Hantlers
Well-Known Member
Yeah, cause resistance is futile, right?
GUN CONTROL is STUPID. HELL YEAH
- Thread starter DutchJazzer
- Start date
Yeah, cause resistance is futile, right?
This is fully untrue, of course, but maybe you're making stuff up to see if Gameface has an alt.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Right, because when several other countries resisted Nazi occupation, it really culminated in no lives being lost.
I'd love to hear someone try to make the argument that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if every Jew had a pistol
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
I don't think anybody is making that argument Dala.
The Holocaust was happening whether they had guns or not, but would you rather go out fighting or go out in a gas chamber? They were gonna die anyways, might as well take some Nazi's out with 'em.
I dont think armed citizens would have stopped the Nazis. It was more than that. They did control with fear, but even more with hope, and pride. Remember how low of a moral had after WW1. I don't think they would have risen up against the party, because too many of them with either for it or turned a blind eye to it. Maybe small pockets, but I just don't get how we are relating the two. I do get that idea of an unarmed populace can be easier to control, but I still think it's a little outlandish to say that if we have gun control we are doing what Hitler wanted. That's what I hearing when I'm hearing the Hitler wanted to disarm his citizens line, and it's used by the gun enthusiasts. Hitler really shouldn't be used in normal political debate. It's so far away from where we are, and so complex that just pulling individual points into todays conversation usually don't hold much weight in reality.
This is fully untrue, of course, but maybe you're making stuff up to see if Gameface has an alt.
You are incorrect my friend.
A house with guns is more likely to have a gun accident than a house without guns. Easier access to guns makes it easier for people to use them on impulse, have accidents, etc.
but again I'm not for taking away ALL guns. I just think we should look at the 2nd amendment, and what it means today. We have to draw the line somewhere. Can we have the debate where that line is like adults?
That's not even close to what I said. But frankly, saying that is no more outlandish than saying "Less guns less guns violence. It's pretty simple."
Pol Pot's Killing Fields were late 1970s. Countless more atrocities have been committed by governments against their own citizens since then, including Iraq (Kurds), Bosnia, and I'm sure several African countries. Such atrocities are not so far removed from the present day as you might think.
I'm with you there. But how is "Less guns less guns violence. It's pretty simple." an adult way of tackling the topic? It's not nearly that simple.
1. You said gun violence, not gun accident.
2. Gun accident rate is so low it's meaningless to bring it up.
3. North Dakota's homicide rate is consistently low and comparable to the best Euro countries'. ND has a top five gun ownership rate among US states. More guns clearly in itself does not equal more gun violence.
The US violence/homicide problem is largely a southern states problem (that many professors link to pride among whites, and not to guns).
I want you to know that I wasn't saying that about you, but some "gun enthusiasts" use this. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
I understand that atrocities are still happening. Nothing quite on the level and scope and Nazi Germany but there are some horror stories out there. Look what is happing in Korea right now. Camps for people who are against the government. It's sickening. I just dont agree that armed citizens would change the outcome overall in many or any of these situations. Just my opinion. Hope you can respect that.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
Lets just throw out an example here. Lets say that some faction of the US Government tried to put us into camps or something like, just because we disagreed with them.
Would it be easier for them to do that if we did not have weapons?