Is it better to carry a gun or not?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Thoran: [URL=http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlergun.html] Very interesting web site... I was struck by the statement along the lines of "if the jews were armed like americans then Germany would have lost much of their army trying to subdue them" 6 million Jews were killed, if only 10% had been armed that would have been a 600,000 strong armed resistance... certainly something to contend with. At it's peak Germany fielded about 10 million men, so a 10-20% hit to their manpower due to internal insurrections would have hurt for sure. It's interesting to note that both the US and USSR had peak strenth of close to 13 million men each. Every time I do research on WW2 i'm blown away by the sheer SIZE of the confrontation... 70 million combatants, 60 million dead. I just hope that never happens again.

You seem to think that any armed Jews would be armed and trained in the exact same way as the Germans were - which, as we know, would not be true.

[Animal]

What is exactly the purpose of a gun? Certainly not to hunt for food, as spears and bows were used for hunting long before the invention of gun poweder. No the gun is a weapon of mass destruction, designed to wage war on fellow man. Perhaps the world would be a much better place to live if there were no guns. How many innocent people have died at the hands of firearms? We can't feed the hungry, cure the addicts, solve the problems of the new age black plagues, but we can build a bigger, better gun! Look at all the high school shootings. Would most of these have happened if these kids (yes, they were kids!) have such easy access to guns? For the longest time the British police never carried guns. Yes, let's all start carrying a sidearm, real good idea!

[MILAMBER]

Originally posted by Animal: What is exactly the purpose of a gun? Certainly not to hunt for food, as spears and bows were used for hunting long before the invention of gun poweder. No the gun is a weapon of mass destruction, designed to wage war on fellow man. Perhaps the world would be a much better place to live if there were no guns. How many innocent people have died at the hands of firearms? We can't feed the hungry, cure the addicts, solve the problems of the new age black plagues, but we can build a bigger, better gun! Look at all the high school shootings. Would most of these have happened if these kids (yes, they were kids!) have such easy access to guns? For the longest time the British police never carried guns. Yes, let's all start carrying a sidearm, real good idea!

Did you think for a second before you started typing this?

"What is exactly the purpose of a gun?"
What is the purpose of a gun? How about shooting. Shooting does not exclusively mean people. Shooting can mean competitave shooting, which is something I really enjoy. A gun can shoot anything.

"No the gun is a weapon of mass destruction..."
A gun is a weapon of mass destruction? Weapons of mass destruction are bombs. Nuclear bombs are the weapons that incur that title most often. Friggin machine guns are considered SMALL ARMS not "weapons of mass destruction". If a machine gun is small arms, imagine what a pistol must be. Micro Arms?

"...designed to wage war on fellow man"
Man has been waging war on fellow man since the dawn of time. The gun did not start this. The gun will not finish this.

"Perhaps the world would be a much better place to live if there were no guns"
How? If there were no guns there would be a substitute. As long as there is society, there will be deviants. As long as there are deviants there will be crime. As long as there is crime, there will be a need for society to protect itself from the crimes of deviants. Whether society is protecting itself with swords and arrows or guns and tanks, the end result is the same. People die. Don't blame that on guns, blame it on weak-ass minded people.

"How many innocent people have died at the hands of firearms?"
How many innocent people have died in automobiles on our freeways? Should people not drive anymore?

"We can't feed the hungry, cure the addicts, solve the problems of the new age black plagues, but we can build a bigger, better gun!"
How do addicts and plagues and guns relate? I have no idea where you are going with this. Give me one similarity between guns and curing an addict please before I cry.

"Would most of these have happened if these kids (yes, they were kids!) have such easy access to guns?"
Kids having access to guns is not the guns fault. It is the parents fault. A gun is a tool. I'm sure you know all about being a tool.

Listen, I have nothing against you, but we massively disagree here. There are six pages here of reasoned arguements for and against firearms. Most of these posters have put alot of thought into their words. It doesn't appear that you put much thought into your words. I'm sure you are a very smart person, and I'm anxious to hear your reasoned opinion on gun control, but please take a second and make it just that. A reasoned opinion. Thanks! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-02-2002, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: MILAMBER ]

[flibulzbuth]

A reasoned opinion. Thanks!

Way to go Milamber!

I am totally against carrying or even keeping a hand gun in one's house, but i totally agree with you on this one.

I had a good, if lenghty, discussion on the subject with Sir Taliesin in the ".44 or .50?" thread. read it here, starting on page 4: http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...10&t=007793&p=

Since i'm lazy, i'll just copy-paste my first post:

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thats the rpoblem with drugs, guns and any other contraband item, tough laws make it hard for honest decent citizens to obtain the items, but the criminals get them quite easily on the black market. It would only take 30 or 40 minutes to go out and get a gun on the street...but I wouldnt try it due to the nature of the people you would have to deal with. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My 2 cents on this: True, though laws makes it impossible to buy my daily dose of crack at the corner shop, but one phone call to my pusher and it's delivered home in 30 minutes or he's dead. (j/k) But drugs black market is very different than guns: drugs are imported, guns are stolen. Stolen from where? from richer people who can afford to legally buy one. I don't have the exact reference nor numbers with me, but a gun owner is much, much more likely to have his gun stolen than to eventually use it for defense. Also, people trying to defend themselves whith guns during an armed robbery are much more likely to get killed than anybody else (including people staying still and the robber).

[Animal]

Milamber,

You are in fact quite correct, we do strongly disagree. I, personally, see absolutely no logical purpose for a gun. Gunpowder was invented for no other reason than to kill. A weapon of mass destruction. How many people have been killed by guns? I couldn't even begin to comprehend how many, but I'll wager that the death from bombs and chemical weapons don't even compare to guns. Chemical and Biological weapons were abolished and their usage condemend (although some still try to develop them) because of the way they kill people. So is killing someone with a gun a better alternative? If each and every gun owner were responsible enough to understand the devastation that these weapons cause, then I would not take issue with them, however it is not a responsible world we live in. Just take a look at the news. This is, however, just my opinion, and not intended to insult. Arming every member of sociecty with a gun is a recipe for chaos.

[MILAMBER]

Originally posted by Animal: Milamber, You are in fact quite correct, we do strongly disagree. I, personally, see absolutely no logical purpose for a gun. Gunpowder was invented for no other reason than to kill. A weapon of mass destruction. How many people have been killed by guns? I couldn't even begin to comprehend how many, but I'll wager that the death from bombs and chemical weapons don't even compare to guns. Chemical and Biological weapons were abolished and their usage condemend (although some still try to develop them) because of the way they kill people. So is killing someone with a gun a better alternative? If each and every gun owner were responsible enough to understand the devastation that these weapons cause, then I would not take issue with them, however it is not a responsible world we live in. Just take a look at the news. This is, however, just my opinion, and not intended to insult. Arming every member of sociecty with a gun is a recipe for chaos.

Here we go again:

"Gunpowder was invented for no other reason than to kill."

Actually, gunpowder was invented by the Chinese and initially used for fireworks. Gunpowder wasn't used as a weapon until the Chinese developed trade with the western civilizations via the silk road. Check your facts there player.

"A weapon of mass destruction. How many people have been killed by guns? I couldn't even begin to comprehend how many, but I'll wager that the death from bombs and chemical weapons don't even compare to guns."

Here is the government’s definition of a "weapon of mass destruction":

Identifical definition is used in FY97 National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 104-201, September 23, 1996 (quoted at http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/ctr/...r3230-2.html), giving it added field-context credibility
(1) The term "weapon of mass destruction" means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of--
(A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors;
(B) a disease organism; or
(C) radiation or radioactivity.

Guns don't quite fit this definition there sport. By your definition all of our cars would be considered “weapons of mass destruction”.

“Chemical and Biological weapons were abolished and their usage condemend (although some still try to develop them) because of the way they kill people. So is killing someone with a gun a better alternative?”

There is no situation here that demands an alternative! Even if there were, guns would never be considered an alternative to bombing anything! Regardless of that even, chemical weapons are nothing when compared to a Hydrogen Bomb. Do you want to know something really ironic? Nuclear weapons, the mother of all weapons that massively destroy, have been one of the biggest reasons our planet has not yet engaged in WWIII. For decades, the threat of nuclear war has kept people in check. What does that do to your theory? Imagine that, a weapon of mass destruction inciting peace instead of war!

“If each and every gun owner were responsible enough to understand the devastation that these weapons cause, then I would not take issue with them, however it is not a responsible world we live in.”

You speak as if guns have a mind of their own. They are MERELY TOOLS. Guns don’t create devastation, their owners do. It is fundamentally impossible for an owner to understand the devastation an inanimate object can create. As you so aptly said, “…it is not a responsible world we live in.”. That is it exactly! The problem is with the people. If you take guns away, people will still kill people. It’s inevitable.

“Arming every member of sociecty with a gun is a recipe for chaos”

Of course it would be. Nobody here is advocating arming every member of society with a weapon. In fact this is the first it has been mentioned and I think it’s a crazy idea. I have no idea why you even said this. Lets try and stay realistic, ok?

Lastly, of course I don’t take undue personal offense to your opinions. Guns have helped pave the way to create this wonderful country we live in where freedom of speech is allowed. In fact, guns are out there right now, as we’re having this lovely conversation, protecting your rights. Do you value your rights friend?

[ 05-03-2002, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: MILAMBER ]

[Neb]

Y'know, I'm not against the existence of guns. Just against that anyone besides the military and various law enforcement people have them. What would be good would be if we, for competetive shooting, invented a gun that couldn't harm humans, then those who enjoyed shooting for sport could do so without there being any danger.

[Noble Wolf]

Sir Kenyth,

I was an officer in the army and was trained in using weapons from pistol to howizter.
GUNS ARE BAD
Without trying to put to blunt a point on it - there are more people killed EACH day by guns in the USA than there are killed in several years in countries like Japan. (where firearms are prohibited)

There is only ONE answer to the gun/death combination - make firearms TOTALLY illegal, and the penalties for being caught with one should make life imprisonment doing hard time look like a weekend at summer camp. (lock up the offenders and FORGET them - end of story)

Then when firearms have been removed from all but military and police services you will end up with a society where people can walk down the street at night.

[ 05-03-2002, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: Noble Wolf ]

[Epona]

Originally posted by Noble Wolf: Then when firearms have been removed from all but military and police services you will end up with a society where people can walk down the street at night.

Until you're stabbed...

[Noble Wolf]

Point taken,

But you missed the lock em up and throw away the key. Rehabilitation doesn't exist. Criminals or criminally minded folk should be removed from my society and used for "humane" experimentation or some other society benifiting purpose.

Then who will get stabbed.

Also, please note the stabbing perpetrator has still to contend with ARMED police force. Drill one through his head and see who he/she stabbs.

The problem is people keep whining about their "civil" rights - well what about MY right to feel safe in my house, in my suburb, in my city, without the need to have a GPMG under the bed. People who want to shoot firearms as some form of "sport" I can live with, providing that their prepared to have their weapons kept locked away in special facilities.

We don't have a gun mad mentally here in Australia and those few criminals that choose to carry or use firearms know that the penalties for doing so are a lot, lot, LOT worse.(and I strongly believe that these penalties still could be doubled or trippled)

Taking firearms away from people doesn't solve crime - but if you make it nearly impossible to obtain or acquire them(by not having them freely distributed throughout your society) you make the "likelyhood" of a violent offence involving firearms occurring less. In the 1800,s people living in frontier regions of the world "may" have had reason to have firearms; but I thought I was living in the 21st century.

[ 05-03-2002, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Noble Wolf ]