[UnChained]

I think a good case can be made that Guns actually lead to a more civilized society, especially handguns. In the Wild West the Colt 45 was considered the great equalizer. Any person that possesses a gun is the equal of the biggest brute in the tribe. Raw strength is no longer the determining factor in who gets what they want.

I support the second amendment(and the rest of the constitution) but I wonder how inherently civilizing guns are. A lot of guns make sense in a fairly moral society. In a amoral society like Rwanda during the slaughters a few years back, no one was safe due to the dominance of warlords and what amounted to gangs of young boys with military rifles. In anarchy, the evil and the ruthless rise to the top. The ready availability of weapons didn't save many lives. If Rwanda was Christian and every citizen was REQUIRED to have a weapon like in revolutionary United States then perhaps the bloodshed would not have happened.

[technochick99]

The ready availability of weapons didn't save many lives.

Did the general populace have arms, or just the bad guys? If just the bad guys, that's what our modern day Misguided Mommies are trying to create.

[technochick99]

but I wonder how inherently civilizing guns are

I don't think objects make for civilization, or the civilizing of people. Evil and malice lurk in the hearts and souls of people, not in their surroundings. I am the same person with or without my firearm. So is the thug...

[lepton]

In a amoral society like Rwanda during the slaughters a few years back,

Ummmm. Wasn't that Machettes?

[Ancesthntr]

In a amoral society like Rwanda during the slaughters a few years back, no one was safe due to the dominance of warlords and what amounted to gangs of young boys with military rifles. In anarchy, the evil and the ruthless rise to the top. The ready availability of weapons didn't save many lives. If Rwanda was Christian and every citizen was REQUIRED to have a weapon like in revolutionary United States then perhaps the bloodshed would not have happened.

There was no "ready availability of weapons" for the victims in Rwanda, only for the murderous gangs (who, FYI, committed the vast majority of there murders with machetes). Rwanda, you see, had a virtual gun ban for ordinary folks. Hence, it was open for a massacre/genocide. Go to the JPFO website and look at the information on the book "Lethal Laws" - there you will see that one of the necessary preconditions to a genocide is a disarmed populace.

FYI - I don't believe that any ordinary citizen in what was the 13 colonies during the era of the Revolutionary War was "REQUIRED" to own/bear a firearm. They just had guns in large numbers due to the frontier nature of society. Also, FYI, the Revolutionary War started because of an attempt to implement gun control - Lexington and Concord were the targets of a British Army unit that intended to seize arms and powder stores. Thankfully, the townspeople and lots of people from the surrounding area resisted.

You will never see a successful genocide where the population is generally armed, any more than you will see an armed robbery at a shooting range or a gun store - because the potential perps aren't that stupid. Also, consider that Switzerland was not invaded by the Germans in WW2, almost certainly because its population was so heavily armed (and they still are, with every male up to 55 in the reserves, with the requirement to keep a fully automatic rifle and ammunition in their homes).

In short, like it or not, guns in the hands of virtually any kind of potential victim make that person, race or nation less likely to be victimized. Disarmed potential victims are subject to the whims of someone armed with something as minimal as a boxcutter, as we all know from Sept. 11. A sad commentary on human nature perhaps, but a realistic one nonetheless.