Thread: "Guns R Retarded" (split from pic discussion)

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

At one hand I do think guns are retarded

On the other hand criminals will have guns whether they're legal or not, so they shouldn't be illegal

But I prefer swords that shoot lightning, if I could choose.
[/b]

Actually not. If trade and manufacturing of firearms is legally restricted, then the price will become prohibitive to all but the wealthiest of criminals who will have to resort Cottage Manufacturers (which exist in great numbers in Pakistan and Afghanistan... where Government does not have the reach or the will to interdict their activities).

Look at Japan, where firearms are restricted. There is very little armed crime. I would suppose that more people are killed with swords and knives in Japan then who are murdered with firearms, where in America the proportion is more than a hundred to one that victims will be shot.. even in the Hispanic Communities where switch blades used to be the de rigueur of utility weapons.

And then there is another problem with the wide distribution of firearms. when Civilization breaks down then whatever remains of any local police force will not be able to cope with all of the Privateering and Banditry that will certainly be committed by the wellarmed Militias. Everybody will be at the mercy of Warlord Militia Groups.

In Societies that had restricted firearms, then perhaps local Representative Governments might still be able to maintain an effective Police -- a few guys with sidearms would be enough, where no other guns existed. But in communities where every Minority Teenager has an AK-47 for his Gang Work, and where every Beer Gutted Blue Collar Red Neck has a collection and a closet full of surplus ammo. Well, Civilization is gunned down almost the very instant there is the least trouble. I am reminded of New Orleans after Katrina, where people who were trying to cross a public bridge in order to summon help for their families were machine-gunned down because militias on the other side of the bridge suspected these refugees of being looters.

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

If we didn't have guns then we'd go around kicking each other's heads in instead. That and I guess once you invent something you can't "univent" it - i.e. we've made guns so might as well give them out than make (impossible) attempts to take them away.
[/b]

Actually, the Government and the Police would only have to get very serious.

Make OWNING a firearm a capital offense.

Gangs would stop using firearm weapons, and would go back to chains, knives and bats that worked fine back in the 50's. And Militia Groups and Gun Enthusiasts would not be content to own guns they could never shoot... not a very fun hobby.

Also, people would be reluctant to hide guns. One could be betrayed by ex-wives, or disgrunteled friends.

One could never be sure when the police could search one's house. Anybody with a Teenage Son could have their house searched because of Drug Involvement, and then one's own stack of guns could be turned up.

And look in Bagdad, where apparently the Americans have been successful with their policy of kicking down doors and seizing weapons piles.

So, no, it is not impossible to disarm a population.

Originally Posted by Leo

So, no, it is not impossible to disarm a population.
[/b]

Whether it's possible depends on whether people are willing to learn from history. But really, whether it's possible is not as important a question as whether it's preferable. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone willing to trade the occasional fear of one's neighbor for the constant fear of tyranny and a corrupt, militaristic, government regime.

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

Whether it's possible depends on whether people are willing to learn from history. But really, whether it's possible is not as important a question as whether it's preferable. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone willing to trade the occasional fear of one's neighbor for the constant fear of tyranny and a corrupt, militaristic, government regime.
[/b]

This brings to mind along with some of what Leo is stating in regards to the second amendment.
It is rather short.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let us be realistic in the fact that times have changed and there is no chance of the people regulating the government anymore with the use of a regulated militia.
Random members of the community with their 22 caliber rifle against uuuh let's see----Tanks, WMD on and on I could go up until nuclear capabilities. I bit out of reason there, but it makes the point pretty clear.

Originally Posted by Howetzer

Let us be realistic in the fact that times have changed and there is no chance of the people regulating the government anymore with the use of a regulated militia.
Random members of the community with their 22 caliber rifle against uuuh let's see----Tanks, WMD on and on I could go up until nuclear capabilities. I bit out of reason there, but it makes the point pretty clear.
[/b]

Of course thats why most people will never do anything, because they don't stand a chance. That doesn't mean you should give up your rights though.

Originally Posted by Alric

Of course thats why most people will never do anything, because they don't stand a chance. That doesn't mean you should give up your rights though.
[/b]

That is the farthest thing that I meant. I was not trying to imply that at all.