I think u're really wrong. Can you imagine if Vietnamese people had no guns when they were in war with the US? If it had happened, i'm sure that most of vietnamese people would have died. your country could be free from the US invansion because both militery and civilians had guns to fight back. Do you still think that nobody should have a gun?
I´m not sure if what you said is true. You can fight back against an invader without using weapons, and if you check the history of mankind you can get a lot of examples about it. If your statement were true, Mahatma Ghandi hadn´t been capable of achiving India´s independence because, according to your point of view, he should have used firepower to get rid of English. It´s been proven that "pacific resistance" is as effective as it could be the usage of weapons, but sadly, we think that using them we can achieve our goals faster or at least making less effort.
I´m not trying to say that the usage of weapons are good or bad thing, I fact I agree with you that anyone who wants to carry a gun has the right to do it, because at the end of the day, guns don´t kill people, people kill people. But to use guns to expel an evasion, that doesn´t make sense to me.....[/quote]
If you look at my previous posts
, you'll see that there is consistency of mine on this topic. First
, I do believe that the apparatus, both the militery and police officers have the right to own a gun. Even tough we can't generalize that all of them have guns, but in some positions or sections or departments or tasks, they do need a gun.
, Do civilians have the right to own a gun. In some conditions, my answer is "yes, they do".
The conditions are :
1. If they really need it and they have followed some tests conducted by an authorized institution to own a gun. The tests, for instance, are the shooting skill tests, physicological test, and so on.
2. If they are in a war.
I do believe that we all need a gun when we are in a war, at least to protect ourselves and family. Without guns, the people would be like still targets who have no power to fight back. The people would be like some mice that are being shot by a kid in a video game. The people will be like some objects for fun.
Let's talk about your suggested case that Mahatma Gandhi could free India from English colonialism without guns. Frankly speaking, I'm one of Gandhi admirers. I really appreciate his sincere struggle. He is one of my favorite figures in ruling his country. His consistency not only existed before the Indian independence but also after India got independence. He is a good role model for other leaders in ruling their own countries.
But you should have known how many Indian people had died to get the independence. It is still fresh in my mind that hundreds of innocent Indian people were taken to a place and then all of them were shot dead. The English troops kept pushing their machine gun triggers to shoot the innocent. And you know what the result was? None of the innocent Indian people were left alive. This case embarassed the English government before the international world.
At that time Indian people did have guns. But the number of guns and the gun technology they had were nothing compared to English'. They really needed more guns to fight back.
The independence of India can not be seen separately from the international situatuin then. At that time the issues of human right, freedom of speech, freedom of organization, freedom of press, freedom of colonialism and other freedom issues became very sensitive issues to discuss across the world. And at that time, lots of countries under the British colonialism had got their independence. And the British government had planned to free all of their colonized areas and set up an organization which is well-known called "The Brithish Commonwealth
So besides fighting with simple guns, the Indian people tried to get the independence through the diplomatic channel. And those made India free from colonialism