🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@trinsec

Armies are find whe your sending a few people off to help the USA fight iran or something.. But unless you intend to waste half your budget on armies like america does (which I do not recommend) that wont suite you when and if war does come.

Not even a single generation has passed yet since the last world war (but we are at the point where in about 10 more years we will be only one generation removed)... It seems like huberis to say it could never happen and thus no need to consider it when we havent even managed to go a single generation yet without one.

@mur2501

@servant_of_the_anime_avatars

Well said, and I often point out that as far as gun rights go it is probably one of the biggest issue in womens rights and one of few ways women can protect themselves. Policies that restrict access to guns are ultimately (although perhaps not intentionally so) sexist in their nature.

@mur2501 @trinsec

@mur2501 Like i said in the right system and under the right conditions. It is legal in the USA and has never been a single incident. That doesnt mean it would work in other countries and under different conditions or regulations.

@mur2501 I never claimed all freedom is good, though im not sure id be opposed to personal ownership of tanks under the right system and conditions. I just dont see it as nearly as pressing or as having much of a defensible reason as there is with guns. But I dont see a huge problem with it if done properly. I dont trust most of our military to not be murderers and they seem to roll around in them so why not.

You can legally own a tank in the USA and I have yet to hear of a single incident where it has been a problem.

@mur2501

Yes, it certainly would be freedom.

@trinsec

@VictorVenema We call that cherry picking, thats not how we find truth.

@mur2501

Yes my example was of an eminent war.. do you know what percentage of soldiers in any war carry guns vs those carrying rocket launchers? a hint, the overwhelming majority. In a war situations the ones int he tanks and the rocket launchers are the specialists, not the common soldier, and certainly there is little need for such a group to be comprised of the common civilian.

@trinsec

@trinsec

You act like there arent 100 wars going on in the world at this very second, or countless cultures being murdered because they have no way of defending themselves.

Its not fear mongering to recognize what is not just true but actively happening... nor does it stop you from ensuring peace simply because people are prepared should someone someone choose not to be follow your dream of peace.

@mur2501

@mur2501

Thats absurdism, people should have the same level and access to weapons as the country or state has to use against them.. So if your cops can carry rocket launchers, then yes, I agree so should a citizen. If they cant then neither should a citizen. This would also extend tot he equivelant of national guards. If it is legal for a country to deploy its own military within its borders to use against its own people, such as tanks, then the people should have equal access to tanks. If you dont want people to have access to tanks then make laws where it is illegal for ones own military to use tanks against its own people (which is likely the case in many countries),.

@trinsec

@trinsec

Saying we should strive for peace, and do our best to ensure war never happens, but be prepared in the off chance it does is fear mongering? ... ok ::shrug::
@mur2501

@arteteco considering what your doing you might want to check out my own mrkdown to pdf code, it is similar advanced and allows you to add latex into the markdown.

https://jeffreyfreeman.me/latex-pdf-from-markdown/

@VictorVenema It is hardly about america, it is true in most countries. In fact places with the least free markets have some of the worst sorts of personal and economic hardships.

@trinsec

Funny, they thought the same thing right before WWII too... everyone things that is true, right up until it isnt.

I love mostly in the netherlands, and have spent more of my adult life outside of the USA than in it.. my views may seem american in nature but I am considering it from world-expiernce not an american perspective.

To be clear in my entire life in the USA I personally saw only 3 guns and they were all at shooting ranges i went to. It wasnt until I was older I bought one and had virtually no exposure to guns as a child and no one in my family had them either.

@mur2501

@mur2501

thats a naive view of guns. The vast majority of legitimate uses of guns doesnt result in any loss of human life. Most people most of the time, at least during peace time, use them either for sport, or to protect the animals on a farm, or a combination of both. The use of a gun to actually kill someone is such a small percentage of their use as to be almost insignificant in terms of percentages of when/how a gun is used.

As for not needing guns or needing wars, that is always the hope. Lets hope people who are armed only ever need it to shoot at targets and enjoy the sport.

However it is scary just how similar your wording is to the views after WWI when the people of europe felt they learned their lesson and through coalitions, rather than guns or armies, could solve their problems. A wonderful idea, and by all means peace should be the goal. But things often dont work out as planned, they didnt work out then, and chances are they wont work out again. And when the next world war does happen it will again be the people without the guns sent to the gas chambers.

@trinsec

@trinsec

It is not the **only** argument for guns, just one in a long list of them, and a valid one.

As for forming a "coalition" in the EU intended to prevent that... that didnt work so well for the other world wars, in fact, coalitions are said by some to be the cause.

@mur2501

@VictorVenema It means I recognize this as fact

Thought there isnt much distinction. While there are some set of facts that make up the universe deciding what things fall into that category and what doesnt is always a matter of your own opinion when evaluating the evidence you have seen. In my case I am able to recognize this as one of those facts, others may not think that is correct.

@mur2501

How ya figure. Every point in the gun debate should be considered, and that is a pretty strong one, it isnt the only one.

@trinsec

@trinsec The situations arent unrelated.. by not having armed civilians who knew how to use a gun when it came time for every civilian to fight there were neither the guns nor expiernce to to do it. This policy ultimately led to a complete inability to prevent nazi germany from taking over.

now, 80 years later that same formula is at play and should another hitler ever rise dutch will find themselves repeating history never having learned that lesson from WWII

@trinsec Thats what happens when as a nation you tend to be anti-gun, i finda would have expected the Dutch to have learned their lesson from WWII

@mur2501 Also about what I'd expect :)