Guns Because

[Clinton Huxley]

The Roosians did the heavy-lifting in defeating the German army. I don't think that is a particularly controversial view.

They did heavy lifting yes, as did the Brits. Nobody is denying that.

Well, that's kind of my point. Blighty, the USA and Russia all bust a gut to defeat the Germans. The Russians killed the most Germans and took the most casualties though.

I quite like this formulation - America supplied the money, Russia supplied the men and Britian supplied the time.

[Coito ergo sum]

The Roosians did the heavy-lifting in defeating the German army. I don't think that is a particularly controversial view.

They did heavy lifting yes, as did the Brits. Nobody is denying that.

Well, that's kind of my point. Blighty, the USA and Russia all bust a gut to defeat the Germans. The Russians killed the most Germans and took the most casualties though.

I quite like this formulation - America supplied the money, Russia supplied the men and Britian supplied the time.

I was addressing the idea that the US contribution was not vital or substantial and that with or without US involvement, the allies would have won the war, and that the Soviets didn't need the Brit or US help in order to beat back the Germans. I was not advancing the position that the Russian contribution was not substantial.

Your formulation applies in the European theater, in a large sense, although on D-Day, the US supplied men, and machinery, and time. The US also contributed just as much to the Italian campaign and the African campaign. These were different fights, of course.

In the Japanese theater, though, the US did the bulk of the fighting and dying, and it was a World War, so we can't take the Euro theater in a vacuum.

[Coito ergo sum]

Maybe a mod could break off the Russia/US/WW2 posts into a thread "Outcome of WW2 without US involvement." Or, something.

[Hermit]

Your theory is that the Russians could have lost Stalingrad AND lost Moscow, and it would have had little effect on the war?

Yes, they could have and they would have won in the long run. Without US assistance it would just have taken longer. When the Third Reich attacked, the Soviet Union moved the bulk of its manufacturing facilities to the east of the Urals. They also made up for the inferior quality of their tanks by building them at a multiple quantity that the Germans could produce theirs. Not only that, but while the German tanks stayed out of action once struck, the Russians moved in on their damaged units, and by swapping components between them, had many of the ones apparently knocked out the previous day back in action the next morning. Sometimes they thus reactivated as many as two thirds of the previous day's losses.

Also, don't forget that Napoleon was forced to retreat after he occupied Moscow.

Well, this is in the realm of speculation, of course, but just because they moved their manufacturing east of the Urals doesn't mean that the Germans wouldn't be able to easily attack that manufacturing, once they had sewn up Western Russia. It seems very likely, to me, that the Germans, having wiped out the Russians in Stalingrad and in Moscow would have (a) demoralized the Russian people, and (b) have nothing stopping them from bombing the fuck out of the Russian manufacturing east of the Urals.

I think your theory is based on the notion that the Germans wouldn't be able to get at the manufacturing base east of the Urals even after they took western Russia.

It's a matter of resources and logistics. The Third Reich had not enough of either. Hitler's mistake was to think he'd be able to repeat his victory through Blitzkrieg in western Europe on a grander scale in the east. He is quoted as saying that Russia was like a house of cards: one kick and it will collapse like one. That is why he never thought to consider either resources or logistics. That's why he sent his army into Russia late in June without any provisions for winter. He expected to have won well before then.

It's a pity that Hitler never did his homework regarding manufacturing capacity and supply-chains. Had he done so, he may have come to the sobering conclusion that Operation Barbarossa was ill-conceived and bound to fail. Alas, he did not. The results were tragic for all concerned.

During the summer and autumn the German columns got bogged in mud. In winter, the Soviets took advantage of their expertise in moving swiftly over ice and snow went on the counter-attack. Meanwhile, demand had already outstripped the logistical lines' capacity to supply necessities. More German soldiers died from the lack of overcoats, thick socks and pullovers that winter than from actual fighting. And then the counter-attacks became more serious. They were no longer concerned with slowing the German armies' advance - they now aimed to drive them back and destroy them. Not only did the Russian military loose the most soldiers of any allied force during that war, but it also inflicted the most damage, using Soviet personnel and Soviet raw materials that were used to build Soviet designed tanks and other weapons. Between 1941 and 1944 95% of German soldiers who died, died on the eastern front.

No, Hitler had a snowflake's chance in hell of conquering anything east of the Ural Mountains. US assistance did not stop him. It just accelerated the advent of the third Reich's demise. Neither the German manufacturing capacity nor German technological superiority were ever going to beat the vast expanses of the Soviet Union, even if the US had refused financial, material and its belated military aid altogether.

[Rum]

[Blind groper]

It turned out that, in Australia at least, gun control laws made no discernible difference to the rate of murder/homicide and suicide trends. People just used different means to accomplish either.

Not terribly surprising. The primary weapon for murder and suicide in the USA is the hand gun. Australia has had almost no hand guns for 100 years. A further tightening of gun laws is not going to reduce the numbers of hand guns that are not there anyway. The vast bulk of murders and suicides before those law changes did not involve firearms, and the vast bulk afterwards did not either.

What the tightening did do, though, was pretty much eliminate mass shootings. Since the killings in Tasmania, which stimulated the gun law tightening, there has been no mass shooting in Australia at all.

[Seth]

I have to give my life for the "needs of society?"

Once more you miss the point.

For every act of 'self defense' using a gun, there are 22 acts in which guns cause injury or death.

Not against the same individual. Which makes your "analysis" more "anal" than you might like.

Simply, you are safer without guns.

Nope. Bogus conclusion. The fact that other people are harmed with guns has absolutely no causal connection to me or whether or not I own guns.

The fewer the guns, the more likely you will live to a ripe old age.

The facts prove you wrong.

More guns means more acts of maiming or killing using guns. More guns puts your life at greater risk.

No, more guns makes me safer. Since it's simply impossible to get rid of ALL guns, the only sane alternative is to let every individual decide for him or herself whether they need to be armed for self-defense or not. Anything else is imposing YOUR subjective judgments on others based on bullshit statistical arguments which put other people at risk and violate their rights.

You still evade that fundamental point: The right to self defense is not a statistical argument. It's an individual right that "shall not be infringed" by government. It simply doesn't matter how many people are hurt or killed with firearms because every single individual has the right to be armed for self defense. You can't disarm me because you got shot if I wasn't the one who shot you.

And you'll evade this point yet again I predict.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...No, more guns makes me safer. Since it's simply impossible to get rid of ALL guns, the only sane alternative is to let every individual decide for him or herself whether they need to be armed for self-defense or not....

In the context of America today, with guns so widespread, this may well be true - I think BG's ideas on the US ridding itself of guns far too sanguine, for a variety of reasons.

In the rest of the western world, however, starting with a vastly lower incidence of guns, our best option is to maintain our current tight regulation, and have very harsh penalties indeed for any crime (or attempted crime) involving guns. The overwhelming majority of the population of Australia would support just that, as long as there was still room for sporting shooting as it currently exists.

It's the old "you can't get there from here" scenario...

[Blind groper]

To Collector

The idea that you have a right to guns is a religious idea. It has no relevance to people like me who prefer pragmatism to religious bullshit. When people claim a right to bear arms, they are essentially claiming a God given right. Outside of religion there are no rights. Just privileges given by those in power because it is convenient and advantageous for them to do so.

[Collector1337]

To Collector

The idea that you have a right to guns is a religious idea.

Wrong.

It's a natural right, as in nature. God has nothing to do with it. Do animals in nature have a right to defend themselves? Aren't we just smart animals who use tools? If an animal is scared or feels threatened, will it not attack to protect itself? An animal has survival instinct and will do what it needs to survive. Humans also have survival instinct and since I'm much more intelligent than any other animal on the planet, I'm going to use my tools to survive the best that I can.

It has no relevance to people like me who prefer pragmatism to religious bullshit.

It's not religious. As if I care what you prefer anyway.

Taking my survival and protection seriously and using the best tool for the job is pretty pragmatic. I guess you're not quite the pragmatist you think you are.

When people claim a right to bear arms, they are essentially claiming a God given right.

Wrong again.

Outside of religion there are no rights.

Wrong and stupid.

Just privileges given by those in power because it is convenient and advantageous for them to do so.

Wow. Authoritarian bullshit.

Why do you think I give a shit about "those in power?" I embrace liberty.

[Blind groper]

Wrong.

It's a natural right, as in nature.

That is about the most stupid thing you have said.

There is no 'natural right' to bear arms. Guns and firearms in general are hardly natural.

You can argue that the right to self defense is a 'natural' right, but that is a totally different thing to this spurious "right to bear arms."

Human rights can be a wonderful thing, and I fully support those rights espoused by the United Nations. But there is nothing 'natural' about them, or inevitable. They are subjective and changeable. The 'rights' we enjoy today are very different to the 'rights' that were prevalent 1,000 years ago. What people consider to be 'rights' is something that changes from generation to generation, and even more over longer periods of time.

There are no 'inalienable' rights. There are only subjective decisions by those in power as to what privileges they will permit the citizenry, and those decisions are based on political expedience. Some of those 'rights' granted by those in power are wonderful things, but they are not of divine origin. They come from what politicians find convenient.

[Collector1337]

Wrong.

It's a natural right, as in nature.

That is about the most stupid thing you have said.

There is no 'natural right' to bear arms. Guns and firearms in general are hardly natural.

You can argue that the right to self defense is a 'natural' right, but that is a totally different thing to this spurious "right to bear arms."

Human rights can be a wonderful thing, and I fully support those rights espoused by the United Nations. But there is nothing 'natural' about them, or inevitable. They are subjective and changeable. The 'rights' we enjoy today are very different to the 'rights' that were prevalent 1,000 years ago. What people consider to be 'rights' is something that changes from generation to generation, and even more over longer periods of time.

There are no 'inalienable' rights. There are only subjective decisions by those in power as to what privileges they will permit the citizenry, and those decisions are based on political expedience. Some of those 'rights' granted by those in power are wonderful things, but they are not of divine origin. They come from what politicians find convenient.

Natural right to defend yourself, genius.

Do you think this collectivist garbage spouted like a true indoctrinated sheep is somehow convincing?

There are inalienable rights. The best example of which is defending my survival. There's nothing you can do to keep me from making sure I stay alive.

Again, why the fuck do I care about those in power or what they think?

[Blind groper]

Collector.

Defending your survival is not a right. It is a natural behavior, but not a right.

There was a time, in Europe when aristocrats ruled, that a peasant who engaged in self defense against any aristocrat would be put to death. His family as well. He had no "right" of self defense.

The idea of 'natural' rights is an illusion. There are only such privileges as the people in power care to grant. Any belief otherwise is just head in the clouds lack of appreciation of reality.

[JimC]

Collector.

Defending your survival is not a right. It is a natural behavior, but not a right.

There was a time, in Europe when aristocrats ruled, that a peasant who engaged in self defense against any aristocrat would be put to death. His family as well. He had no "right" of self defense.

The idea of 'natural' rights is an illusion. There are only such privileges as the people in power care to grant. Any belief otherwise is just head in the clouds lack of appreciation of reality.

I agree in part, in the sense that "natural rights" are a very wooly, mystical notion. In reality, they are rights gained by masses of people labouring hard over many years to shift the zeitgeist away from aristocratic or plutocratic privilege.

However, hard-won rights in modern western countries can be enshrined into some form of constitutional agreement, and defended vigorously by mass people power if needed. I rather hope we have moved on past "privileges as the people in power care to grant".

People in power with that attitude can fuck right off...

[Collector1337]

Collector.

Defending your survival is not a right. It is a natural behavior, but not a right.

There was a time, in Europe when aristocrats ruled, that a peasant who engaged in self defense against any aristocrat would be put to death. His family as well. He had no "right" of self defense.

The idea of 'natural' rights is an illusion. There are only such privileges as the people in power care to grant. Any belief otherwise is just head in the clouds lack of appreciation of reality.

Disgusting. It's absolutely a right.

A peasant ruled by an aristocrat. That's totally who I wish I could be like. Thanks for illustrating how reprehensible it is to live in a society that doesn't allow you to defend yourself.