Weapons

weapons (especially guns) brought to mankind some freakingly high amount of power. what would WW2 without guns be? probably just hitl0rs wet dream.

on the other hand, wars generally support inventing and spreading new technology, medics and many others to our daily lives (just like peniciline or cell phones).

and, as I heard or read somewhere, wars are just nature's way to keep human population from rising too high. well, I think the guy who came with that thought got some point.

weapons haven't caused anything of this, it still depends on people. but they are really great support for wars and conflicts.

we just have to wait for our own Lelouch or Celestial Being. :shock:


and this is proof how could guns be dangerous when used with bad intentions:

That's absurdly idealistic.

I don't think there's any such thing as having honor while killing someone. The idea that fighting can be honorable is either justification or rationalization for killing people (if the idea of honorable fighting did truly exist back then) or a made-up fairy tale created by writers and artists to sell more books, movies, comics, etc.

that one ideals...I don't ever know where's the thinking of honorable come from...maybe that just human justified their actions

now I realize that weapons either its gun or sword is just a tool for us human to use. Tool is supposed to help humans in living but we often misuse it like scissor, bat, kitchen knife that often used to kill people...

weapon or no weapon, mankind has always fought with or in of itself. you can take away knives, guns, all objects that could be used for killing. but in the end some guy, if he really wanted to kill someone badly enough, would use a chair, a rock, or even a glass cup. pretty much anything can be used to kill someone. if you wanted, you could kill someone with cotton balls. shove a fuckload of them down the persons throat, they struggle to breathe, death. so really the idea to claim guns and knives are the ONLY weapons we as humans have made to kill, and therefore get rid of them, i think is dumb. man as a species fights, whether we use weapons, or we use our bare hands.

peace is where no one fights with eachother, and no one knows the meaning of violence.

Okay, first of all, I would advise you to consider the source, as I am a psychotic Otaku with a slight hero complex.

Weapons... are an art form. Both the creation and use of weapons have inspired some of the greatest literary works of both the modern era, and the time before. There existence is a supreme addition to the world culture as a whole.

However, let us say that cavemen never thought to pick up a big stick to fight off wild animals, or that blacksmiths had never created their wares. Would that truly end wars? No, for wars are rarely actually caused by weapons. Typically, it is religion, property, money, or the need for freedom. Without guns, wars would still happen, people would still die. The only difference is that the fighting would be on a smaller scale and take many times longer to end. With a nuclear bomb, although many lives are lost, it in the long run saves couness lives that would otherwise be lost.

So, yes weapons have earned their keep in our world, and should be kept.

I believe in the idea of " you don't pull a gun on someone who could pull a gun on you" or basically imagine a western saloon and everyone aims guns at everyone, but no one fires cause of EVERYONE dieing. And keeping a gun in the house is okay for safety, but you wouldn't have it out like a loaf of bread on the table.
And there's a magic little thing called a lockpick, makes that last line there REALLY naive-sounding.

Weapons, be they swords and daggers or rifles and pistols, serve to equalize. They do not equalize by making the wielder stronger, they equalize by making everyone else as vulnerable to harm as the wielder. Even the strongest of men will still bleed-out just as much as the thinnest of waifs as a result of a slash or a gunshot. Perhaps it is this reason that some do not appreciate weapons. The ideals of equality, of everyone having the same natural rights as everyone else, are largely dependent on elevating the weak or the dumb to the level of the strong and the smart. Weapons work in the opposite direction, and as such run contrary to the progressive ideal.

However, the progressive ideal is just that, an ideal. Without even further restrictive ideals such as eugenics and genetic screening of embryos, there is no way to ensure physical and mental equality. The strong still prey on the weak. Possession of weapons is probably the only practical way to ensure that some measure of equality is maintained. That the strong cannot prey upon the weak without fear of repercussion. Whether this is applied on the scale of two individuals, or a government against a people, the principle holds true, and is why weapons are a necessity and shall be for the foreseeable future.

Of course official forces like military and such should have guns, but for civilians there is really no need. Kinda makes it easier for people to gain tools to do things that the media blames on video games

There absolutely is a reason and need for civilians to have guns, for your own protection against other civilians and for your protection against your own government.

Edit: we have been discussing it here a lot more in depth https://www.fakku.net/forums/serious-discussion/what-do-you-think-about-gun-control-law

I've already read through that, and i still hold my opinion and that won't change, just as i won't be able to change your opinion on the matter.

Well i have a very good reason for my position, but i don't know your reasons.

Also i am open minded about everything, i don't hold ideas just because, if somebody can convince me to change my mind, i will. But i tend to think carefully and rationally about my positions and i argue with myself a lot.

Only fools and dead men don’t change their minds. Fools won’t. Dead men can’t.
-- John Henry Patterson

Since you strongly believe that only the Government should be allowed to arm themselves. Shall we take a trip through last century?

Rwanda: 1994 - 800,000 Deaths: The akazu, a circle of relatives and close friends of then Rwandan president Juvénal Habyarimana planned to purge the minority Tutsi from Rwanda. Perpetrators came from the ranks of the Rwandan army, the National Police (gendarmerie), government-backed militias including the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi, and the Hutu civilian population.

Armenians in Turkey: 1915-1918 - 1,500,000 Deaths: The Ottoman Empire systematically exterminated the Armenian minority as well as the Assyrian and Greek minorities.

Pol Pot in Cambodia: 1975-1979 - 2,000,000 Deaths: Khmer Rouge overthrew the government of Cambodia in 1975, and established a Communist “utopia” in its place, its first act was to annihilate anyone it deemed to be an “enemy of the state”.

al-Anfal Campaign February 23, 1988 – September 6, 1988 182,000 Deaths

Halabja chemical attack in Iraq March 16, 1988 5,000 Deaths

Those doesn't even cover the forced starvations that occured under the Communist regimes in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China between 1929 and 1976

What do all of these have in common? These were governments killing their own people. In the first five examples, the government is actively killing people while in the during the farming reforms in China and Russia the deaths were the result of "sacrifices for the workers utopia".

If you don't trust people with weapons, how can you trust a government when those same people you don't trust with said weapons make up that government that you do trust?

The government are simply people with a title or a badge. Even here in America there are plenty of examples of this. Kent State. Danzinger Bridge.

It also works the other way. Russia helping aside, look at the fighting going on in Ukraine. You got armed civilians attacking the government and army, and shooting down planes.

But on topic, Weapons are a double edged sword, no pun intended. On one hand people are able to protect themselves. But on the other hand, you got all this death caused by people owning weapons. How many times have you heard on the news that somebody stole someones weapon and killed another person. Or a child got there hands on a gun and killed themselves by mistake.

The other day was the first time I actually read an article where a civilian actually helped save lives by owning a gun. (a doctor managed to hold off some armed guy in the hospital long enough for the police to get there.)

And you don't wanna get started about weapons and the middle east.

Overall weapons in a perfect would wouldn't be needed. But this isn't a perfect world.

That is the whole point that we are talking about here, if they did not have arms to fight, they could only flee or surrender. I am not arguing whether they should fight against Ukrainian government, all i am saying is that without the arms they have now, they could not even fight for themselves.




Yes, people fuck up with guns, but how many people are accidentally killed by cars every year? Should we ban cars because of it? How many people die because of alcohol, should we ban it too?

Every human being is fallible and makes mistakes, but the mistakes of minority should never control the majority. I also believe in things like individual rights, just because somebody else doesn't lock his/her gun properly doesn't mean they should punish me for it.




News industry is a business and they show most of the time articles and stories that induce sales and views, unfortunately bad and horrible stories achieves that the best.




There are a lot of things fucked up in middle-east, it is not just the gun control laws there, and the news stories that brake the 'this-is-news' barrier are usually suicide bomb attacks, not gun violence.





Nope, it is not.

If they didn't have the arms to fight, there would be no fighting going on. The government wouldn't have attacked them, ignored them most likely. They would have been to what Quebec is to Canada. But the Russia thing kinda messed things up.






Cars, alcohol, cigarettes, all kill more than weapons, that is true. But they are both more numerous than weapons among civilians, and are not mean to kill people. Killing people is a secondary effect. Weapons are meant to kill. I'm not arguing for or against gun control here, just stating the fact that it's a double edged sword.






I wasn't talking about gun control though. Weapons in General, as per the thread. Suicide Bombers are a weapon.


[/quote]

Weapons are just tools that make killing more efficient, less time-consuming and show how our intelligence can also be our ruin, as stated by someone else in this very thread by the way.

We can't have guns? We'll use swords, spears and so on. We don't have metal to forge them? We'll just find something else and if not we'll use sticks and stones, which are still enough to kill. Even a mundane tool like a sledgehammer or a kitchen knife can become a weapon and can kill, because it's the one who wields it that turns it into an instrument of murder.

The problem lies with us and the fact that competition and hostility - and by proxy any kind of conflict from a street brawl to a world war - are part of every one of us.

I understand that there maybe might not be fighting if there wasn't as many guns as there is and that the Russian minority groups in Ukraine could have gone about their issues with the Ukrainien government in a much more peaceful way, but they have made their choices.




I would argue that guns are meant for self defense, they are just more lethal than a knife, pepper spray or a taser is. They are also more effective tool for self defense.




One thing the people who are against guns should understand that we already live in a world where there is a lot of guns, they are not gonna disappear any time soon. The best means for me to protect against a bad guy with a gun, is to get myself a gun.

Weapons have their pros and cons

Gives power to the weak and the underprivileged to defend themselves against their enemies.

But then who's to say that the weak and the underprivileged will stay that way once they get their hands on weapons? To keep the power of weapons under wraps you'll need to have a higher form of morality in order to keep you from splurging your power on terrorizing/bullying the weak.

On the other hand, it's just fun to do some target practice at a shooting range. Yes for the guns, double yes for swords and knives (because it's awesome to have one hanging on your wall).