Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Comments

11 comments

Date Votes
  • tr fox
    When firearms were invented, for the first time in the history of the world a small, frail women could protect home, her family, and herself.

    So as long as the lawful, peaceful citizens can own guns, no we would not be safe without guns.
    0
  • Rockatansky
    quote:
    Would we be safer without guns???


    No. Before guns, people poisoned, stabbed, slashed, clubbed, stoned, drowned, choked, beat, etc. each other and will continue on killing each other whether there are guns or no. Besides what tr fox said and the that whole issue with tyranny and invasion and these type of thing, but they are silly and don't happen in such advance world we're in right now, only in minds of those deemed socially incapable due to advanced imagination.
    0
  • dheffley
    Inejiro Asanuma was assassinated with a sword, not a gun.
    0
  • MrOrange
    Guru say:

    Morals are not a matter of mechanics.
    0
  • tobefree
    quote:Originally posted by dheffley
    Inejiro Asanuma was assassinated with a sword, not a gun.


    Did you watch the video...
    it was freaking faster than I would have thought possible...but that is my point...It is just as easy to kill without a gun...
    0
  • Rockatansky
    quote:Originally posted by dheffley
    Inejiro Asanuma was assassinated with a sword, not a gun.


    REALLY?!?! Are you sure?! I thought it was a BallPark Frank...
    0
  • linthicum
    quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
    quote:Originally posted by dheffley
    Inejiro Asanuma was assassinated with a sword, not a gun.


    "REALLY?!?! Are you sure?! I thought it was a BallPark Frank..."[:D]


    [:D]LMAO
    0
  • mongrel1776
    If this question is approached in the sense of, "Would we have been safer if firearms had never been invented?" -- the answer is no, absolutely not. Mention has been made, and generally is made in discussions of this sort, of a gun providing the physically weak with the means of protecting themselves, and the "socially weak" (for lack of a better term -- those of us without the resources to raise armies and launch military campaigns, as opposed to governments, which are able to function free of the need to make a living on a daily basis) with the means of resisting tyranny. What doesn't get specifically mentioned very often -- I think because it basically goes without saying -- is that, until the invention of the gun, the ability to fight effectively was largely dependent on extensive training that began when soldiers/warriors were children, and continued throughout their lives; and upon the quality of equipment available. An armored knight equipped with horse, lance, and sword was not only better-equipped than the average peasant, or even two or three peasants at once, but also far better-trained. The gun changed this entire dynamic. Training still counts, but anyone with decent hand-eye coordination can become proficient with a gun, in a time frame within which it would not be possible to master the sword, or learn to fight effectively from horseback. In short, absent guns, the vast majority of the human race would still be grovelling peasants -- because they'd be taking their lives in their hands to even dream of being anything more.

    Taking it as a question of, "Would we be safer, now, without guns?" -- the answer is no, absolutely not. The simple question of how guns could be gotten out of the hands of criminals and government entities (armies, police departments, "security" forces, etc.) involves insurmountable difficulties, and, as long as criminals and bodies of the government are able to be in possession of firearms, the first and last line of defense for the citizen who does not wish to have every last detail of his life dictated to him (including, if you look objectively at history, the time and manner of his dying) is to be armed. As well as the best-armed soldier would be ideal, but perhaps (not for a certainty -- just perhaps) impractical; but at least well enough to give even the best-armed soldier second thoughts.

    I am not, by the way, suggesting that the fine men and women of our current armed forces and police departments would become willing oppressors of their own families, friends, neighbors, and fellow Americans. I know too many such people, personally, and am acquainted with too many of their friends and associates, to seriously believe that, by the simple giving of an order, they could be made to do such a thing. Things change, though. A government that finds its present staff of servants to be unsuited for or unwilling to do a job will simply find new servants. Against that possibility, we are safe only if we're armed.
    0
  • Colt Super
    Very good, Mike.

    B+

    Doug
    0
  • mongrel1776
    quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
    Very good, Mike.

    B+

    Doug

    Sorry that I tend more to write essays than participate in on-line conversation -- I've been writing for so long I find it hard not to communicate as I do. [:I]

    B+?!? We need an after-school conference to discuss that grade! [:D]
    0
  • Dakota308
    id rather be shot[xx(]
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity