In a world without guns...the strong and the many can brutally beat the weak and outnumbered...

[BullKurtz]

The ... criminals.

This topic in no way requires your stupid fucking racist nonsense, you dickless moron. Save your spineless shame for a more appropriate venue, cockbreath.

 

[Yarddog]

guns prevent genocide as well. An armed population cant be rounded up like cattle and slaughtered.

Meanwhile, while you wait for the Japanese to invade and try and round everyone up, Americans are being slaughtered every day, in rates between 4 times and 10 times the numbers that are murdered in ANY other developed nation.

Who knows why your talking about the Japanese for? what sillyness is that? How many people in Rwanda were hacked to death with machettes and were helpless to protect their wives and children? wasnt it almost a million? Cambodia took away peoples guns, what happened next? Nazi Germany took away peoples guns, what happened next?

The numbers your talking about in the US is mostly gang activity, not law abiding citizens who should have the guns.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Taking my guns along with everyone elses means that my Cerimonial Sword becomes weapon of choice. I think I would rather be shot than taken out with that weapon. The difference here is the ease of operation and the clean killing versus the hacking to death that takes a lot of effort, messy as hell and quite painful.

 

[Saigon]

Yarddog -

What guns were "taken away" in Cambodia or Rwanda?

Both countries were in a state of civil war, and Cambodia was very heavily armed at the time of Pol Pots takeover - which actually completely counters your case that guns would have kept people safe. Likewise in Germany - do you really think Jewish familes who were armed would have stopped the SS?

Machetes were used in Rwanda because their import aroused less suspicion than bringing in tens of thousands of guns. Had the Hutu been armed, the Tutsi would have brought in guns. Either way - the genocide would have taken place, and guns would only have increased the loss of life on both sides by 'industrialising' and speeding up the killing.

 

[Yarddog]

Yarddog -

What guns were "taken away" in Cambodia or Rwanda?

Both countries were in a state of civil war, and Cambodia was very heavily armed at the time of Pol Pots takeover - which actually completely counters your case that guns would have kept people safe. Likewise in Germany - do you really think Jewish familes who were armed would have stopped the SS?

Machetes were used in Rwanda because their import aroused less suspicion than bringing in tens of thousands of guns. Had the Hutu been armed, the Tutsi would have brought in guns. Either way - the genocide would have taken place, and guns would only have increased the loss of life on both sides by 'industrialising' and speeding up the killing.

More loss of life on both sides? the rivers were running red with blood bercause a million people were slaughtered with machetes in a few days. You call that a civil war? Bullshit, if people came knocking on your door with machetes, YOU would not be concerned with industrializing the killing. Less people would have been killed, because the Hutu were emboldened by the fact the tutsis did not have any way to defend themselves.

Cambodia had gun restrictions for years and their society unfortunantly for them were not adept at self defence with guns. That was no civil War, it was a slaughter of unarmed citzens. They killed peaceeful civilians, how is that a civil war? Its a genocide. If they had a culture like ours, they would have had to fight neighbor hood to neighbor hood, which is exactly why we never will have a genocide. Cambodia may have possesed many arms but they werent in the hands of ordinary citizens.

In Sudan, Arab muslims are allowed to own many guns and Black muslims are not. it resulted in slaughter

Gun Bans and Genocide The Disarming Facts