Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World

[sledgemeister]

Yake note all obamaphiles!

[PegLeg45]

Cool video.


Info from the video link:
When thinking about the mass extermination camps of a holocaust think..

The key to freedom is to be able to have the ability to defend yourself &, if you dont have the tools to do that, then youre going to be at the mercy of whomever wants to put you away.

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.

[fullautovalmet76]

I liked the stickers inside of the gun locker. They must have come from the U.S. judging by the wording. It's nice to see others have the same feeling we do about guns.

I want to point out the 550 is a select fire rifle. I think there has been one crime committed with an automatic weapon over there in the last few decades, but I could be wrong.

The Hughes amendment must be repealed!

[fightingquaker13]

Serious question.
Would this work here? The idea of culture is key. Look at Australia, the US and Canada. Three countries with roughly similar objective conditions from our foundings, yet three different attitudes towards guns. We have our guns, yet higher rates of violence (of all sorts). Is it guns? No. Would a magical, make them all dissapear ban change this? No.
Look at Africa, with guns everywhere and no  end to violence and no indication that they prevent tyranny as most folks seem to want it, only with their group in charge.
Then we get to the Swiss. There have been many studies of the American frontier that showed it to pretty low crime per capita despite little law enforcement. The theories put forward are 1) An armed society is a polite society and 2) Neighborly bonds created a communal awareness of the need for mutual defense.

As a Libertarian, I dislike a conscript army. However, the question is, if the rite of passage to adulthood was a few months military training and then being assigned to a reserve unit with a weapon and its responsibility being assigned to you, could we expect a greater degree of civic mindedness and a lower crime rate? If the sons and daughters of the elite went through the same training as the sons of janitors and were given the same weapons to defend their neighborhoods could we expect better behavior and stronger communities? I believe in individualism, but is a common experience of responsibility to your neighbors a good way to channel it?
This isn't  an argument, just an honest question to the board. Would a bit of Swiss/Israeli style reserve duty with a take your weapon home policy work, or are we too diverse for this? Experience shows that the best way to prevent folks from stealing is to give them a stake in the company. Would this work with A DIY reserve program  here?
Thoughts?
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

 First I want to ask if any one else noticed the "firing tubes" they were shooting the rifles through, while the video may give a distorted perception they seemed to lower noise quite a bit.

   Now I will take a shot at addressing FQ's  question.
  First, it is misleading to group America with the countries of the British commonwealth. While we share a language, culture and ancestors with them, our nation was founded, and our greatness achieved do to a completely different mindset.
 They began as "Loyal Subjects", of the Crown, they obey and are RULED by their government, .
We on the other rule ourselves individually and and demand obedience to our laws of those we elect to administer the functions of government.
  As to whether the Swiss type of military service would work here, yes and no. America's greatest armies were raised from the rural populations, Alvin York and Audie Murphy were both country boys, so were most of the troops of all our previous wars, their marching and discipline may not have been up to standards all the time, but men who grew up hunting  to eat beat every army they ever faced, as an example, during the French and Indian war, the only victory gained by Britian's "European style" Army was Quebec, all the other notable victories were won by "Colonials", These same colonials, or their sons, were the men behind wood piles, stone walls, and trees that drove the best infantry in Europe back to and out of Boston.
Obviously the potential is there.
  The problems come from 2 things,  the mindset of today's so called citizen, and the way the force is employed .
Let's look at mindset first. We now have a mostly Urban population, dominated by intellectuals and a media that opposes the concept of Patriotism, governed by people you would not allow on your property. The concept of DUTY is  either suppressed or redirected into feel good public works programs, every one is a victim, no one is responsible for anything, and every one is "entitled". The Officer Corps, once the source of inspiration to generations, have, int the Command levels, been reduced to Politically correct "managers" and bean counters, George Patton,  or Chesty Puller would be court martialed  in today's  climate rather than celebrated.  
   My second point also goes to Mindset, the Swiss Army is a defensive force, it's duty is to protect the borders of Switzerland, period. They are a Neutral country and if you try to drag them into your war they will kill you.
  America does not operate that way, first off we don't defend our borders, we just put the Border Patrol out to make sure no one hurts themselves on the fence.
Secondly, our Army is not constituted as a defensive force, it is, by law, a diplomatic tool meant to perform as instructed by Congress and the President. That type of employment requires a full time professional Army and can not be accomplished with "part timers" under the leadership of politicians who's support depends more on party politics than on the good of the country. (How hard would YOU fight to protect Obama and Pelosi ? )
To finish up, this type of force COULD work if its duty were to protect America, as opposed to "American Interests", but it would require the recognition of the concepts of personal responsibility, and Patriotic Duty.
As a side note I have to point out to FQ that a REAL "Libertarian", in the sense of the Founding Fathers, would dislike anything BUT a conscript Army that is only activated when needed. If you read ALL the Federalist Papers you would know that men like Jefferson felt that a professional standing Army in peace time was nothing less than a tool of government oppression. The only reason a small one was allowed after the war of 1812 was because of the drubbing we took from the British and Governors resented having to send Militia units to protect the Western Frontier, it is only since WWII that we have had a peace time Army of more than 50,000 men.

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

You've hit the crux of the problem. We do need a professional army, unless we are to retreat to isolationism. That is not a good option. However, a professional expeditionary force, like the Marines, is not at odds with a "Home Guard". We will always have volunteers for foreign wars of choice. I mean, its us or another power, or the UN (good luck there), or a vacum. But as to the concept of duty,can that be cultivated through six months training post high school as a rite of passage so as to innculcate it? Or is it a non starter?  This is the key. Having folks take responsibility in an NG role is a good thing, IF it works. If not, it is a potential disaster. Again, no argument, just a question worth asking. Is the concept of the citizen soldier dependent on the concept of every citizen being a soldier (however part time)? If not, do we just continue with the current model? I guess my own perspective is this. We have never been a "military" family in the John McCain sense of the term. I had one great Uncle who made a navy career and retired an admiral. That said, virtually every adult male (me included) signed up for the guard or reserves. It wasn't a career thing, it was a duty thing, its just what you did. Four years, in and out and best to go as an officer if you could swing it, but you went either way. Nothing heroic. Hell, only three of my great uncles and grandfathers, out of nine, saw combat in WWII, but they all volunteered. The question is, can that mentality be taught through a six month basic/MOS school reserve program?
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

You've hit the crux of the problem. We do need a professional army, unless we are to retreat to isolationism. That is not a good option. However, a professional expeditionary force, like the Marines, is not at odds with a "Home Guard". We will always have volunteers for foreign wars of choice. I mean, its us or another power, or the UN (good luck there), or a vacum. But as to the concept of duty,can that be cultivated through six months training post high school as a rite of passage so as to innculcate it? Or is it a non starter?  This is the key. Having folks take responsibility in an NG role is a good thing, IF it works. If not, it is a potential disaster. Again, no argument, just a question worth asking. Is the concept of the citizen soldier dependent on the concept of every citizen being a soldier (however part time)? If not, do we just continue with the current model?
FQ13

2 more comments,
First, what I posted above was intended to apply ONLY to the Department of the Army.
Second, you have hit on a Constitutional issue.  The Army and Navy were intentionally kept in separate  Departments, as they were intended to serve separate functions. The Army was intended to defend American soil (filled out by the militia, or NG) it was not intended as the Presidents enforcer. That was the Duty of the Navy Department, when, after a naval war with France in 1800, war with the Barbary pirates in 1805 and then round 2 with England in 1812 even the Jefferson democrats realized that we had to have projectable power to protect our commercial interests, peacable intentions were not enough.
But the duties were divided on purpose because while our interests required a strong military force that would able to punish attacks against our shipping and people, maintaining liberty in the face of government attempts to use force against the people required a minimal military presence at home.

All in all I think it would work great, but only if we returned to the original division of labor. Also it would require that there be no exemptions, none, nada, zip, zero. Doesn't matter if your Daddy is President or a Zillionare or a street sweeper, you do your time, YOUR FULL TIME. And no excuses for missing annual commitments either.There would have to be civil penalties if you were not in good standing.
Something drastic like freezing your assets if you were not current on your training commitment, or you lose the right to work.

[twyacht]

It won't work here as long as the gov't DOESN"T TRUST the citizenry. Far-left groups, and political elites simply do not trust the people.

We're to much of a Nanny state now. Too dangerous.

I remember the famous story of a Nazi Field Marshall traveling to Switzerland and telling the Swiss PM, "What would you Swiss do if I march a million German soldiers into Switzerland?"

The famous reply: "All 500,000 Swiss would come out, fire twice, and go home."

Germany never invaded...