Some 4,300 volunteer members of the Danish Home Guard are being told to disassemble their rifles in light of the fact that one of the weapons used in February's shootings in Copenhagen was a stolen military rifle.So now 4,000 members of Denmark's military have what amount to clubs. The M95 looks an awful lot like the M16 and I suspect it is a license-made copy of that US rifle. Because somebody managed to steal one, everybody in the Guard gets disarmed? I don't see how that makes sense. The Home Guard presumably has weapons in their immediate possession for a reason. By essentially taking those weapons out of the Home Guard's possession -- no bolt, no bang -- the Home Guard can no longer respond in a timely fashion to an emergency that requires them to be armed. I am led to understand that they mostly respond to disaster relief and non-combat stuff like that, but I have to believe they were given rifles for a reason. Is that reason gone? Help me out here, Danish readers.
One of the weapons used in February’s terror attack in Copenhagen was an M95 rifle that had previously been stolen from the home of a Danish Home Guard (Hjemmeværnet) member.
As a result, the Home Guard has now decided that it will temporarily require all Home Guard members to turn in the bolts to their rifles, making them unable to be fired.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Seems like a strange way to arm your armed forces
What the fuck is Denmark thinking? Denmark has a Home Guard, kind of like the U.S. National Guard, except the Danes (like the Swiss) issue these folks weapons, which they keep in their homes to facilitate rapid response. OK, so far, fine. But now Denmark is in effect disarming their Home Guard:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
1) The M95 rifle is in fact an M16 variant, made by Diemaco in Canada on a Colt licence.
2) Yes, the Home Guard is mainly used for simple stuff such as disaster relief, Search and Rescue, and other peaceful and useful things.
But: The Home Guard exists as a direct result of the German invasion in 1940, and the threat of Soviet invasion later on. The experiences from 1940-1945 (i.e. it is pretty hard to train, equip and run a militia when the enemy has already taken over your country) led to the idea of arming the citizenry. No arms at home - no point in having a Home Guard.
The Home Guard is not a crack unit, in fact it is far from it. But for every platoon of Home Guard men who voluntarily show up in an emergency to handle the easy jobs, a platoon of proper military guys a freed to wreak havoc on an invading enemy. Common fucking sense, and a cheap way of bolstering the military capacity of a small country.
3) There is just as much reason to fear Russia today, as to fear the Soviets 50 years ago, so disarming the Home Guard is more than stupid -it's bloody reckless.
4) the fact that the rifle used in the terrorist attack in February was a stolen Home Guard rifle is sad, but incidental. The bad guy could have used any other rifle available on the black market. He also used two pistols, and nobody cares where those came from (not from the Home Guard).
Sincerely,
Your loyal and anonymous reader in Denmark, who just happens to be a member of the Home Guard.
Post a Comment