Have Guns Helped To Advance Civilization?

Jan 2015
2,863
MD, USA
#11
Guns are weapons designed to kill, just vastly superior to all of the previous advancements in weapons technologies; I don't know that they have advanced civilization. They have been used to fight wars, and as tools in genocide. The idea that they are some kind of insurance plan against tyranny or some great equalizer, doesn't seem to hold water. In America, mass shootings are out of control, and more guns means more of them getting into the wrong hands.


Democide - Wikipedia

And, be my guest if you want to believe that if there was an erm.. Threat to our democracy (not going tomention any names), that folks with their handguns are going to band together and fight and win against helicopters, tanks, mortars, etc. Would be the end of the country; too many hate groups want something like that to happen, and are prepared to step in to finish things off. How are things in other war torn countries when more weapons are pumped in?

Guns are like every other weapons escalation --are more nuclear weapons are good for civilization?
Um, does that say 90 "mass shootings" in 46 years? Like, 2 per year? Among 70 million gun owners? Any more reasons why the Number One reason immigrants come to the US is for safety? Compared to the police abuses and tribal violence of their homelands, the US is still an idyllic paradise.

And yes, we are supposed to be able to overthrow our government.

Matthew
 
Likes: Haakbus
Jan 2016
1,099
Victoria, Canada
#12
Um, does that say 90 "mass shootings" in 46 years? Like, 2 per year? Among 70 million gun owners? Any more reasons why the Number One reason immigrants come to the US is for safety? Compared to the police abuses and tribal violence of their homelands, the US is still an idyllic paradise.

And yes, we are supposed to be able to overthrow our government.

Matthew
Not sure what source or definition that diagram is using, but according to this website, which sources every incident it records, and defines "mass shootings" as incidents in which 4 or more people, not including the gunman, are shot in the same general place and time, there were 340 mass shootings in the US in 2018, and there have been 51 so far in 2019. There were additionally 346 in 2017, 382 in 2016, 335 in 2015, and 268 in 2014. There have also been, in total, roughly 15,000 deaths per year in the US as a result of gun violence since 2016, not counting suicides, up from 13.5 thousand in 2015 and 12.5 thousand in 2014, with 2500 so far this year. That means that about 60,000 people have been shot and killed in the US in the past 4 years and a bit, and you can probably expect another 60,000 by 2023. Less than 5000 US soldiers died in the Iraq war, for comparison, and less than 2000 in Afghanistan, while only 1000 people are killed by guns per year in the entire EU (also not counting suicides), which has a population 35% larger than that of the US -- or to put that another way, you're some 2000% more likely, on average, to be killed by a gun in the US than in the EU. If the current rate holds true, more Americans will be shot and killed on US territory over the next 28 years-- either by accident or by another person -- than in the entirety of World War Two. I'm not going to argue about the causes of or solutions to the problem, but it's impossible to deny that you have one.
 
Likes: Todd Feinman
Oct 2013
6,158
Planet Nine, Oregon
#13
It's certainly better here than most other places. Here is a thought experiment. There is a small neignborhood of six houses and a store / gas station; there are families of three in each house and guns in each of the six houses, and every year someone (at least one person) MUST take one of those gun(s) and go on a shooting spree in that six house neighborhood. Would guns be eventually banned? Would everyone be armed and on guard with possible further casualties? Would everyone lock themselves in their rooms in their houses all of the time? Is it an enjoyable way of life? Seems like a game of numbers and odds..
 

M9Powell

Ad Honorem
Oct 2014
4,385
appalacian Mtns
#14
Like it or not guns created the USA. The Kaintuck rifle is known as the gun that won the East. The Winchester lever action is the gun that won the west.

I kinda doubt the so called British empire would have got very far without the Brown Bess, the Martini, the Smelly & the Bren.

A big difference in those 2 examples though is the USA was mostly created by gun toting civilians & the empire was created by redcoat troops.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2016
8,713
USA
#15
It's certainly better here than most other places. Here is a thought experiment. There is a small neignborhood of six houses and a store / gas station; there are families of three in each house and guns in each of the six houses, and every year someone (at least one person) MUST take one of those gun(s) and go on a shooting spree in that six house neighborhood. Would guns be eventually banned? Would everyone be armed and on guard with possible further casualties? Would everyone lock themselves in their rooms in their houses all of the time? Is it an enjoyable way of life? Seems like a game of numbers and odds..
They might use mass murders as an excuse to ban guns but that isn't the real reason, to stop unnecessary deaths. Those sorts don't give a crap about them, which is why in the US for example they'll ignore the bloody weekend body counts where about three dozens or probably more cities in the US that are shooting galleries because gang violence brought on by gang culture that nobody is willing to touch, or even really discuss (you're racist!). That story doesn't work in their favor, because they can't get middle class suburbia terrified over that, enough to disarm everyone, because those people smartened up and left the cities decades ago and don't really care themselves if gang-bangers are offing each other and random passerbies. But when it comes to their neighborhoods, even though its actually rare, then its the perfect opportunity. And like its said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." They use the fear of mass shootings to get rid of the guns.

Which is an absolute step for their ideology of societal progression. Certain individuals with money, power, voting blocks, have big plans for transforming the globe into their utopia, controlled by themselves running strong central govt. And they can't have a large body of armed citizenry, worse even, them being largely reactionaries, getting in their ways. Get rid of the guns, and who can resist?
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,119
Sydney
#16
nuclear weapons introduced a measure of restraint in the cold war
It is quite impossible to be certain
still I believe that the prospect of politicians and their families being on the front line certainly cooled enthusiasm for a shooting war
 
Jan 2017
1,184
Durham
#17
What I am about to ask makes sense in my head. Haha. I hope this won't be taken as controversial. I am trying to put it in the best of words, so hope it comes across as I intend. If it doesn't make sense, then ill just take it down and spend some time trying to reiterate or just drop it all together.

Pretty much I am talking about the history of guns in relation to human progression. I don't want to get into much of politics here (unless it actually pertains to history). I can delete the backstory if needed but pretty much this happened.

I was having discourse with a friend and he suggested we should ban every gun as they are meant for killing only. I got to thinking about how my family uses them to hunt for food, rather than sport as he suggested all do.

This got me thinking a bit.

Have guns throughout history helped to progress civilization? Could we have gotten where we are without them? How could life be different if they were never invented. Could you imagine fighting world war 2 and the likes with swords and shields. Most certainly would have been an interesting scenario.

Obviously I can think of many advances that led to the creation of guns, but more so looking to see if guns themselves had a direct correlation to our advancement.
Gunpowder was one factor in the advance of Europe, it certainly contributed as did other factors such as: the printing press, navigation etc.

I suppose the answer to your question rests on your interpretation of civilisation.

Assuming you mean technological and political development, then the answer would be: yes.
 
Oct 2013
6,158
Planet Nine, Oregon
#18
They might use mass murders as an excuse to ban guns but that isn't the real reason, to stop unnecessary deaths. Those sorts don't give a crap about them, which is why in the US for example they'll ignore the bloody weekend body counts where about three dozens or probably more cities in the US that are shooting galleries because gang violence brought on by gang culture that nobody is willing to touch, or even really discuss (you're racist!). That story doesn't work in their favor, because they can't get middle class suburbia terrified over that, enough to disarm everyone, because those people smartened up and left the cities decades ago and don't really care themselves if gang-bangers are offing each other and random passerbies. But when it comes to their neighborhoods, even though its actually rare, then its the perfect opportunity. And like its said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." They use the fear of mass shootings to get rid of the guns.

Which is an absolute step for their ideology of societal progression. Certain individuals with money, power, voting blocks, have big plans for transforming the globe into their utopia, controlled by themselves running strong central govt. And they can't have a large body of armed citizenry, worse even, them being largely reactionaries, getting in their ways. Get rid of the guns, and who can resist?
Yeah, the gang problem and the cartels, and their drug money and human trafficking. It needs to be dealt with. There's also the fact that there is no getting the genie back in the bottle; it's been working out and has lots 'O guns!
Guns would ultimately be in the hand of the wrong people, or would still be made illegally, if there was an attempt to remove them. Death finds a way. Still, there are security and technological options for guns, though some would see that as a slippery slope.
 
Likes: Matthew Amt
May 2011
13,787
Navan, Ireland
#20
...................................

Have guns throughout history helped to progress civilization? Could we have gotten where we are without them? How could life be different if they were never invented. Could you imagine fighting world war 2 and the likes with swords and shields. Most certainly would have been an interesting scenario.

Obviously I can think of many advances that led to the creation of guns, but more so looking to see if guns themselves had a direct correlation to our advancement.
I don't think guns in themselves have 'advanced civilisation' (whatever that means) other than they are a symptom of technological development.

They are not the first projectile weapon --the spear thrower, bow, javelin, cross bow, sling etc were all effective, they certainly changed some things especially details of how wars were fought but I can not see that they in themselves changed things.
 

Similar History Discussions