Emulating Switzerland

The AR-15

Today's "human nature is revolting" story comes from the state of Utah. Apparently, one the state's leading gun-rights activists was busted for threatening his ex-wife's family with a 2.5 tom Army surplus vehicle, as he intended to run over all of their cars with his. His lawyer says it's no big deal and he was just “having fun in his big boy toy.”. 

I guess that crushing other people's property could be construed as boys will be boys, assuming the boy in question is another porcine asshole with privilege issues, but it got to thinking about the mess that is the gun debate in America. Around and around it goes and as it accelerates, it gets crazier and meaner. Gun control advocate Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, is getting ricin laced hate mail from people that are apparently terrified that he's gonna do to the Bushmaster as he did to the Big Gulp. Bloomberg's PAC is sinking a ton of cash into gun control friendly candidates, making him the embodiment of the anti-NRA. The latter group has kept their lawmakers in check for years by threatening to run well funded opponents against anyone not toeing their line--if Bloomberg can match them dollar for dollar, this is a new ball-game.

And a new one would be coming anyway, Bloomberg or not. While sales of firearms are up, gun ownership is down. The same people are simply buying more weapons, wound up to the gills with the irrational fear that "Obama's gonna take your guns". The market is getting smaller, though and the NRA--no longer a gun safety or hunter's rights group but really a trade association dedicated to expanding gun makers revenues--is getting cranky.

The center can't hold. It is inconceivable that the US government would ever seize the millions of weapons in private hands, even if there was overwhelming public demand for same, it's physically impossible. It's also inconceivable that the public's patience for inaction will remain much longer. A simple vote on innocuous background checks--which are supported by about 90% of the country--was unable to pass cloture in the Senate. The senators that voted against it watched their approval ratings plummet. So what now?

How about a new idea that works wonders elsewhere. In Switzerland, where there is no standing military, able bodied males over 18 are issued a rifle and bullets and fulfill the role of militia. As the Second Amendment attaches the right to bear arms to a "well regulated militia", why not implement the same idea of a sort in the US? Every home in the US becomes required by law to have one firearm per adult, registered to same and with a reasonable amount of ammunition for same. Training and safety courses must be passed every few years like a trip to the DMV is. 

Surplus weapons can be sold back to the government. And locked up in armories.

I can see where both sides would hate this idea. Gun control advocates would be furious at the idea that the hated and lethal firearm would be mandatory--but who says they have to be loaded? The firearm fetishist upon whom the gun industry depends would be furious as well as their collections would be depleted--but once again, an idea--"remove and prove". You collect weapons, remove firing mechanism and prove same.

Yes, it's a pain in the ass in a lot of ways, but America can't continue down this path. If every home has a couple of guns in it, according to the logic of the pro-gun cadre, no one will rob it (I know this isn't true, but bear with me). Everyone will be presumably safer (that is to say, less scared)--isn't that what they want?

Most people, yes. The NRA, of course not. As an adjunct to business, they have to show higher revenues each quarter and this idea more or less ends them. But that's coming anyway--fairly soon, the gunmaker could be anyone with a 3-D printer. Sorry, Mr. LaPierre.

It is but a simple suggestion, but I think it's a workable compromise. Because the all or nothing gambit is getting us nowhere. 


Ven I vas in der death camps the Nazi soldiers had der Luger und der Shmeiser....
Now zat vas someting. Thoity seconds and there vas 50 dead juden...those Nazi bastards...FEH, FEH, I say...never again, zay come to my house and zay vill get a zetz zay vill never forget!

Posted by Chaim Horowitz on May. 30, 2013 @ 6:10 pm

A pity that trotting out the Newtown parents as political props didn't work out the way the liberals had hoped. But government is indeed the answer to all of our problems. Next up: a government program to remove my corns at no cost to myself.

Posted by Chromefields on May. 31, 2013 @ 8:21 am

A pity that trotting out the Newtown parents as political props didn't work out the way the liberals had hoped.>>>>

Can you believe the nerve of those people, being upset that their kids were mowed down at a grade school? What the hell, they died for our freedom to carry guns, doncha know!

Some people.

Posted by JohnnyW on May. 31, 2013 @ 2:59 pm

There is already at least 1 town that requires each household to have a firearm in each home: Kennesaw, Georgia. It passed that law in 1982 and predictions of "the new Wild Wild West" haven't come to pass. Crime,which was already low to begin with, dropped to 243 property crimes per 100,000 residents (SF by comparison has about 4,100 per 100K residents).

Posted by Guest on May. 31, 2013 @ 2:15 pm

A middle to upper middle class city of less than 30,000 residents.

San Francisco, a major city of over 750,000 people.

When you find a place with a similar population density, get back to me.


Posted by JohnnyW on May. 31, 2013 @ 3:01 pm

A middle to upper middle class city of less than 30K residents that prior to 1982 had a crime rate of 4,332 crimes per 100K people compared to a national average of 3,899 per 100K people. They now have a crime rate of about 2,000 per 100K people (US rate is about 3,300 per 100K).

As for the predictions of massive shootouts and murders by gun-toting whackos? 9 in the past 30 years and less than half by firearm.

Please also explain how crimes against persons dropped 74% in the year following the ban? Or how it dropped another 45% the year after that? And that it has stayed low ever since? Unless of course you are saying that it's mostly poor people who commit crime?

Posted by Guest on May. 31, 2013 @ 4:12 pm

Rich people commit the most crimes. The ponzi scheme also known as capitalism is organized crime.

Posted by Guest on May. 31, 2013 @ 9:32 pm

Read the post again. Crime went down the year immediately after the law took effect (1982). It has stayed consistently low for the past 30 years. During that time US crime rates have fluctuated while Kennesaw's has remained consistently low. Please explain that. What's different?

And yes, we know, capitalism=bad. Rich people=bad. But we're talking about property crimes and crimes against people here.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 01, 2013 @ 3:42 pm

Sweet looking AR. Now I'm not sure I want a .308 M1A anymore...thanks alot Johnny for posting that pictue!

Posted by Davedi on May. 31, 2013 @ 4:55 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Related articles

  • The right wing and armed revolution

  • Today's vexing question

  • Surfing to shoot

    Federal law loophole and thousands of arms listings make it easy to buy guns online