"a threat to burglars"

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I'm not questioning the veracity of Mr Haas's statements as regards what the inmates of the various camps might have thought - but he was and is dead wrong in his assessment of the German troops.

The Wehrmacht and even the SS were not necessarily uniformed thugs - they were highly trained and highly disciplined soldiers. They would have made complete mincemeat of any irregular Jewish resistance.

Once they were in Ghetto's it was all over.

Yeah, but you have to keep in mind that being able to AT LEAST defend yourself somewhat is better off than being sent to death camp!  The German infantry was extremely well trained, you'd be correct in saying that.  SS men were RUTHLESS too.  I remember my dad telling me there was one who was attracted to my aunt Wanda(they weren't going out or anything, but he was attracted to her), and when one of her friends was being taken to a death camp my aunt pleaded with him not to take him.  His response was "you keep your mouth shut or you'll be next".

Again, at least they could have put up a fight, even if it was a small one.  It's a lot better than being gassed to death, or digging your own grave, wouldn't you agree?

Besides, if one of the people who were in the concentration camps think they would have been better off if they had been armed, why do you disagree with him? Are you better at assessing what could have been done than someone who WAS THERE?
 
Judging from the short memories those people seem to have now they're runnin their own state - yeah.

I've studied military history - I know what it takes to make a guerilla action succesfull and what it takes to make it fail. It is IMPOSSIBLE for irregular troops to succeed in a country where they do not have the backing of the common man.

That is why the VC/NVA won Vietnam, and why the communist Dhofari insurgents lost in Oman.

Eon
 
But the deal is, they were willing to defend themselves regardless of what they were up against. They obviously agree they would have been better off with guns. They wouldn't have been able to compete with the German army no doubt, but they would still have put up a fight, which is better than being sent to a concentration camp!
 
Fair enough - but it wouldn't have changed things. Ultimately it would have been futile. Hell, I'd probably feel safer if I could carry a gun - that doesn't mean I WOULD be, and it doesn't mean anyone else would be either.

EOn
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Fair enough - but it wouldn't have changed things. Ultimately it would have been futile. Hell, I'd probably feel safer if I could carry a gun - that doesn't mean I WOULD be, and it doesn't mean anyone else would be either.

But you know that making guns illegal would just take them away from law abiding people don't you? You think the gang members in the middle of a fire fight are going to rush to turn in their guns upon hearing about a gun ban being put in place?

The best you can do is discourage gun crime.

If you're going to own a gun though, I think it makes sense to get training as to how to use it, but why take away guns from regular guys who aren't going to use it in crime anyway? It WONT make you or I any safe, it WILL make a lot of gun owners disgruntled, however.
 
<shrugs> So why do you guys have such a huge gun crime problem, and we don't?

Eon
 
ok granted guns enable gun crimes. I'm sure the UK has their share of robberies and muggings. Albeit some by illegal guns (many of our crimes are done with illegal guns as well)

How are the others done? knifepoint? I'm willing to wager those are higher than the US. Both deadly when used on purpose or accident.

why are we arguing again???
biggrin.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]<shrugs> So why do you guys have such a huge gun crime problem, and we don't?

Why is there so much crime in South Africa?  Different places have different problems.  Obviously, we have problems with gun violence, but when you consider that a handgun ban led to a 200% increase in the homicide rate in DC than you really have to ask yourself if it really makes a positive change.

And why is there no rush to take away other dangerous things.  Want to fight hand to hand with a dude who has an axe?  How about captain chainsaw?  Or, the dude with the spade that can take off your head.  Or how about the sneaky guy with the 6 inch long knife who can wait for his prey in the alleyways.  No rush to ban those.  Can guns fire at a distance? Yes, but so can bows and arrows! Do you honestly think that a gun ban will stop people from obtaining them illegally, especially when you see how easy you can get illicit drugs?  You think that ordering people to turn in their guns will make the drug dealers rush to make sure they are obeying the law?
 
Back
Top