that "neutral" state against which one side or the other is arrayed would be quite the trick. but, see, i have a problem with the suggestion that the swiss are ever or were ever neutral, so lets talk about them for the second:
the pope has swiss guards. popes have had 'em for over 500 years. in fact, swiss soldiers were hired out by heads of state across europe since the 1400's because they were absolutely bad-ass, considered incorruptible and indomitable in the face of an enemy, and never quit. back in 1525, france's king francis had a bodyguard of 100 of them that were loyal to death and to a man when the spanish kicked his ass at the battle of pavia, and history is full of similar examples. and just because 15000 (i forget, but i think lannoy and leyve had about that many) is that much more than 100, do not underestimate the effectiveness of swiss fighters. they've always had the best weapons and the best training and the best organization, and the reason nobody crossed the alps in either of the world wars has everything to do with that tradition that continues even through today.
i know a lot of people who like to get into superman vs batman discussions related to us vs russian military-style rifles, but arguing AR vs AK is like arguing broncos vs texans this nfl playoff season--plenty of fodder for exposition, but pointless. (though, seriously, given their reliability in tough conditions, who would not prefer an AK during the zombie apocalypse?) the swiss, meanwhile, instead of arguing, designed and produce for themselves the stg.90, further improved upon the stgw.57, widely considered to be one of the finest, if not THE finest, battlefield rifle ever built. the stgw.57, from as far back as 1957, was fully accurate to 600 meters, and the swiss don't bother target training at anything less than 300. by coincidence, americans tend to target shoot at 100 meters, and the us army has publicly allowed that the average US soldier will hit a man-sized target (the swiss talk about groupings measured in centimeters, not "man-sizes") 10% of the time at 300 meters with an M16. the swiss expect and enjoy that every serviceman and woman (who, by coincidence, is every citizen as they have universal military service from age 18 to 42) is be able to take out a person with near 100% accuracy at 300 meters and beyond. how about them apple strudels?
i'm going to be woefully short on the links for this stuff because i'm in a hurry today, but i recall reading a military study that it took an average of 50,000 rounds of M16 ammo for every north vietnamese soldier killed in that confict, (so much for 10% at 300 yards), and that, in practice, both the americans and russians then and since have noted that a compelling portion of infantry kills are now expected to take place at between 200 and 400 yards, so their AR's and AK's are designed with no more than that distance and accuracy in mind. unfortunately, in practice, the likelihood that your average american or russian soldier will be lethal at that distance is anything but assured, and the combination of weapon and training mean that, in general, your average army commander isn't going to be overconfident in any given engagement depending on who he might be up against. (still combat "he" here, and we're not talking about specialized snipers either, just your run-of-the-mill army grunts).
enter the swiss. their AVERAGE gi joe or jane (josef or janna?) is reasonably deadly at 600 meters, and a lock sure at 300. (one analysis i've read suggests 800 meters, though i haven't found rifle specs to suggest if that's a reasonable statement or not, so let's just stick with 600, shall we?) calculate invading switzerland when your top world army folks are firing weapons that give them 10% at 300 yards against every able-bodied citizen between 16 and 42 taking enemies out with reliable accuracy at TWICE that distance. yup, sure, you want to call in drones, and why wouldn't you. because that's what it would take. tour the swiss countryside sometime and note the "kill zones", and pre-mined bridges they've set up all over the place to be ready. they are, essentially, the most and best-armed population in the world (and only israeli's have more armed folk per square mile) and if you look at their gun violence stats you'd be happy to have them here for absolute sure. swiss army? there is no swiss army. switzerland IS the army.
they are the world's poster country for a "well regulated militia", and it looks very, very good on them.
we could learn a lot from their present example, to return to our best. mandatory service. (don't like the military? we've got plenty of other things in need of an 18 year old or two or two million to do) mandatory firearms training. discharge with the responsibility to return for refresher training every year for 24 years. discount purchase of your service weapon, complete with training ammunition. rules that mean NO crazy people can have or use guns. one of the safest, least violent and dangerous countries on the planet. what a concept...
oh, and for you NRA nuts who aren't paying attention? those service weapons ARE regulated. they are also not, for the most part, handguns. (folks focused on civil defense understand the limited utility of sidearms). neither is there a whole lot of patience for a lot of the other nonsense we let go on here. personal protection my ass. all purchasers need a permit and stuff gets checked. you're limited to own a total of 3 weapons per person. period. no more. psychiatric checks are required, criminal checks are required, and violence history checks are required. so why can't we at least go that far? i think we should. but i also think we should go as far as to institute mandatory service and related training.
how about you?
the pope has swiss guards. popes have had 'em for over 500 years. in fact, swiss soldiers were hired out by heads of state across europe since the 1400's because they were absolutely bad-ass, considered incorruptible and indomitable in the face of an enemy, and never quit. back in 1525, france's king francis had a bodyguard of 100 of them that were loyal to death and to a man when the spanish kicked his ass at the battle of pavia, and history is full of similar examples. and just because 15000 (i forget, but i think lannoy and leyve had about that many) is that much more than 100, do not underestimate the effectiveness of swiss fighters. they've always had the best weapons and the best training and the best organization, and the reason nobody crossed the alps in either of the world wars has everything to do with that tradition that continues even through today.
i know a lot of people who like to get into superman vs batman discussions related to us vs russian military-style rifles, but arguing AR vs AK is like arguing broncos vs texans this nfl playoff season--plenty of fodder for exposition, but pointless. (though, seriously, given their reliability in tough conditions, who would not prefer an AK during the zombie apocalypse?) the swiss, meanwhile, instead of arguing, designed and produce for themselves the stg.90, further improved upon the stgw.57, widely considered to be one of the finest, if not THE finest, battlefield rifle ever built. the stgw.57, from as far back as 1957, was fully accurate to 600 meters, and the swiss don't bother target training at anything less than 300. by coincidence, americans tend to target shoot at 100 meters, and the us army has publicly allowed that the average US soldier will hit a man-sized target (the swiss talk about groupings measured in centimeters, not "man-sizes") 10% of the time at 300 meters with an M16. the swiss expect and enjoy that every serviceman and woman (who, by coincidence, is every citizen as they have universal military service from age 18 to 42) is be able to take out a person with near 100% accuracy at 300 meters and beyond. how about them apple strudels?
i'm going to be woefully short on the links for this stuff because i'm in a hurry today, but i recall reading a military study that it took an average of 50,000 rounds of M16 ammo for every north vietnamese soldier killed in that confict, (so much for 10% at 300 yards), and that, in practice, both the americans and russians then and since have noted that a compelling portion of infantry kills are now expected to take place at between 200 and 400 yards, so their AR's and AK's are designed with no more than that distance and accuracy in mind. unfortunately, in practice, the likelihood that your average american or russian soldier will be lethal at that distance is anything but assured, and the combination of weapon and training mean that, in general, your average army commander isn't going to be overconfident in any given engagement depending on who he might be up against. (still combat "he" here, and we're not talking about specialized snipers either, just your run-of-the-mill army grunts).
enter the swiss. their AVERAGE gi joe or jane (josef or janna?) is reasonably deadly at 600 meters, and a lock sure at 300. (one analysis i've read suggests 800 meters, though i haven't found rifle specs to suggest if that's a reasonable statement or not, so let's just stick with 600, shall we?) calculate invading switzerland when your top world army folks are firing weapons that give them 10% at 300 yards against every able-bodied citizen between 16 and 42 taking enemies out with reliable accuracy at TWICE that distance. yup, sure, you want to call in drones, and why wouldn't you. because that's what it would take. tour the swiss countryside sometime and note the "kill zones", and pre-mined bridges they've set up all over the place to be ready. they are, essentially, the most and best-armed population in the world (and only israeli's have more armed folk per square mile) and if you look at their gun violence stats you'd be happy to have them here for absolute sure. swiss army? there is no swiss army. switzerland IS the army.
they are the world's poster country for a "well regulated militia", and it looks very, very good on them.
we could learn a lot from their present example, to return to our best. mandatory service. (don't like the military? we've got plenty of other things in need of an 18 year old or two or two million to do) mandatory firearms training. discharge with the responsibility to return for refresher training every year for 24 years. discount purchase of your service weapon, complete with training ammunition. rules that mean NO crazy people can have or use guns. one of the safest, least violent and dangerous countries on the planet. what a concept...
oh, and for you NRA nuts who aren't paying attention? those service weapons ARE regulated. they are also not, for the most part, handguns. (folks focused on civil defense understand the limited utility of sidearms). neither is there a whole lot of patience for a lot of the other nonsense we let go on here. personal protection my ass. all purchasers need a permit and stuff gets checked. you're limited to own a total of 3 weapons per person. period. no more. psychiatric checks are required, criminal checks are required, and violence history checks are required. so why can't we at least go that far? i think we should. but i also think we should go as far as to institute mandatory service and related training.
how about you?
posted by kad barma at 1:51 PM
3 Comments:
I thought all men were in the militia, up to age 45, and those of us retired from the military up to age 65. I think it is the training that is lacking.
When you think American Army you should think S L A Marshall (SLAM), who said the analysis was that a lot of folks were not pulling the trigger and getting them to pull the trigger was the key. So, we went from an Army built around the idea of Alvin York to one based on the idea of holding your rifle over the wall and blindly firing toward the enemy.
But, every time I think of the Swiss I think of the man at the top of the ferris wheel. Sure, he got it wrong, but still, it makes some sense within its own context.
Regards — Cliff
The issue of pulling or not pulling the trigger is one of many reasons why the "just arm everyone" people are starring in the dope show.
Ballistics studies done on Marines' rifles at Okinawa and Iwo Jima are enough to convince me that just giving someone a gun does not make them a shooter, let alone a marksman. Maybe they deter someone (or maybe the 'unknown factor' deters someone, a la the Air Marshall system).
An armed security person who's had tons of range time can interdict something like Fort Hood (no doubt, she saved many lives that day) but an armed librarian wouldn't have necessarily prevented most of the Columbine deaths, for instance.
Not sure I'm getting the point of the last comment... My suggestion is that mandatory service and a "well-regulated militia" are noble goals that, at least in the case of the Swiss, can peacefully coexist with a low incidence of gun violence, not to mention an extremely impressive record of unchallenged sovereignty. I'm drawing a distinction between that and the "personal defense" arguments advanced by the NRA and others, and I hope that puts me on the non-dope side of your "dope show" suggestion. I certainly do think there is a certain deterrence inherent in knowing you're not the only one who knows how to use a weapon, but, clearly, the mental health of these shooters is the issue, and reasonable actions on their part should never be presumed.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home