No, but for entirely different reasons than guns. The world was bloodier before then because of the lack of civilisation and co-operation, not because guns were not invented yet. There is no reason to link decreased bloodiness with firearms.
Also, there is a difference between use of guns in war and allowing the man in the street to keep one at home to shoot intruders dead. War (while I hate saying it) can sometimes be justified, but there is no good reason to let your citizens carry guns in peacetime.
The flaw in your reasoning is contained in you phrase "... let your citizens". That's thenub of this. A government sjould servd the cutizens and should properly fear the citizens. Subjects, as opposed to citizens, fear their government. The USA has a second amendment precisely so that the citizens can, as a last resort, destroy an oppressive government. Citizen are soverign; subjects are, well, subject to their government. If you don't think 70 million armed citizens can destroy any government on earth, you haven't read enough history.Gun ownership is about freedom and also responsibility.
I think that is where we differ. The government should serve the citizens, but also guide the citizens to a decision that is best for the national interest. This is why we vote in elections for representatives, instead of voting on specific policy: to prevent laws which would endagnger public safety. Furthermore, why does fear have to be the motivator at all? I do not fear my government, and neither does it fear me. It ought to me a mutual relationship, with neither side dominant.
In this day and age, 70 million would not be enough. They would need to be co-ordinated, and they could not co-ordinate in secret without the government finding out. Also, the British, French and probably Canadians would all rush in and defend the US government as well.
Hows that vaunted team of USA, Canada, France etc doing against the lightly armed Afghans? How do you think the Afghans would be doing if there were 70 million of them? Think before you write; there is an empirical example right in front of you.
I think we are veering off topic here, but I'll respond regardless.
Afghanistan is well known of it's strategic ability to defend easily. You need much fewer numbers to defend Afghanistan than you do almost anywhere else in the world.
The Western troops in Afghanistan are also poorly motivated compared to the Afghans, as the war there is thousands of miles from home and insignificant to their lives at home. The Afghans, however, are well motivated; if they don't fight, their way of life will be destroyed.
I don't know how much you kniw about the topography of the USA but there is nothong in Afghanistan that cant be found here. From deserts to plains to mountains we have it all and moreso. Everything you said about the motivation of the afghans would be true about Americans who felt their government had become irretreivably oppressive; check the history of the late 18th century for proof
Have you ever shot a gun before?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Do you seriously believe the eotld was les bloody before the invention of firearms? Read history, really
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No, but for entirely different reasons than guns. The world was bloodier before then because of the lack of civilisation and co-operation, not because guns were not invented yet. There is no reason to link decreased bloodiness with firearms.
Also, there is a difference between use of guns in war and allowing the man in the street to keep one at home to shoot intruders dead. War (while I hate saying it) can sometimes be justified, but there is no good reason to let your citizens carry guns in peacetime.
--
ashfordite
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Rufus
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The flaw in your reasoning is contained in you phrase "... let your citizens". That's thenub of this. A government sjould servd the cutizens and should properly fear the citizens. Subjects, as opposed to citizens, fear their government. The USA has a second amendment precisely so that the citizens can, as a last resort, destroy an oppressive government. Citizen are soverign; subjects are, well, subject to their government. If you don't think 70 million armed citizens can destroy any government on earth, you haven't read enough history.Gun ownership is about freedom and also responsibility.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I think that is where we differ. The government should serve the citizens, but also guide the citizens to a decision that is best for the national interest. This is why we vote in elections for representatives, instead of voting on specific policy: to prevent laws which would endagnger public safety. Furthermore, why does fear have to be the motivator at all? I do not fear my government, and neither does it fear me. It ought to me a mutual relationship, with neither side dominant.
In this day and age, 70 million would not be enough. They would need to be co-ordinated, and they could not co-ordinate in secret without the government finding out. Also, the British, French and probably Canadians would all rush in and defend the US government as well.
--
ashfordite
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Hows that vaunted team of USA, Canada, France etc doing against the lightly armed Afghans? How do you think the Afghans would be doing if there were 70 million of them? Think before you write; there is an empirical example right in front of you.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I think we are veering off topic here, but I'll respond regardless.
Afghanistan is well known of it's strategic ability to defend easily. You need much fewer numbers to defend Afghanistan than you do almost anywhere else in the world.
The Western troops in Afghanistan are also poorly motivated compared to the Afghans, as the war there is thousands of miles from home and insignificant to their lives at home. The Afghans, however, are well motivated; if they don't fight, their way of life will be destroyed.
--
ashfordite
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I don't know how much you kniw about the topography of the USA but there is nothong in Afghanistan that cant be found here. From deserts to plains to mountains we have it all and moreso. Everything you said about the motivation of the afghans would be true about Americans who felt their government had become irretreivably oppressive; check the history of the late 18th century for proof
There is a great reason: I will shoot anyone who tries to take them from me. Allowing the private ownership of firearms saves lives.