[L'enfanTerrible]

*Inspired by the gun thread.*

I know the invention of the gun made hand to hand and sword combat obsolete, but why is it considered better? Granted it's easier, but it's my experience that when you make something easier, it tends to bring something from an elite level to the lowest common denominator.

Sword fighting is elegant and difficult, and it takes a lot of practice and training. In my opinion, it is a more honorable form of combat. Gun fighting is not combat, it's simple murder. What would be wrong with the entire eradication of all guns on Earth? Do you think thats even possible? I do, I think anything is possible. I know combat is sometimes neccessary in life, I'm not a tree-hugging peace junkie. I say bring back the sword, and bring honor back to combat.

What do you say?

[maxelson]

My brother, I walk with you.
en garde.

[daimoni]

.

[ringo]

In what way is complex murder superior to simple murder?

[L'enfanTerrible]

"Not as clumsy or errant as a blaster. It is an elegant weapon from a more civilized age."

If Obi-Wan said it, it must be true. All the Jedi use swords.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by ringo:
In what way is complex murder superior to simple murder?

I didn't say it was superior, I said it was more honorable. Don't try to flip this subject around.

In a way, sword fighting is a lot simpler than gun fighting, it just takes more discipline. Discipline breeds maturity and honor.

[G4ME]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
"Not as clumsy or errant as a blaster. It is an elegant weapon from a more civilized age."

If Obi-Wan said it, it must be true. All the Jedi use swords.

and that was a MOVIE big difference the real life.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
*Inspired by the gun thread.*

I know the invention of the gun made hand to hand and sword combat obsolete, but why is it considered better? Granted it's easier, but it's my experience that when you make something easier, it tends to bring something from an elite level to the lowest common denominator.

Sword fighting is elegant and difficult, and it takes a lot of practice and training. In my opinion, it is a more honorable form of combat. Gun fighting is not combat, it's simple murder. What would be wrong with the entire eradication of all guns on Earth? Do you think thats even possible? I do, I think anything is possible. I know combat is sometimes neccessary in life, I'm not a tree-hugging peace junkie. I say bring back the sword, and bring honor back to combat.

What do you say?

Didn't Japan try exactly what you are suggesting? It didn't work.

[arrested502]

I'm with ringo here, there really isn't much point in justifying one form of killing over another. If I had to choose I'd probably pick a gun over a sword. Imagine how much bloodier and savage war was with swords and spears and arrows. People had to literally fight face-to-face and cut thier enemies in half (literally, not figuratively). I keep thinking of the movie "Braveheart".

Then again, look at the openning of "Saving Private Ryan". Eithar way, there's not much point in justifying one over another.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by arrested502:
I'm with ringo here, there really isn't much point in justifying one form of killing over another. If I had to choose I'd probably pick a gun over a sword. Imagine how much bloodier and savage war was with swords and spears and arrows. People had to literally fight face-to-face and cut thier enemies in half (literally, not figuratively). I keep thinking of the movie "Braveheart".

Then again, look at the openning of "Saving Private Ryan". Eithar way, there's not much point in justifying one over another.

My point is: the fact that sword fighting is face to face and it takes strength and skill shows something for the society that uses them. Can you guys even picture a world without your precious gun? You only have to go back a few hundred years. The invention of the gun was bad, not good

I am not justifying one weapon over the other, in the context of killing. I am saying that killing, yes, is sometimes justified, but the society that uses a sword would be more honorable than the society that uses a gun. And this would reciprocate throughout the culture.

Whatever, it's a dream, you pigs will never give up your precious guns.

[climber]

The only "honerable" to fight or wage war is to make so lopsided that it never starts in the first place.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by arrested502:
I'm with ringo here, there really isn't much point in justifying one form of killing over another. If I had to choose I'd probably pick a gun over a sword. Imagine how much bloodier and savage war was with swords and spears and arrows. People had to literally fight face-to-face and cut thier enemies in half (literally, not figuratively). I keep thinking of the movie "Braveheart".

Then again, look at the openning of "Saving Private Ryan". Eithar way, there's not much point in justifying one over another.

Agreed. seeing someone torn up from swordplay and machine-gun fire, neither would be pleasant. It is never a good thing when men play at death. There is no honor, frankly, to a sword over a gun, when both kill.

If enfant is trying to say that because one must be more disciplined to kill with a sword, one still kills, and perhaps more brutally since death is slower, usually. What is the use of discipline or honor when your enemie's entrails are gushing to the floor?

[ringo]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Whatever, it's a dream, you pigs will never give up your precious guns.

To me it has nothing to do with the weapon and everything to do with the reason for using one.

To kill in self defense or in defense of the helpless seems "honorable" to me.

L'EF...what do you think honor is?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
I am not justifying one weapon over the other, in the context of killing. I am saying that killing, yes, is sometimes justified, but the society that uses a sword would be more honorable than the society that uses a gun. And this would reciprocate throughout the culture.

Whatever, it's a dream, you pigs will never give up your precious guns.

um...so, you're saying the mongol hordes are more honorable? or the Japanese feudal warlords or the ancient Romans or (pick a civilisation).
I don't understand your terms of honor through culture when brutal conquest and slaughter takes place regardless of the lack of gunpowder.
I think you're vaulting rather bizarre rationalizations for wanting to claim that the gun makes a society more barbaric and bloodthirsty, which doesn't really hold true if you investigate it far enough.
If anything, ANY of those so called more honorable societies quickly adopted guns when the opportunity presented itself, with no qualms.

[climber]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


My point is: the fact that sword fighting is face to face and it takes strength and skill shows something for the society that uses them. Can you guys even picture a world without your precious gun? You only have to go back a few hundred years. The invention of the gun was bad, not good

I am not justifying one weapon over the other, in the context of killing. I am saying that killing, yes, is sometimes justified, but the society that uses a sword would be more honorable than the society that uses a gun. And this would reciprocate throughout the culture.

Whatever, it's a dream, you pigs will never give up your precious guns.

Man has been killing each other for thousands of years. Try reading some histroy

If you have trouble reading.... Then just rent Braveheart at blockbuster. I hope you get the point.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by arrested502:
I'm with ringo here, there really isn't much point in justifying one form of killing over another. If I had to choose I'd probably pick a gun over a sword. Imagine how much bloodier and savage war was with swords and spears and arrows. People had to literally fight face-to-face and cut thier enemies in half (literally, not figuratively). I keep thinking of the movie "Braveheart".

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?

[L'enfanTerrible]

I must say, the posters in this forum are so backwards!! you'll spend three-days talking about the glory of the gun and the fact that every person should have the right to carry one, and then you'll turn around your statements and say that no killing is honorable.

Get real sometimes killing is honorable. If someone killed my wife, I would find great honor in taking his life.

The problem with our society is that we have given up our sense of personal maintenance and put it into the hands of the government.

The whole issue of sword v. gun is a moot point now. I'm going to try to shift my point so that it's easier for you guys to understand.

The process of self-protection in our society is completely lost. What I am trying to say is that in a society without guns, learning to protect yourself would be more disciplined. And this would translate all throughout the society. The invention of the gun put power into every snot-nosed little pigs hands.

You know what, forget it. seriously, I'm dropping this because you all, ALWAYS without a doubt will find some way to turn topic to something that is easier for you to put-down.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by ringo:


To me it has nothing to do with the weapon and everything to do with the reason for using one.

To kill in self defense or in defense of the helpless seems "honorable" to me.

L'EF...what do you think honor is?

My sense of honor runs along exactly the same lines as yours. I think the reason for killing is what makes it honorable.

[climber]

They want to blame the gun because in their simple minds we could rid the world of them

If they were to instead blame the people behind the guns, and argue getting rid of all of them, that might require the use of some guns�damn that won't work?

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by climber:
They want to blame the gun because in their simple minds we could rid the world of them

If they were to instead blame the people behind the guns, and argue getting rid of all of them, that might require the use of some guns�damn that won't work?

You are very short-sighted and I didn't realize that this topic turned into a debate about responsibility for crime.

I'm going to spell it out for you.

The criminal is responsible for the crime. The society is responsible for making the criminal. The society is screwed up. The gun is responsible for screwing the society up.

Try to think outside the box.

And as for getting rid of all criminals, that won't happen because you are #1: attacking the problem from the wrong end. #2 more criminals will come. Thats like trying to fix a burst arterie by bandaging the surface wound.

read my lips.
NO-ONE-NEEDS-GUNS

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
read my lips.
NO-ONE-NEEDS-GUNS

Try telling that to your friendly neighborhood mugger or drug dealer. But I suppose if you are very persuasive, you might get them to start packing broadswords instead.

[ringo]

L'EF, I sympathize with your view, but the society (humanity) has been screwed up for much longer than since the introduction of the gun. As long as we have recorded history, things have been royally f**ked up here on Earth.
I agree that the individual, and collectively the society can work to make things better, but I am not convinced that the gun is to blame for something that has gone on and on and on and on and on.

Read my lips: NO-PLACE-NEEDS-HUMANS

[climber]

You turned it into a debate about crime by arguing the gun is the cause. You even restate it several times.

You still fail to understand, even after your sword analagy, that people have been sucessfully killing each other since long before the first gun. (Lerk pointed this out better than I)

As far as "No One Needs a Gun"??, I use my locked rifles to feed my family. All of the red meat we eat is deer and elk.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
I must say, the posters in this forum are so backwards!! you'll spend three-days talking about the glory of the gun and the fact that every person should have the right to carry one, and then you'll turn around your statements and say that no killing is honorable.

Get real sometimes killing is honorable. If someone killed my wife, I would find great honor in taking his life.

The problem with our society is that we have given up our sense of personal maintenance and put it into the hands of the government.

The whole issue of sword v. gun is a moot point now. I'm going to try to shift my point so that it's easier for you guys to understand.

The process of self-protection in our society is completely lost. What I am trying to say is that in a society without guns, learning to protect yourself would be more disciplined. And this would translate all throughout the society. The invention of the gun put power into every snot-nosed little pigs hands.

You know what, forget it. seriously, I'm dropping this because you all, ALWAYS without a doubt will find some way to turn topic to something that is easier for you to put-down.

for the record, I'm one of those who are anti-gun. BUT the logic in your arguments is more full of holes than swiss cheese. So in other words, you're not a good enough debater to be doing the anti-gun side much good.

And please refrain from calling us snot-nosed pigs. I'm more of a warthog myself.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Thank you ringo, for being respectful in explaining your views instead of condescending.

I agree that the world has been fvcked up long before the gun was invented. It goes a little deeper than that, but the culture of the gun is still pretty deep rooted in our society, and I think revolutionizing that would be a good step to a more peaceful society.

In terms of this forum, I am pretty sick of the surface debate that goes on, because no one thinks any deeper than the normal defense mechanism of rightwing worldviews.

For example: Simey's point that drug-dealers and muggers would never give up their guns.

You have to think a lot deeper than this. I'm trying to break down some walls in this forum.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Thank you ringo, for being respectful in explaining your views instead of condescending.

I agree that the world has been fvcked up long before the gun was invented. It goes a little deeper than that, but the culture of the gun is still pretty deep rooted in our society, and I think revolutionizing that would be a good step to a more peaceful society.

In terms of this forum, I am pretty sick of the surface debate that goes on, because no one thinks any deeper than the normal defense mechanism of rightwind worldviews.

For example: Simey's point that drug-dealers and muggers would never give up their guns.

You have to think a lot deeper than this. I'm trying to break down some walls in this forum.

um...no offense, but I see mainly one person here being condescending. Everyone else is simply out-debating you, and that apparently stings, which is making you become insulting and very, very condescending. Calling people short-sighted, snot-nosed pigs, etc, is not very conducive to respectful debate.

[climber]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


for the record, I'm one of those who are anti-gun. BUT the logic in your arguments is more full of holes than swiss cheese. So in other words, you're not a good enough debater to be doing the anti-gun side much good.

And please refrain from calling us snot-nosed pigs. I'm more of a warthog myself.

Lerkfish,I would be very interested in hearing some of your ideas for increased gun restrictions in light of your anti-gun feelings.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


um...no offense, but I see mainly one person here being condescending. Everyone else is simply out-debating you, and that apparently stings, which is making you become insulting and very, very condescending. Calling people short-sighted, snot-nosed pigs, etc, is not very conducive to respectful debate.

Lerkfish, you should know that there is a difference between condescention (sp?) and straight insults.. The person that I called short sighted was not "out-debating" me, in fact, I don't see anyone here out-debating me because no one is bringing points to the discussion that are even close to the topic I am trying to discuss. And yes, I am upset that my topic was skewed.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
For example: Simey's point that drug-dealers and muggers would never give up their guns.

You have to think a lot deeper than this. I'm trying to break down some walls in this forum.

Because drug dealers wouldn't give them up and you know it. Being naive is not thinking deep. It's just not thinking.

I made the point that the Japan of the Shoguns banned the use of firearms in (I think) the 16th century. I guess you must have missed that comment. They did it because they thought that firearms were barbaric because firearms allowed untrained commoners to kill the highly disciplined and trained swordsmen of the nobility. Notice, however, that this experiment did not result in a more peaceful society. Medieval Japanese society is not noted for its lack of violence. Notice also that the attempt to outlaw the gun failed miserably when large numbers of westerners arrived in the 19th century.

[typoon]

I actaully agree with L'enfanTerrible on this one. (thinks to self must be a first) But I do think facing someone in combat not just being able to kill them from a distace is much more honorable. It is similar to the Martial Arts where you bit skill versus another's skill. When you fence you don't actually kill someone so not all sword play leads to death. All guns will lead to death.

[daimoni]

.

[climber]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


Lerkfish, you should know that there is a difference between condescention (sp?) and straight insults.. The person that I called short sighted was not "out-debating" me, in fact, I don't see anyone here out-debating me because no one is bringing points to the discussion that are even close to the topic I am trying to discuss. And yes, I am upset that my topic was skewed.

Yea, It's hard to have a debate with you when you keep running away from your own points...

This was your point....(The society is screwed up. The gun is responsible for screwing the society up. )

Do you still want to stand by that statement??

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by climber:


Yea, It's hard to have a debate with you when you keep running away from your own points...

This was your point....(The society is screwed up. The gun is responsible for screwing the society up. )

Do you still want to stand by that statement??

Did I say that in my first post? That was not my original point and that was something I said in retort to something that was stated in reply to my first post, hence the distortion of the topic.

And yes, I will stand by my statement that guns and the gun mentality are partially responsible for the screwed up society we live in today. There are many factors, of course.

[Ca$h68]

I think you're a ****ing idiot.

First, there is no way to eradicate all guns. That's like trying to get rid of all the nuclear weapons. It can't be done. Secondly, you can't carry swords around in this day and age. We have lawyers.

- Ca$h

[climber]

Originally posted by typoon:
I actaully agree with L'enfanTerrible on this one. (thinks to self must be a first) But I do think facing someone in combat not just being able to kill them from a distace is much more honorable. It is similar to the Martial Arts where you bit skill versus another's skill. When you fence you don't actually kill someone so not all sword play leads to death. All guns will lead to death.

All Guns lead to death? WTF, Tell that to the policeman trying to arrest a bank robber.. He is using that gun to protect you and I and hopefully to cause the criminal to stop.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Because drug dealers wouldn't give them up and you know it. Being naive is not thinking deep. It's just not thinking.

I made the point that the Japan of the Shoguns banned the use of firearms in (I think) the 16th century. I guess you must have missed that comment. They did it because they thought that firearms were barbaric because firearms allowed untrained commoners to kill the highly disciplined and trained swordsmen of the nobility. Notice, however, that this experiment did not result in a more peaceful society. Medieval Japanese society is not noted for its lack of violence. Notice also that the attempt to outlaw the gun failed miserably when large numbers of westerners arrived in the 19th century.

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?

[ringo]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
Secondly, you can't carry swords around in this day and age. We have lawyers.

Aaaak! Lawyers are worse than swords OR guns!

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
I think you're a ****ing idiot.

First, there is no way to eradicate all guns. That's like trying to get rid of all the nuclear weapons. It can't be done. Secondly, you can't carry swords around in this day and age. We have lawyers.

- Ca$h

I think you're an immature and mixed up individual.

I also find it really ironic that you would make an extreme point of making religious people "think" about their ways yet you would scoff at me trying to do the same thing about people who feel we need guns.

What exactly is your point about the eradication of guns? You don't think it's possible to eradicate them? I am of the opinion that anything is possible. Anything. What exactly did you mean by the lawyer comment?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Why is it so hard to imagine a world without one single gun?

Oh, its very easy to imagine it. however, It's merely impossible to accomplish it. As I stated previously, pandora's box is already opened, there are already more than enough guns in existence. And people that now own them will not willingly give them to you to destroy them. That's the reality.

[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

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


Oh, its very easy to imagine it. however, It's merely impossible to accomplish it. As I stated previously, pandora's box is already opened, there are already more than enough guns in existence. And people that now own them will not willingly give them to you to destroy them. That's the reality.

So I suppose we are riding this train all the way off the cliff then, Lerk?

And Ca$h, why would you lose respect for me over one thread? Are you that fickle? I'm not saying anything that I haven't said before. To be honest, you've shown me a side of you that is making me lose respect for you. You're just a tool.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by climber:


Lerkfish,I would be very interested in hearing some of your ideas for increased gun restrictions in light of your anti-gun feelings.

"anti-gun" doesnt explain much, does it?
Actually, all I'd like to see is many of the current laws consistently enforced state to state. At present they are not, which makes it a market for people to buy large quantities of unrestricted weapons in places like Ohio, where I live, in gun shows and several other states with varying degrees of not having background checks or waiting periods, and then smuggle them to restricted states to sell on the street.
I can think of no legitimate reason why someone needs to purchase an automatic weapon, or a handgun instantly, without background checks. I'd prefer there be a way to efficiently trace any future gun sales to the purchaser, and to enforce a reasonable waiting period for certain types of guns. This will do nothing for guns that are already in circulation, but I would like it to be easier to track these underground pipelines of weapons for criminals.
That's all. I wouldn't want to confiscate existing weapons from legitimate owners, I'd just like to make enough hoops to jump through to discourage non-legitimate owners from obtaining new weapons too easily.
After all, I have to get my mortgage approved through a process that checks my background and takes an amount of time. My house is not going to be used to kill anyone (as far as I know).

I'm actually more anti-NRA extremism than anti-gun, now that I think about it. I'm not naive enough to think that guns could ever be eliminated, nor do I think they necessarily should be for other people. BUT, for me, I will never heft one, because I am personally philosophically against weapons in general. But that's just me, I don't expect everyone else in the world to think like I do.

[climber]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


Did I say that in my first post? That was not my original point and that was something I said in retort to something that was stated in reply to my first post, hence the distortion of the topic.

And yes, I will stand by my statement that guns and the gun mentality are partially responsible for the screwed up society we live in today. There are many factors, of course.

Well there is little other point to this thread other than to restate that guns somehow worse for society than swords. And has it has been pointed out several times, humans have shown through history to be just as ruthless and barbaric with either weapon.

Criminals will choose their method for destruction based on convenience. If a rental truck or an airplane can be effectively substituted for a gun or a sword, don�t you think there are others? Just think how much damage and destruction was caused with a couple of small box cutters, Hell they didn�t even need a sword.

[Ca$h68]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


"anti-gun" doesnt explain much, does it?
Actually, all I'd like to see is many of the current laws consistently enforced state to state. At present they are not, which makes it a market for people to buy large quantities of unrestricted weapons in places like Ohio, where I live, in gun shows and several other states with varying degrees of not having background checks or waiting periods, and then smuggle them to restricted states to sell on the street.
I can think of no legitimate reason why someone needs to purchase an automatic weapon, or a handgun instantly, without background checks. I'd prefer there be a way to efficiently trace any future gun sales to the purchaser, and to enforce a reasonable waiting period for certain types of guns. This will do nothing for guns that are already in circulation, but I would like it to be easier to track these underground pipelines of weapons for criminals.
That's all. I wouldn't want to confiscate existing weapons from legitimate owners, I'd just like to make enough hoops to jump through to discourage non-legitimate owners from obtaining new weapons too easily.
After all, I have to get my mortgage approved through a process that checks my background and takes an amount of time. My house is not going to be used to kill anyone (as far as I know).

I'm actually more anti-NRA extremism than anti-gun, now that I think about it. I'm not naive enough to think that guns could ever be eliminated, nor do I think they necessarily should be for other people. BUT, for me, I will never heft one, because I am personally philosophically against weapons in general. But that's just me, I don't expect everyone else in the world to think like I do.

I wouldn't mind any of that. Hell, they could even imprint my name on the gun and the bullets of they wanted to, its not like I'm going to be using them illegally.

- Ca$h

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
So I suppose we are riding this train all the way off the cliff then, Lerk?

Not sure what you mean exactly, but if you're saying we're stuck with the guns presently in existence, then yes.
Why is this a difficult concept for you? The only way you're going to get all the guns rounded up is if you have much larger sized or larger in quantity guns to force the present gun owners to turn them over, and even then, its not going to happen. But if you think you can do it, by all means, go to some of the militia groups, like the one McVeigh belonged to, and ask them pretty please to hand you their guns so you can destroy them.
I'd be interested in seeing you accomplish.

Additionally, and oddly, you seem to be very hostile to people who are trying to simply explain reality to you as if we created this reality. WE did not, but we aren't so naive as to ignore its persistence.

[SimeyTheLimey]

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!!" ?

Basically, the westerners came along and kicked their door open, and being better armed, they could make it stick.

I think you are misunderstanding. Firearms weren't banned from medieval Japan because they caused violence. They were banned because they threatened the political order. The idea was to limit political instability in the wake of a major period of civil war. But that only worked as long as Japan remained closed off from the outside world. What they found out is that there are certain realities that can't be wished away. So too with your drug dealers.

[BlackGriffen]

I just love the way some people romanticize the past. First of all, the choice weapon of war was almost never the sword, because it was simply too expensive to make good swords in sufficient quantity to supply an army. The weapon of choice has generally been the spear or pol axe. It's cheaper (requires less metal and craftsmanship), and it has longer reach. Swords (at least the good ones, Roman army swords were short and relatively cheaply made) have always been weapons of the relatively rich. That's where the whole concept of swordplay being more "civilized" comes from.

The problem is that you're assuming that people will be less brutal if they have to kill someone face to face. The problem with that logic is that you have it backwards: people have become more squeamish about death because they don't have to confront it face to face. Animals a pre-butchered far from where we live, the process of death and decay is dealt with entirely differently now, etc. Did you know that the reason the guillotine was used in the French revolution was because it was believed that it would be humane compared to the executions the crowds used to watch? If anything, society will get more brutal to maintain its old habits.

I think I close with a quote from Robert Heinlein:

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein

BlackGriffen

[climber]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


"anti-gun" doesnt explain much, does it?
Actually, all I'd like to see is many of the current laws consistently enforced state to state. At present they are not, which makes it a market for people to buy large quantities of unrestricted weapons in places like Ohio, where I live, in gun shows and several other states with varying degrees of not having background checks or waiting periods, and then smuggle them to restricted states to sell on the street.
I can think of no legitimate reason why someone needs to purchase an automatic weapon, or a handgun instantly, without background checks. I'd prefer there be a way to efficiently trace any future gun sales to the purchaser, and to enforce a reasonable waiting period for certain types of guns. This will do nothing for guns that are already in circulation, but I would like it to be easier to track these underground pipelines of weapons for criminals.
That's all. I wouldn't want to confiscate existing weapons from legitimate owners, I'd just like to make enough hoops to jump through to discourage non-legitimate owners from obtaining new weapons too easily.
After all, I have to get my mortgage approved through a process that checks my background and takes an amount of time. My house is not going to be used to kill anyone (as far as I know).

I'm actually more anti-NRA extremism than anti-gun, now that I think about it. I'm not naive enough to think that guns could ever be eliminated, nor do I think they necessarily should be for other people. BUT, for me, I will never heft one, because I am personally philosophically against weapons in general. But that's just me, I don't expect everyone else in the world to think like I do.

Thanks for answering Lerkfish.

I agree with your goals, although I am a bit skeptical on some of your methods to achieve them. If I read your post correctly I understand and concur with your desire to restrict access to guns by the criminally inclined. And I also believe you were stating you accept the legitimate use of guns by responsible persons.

The first suggestion you make relates to unrestricted gun sales in rural states, like at gun shows. To have any real effect you would also have to outlaw any and all private gun sales. In other words you would have to prevent me from selling or buying a gun except from an �authorized� gun dealer who could perform a background check. Or worse you would have to have the government do this. (new program??)

Currently you do have to have a background check to purchase at a store. The only exception is if you have a valid concealed weapons permit (issued by the sheriff)

My biggest objection to any of this, is it fails to do anything but restrict sales to legitimate purchasers. It does little to stop or slow the access to the criminals. Because, if they are motivated enough to use one in a crime, they are more that motivated enough to break a few to obtain one.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


You are very short-sighted and I didn't realize that this topic turned into a debate about responsibility for crime.

I'm going to spell it out for you.

The criminal is responsible for the crime. The society is responsible for making the criminal. The society is screwed up. The gun is responsible for screwing the society up.

Try to think outside the box.

And as for getting rid of all criminals, that won't happen because you are #1: attacking the problem from the wrong end. #2 more criminals will come. Thats like trying to fix a burst arterie by bandaging the surface wound.

read my lips.
NO-ONE-NEEDS-GUNS

That has to be the biggest load of $hit I've ever seen. There are people from "perfect" backgrounds who become psychotic killers. There are people from impoverished, brutal backgrounds who make the best of it and better themselves.

The problem is that removing guns is removing the means, not the motive (or the origin of the motive as it were). I'd say that abuse and neglect are far bigger factors in creating criminals, and you don't need a gun to beat your kid. When you combine that with an environment that encourages semi-organized crime (gangs, drugs, etc), and you've got a recipe for disaster. Trust me, remove guns, and criminals will switch to knives. Remove knives, and they'll use rocks and broken bottles. The vast, vast majority of crimes is committed by the poor on the poor. Removing guns from the picture won't do any good in that case because there are large parts of American cities where justice at best barely has a presence.

As for the crimes that aren't poor on poor, like muggings and such. I imagine that a mugging would involve simply cracking you over the head with a bat instead of pointing a gun at you.

The "problem" of violence (honestly, it isn't a problem because the ability to do violence is a necessary survival skill, and as long as people have the ability, someone will use it) is not so simple that removing guns is some sort of panacea.

BlackGriffen

[voodoo]

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?

Nonhuman... I think we both think alike. Wow.

Well, we aren't from *here* either