Phew, it’s 4am in the morning and I just returned home. Before heading of for a few days to visit my family, I’ll put some last comments on this very enlightening thread.
Guys, my main point has been: I don’t believe that allowing the masses to obtain guns is a good thing: Why?
It’s crap to whine about freedom all the time. Life itself is unfree (even if I find that our century is a lot more free than any other century, that goes for the western world, of course)and being a social beast, man has to comprimise.
I hate to say this, but I’m convinced that it’s a necessary evil to
restrict speed on highways, to restrict access to guns , and so on, even if all these cool devices mean a lot of fun.
It is my believe that though the Individual is restricted, society as a whole gains.
As to the right to self defense: Yes, without a pistol, your possibilities to defend are diminished, but I don’t believe that it’s really effective anyway. You see, an attacker always has a significant advantage.
Be it surprise, ambush, strength of numbers etc. In an armed society he is also carrying a gun, which is kinda overkill. I have heard stories of people successfully defending their homes with an old rifle, alright, but I know more stories of people getting killed.
My own cousin, who was a bouncer in Moscow, has been killed with multiple shots to chest and face. He was a real T-man with an incredible physique and a true martial artist. Of course he was armed himself. But how can you defend yourself against a hiding assailant with an submachine gun?
Ask relatives of shot victims how they look at the topic, you think they understand your concern for this 2nd(?) amendment? Hell no. Ask doctors who treat gun victims how they look on this. They’ll tell you that it’s crazy that while medicine is getting better to save your ass if your shot the arms on the street are getting bigger.
9mm is not enough anymore. Do you really think you it’s OK that you are able to purchase a a machine gun to defend your home just in case a revolution breaks out?
So, I think while the Individual loses, society gets safer.
As already posted, I admit that I have no Idea if an armed society can be disarmed at all. My primary concern lies with most parts of Europe who aren’t armed to the hip yet.
I also admit that some countries have absolutely no problem with their weapons. But: Comparing the hows and whys of different culures is a delicate thing, as this thread has shown, and people can easily cop out.(even when I really meant not to degrade the US or it’s military)
Some assumptions I do have to correct, however: England is/was poorly armed, even when compared to Germany or Austria, Swiss is a matter on it’s own and really while it may appear so on the first look (lots of languages and strange minorities), it’s not multicultural at all, it’s never been(@Varqanir, trust me on this one, will ya).
Again: I don’t say that weapons equal trouble, but I find the assumption weird that I have to prove that it’s not the weapons which make certain countries safe.
I know for sure that if you could buy weapons in a Berlin store without greater problems, I would get a lot of trouble with my beloved turkich neighbours, who dig guns a lot and have to stick to gas pistols (correct english?), much to their frustration.
The arguments regarding weapons as means to defend from an unjust regime, well, the examples which are supposed to back up your argument are still pending. I think we could agree that Afghanistan is not comparable with the scenario of an american civil war.
I really loved the stories of Leonidas as a boy. Horatius Cocles (ironic, isn’t it?) and Ulysses were my heroes. But Leonidas was slain, which puts things in perspective, eh? The examples you told were either of two armies fighting (Germs in Grad) or not exactly rebels opposing their own government.
I mean, if you want to repel a Korean invasion, you’ll probably use your army. If you want to fight your own government, fine, but be so kind and give me an example of a modern army getting owned by it’s own population.
[quote]WMD wrote:
What about the basic point that an armed people is a free people? Or that one rifleman can create all kinds of havoc for a larger military force? Or that every police state on the planet has banned private firearms ownership?
I am not trying to be hostile, I am just interested in ideas from a different culture and what might be driving them.
[/quote]
No I did not find you hostile at all, you’re welcome.
Your questions: Yes you’re more free being allowed to soup yourself up with camouflage and guns. But as it is with all good rules in a decent society: resticting yourself can give you more freedom in return, like less danger on the street.
The Rifleman: Yes, one rifleman can really mean business to a whole company. Who knows, perhaps in fifty years, when next generation anti-tank rifles are cheap and devasting, it could mean and end to battle tanks? The future lies with city combat, no doubt, which is not a very tank friendly place.
But my opinion on the usefulness of one brave soul against many remains - for now- the same. I find it unrealistic to defend weapon ownership because an armed civilian could potentially stop invaders/evil regime troopers. The cost (I don’t wanna have a dangerous neighbourhood) is clearly outweighing this somewhat bold theory. However, my view is not a sacrament, I will change it if you manage to convince me, really.
As to why police states ban weapons.
Hmm I can only assume I would do the same in, say, Saddam’s position. It’s more a psychological thing, I believe. besides, my vegan friends always remark that sport = bad 'cause the nazis were so fond of it, yet I do love getting physical. Bur what do I know?
@varqanir:
“Thankfully this historical myopia is being corrected, although pacifism is still rife in the larger cities, much as I assume it is in Berlin”
Correct
“Anyway, my point is that all of these fine gentlemen seem to share the convictions voiced by Hedo, WMD, Rainjack, myself and many of the other military people posting on this thread: that pacifism and irrational fear of weapons does nobody any favors”
Here you are mistaken: As I said , I find weapons very cool, in movies, videogames or at the Bundeswehr target range. I also dig historical weapons, because I’m a little bit of a history geek. I merely think that a good modern society has no need of weapons. If it really really has (because lots of gangsters etc.), something is wrong with it and a bad society shouldn’t have unlimited access to guns.
I’m done arguing with you, Schwarz. I’m not going to convince you of anything, nor you me.
Why so sure?
Nice try with the Finns, but…again, it was an army (and remember, I have nothing against a well equipped army), even though it’s your best try yet because the soviets suffered enormous casualities (~1 Million was the largest assumption I came across) and the finns fought bravely, mostly in very small units.
By the way, I know two swiss guys here in Berlin, rest assured, I will speak to them!
Merry Kurisumasu …und einen guten Rutsch , Alter!
@Hedo: it’s pretty meaningless to me if you believe me or not. Still, I don’t understand your aggrssive tone and strange remarks about snipers killing my
forefathers, which I find exremely disturbung.
But wtf, I salute you in old paratrooper fashion, GLUECK AB, du grimmiger alter Krieger!..
@Zap:An armed populace is a cornerstone of liberty. -No, it’s an anachronism.
Since you began with socio-cultural analysis: to treat your wife with extra respect because she is a good pistol-shooter is …so …american to me. Merry Christmas Mr. Zap.
