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

@freemo @trinsec
I think we are in a age where we shall stop bragging up weapons and understand the lessons of all wars. We use gun to attack or gun to defend at the end someone is killed.

@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

@freemo @trinsec
Your example was of an eminent war. Ofcourse you not gonna hunt ducks in a war.

@mur2501 @freemo @trinsec Access to weapons is a necessity for any kind of self defense. If you don't have access to weapons you functionally do not have a right to defend yourself.
I don't want the state to be my sole protector I want to be able to be responsible for myself.

@servant_of_the_anime_avatars That is not true. You have the right to defend yourself. Just not with a firearm here.

@freemo @mur2501

@trinsec @freemo @mur2501 There is no self defense against someone with a gun. Even if you get threatened at knife point all you can do is do what is being asked of you, if you are unarmed. And the same goes for everyone who might be willing to help you, they can not defend you.
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.

@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

@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.

@mur2501

@trinsec @freemo @mur2501

If you had ever done martial arts you would know three things:
- It's hard and very time consuming to get good at. And even if you are good, if the other guy is just a lot bigger or there is more than one, you loose.
- It's near(!) useless against knives. If you are defending against an attacker with a knife the best thing you can hope for is non-lethal wounds on your arms.
- It's useless against guns. Unless someone is stupid enough to put the gun directly on your head there is about nothing you can do.

Any person is able to kill with a gun with an hour of training. Every person with a gun is automatically dangerous, but at the same time no person with a gun is ever powerless.

The thing I care about in this discussion is self responsibility. I want to be responsible for my own life, I want to be able to protect it as best I can. To be free means to be responsible for oneself.
The question I ask myself is "what would I have done sitting in that tent", if I had a gun the answer would be clear, but if I hadn't what then? I seriously don't know, but what I do know is that I never want to be in a position where I am without any power to change my own fate.