NationStates Jolt Archive

We report, you decide...

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-knabbenschiessen/swiss_teen_rifle_festival.html

Girl Beats Guys: A Swiss Teen Rifle Festival
by Stephen P. Halbrook

The greatest shooting festival in the world for youngsters takes place every year in Zurich, Switzerland. Imagine thousands of boys and girls shooting military service rifle over three days amid an enormous fair with ferris wheels and wild rides of all kinds. You’re at the Knabenschiessen (boys’ shooting contest).

The Knabenschiessen Fair. (click on images to see full size photographs)

Held since the year 1657, the competition traditionally has been both a sport and a way of encouraging marksmanship in a country where every male serves in the militia army. Today, girls compete along side the boys. In fact, girls are now winning the competition.

It’s September 13, 2004. In the U.S. on this date, the Clinton fake “assault weapon” ban sunsets. In Zurich, some 5,631 teens – 4,046 boys and 1,585 girls, aged 13-17 – have finished firing the Swiss service rifle, and it’s time for the shootoff.

Geschossen wird mit dem Armee-Sturmgewehr

That rifle is the SIG Strumgeweher (assault rifle) model 1990 (Stgw 90), a selective fire, 5.6 mm rifle with folding skeleton stock, bayonet lug, bipod, and grenade launcher. The Stgw 90 is a real assault rifle in that it is fully automatic, although that feature is disabled during the competition. Every Swiss man, on reaching age 20, is issued one to keep at home. Imagine all those teenagers firing this real assault rifle while their moms and dads look on with approval, anxiously awaiting the scores.

The Knabenschiessen takes place at the Albisgütli shooting range, located in a residential section of Zurich going up toward the Uetliberg mountain. Noise is not a problem – the tram that stops there is louder. When in Zurich, I run on the Uetliberg paths, and find the sound of rifle fire (at times combined with cow bells) melodic.

The Boss: Girl instructs air pistol, ages 8 and up.

Ein Familienfest

It was a real family affair. Besides watching their older siblings, children aged 8 to 15 competed in air pistol and air rifle events. In air pistol, the guns are supported by vertical braces. Youngsters are coached by more knowledgeable youngsters.

The rifle range for the firearm competition is 300 meters and has 62 targets. This is the standard distance for all Swiss military rifle competitions. Kids aged 13 and up are not exempted from this long-distance sharpshooter regimen. To the right of each shooter is a digital image which shows exactly where each shot hit on the target. Attached at the ejection port of each rifle is a shell catcher.

The score card: Father and son.

Ausgenzeichnetes Coaching

A coach is assigned to each position where one after another shooter competes. The iron sights are set for 300 meters at factory settings and are not adjusted during the entire competition. After each shot, the coach uses a clear plastic sheet picturing the rifle sights – the vertical post and the ring – with a dot showing competitors where they hit. The only adjustment is by Kentucky windage.

The shooting positions are in a long building with garage-like doors that open and close. The rifle range is on the upper level, and a pistol range on the lower level, with 25 and 50 meter targets.

In Swiss shooting culture, a few accurate hits are superior to lots of “spray and pray” shots. Before World War I, a German general observing Swiss military maneuvers asked a Swiss militiaman what would the Swiss do if a German army, twice the size of the Swiss militia, invaded. The militiaman responded, “Shoot twice and go home.”

That explains why, at the Knabenschiessen, each youngster gets only five shots. And there are no practice shots. Of course, a great number of the competitors are expert “markschildren,” undergoing regular, rigorous training.

Scoring is on a bullseye target with the center counting six points. An extra point is awarded for each shot which hits the target – so each shot actually has a maximum value of 6 + 1. With five shots, the perfect score is 35. All shooting is in prone position.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-knabbenschiessen/pic1.jpg
This girl, one of 1,585 who competed, being coached in sharpshooting with the Assault Rifle 90, the Swiss service rifle.

Ein spannender Final mit einer strahlenden Siegerin

That brings us to September 13, the day of the shootoff between the only three competitors who shot a perfect score of 35. (There was also a shootoff for the 16 who shot a score of 34.) The competitors were on the firing line with an enormous crowd behind them. TV and newspaper reporters milled around. An exploded electronic image showed spectators where each shot hit on a simulated target.

The crowd was on edge as electronic bullet holes began to appear on the screen. Miss just one point, and that could knock you out. Fabienne Frey, a 13-year old girl, shot a 6, but her next shot was a 5. Her opponents were two boys who were firing a little faster. Carlo Ammann (age 15) finished with three 6s and two 5s, for a total (with the extra point for each hit) of 33. The other lad was a point behind him.

Meanwhile, Fabienne was taking her time. Her third shot was a 6, as was her fourth shot. Everything rode on her last shot. There was total silence from the crowd, she fired, and a great cheer erupted – a 6, giving her a total of 34 points. This cute, petite 13-year old blonde with braces became the Schützenkönigin – the Shooting Queen. Carlo got second place, becoming the Bester Knabe (top boy shooter).

In most years, the winner is a Schützenkönig – Shooting King. However, females at all ages are excelling in rifle and pistol competition. In the year 2000, in the Swiss Federal Shooting Festival held once every five years – the largest rifle competition in the world – a woman won first place in the military rifle competition, beating out all the males who serve in the Swiss militia army.

Politicians rushed to congratulate Fabienne and the other winners, knowing that their handshakes would be on the evening’s news. The interviews revealed her to be, when not in school, an expert crossbow enthusiast. Not a surprise in the land of William Tell.

The score card: Father and daughter, Swiss diversity.

Ready to shop: red purse reveals what’s up after the five shots for score.

“Radical pacifists would probably rather miss out on the Knabenschiessen,” warns an internet site on upcoming Zurich events, but adds “don’t be afraid of armed teenagers” and come and see “a good chunk of Swiss tradition.” For the official site, visit http://www.knabenschiessen.ch, and treat yourself to techno music blended with gunshots, images of flying saucers and space aliens, and the admonition “Nicht verpassen” (don’t miss it) – you know, stuff that appeals to kids.
...
In the morning after the Knabenschiessen, a picture of young Fabienne flanked by Zurich politicians appeared in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Switzerland’s most important newspaper. Another paper, the Tages Anzeiger, featured Fabienne in color on the front page.

Can you imagine the New York Times publishing an account of a 13-year old girl who won the City’s military rifle competition, being congratulated by the mayor? Not today, but a century ago the U.S. President did so. None other than Teddy Roosevelt congratulated the New York schoolboy who was the best rifle shot of the year. His message was reprinted in Why School Boys Should Be Taught to Shoot? (1907), by Gen. George Wingate, head of the N.Y. Public Schools Athletic League and NRA founder. Wingate had occasion to note: “Switzerland has no regular army, but depends for her defence on her riflemen.”

Zurich’s youngsters who shoot military rifles have a lesson to teach Americans. It is a lesson of peace, family values, and responsibility, while gaining the ability to defend oneself and one’s community from aggression. As was well known to America’s Founders, who were enamored of the Swiss model, teaching the young to shoot is both a civic virtue and a wonderful sport.

There's this Swiss kid at my school that's done that. He says he can get like 1 inch groups at 200 yards.

Hey, at least the swiss have a low crime rate.

Hey, at least the swiss have a low crime rate.

I hope you didn't think I am in any way against this? Actually I think it is freaking great. However I wanted to give it a title that might get the opposition to read it as well.

I hope you didn't think I am in any way against this? Actually I think it is freaking great. However I wanted to give it a title that might get the opposition to read it as well.

Hey, it's good that they're well behaved. It means they can enjoy the fun side of guns.

atleast they dont go around killing their classmates and teachers like in america

atleast they dont go around killing their classmates and teachers like in america
That happens everywhere once every few years. Usually it's a depressed teen who then kill themselves.

That happens everywhere once every few years. Usually it's a depressed teen who then kill themselves.

and of course you never hear about the cases like this that are stopped by another student or teacher being armed. That wouldn't make for good news.

and of course you never hear about the cases like this that are stopped by another student or teacher being armed. That wouldn't make for good news.

indeed.

indeed.

Since we're on the subject and you're in the UK, what is your opinion on UK gun laws and thier effects(ie UK crime rates etc.)?

We report, you decide...

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-knabbenschiessen/swiss_teen_rifle_festival.html
Guns are fun, guns are useful. In the hands of maniacs and morons, they can hurt people. Like, umm, automobiles, except much less severely and much less frequently.

<flamebait flavor='lighthearted'>
But I thought all Euros outside Switzerland hated personal firearms?
</flamebait>

You guys start a Swiss topic while I'm not here? :eek:
Hehe, I've been to one of these ones, because my friend (a girl) participated. (I didn't like it all that much, but that might be because I don't like shooting at all ;) ) She has 3 guns of her own at home, all of them huge and scary-looking (to me). But so far she's never used them outside of shooting ranges, so I felt no need to complain.

atleast they dont go around killing their classmates and teachers like in america

For all the media attention they get, students killing their classmates are exceedingly rare, and virtually unknown in the US before 1989.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_massacre

Most of the ones since are copycats, doubtless encouraged by the media attention. However in terms of practical risks, you have more to worry about lighting strikes or a million other things.

I should also mention that if teachers are armed, such incidents will cause very little damage. Several of these attempts were actually stopped by armed teachers (e.g. at Pearle, Mass). Some of those teachers were armed in violation of the law and of school regulations. Goes to show exactly how moronic the law is.

For all the media attention they get, students killing their classmates are exceedingly rare, and virtually unknown in the US before 1989.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_massacre

Most of the ones since are copycats, doubtless encouraged by the media attention. However in terms of practical risks, you have more to worry about lighting strikes or a million other things.

I should also mention that if teachers are armed, such incidents will cause very little damage. Several of these attempts were actually stopped by armed teachers (e.g. at Pearle, Mass). Some of those teachers were armed in violation of the law and of school regulations. Goes to show exactly how moronic the law is.

But if you put up no resistance, they won't hurt you.

But if you put up no resistance, they won't hurt you.
I'm not sure about that. If someone brings a gun to school, chances are they're gonna use it.

I'm not sure about that. If someone brings a gun to school, chances are they're gonna use it.

Sorry I should have put up a smiley or something. I was being facetious.

I'm very pro-gun.

(now let's see how long it takes before I'm called a redneck who wants to arm children w/ nukes :))

But if you put up no resistance, they won't hurt you.

tell that to the deranged maniac that's just discovered he likes killing people

"people that have no swords can still die on them"

same goes for guns, I'd much rather have one in my hand myself than have to trust in the good nature of the person pointing one at me.

Sorry I should have put up a smiley or something. I was being facetious.

I'm very pro-gun.

(now let's see how long it takes before I'm called a redneck who wants to arm children w/ nukes :))
OMG! You're such a redneck, I bet you want to arm kids with nukes!!11+11+

ehem. Ok, I'm sorry, I didn't get that. :)

But if you put up no resistance, they won't hurt you.

An interesting hypothesis which is however completely unsupported by any evidence. Nobody at Columbine put up *any* resistance. The bad guys kept going until they ran out of ammo, more or less.

If anything, the reverse is true, if you do put up resistance they will immediately surrender (again, see Pearle).

tell that to the deranged maniac that's just discovered he likes killing people

"people that have no swords can still die on them"

same goes for guns, I'd much rather have one in my hand myself than have to trust in the good nature of the person pointing one at me.

You're just paranoid if you think you need to defend yourself against the alleged deranged maniac. Guns need to be banned to prevent them from getting them.



















Once again... Facetious.

But if you put up no resistance, they won't hurt you.

That's not true. The children killed in school shootings by and large are not resisting.

Most just stand there and let themselves be shot.

There was a recent shooting at an Appalachian Law school. Students ran to their cars and got their pistols. The shooter was stopped by these students - not by the police, who got there much, much later.

These facts were deliberately omitted by the press, and only one paper corrected the story weeks later. Initially, police were given credit for stopping the shooter - an outright lie.

The press generally is not in favor of showing anything good happenning in the use of a firearm. But the fact remains that there are a minimum of 60,000 and a high of 2.5 million non-firing uses of firearms to stop crimes in progress (depending on the study you believe).

Not a negative number. Not a zero.

The Department of Justice, since the mid-1990s, has found that you are more likely to be harmed if you give the aggressor what they want. People are no longer content with your money, your possessions, or your bodily orifices. The DOJ now advises people to fight back immediately.

An interesting hypothesis which is however completely unsupported by any evidence. Nobody at Columbine put up *any* resistance. The bad guys kept going until they ran out of ammo, more or less.

If anything, the reverse is true, if you do put up resistance they will immediately surrender (again, see Pearle).

No, you're wrong. The SNiVeL will protect you.

http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/snivel.htm

That's not true. The children killed in school shootings by and large are not resisting.

Most just stand there and let themselves be shot.

There was a recent shooting at an Appalachian Law school. Students ran to their cars and got their pistols. The shooter was stopped by these students - not by the police, who got there much, much later.

These facts were deliberately omitted by the press, and only one paper corrected the story weeks later. Initially, police were given credit for stopping the shooter - an outright lie.

The press generally is not in favor of showing anything good happenning in the use of a firearm. But the fact remains that there are a minimum of 60,000 and a high of 2.5 million non-firing uses of firearms to stop crimes in progress (depending on the study you believe).

Not a negative number. Not a zero.

The Department of Justice, since the mid-1990s, has found that you are more likely to be harmed if you give the aggressor what they want. People are no longer content with your money, your possessions, or your bodily orifices. The DOJ now advises people to fight back immediately.


But it's society's fault for creating the atmosphere in which these oppressed individuals are MADE to go out and commit crimes. If we only gave them more welfare, censored all video games, music video's and Role-Playing Games, then these attrocities wouldn't have occurred.

But it's society's fault for creating the atmosphere in which these oppressed individuals are MADE to go out and commit crimes. If we only gave them more welfare, censored all video games, music video's and Role-Playing Games, then these attrocities wouldn't have occurred.

The number of school shootings is actually quite small.

Most quotes for gun violence between children from people like HCI or the Democratic Party count children as being anyone up to and including age 21.

Most gun violence occurs between people of age 19 to 21, nearly half of whom are black - it's black on black violence related to drugs and gangs.

If you drop out the people over age 17, the number of children who are shot in intentional acts of violence (not including suicide or accidents) is very small.

The largest group that would be amenable to a social fix would be the drug gang violence group. This could be addressed overnight by legalizing most drugs. Legalizing alcohol brought an end to similar violence between mostly immigrant gangs in the 1930s, and legalizing drugs would probably end most drug gang violence.

Not banning guns - not restricting their possession. But taking away people's reasons for competing to death.

But it's society's fault for creating the atmosphere in which these oppressed individuals are MADE to go out and commit crimes. If we only gave them more welfare, censored all video games, music video's and Role-Playing Games, then these attrocities wouldn't have occurred.

Yo, you're far too effective at getting people riled up. Nice trolling, but really, do you need to do that?

The problem lies in the rotten character of the american people.

Yo, you're far too effective at getting people riled up. Nice trolling, but really, do you need to do that?

After posts #16 & 20, yes.

Just for the record, Whispering Legs, I'm just being a shmuck. I'm very pro-gun, 2nd amendment, and a member of the NRA. I'm ussually the one turning gun-banner arguements into little pools of brown liquid.

I keep forgetting that there really are people who hold the views that I'm making fun of.

The problem lies in the rotten character of the american people.
Mmmh. yes. I couldn't have put it any better. ;)

Hey, at least the swiss have a low crime rate.
Hmmm, could it possibly be linked to the fact that almost any person in that country could easily kill any robber type? The lifespan of Swiss criminals has to be fairly low, unless they are cat-burglarer types.

The problem lies in the rotten character of the american people.
Now see, that is quite possibly the most inadvertently racist comment on these forums.

Hmmm, could it possibly be linked to the fact that almost any person in that country could easily kill any robber type? The lifespan of Swiss criminals has to be fairly low, unless they are cat-burglarer types.
That's just not true. People don't have guns with them at all times. They have them at home, because they have to. Nobody uses them for anything except the obligatory shooting at shooting ranges every once in a while.
soo...maybe we're just a peace-loving people? :p

Now see, that is quite possibly the most inadvertently racist comment on these forums.
Racist? So 'American' is a race now? :p

You guys start a Swiss topic while I'm not here? :eek:
Hehe, I've been to one of these ones, because my friend (a girl) participated. (I didn't like it all that much, but that might be because I don't like shooting at all ;) ) She has 3 guns of her own at home, all of them huge and scary-looking (to me). But so far she's never used them outside of shooting ranges, so I felt no need to complain.
Have you ever gone shooting?

Racist? So 'American' is a race now? :p

Two distinct races according to some. Blue & Red*. :)




* (note that this is separate from discriminatory names for Native Americans).

That's just not true. People don't have guns with them at all times. They have them at home, because they have to. Nobody uses them for anything except the obligatory shooting at shooting ranges every once in a while.
soo...maybe we're just a peace-loving people? :p
Or it could be because if there was a string of robberies, rapes, and what have you, people would start carrying their guns, resulting in fatalities on the part of the evildoers.

After posts #16 & 20, yes.

Just for the record, Whispering Legs, I'm just being a shmuck. I'm very pro-gun, 2nd amendment, and a member of the NRA. I'm ussually the one turning gun-banner arguements into little pools of brown liquid.

I keep forgetting that there really are people who hold the views that I'm making fun of.

You're pretty good at it, you sure got me the first time. Know your enemy and all that ;)

Hmm, this sounds like a fun (but totally unethical) idea... if you're *really* familiar with the opposing point of view, you can make highly plausible but fatally flawed arguments on boards like this... thereby discrediting it.

Btw, a nice glossary for re-framing the argument here http://www.seark.net/~jlove/pc.htm

POLITICALLY CORRECTED Glossary of Terms

by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America

Part One -- The Concept


Certain words hurt you when you're talking about your rights.

People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating
the language so far. Without even realizing it, you're probably using
terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you.

To preserve, protect and defend your rights in this critical debate, you
need effective word choices.





They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
PRO GUN

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
PRO RIGHTS

====================================

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
GUN CONTROL

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
CRIME CONTROL

====================================

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN MOVEMENT

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE MOVEMENT

====================================

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUN

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
SIDEARM

====================================

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
CONCEALED CARRY

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
CARRY or RIGHT TO CARRY

====================================

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ASSAULT OR LETHAL WEAPON

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS

====================================

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
RACIST GUN LAWS

====================================

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
JUNK GUNS

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE

====================================

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
FULL CAPACITY MAGAZINES

====================================

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SECOND AMENDMENT

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
BILL OF RIGHTS

====================================

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUN

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN BIGOT or ANTI-GUN PREJUDICE

====================================

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUN

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI RIGHTS


WHEN THEY SAY
Guns kill

YOU SAY
Guns save lives

====================================

WHEN THEY SAY
Guns cause crime

YOU SAY
Guns stop crime

====================================

WHEN THEY SAY
Guns are too dangerous to own

YOU SAY
Then you should take a safety class

====================================

WHEN THEY SAY
Guns are too dangerous to own

YOU SAY
Then don't trust the boys and girls in
the military and police with them

====================================

WHEN THEY SAY
People shouldn't have guns

YOU SAY
You shouldn't be required to have one

====================================

WHEN THEY SAY
The only purpose of a gun is to kill

YOU SAY
The main purpose of a gun is to protect

====================================

WHEN THEY SAY
People shouldn't have guns

YOU SAY
Only the good people should have the guns

====================================

WHEN THEY SAY
Guns should go away

YOU SAY
Then you should personally sign up to never
have a gun in your life, under penalty of felony
arrest, as you would ask of me.

====================================

WHEN THEY SAY
They should take all the guns away

YOU SAY
Bad guys first

====================================

WHEN THEY SAY:
We need more gun laws

YOU SAY:
Everything criminal about guns is already illegal

====================================

WHEN THEY SAY:
Why would anyone want to own a gun?

YOU SAY:
You're kidding, right?
You mean you really don't know?
Well, why do you think the police have guns?

====================================

WHEN THEY SAY
We're not really against people having guns

YOU SAY
What sort of guns do you think
people should have, and why

====================================

WHEN THEY SAY
Do you really have a gun?

YOU SAY
Of course, don't you?

Then just give it a rest and watch where it goes. You'll hear their
litany, replete with flaws. Don't rebut, seize the moment, listen hard
and learn -- then just raise an eyebrow and think, "How 'bout that.
Feller doesn't even own a gun. It takes all kinds." Then talk about
something else. And boy, does the disjoint hang in their craw.


-------------------------------------------------
Part Two -- THE GLOSSARY


PRO RIGHTS
A more accurate, and far more compelling term than the common "pro
gun." The reverse term, which describes them, is "anti rights."
Misguided utopian disarmament advocates love the phrases "pro gun" and
"anti gun", because they automatically win when they're used. They
believe the righteous path is to be anti gun, because only devils would
be pro gun. You flat lose if you allow a debate to be framed that way.

The debate is really between people who are "pro rights" and "anti
rights" (and then you automatically win), because the righteous choice
between pro rights and anti rights is obvious. You're pro safety; pro
self defense; pro freedom; pro liberty; pro Bill of Rights (correctly
casting them as anti safety; anti self defense; anti freedom; anti
liberty; anti Bill of Rights). This is an accurate depiction of people
who would restrict, repress and flat-out deny civil rights you and your
ancestors have always had in America.



ANTI RIGHTS
A more accurate, and far more compelling term than the common "anti
gun." The reverse term, which describes you, is "pro rights." Fight
the desire to cast repressionists as "anti gun," (and by so doing
casting yourself narrowly as "pro gun"). Instead, always refer more
broadly to the "anti-rights" posture they take. Make them argue rights,
not guns.



CRIME CONTROL
What "gun control" used to mean, and a generally good idea (the phrase
"gun control" has morphed to mean "disarm the public" and thus should be
avoided, more on this later). Everyone basically agrees there should be
crime control, so it is good grounds for détente. A common sense and
reasonable proposal. Includes forcibly disarming criminals. Emphasizes
the differences between criminals and an armed public.



GUN BIGOT
A person who hates guns. Typically has little or no personal knowledge
of guns, may never have even fired one, certainly doesn't have any.
Would subject innocent people to defenselessness without compunction.
An elitist. One with an irrational and morbid fear of guns that is
ignorant and immoral. Spews bile and venom at guns, gun owners,
gun-rights advocates, gun-rights associations, pro-Bill of Rights
legislators. Striking similarity and direct parallels with racial
bigotry before (and even after) the civil rights efforts of the 1960s.



GUN BIGOTRY
The notion that you can only own a gun if it is expensive, or passes a
drop test, a melting point test, a consumer products test, a government
design test, a caliber size, an ammunition capacity, a lock test, etc.
The notion that only idiots, miscreants, red necks, dim bulbs and other
nasty-named people would own guns. The notion that you can only vote,
oops, I mean have a firearm, if you pass a test run by your government,
and pay the tax, often called a "fee." The notion that anyone who fails
the tests -- or any other qualifications -- automatically forfeits their
rights "for the common good." An inability to distinguish honest people
from criminals.



GUN PREJUDICE
Discrimination against honest people merely for their legal ownership or
possession of firearms. A common occurrence in society today. A
violation of your constitutional and natural rights. Gun prejudice
appears to be a federal civil-rights offense, punishable by prison and
fine. Now there's a thought. Repressionists have attempted some very
novel court challenges to laws that protect our liberties. Turnabout's
fair play. If there were, say, a city bank somewhere that refused
customers simply because they legally handled firearms...



AFFORDABLE FIREARMS
Anti-rights bigots curse these as "junk guns" and "Saturday night
specials," racial epithets you should never use. The racist goal of
outlawing guns unless they're expensive is self evident and
reprehensible. A woman who eats inexpensive food and drives an
inexpensive car doesn't lose her right to protect her family because she
can only afford an inexpensive gun.



SIDEARM
Or would you rather use the complex and dangerous sounding (though
accurate perhaps) "semiautomatic handgun," a term which many people
think means machine gun, according to Handgun Control (who recommends
use of the term "semiautomatic handgun"). Unfortunately, "handgun" has
been vilified beyond usability, and needs to be retired or at least
back-burnered for now. Remember, it was the so-called Brady "handgun"
law that federalized all retail sales of rifles and shotguns.



PISTOL
Or would you rather use the complex and dangerous sounding (though
accurate perhaps) "semiautomatic handgun." A basic, reliable, standard
type of pistol, a regular pistol, an ordinary pistol, the same kind of
pistol anyone would normally own. A basic, reliable, standard type of
sidearm, a regular sidearm, an ordinary sidearm, the same kind of
sidearm anyone would normally own.



HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS
The type any household is likely to have. All the firearms you own,
despite constant name-calling from the media, are just household
firearms.



GOVERNMENT GUN
The only kind you can now buy in America at retail.



BASIC SELF-DEFENSE GUN
Any type of firearm that could save your life in an emergency.



CARRY
Expunge the word "concealed" because so many people hear it and believe
only a criminal would conceal something. It implies you have something
to hide. Because being discreet is a common sense, reasonable measure,
there's no need to demean it with an ugly adjective (in this use anyway)
like "concealed." "Carry license," not "concealed-carry license."



LETHALITY
The quality of a gun that makes it useful as a crime-stopping,
life-saving, defensive tool. A point that is attacked subtly in most
anti-rights arguments. When met head on, the issue works against the
anti-rights position. Caliber and capacity restrictions reduce
lethality and your ability to save yourself or the state. Reducing
lethality costs lives. Why should police need more capacity than you,
when you both face the same criminals. How few bullets may a person use
against an attacker, and how small should they be.

Guns are dangerous. They're supposed to be dangerous. They wouldn't be
any good if they weren't dangerous. Anything that makes them less
dangerous by reducing lethality puts you (or police officers) at
unacceptable risk.



ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE MOVEMENT
People who believe you have little or no right to defend yourself if
attacked, because social order may only be imposed by an authority, and
that such authority is superior to your right to exist (if push comes to
shove). Also sometimes referred to as socialists. Sometimes expressed
as your right to keep a cell phone handy to dial 911. The
anti-self-defense movement is often deceptively portrayed as the
"anti-gun movement." Never let them hide behind their comfortable
disguise as anti gun.



POLITICALLY CORRECTED
Language that does not automatically bias a debate about the Bill of
Rights against individual liberty and freedom. Opposite of "politically
correct" language, which is basically socialist in nature. We all
recognize that "political correctness" is "incorrect," and then we sneer
and dismiss it. We do this at great peril, however, for PC statements
treated that way don't just go away, they fester and insidiously modify
the paradigm, and bend our thinking into acceptance of that which we
have verbalized as "correct."

You want a good example of neurolinguistic programming and
transformational grammar on a national scale, there it is to a tee.
It's how we get to the Orwellian point where war is peace, freedom is
slavery, ignorance is strength.



BILL OF RIGHTS
More broadly appealing and less polarizing than "Second Amendment."
Sure, I like the Second Amendment, and talk about it all the time. But
saying "Bill of Rights" protects you from malicious stigma and
stereotyping as a gun nut. Much more difficult to oppose, slows the
bigots down. All the rights count, don't they, and they're all under
attack. Bill of Rights Day. Pro Bill of Rights. I support the Bill of
Rights, don't you? Actually, even virulent gun haters and gun bigots
champion the First Amendment and other parts of the BOR, which, if
you'll recall, was a single amendment (with separate articles) to the
Constitution.



SUNSHINE GUN LAWS
Laws that encourage gun safety training and responsible firearms
ownership, as opposed to repressive laws that criminalize honest gun
ownership and infringe civil rights. Civil rights.



THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Stop saying Second Amendment so much, since the other side tunes this
out immediately, and marginalizes you as a gun nut. Say "First
Amendment" instead, and make your comparisons there -- does the
government jeopardize your First Amendment rights? You betcha! Should
you be concerned? Of course! What would you think of Internet
censorship, government approved religion, font size limits, restricted
word choices, acceptable word counts, licensed writers, training and
testing before publishing controversial editorials, and tests for
accuracy -- now there's a nice parallel.

People on all sides recognize there are threats to free speech,
religion, privacy and more from our friends, the government. The same
root problems affect the whole Bill of Rights, gun rights are no
different than other rights under attack.



GUN-SAFETY CLASSES
Something that, with all the accidents reported in America, all
Americans should be taking -- from the tens of thousands of trainers out
there. Always encourage people on both sides of a debate to take a real
class. Why wouldn't an honest person take a gun-safety class? Going
out for some wholesome and relaxing target practice, with friends.
Getting good at marksmanship. Target practice. Marksmanship. These
words have not been defiled and cast a good light, use them. Privately
promoted gun-safety training days. Talk up the goal of "National
Accident Reduction" through education and training. Private enterprise
should vigorously swell to fill the gaping theater called, "We need more
safety."



ROWANITES
Anti-rights bigots who secretly own guns themselves, rely upon armed
guards for security, or live inside communities with private security
forces, but decry your right to arms. Closet gun owners. Named in
honor of Carl Rowan, a vicious anti-gun bigot whose syndicated newspaper
column vilified guns and gun owners for years, to a vast audience, until
he one day fired at a trespasser near his home.



GUN BUYUPS
Gun buy back programs are misnamed. You cannot buy back something you
didn't own in the first place. Since the Brady law prohibits dumping
such guns into criminal lairs (gun buyers must be certified by the FBI
these days), there is no longer justification for destroying firearms
collected in buyups. That's right, there is no longer any justification
at all for destroying firearms collected in buyups. When buyups are
government funded, meltdowns are therefore wanton destruction of a
public asset, and someone deserves to be held liable. Tax dollars are
buying legal property simply to destroy it, when the only way to sell it
is to certifiably law abiding individuals. What an outrage.

Where I live, savvy collectors have set up shop at widely publicized gun
buyups to make competitive bids and cherry pick the merchandise,
pre-smelter.



DEMOCIDE
Murder committed by government. The most prevalent form of murder,
responsible this century alone for 170 million deaths. Regime-ocide.



GUN CONTROL
Now generally synonymous with "disarming the public." Using the phrase
"gun control" in its currently twisted form distorts the debate and
should be avoided; it is the other side's rallying flag, bolstered every
time the words leave your lips; argue about gun control and you've
already lost. Use "crime control," "accident reduction" and "disarming
the public" to distinguish issues and preserve accuracy.

Listen hard when you hear the term "gun control" in the news. You'll
notice they're basically not talking about controlling crime. They're
talking about controlling you.

Always start by asking what a person means when they say this phrase,
then shut up and see. Often, people who think of themselves as being
anti gun, unwittingly adopt the position that only the rulers should be
armed (cop and army guns OK, but not you; such a person isn't anti gun
at all, they're simply anti rights -- your rights).

When a "gun-control law" regulates or demeans honest people in the false
name of controlling crime, that's actually tyranny. When "gun control"
controls your right to have a gun, that is people control. The phrase
"gun control" is a dangerous misnomer (some would say euphemism) for an
agenda now actively pursued by a segment of society -- that would
consolidate power solely in "official" hands.

Help seize the metaphor back:

1. Drop into conversation how your gun control at target practice
recently was better than usual, or how you have pretty good gun control
but you still need some lessons. Invite someone to your gun-control
class at the range next Tuesday -- free style target practice. A well
advertised gun-control class might attract some pretty interesting
neighbors. Jokes about gun control ("a steady hand") are
neurolinguistically challenged and don't help. Say something else funny
if you must be funny.

2. When reporters and others inevitably ask, "Are you in favor of gun
control?" they often don't realize their question is as biased as, "Are
you still beating your wife?" So it's up to you to show them. They're
looking for a pro or con answer, and then a question of how much. Don't
play into it. Instead, try responding, "Well me, I'm in favor of crime
control. How about you?"

3. When you write about so-called "gun control" or so-called
"gun-control laws" always put it in quotes, to disparage it.



THE HENIGAN/BOGUS THEORY
Named by Dave Kopel in honor of its two leading proponents (Dennis
Henigan and Carl Bogus). This is the notion, first arising a few
decades ago, that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual
right. It stands in opposition to the fact that "the people" means all
of us, and is responsible for the widely armed population we observe
today. Covered more thoroughly in an earlier article of mine, The Big
Lie (posted under Position Papers at http://www.gunlaws.com). Kopel's
recent paper on this, for the St. Louis University Public Law Review, is
nothing short of brilliant. David can be reached at
http://www.independenceinstitute.net.



COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
A tool for reaching closed minds. The use of questions to point out
fundamental illogic, which can then topple the notions a person builds
on that flawed base. An application of the Socratic method. The mental
awareness that forms when a simple question challenges fundamentally
held beliefs. Here are many. One at a time is usually enough for most
minds.

If a registration list makes sense for the Second Amendment, would it
make sense for the First Amendment?

Are criminals and an armed citizenry the same thing?

So why do people these days carry guns anyway, and does it ever work?

Should it be against the law to defend yourself?

If a person can't have a gun, why should the police have them?

So if you are allowed to defend yourself, how many bullets can you use?

Shouldn't we disarm the criminals first?

Why haven't we disarmed the criminals?

Why don't they arrest all the Brady criminals they find?

Are you against an armed citizenry?

Do you believe that only the rulers should have guns?

Now let me see if I understand this; when you say "gun control," do you
mean "stop crime" or "disarm the public"?

Now let me see if I understand this; when you say you're anti gun, do
you mean you want to disarm the police and the armed forces?

If you don't want to disarm the police and military, you're not really
anti gun at all. You're anti private gun. Why is that?

You know, after listening to you for a while, you've convinced me that
you should never own a gun.

I'm against the idea that you should be forced to own a gun, and I would
stand up for your right to not be armed.

Maybe you could sign up to be permanently disbarred from ever owning a
gun. Would you do that (as you would ask me to do)?


Closing Note:

This article doesn't end here. In attempting a document like this, I
know I can never reach its ending. It defines a path which simply
stretches forward.

If I wait until I have this evolved to my satisfaction it will never
wrap. These ideas are too important to let wait that long. Consider it
an early peek at a work in progress.

Alan.


Of these, I've adopted pistol instead of "semiautomatic handgun", sidearm instead of "handgun", and pro-rights instead of "pro-gun". Also, hoplophobia.

Now see, that is quite possibly the most inadvertently racist comment on these forums.
No, but if you actually look at statistics for gun murders and break them down by "race" somewhere above 80% of them are committed by black people, even though they only make up about 13% of the population.

Have you ever gone shooting?
I did once. In America :D
Thing is, it's guys who have to go to military service, and women get to choose whether they want to or not. Therefore there's not many women in the military ;)). Since all (or most) soldiers are required to have a gun and keep it at home while they're not at training, most households have at least one gun at home.
I, however, grew up with my mom and moved out before my brother went to the military and thus never enjoyed the possible benefits of having a gun at home.

I did once. In America :D
Thing is, it's guys who have to go to military service, and women get to choose whether they want to or not. Therefore there's not many women in the military ;)). Since all (or most) soldiers are required to have a gun and keep it at home while they're not at training, most households have at least one gun at home.
I, however, grew up with my mom and moved out before my brother went to the military and thus never enjoyed the possible benefits of having a gun at home.
Try and get your friend to take you out shooting with either .22 rifles or pistols. You might enjoy it.

You're pretty good at it, you sure got me the first time. Know your enemy and all that ;)

Hmm, this sounds like a fun (but totally unethical) idea... if you're *really* familiar with the opposing point of view, you can make highly plausible but fatally flawed arguments on boards like this... thereby discrediting it.

Btw, a nice glossary for re-framing the argument here http://www.seark.net/~jlove/pc.htm



Of these, I've adopted pistol instead of "semiautomatic handgun", sidearm instead of "handgun", and pro-rights instead of "pro-gun". Also, hoplophobia.

I've heard so many of the BS arguements against I can regurgitate them in my sleep (something my wife doesn't care for :))

I use the listed questions regularly but the rephrasing is something I've been working on. Thanks for that list.

No, but if you actually look at statistics for gum murders and break them down by "race" somewhere above 80% of them are committed by black people, even though they only make up about 13% of the population.

It's a little over 50%, I think.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/oarstab.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/varstab.htm

However, the rate per 100,000 is most telling, especially when looking at males 18-24 who are generally the most violent group. White: ~25 per 100,000 (per year) commit murder and ~14 are murdered. Black: ~200 per 100,000 commit murder, ~100 are murdered. Obviously this has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with the culture that people grow up in.

I use the listed questions regularly but the rephrasing is something I've been working on. Thanks for that list.

You're very welcome.

Here's another one...

http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/weblog.php?id=P6627

Alan Korwin has done an excellent job of defining the different strains of GFW:

* Utopian Idealists -- Dreamers willing to ignore human nature (anger, hostility, temper, greed, lust, hunger, poverty, want, megalomania, social pathologies, etc.) in the vain hope for a world where no one ever needs to defend themselves or others; Result: misguided efforts to disarm the public since no one should ever be capable of exerting lethal force for any reason. Fairly rare.
* Routine Bigots -- Ignorant gun haters who, generally, have never actually seen a real gun much less fired one, and hate what they don\x{2019}t know; strong corollaries with race haters; Result: Vigorous anti-rights profile if left alone, however they often resolve their blind hatred when education removes the ignorance -- frequent anecdotes of such folks "converting" after their first time at a range. Quite common.
* Hoplophobes -- Unfortunate souls afflicted with a phobic terror of firearms, deserving of pity, and in need of medical attention; Result: Though they should never be involved in setting policy on self defense, national security, or Second Amendment rights, they often insinuate themselves into such positions, their need for treatment goes unattended, and they cause grevious social harm. Easily mistaken for plain bigotry. Too common.
* Power Mongers -- Like some at the U.N or many anti-gun-rights politicians, they know full well that an armed public interferes with their plans, and they insidiously use lies about the gun issue, and "disarmament (of you but not them) as a road to peace" as a power base and source of support; Result: truly evil tyrants who ultimately suppress human rights, contribute to global genocides, live an elite lifestyle, care not for their fellow citizens. Rare but extremely dangerous.

...and in the case of several of our own GFW politicians, a mélange of all the above.

Now you know. Apply the above to the next speech made about "reasonable gun laws" or the "need" to possess Gun A or B or "protecting the children", and you'll get a good idea of what kind of person made the statement.

It's a little over 50%, I think.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/oarstab.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/varstab.htm

However, the rate per 100,000 is most telling, especially when looking at males 18-24 who are generally the most violent group. White: ~25 per 100,000 (per year) commit murder and ~14 are murdered. Black: ~200 per 100,000 commit murder, ~100 are murdered. Obviously this has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with the culture that people grow up in.
Thos are total murders/total vic rates. I'm talking solely gun homicides.

But if you put up no resistance, they won't hurt you.
This is the most asinine comment I have heard in a long time. Quite possibly the most out of line with the spirit of America too. If someone messes with you, you stop them. And if someone messes with somebody who can't defend themselves, you help the victim. That is the American way, and I sincerely hope your cowardly comment represents a fading breed.

Try and get your friend to take you out shooting with either .22 rifles or pistols. You might enjoy it.
Although, technically, the 5.56mm "assault" rifles used in the competion are .22 caliber.
........................................................
But, seriously, I gotta agree. Get some friend with a .22 caliber rimfire rifle to take you out shooting. I learned to shoot with a little winchester single shot bolt action .22lr, and I now own a ruger 10/22. The total fun/plinking factor of a rimfire rifle is almost unlimited. And, should you lean that wa, they are great for pests up to the size of racoons and woodchucks. :D

Although, technically, the 5.56mm "assault" rifles used in the competion are .22 caliber.
........................................................
But, seriously, I gotta agree. Get some friend with a .22 caliber rimfire rifle to take you out shooting. I learned to shoot with a little winchester single shot bolt action .22lr, and I now own a ruger 10/22. The total fun/plinking factor of a rimfire rifle is almost unlimited. And, should you lean that wa, they are great for pests up to the size of racoons and woodchucks. :D
Aren't they .223 poodle shooter, not .22lr or mag?

Aren't they .223 poodle shooter, not .22lr or mag?

Yes, poodle shooter rounds (good ol' 5.56mm NATO centerfire rounds).

Find one in nearly every home in Switzerland, along with the ammunition.

This is the most asinine comment I have heard in a long time. Quite possibly the most out of line with the spirit of America too. If someone messes with you, you stop them. And if someone messes with somebody who can't defend themselves, you help the victim. That is the American way, and I sincerely hope your cowardly comment represents a fading breed.



Before I make any REALLY snide comments, please refer to posts #16, 20,22,& 27 for further arguements.

Yes, poodle shooter rounds (good ol' 5.56mm NATO centerfire rounds).

Find one in nearly every home in Switzerland, along with the ammunition.

They may be glorified .22's but the kick behind it is what counts. The Germans used a 7.92 bullet with a crimped 13mm casing as an anti-tank/vehicle rifle in the early years of WWII.

I'ld still prefer a 7.62 round though.

But Americans who support guns have been PROVEN to have an average IQ of 70 and base all their arguements off of a 200 year old piece of paper that's obsolete.
Please refrain from flaming in the future, as it is against forum rules.
Thank you.

Please refrain from flaming in the future, as it is against forum rules.
Thank you.

Alright, but is it too much to ask for a person to read just a little farther in four pages of thread before posting? Doesn't anyone reference or source anymore?

Alright, but is it too much to ask for a person to read just a little farther in four pages of thread before posting? Doesn't anyone reference or source anymore?
I read your other posts. I was talking about that one in particular. It was exactly as I stated.

I read your other posts. I was talking about that one in particular. It was exactly as I stated.

Alright. Do you know what facetious means?

Alright. Do you know what facetious means?
No, why don't you tell me? OK, sorry about that. I am glad you aren't one of the asinine cowards I was referring to. Skol!

And this is why nobody picks on the Swiss...
That and they control something like a quarter of the worlds money...
*wishes he was Swiss*

No, why don't you tell me? OK, sorry about that. I am glad you aren't one of the asinine cowards I was referring to. Skol!

No worries. I have a small collection of firearms and support the 2nd amendment fully. I'm also a vet and presently in the US Army Reserves.

The Swiss kids are a bunch of potheads too.

Hey, it's good that they're well behaved. It means they can enjoy the fun side of guns.

I quite agree, I love to shoot, it's loads of fun, don't get to very often because I have poor vision, but I am a decent shot.
I am proud of being a flameing bleeding heart liberal, but I love shooting and another thing I like is to see airshows.
It's too bad most liberals are so against them

I quite agree, I love to shoot, it's loads of fun, don't get to very often because I have poor vision, but I am a decent shot.
I am proud of being a flameing bleeding heart liberal, but I love shooting and another thing I like is to see airshows.
It's too bad most liberals are so against themMost liberals are against them, oddly enough, because they are consistent. Consistent in their dislike of the military, and of people actually being able to defend themselves without the help of the government. It is a pity this isn't always what "liberal" meant.

The Swiss kids are a bunch of potheads too.
I'd take that as an insult, but as I'm from a part of the country where that's true for about half of all the people of my age.... I can't ;)

Woohoo! I am so glad that I finally found a decent gun thread to follow. I am still quite impressed with the fact that these kids are shooting at a range of 300 meters with a round that has an effective range of around 500 yards(to lazy to to any converting now). If I didn't like America so much, I would almost want to move to Switzerland. Kudos to you who lives there already.

cute?! shes a fatass!

This just goes to show guns are good.

Get a gun, love it, cuddle it, make baby guns with it.

Swiss doesn't have an army.
Even Luxembourg has an army, tsjeez.

That. Is. So. Freaking. Awesome.

I wanna move to Switzerland.

What are the requirements for Swiss citizenship?

Okay, I really, really love really big asparagus revolvers, so I thought I would share my personal favorite with all you conservitive gun nuts. :D

http://www.magnumresearch.com/bfr_fact.asp (Magnum Research BFR)

Give it to me in .450 Marlin please.

Or, in other words...

Bump!

Now see, that is quite possibly the most inadvertently racist comment on these forums.


"american" isnt a race, it is a product of a corrupt society with corrupt institutions and corrupt education and corrupt religion.

It isnt the fault of individual americans that they are pickled in the cesspool of their culture.

Swiss doesn't have an army.
Even Luxembourg has an army, tsjeez.


The swiss have a very large army actually.

Every able bodied man in the country essentially.

What are the requirements for Swiss citizenship?
Get a visa, live here for a couple of years and then depending on where in Switzerland you want to live, the procedure is different. In the more rural areas the community gets to vote (I kid you not) on whether they want you there or not. You have to pass an exam on Swiss history, politics, etc (which many Swiss people wouldn't ever pass) and then if you're lucky you get a pretty red passport and get to call yourself Swiss.
...Of you just marry a Swiss person ;)