Guns Because

[orpheus]

Phallusy

That's really a very beautiful picture.

[JimC]

Phallusy

That's really a very beautiful picture.

To some this thread, it would be a tempting target...

[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.

[Blind groper]

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.
Simply, you are safer without guns. The fewer the guns, the more likely you will live to a ripe old age. More guns means more acts of maiming or killing using guns. More guns puts your life at greater risk.

[Collector1337]

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.
Simply, you are safer without guns. The fewer the guns, the more likely you will live to a ripe old age. More guns means more acts of maiming or killing using guns. More guns puts your life at greater risk.

Perhaps if you're an average person and not competent with firearms. I'll take my chances.

[Clinton Huxley]

Ah, the good old "illusory superiority" cognitive bias.

[JimC]

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.
Simply, you are safer without guns. The fewer the guns, the more likely you will live to a ripe old age. More guns means more acts of maiming or killing using guns. More guns puts your life at greater risk.

Perhaps if you're an average person and not competent with firearms. I'll take my chances.

And it may indeed work out well for you as an individual.

What you are missing is that this is a statistical argument; the nature of the gun culture and legal framework in the US has lead inexorably to a situation where a very large number of hand-guns are in circulation. Every street-corner punk that wants one can be armed, unlike other western democracies... Hence, your absurdly high murder rate overall...

(and spare me the gang culture apologetics - plenty of very savage gangs in Oz and NZ, but rarely are they armed...)

I add to this that, unlike BG, I think there is little possibility of the US altering its gun culture - enjoy...

[Clinton Huxley]

You can no more persuade a yank to give up his gun than persuade a Frenchman to give up his mistress.

[Blind groper]

Perhaps if you're an average person and not competent with firearms. I'll take my chances.

Definitely self delusion.

Competence with firearms is not the issue. It is the fact that, statistically, if there is a hand gun available, everyone is at greater risk.

Imagine a family of four. Two parents and two teenage kids.
Now imagine that in their home there is a hand gun that is kept loaded.

There are two risks that jump substantially, as shown by numerous studies.
Risk one is to the female partner. The person most likely to murder her is her male partner. That risk jumps substantially with a gun in the house, and interestingly, it does not matter whether it is his gun or hers. Her risk still increases.

The second risk is that of suicide, probably by one of the teenage kids. Suicide goes by temporary impulse. A kid who would normally be considered safe is no longer safe with that gun around. The impulse hits. If no means of readily killing him/herself is there, the impulse passes, and the teenager lives. If a loaded handgun is available, we end up with a dead teenager.

Ironically, the only person whose risk does not increase much is the father. He puts everyone else at substantially greater risk, but his own risk increases only to a minor degree. His risk increases, of being shot by his female partner, or of suicide, but the increase is small.

Simply, more guns means more people shot dead.

[Hermit]

Perhaps if you're an average person and not competent with firearms. I'll take my chances.

Definitely self delusion.

Competence with firearms is not the issue. It is the fact that, statistically, if there is a hand gun available, everyone is at greater risk.

Imagine a family of four. Two parents and two teenage kids.
Now imagine that in their home there is a hand gun that is kept loaded.

There are two risks that jump substantially, as shown by numerous studies.
Risk one is to the female partner. The person most likely to murder her is her male partner. That risk jumps substantially with a gun in the house, and interestingly, it does not matter whether it is his gun or hers. Her risk still increases.

The second risk is that of suicide, probably by one of the teenage kids. Suicide goes by temporary impulse. A kid who would normally be considered safe is no longer safe with that gun around. The impulse hits. If no means of readily killing him/herself is there, the impulse passes, and the teenager lives. If a loaded handgun is available, we end up with a dead teenager.

Ironically, the only person whose risk does not increase much is the father. He puts everyone else at substantially greater risk, but his own risk increases only to a minor degree. His risk increases, of being shot by his female partner, or of suicide, but the increase is small.

Simply, more guns means more people shot dead.

During a similar debate on this forum some time ago, I did a bit of research. 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. (Link to earlier post)

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

[Clinton Huxley]

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

[Coito ergo sum]

You're saying 9/10 of Hitler's forces were dedicated to the fight against the Soviets?

Hitler had 20 divisions. 18 of them were on the eastern front fighting the Soviets.

Operation Barbarossa involved well over 100 infantry divisions -- maybe you're talking tank divisions alone? I think there were more on the order of 20 tank divisions in Operation Barbarossa. The invasion of Poland involved like 75 divisions or something like that. And, the Western Offensive involved like 150 infantry divisions and several thousand tanks.

On the business of American trade/aid, sure it helped. However, the Soviets also had a massive, and mean truly massive, industrial development, that quickly switched to manufacturing war materials. This was moved in its entirety rather quickly to the interior of Russia, away from the front lines. They manufactured the bulk of the war machines and materials needed to fight. American trade/aid helped, but was probably not vital.

Sure, but if you give Stalingrad and Moscow to the Germans and move the front that much far inland, then Germany could have gotten at that interior.

I think the suggestion that American and British aid to the Soviets was not vital is demonstrably false. The Brits gave Russia like 7,000 airplanes, 5,000 tanks, 5,000 anti-tank guns and 15 million boots, etc. The US delivered over 400,000 vehicles, 12,000 armored fighting vehicles (including 7,000 tanks), like 12,000airplanes, and a couple million tons of food.

Not vital? O.k., if you say so.

And if the US doesn't get involved at all, Britain and the rest of the allies would likely not have been in any position to mount a D-Day offensive. More German troops could have been dedicated to Russia. Without the American aid to Russia, it's very likely that the best Russia can hope for is a stalemate. The Soviets would not have had as much force available to put towards the Japanese angle, and the Japanese would not have been occupied by the US, so the Japs would have been attacking from the east. That's something not to forget is that the mere fact of US involvement slogging it out with the Nips, the Russians were saved from a crushing Japanese onslaught.

I submit that without US involvement in WW2, the Allies likely lose, and at best there would be an armistice where an exhausted Britain sues for peace, looking to survive as a nation -- it's commonwealth subjects, Oz, NZ, Canada, etc., follow suit. Britain exits asia and africa and loses its empire to Germany and Japan. Germany allows Britain to survive for a time. Germany develops the atomic bomb, and extorts effective world domination.

Hitler bangs supermodel Gisele Bunchen and seals an alliance with Brazil by spawning actual boys from Brazil, and the Waffen SS is converted into the Waffen House and begins serving the best breakfasts in the South.

QED.

[Clinton Huxley]

Winston Churchill - "The Russians tore the heart out of the German Army"

[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.