Debate: Guns: Good or Bad?

[BorkBot]

Another false argument. This only applies to the early part of the Medieval age. Even the Romans fielded already a professional army. The conscripted peasants were just the fodder for the first wave or for the flanks. Equipped with weapons which didn't require a lot of craftmanship and expensive materials. (spears, axes, maces) They usually had no armor at all. Even leather armor was not affordable. A plate armor was as expensive as a space rocket nowadays in comparison.

There isn't even certainty regarding the historical accuracy of the use of peasants as cannon fodder in medieval warfare. The accounts of it are questionable at best, because they're largely based on descriptions that tried to make the battles sound epic by saying "thousands of men fought for king and country and died heroically!" Other accounts speak of "grave losses" and mention numbers in the dozens rather than hundreds or thousands, but then they might only be talking about the people who were worth mentioning (i.e. not peasants). No official records of actual army compositions exist.

One of the only things that's certain is that there were laws that stated young adult men had to be prepared to take up arms to defend their own region in an organised fashion if it was attacked by outsiders. The reason for this was that it wasn't possible to keep a regular army stationed on all borders to guard it from invaders. For example, these laws required people who lived in or near coastal towns of England to fend off viking raids when there wasn't anyone else around to do it. These laws did not force those men to join in on conquests abroad.

It's also certain that the regular army consisted for a large part of lesser nobles and their entourage, including personal servants and men at arms (who did receive professional training!) that were assigned to them to fight in their battles. Another large portion of the armies consisted of mercenaries, who naturally trained a lot and used part of their money to buy proper equipment.

The vikings did force their commoners to join warbands, but they didn't just toss farmers on the front line with crappy gear. They wore leather and hides (which was normal because it can be f*cking cold in Norway without central heating) or sometimes chainmail, shields, swords/axes and spears. They basically all became the equivalent of the men at arms of western European kingdoms.

The only known fact supporting the cannon fodder theory is that inhabitants of recently conquered (especially non-Christian) territory were sometimes sent to the front line of the battlefield by invading armies to reduce the losses of their main force. These weren't the invading country's own peasants, but the peasants and military captives of the country that was being invaded, basically fighting against their own countrymen. If those men had the bright idea to turn around and fight alongside the force of their own country to push the invaders back, they'd probably just get caught between both armies and die.

[CmG]

Yeah sry my bad. Of course peasants were the royal guard of the lords. xD

[BorkBot]

Yeah sry my bad. Of course peasants were the royal guard of the lords. xD

Lulz no

It's just likely that they didn't have to fight except when they had to defend their own homes.

[CmG]

Yup. I agree. On that.

[Admiral]

Firearms don't have alignments, only their operators do.

[Schlyne]

Pro guns here.

Even tho I tend toward libertarian. I am for a bit more regulation in the terms of safety. If everybody was required to take a basic gun safety class when you bought a firearm (at least the first time) it would do a lot toward reducing the accidents. You get taught a lot in a basic firearms class, and if you respect and treat a firearm like the deadly thing that it is, you reduce the chance of hurting yourself with it. I think if you did something with licensing more like driver's licenses you could reduce the number of accidents quite a bit.

Also, there are a variety of classes available, including ones for home defense. Bullets do not respect walls.

If you take away guns from everyone, only the criminals have guns. We don't have the same sort of geography as britian...we will simply have more guns smuggled in from the central and southern Americas...you could liken it to the drug trade...(which is a completely different subject).

[CmG]

Amok run in school in Connecticut.... Glad u guys are allowed to have weapons! ....

[creedkingsx]

Amok run in school in Connecticut.... Glad u guys are allowed to have weapons! ....

Sad day. Seriously. 20 kids dying. :/

[Admiral]

Amok run in school in Connecticut.... Glad u guys are allowed to have weapons! ....

Because making weapons illegal would stop people from getting them. Just like how making murder illegal has stopped it from happening right?

[CmG]

Thats why Europe has so much less crime than you guys. Totaly has nothing to do with availability of arms right? We are just the better people right?

[BorkBot]

Free gun ownership promoters would argue that such things can still happens in countries where there are laws against it. But the simple truth is that it's far less likely and less common.

No amount of classes will teach some nutcase (NOT talking about organised crime here) to not use a gun for malign purposes. But laws against gun ownership do pose a barrier to obtaining them. A fanatic like Anders Breivik will still get a gun, true. But again, not all loons are fanatics. Many will give up if it takes too much effort and are probably discouraged by the interaction with seedy types required to get their hands on a firearm illegitimately. Anti-gun laws are all about minimising the occurrence of these unfortunate victims.

Making murder illegal has made it happen less frequently. In time, breaking laws that are well-enforced becomes socially reprehensible. Laws can change mentality if proper education about them is in place. If you look at the murder stats I posted before, countries where firearms are freely attainable have a lot more murders on average. Quite possibly because it's considered okay to possess and use firearms there under some circumstances. Even if murder is illegal, there will be people who kill others with guns and try to justify it to themselves with twisted reasoning such as "self-defense." And it's much easier to argue you pulled a trigger in self-defense than it is to stab someone to death with a knife in self-defense.

[Reemus]

Not so long ago they tried to make Guns In-Law in Russia. When every third-4th idiot is Drinking, fighting, breaking the rules `System`. Only more deaths will occur, it is mistake and i dont udnerstand idiots who just cant learn from 4-5th massacre from America.

[krixi]

I don't buy explanations about school massacres for anti-weapon policy - it never should happen in the first place. It's totally abnormal so any teen would want to mass kill schoolmates. There's certainly something wrong with such institution and parents didn't do the job. From our lives we know, so there are always reasons, as well as justifies and explanations when someones fault is known, but results too extreme (or seems so).

Holding some power seems essential for freedom. There were extreme causes in the past when people were willingly using their weapons. It might be bright nowadays, but resigning on ability to fight and self-defense is hardly understandable, imho. I would just probably made it available from 26, since at this age people are usually less keen to unnecessary risk and aggression and their brains are fully developed.

[Quark]

I used to think gun regulation was good because it would reduce crime. But then I saw a study which said it didn't. So I changed my mind.