VA Tech Shooting

[Sorrow]

Wait, so their extreme religious commitments make them better fighters

Yeah, at the time (1939), the people had no idea what was going on, mass confusion and what is the ordinary civilian going to do? (yeah give em guns, that'll make em brave... not.)
The situation in Iraq is CLEARLY different, special militias are everywhere with access to weaponry, probably obtained through your own retarded country and the USSR.
nice, and they have a real incentive to fight, they want to kick your arses.

as for the 100,000 casualties, who suspected all that stuff to happen? I'm sure few did.
people were afraid too, probably the main reason alot of people did nothing.

oh and you're not going to tell me EVERYBODY will fight off invaders should they come in the US.
you're making it seem our local populace were the badguys etc. But I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be all that different elsewhere.

I know you american hillbillies aren't scared of anything and shit but please.
you have NO CLUE.
now come up with a fucking good argument please because obviously even with weaponry there wasn't a chance in hell we would've stopped the wehrmacht.

[Persol]

Yeah, at the time (1939), the people had no idea what was going on, mass confusion and what is the ordinary civilian going to do? (yeah give em guns, that'll make em brave... not.)

It's not a matter of brave. It's a matter of being able to defend yourselves. Would you have been better able to defend yourselves with spoons or knives? How about knives or bombs? How about bombs or bombs+guns?

Your own country admits that a major reason Germany ran through so quick was the lack of weapons. Your country didn't start importing weapons until after England declared war on Germany... and by then IT WAS TOO LATE.

The Netherlands had the highest per capita death rate of all Nazi-occupied countries in Western Europe... mainly due to an almost complete inability for the people to defend themselves. Do you think they killed so many of your countrymen because they were a bigger threat than the French?

Note: My previous number was only the jews. The actual total was evidently 205,000... 1 out of every 42 people.

The situation in Iraq is CLEARLY different, special militias are everywhere with access to weaponry

EXACTLY!

as for the 100,000 casualties, who suspected all that stuff to happen?

EXACTLY! You (I think it was you) previously stated something like 'you dont need guns to defend yourselves' to which I responded 'by the time you know it is too late.' Your nation during WWII is the perfect example.

[Sorrow]

oh jolly, so according to you we would've been able to defend ourselves, you know what. so be it. great.
but atleast we're not having any unsafe areas, regular shootings, guns at every corner, and people like you claiming we need guns for personal security.

weapons turn normal civilians into killers, even I could be one, you can push me so far until I start shooting basically and that's what happens when you have guns everywhere, you can say it's the mentality but people with access to guns will be more inclined to use them if some situation arose that they can't deal with (or they think they can't deal with differently)
In some weird frenzy you'd grab a gun and be a danger to all those that surround you, we don't have that here.
and that is what you FAIL TO UNDERSTAND.
and that is why YOUR COUNTRY FAILS.
and that is why our CRIME RATES AND HOMICIDES are MUCH LOWER.


now somebody else but me go say something about this shit, I'm getting kinda tired of this bs.

[Sathor]

You know I agree with you Sorrow.
It is not the civilians that are to be armed, but the regular army. You have an army to defend your country, not to attack other countries. At least not without an UN mandate ... (Iraq *cough*). The Bundeswehr for example is not allowed to take part in any attack war. The citizens must be protected by the army and the police. That is their job. And not the populations.

[Persol]

and that is what you FAIL TO UNDERSTAND.
and that is why YOUR COUNTRY FAILS.
and that is why our CRIME RATES AND HOMICIDES are MUCH LOWER.

And that is why more of your civilians were killed by guns in one year, then have been killed in the US in the last 20. Nice trade off.

[Sathor]

Yeah, but there has never been an army in American streets other than your own. I hope you notice the small difference here ...

[Persol]

I do... but if the Netherlands had guns, and 10 times the gun homicide rate of the US, the numbers would be the same. The chance of the Netherlands being 10 times more irresponsible with gun is improbable.

If you want, use france as the comparison instead of the US.

[SlappyBag]

@ Persol

Why were guns invented in the first place?

They made killing easy, and doable at range. Later models (as in, what we have today) also does this with great accurcy. Now, a lot of points have already been made in this thread so I'm just going to poke at this particular issue.

Wait, I just realised somthing. When guns were first invented and used in a war, why didnt they go "Wait a second, it takes me two days to reload and i have terrible accuracy, why don't we use bows and arrows, they are better in almost every way?


If only...

[Mr. Happy]

Because of armor

[Sathor]

Quite simply to understand: the first simply guns where much easier and cheaper to manufacture than a good bow or even crossbow! Another advantage was that the usage of such a weapon good be tought better, and as in those days pretty much all armies consisted of peasants, that was a great advantage.

@Mr Happy: Not really, the first guns didn't pierce armor more effectivly then bows, and did not for a long time. The era of armor was over as soon the first long bows appeared.

[Sorrow]

And that is why more of your civilians were killed by guns in one year, then have been killed in the US in the last 20. Nice trade off.

That is during a time of war, now if you factor in some of your own homicides etc. per year, probably around a 30,000 + an additional 40,000 for people that die annually in traffic accidents in the US, that puts our 5 year casualty toll to shame don't you think?
Besides, we were invaded, bombed, occupied and what not.
And do you think militias fighting against the US armed forces is doing them any good? they only incite more violence, even among civilians who don't want to have anything to do with it, people die because of their involvement.

what was it, over 500,000 iraqi's have already died since this war and the Gulf war?
And by your reasoning, the populace also failed to fight back? Kinda hard huh when an army with mostly superior weaponry invades, bombs, occupies.

I do... but if the Netherlands had guns, and 10 times the gun homicide rate of the US, the numbers would be the same. The chance of the Netherlands being 10 times more irresponsible with gun is improbable.

If you want, use france as the comparison instead of the US.

okay so our homicide rates would go up, and we would have guns, and what exactly is the "up" side? I don't see one tbh, you've just lessened personal security.

[Athlete{UK}]

Ok i've not seen any reason to lock this thread oranything but i've noticed the thread going a little askew at times and on a few occasions has degenerated into some insult flinging. I'm happy to keep this thread open since a serious discussion is going on but can we make sure we keep it that way please?

[Persol]

And that is why more of your civilians were killed by guns in one year, then have been killed in the US in the last 20. Nice trade off.

That is during a time of war, now if you factor in some of your own homicides etc. per year, probably around a 30,000 + an additional 40,000 for people that die annually in traffic accidents in the US, that puts our 5 year casualty toll to shame don't you think?

Wait, you want to include car accidents in the discussion? Um... no. The deaths from guns are given by the chart YOU posted.

And do you think militias fighting against the US armed forces is doing them any good?

Yes. The US army does NOT have complete control over the country, unlike in WWII's Netherlands.

The main difference being that the US isn't trying to commit genocide, so letting them have control would likely not have the same result as letting Germany have control.

okay so our homicide rates would go up, and we would have guns, and what exactly is the "up" side?

Being better able to defend yourselves when invaded, in this case. Or... here's another option... explain why France's per-capita deaths during WWII was so much lower.

[Rustvaar]

Ok i've not seen any reason to lock this thread oranything but i've noticed the thread going a little askew at times and on a few occasions has degenerated into some insult flinging. I'm happy to keep this thread open since a serious discussion is going on but can we make sure we keep it that way please?

Steal my word would you?

[Sorrow]

Where exactly do you get all these numbers from ?