Comments on: Abolish weapons?

By: Pinta-Pinta

Pinta-Pinta — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 05:38:53 +0000

I think a lot of you missed a key point. He acknowledges that people will still always fight and war with each other, we are animals after all. However the key vital point is, if we take away these mass weapons of destruction (and i’m not just talking about Nuclear weapons) the people who want to fight will only harm themselves, instead of innocent people trying to live there lives in peace. I also don’t think it’s fair to always pass the blame and responsibility onto the person using the gun. What about when the human being pulling the trigger is a 10 year old boy pepped up on drugs, Fighting a war that he has no comprehension of.
I for one am all for the abolishment of weapons.

By: lennardhulsbos

lennardhulsbos — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:17:35 +0000

Sure. But isn’t the underlying principle of what I have written a point of value? The point that as long as weaponry remains a profitable business case we will continue to have an incentive to maintain and prolong warfare, no matter how pointless? Machines are never in themselves ‘bad’ or ‘good’ it is, very correctly pointed out, what people will do with them. As long as we keep making weapons (in line with the GDP being the predominant factor as to ‘how the world is doing’) there will be an incentive to keep using them. I simply think this isn’t a very good idea.

By: Luuk de Ruijter

Luuk de Ruijter — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:13:24 +0000

Let’s take one step back (or even more than one):
Parallel to the statement that ‘you can’t wage war if there’s no weapons to do so with’, I may state that ‘you don’t know what you want to abolish when you don’t know exactly what it is that you want to abolish’. What is a weapon? Can someone define where some tool is a weapon and when it is a weapon no more? I think you’ll have problems with that, and the reason is that you do not solve the problem by abolishing weapons. If you want to solve a certain problem, my guess is that you need to abolish people that are willing to use a weapon in a certain circumstance. And there you have the impossibility: almost everyone may and will use a weapon in a certain circumstance, even you and I. Much as I hate to agree, I am afraid the spokesmen and -women of the weapon industries are right when stating that it is not weapons that kill. It is people that kill.
Therefore, abolishing weapons is mere an emty act which does not take away the underlying reason.

By: Wouter

Wouter — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:00:54 +0000

Although it seems nearly impossible, I think it would be nice to experience this state of a weaponless world (if only for a moment). Sticks and stones do damage enough, I say. Sure, someone on this planet is going to figure out how to make super-weapons again. But I agree that it will be driven by fear, not the hunger for power or anything…

By: lennardhulsbos

lennardhulsbos — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:51:39 +0000

If you choose fear to be the ruling paradigm of your world, fair enough. As said, your feeling unsafe is but a figment of your imagination. My feeling safe is as feasible. As for ‘being fucked’, I prefer to stand-up and smile to those who threaten me than to live in the constant strain of rigid mentality that you seem to display dear Paul. Good luck.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:45:39 +0000

Someone else will just make them. You will be fucked at this point

By: S

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:41:51 +0000

As long as others have the potential to harm those who i love,i want a weapon,you are an idealist,and this idea is impractical i hate weapons,but if we get rid of all guns,then those who have the power to make them again will be the ones in charge,i think the americans got it right when they said,when guns are outlawed,only the outlaws will have guns.i dont want to be rude,but this idea is just charmingly fey.