Costs and Benefits of Guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter TimeEntrance
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bilop said:
Any person can mention any historical event in a historical discussion. But if you want a Catholic example, the Polish Home Army could have resisted the Nazis much better if they had more arms.
Click to expand...
They were taken over from both sides, Germany and Russia. My dad served in the Polish army, later were put under British command. He never mentioned arms. Lack of manpower definitely.
 
bilop said:
If they had guns, the Nazis may still have killed them, but the Jews could have taken a lot of Nazis with them. Thatā€™s good too. I wonder how many eager SS and Gestapo men there would have been if you had a 50% chance of being shot at by the people you went to arrest.
Click to expand...
This is interesting, and possibly even understated. A real historian may correct me on this, but it is my impression that there were different kinds of SS. Some were actual fighting men who faced Russians and western allies, and gave a very competent account of themselves in a military sense. Other SS subdivisions were just killersā€¦thugs who followed armies and ran concentration camps, but who did not really fight in military engagements. Gestapo people were not militarily trained as part of their ā€œqualificationsā€.

So, when it comes to the question of armed Jews, one has to wonder whether they might have been closer to an even match with Gestapo or SS who were not part of the militarized SS.

It may be thought significant that the Hitler regime did not ask regular armed forces to be involved in the systematic killing of Jews. There were special units for that, because, evidently, the regime did not trust regular soldiers or their officers to reliably engage in genocide.

In the theoretical discussions about whether or not an armed populace could possibly stand up against governmental forces, one has to ask whether one is talking about ā€œregular armed forcesā€, who might not carry out central command orders to fire on the populace, or some ā€œkiller forceā€ of the criminally-minded like the Einsatzgruppen or the militarized NKVD. It may also be noted in passing that when the Soviets wanted troops to fire upon civilians, it got the regular troops out of the way and sent in those NKVD ā€œkiller squadsā€, whom an armed populace might well have been willing, even able, to resist.

Would regular American soldiers fire upon American civilians who had legitimate grievances? I greatly doubt it. Does the U.S. government have ā€œEinsatzā€ or ā€œNKVDā€ military units? I doubt that as well.
 
ProVobis said:
They were taken over from both sides, Germany and Russia. My dad served in the Polish army, later were put under British command. He never mentioned arms. Lack of manpower definitely.
Click to expand...
The Home Army was a partisan group that rose up in 1944 Warsaw. Iā€™m not talking about 1939.

God Bless
 
ProVobis said:
A home security system maybe?
Click to expand...
That buys you maybe 1 minute, if the person is out to hurt you. The Cops take at least 10 minutes to get there, once the security co. calls you, you answer or donā€™t, they call the police, etc.

The alarm basically is a scare tactic (burglars will run) or it gives you enough warning to arm yourself.

God Bless
 
Ridgerunner said:
This is interesting, and possibly even understated. A real historian may correct me on this, but it is my impression that there were different kinds of SS. Some were actual fighting men who faced Russians and western allies, and gave a very competent account of themselves in a military sense. Other SS subdivisions were just killersā€¦thugs who followed armies and ran concentration camps, but who did not really fight in military engagements. Gestapo people were not militarily trained as part of their ā€œqualificationsā€.

So, when it comes to the question of armed Jews, one has to wonder whether they might have been closer to an even match with Gestapo or SS who were not part of the militarized SS.

It may be thought significant that the Hitler regime did not ask regular armed forces to be involved in the systematic killing of Jews. There were special units for that, because, evidently, the regime did not trust regular soldiers or their officers to reliably engage in genocide.

In the theoretical discussions about whether or not an armed populace could possibly stand up against governmental forces, one has to ask whether one is talking about ā€œregular armed forcesā€, who might not carry out central command orders to fire on the populace, or some ā€œkiller forceā€ of the criminally-minded like the Einsatzgruppen or the militarized NKVD. It may also be noted in passing that when the Soviets wanted troops to fire upon civilians, it got the regular troops out of the way and sent in those NKVD ā€œkiller squadsā€, whom an armed populace might well have been willing, even able, to resist.

Would regular American soldiers fire upon American civilians who had legitimate grievances? I greatly doubt it. Does the U.S. government have ā€œEinsatzā€ or ā€œNKVDā€ military units? I doubt that as well.
Click to expand...
Good points. The Waffen SS were elite combat units, and they did commit many atrocities (reprisals for partisan activity, shooting POWS), but they werenā€™t directly involved in the extermination squads and camps.

No, I donā€™t think the U.S. military would fire on civilians defending their Constitutional rights. The U.S. military combat arms are highly conservative and Christian. They would hopefully launch a coup against any aithoritarian/totalitarian inclined govā€™t.

If the Feds used any force against civilians, it would be people like the BATF and US Marshals, who like to dress up in black, and play at being real soliders.

God Bless
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
How is that an invasion? The only invasions were the War of 1812 and 1776. Unless you want to include Pancho Villa.
Click to expand...
Do you know the total killed in the wars of 1776 and 1812? About six and a half thousand. Letā€™s add Pearl Harbour and 9/11 and we get something like 11,500. Thatā€™s less than one years homicide rate in America.

Every 15 years Americans kill more of each other than the total American deaths in all theatres of the Second World War.

Now there are serious suggestions to put armed guards in kindergartens and primary schools. I wouldnā€™t expect that in Afghanistan or Iraq. You guys have totally and completely lost the plot.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
How is that an invasion? The only invasions were the War of 1812 and 1776. Unless you want to include Pancho Villa.
Click to expand...
What was the invasion of 1812?

France invading Russia?

Or the American invasion of Canada?
To Americaā€™s leaders in 1812, an invasion of Canada seemed to be ā€œa mere matter of marching,ā€ as Thomas Jefferson confidently predicted. How could a nation of 8 million fail to subdue a struggling colony of 300,000? Yet, when the campaign of 1812 ended, the only Americans left on Canadian soil were prisoners of war. Three American armies had been forced to surrender, and the British were in control of all of Michigan Territory and much of Indiana and Ohio. **Pierre Berton; **The Invasion of Canada: 1812-1813,
Click to expand...
The American Brigadier General William Hull invaded Canada on July 12, 1812 from Detroit, with an army mainly composed of militiamen. British Major General Isaac Brock drove back the Americans and, with the aid of Tecumseh, forced Hull to surrender at Detroit on August 16. sheppardsoftware.com/canadaweb/factfile/Unique-facts-Canada5.htm
Click to expand...
 
bilop said:
The alarm basically is a scare tactic (burglars will run) or it gives you enough warning to arm yourself.
Click to expand...
We have technology that will do much better than this.

Allā€™s we need is a demand.
 
ProVobis said:
We have technology that will do much better than this.

Allā€™s we need is a demand.
Click to expand...
Please show this technology. I donā€™t believe Captain Kirk had that type of technology yet unless your talking about the shields on the Enterprise. :rolleyes:
 
I havenā€™t read all responses, but Iā€™m fairly fresh from my concealed weapons training course. People who are educated about weapons (specifically guns) & the laws surrounding their use are statistically less likely to commit crimes using those weapons. Criminals will use ANYTHING handy to commit their crime ā€“ even if its a spontaneous attack. It is HUGELY illogical to think that gun laws or restrictions will decrease gun crimes. The key reason being that criminals donā€™t obey the laws! States & countries with less restrictive gun laws have statistically lower crime rates.

The costs of weapons are mainly financial ā€“ itā€™s costed me about $150 here in KY just to get my concealed carry permit, not including the cost of my weapons, ammo, & safety equipment.

However, the benefits of gun ownership & concealed carry are much harder to quantify. Since my class, Iā€™ve become more confident all around, even though I do not carry at this time. The training I received wasnā€™t about shooting at random, but instead about assessing situations & knowing the best way to resolve them. Partly due to my job as a forensic scientist involved in investigating violent crimes and partly due to my weapon training I am constantly aware that situations go from bad to worse much more quickly than you can imagine. Knowing I can protect myself by being aware of my surroundings & taking steps to protect myself is a priceless benefit to weapons training/ownership. I feel safer in my home with my several different caliber weapons and knowledge in how & when to use the. Even though I have 2 young children, I donā€™t obsessively fear that they will injure themselves with my weapons because primary instruction in the weapons taught proper precautions. Once I begin regularly carrying my weapon, I will feel much more assured that I can handle dreadful situations that may otherwise leave me or mine injured or dead. Although it is probably uncouth to say so, if some of the people in the recent shootings had been carrying, the death tolls probably would have been greatly reduced.

BTW I have a 25 caliber tip-up barrel Taurus, a 380 caliber Bersa Thunder, 2 9mms, and a 45 caliber as my choices for hand-guns. The 25 is my baby & I would quickly emasculate and seriously injure anyone who tried to harm me or mine when Iā€™m carrying. However, I know I would be troubled by shooting someone, but not as troubled as if I stood aside & watched someone (or myself) be seriously injured.
 
BK7154BK said:
So a silent alarm is going off while everyone is being murdered? Naw, but if you want to use one Iā€™m not to stand in your way.
Click to expand...
Security systems are a good Idea. My son is a cop and he has one. He sayā€™s itā€™ll wake him and give him enough time to get to his gun. I also asked him about the ā€œgun free zoneā€ signs and what he does as heā€™s required to carry mostof the time. His responds was that he ingnores them as there is usually no one to check his weapon with and most law abiding people will do the same. The only place that he EVER has to show a badge is at an airport or government office where they ave metal detectors and he said if he really wanted, he could get by them without a badge. Any security system needs immediate backup because when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top