The sharp Swiss

Cheese

For decades I have waffled on the issue of gun control.

I’m not a hunter, and I think sport hunting is pathetic and ridiculous. If you want fresh meat, Kroger already has it waiting in the cooler.

PistolWhy would you want to shoot Bambi? Or any sentient being for that matter? I just don’t get it.

However, possessing guns for protection is an entirely different matter. And it — unlike hunting — makes sense.

I just read a magazine article about Switzerland that has knocked me off my long straddle of the gun-control fence.

Switzerland maintains a tiny military. They take up the slack by arming citizens.

About 420,000 fully automatic assault rifles are kept in homes all over Switzerland. Fully automatic means these are submachine guns, not their semi-auto, lookalike cousins that are often legal in the United States and get some folks so lathered up in spite of their rarely being used in murders.

Little Switzerland is, of course, a neutral nation in all things military, and one way it enforces that point is by arming its citizenry to the proverbial teeth.

The Swiss government subsidizes the purchase of both arms and ammo.

With a population of 8 million, Switzerland has about 50 murders a year.

Chicago, with a population of 2.7 million, had over 500 murders last year. The city has gun-control laws so stringent that “replica” air guns are verboten.

Yes, some forms of BB guns. Ain’t that silly?

What does this all tell you? Guns don’t kill people. Cultures kill people. The Swiss are an orderly, law-abiding, mostly moral folk who run tight banks, eat cheese and mind their own business.

America, on the other hand, is a culture gone berserk. The elites — the  Ivy League spawn of the ’60s — disdain religion, normal families, morals and most types of judgment. This has been going on for decades, and it shows.

Here are some of America’s (often contradictory) precepts:

All people are equal at all times in all circumstances.

America is evil.

All cultures deserve respect (except America’s).

Almost everybody is some sort of victim and merits recompense.

Christianity is for rednecks.*

Islamism is okay due to being from a different culture.

Morals are relative.

Judgments are unseemly (except for rednecks).

Terrorists are not terrorists (except when they’re rednecks).

Do your own thing.

No one must ever be offended (except for rednecks).

A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

* * * *

— No wonder the illegitimacy rate is soaring.

— That profanity is the norm.

— That prisons are packed.

— That Iran comes closer every day to a nuclear weapon.

— That popular entertainment flows with guts and blood, and is available to everyone, including children who, yes, are impressionable.

— That, with ever-increasing frequency, some raving lunatic, who cannot be institutionalized because he has his rights, ya know, picks up a firearm and kills everybody in sight. If they’re in kindergarten, all the better.

The sizable chunk of still responsible citizenry (rednecks) remaining in the United States now needs arms and ammo more than ever.

Guns don’t kill people. Spoiled, clueless cultures kill people.

America started down a path in the 1960s. There was a fork, and it walked not toward the love of Woodstock but toward the mayhem of Altamont.

* * * *

* Redneck definition: Anyone who did not vote for Obama.

(The book to read is Slouching Towards Gomorrah by the recently departed Robert H. Bork.)

(Note: Mexico has harsh gun laws. This keeps firearms away from honest citizens. I would like a Glock, but I cannot get one legally. The “El Chapo” Guzmans, however, get guns with ease. They even get help from the Obama administration which applies its redistributive efforts to this goal. See Eric Holder.)

48 thoughts on “The sharp Swiss”

  1. Excellent post, Señor Felipe. Your next to last paragraph says it all. I have maintained that position for a long time, a sad state indeed, and I fear it may be too late to do anything about it, on many levels.

    Like

  2. I saw something on the news last night that shocked me. So far, in 2013, there have been 44 murders by gun in Chicago and 14 in NYC. Chicago has tougher gun laws than NYC except for one notable difference — if you commit a crime with a gun in NYC you WILL go to jail. If you commit a crime with a gun in Chicago your chance of spending time in jail is just 44%. The reporter continued by showing how few large cities have the tougher sentences for using a gun to commit a crime. That was the part that shocked me — I just assumed that if you use a gun to rob someone you go to jail. Not so in most cities. This seems like a no-brainer that everyone (including the NRA) could get behind. I’m all for gun control — banning assault rifles & high-capacity mags, stringent background checks and a national registry of nuts who shouldn’t own weapons but most of that is probably not going to happen. What could happen, though, is a move to have uniform stiff penalties for use of a gun in the commission of a crime. Every little bit helps. We’ve cut deaths by drunk drivers every year, not by banning alcohol, but by toughening the penalties for driving drunk.

    Like

    1. Loulou: Chicago is now the most dangerous city in the nation.

      Of course, you should go to jail for using a gun in a crime. Well, you should go to jail for the crime first, and with extra time for bringing a gun along.

      Like

    2. I have always thought there should be a separate sentence if a person is in possession of a gun during commission of a crime. This would also apply if the person even SAID he had a gun, i.e. passing a note to a teller saying, “Give me all your money. I have a gun.” I would even extend this to misdemeanors while in possession of a gun. I would love to see the headline, “Man fined $20 for jaywalking and given an additional 25-year sentence for jaywalking while in possession of an armor-piercing .45.”

      Like

  3. Wait — I’ve got one more story for you — front page news here in the upper Midwest. Many people in my state (blue, liberal for the most part) have joined the rest of country in rushing to buy assault rifles and ammo just in case gun laws are passed … (pause here for eye rolling, mine, that is). Last week a guy in a nearby city got mad at his daughter for getting a B on her report card instead of an A. He went into his bedroom, opened up the box with his brand new assault rifle, brought it into the kitchen and pointed it at her, while scolding her for the B. Yep, he did. He pointed an assault rifle at his daughter for getting a B on her report card.

    Like

    1. Loulou: It amuses me that you blue-staters are lining up at the gun stores these days. I like that.

      There is lots of misunderstanding about what is an assault rifle. A true assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon used by the military and police. They are not available to the general public with some exceptions for collectors, etc. Manufacturers, however, make lots of lookalikes for guys whose weenies disappoint them. These are simply rifles with clips, and you have to pull the trigger each time you want to fire. You can pull the trigger quickly, but these are not really assault rifles in spite of the term being tossed about everywhere willy-nilly.

      They do look scary, however.

      Like

      1. With regard to fine-tuning the definition of ‘assault rifle’ – who cares? My point was that this dough-head pointed a gun at his daughter. Oops, I name-called. I know that is frowned upon here.

        Like

        1. Loulou: Yes, I understood your intent. I just took advantage of the moment to point out the broad misunderstanding of assault rifle. And dough-head is not a very bad example of name-calling, plus it’s directed to someone not commenting here. Plus, he is worse than a dough-head.

          Like

  4. There was a young Swiss couple in the RV park here in Cuernavaca last week and I asked them about this business of having a government issued gun in every home. Like you say, it is true, they have a gun in the closet that they keep covered with a sheet. However, they have no ammunition for it. It is very difficult to have ammunition outside of the practice range where he can take his gun and practice firing it if he so chooses.

    Every citizen must serve in the Swiss military and remains in the reserve. They will be called up and issued ammunition if their country ever comes under attack. Until then, possessing the gun is OK, ammunition, no. Very tough to turn someone into Swiss cheese without ammunition. I would feel safe visiting Switzerland.

    As far as replica guns are concerned, what would you expect a policeman or one of Sheriff Joe’s armed civilian school guards to do if a 12-year-old pulled out a “replica” AK-47 and pointed it at other kids or his teacher? How would you feel about supporting the kid’s “Right To Bear Replica Arms” then?

    Like

    1. Croft: It is true that the Swiss government keeps a pretty tight hand on the ammo, even though the guns are everywhere.

      Outlawing BB guns is silly, however.

      As for Sheriff Joe, he’s my kind of guy.

      Like

      1. You did not address the replica gun issue. What would you do if you were on a bus with your favorite .38 in your pocket and a kid pulls out a gun that looked exactly like yours and points it at you, your wife, the driver or a complete stranger? Is this not the exact situation the NRA quotes when saying the only answer to too many guns is more guns?

        Like

        1. Croft: If someone were stupid enough to point a fake gun at someone who, by chance, had a real gun, and the holder of the fake gun got shot dead, I would say he got what he had coming.

          And the guy with the real gun should be exonerated. We need more common sense in this world, eh? Poetic justice too.

          Like

          1. Even if that “someone” were a six year old kid with a “toy” gun that looks real but can be bought anywhere for a few day’s allowance?

            BTW, I agree with your first paragraph. The solution is to not sell the toy gun in the first place.

            Can you imagine the hell a dedicated police officer would go through for the rest of his life after blowing this kid away? Is this what we are willing to accept?

            Like

  5. Spot on, you as a Mexican citizen can own a gun, it has to be a .380 or smaller and according to the law, is purchased from several of the armories around.

    Mexican citizens can even get CCW permits, but those require a little more contributions to the local party in power.

    The problem somehow got started in the ’60s as you say and mushroomed into the frenzy that it is nowadays. I can remember as a teenager I was able to walk into a gun store, purchase a nice handgun and walk out without as much as filling out any paperwork. Western Auto, Sears and Monkey Ward sold guns over the counter and through the mail.

    You never had the problems we do now. Kids didn’t get mowed down like blades of grass at the hands of wackos.

    You could drive your ’55 Chevy with a gun rack to high school, where it sat all day so that you could go shoot some bottles after school to work on your gun control — hitting your target.

    Now, if there is a pickup with a gun rack, the school will be on lockdown, the SWAT team is called and no classes are in session until someone goes to jail.

    What changed is personal responsibility. As you say people became victims and the government needed to grow the bureaucratic control over more day-to-day lives of it’s “less than fortunate” and “poor self esteem” had to be equalized.

    Now if you believe in religion and own a gun you are the enemy of the state and the litmus test of a good army soldier is, if he will fire upon a U.S. citizen during a demonstration or assembly when a national emergency is deemed (which can be anything from a tornado to a truckers strike).

    So now it is legal to shoot U.S. citizens, especially if they are protesting something that they don’t seem right.

    The U.S. has been training their army to “help” local law enforcement and so many rights which we deemed unquestionable have been tossed out the window. I expect that you will see the big gun grab within our lifetime. You saw a little of it during Katrina where law-abiding citizens were killed and were required to forfeit their guns because of the fear of looting, etc.

    If they figure out a way to keep the bad guys from possessing guns, the average citizen would probably not have an issue with that failed logic. But imagine the free-for-all if only the bad guys had the guns and someone was breaking down your door, armed with a gun and you had a baseball bat to defend yourself and your family, not an even situation only a fool could defend.

    They say that the police are there to protect you, but courts have ruled that the police are not there to protect you, and will always get there after any crime has already been committed, not an great scenario that I would want to rely on.

    Studies have shown that states that have more guns in the hands of their citizens, like Florida as an example, there are less home invasions and carjacking than states that have tight gun control.

    Criminals do not want to push their luck not knowing if the person behind the door has a 9mm pointed at them when they kick the door in to steal what you have.

    It is probably too late to reverse this ebb of logic that seems to overflow from the anti-redneck crowd, especially with the directives that Homeland Security has professed that citizens returning from our armed forces are to be considered terrorists if they have divergent views of the administration, you know things have already gone too far.

    There are some states that will even allow the criminal who breaks into your home and is wounded to sue the homeowner. Laws like that really bring home how wacko the country has become.

    But that my opinion, one more thing to divide the country.

    Like

    1. Whew! Tancho, tell us how you really feel!

      As for my legally getting a gun here in Mexico, I know there are channels but, from what I have read, it is very difficult to actually do it.

      But the bad guys have no problem whatsoever arming up. So much for gun control.

      Like

  6. When the Founding Fathers gave citizens the right to bear arms, the arms they were talking about were muzzle loading affairs that took two or three minutes to prepare to fire. There could be no taking them to school and wiping out an entire class in 20 seconds. That would have taken one of the founding founders kids about 20 minutes but only if one of his classmates or a teacher did not smack him over the head while he was pouring gunpowder in for the second shot.

    Things are different now.

    Like

      1. No, Croft is wrong, as are you. “The right to bear arms” under the U.S. Constitution is about citizen’s protection against the tyranny of an oppressive government. You see, the “founding fathers” CAME from such a system and wanted this land to be different.

        Times haven’t changed. And all the “kids dying” and “replica gun” nonsense arguments from left-wingers won’t change the truth.

        Like

        1. So if changing times and weapons technology do not alter your basic right to pack whatever heat you can fit into your back pocket or school backpack Ray, then how do you feel about private ownership of nuclear weapons? How else is the average teabagger in his storm cellar going to defend himself from the “tyranny of an oppressive government” what with the government’s access to nuclear weapons, drones, bombers, fighter planes, napalm, satellite and electronic surveillance, etc?

          No better way for a citizen to protect himself from a tyrannical government’s speeding ticket than with a six megaton bomb in the chicken coup. That’ll teach them, eh? If you do not agree with this then explain how a semi (even fully) automatic rifle going to defend against a tank, drone or fighter jet?

          Anyway, like you say, this land certainly is “different”.

          Maybe I ventured into what some would feel is ridiculous here but it was not all that many years ago that almost everything that is going on in the USA right now would have been termed “ridiculous”.

          Like

          1. Just. Oh shoot. Me. Ray. Why can’t we have a civil exchange of ideas? We can disagree and get along.

            From Laurie,

            who does not have wings nor attaches wings to others.

            Like

          2. And if you want a look at one of these second amendment quoting, gun toting weirdo’s just turn on CNN and look at that government hating, gun packing school bus driver killing kidnapper of the five year old in his bunker. Neighbors say he hated the school bus that parked in front of his property, “just like he hated anything to do with the government”.

            Well that is CNN coverage, I am sure FOX is calling him a patriotic American hero.

            Either way, that is what you get when you preach your fear of government attitude. Get used to it.

            Like

          3. Ray, it is you talking about taking on the government and me talking about how futile that would be. You are out-gunned no matter how many guns you have.

            Like

          4. Croft: The fanatical Afghan desert rats defeated the Red Army with mostly antique weapons. They also thwarted the American military, so it’s not always about the size of your pistol that matters. Clearly, the tanks, drones and fighter jets were no match for a determined citizenry with rifles. It’s weird, but true.

            Like

  7. I believe a safe community is an armed community. I have gone through several hours of gun safety and training. I refuse to be a victim.

    Even the hypocrite Feinstein has a ccw permit. Someone who wants to do harm will always find a way. Hammers kill more people than rifles so do we ban hammers?

    Most of these mass shootings were done by someone taking some kind of mind altering anti-depressant. The big pharmaceutical companies don’t want you talking about that.

    Before Obama even tries to take our guns away, how about answering for Fast n Furious along with Eric Holder.

    Like

  8. Felipe, I notice that all your leftist friends block the reply option when they can’t debate rationally — and that “civility” in a debate is “agree with me or shut up.” Pathetic.

    Like

    1. Calm thyself, Clifton. After a certain amount of replies, one cannot add another reply. It’s neither left nor right that controls the edicts of WordPress.

      Laurie,

      who much prefers civil discourse over paranoia and pejorative labels.

      Like

      1. Ah, WordPress. I stand corrected on that particular faulty observation.

        Surely you can understand my mistake, since I was summarily dismissed, deleted, threatened, blocked, and otherwise cast out for simple disagreement in the past.

        I’m so shaken by these exchanges that I think I’ll head back to my bunker and watch Fox News. Maybe clean and oil my massive gun collection.

        Paranoia and labels? Indeed.

        Like

        1. Ray: Surely you can understand my mistake, since I was summarily dismissed, deleted, threatened, blocked, and otherwise cast out for simple disagreement in the past.

          Not here, amigo, not here. Well, at least as far as I can remember.

          Like

      2. Laurie: Ah, I had not read your clarification on this point before I said the same thing just below. You are correct, of course. As for paranoia and pejorative labels, Ray is getting a little worked up, but he’s staying within the bounds of reasonableness, I think.

        Like

    2. Ray: I’ll have to defend my collectivist amigos on this one thing. Commenters cannot block replies, so Croft is innocent. What happens is there is a limit to the number of replies allowed on one thread. The reason for this is they get narrower and narrower until it gets almost impossible to read. If you want to reply to something and the limit has been reached, it’s just a simple matter to open a new reply thread. It’s a little off, but we live in an imperfect world.

      Like

  9. There’s no justifiable need for civilians to have arms that can quickly and easily shoot tens of rounds without reloading, whatever you might call such arms. None.

    And for those who think any weapon they can buy would defend them against a tyrannical government, I have two words: Branch Davidians.

    Saludos,

    Kim G
    Boston, MA
    Where we do think Mexico is a perfect example of the NRA dictum that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

    Like

    1. Ms. Kim, you make some great points (as usual).

      However, the Branch Davidian notion is a bit of a stretch, and plays right into the hands of some of the gun control crowd.

      The Constitutional right to bear arms is all about protection from government tyranny (not hunting, or defending yourself from criminals, or any other reason).

      I live in “fly-over” country. I’ve lived most of my life in rural America. Most people I know own at least one gun. They are not wild-eyed zealots in some bunker that are anti-government or even anti-America. They work, pay their taxes, and love their country. But they are becoming more and more disillusioned with (and afraid of) a dysfunctional government that is seemingly bent towards removing basic freedoms.

      Do they believe that the government is becoming more tyrannical? I’d say “yes” based on gun sales in the last couple of months.

      There are millions of these people scattered from “sea to shining sea.” They basically just want to be left alone.

      Like

    2. Kim: Alas, semi-auto rifles are pretty standard issue these days. As cars can go far faster than they could in 1905, rifles can be fired faster too. Full automatic weapons are illegal, for the most part, as they should be.

      Yes, the Branch Davidians were outgunned, but their firepower gave the cops lots of hesitation, did they not? It’s a complex issue.

      And yes, Mexico illustrates perfectly that outlawing arms just guarantees that only the bad guys will have them.

      Lots of things cannot be realistically outlawed. Abortions and drugs come to mind.

      Like

  10. Felipé,
    You certainly know how to stir the pot. If your motive was dialogue and the exchange of ideas/ideals, you’ve certainly succeeded. Personally, I’m still waffling on the whole notion of gun control as I suspect you still are.

    Like

    1. Larry: Yeah, some topics are sure to stir a pot, and this is one. As for my still waffling on the gun issue, no, I’m not. I have fallen off that particular fence after many years of sitting there. Maybe somebody shot me off, and I’m just lying on the ground bleeding to death.

      Like

  11. Following Croft’s logic, freedom of speech would only apply to newspapers, pamphlets and town criers. I guess that means no more blog comments allowed from Mr. Croft.

    Like

    1. Becky: You are too sharp. And quite correct. And funny.

      But Croft can continue to comment here, of course, mistaken as he almost always is. But you gotta love him for his consistency. Often when I read some of his pacifist notions, this old saw comes to my mind.

      You may not like war, but war likes you.

      And with that, I’m closing the comments on this issue. Time to move on.

      Like

Comments are closed.