[MILAMBER]

Originally posted by Animal: Milamber, I am enjoying watching you disecting my posts point by point, so I'll give you another opportunity. I think there is some confusion in my argument, which I probably could have stated a little more clearly. I am not interested in the governments definition of mass destruction. No, a gun cannot kill whole cities at a time, but in the wrong hands in can by extremely devastating. I understand your point about recreational shooting with a gun, but a fail to see what possible use a 9mm fully automatic uzi with armour peicing rounds could be for hunting. Do you have many deer wearing Kevlar vests were you live? Most of the populace of the world is not responsible enough to own a firearm, but who is to determine that. A good portion of the populace shouldn't be driving either, but they still do. You can make all the laws you wish to control firearms, be people will still find ways to acquire them. There is no solution or law that will stop lunatics from going on a killing spree short of wiping the gun from existance. I have a hard time understanding how you perceive nuclear weapons to be a deterant. Give one to Hussein or Bin Laden and see what happens. The only thing that has stopped the use of nuclear weapons is the knowledge of the destruction they create. I wonder what the world would be like if, instead of spending billions on creating a bigger better gun, we used the money for disease research or EDUCATION! Yes, if you give a chimp a gun and the chimp blows away a lab full of scientists it's not the guns fault, it's the idiot who gave him the gun in the first place. Perhaps spending some time educating people as opposed to killing them would be a good thing. I cannot turn on the news these days without hearing gunfire and explosions. How is this creating a better world? I agree with you on one point. Remove guns and people will find other ways of killing each other, but that's one step closer to solving the problem. To your previous point, yes I do enjoy my freedom and rights, but I do not need a gun to do so. Owning a gun for defense you say? Defense from what? Another gun. Guns have no place in creating a better society for everyone, and that's the goal we should all be striving for. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Falkland Islands, Cuba, Serbia, Bosnia...the lists goes on and on. When is enough going to be enough? I thought we were more civilized than 50 years ago, but we insist on killing each other with guns. Again, not intended to insult I just enjoy the banter.

I wish I felt like spending more time responding to this, but here it goes in a nutshell.

“…but a fail to see what possible use a 9mm fully automatic uzi with armour peicing rounds could be for hunting”

I’m not advocating the distribution of fully automatic weapons. I don’t think anybody here is. When hunting, the last thing I would want is an automatic pistol.

” Most of the populace of the world is not responsible enough to own a firearm, but who is to determine that. A good portion of the populace shouldn't be driving either, but they still do”

I completely agree with you. Not everybody should have guns. The only people who can decide who should use them are the people who do decide. The government. Likewise, most certainly, not everyone should be able to drive.

”There is no solution or law that will stop lunatics from going on a killing spree short of wiping the gun from existence”

Nothing, even wiping the gun from existence would stop lunatics from going on killing sprees. i.e. Atilla the Hun, King George…the list goes on.

” You can make all the laws you wish to control firearms, be people will still find ways to acquire them”

Agreed. So why try and ban them when the people you don’t want to have them will get them anyways?

” I have a hard time understanding how you perceive nuclear weapons to be a deterant. Give one to Hussein or Bin Laden and see what happens. The only thing that has stopped the use of nuclear weapons is the knowledge of the destruction they create.”

Nuclear weapons are one of the biggest deterrents. Many books have been written on this. You say yourself, “The only thing that has stopped the use of nuclear weapons is the knowledge of the destruction they create.” My point exactly! They are self regulating because of their destructive capacity. They also cost a fortune to maintain, develop and deploy, so financially it is not feasible for smaller terrorist organizations to gain access to a large thermonuclear device, let alone an ICBM. If it wasn’t for the threat of nuclear war, Russia could have just occupied quite a bit of Europe and the Allied forces would not have had the ability to project the power necessary to stop them.

” Yes, if you give a chimp a gun and the chimp blows away a lab full of scientists it's not the guns fault, it's the idiot who gave him the gun in the first place”

I don’t know how exactly chimps tie into things, but it seems like you are agreeing with one of my earlier points, so I’ll let this go.

” I cannot turn on the news these days without hearing gunfire and explosions. How is this creating a better world?”

I agree guns and explosions don’t create a better world. Strategy and change can. Carl Von Clausewitz said that “War is merely a continuation of politics by other means”. War is the ultimate political tool. Governments use war and the military more specifically to enforce their political agenda on others. In American history, we wouldn’t have the country we do now, with the freedoms we have now, were it not for an act of war aimed at winning it/them for us by the revolutionaries. Guns and explosives used correctly as a tool have brought positive change to the world that has changed each of our lives for the better. Like any tool, it can be misused, but the tool itself is neither inherently good nor evil. I say if you choose to blame the tool for the bad, then you also need to give credit to the tool for the good.

” I thought we were more civilized than 50 years ago, but we insist on killing each other with guns.”

As Aristotle said thousands of years ago, "For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all, since armed injustice is the more dangerous, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, he is the most unholy and savage of all animals, and the worst of full of lust and gluttony." People were the same then as they are now. We aren’t any more civilized. Societies ideals have changed slightly, technology has advanced mightily, but we are still “human animals”. In our world, people are both good and bad. Take the good with the bad, because we aren’t changing anytime in the next few millennia.

I honestly think if we had a conversation in person, we would agree on most of the things we have discussed here. I think that the reason you are disagreeing with me right now is because you haven't taken the time to fully sort through you thoughts on these issues. You haven't logically analyzed your beliefs. You'll come around. I'm sure of it.

Bottom line, aboloshing weapons is not a panacea to the human condition.

[ 05-03-2002, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: MILAMBER ]