In response to:

Doing the Research the New York Times Won't Do

woofpacker75 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 11:13 AM
Check this out: What a great strategy the Swiss have! Arm every family, train everyone who is armed, raise a huge militia within 48 hours, but only if it's REALLY needed. I'll wait by the door for my AR-15 to arrive from the Odumba administration. I'm sure it will arrive any minute. NOT.
deprogramming services Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 11:27 AM
The Swiss militia system is a very good idea that we should look at here. Remember that Switzerland managed to avoid both world wars; their tendency to mind their own business and the Alps had to have had something to do with that, but there is little doubt that the well-armed populace was also a big factor. The best use of weapons is as a deterrent to violence; their second best use is to terminate the aggressor if he is not deterred. The Swiss system shows how big a deterrence an armed population can be.

Oh and by the way, a high Japanese officer of WW2 said that the reason Japan didn't invade America was that the populace was so well armed. By contrast, the Chinese people were not armed, and look at what happened to them.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 11:58 AM
Switzerland is a small,low population,land-locked country.
FAR different than the US with it's huge population,two coasts and overseas states and territories like Hawaii,Puerto Rico,US Virgin Islands,and Guam.
If the USSR had decided to invade Europe,they would have gone into Switzerland eventually. Once it was surrounded by Nazi Germany or the USSR,it would be all over anyways.
deprogramming services Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 2:04 PM
I know there are differences my friend, but we can still learn from them and be more like them. A national militia and smaller standing army, with less of a foreign legion, would be a good idea. This however is a really big can of worms that is beyond the scope of the subject being discussed here. I just wanted to point out that an armed population can be a very good thing, and more organization and training could make it even better.

In Sunday's New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, "More Guns = More Killing." She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times: (1) anecdotal observations; and (2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.

There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John...