Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but there is an estimated 1 gun for every three canadian citizens, totalling approximately 10 million guns. I'm unsure of the numbers of guns in the states however, but I would venture an educated guess it's a higher number per citizen. nonetheless, we aren't a gunless country. it's just our army that's like that

grizgrin wrote:
I still do not agree that a gun is not a deterrent. If a man has a gun, he is more able to defend himself than without one. He is also more able to do a lot of other things. Suffice it to say he is more able to enforce his will upon others, and keep them from enforcing their will upon him (Klausewitz forgive me). A man in Somalia with an automatic rifle is an opponent. A man in Somalia without a firearm is a target. The possession of a firearm changes his position. In such an anarchic, feral environment, the man with the firearm is taken much more seriously, where as the man without one can be shouldered aside and ignored, or killed outright.

Unless of course guns are so ubiquitous as to effectively negate any leverage one gains from their possession. Violence is ubiquitous in Somalia because it has been socially normalized. Admittedly this is a necessary step in the progression towards the nation-state. Inevitably one side will achieve dominance and impose a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. However, it is still not the gun from whence the deterrence emanates, but the ability to use that gun as a means of preventing others from acquiring similar tools.

Deterrence is factor in dealings between adversaries of comparable capacity. When the capabilities are roughly equivalent there is no deterrence, but competition. The man without the firearm can indeed be ignored, but the man with the firearm also invites violence on himself by openly challenging the will of others. In this sense the possession of weaponry serves to instigate more conflicts than it resolves.

This is not to say that violence does not have a legitimate place in world order. More problems in world history have been solved at the point of a sword than through any other method. However, I think it is mistaken to presume that arms (with the exception of nuclear ones) are ever acquired with the assumption that they will go unused.

grizgrin wrote:
Firearms are deterrents in Somalia (as we are using the country in this discussion), it is the consequences of the social environment, as you pointed out, that are different, and much more aggressive.

I'm not sure what you mean with passive significance. I understand the words and thier definitions, but I'm not so sure about your application of them here. Gimme a hand?

Passive in the sense that the mere possession of a gun somehow elevates you above the machinations of others. Deterring them from crossing your interests. To my mind the possession of a weapon does not inspire fear in others, but rather a desire to obtain similar capabilities. Hence my characterization of guns as invitations.

sebster: the only real point I was supporting in the quote you took was that it would have taken more moto to invade a country with firearms freely allowed amongst the populace as oppossed to a country that did not. Did I screw up the details of who's been fighting who, or the history of the conflict? Probably, since I'm not involved and therefore I bet it is a hell of a lot more important to them than I since it's their homes and families. Who vs. who was a lot less relevant to the point than the concept I was illustrating.

Dogma: leverage. I like the word. Good usage. So, the deterrance stems from the ability to use a firearm as leverage? I would respectfully disagree. A firearm is the lever, whether you pull it or not is a human decision. The status of a human's willpower does not change the power or potential of the tool, in this case, a firearm. A hammer is a hammer whether or not it's used to drive a nail. Or bash in a skull. I think we will just have to disagree here. I will respect your right to be wrong if you will repect mine.