ShakeZuma, on 23 June 2012 - 03:51 AM, said:
this argument is extremely confusing to me. let me try to understand, danny, you're basically saying that a person without a gun has an equal ability to defend him or herself than a person with a gun...? could you also travel from new york to la in a car equally as fast as you could in a plane?
What if all my neighbours hate me and they all have guns? Am I better defended with a gun in that scenario, or would I rather none of us had guns?
hblask, on 23 June 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:
I don't even see how this can be up for debate, based on both common sense and history.To note: I'm not saying the Holocaust would not have occurred, but clearly there would've been fewer innocent deaths if Nazi soldiers died in the streets at random moments. It is impossible to overpower an armed populace that is ready to defend itself to the death. Did the Jews meet that criteria? Once they saw how bad it is, I think they would've been. That probably wouldn't have been in time to stop the entire thing, because some people will wait until there are no other options and no other hope.
Tim and LLY are covering your stupidity reasonably well, but you do realize that an armed populace doesn't mean that every Jew just has a gun and can shoot people whenever they feel like it, right? Like, soldiers don't just knock at your door, say "come on down, its death camp time" and if you shoot them, then they don't come back stronger, and maybe don't knock next time, and maybe don't knock at your neighbours door either.
hblask, on 24 June 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:
Wow, some people really need to study history harder. An determined armed populace generally wins over technologically superior invaders. Have we really reached a point in this country where people don't believe that an armed populace is harder to oppress than an unarmed populace? Really? I... just.... wtf?
Simplifying things is necessary to understand them. Oversimplifying them has the potential to remove important specifics. Try harder to be less simple. Not that it would've helped, but the Jews in the late 1920's and early 1930's COULD NOT have become an determined armed populace, even if guns were allowed and publicly available. They weren't allowed to own land or run businesses. I'm guessing no one was selling them AK-47's either.
hblask, on 24 June 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:
Explain that to the Soviet Union regarding Afghanistan.... or the US.Hint: there were no drones during WWII. Every Jew who was killed required a face-to-face confrontation. Six million died. You don't think six million points of resistance could've made a dent?Of course, not all 6 million would've done it, because most people are cowards. But the largest size estimate I found for Hitler's army at any time was about 4.5M, with most estimates less than a million.Estimates are that 3 in 10 Americans own a gun. What if those 6 million armed themselves at that rate? This discussion is absurd. How could "having the ability to fight back" have anything other than a positive impact? Do you guys really think the outcome would have been identical?
Yeah, banana peels would've helped too. Maybe banana peels and guns would've prevented the Holocaust.
Long signatures are really annoying.