[Millennium]

The complete eradication of all guns on Earth would be a Good Thing.

And as long as we're dreaming, I'd like a pony.

The fact is, you'll never get rid of all guns. And if you try, the people who keep them will dominate the people who don't. Since this isn't acceptable, but it's not possible to eradicate all guns, you're left with only one alternative: level the playing field.

[climber]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

The problem is that removing guns is removing the means, not the motive (or the origin of the motive as it were).
BlackGriffen

I think you mean it changes to tool. Even the title of this thread (oblivious to originator) shows that humans will just use a different weapon.

[climber]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The complete eradication of all guns on Earth would be a Good Thing.

And as long as we're dreaming, I'd like a pony.

The fact is, you'll never get rid of all guns. And if you try, the people who keep them will dominate the people who don't. Since this isn't acceptable, but it's not possible to eradicate all guns, you're left with only one alternative: level the playing field.

Just look at how extremist leaders with the right weapons in countries like Iraq can control and otherwise helpless population.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


I'm curious. Why did this not work? Did it fail because someone smuggled in guns and broke the law by using guns? Or did they all just say, "wait a minute, life was so much better when those little shits with muskets were capping our @sses!!" ?

As far as my naivety and non-thinking is concerned, I do think. I do think drug dealers would have to give up their guns if guns were systematically removed completely from our whole planet.

Why is it so hard to imagine a world without one single gun?

Two words: pandora's box. Were you absent the day they taught about that in kindergarten?

As long as there is someone willing to pay for guns, someone will make guns for them. As long as someone is willing to make guns, they will exist. The only reason the Shoguns had marginal success was because the general populace didn't know how to make guns yet.

Did you know that they tried to ban the use of the crossbow in warfare (well, inter-christian warfare)? They didn't like the fact that a commoner could wield a crossbow and take out a noble knight. When those Welsh bowmen came along, the French were right put off.

There is no honor whatsoever in killing. It is a dirty business that happens to be necessary at times. No matter how it's done it is a brutal affair. "Oooh, but the ninjas look so cool doing it!" Bah! All guns have done is democratized the ability to kill, and thus decentralized power (to a certain extent).

The box is open, there's no way to put what has escaped back. We're all on this ride called life together, and there's no sense in wishing it could move backward.

Let me suggest some reading that will hopefully cure you of your intolerable case of naivete:

The Art of War Sun Tzu
On War Carl Von Clausewitz
The Prince Machiavelli
Heart of Darkness Joseph Conrad
Lord of the Flies William Golding
Starship Troopers, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, et al. by Robert Heinlein

That should get you started. Mankind's darker side is never going away, no matter how much you wish it would. Guns or no guns, someone willing to take a life will always find a way. Just remember that whether you're willing to stoop that low or not, there is someone else who is.

BlackGriffen

[Phanguye]

swordfighting still exists... only it happens in truck stops mostly now...

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by climber:


I think you mean it changes to tool. Even the title of this thread (oblivious to originator) shows that humans will just use a different weapon.

Yeah but if we had only swords then L'infant could live out his dreams and get to wear his Zorro mask and cape. To him its more elegant and honorable not to mention phallic. Its more up his alley.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Hey Doctor Dubious, people like you make me glad guns exist

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:


Yeah but if we had only swords then L'infant could live out his dreams and get to wear his Zorro mask and cape. To him its more elegant and honorable not to mention phallic. Its more up his alley.

Is that better than being anal like yourself?

Ka-ching!

[PJW]

Originally posted by nonhuman:


And if going to war meant you had to deal with that increased gore, and the personal nature of killing someone with a blade rather than the "point-and-click" approach, don't you think less people would be willing to fight in wars?

No. History has shown us that human beings are willing to wage war and slaughter each other regardless of whether they use a sword or a gun.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by PJW:


No. History has shown us that human beings are willing to wage war and slaughter each other regardless of whether they use a sword or a gun.

It's more difficult with a sword.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by voodoo:


It's more difficult with a sword.

Thanks voodoo.

Originally posted by PJW:

No. History has shown us that human beings are willing to wage war and slaughter each other regardless of whether they use a sword or a gun.

This just goes to show how distorted my original intent of this thread has become. I am not making a statement about humanity or the will of men to go to war.

Simply put, I believe that a society would have to be extremely disciplined to abandon guns, and while combat might remain a neccessity, the form of combat might be elevated to a more mature and honorable form.

I read all the posts in this thread, and I acknowledge the Pandora's box analogy, as well as the fact that my viewpoint is an idealist rather than a realist viewpoint. However, I am a firm believer that reality can be changed. Are we as a society just supposed to sit and let crime run rampant and grow? Are we not supposed to take any action for the betterment of society? Like my analogy that was lost on Lerkfish, are we supposed to ride this train all the way off the cliff?

I concede to the fact that getting rid of guns or getting rid of cars is not goint to happen, so the problems of gun crime and pollution are not going to be solved that way. I do believe, however, that if you tackle these issues with a confident stance and a smart platform for change, you can solve these problems.

And I strongly believe that a conservative "leave it as it is" attitude is very foolish. We cannot continue to believe that our planet was created for us to rule. It just isn't so. We have a responsibility to the planet to live according to the concept of balance, and we have a responsibility to ourselves to live in a society that encourages strong mindedness, proaction, and harmony among ourselves.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by voodoo:


It's more difficult with a sword.

Actually, the casualty rates tended to be higher way back when (IIRC). Pretty much because everyone was in close, and defending yourself required relatively good health, lead to wounded people getting killed either in the battle or later when the victor dispatched the slowly dying.

If anything, the invention of the gun may be responsible for the view that war is horrific. If you'll remember, war used to be glorified pretty heavily, and almost consistently (societies can grow weary of continuous war, but for the most part, it seems like ancient people were gung-ho about raiding and killing each other).

The big difference the gun made is that the wounded came home a lot more often. When you pile on the ability for both sides of a war to decimate each other's homeland with weapons like airplanes and bombs, and war becomes intolerable pretty fast. ("What, the war will actually effect me?")

It's kind of like (note the kind of: this analogy is not exact) comparing rhinos and sheep. rhinos never use their horns against each other, but sheep are butting heads all the time.

BlackGriffen

[Thrax]

Honorable or not, I'm more likely to successfully defend myself with a gun than with a sword.

As long as it isn't a musket.

I think guns should be legal, but reasonable restrictions should be in place. (Lerkfish and Ca$h described pretty much what I want.)

For the record, I don't own a gun and have no desire to use one - for either defense or sport. I live in a low-crime area and get my food from supermarkets and restaurants.

And yes, the NRA is made up of a bunch of right-wing nuts.

[Thrax]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
You're really sounding like an idiot, and until this topic I had respected you. I'm outta here. Anyway, groovy dude, get rid of all the guns from this planet, because anythigns possible. Also, please get rid of ALL the violence against women, and go hug a rainbow.

- Ca$h

Nah, more like a naive idealist. Most people who have his views are either: campus radicals, philosophy professors, or MacNN Forums posters.

Where are all these socialists coming from?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Like my analogy that was lost on Lerkfish, are we supposed to ride this train all the way off the cliff?

Nah, I got it, I just thought it was a pointless analogy.
You say your intent is NOT to discuss man's penchant for violence regardless of weapon, but unfortunately, that is what we have to deal with. Until you can ethically evolve man (and ALL men, not just some) to the point of being hardwired for non-violence, the weapon choice is irrelevant. The desire to kill is relevant. For example, if you somehow managed to remove all the guns in the world, people would start using pipe bombs, crossbows, or what have you.
Your premise is absurd, that by changing the weapon choice you will pacify mankind. There are many more weapon choices than guns or swords. A malatov cocktail is easy and cheap to construct, for example.
You also have this naive romantic notion that inclose swordfighting is both glamorous and discourages violent tendencies. Yeah...right...that's why it continued for thousands of years slaughtering entire civilisations, because it was a deterrent to violence.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Until you can ethically evolve man (and ALL men, not just some) to the point of being hardwired for non-violence, the weapon choice is irrelevant.

Now, that would *really* be a Good Thing�! I guess that such an ethical evolution would also get us rid with cars (see one of the above posts): who would prefer to imprison her/himself in a car, when there would be much more comfortable and faster alternatives (aka extensive public transit and "livable" communities at any scale)...?