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.

Ok,while reading/posting in the "movie smoking has become a gun rights "thread,I started to muse over my own viewpoints concerning firearms.
I own firearms,I support the second amendment,so on and so forth,however, in many ways I honestly wish that all firearms and indeed all mordern wepons would simply vanish from exsistance.
Sounds sort of "hippy-ish" I suppose,but I wonder if people and nations would be so quick to kill if they had to honestly look another man in the eye while they did it rather than just pull a trigger or push a button.
Any thoughts?

Would they still exist on TV?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Would they still exist on TV?

Sure ,why not,they would exsist in the same way dinosaurs exsist in entertainment .

well going by an apparent new policy employed here.. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/273096.page ...I shall be interested in how long this thread lasts out. I've also got one eye on how the generic 'GW is a pile of gak' thread survives under the new regime.

ahem, as for my on topic contribution. Guns aren't necessarily the problem, more the attitude towards them.

FITZZ wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Would they still exist on TV?

Sure ,why not,they would exsist in the same way dinosaurs exsist in entertainment .

Not for long my friend... not for long...

WREXASAUR HOOOOOOO!!!

And forget about guns... We use freaking lasers. On the dinosaurs of course, I guess you could carry your old-timey peashooter if you want.

FITZZ wrote: Ok,while reading/posting in the "movie smoking has become a gun rights "thread,I started to muse over my own viewpoints concerning firearms.
I own firearms,I support the second amendment,so on and so forth,however, in many ways I honestly wish that all firearms and indeed all mordern wepons would simply vanish from exsistance.
Sounds sort of "hippy-ish" I suppose,but I wonder if people and nations would be so quick to kill if they had to honestly look another man in the eye while they did it rather than just pull a trigger or push a button.
Any thoughts?

Then the formula of force returns to the physically strongest. It won't stop the killing, if that's what you are wondering.

Well, to better explain what I was discussing in the other thread:

Power is the ability to control one's environment. You have power over someone if you are able to force them into action, or inaction. Ignoring specific circumstances, guns grant you power over people with lesser weapons: we'll call those knives, and fists. They do not, however, grant you power over other people with guns. Against those individuals they merely grant you security, where security is one's relative level protection when compared to other possible targets. In essence, the possession of a firearm makes you a more difficult target for a like armed individual. However, difficulty is relative, and so the more 'difficult' targets there are, the less difficult each target begins to be.

Essentially, if people wielding knives and fists are rare, then they will remain as vulnerable as before the rise in popularity of firearms. However, with each new firearm placed in hand, all firearms become less significant with respect to both power, and security. Power in the sense that there are fewer individuals at an intrinsic disadvantage with respect to them. Security in the sense that there are fewer vulnerable targets; thereby creating a greater willingness to attack more difficult quarry.


This isn't an argument for total disarmament. Its an argument against the idea that more prevalent weaponry equates to greater safety.

Dogma has a point. Universal armament is more likely to have a positive impact.

I'd predict a decade of startling fatalities and very tallies for darwin nominees as well.

dogma wrote:Well, to better explain what I was discussing in the other thread:

Power is the ability to control one's environment. You have power over someone if you are able to force them into action, or inaction. Ignoring specific circumstances, guns grant you power over people with lesser weapons: we'll call those knives, and fists. They do not, however, grant you power over other people with guns. Against those individuals they merely grant you security, where security is one's relative level protection when compared to other possible targets. In essence, the possession of a firearm makes you a more difficult target for a like armed individual. However, difficulty is relative, and so the more 'difficult' targets there are, the less difficult each target begins to be.

Essentially, if people wielding knives and fists are rare, then they will remain as vulnerable as before the rise in popularity of firearms. However, with each new firearm placed in hand, all firearms become less significant with respect to both power, and security. Power in the sense that there are fewer individuals at an intrinsic disadvantage with respect to them. Security in the sense that there are fewer vulnerable targets; thereby creating a greater willingness to attack more difficult quarry.


This isn't an argument for total disarmament. Its an argument against the idea that more prevalent weaponry equates to greater safety.

So essentially, if Sherrif Bob & deputy Fred are packing .357 magnums,and all the "holigans" are carring switchblades,law and order is easier to maintain.
Once the "holigans" get their hands on guns it's not such an easy task to maintain order.

FITZZ wrote:
So essentially, if Sherrif Bob & deputy Fred are packing .357 magnums,and all the "holigans" are carring switchblades,law and order is easier to maintain.
Once the "holigans" get their hands on guns it's not such an easy task to maintain order.

Yep. Though the parts of the sheriff and deputy can also be played by well intentioned citizens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oldgrue wrote:Dogma has a point. Universal armament is more likely to have a positive impact.

I'd predict a decade of startling fatalities and very tallies for darwin nominees as well.

Well, the larger point is that, because people will generally seek to protect themselves, the absence of power will inevitably lead to an increase in violence until such time as power can reestablished.

Guns are a tool. As a tool, they have the potential to increase the efficiency of the wielder, but will not do so automatically. The individual has to have the will and capability to properly use that tool. Owning a hammer will not make you a handyman, nor will owning a gun make you a killer or a protector. You have to be skilled in the task, you have to be willing to do it, and (outside of rare individuals) you have to exist in a society that propels you towards that action.

The really big determinants in violence and defence against vioence are the economic motivation to commit violent crime (poverty and similar factors) and the likelihood of being caught (policing effectiveness and the like, only a factor in economically motivated crime).

If all modern weapons were to disappear, a major power balance would occur in the world as numbers would suddenly be a much bigger factor the strength of a country.

Many countries currently without nuclear arms would suddenly find themselves in a potential seat of power, and everyone would jockey for position in the new world order.

Killing would continue, face to face fighting is more brutal, but instead of deterring war I think in some ways it only makes war more hate-filled (Just like seeing the face of the man you kill is alot harder, seeing them killing your friends face to face is likely to make you very jaded very fast).

My perspective is that of a pro-firearm policing student however, and maybe I'm a little biased.

Actually, that's a good point; there would be pretty massive chaos caused by such a change in power. I'd have to be against it for that reason at least.