by nicolaou 73 Replies latest social current
This is a topic for another thread, but I sincerely believe that Russia could have defeated Germany on its own. In fact, they contributed more to the war effort on the German front than the US did.
However, without the US keeping Japan busy, it likely would have been a different story.
Honestly, the low hanging fruit on the subject of this thread is requiring gun owners to secure their arms and penalizing them severely if they do not.
It's sad that this has not already taken root and been firmly planted in the USA by both state and federal statutes. It's a fairly rare thing to hear about a parent/guardian serving jail time for leaving firearms available to children who end up hurting/killing someone with them. We spend more time hunting down peaceful users of Mary Jane and punishing them while law-abiding gun owners leave loaded guns accessible to kids. Maybe we need an AGM (All Guns Matter) movement.
The point is that without US involvement in those efforts arguably it's highly unlikely that Germany would have been defeated as it was, not to mention Japan's then aggressive imperialism.
Sure, the US played an important part but Germany was pretty much doomed to fail after their disastrous Russia campaign and the Russian war machine slowly moved into gear, The Russians paid the heaviest price of all in terms of human sacrifice of course.
If true that US involvement made the difference in outcomes then the US culture leading to that involvement was an essential element leading to defeat of tyrants of the 20th Century.
The US culture had nothing todo with their entry into the war. If anything the isolationist attitudes kept them out of the war longer than they should have. It was only being attacked that caused them to take part (by both Japan and Germany).
Gun ownership is part of that culture.
Yes, but that is misleading and a causal leap. It would be as valid to claim that slavery was part of the culture and so helped to win WWII. Obviously false but just as valid a claim.
As said already, whether that citizenry's culture would have developed as it did to perform as it did in the 20th Century without its precursors holding very personal views about gun ownership I don't know.
Well the rest of the world managed to fight without having a gun culture (which the US didn't have back then to anywhere near the same extent anyway - that started in the 70's). Plus the gun-culture you claim didn't encourage the US to enter the war as you claim.
Basically, the obsession with guns now has nothing whatsoever to do with the US involvement in WWII.
Simon has said all that I would have said , but probably better . To say that the US fascination with guns makes them the champion of the free world ( a slight paraphrase , but not much ) is a leap too far .
It is right that America only joined the 2nd world war when feeling threatened itself . We ,the nation with no gun culture were in there first standing up to Hitler .
I notice that you swapped to referring to US citizens rather than Military after the , I suppose accidental , slight levelled at all Armed forces not American .
Jan
Simon & Jhine:
I think like me, you fine fellows missed his point and I'm probably responsible for it, since I started that line of accidental retort. Frankly, I feel bad about it. Sometimes I wish my dad or grandfather were still around to slap me upside the head whenever I jump to conclusions or speak out of line.
He was not claiming that the US won the war for the world because of their gun culture. He was suggesting that perhaps US citizens were eager to fight tyranny BECAUSE of their gun culture and he wasn't specifically referring to WW2, I think. I assume he means the gun culture also influenced US anti-communist sentiment and therefore the initial willingness of so many Americans to fight in Korea, Vietnam and the first Gulf War?
But I am sure he was not claiming that American gun culture saved the world.
I don't necessarily agree even with this, I would be interested to read up on the subject as there may be an element of truth to it. But I wanted to set the record straight on my part.
cappytan10 hours agoMany good ideas have been put forth in this thread. Some I agree with. Some I think are overboard.
The fact of the matter remains that in the current political climate, you would be hard pressed to pass some sweeping form of federal legislation.
On the federal level, if any steps are to be taken to solve this issue of crazy people getting guns, there needs to be baby steps. Any legislation that puts out a ton of regulations in one fell swoop is doomed to fail.
Honestly, the low hanging fruit on the subject of this thread is requiring gun owners to secure their arms and penalizing them severely if they do not. I think even most gun nuts would agree on that. And I bet that if you don't include any other regulations in that legislation that the NRA would get behind it. Traditionally, they're pro gun-safety. Currently, they're run by a bunch of nut jobs and it's only getting worse.
How do you eat an elephant?
One bite at a time.
I don't know how I missed your post Cappy but I agree 100%. If the country wants to fix all the holes, getting better laws in place is best done slowly rather than sweeping reform. I would say the first order of business would be to adress the influence of the NRA.
SecretSlaveClass , thanks for your comments , but honestly I am quite capable of looking daft all by myself!
However I ,and I think Simon , was just using WW2 as an example to point out that the US wasn't so keen to rush to the defence of Europe's freedom until it was attacked itself . The peace keeping forces ( of any nationality) in the Middle East are only there because the West is looking after itself . The threat of terrorist attacks on home soil has united the West to keep peace in the East .
So my point was that America's gun culture is not responsible for an altruistic attitude of looking after the downtrodden of the world . Most intervention from any country is self serving .
Jan
He was not claiming that the US won the war for the world because of their gun culture. He was suggesting that perhaps US citizens were eager to fight tyranny BECAUSE of their gun culture ...
Yes, I got that. I think it's a poor argument that doesn't fit the facts both of US conflicts and non-gun-toting involvement in conflicts.
It only "seems" like there may be a link because both involve guns but there is no causal relationship as far as I'm concerned.
The US culture had nothing todo with their entry into the war.
Uh... Whatever was the then US culture either would stand for a declaration of war on Germany and Japan or not. It did. Culture had everything to do with every nation's entry (or not) into conflicts of the 20th Century.
Basically, the obsession with guns now has nothing whatsoever to do with the US involvement in WWII.
Who's said otherwise?
Cultures change, and the US culture has surely changed a great deal since the mid-20th Century. Per capita of Euro-explorers/settlers gun ownership on the territory known today as the USA has been prevalent since they immigrated to its shores. It turned out to be an essential element of how the US survived as a nation. Having and owning this personal protective gear and being willing to use it is deep rooted in US culture. My take on current US culture is that gun ownership provisions have been hijacked by paranoids (think: NRA leadership) so that responsible gun ownership has been turned on its head to allow rogue members of society to too easily get their hands on firearms.
As US culture continues to changed I think the day will come and should come when access to firearms in the USA is much tighter than it is today. I don't know when, and I don't know how, but I think the day will come, and probably the result of the whole world advancing socially and not so much just the USA.
It only "seems" like there may be a link because both involve guns but there is no causal relationship as far as I'm concerned.
The cultural bravado of persons willing to prepare themselves with firearms to use in defense of themselves and others is a natural corollary to a willingness to enter live-fire conflicts for essentially the same purpose on a larger scale.
