Weapons, poll
 

I propose that all countries get rid of weapons including those that we buy in stores, agree or disagree? What interest to invade a country which is not armed, one can have their resources by the trade. If the Ukrainians were not posing a threat to Russia with arms, they would not have been invaded. Let's start here in Canada by getting rid of all our guns. We will end up destroying ourselves if this continues, we are in 2022 we can get everything by trade, no need to want to steal from others as was the case in the past. Weapons no longer have a purpose and never have had a purpose.

Nonsense doesn't stop being nonsense because you start a new thread about it.

You don't have a proposal. "Everyone just do this thing" without any context or structure as to how you would make them do it is a child's understanding of how real world problems get solved.

Jeeez, money..guns...Can I live?

I'm wondering without weapons who's going to till the soil for free in Gaetan's moneyless dream world.

Why not more weapons? If everyone in Ukraine had AA weaponry, drones, and a tank or two, this all could have been avoided. Peace through superior firepower. You don't see Mexico trying to invade the US, and Canada doesn't want none of this action, either.

I'm all for gun control and fully agree with disarmament agreements between nations, but getting rid of all weapons is never going to be a reality nor desirable.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha !!!!!!

Nope.

I see no "poll". Getting rid of weapons' is impossible since just about anything can be used as a weapon.

"What interest to invade a country which is not armed"? The interest is that those would be the easiest to defeat. "one can have their resources by the trade."? One can also have them by force, thereby also keeping what they would have needed to trade as well. Even in 2022 some people would rather steal than trade. To trade you both have to have something the other party wants enough and then still have come to some kind of agreement. To steal one party just has to have something the other party wants enough and doesn't care how they get it. How exactly does one get "everything by trade" if they have nothing anyone values or values sufficiently to trade? The idea is to give them something of value in the trade, like their safety, life or lack of injury. While a sneak thief may not offer anything in trade the strong arm robber does. It is the basis of extortion, you trade something of value for protection from violence or exposure. You really do need a course in criminal psychology or just some real world experience.



One of the most effective weapons is the human mind, please stop just giving up on yours.

If this happens I'm sending you a bill if I hit a deer with my car. If people around here didn't cap the buggers I'd never be able to drive anywhere at night. Sure, there is bow season but for most kill-happy geeks that's just being more cruel to the deer.

Also you'd owe me for the free venison I'd no longer get...

That and I'd think that if there were no weapons the reason Russia wouldn't invade would be mostly because attacking Ukraine without weapons would be tricky at best.

Can we just play the Monkey Paw episode from Simpson and be done with this nonsense?

Wait, wasn't it Lawyers, Guns and Money

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Pacifism is an extremely common philosophy that plenty of (ostensibly) sane and smart people believe in or claim to believe in.

One internet persona's badly worded defense of it doesn't make it nonsense.

I'm sure all the sane, smart pacifists will be along any minute now.

Heck, first you got to get the metalsmiths to beat all them dang swords into plow shears without hammers or fire, as those can be weapons as well.

Agree or disagree with what? That it would bring about world peace or something like that? Disagree, obviously. You still seem to have a delusion that humans are good little robots who can be told what to do and will comply. Newsflash - they're not.

Come up with an idea where the world disarms and where there is no advantage available for anyone who cheats. Then we can talk.

Can I keep my gravity-powered ones?

And they ain't the only ones so powered. Just the ground is an effective weapon.

What are muggers supposed to do? Beat people to death? And what do they take if there is no money?

Mugger: "Let me introduce you to my friend Ben."
Muggee: "Ben who?"
"Ben Dover."

It's a gruesome world of maimings and raping you propose. A catastrophe of Biblical proportions. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.

****, is he going to kill all the lawyers or just make us quit? One of those is far more palatable as I approach retirement.

Actually shame is Gaetan's asserted weapon of choice in his feducilessly fantasy world. He has asserted that people would be shamed into compliance. Thus a mugger would try to shame you into giving them what they want. Not really that far off from extortion these days.

Mugger: "Give me that last bowl of gruel you stood in line hours to get?"
Muggee: "No way, why should I?"
Mugger": "Because otherwise I'll tell everyone what you use to do when you were 3 years old."
Muggee": "Aww Ma, please don't!! Here ya go."

Yes because the last few years have proven that psychopathic douchebags are so susceptible to shame.

Really? Shame? I mean, I haven't been following the "**** Money" thread, bc self preservation of sanity and all, but embarrassing people into starvation is certainly a novel approach I hadn't considered.

Like many things, the concept of shameless people eludes Gaetan. Unless of course money is involved then apparently everyone is shameless and willing to screw over their own neighbors just to get ahead.

The proof is that wanting to arm themselves to defend themselves against Russia has not helped Ukraine and does not help any country. Your atom bombs can all be dropped in Russia or China you will still die in US.

It has been posited that embarrassment is why one would would only take one ham from the store when they could take all of them (in his no money world). Even when in a money world and paying for it some people buy more then they need or ever use. As JoeMorgue points out above, funny how that shame thing just doesn't always work now.

Seems like one could just, I dunno, turn on a TV or look at any online homepage worldwide and deduce right pronto that shame is not much of a driving force in humankind.

They are defending themselves against Russia, that's your own "proof". When was the last time the United States was invaded? 1812 or something?

Again, weapons don't actually have to be used to be effective, that trade I mentioned before.

"If you just give evil people what they want, they don't have to be evil to get it, and doing nothing isn't evil, so that makes them good. So just giving evil people everything they want gets rid of all evil."

Sure, a bit of real world experience would help but I'm beginning to suspect even that is imperceptible to the target audience.

As the saying goes "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.", But hey as long as it is NFE, Non-Fungible Evil, I guess it's all good.

Yeah but pacifism and appeasement remain popular ideals under a multitude of names despite that.

Weapons are right there on my list of things that if they were abolished, the first thing people would do is reinvent them. Like money, free markets, and police.

I see that you like to live dangerously.

Define 'weapons'.

"I wish everyone would lay down their arms and renounce violence forever. That way I could conquer this whole stupid planet with just a butter knife." - Dogbert.

*Looks at the 2 rather vicious pocket knives along the table, which could make a right mess of someone. Thinks about the array of serious Japanese and German steel sitting in the very large knife rack in the kitchen, which could make an even bigger mess of a body*

As for outlawing all weapons, I am reminded of my time in California many years ago where the Bouncers at bars used to carry small clubs in order to deal with unruly customers.

However, there were some cases where some people were unnecessarily hurt by Bouncers armed with such clubs.

Therefore, there was a law enacted that essentially stated that Bouncers could no longer carry clubs while on the job.

As a result of this law, the Bouncers soon started carrying long, heavy, metal flashlights because such flashlights were not legally considered to be a club. Even though these flashlights like this were just about as good as any club.

Well I, for one, like to live period. That in and of itself both implies and infers living with danger and dealing with it. How exactly does one live without danger or non-dangerously?

ETA: Heck, one kid stabbed me with a pencil in grade school. I've had rocks thrown at me, been jumped by two guys in a field. Been sucker punched, kicked in the shins, almost run over by a Sheriffs' cruiser (the tire dang near took my shoe off). Had people almost try to run in to me while on my motorcycle. Where I work anything that won't straight up kill you just F's you up real bad for a long time.

*Wanders into the ballroom, and admires a particularly hefty candlestick*

Lady Bracknell: A handbag?

Jackie Chan is obviously too powerful to be left alive.