Ever? I’m sure it has.
I don’t know who the quoted Atheist in the OP is so I don’t know if he’s prone to making things up. But I certainly agree with the concept that people don’t want to be stabbed and that unarmed people, possibly even including trained prison guards, would be hesitant to go up against an knife wielding opponent.
Is any of this in dispute?
outgunned by the bad guys? Have you seen modern para-militarized SWAT teams?
A world without rocket launchers is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a gun can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene.
Oh, wait:
A world without nukes is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a rocket launcher can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene.
Oh, wait… and so on.
Arming everybody better is as good a response to violence as getting everybody high is a response to drug criminality, or blowing everything up preemptively is a response to terrorism.
It’s honestly shocking to me that you guys need this explained, but here goes:
The only reason he mentions Seal Team Six is to make the point that even the toughest of trained killers cannot fend off multiple attackers at once. He’s not making any point about disarming the military.
There’s an ancient saying that goes something like this: “Even Hercules can’t fight two.”
He goes on to very clearly make his point that without guns " youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive".
I’m genuinely shocked at your lack of reading comprehension.
Yes yes, God made men but Sam Colt made them equal. We got it.
What’s the point of this essay though? Is it just a general proclamation that guns have been a net positive to human existence? If so, meh.
If it’s a commentary on the current gun control debate, then he’s arguing against a massive strawman by bringing up Seal Team Six, because nobody is suggesting that we melt down all the guns and hold hands and sing Let It Be or something.
**steronz ** and BobLibDem didn’t get it at all. They honestly seem to think the statement was talking about disarming the military.
Yes, that is the point. Why, “meh”? Do you agree? Disagree?
Maybe not, but the image of them raiding bin Laden’s compound while wearing bowlers and white jumpsuits with exposed jockstraps is pretty amusing. (I presume they already had the black combat boots.)
No I got it then too. You missed the point of my post; BobLibDem’s too. Also, look at the names when you’re quoting.
How do you define the term ‘a world without guns’?
Actually, just start with defining the word ‘without’, as that is the operative word. If you look that one up, then you may understand what the concept means. It doesn’t say a world with some guns, or a world with a few guns, but a world without guns.
Is that really unclear to you? I’m baffled that you can possibly be arguing that ‘without guns’ actually means something other than ‘without guns’. Where do you see room for guns in a world without guns? ‘Without’ is a pretty clear and definite term, I don’t really see much room for ambiguity there.
Your incredulity at other’s apparent lack of reading comprehension is belied by your own seeming failure to recognize what the word ‘without’ means.
Not really. He’s on “your side” but he’s using a ridiculous straw man of disarming Seal Team 6. His hypothetical world without guns that he imagines to be the seventh circle of hell includes a disarmed military.
Aside from the strawman fallacy detailed by others that no one is suggesting it would be wise or even possible to create a world without guns, the rest of his argument is also full of holes.
His basic premise is that in a world without guns, a villain would repeatedly stab an innocent and no one around them would be brave enough to stand against him. But if the bystanders had guns they could act.
Well if you are going to put guns into the equation, then presumably the villain in this case would also have a gun. So the scenario would be the villain shoots the victim and he dies on the spot before anyone can even act. Further the bystanders are afraid to act because the assailant has a gun for Og’s sake. Do you really want to make yourself his next target by pulling out your gun?
He also claims that disallowing guns will give the advantage to the aggressive over the passive. I would say that entirely the opposite is true. Carrying a gun for defensive purposes is to some extent an aggressive act. It is a belief that the best defense is a good offense, and that violence is a potential solution to a given problem. Whether or not these are valid assumptions, it leads to those who are aggressive to be more likely to carry guns. And in a world with guns those who have guns have potentially more power than those who don’t.l If someone cuts in front of me in line a the grocery store I will be less likely to make a big deal about it if he is open carrying a .45 revolver and I’m armed with a basket of raspberries.
I think this is one of the strongest emotional responses underlying behind the anti-gun movement. There are those of us have no interest or desire to arm themselves and on the whole find their lives improved without guns, but want to have an even playing field where they don’t feel at a disadvantage safety/fear wise versus those who are armed.
This is not to argue one way or another about the 2nd amendment or to what extent if any guns should be regulated, but just to point out that the argument presented in the OP if garbage.
I did. Post 15.
If you were making a point maybe you whooshed me.
But BobLibDem is still contending that Sam’s quote from the OP was straw man arguing against disarming Seal Team Six. This is a complete fail of reading comprehension since that’s not at all what the guy was saying and completely misses his point.
Buck, I completely disagree with you but congratulations on actually understanding the quote from the OP.
What do you think the word ‘without’ means?
Perhaps the pro-gun side worships guns a little bit more literally than I thought. 
Apparently, guns are the only thing keeping every non-criminal from becoming a criminal?
This is the type of hyperbole that I tend to ignore in gun debates. That if nobody had a gun, people would be free to rape and pillage and steal and murder and nobody would be able to stop these rampaging supermen.
If there were no guns (first of all almost nobody is arguing for that), people would still obey the law because they can still be caught and have their asses hauled into jail. Plenty of women walk through a church, a government office, a school, or an airport unraped even though nobody around them has a gun. If there were no guns, I think that crime would start to decrease. Only those already with a propensity for violent crime would see such a world as ripe for the picking.
If there were no guns I think that crime would start to increase.
Like, you know, all of the violent criminals that we already have? This statement seems to imply that there aren’t any people that do have a propensity for violent crime that would like to have unarmed victims. Criminals do exist, you know, and many of them are violent.
It does remind me of the arguments certain believers make against atheism; that without belief in God/guns everyone will turn into a rampaging homicidal maniac.
I must admit that I never lived in it, but we once had a world without guns. It doesn’t sound like it was a peace-filled utopia, but it doesn’t sound like the Thunderdome Sam proposes
Back then the antis were probably wishing for a world without swords.