DEFENCE. The Civilian Rifleman as a Factor.

Free Lance, Volume II, Issue 59, 17 August 1901, Page 8

DEFENCE. The Civilian Rifleman as a Factor.

AT this time, when the turmoils of the world suggest the advisability of being prepared for every emergency, the question of defence m New Zealand is one that may reasonably be considered. The word "defence" conjures up visions of nicely-uniformed volunteer soldiers, the machine-like evolutions of masses of men, or the heroic nourish of much polished bayonets. • • • Lord Roberts has recently decided that the theatrical military training must give place to a more practical method of resistance, and has commended the rifle above all other weapons for this end In New Zealand most of the rifle shooting is done by the volunteers, a small section of the community who use the weapon as

a part of their instruction, and who are considered necessary for the safety of the country. Rifle clubs there are which make it possible for retired volunteers or civilians to become proficient in the uss of the weapon. The rifle clubs are barely recognised, and are certainly not encouraged to the extent their usefulness demands. • • • Recent events have shown that it is not at all necessary for a man to be able to do the manual exercise, or mark-time correctly, to fight on equal terms with a foe who is accomplished in both forms of theatrical display. While rifle clubs should be assisted in every possible way by the supply of Government arms, cheap ammunition, and adequate ranges, it seems unnecessary to affiliate them with the defence service. By that affiliation they are ever a secondary consideration. It is obvious that if fighting is ever to be done in New Zealand the hardy man, who has never seen a soldier before, but who is an adept with the rifle, is infinitely more useful than the volunteer whose correctness of motion and beautiful regularity gain for him the title of a "good soldier." There is no necessity to make the defenders of a country like New Zealand automatons or to affiliate them with automata. The militia regulations provide for the contingency of civilians being called into the field, and volunteers under the Defence Act or otherwise, tue New Zealand citizen would be called, and would willingly go, to meet any intending foe, making the affiliation unnecessary. If a man refuses to become a citizen soldier, or has a horror of the red tape resulting from affiliation, why should he be debarred from perfecting himself in the art of shooting? The volunteers are ill-prqvided with' ranges as it is, and the despised civilian has little or no chance to obtain proficiency. The suggestion to greatly decrease our defence forces, and increase the advantages for civilians to perfect themselves in the use of the rifle is a good one. As a matter of fact, New Zealand might easily disband the whole of its volunteer forces if it instituted a system of rifle clubs adequate to cope with the shooting ambition of its citizens. The later Contngents from New Zealand for South Africa were untrained men, in the military sense, but they could ride and shoot. A few weeks were sufficient to discipline them sufficiently for all purposes, and they have certainly not shown any inferiority to the highly-trained men who preceded them. • • • With the present restrictions, men anxious to become shots are debarred from so doing. If it is considered necessary to keep a military defence force, which would certainly not be more efficient to cope with invasion than a civilian force that could shoot, why not curtail the expenses of the former with a view to making the latter a source of national safety ? A uniform does not make a soldier, and an acquaintance with the evolutions of the parade-ground does not make a defender.' Less red tape, and more rifle, is reasonable advice in this connection.