🇳🇱
Picture of a #Dutch outfit during WWII... why am I not even surprised.
The Dutch couldnt be anymore Dutch if they tried!
@freemo The Dutch were absolutely not prepared for WWII. Shitty equipment, and not expecting to be invaded at all. We kinda expected a repeat of WWI.
@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
@freemo Heh, way to go to compare a situation from 80 years ago with now. 😝
Besides, I do fully expect soldiers to be armed, jeez.
@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
This is Mur 
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.
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars That is not true. You have the right to defend yourself. Just not with a firearm here.
Guns are the great equalizer.
Here in germany (where knifes openable with one hand are illegal) there was a case where a women was raped at knife point during her camping trip after being dragged out of her tent while her boyfriend waited inside and then called the police. And the comment of the police was that they both did the right thing.
I don't want to live like that. I don't want the responsibility for my safety and that of the ones I love purely resting on government agents keeping the bad people away.
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.
@freemo @servant_of_the_anime_avatars
"Guns are the great equalizer."
I thought it was about freedom, not a 'level playing field'.
Guess the argument I had the other day wasn't quite 100% correct. Everybody needs guns, apparently, in order to be able to defend themselves, or to even live normally at all.
And it is terrible what happened to that woman in Germany. But would the outcome really be that different if they had guns? There could be deaths, and it might not even be the culprits who died. We don't know, so it's pure speculation at this point. It is also not a common occorence, thankfully.
Go learn martial arts if you're seriously concerned about your well-being. That's allowed.
> "Guns are the great equalizer."
>
> I thought it was about freedom, not a 'level playing field'.
Depends, you cant take catch phrases out of context and expect it to apply.
When we talked about a "level playing field" you spoke about criminals having guns and thus requiring people to own guns in order to "keep up". In that sense, as we covered it wasn't valid since criminals do not have legal access to guns and thus there is a greater barrier to a criminal being armed than a law abiding citizen, so the idea of a "level playing field" or a need to buy guns just to keep up with criminal elements with guns was invalidated. The context is important.
However now we are talking about criminals having the upper hand not because they have a gun or a weapon but because a man is physically stronger than a woman. In that sense yes having a gun absolutely creates a "level playing field" but in a way that is completely unrelated to your earlier use of the term. In this case it allows a woman to defend herself against a stronger man and protect her from being rapped.
I'll give you a pass this time as you tend to debate rather respectfully, so ill take it as a slip. But please dont become one of those people who start using what someone says in a debate out of context in sound bite form just to try to get the upper hand in an argument. If we go down that route these discussions will become very unpleasant very quickly.
> Guess the argument I had the other day wasn't quite 100% correct. Everybody needs guns, apparently, in order to be able to defend themselves, or to even live normally at all.
You dont **need** a gun to defend yourself or live normally, not all the time. But it does ensure that if youa re at the mercy of a gang of people, or an individual stronger than you, or people with knives, that you walk away alive rather than dead.
> And it is terrible what happened to that woman in Germany. But would the outcome really be that different if they had guns? There could be deaths, and it might not even be the culprits who died. We don't know, so it's pure speculation at this point. It is also not a common occorence, thankfully.
While you may not know for sure how it would have ended would she have had a gun its a pretty fair bet she stood a hell of a better chance walking away without having known rape and with a dead rapist at her feet than walking away raped and traumatized for life. Yes someone would have probably wound up dead, and in all liklihood it would have been the someone who deserved death through their choice of actions.
