A history Lesson in the Successes of Gun Control! - Page 2

Rinion · 07-16-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savanja

And I take particular issue with the thought that millions of Jews could have been saved had they simply had guns. The Nazis used fear, law, and brute force of a large military to gather and kill. Guns for the average citizen would have done no good. The bulk of the gun laws in Germany were brought on BY the Nazis themselves to make things easier, but they were already in power.

Gun laws are always brought by the Nazi type's of their country. Did you think all those minorities were some how in control of their governments and they created the gun laws that turned against them?

I digress though. Your right, my bad. After all their has NEVER been a case in history where a largely untrained militia has EVER gone against a tyrannical government, and their well trained army, to secure their freedoms.

Rinion · 07-16-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Widem

this is a really good point...there should be no reason that pakistan or n korea shouldnt have nuclear capabilities.

How would arming their governments with nukes secure their citizen's civil rights? This isnt a Nation VS Nation debate, it is a Nation VS it's self Debate.

none of the listed countries and exterminations were performed by an outside source, they were all internal Affairs. With the exception of Nazi's invasion of other countries, but again it started at home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Widem

i think after you saw my stance on it you wouldnt vote for me b/c well im all for the right to bear arms under most circumstances where criminal convictions and mental instability being grounds for the removal of your right but i digress. I was simply pointing out that maybe that line of logic ideally wont work. Would it be better if there were no guns on the planet? Yes. Is that realistic? No. so the only real option is to put everyone on the same playing field. What happens with the advent of new weapons is...a man goes crazy with a knife and kills 2 people before being subdued, a man goes crazy with a gun and kills 20 people before being subdued, a man goes crazy with a nuke and kills millions of people and most likely wont be subdued. The idea of matching weapon for weapon will only cause the madman to end his assualt early. the man with the gun is kill by an onlooker who also has a gun thus rendering only 4 people dead. man with the nuke doesnt fire the nuke b/c he doesnt want to get his ass blown up himself. This is the reality of the world despite how terribly it represents humanity.

Huh. interesting. I'd probably vote for you though, you seem to understand disarming isn't the solution. But again thats all Nation vs nation theory when you delve into nukes. Ethnic cleanses are rarely done by a 3rd party, its almost always a government VS its citizens.

Savanja · 07-16-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rinion

Gun laws are always brought by the Nazi type's of their country. Did you think all those minorities were some how in control of their governments and they created the gun laws that turned against them?

I digress though. Your right, my bad. After all their has NEVER been a case in history where a largely untrained militia has EVER gone against a tyrannical government, and their well trained army, to secure their freedoms.

If anything, the Nazis were brilliant, you really think that someone could have gotten away with that? Its not as if the government went in there and started shooting up the joint. A good portion of the citizens had no clue as to what exactly was happening until it was too late and guns or not, they wouldn't have had the prodding to rise up.

Rinion · 07-16-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savanja

If anything, the Nazis were brilliant, you really think that someone could have gotten away with that? Its not as if the government went in there and started shooting up the joint. A good portion of the citizens had no clue as to what exactly was happening until it was too late and guns or not, they wouldn't have had the prodding to rise up.

You make a good point. A very good one. It just seems so hard to believe no one would of figured out what was going on after the first million or two had been taken away to the camps.

Widem · 07-16-2007, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rinion

Huh. interesting. I'd probably vote for you though, you seem to understand disarming isn't the solution. But again thats all Nation vs nation theory when you delve into nukes. Ethnic cleanses are rarely done by a 3rd party, its almost always a government VS its citizens.

since you have been quoting history so eloquently you must realize that in many of these cirumstances it is a threat of ethnic cleansing...if you dont recall pakistan and india at one point in time were the same country as well as north and south korea. whether difference reside in the form of religion in which ghandi tried very hard and ultimately failed in keeping together what is now pakistan and india, or whether it is a difference in government which has what has happened in korea these are the same feelings of hatred that draw about the desire to exterminate someone of a different idealogical background are there and very much apparent.

Pakistan and N. Korean and lets throw iran in there, understandably want nuclear weapons in order to protect themselves against a world inhabited mostly by supremecists.

Rinion · 07-16-2007, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Widem

Pakistan and N. Korean and lets throw iran in there, understandably want nuclear weapons in order to protect themselves against a world inhabited mostly by supremecists.

of course they do, I wont argue their. But its up to those indivdual nations to attain them for themselves.

Just because I dont believe in taking away what people have doesn't mean I want to hand them out to everyone. I compare North Korea wanting nukes from larger powers to a child wanting a parent to give them a gun.
If north Korea wants that proverbially gun they can grow up and get it themselves.

The difference in the history of the india/pakistan split and the North/south korea split is that both sides were armed in one way or another and it led to war rather then an ethnic cleansing.

I believe War a much better alternative then being ethnically cleansed. So I dont believe in banning ownership of guns to citizens, people should always have the right to defend themselves above all other rights.

Savanja · 07-16-2007, 06:10 PM

I have mixed feelings regarding gun control on a personal level. Its a simple fact that not everyone is suited to own a weapon that is so capable of injuring or killing. Should that ruin it for everyone? Probably not. But how does a country balance those scales? How do they keep the guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, and in the capable hands of those who will be responsible with them?

Talonis · 07-16-2007, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Widem

this is a really good point...there should be no reason that pakistan or n korea shouldnt have nuclear capabilities.

You can't be serious here.

Are you really comparing person to person crime with guns to nuclear proliferation? "Billy has it, why can't I have it?" may work for kickballs on the playground, but your application of this logic to nukes is pretty retarded (or you are ust looking to get a rise out of windbags like me, lol).

You are terminally naive if you think these countries desire such weapons as a defensive solution. A nuke in the hands of the current Iranian kook would be the hand of Allah, capable of removing several Jews and imperialist American infidels from the face of the planet. Taken in context to the capabilities of the timeframe, the use of nukes in Japan was overwhelming; can you imagine that on the scale of todays manufacturing capacities and delivery systems? Most of us know, as a planet, nuclear war 2.0 will be the end. There is no need for more. The countries possessing these weapons know they are nothing but a deterrent now. They aren't practical for real use. It used to be perceived that having the nuclear solution is your ticket to the big boys table politically. This is no longer the case because of the sheer amount present on the planet Earth. There is no need to arm anyone else.

Comparing this shit to gun control is pure lunacy.

Khalan · 07-16-2007, 08:21 PM

Shrug, Im sure Iran wants them to deter invasion just as much as any other country with them does. Your retarded if you think any country in this day and age would use Nukes, the consequences are complete annihilation of said country.

We all know they hate the state of israel (For their own reasons) but if you think they would allow themselves to be wiped clean as a country for the sake of killing some jews, your nuts.

Ethar · 07-16-2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonis

. The countries possessing these weapons know they are nothing but a deterrent now. They aren't practical for real use. It used to be perceived that having the nuclear solution is your ticket to the big boys table politically. This is no longer the case because of the sheer amount present on the planet Earth.

Exactly. Which is exactly the same reason why Iran/N Korea etc must have them in their minds. I do not believe the Shah wants a nuke so he can nuke a million jews. I don't buy that one bit. It's lunacy and a sure way for your country to wind up back in the stone age.

The US is on the war path and nearly incapable of being defeated 1v1 using conventional means (I don't mean kill 3k troops and defeat our morale kind of loss either). To protect theirs leaves these developing "wanna be" or "soon to be" countries with only one option. The possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

But if you do believe they are really so crazy that they want nukes "to kill jews" then we are at an impass and must agree to disagree as I do not believe that is their motivation. If it happened it would just be, shall we say, a little bonus. Due to our highly aggressive foreign policy, countries who would find themselves in our cross hairs have been left with very few options for defense of their sovereignty, at least in their minds.

It would be all fine and dandy if everyone just did what King Bush told them to but that will not/has not happened.