Ok, accept it. Neato. Europe simply provides the counter example. For all I know your view is the naive one, unaccustomed to any system that isn't his. Of course the historical and social structures are pretty different, so maybe you are right for now. Statistics? I believe those claims to be wrong. And killing with a designated killing tool is obviously easier than with about anything else. Specific examples, please. You trust the end to be in favor of the people? Your boundless optimism is endearing, but I can't share it. ~ Reforms are a necessity, revolutions don't generally serve progress or the people.
I don't have statistics on crimes-in-progress stopped by guns at present, I can get a list of such events however at some point if you really want, but it would be very far from a complete list. As Sokolov and I have discussed, the statistics in this regard are lacking. I agree that it's easier to use a tool meant for killing than a tool not meant for killing. However, it's generally just as hard to fight back with a knife in your brain, a hammer in your brain, a car's axle in your brain, deadly poison in your brain (well, pending the type I suppose), etc. The main difference of course is range, and physical condition required to use the weapon. I don't agree that gun wounds are necessarily more deadly than other wounds from an attack. To that end, I do think you have a point. But I don't think "someone was able to successfully attack before you could respond" is an argument against having a gun for self defense. If nothing else, it helps to equalize the potential strength advantage of an armed attacker (such as someone using a knife or club or something). Not sure if they qualify for you, but France during WW2. You might consider that more to be attributed to "organized terrorism" though. Of course, France did enact gun-control actions the year before the occupation, but I don't believe they'd been fully effective by that point. While they did receive help from outsiders, it was done in spite of the government's (and thus the French Army's) surrender, and those which became collaborators. Other than that, while possibly a minor effect, Israel has endured many invasions and the attacks of insurgents, and has a well-armed populace. I would have argued the US during WW2 as well, but the invading forces of the Japanese got turned back first. I would, however, point out that the readily available access to weapons and ammunition from the populace helped to supply the war effort itself (in addition to the much increased focus on production of the tools of war at the time). There are relatively few modernized nations with relatively lax gun laws that have been invaded of late. Counter-examples (exceptions) could possibly include some nations like Iraq, but I would argue, especially in the case of Iraq, that many had desired the overthrow of that government to begin with (albeit not necessary by the US and it's allies), though continued US occupation was met with increasing resentment (and helped overall to inspire further radicalization). Actually, no. I don't trust that that will be the ideal result. I do, however, think that having the possibility of it working out that way is better than not having that possibility. Likewise, I don't trust that owning a gun (or having a bodyguard) will make me inherently safe. I could be taken by surprise, or be completely outmatched by those willing to risk attacking me while I had a gun. I do however believe I should still have the option. Not just because the possibility of it aiding me is there, but also on principle. I respect if you disagree with that of course. Agreed. Revolution, from my perspective, would simply be a last resort to push through reforms when there is no longer any other way to do so. And as I had hinted at both above and in the post prior, that doesn't mean it would result in what I would hope for. It is however preferable to to try than living under unmovable tyranny. At least to me. That's not something I expect everyone to agree with. For example, many people have historically (and sadly in the present) accepted a life of slavery, even when given the option to fight back against it. Or, for that matter, even when given the option to try and escape.
Look up Zimmerman telegram, UK intercepted telegrams and confirmed Germany messaged Mexico before US entered ww1 and wanted Mexico to attack US if they entered war and be allies, Mexico had good reason to, Texas land and so on. One of the biggest reasons Mexico said no in response was (I paraphrase) "no cause every mother Firker up there is armed"
The biggest reason was that the US had a much stronger military and Mexico had no chance regardless of what else was happening. It was a stupid idea basically. Mexico was also selling oil to the British at the time and was the British fleet's largest source of oil. At the same time, the Mexicans also didn't want to provoke the US into doing what the US was already contemplating - attacking Tampico oil fields and taking over their oil production because the Mexico government asserted their ownership of those oil fields with the Carranza government. In fact, had the US invaded the area, Carranza was prepared to scorch earth the entire place. By playing neutral to the conflict, Carranza was able to stave off the US invasion and protect Mexico's sovereignty at a time of great disturbance. So I think saying Americans being armed was "one of the biggest reasons" is completely overstating it, considering it's largely a footnote in the entire thing.
Now remember folks don't believe someone just cause they tell you something and don't post any facts etc just opinion, and don't be lazy and use Wikipedia or other such crap, Please dig into it find and actually read their response, Mexico had their military look into it. What you will find as the biggest reasons is this. Mexican President Venustiano Carranza assigned a general to assess the feasibility of a Mexican takeover of their former territories. The general concluded that it would not be possible or even desirable for the following reasons: If the Mexicans had tried to provoke a war with the United States, then it would have proven to be futile, as they would have easily been forced into submission. Germany’s promises of “generous financial support” could not have been possible. Mexico could not possibly buy the arms, ammunition, or other war supplies for the very reason that the U.S. was the only sizable arms manufacturer in the Americas. To make matters worse, the British Royal Navy controlled the Atlantic sea lanes, so Germany could not be counted on to supply Mexico with war supplies directly. If by some chance Mexico had the military means to win the conflict with the U.S. and retake the area in question, Mexico would have had severe difficulty accommodating the large, primarily English-speaking population who were well supplied with guns and ammunition. Other foreign relations were at stake. Mexico had cooperated with the so-called ABC nations in South America to prevent a war with the U.S., generally improving relations all around. If Mexico were to enter war against the U.S. it would strain relations with those same ABC nations. Brazil would eventually declare war on Germany, angered by Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare on its ships, although the others remained neutral. As always do your own in depth research and don't believe someones BS online as fact, When a General lists it in top 3 its a big reason. Also don't forget who made arms in America at that time. Some people will ignore history to support their ideology blindly.
That's pretty funny considering most of what you posted is just a paraphrasing of Wikipedia: The fact of the matter is what while it's mentioned here, if you actually look into the source materials from that time and other books and articles written about the issue, you will see that the "Americans are armed" thing is not a major component at all, and even in the quotes is stated as SECONDARY to Mexico actually succeeding militarily against the US in the first place - which, as highlighted in the first bullet point, was basically considered impossible, as I stated. As such, I stand by my assertion that saying that "one of the biggest reasons" is that Americans were armed is overstating the importance of that particular item.
Also: Good book with some information about Oil in Mexico around this time: https://books.google.com/books?id=mNIUAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false And here's another: https://books.google.com/books?id=Amt1ZXMeVYMC In short, this was a period of great uncertainty for US-Mexican relations.
Wikipedia is a paraphrasing of what I posted, that's whats even funnier. Of course I stand by my assertion its one of biggest, as its clearly listed as one of biggest, not a footnote lol If anyone is actually intellectually honest they read it and go, oh yea the general commented on it and it matters for reasons he stated, some just try to downplay because of ideology.
Not to get too involved in your discussion, but it was important enough for the General to mention it no? That even if they won against the US military, it would still be a problem for them to "accommodate" the territory due to their being an armed populace of people that did not in fact understand the words coming out of their mouths. Even if that was not the main reason, it's still a large reason, and does not appear at this time to merely be a footnote within the report. Personally, I'm holding off judgement until I can actually see a direct transcript/copy of the general's report, which I've not yet been able to find. (For one, I'm not entirely sure what "accommodate" means in this instance, if it's a translation thing, if they were concerned about holding the territory and keeping the populace lawful, or if they were simply worried about how best to feed and care for them, or what).
The point is you accuse me of just copy pasting and not doing research and then just go and copy and paste some other source when the fact that is Wikipedia actually more or less says the same thing. We can disagree on this. I think the general was doing due diligence, but if that had been the ONLY reason, I'd wager the outcome of that era might have been very different. And I think if anyone is actually intellectually honest they would see this whole thing as not a very major component with all that was happening in the world at that time. Some just try to take a sub-item of a much larger discussion and trump it up to be more than it is.
Diversion: "Well, at least we all know where Trump got his name from..." /diversion. EDIT: But seriously, people trump things up, and people downplay them. I'm sure I've done some of each at various points in discussions and debates with people (though CLEARLY never in this thread ). Some of it is of course honest disagreement as to the assessment. But not all of it is so honest, not even to one's self.
I think we have to look at this in the context of the discussion. For Mexico to maintain diplomatic relations with Germany while saying no, they would be well advised to give plenty of reasons. One or two and the Germans can refute and come back and push, and the General's job was to evaluate the scenario in entirety. Diplomatically there were a lot of reasons not to goto war, but he was focused on the military aspects. Imagine, for a second, that the other reasons weren't there. "Americans are armed" in that scenario seems like a much less important point. It matters as a reason because in the event that somehow the Mexico military won against the American one, Mexico's military would not be in a state that could effectively control or subjugate the local population. Or, to put it another way, if Americans citizens didn't have guns, would Mexico have invaded? Given the historical context and other more relevant reasons, I'd wager not and I am sure you would too. So I ask, how can "one of the biggest reasons" be removed and not cause us pause to consider a difference in outcome? Yea, I have never seen primary source material for this either and in my searches just now I couldn't find anything either. I read it as keeping the local population lawful/happy/compliant, considering they would be occupying the territory as a foreign power. Anything from this time period that I have read in the past and during this discussion tends not to mention the "Americans with guns" issue tho. So while it might have been part of the General's report/statements and I certainly think it's relevant in that respect, but in terms of the overall context of Mexico's decision to support or not support Germany it doesn't seem like a major component.
So you admit to being a snarker? I find the details about Mexico during WW2 fascinating. Good points by Sok and ssez. (How the french toast does one pronounce "ssez" anyway)?
Oh well. I think we have approached sufficently that we can call it a day. In the end, it's a difference in interpretation - you feel safer with guns, I feel safer without. I guess we'll have to stay on our sides of the pond (or adapt for a visit).
I liked Boozha's post, but quickly unliked when I remembered his dislike of my like. So, like, confusing maaan. Going to some ice festival thing at Leavenworth this weekend, and I will be packing heat. Acclimation FTW.
why would you bring heat to an ice festival? that's a terrible idea! if you are bringing actual heat the ice will melt and if you bring a gun you're some sort of paranoid psycho who thinks people are going to shoot up ice.
You think I spent lots of time and money--r/t ccw--so that I can defend ice from bullets? I place high value on my wife and kids. Biology. Survival. Science. And shiz.
Haha, I posted that thought and havent been back to the forums since. Funny this thread as far as it did. Texas is far from a dangerous place. People know that you are risking your life to fuck with someone so most people go unfuckedwith.
