We should get rid of all the guns.

[Tim01]

I was thinking about it, it really does seem like people would be safer without them. After all, They haven't been around all that long. And there weren't any problems with humans BEFORE the existence of guns.
All we have to do to see what life would be like without guns, is look at violence before the invention of guns.
Before guns
women were never raped,
people were not enslaved,
cut throats did not attack travelers,
wars were not waged,
people were not burned alive in their own homes,
entire civilizations were not destroyed,
tribes did not torture each other for entertainment,
people did not torture each other for religious reasons,
clans did not kill each other over fueds,
men did not beat and rape their own family members,
people did not sell their own children,
crazy did not kill people for pleasure,
there was no civil war.
See it used to be that when a person wanted to hurt or rape or steal or whatever they simply couldn't. They had no gun. So as soon as they realized there was no way to hurt other people, they would choose to help people instead.

Since guns cause and enable people to do bad things they otherwise would be incapable of, I really do thing we should do away with the evil things.

[SteppingRazor]

1. I get what you're saying, but you do have to admit...

that guns make many of these things a heck of a lot easier to accomplish. Mind you, I say this as a gun owner and a big proponent of the 2nd amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights, for that matter)

[Tim01]

5. Yeah, I know.

Of course it also works the other way. A 98lb female is just as capable as a 250lb man. Without a gun, the woman would have a real problem defending herself from the man.

[aikoaiko]

2. heh.

:popcorn:

[atreides1]

3. You forgot the sarcasm

[Tim01]

13. Yeah.....

I kind of thought it would be insulting to suggest people needed it to "get" the post. Maybe I was wrong on that.

[L0oniX]

4. We should also get rid of all bombs.

[jeepnstein]

12. That's a good starting point!

Too bad it'll never happen. We can't even manage to ban land mines.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. In the tradition of childhood stories, who will bell the cat?

Wouldn't that be playing into the NRA's hands? Who will go into each home with or without a search warrant, ransack personal spaces in hopes of finding hidden firearms? That is inherently unconstitutional. I don't care for guns myself, but I will perpetuate the traditions of this country even if I have to compromise my preferences.

[Tim01]

10. WOW?

Did you read the post? Or are you messing with me?

[demwing]

7. You have convinced me - the real problem is People

And the only way to stop violence between people, is to get rid of all the damn people!

It's so very clear now...

[limit18]

8. Yes sir, just get rid of all the people......

[L0oniX]

27. ...just the repukes. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. to which purpose

guns are a GREAT asset.

[derby378]

9. Just waiting to see how many of us are in on the whole thing...

:popcorn:

[Silverangel]

11. Um.....

I just have to say that you do have this a little off..

Women were raped before guns
People were enslaved before guns
Cut throats did attack travelers (um.. pirates?)
Wars have been waged for eons, long before guns
People were burned alive in their homes before guns
Entire civilizations were destroyed before guns
Tribes did torture each other for entertainment (Vikings)
People did torture each other for religious reasons (um.. the inquisition?)
Clans did kill each other over feuds (what do you think most castle sieges were?)
Men did beat and rape their own family members (since the stone-age)
People did sell their children before guns (especially for land)
There have been crazy people who have killed for pleasure for ages
There was civil wars before guns (the Roman Empire for example)

When a person wanted to hurt, rape or steal, they wouldn't choose to help instead, they would use their swords! If they didn't have a sword, they would use their hands as weapons.

Now, I'm new on here, but I saw this and got completely baffled by what you said. Was this post a joke? If so, I apologize for going over the top on my reply. If it wasn't a joke, I do hope you read some history books!

[TheWraith]

16. Um, perhaps you didn't get his massive, dripping sarcasm.

But welcome to DU.

[Occam Bandage]

15. I can see your point. African tribal wars were far more deadly before the global arms trade.

Why, hundreds and even thousands would have died back then. Now, mere millions die.

[Tim01]

17. The technology of guns allows people to kill more efficeintly.

Rocks kill more people than bare hands. Clubs kill more people than rocks. Sharpened sticks kill more people than clubs. Sharpened metal kills more people than sharpened sticks. Knives, swords, bow and arrow, spear, gun.
The constant is the people.

Doctors save more people with surgery than with praying to the sun god. Leeches, blood letting,alcohol,penicillin,surgery,trauma centers, the mayo clinic, CDC.
The doctors have better technology.
The constant is the people.

Tools are tools, and people are people.

A good guy with a gun will save people, and a bad guy with a gun will kill people.

A good guy with a gun will save more people than a bad guy with a rock will kill.

[Occam Bandage]

18. That is true. So what?

I don't think anyone believes that guns are evil spirits come down to murder us all. Nobody calls for restrictions on gun ownership or for international efforts to stifle the arms trade because they think guns are a dark miasma that turns good people immoral. Guns are an extremely efficient tool for killing people. I don't believe there's absolutely any disagreement on what guns are.

[Tim01]

19. Ah, this may be the source of our dissagreement.

I think there ARE lots people who think that guns are the problem. And if we just get rid of the guns everything will be ok.

[Occam Bandage]

20. I think that's an overstatement of their point.

Many people believe that guns are problematic not because of what they do to people, but rather because of what they enable people to do. It's not so much "without guns there will not be bad people," but rather "easy access to guns allows people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do."

You'll note I didn't write, "bad people" in the second line. I've found that's a common philosophical difference between gun-rights advocates and gun-control advocates. The former usually believes that there are good people and bad people, that the bad people will always have guns, and so it's society's duty to ensure the good people can protect themselves. The latter usually claims there are just people, each with varying degrees of risk, and that each person with a gun represents a slight but nonzero increase to societal risk of gun violence.

[X_Digger]

21. I think the other end of that spectrum..

Is that there are some who see anyone with a gun as a likely criminal / tragedy just waiting to happen, regardless of the reality.

[Tim01]

23. I don't think it is an overstatement by much at all.

But, I don't think our disagreement is enough to justify continuing to argue about it. Be well.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. I has been argued by some here that guns themselves are inherently evil.

[one-eyed fat man]

22. one reason for lower mortality

in those ancient tribal wars was that women too old or ugly to rape and those opposing warriors they didn't kill would have been sold to passing Arab traders destined for Dutch and Portuguese slave ships. Remember,rape, sack, loot and pillage were the reenlistment bonus while the selling of slaves was the retirement pension in ancient armies.

Using mostly machetes, axes and other farming implements, Hutus engaged in the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Rwanda's Tutsis. Over the course of approximately 100 days, from April up until mid July, most estimates indicate between 800,000 and 1,000,000, or roughly 70% of the Tutsi population were hacked to pieces.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230.stm

Khmer Rouge, heavily armed with all manner of genuine military firearms killed of approximately 2 million Cambodians between 1975 and 1979.

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/deaths.htm

Had the genocide in Cambodia kept pace with Rwanda the death toll over 4 years would have been between 116,800,000 and 146,000,000. (Just about everybody between the California state line and the Atlantic coast)

Even, the program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by Nazi Germany pales in comparison to the savagery of Rwanda. The total number of victims of Hitler's genocidal policies, including the handicapped and Romani, Poles and Soviet POW is generally agreed to be between 9 and 11 million. Even killing on an industrial scale failed to eclipse the unmitigated savagery of the Rwandan genocide.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=lpDTIUklB2MC&pg=PP1&dq=Niewyk,+Donald+L.+The+Columbia+Guide+to+the+Holocaust&sig=4igufxQHRCNrkjwRuMt1if_mf5M#PPA45,M1

The mere possession of a more efficient tool is no substitute for a truly murderous heart!

[Paxton Uncensored]

24. you have got ot be kidding?

you truly believe that no women were raped? that people werent enslaved? that WARS WERE NOT WAGED?

who taught you you history?? You should really pick up a history book, or put on the history channel.

[tangent90]

25. You probably should get your sarcasmometer calibrated.

:eyes:

[Paxton Uncensored]

26. i guess so..

but i really have read things like that..that people actually think like that.....

[Tejas]

29. correct

Just look at some of the posts by the Brady-puppets. The sad part is that they post in all seriousness, brainwashed by the Fascist/Marxist koolaid.