Guns: Opinions?

by RichieRich 138 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Pole

  EscapedLifer1,
  
  I acknowledge some of the points you've made are valid, However, I have to say I just love when Americans tell us Eastern Europeans stories about how they saved our arses time and again. First from Hitler, then from communism. And how the power of capitalism overwhelmed the power of communism. I understand that a successful achievement has many foster-fathers, though.
  
  As for the financial suport of the US. Oh yes, the US offered $119 million in aid to Poland's Solidarity-led government in 1989. The same year they offered $3 billion to Israel, and to Egypt $2.4 billion. Eastern Europe and the fall of communism was definitely high on the agenda. :)
  
  

  Reagan drove the Soviet Union, and thereby its satellites, into bankruptcy with the rapid acceleration in the arms race.

  
  
  Are you saying countries like Poland were financially benefitiing from the political dependency on the Soviet Union? My goodness, I didn't know that. What I know is that when Reagan imposed economic and political sanctions on Poland in 1981, the Polish propaganda minister said publically that he can't see how the sanctions will affect the goverment officials or the ruling communist party. And guess what? He was right.
  
  And if you look at countries like North Korea, you'll see that economic sanctions may have no effect on communist governments if there is little or no will to change the political system withing society.
  
  Also: compare the bloody fall of communism in Romania with the bloodless fall of communism in Poland or Czechoslovakia. I guess this is why the issue of the fall of communism was raised on this thread in the first place.
  
  -----------
  
  BTW, what I find interesting is how many people think that the end of the Eastern-Block started with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Thank you CNN. :)
  
  
  OldSoul,
  
  I guess you are assuming a totalitarian government would be worried by the publicty they would get in the media after they lost a few thousand soldiers killing dozens of thousands of armed civilians. :-)
  
  Now, let's imagine a truly oppressive government. Can we? :) Or do you really think the US army could be efficiently fought by round-bellied men with rifles? :) As I said: those times are gone.
  
  Cheers,
  
  Pole
• 

  Max Divergent

  Imagine going to a Judicial Committee armed!

  How about field service with a 9mm in the book bag?

  Could you work an old flintlock rifle in to a student talk as a prop? Maybe compare the firepower to David's ass bone?

  A Glock each would add interest to an elder's meeting!!
• 

  fleaman uk

  BTW, what I find interesting is how many people think that the end of the Eastern-Block started with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Thank you CNN. :)

  Pole

  I agree.But then many posters have a completely American-centric (fantasy?)View of recent European History.Didnt Walesa start the Ball rolling in the late seventies with Solidarity in your Country?

  Also dissatisfaction was expressed as early as 1956 in Hungary..with sporadic uprisings between then and 1989 in all of Eastern Europe.Only the Romanian one was extremely bloody.
• 

  Pole

  fleaman,
  
  I agree on both accounts. There had been attempts in Hungary and Czechoslovakia before the 1970s, but a steady and consistent pressure on the communists first began to be exerted with the Polish Solidarity with some 9 million members and many more supporters. Of course other Eastern-European countries had their own opposition movements. The peaceful character of Solidarity with its long-time devoted members (rather than one-off trigger-happy revolutionists) saved thousands of lives.
  
  
  Pole
• 

  Max Divergent

  ... the occassional accidental shooting (cleaning a gun, kid finds improperly stored firearm, shoots brother, hunting accident because Bubba Joe is drunk, etc.).

  These aren't accidents. These are killings. These are reckless, careless choices people make.
• 

  EvilForce

  So how do you explain the Velvet Revolution? The Solidarity of the Poles?
  
  I mentioned these. Not every American is as dumb as you claim....just most....LOL (j/k)
  
  Besides I love Prague & Krakow!!! Awesome cities.
• 

  Abaddon

  Well, in the US any attempt at gun control is futile. There are so many guns in private ownership that the only way to get them all would be to send the army door-to-door, which of course would make many members of the NRA cum from sheer joy ("I told you they'd come for my gun! I told you!).

  It's not so much the fact you guys have a lot of guns. It's the fact you use them on each other so often.

  For example,

  • USA handgun prevalence 29% of population, murder rate 7.59/100,000
  • Switzerland 14% and 1.7 per 100,000; 4/10ths as murderous by rate of gun ownership
  • Germany 7% and 1.21 per 100,000; 6/10ths as murderous

  You cannot 'fix' universal availability of handguns, even if you wanted to, but maybe asking why America is such a violent society might be worthwhile?

  One thing I do find curious, along the lines of the Eastern Europe point made by EvilForce (the answers to which ignored the other European countries where popular uprisings did take place without significant levels of handgun ownership).

  When the US goverment started taking pot-shots at students in Ohio, where was the response of the armed citizens? LOL
• 

  OldSoul

  Pole: Or do you really think the US army could be efficiently fought by round-bellied men with rifles? :)

  Pole,

  Your two allowed conclusions are not ever going to occur. Firstly, the government could not effectively take the form of totalitarianism without first removing arms from the citizenry. Secondly, the people I know who would fight the attempt to remove arms are not round-bellied. Thirdly, protecting the Constitution of this country is a primary responsibility of our armed forces and is the reason many of them are in the military. Fourthly, many in our military believe in the constitutional rights of citizens to bear arms. Fifthly, many of them believe that so strongly they would also turn against their employers.

  Now, lets imagine a different scenario. Which is it easier to enforce your will against: (1) an unarmed round-bellied man, or (2) an armed round-bellied man?

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  EvilForce

  Abaddon....no you didn't....no you didn't..... you went there?
  
  LOL
  
  Kent State slaughter - good point but whew that's a sensitive one for gun freaks I'm sure.
• 

  Pole

  OldSoul,

  First of all my apologies if you are a round bellied gun owner. I thought it was just an funny way of sexing up my point. By "round-bellied" I meant much worse equipped and not necessarily as disciplined and trained as the army.

  Your two allowed conclusions are not ever going to occur.

  Sure - it's not likely for such a government to be formed in the US in the forseeable future, but that is not my assumption. It's the assumption made by those using the argument that gun owners are better prepared for such circumstances. And that their guns will protect them from an oppressive argument.

  Firstly, the government could not effectively take the form of totalitarianism without first removing arms from the citizenry.

  Again: so what kind of oprressive government do gun advocates have in mind when they use this argument? Here is the key thing: you have just admitted that gun ownership is not a form of protection against an oppressive totalitarian government. That's what I meant too.

  Secondly, the people I know who would fight the attempt to remove arms are not round-bellied.

  See above.

  Thirdly, protecting the Constitution of this country is a primary responsibility of our armed forces and is the reason many of them are in the military.

  Fourthly, many in our military believe in the constitutional rights of citizens to bear arms.

  Fifthly, many of them believe that so strongly they would also turn against their employers.

  So, you are admitting again that the argument I've criticized in my first post makes little sense ideed in the context of your country? You have just shown that the strength of the US democracy does not lie in the right of common citizens to own guns. That was my impression too. Rather it has to do with the fact that nobody is (or not enough people are) interested in setting up such a government in the US anyway.

  Given the current circumnstances, claiming that guns can be used for protection against an oppressive totalitarian government is like claiming you keep a gun to fight off an alien invasion. This argument is just an excuse, and you have confirmed that OldSoul by showing that having guns to fight a possibly oppressive american government has nothing to do with the socio-political reality of the USA.

  The only thing I could add is that it would be futile to oppose tanks, fighters and a regular army with hand guns and rifles as well. here is where we may disagree, but my original crtiticism remains valid.

  (oops that may give us a round-belly )

  Cheers,

  Pole