Yes. Starting with military's, all gunpowder based weapons should be confiscated and rocketed into the sun. Wars will be significantly less deadly but unfortunately school spearings will skyrocket.

You have to use a spear instead of a M16. You're going to do less with a spear.

It's going to be a lot harder to kill a rampant spearman when the cops only have swords, though...

This is one of those situations I'm with colonel.

And gun control is tyrannical indeed... We had a referendum on wheter or not gun control should be more strict here... 65% or so voted NO and they still increased the gun control laws. Couple years later of gun control getting more and more strict, we get our own mass school shooter + islamic zealot terrorist + overly sexist murderer. On the same package.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro_school_shooting

Actually it would be cool to revert back to formation warfare.

World War 2 with swords and iron armor suits would have been very cool lol

Damn, the siege of Stalingrad with scythes and lances sure look cooler.

Imagine the german Panzer Lancers riding into the massive defensive line of wooden shields held by the Red Army.

And then Rommel, on a horse, with a huge halberd, going through the Maginot Moat slicing and dicing the french swordsmen.

Or a final showdown in Berlin where Stalin and Hitler would duke it out with a flail and a double pike to the death.

Damn.

That is true, lower technological wars required more troops usually because of formations and because larger forces tend to fare better in otherwise equal combat. Thus, higher death tolls. I mean, a division losing 3-8% of its soldiers was considered a drastic loss during ww2. Puts Barbarossa into perspective in terms of that war itself, but then in terms of, say, Cannae? Hohohooo

It's funny how, as our ability to exterminate ourselves increases, the actual casualties suffered at the hands of these weapons is reduced ten-fold (at least percentage wise)

That may also be a function of how much better we are at gathering military information now. Commanders in ww2 almost always knew their strength relative to the enemy, but that wasn't always the case in medieval warfare

Don't forget the impact of modern medicine. What is now "just a flesh wound" back then would have been certain death.

Colonel could you link me where you got the graphs/statistics??

I suspect the sources in the op is from fox news or something. They look biased, purposefully taking data which shows how guns help and omitting data which shows where guns don't work. For example, in the third picture, they only show countries with the highest homicide rate, not all countries which have banned guns. In fact, the third picture is an awful representation of the statistics for many reasons: is does not take into account other demographics specific to that country. For example, Switzerland has very little poverty and racial tension and an extremely old tradition of guns which would mean gun crime isn't very common.
In addition, there is a lot more to think about than whether legal guns reduces or increases homicide rates. Does it increase non violent crime? Does it increase illegal drug sales? Or not crime related at all: who gets the profits from gun sales? Is it moral to own a gun?
In the end, I am a pacifist and believe than all guns, explosives etc... should be banned from all countries, civilians, police and military.

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Of course guns should be legal!! Everyone has the right to bare arms. Good God, you Europeans scare the shit out of me.


FUN FACT: England has some of the strictest gun laws in the world and there gun violence us higher then Israel, where the government actually encourages you to own firearms for self defense

My opinion is this, The outlawing of guns is very dangerous for the population. People say if you outlaw firearms, gun violence will go down. That's simply not true. If you outlaw guns,the only people your stopping from using guns are the law abiding citizens which by definition don't need to be watched. The bad guys will always end up with weapons whether or not they are outlawed or not. It's the same with Drugs and alcohol. All the years Europe and America waged there war on drugs guess what? The overdosers and irresponsible people still got there weed regardless of what the laws said. Same thing with alcohol. In the 20s in America, Alcohol was outlawed and the use actually skyrocketed. Even the president Harding was involved in a scandal regarding his use of champagne. Something else to worry about is this, your weapons are the only thing truly keeping your freedom safe. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Tojo, Hussain, And hundreds of others of the world's worst dictators all had one thing in common, at the beginning of there reigns they all outlawed guns. Why? Because they knew that an armed population would rebel and keep them in check and accountable. It's the same today, your weapons guarantee your rights and freedoms. Britain, France, And many other nations all have strict gun laws yet there gun violence is higher then Israel which has basically no gun laws. The main argument for people who want to outlaw guns is it's for your " safety " but let me Ask you this.....are you willing to trade your freedom for your supposed " safety "?

In the end, I am a pacifist and believe than all guns, explosives etc... should be banned from all countries, civilians, police and military.

Pacifists are just another name for utopian hippies. You still think we can end war too lol?

in looking for a source, I found the middle picture at this site from the group called "Open Carry Texas": https://opencarrytexas.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/ft-worth-pd-willing-to-violate-your-right-to-carry/

They claim the graphic is supported by the date is backed up by the Bureau of Justice Statistics page (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=428), but after around 30 minutes of searching, I gave up.

First statistic is not conclusive
Second statistic has me thinking "So what?"
Third statistic is very misleading.

That's what I got from it.

Id like to give a simple answer to the opening question, this thread is named of - No! but, what exactly do you mean with legal? especially legal for whom? if you mean that civilians should be armed? definately not. those ancient times are long over. some people should finally start to evolve and rethink their understandings of society.
Anyways, I have a counter question: do guns, when they are available for civilians, prevent homicide? not to mention if it may rather increases opportunities for homicide. does a gun ever saved a life? (what a ridiculous question =D)
the most retarded thing about this topic is that so many people really believe that guns are good for protection and may save lifes.

People say if you outlaw firearms, gun violence will go down. That's simply not true.

any evidence for this fun fact?

If you outlaw guns,the only people your stopping from using guns are the law abiding citizens which by definition don't need to be watched. The bad guys will always end up with weapons whether or not they are outlawed or not.

first of all, it isnt enough to outlaw guns, you rather need to massively restrict access to guns. and who distinguishes the good from the bad guys? the entire idea that there is good and evil is for children or fools. the only difference between good and evil is circumstance. and guns provide much more devestating opportunities.

Conservative, the last two third of your post made me laugh and despair at the same time ...

Edited 1/8/2016 02:26:52

Can Europeans please stop telling America what our laws should be? This is tantamount to cultural imperialism. America is not Europe. American laws are not based on modern European laws. Americans (for the most part) have never wanted to be Europe (that is the founding principal of our inception). This is no disrespect to Europe, European nations, or European laws. Its just that our countries have vastly different historical narratives leading to our modern societies and frankly European political philosophy and cultural norms are affronts to traditional American values. I have tremendous respect for Europe, but they cannot dictate how American law should or should not be.

The second amendment enshrines the right to gun-ownership for all citizens. It places no limits on the types and amount of firearms and nor should the federal statute have the right to regulate firearms. That being said I think state government need to step up their regulation in terms of background checks.

First statistic is not conclusive
Second statistic has me thinking "So what?"
Third statistic is very misleading.

Can you explain what you mean? Why did you not care about the information in the second statistic. If these numbers are all true...then at the least they provide sizable evidence that the presence of guns causes less damage than the absence.

does a gun ever saved a life?

Many times in fact. It usually requires somebody with a gun to stop someone else with a gun. Otherwise the first person can shoot as many people as they like and no-one would have the ability to stop them.

the entire idea that there is good and evil is for children or fools

So if morality is irrelevant does that mean I can shoot you for disagreeing with me? After all, those silly ethical distinctions are for fools!

In seriousness, nihilism has no place in a moral debate. If you don't even believe there's a right or wrong to begin with what point could you possibly have in this argument?

some people should finally start to evolve and rethink their understandings of society.

So anyone who thinks differently than you is "unevolved"? Get off your arrogant high horse and come back when you've learned the world doesn't revolve around your specific viewpoint.

Edited 1/8/2016 01:23:26

Jai, could you possibly clarify to whom the first part of your response was adressed to? referring to TTIP or CETA, you have been somehow misleaded.