I’m just agreeing with a point made.

Fair enough.
Here is the point with which you agreed:

Dylan :: Furthermore, the general populace didn't know what was going to happen. It's not like they had an itinerary or anything, that explained that they were going to be gassed like animals. ::

And here was my response:

:: Clearly they knew something awful was happening; otherwise, why were so many seeking ways to get out of the occupied countries, or hiding in nuns' convents, or in attics a la Anne Frank? ::

Can you speculate as to why there was such a general desire to get away from the occupied nations, if they did not have at least a well founded suspicion?

Alrite Wraith i'm a bit confused about priorities.

The jews were gonna die whether they had guns or not i think that's pretty obvious. THe genocide was so truly shocking that no number of guns could have prevented it. for 5 million plus jews who died and for their families and friends , a few more dead nazis would hardly have been a comfort.

This thread is about whether people should have guns or not. Lets take the number of innocent people killed each year because of guns. And then we should hold that up against the comfort felt by the dead person because he took down a couple of baddies with him. I don't know about you, but the survival of even ONE human has a higher priority than certain death with "dignity" for 1000 people.

Also i would like to explore something else. When we talk about dying with dignity, how does waving a gun about in your death spasms increase the dignity of death?

Nothing is more undignified than a man's survival being subject to the permission of another human being. SO when you are killed, be it while you take down 50 baddies with you, or peacefully with a bullet in the back of your head. The fact that another human robs you of your life, also robs the death of dignity. It is the ultimate rape.

At the risk of repeating myself, the best way to make sure nobody dies is to make sure that people have no reason to fight. If you need a gun at home because somebody is gonna break in and steal your stuff, then you need to have less stuff. Or else make sure that people around you aren't getting screwed so badly that they wanna get at your stuff.

Guns have only increased the degree of violence in fights. Not done anything to stop the fighting.

hkbajwa -

I scarcely know where to begin after reading your post.

hkbajwa :: The jews were gonna die whether they had guns or not i think that's pretty obvious. THe genocide was so truly shocking that no number of guns could have prevented it. ::

And where did I contend that it would be "prevented" by Jews having guns.

hkbajwa :: for 5 million plus jews who died and for their families and friends , a few more dead nazis would hardly have been a comfort.::

That is your opinion. Had my relatives been treated that way, I would be proud to know they went out fighting.

hkjabwa :: This thread is about whether people should have guns or not. Lets take the number of innocent people killed each year because of guns. And then we should hold that up against the comfort felt by the dead person because he took down a couple of baddies with him.::

Comfort felt by the dead person...yes, very funny hkjabwa.
But seriously,
If you think that some UN-type dictate is going to keep guns away from the people who actually do the harm with them, you are more naive even than I.

hkjawba :: I don't know about you, but the survival of even ONE human has a higher priority than certain death with "dignity" for 1000 people.::

You have just authored a very obvious logical fallacy above. Do you see it? In other words, you have presumed that because b follows a, then b was caused by a.

hkjabwa :: Also i would like to explore something else. When we talk about dying with dignity, how does waving a gun about in your death spasms increase the dignity of death? ::

Can you seriously be arguing that there is not more dignity in dying in a gunfight vs. being herded naked and shorn into a slaughterhouse?

hkjawba :: Nothing is more undignified than a man's survival being subject to the permission of another human being. ::

He shoots, he scores. Refer to my last comment above.

hkjawba :: SO when you are killed, be it while you take down 50 baddies with you, or peacefully with a bullet in the back of your head. The fact that another human robs you of your life, also robs the death of dignity. It is the ultimate rape. ::

Let's not adulterate the issue; it is not rape, it is murder. And very few of the Jews in the Shoah died "peacefully with a bullet in the back of their head".

hkjabwa :: At the risk of repeating myself, the best way to make sure nobody dies is to make sure that people have no reason to fight.::

Naivete confirmed. People will always find a reason to fight. Even if you divided all material resources as evenly as possibly, some people would get to live by the ocean and some would have to live in Akron Ohio.

hkwjaba :: If you need a gun at home because somebody is gonna break in and steal your stuff, then you need to have less stuff. ::

Is that right? And what if it is your partner that they want...do you get rid of him or her?
Honestly, hkjabwa, idealism is a good thing but it has to be tempered with reality.

hkjabwa :: Guns have only increased the degree of violence in fights. Not done anything to stop the fighting. ::

Yes, I suppose it is far more pleasant to get my head bashed in with a baseball bat than to be shot.
Firearms allow people to protect their homes and their families.
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws and the government will have guns.

The problem with a gun is its so easy to kill someone with it accidently. The mind operates of impulse. Someone hurts you emotionaly/physicaly and you have a gun your mind logicaly tells you your pain will go away if you injure the threat. Its the minds self defense.

Hayling, people who lack self restraint - to that degree - would be just as likely to use whatever is at hand... knife, baseball bat, ax for chopping wood, and so forth.

Then why are there so many murders with guns in the US rather than axes or baseball bats or what not? People feel secure when they have a gun. They trust it. Which is why they prefer to use it rather than your knifes baseball bats, axes or what not.

Wraith:

You are right.. i am an incorrigible optimist. I do not believe in evil people. I believe in ignorant and misguided people. If ignorance and lack of guidance exists it is the failing of society and that means us. Terming some humans as evil absolves us from the responsiblity of making sure nobody is squeezed to the point where he must do something absolutely crazy.

Death is death and the manner of death is irrelevant to those who die. It may make a difference to those who are left behind. But even to those, the concept of vengance only treats their anger. It has no effect on the feeling of loss. That is the real issue they loved ones have to deal with. The feeling of loss and emptiness.

And while bashing in a head with a baseball bat is more graphic violence, the thought that a tiny sqeeze on a trigger can tear out the insides of a human seems to me more violent.

I understand the need to protect yourself. It's the most valid of concerns. However don't you think that the proliferation of guns in the US leads to more deaths than if let say all thugs only had a baseball bat? Doesn't that fact that both you and your attacker have guns increase the chance of one of you getting shot. At leat with a baseball bat, one might just incapacitate the other without killing. That is less of an option with a gun . You can control how hard you shoot a person.

I would rather meet an armed burglar unarmed because then i would pose no threat to his life. And if i pose no threat to his life, he can take my stuff and be gone.

Now there is a horrible fear that a burglar might harm your family, and being pakistani i can understand the homocidal anger the thought of harm to them can stir within you.
However, how often to people crazy enough to want to do harm for the sake of harm actually cross your path? That is much less of a risk than it is made out to be. Still even if you were to come across a complete loon like that, is shooting the only option.

I would even think that a remote tazer or something like that should be enough. I mean you don't really want to kill the other person. You just want him to leave you and your family alone right?

If protection of your home is the main issue, then technology offers plenty of non-lethal alternatives to protect your home. What's the point of having a gun other than if you insist of KILLING the person who means you harm?

I have a slight addition ..

It seems that nobody in the US can imagine a life without arms of various kinds being an integral part of it. maybe not something to have at home, but definately something out and about in society, working either for or against you.

Would it not be a relief to know that they weren't there? that way they may not protect you, but at least you wouldn't be worried about getting shot. Its a oretty crappy fear to have.

You say that guns can not be eliminated. i say they can and they HAVE been eliminated in most of europe and canada too ( bowling for columbine information). Not saying that guns don't exists, but it seems that they CAN be legislated without endangering the lives of the wider population at risk from armed burglars and the likes.

The US doesn't need guns. But somebody has convinced you all that you are playing with your life if you don't have one..

If only that changed, you would see the futility of guns. They don't actually serve the purpose for which you acquire them.

YOu may have a gun and never been robbed, mugged etc etc.. But i never owned a gun and i never had anything like this happen to me either. now you decide.. am i normal or just lucky?

"Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it." -- Olde Saying