Guns

Do you own any guns, lain? What do you think about them? Mods, if you don't think this is the right board, please move this.

I knew this thread would come up eventually... >Do you own any guns, lain? What do you think about them? I own quite a few guns, naturally as I am a gunsmith. Overall, I am apolitical when it comes to guns, I admit there is a gun violence problem in the united states (i imagine that is what you are getting at) but I think that it is a symptom of a larger problem more so than a problem in itself. Guns are like many other things that should be used responsibly, and there is no way to ensure that a weapon of sufficient damage cannot be obtained by a determined individual. I don't like that an inanimate object has been turned into such a political point of contention. My opinion is not reinforced by my job, I am a craftsman like any other, and I may as well have become a watch maker. I do know there is no harm in a machine other than that which people can do with it. If destruction is the goal, there are always more dangerous machines that can be used. Unfortunately, what I do has distanced me from my family as of late, as I am now seen as some proponent of murder. I just like how many small mechanical pieces work together to create a machine that can harness chemical energy to propel an object. Unfortunately, people who are not knowledgeable on the subject of firearms decide to make harsh emotional based decisions. From a tactical standpoint, that is the worst mistake a politician can make, because when emotional laws are passed, all logic and reason is thrown out the window. I guess you could say current opinions are the bread and circuses for the masses.

Generally I'm pro 2nd amendment, Although I do believe we need stronger background checks and I don't have a gun.

Personally I am PISSED that the entire government, in both parties, is currently conspiring to shred the 2nd amendment. >>7039 That's really cool lain, how did you get into that business? Do you work with a brand I might recognize or are you in a smaller practice?

>>7041 >shred the 2nd amendment Amendment of the Constitution cannot abolish a right that was not granted by the Constitution in the first place. People who fail to grasp this understand neither the law, nor the Constitution, nor the Constitution’s ethical foundations.

>>7042 an amendment can be repealed. And really, fuarrrk the constitution. I hate it and the government built around it.

>>7040 >both parties, is currently conspiring to shred the 2nd amendment If this happens then it'll our moral duty to rise up and kill those bastards.

>>7044 I second this

>>7043 Yes, amendment can be repealed but it'll not abolish the right to bear arms, only open the way to the U.S. government massively violating that right. Rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are recognized by it. Thus, repeal of any right enumerated in the Constitution is not possible without abrogating the Constitutional covenant – destroying the legal and moral foundations of our system. The ten in the Bill of Rights are especially tripwires on an explosive that would bring the whole thing down. And of all these, the First and Second are especially sensitive. Approach them at your peril.

>>7043 >And really, fuarrrk the constitution. I hate it and the government built around it. Why is that? I doubt you're a Perennialist who's against the Constitution for being anti traditionalist and egalitarian.

I think its another example of an upper class thinking they are doing the right thing, yet really only selfishly helping themselves. My happy little white suburb will be safe from evil bad people, meanwhile gangs and drug dealers who already own illegal or unregistered weapons will have free range over "blighted" communities which the govervnment and city planners fail to do anything about beyond increase police presence and escalate tensions. That or worse, tear it down and build higher income housing in its place. Sure gun violence will go down if you make guns illegal or hard to obtain (less people with guns means less oppurtunities for gun violence), but in its place hidden dictatorships will pop up. Despite violence as a whole going down over the decades, nobody feels any better about our society or the earth. I think most people, especially the poor who I think this will affect the most, feel a lack of control over their lives. Like nothing they do even matters, and they have no say in anything. I think many people with this growing attitude, would risk dying at the hand of a gun one day if it meant the playing field would be that much more even at least. But nobody thinks about this so I may even be wrong, rich liberals are great at convincing poorer liberals that something is good for them. Yet in my opinion this is intensely un-liberal. What do the people get in return for giving up their guns, where is the trade off. There needs to be some kind of deal, a promise that the things guns previously protected will be protected by something else that ISNT "more police" because that too is an issue right now. Nor "arresting more people for drug crimes". I will support giving up guns when the government reforms drug scheduling, promises to improve and invest in bettering (in a helpful, democratic way) communities such as Detroit to the point where such a large police presence isn't even needed. That will be the tell of a success. Our society and laws make up an ecosystem, you can't just kill off the mosquito because it bites people.

>>7048 you bring up good points, the way I see it: >as long as people willingly follow instruction without question >as long as people favor creature comforts to higher order thinking and education >as long as there is a role for the poor and stupid there will be social issues. There is no "useless human being" to the right individual. someone who cannot support himself can and will become a rallying cry for good or otherwise. The problem with dumb people is they think that those who are better off than them have no reason to not help them (if they believe that capitalism is good and trickle down theory is perfect in practice) or the counterpoint that they distrust everyone better off than them and blame it on discrimination. Often times the truth is either a mix or somewhere in between. There are those who seek to take advantage of others, but man always corrupts his utopia. walled suburbs can only be maintained as long as the overall system reflects sufficient growth to counter the decay. With the direction the world is moving, there will likely be either mass wars or a complete collapse unless energy problems can be solved. Once people realize the entire socioeconomic system is artificially instated and manipulated they can overcome it or learn to play by its rules. Unfortunately, peoples perception of the world is limited to looking at shadows in a cave, and hearing those shadows talk about how guns are used in crime makes the ignorant think they must be evil, if the only time they are ever spoken of is in crime, actually very similarly to encryption and free speech

>>7038 >Do you own any guns, Lain? No, but I'd love to own one or two(especially big rifles). >What do you think about them? IMO, guns are the only thing you can rely on when government starts oppressing or things starts to go south. The way things are going you just can't trust government. These guys will do anything and everything to dismantle the system just to say we did it without realizing what they've done. I think the media are playing a huge role in this and they're silently fueling the rage by continuously prompting the negative effects of guns. More number of people die in US by drug overdose then gun violence but you don't see media reporting about these. What I'm trying to say is we should stop letting ourselves get dictated by the media on what is right and wrong. I'm definitely against gun violence and I strongly believe the regulations should be applied on who gets the gun. One more thing OP write your opinion first and general views before starting a thread. Don't just start a thread because you're bored.

>>7040 Background checks are already mandatory for all firearm purchases from FFLs, including transfers from other FFLs and anyone out of your state. I don't really know what else one could do in that realm.

I have a CZ-75 compact. I keep it loaded and on my person at all times. I will not be caught off guard, when trouble comes knocking; and it will come knocking, I will be ready. I enjoy shooting as a precision and focus excercise, and as a discipline building activity. It helps me clear my mind and focus on a simple straightforward self improvement task. I of course take an egoist approach, I like guns, I find them fun to shoot at targets. I want to have the power they grant me, and use it responsibly for my own gain and my own protection. Really, I do not care much about law or politics, I will continue behaving however I like whether someone writes some nonsense on paper about me and my behavior or not. If the strong arms come calling then I will wear whatever mask is needed to avoid conflict. If it turns sour, then I will do what I must to survive.

I own a Ruger LCPII and a SKS. I love them both dearly. I wish I owned a shotgun and a PMR30.

I don't own any guns(too much paper) but every once in a while I borrow a friend or relatives and go shooting. Its therapeutic your cheek resting on a portion of the stock, your eye focused down the sight, the clicks of the bolt loading up a round. And then sending that round down range into a tree or sand pit. I haven't hung around /k/ but I dislike semi-auto rifles just because of all the cleaning. I do prefer semi-auto in pistols though. Sometimes I don't care about the target but for some reason I just like holding it. I also know this thread is bait for opinions on guns, so I'll state mine. If you can afford it, you should be able to have it. No exceptions. Free men get to live free. But I'm also draconian when it comes to punishing crimes, so in my vision for the world things would balance out.

>>7047 I dislike the existence of the American state, which is what the constitution protects above all else.(You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

I have a couple of guns i got for pure cyberpunk aesthetic pic related (not my pictures)

Guns should be respected for their life-ending capability. Many people handle guns in a way that makes me feel uncomfortable, but guns itself are not the problem. Guns are great tools in right hands, but it seems that in USA the control has failed greatly to the point where the ability to get a gun easily has created the need to get guns easily. I can't say any more about the situation in US because I do not know that much about them, but in general gun control should go as following. >How do you use the gun? For hunting, take hunting class before getting gun. For practical shooting join a shooting club first, for self defence a standardized class and test etc. You should be only getting license for a type of gun you need for you hobbies. Full automatic guns and magazine sizes over 10 should be derezzed from civilians. Pistols should have stricter control than long-barreled guns for their small size(they can be hidden easily and they are harder to control) I must say that I am an navy NCO though which some of you may take as being "pro-establishment" or something and I do actually trust my government for now. They might be incompetent but are not going to take away my freedom. Still, I don't know about US situation.

>>7068 Navy NCO? Which navy? I'm not perfectly familiar with foreign services or you've been stationed out of country for a while. To your point on gun control being necessary here in the states. I disagree, its a matter of disrespect towards the concept of weapons and a society with idealized and very unhealthy set of views about violence. And by idealized I'm talking when boomers start shouting "BOMB'EM!" in regards to the ME, or punks who go around and talk a lot but have never been in a fight in their lives. People in the US don't have a realistic view of violence and what it entails anymore, try to find a guy coming out of High School and ask them if they've been in a genuine brawl. It drives me crazy, most fights people get into as kids are stupid but they happen to teach kids what's worth fighting over and how far is too far. Because I would guarantee you that El Goblino in Florida, had probably never received a proper asskicking in his life. And rounding this back to views on violence, when someone like this puke show up, and bring real murderous violence into the mix, where people aren't used to it. It shatters their world. >>7055 I've noticed this from my time in California; where in the amount of gun legislation is now so frivolous and numerous that PD's are now doing roughshod guess' as to peoples firearms as to their legality. Its always come down to are you presenting a threat and is it noticeable. >>7064 God in heaven, you're a glitterboy. >I dislike the existence of the American state What in the good graces of Christ is wrong with you? Are you an accelerationist? A New Africa type? Islamist, kike, euro user, commie? The constitution is a recognition that; principle once broken will rarely if ever be restored nor will the transgression of breaking it ever be properly punished without a baseline to guide the statesmen of the nation. And as an added measure they placed in a backdoor for violent armed revolt to ensure a constant threat of mob violence for treacherous behavior. This is a small enough place I'll assume you're not a sh il l of any sort, and give you benefit of the doubt but what good comes from destroying the USA or its power projection. Worldwide Balkanization? Nuclear Holocaust? Sinocentrism? What retard would desire that unholy Hell? And all because people don't want to sit around all day and worry about things out of their control; thats the problem some people have with /pol/ its not that bad things aren't happening in Europe, or America. Its that I don't want to sit around and be angry all day about things going on in Whatthehellistan when I can't do anything but be a counter-productive and self-destructive nuisance.(Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks.)

>>7068 >Navy NCO >supports legal limits on magazines What rate, if you are American because you don't sound like a GM, and unless you are SPECWAR you probably have little to no exposure or experience to small arms you should know then that hand guns in the united states are treated more strictly than long rifles. Civilians are unable to own automatic weapons unless they are firearms dealers (with extensive checks for security and audits in place) or they are getting automatic weapons that meet extremely narrow criteria. 10 round magazines are also irrelevant in terms of control, you can 3D print functional 30 round magazines anyway and they are easily hidden. the worst that would happen is the government would throw additional weapons charges into the mix if someone is caught with them. >They might be incompetent but are not going to take away my freedom. Still, I don't know about US situation. In the united states, there are two sides, those who want all weapons or things resembling weapons to go away because in their utopia, the government is the only organization that needs weapons. The other side are those who are angered by the aforementioned people and will go to ridiculous extremes in terms of stupidity because they can in buying and using weapons. overall there are many responsible gun owners who don't want to see their rights of expression and inherent self defense infringed. The entire problem in the united states is that people say "if it looks like a duck it is a duck" and disregard arguments of logic because it is counter to their world view. In fact, there are some states that have tried to pass laws making people severe criminals by merely having guns with certain looks in their houses, but the government will not enforce the laws because they would expect to be gunned down by people disregarding unenforceable or impractical laws. It is a classic case of politicians catering to the loudest voice to get more votes. If you have a basic understanding of machining, you can build functional weapons in less than a day from start to finish. for a more lainchan oriented example, let me put it this way >ALL SCARRY HACKER COMPUTERS SHOULD BE derezzed, anything with stickers on it is clearly that of a hacker who wants to steal your identity translation: all "assault style weapons should be derezzed, anything with the ability to accept a front grip or pistol grip is a weapon of war" >anything over a quad core processor should be restricted for public use because hackers can use it to get into systems faster translation: any gun that shoots over a certain sized caliber is useful only for killing and should not be in the hands of civilians >fiber internet should be restricted because it allows hackers to control more computers in a bot net, nobody need fiber speeds to watch youtube or use facebook anyway translation: having semi automatic weapons should be restricted because you can use it to shoot more people faster, there is no reason a civilian should need to shoot faster than 1 round every 5 seconds anyway >why cant you just go to an internet cafe if you want to use fast internet so badly translation: just go to a gun range and pay someone if you want to use guns >everybody with a lenovo needs to turn it in to the government, that's a hackers laptop translation:anybody with a firearm resembling the way a military gun looks is a military gun and should be handed over to the government, even without compensation unless you want to spend 25 years in prison >you dont need a firewall or antivirus, the government is there to stop cybercriminals who want to steal all your money translation:you dont need a gun, the police are there to stop people who want to steal all of your belongings using deadly force (in reality this is false, since in America police are not paid to prevent crime or stop criminals who are harming citizens. they are there to make sure the law gets enforced after it has been broken... that means if a criminal is raping and murdering you, the police can stand around, watching you get violently raped and murdered, and then wait for the rapist to finish before arresting him for doing what he did)

only citizens should be allowed to have guns.

>>7126 >laws are only as good as the people who follow them

>Do you own any guns Not yet. I likely will soon enough since mandatory military service is still a thing here. Full auto here I come! (inb4 unfit for service). >What do you think about them? I think people should be allowed to have any kind of weapon as long as they don't have a criminal history. Making people familiar with guns is a far more healthy relationship than to be irrationaly scared of them. This goes both way though. Yes, guns won't solve all your problems. Making educated guesses is better than fearmongering basically. So yes people should have guns, they're fine. Different places might need different laws though.

I'm not sure I'd pass the questionaire for a permit due to... um, medical history >_> and now because of increased paranoia due to people in a certain other country shooting their schoolmates every week, the restrictions here will probably tighten in the forseeable future as well. But I have plenty of experience with other people's rifles and shotguns in a recreational setting and much less with handguns.

If you believe in gun control you need to report everyone that has Nmap, Metasploit, and ETERNALBLUE to the NSA immediately so they can register, monitor, and track them for your safety.

>>7199 none of those things are weapons

>>7253 What is a weapon anyway? A kitchen knife can be a weapon while an automated rifle can be a piece of sports equipment.

>>7199 guns != hacker tools one is built to purposefully kill someone, the other is to access information

>>7258 Both are designed to violate the NAP.

>>7259 Probably a soykafpost but guns and hacking tools can be used to defend yourself through the principle of the NAP as well.

The people who call for gun control really don't realize that mass shootings and killing sprees happen for a much more complex reason and banning guns will change soykaf. They are the useful idiots for the elite who wants to disarm every free citizen so they have a dumb and docile consumer class.

>>7284 > tin foil hat talk whoa there bronco. Loosen up the cap before you post next time. Countries with gun control have significantly fewer gun-related fatalities/incidents. There are case studies scattered over the globe: Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, even China. Claiming that you need to keep muh guns demonstrates a myopic view so dense and disregarding of reality that you're actually helping bring more people to harm.

>>7284 I find it interesting that people will go on about guns and mental health and whatever but never think about maybe there's something to do with the institution of american highschool that makes people want to kill eachother

>>7289 Why yes, multiple stabbings and vehicular murder is more popular in China. >>7290 lol

>>7290 Relevant >inb4 paul graham lmao http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

>>7289 I got bored and calculated the correlation between gun ownership rates and gun murder rates in the USA per state. Data on some states were missing, so I didn't include them. The correlation is around 0.09. I've forgotten too much statistics to calculate the significance. >https://pastebin.com/raw/aDgNphWc Don't you think if gun ownership was so obviously a direct cause of death these numbers would be better?

>>7284 >>7289 >>7299 Lol damn.

>>7289 >Countries with gun control have significantly fewer gun-related fatalities/incidents Let me tell you about my country. South of U S is a land called Mexico. Here the mafia can own a town. The people who live in the town can either try to run away, or stay behind to be killed at the whim of a tyrant. If the peoples had a way of defending their families and land, no one user would dare approach a town. People with arms are people with power. Without arms we are lambs before the cosmic slaugher. I wish my country had legal access to weaponry. We need it.

>>7366 Umm... I thought the reason there was gun control in Mexico was exactly because the cartels do control everything. It's not like the government can just allow you access to guns as a solution to the problem because this isn't a flaw in your system. It's an intentional part of its design. Please tell me if this is all wrong. I'm open to hearing it.

>>7374 Yeah. My point is, if the people had guns then we wouldn't have this problem. The government, namely, politicians should be held accountable. As it stands now, they laugh at our face and we can do diddly squat about it. What are you gonna do about it? The answer is disappear in the statistics of the hundreds of thousands of people that die every year.

>>7038 yes, I have guns! and its all because my dad has guns as well. he is a very responsible gun owner and ever since I was born he told me this "guns are not toys. do not pick up this gun unless you're about to kill someone", and he would always let me look at it (without bullets of course). I guess to put it simply, my dad did a very good job at educating me with guns, the dangers of them but at the same time the bright sides to them. when I was 8, he took me to a shooting range where I shot a gun for the first time. he was very much into tournaments and stuff like that which further let me see things from his point of view. but now comes the obvious thing that OP was implying here, if there should be some sort of barrier to get them, and I believe there should be! a background check is something I would add in. and if you're worried about your guns being taken away, think of it this way. if you've been a responsible gun owner for years then there is literally nothing to fear! you're guns will not be taken away from a background check if you truly mean to do no harm with them.

>>7394 You'd think this would sound reasonable to most gun owners and yet there is stiff resistance to making any changes. It begs the question, what sort of people are really against those potential changes.

I own several, but I've always been passionate about firearms as machines. I used to be in favor of very anti-gun legislation until I was assaulted, and decided to purchase a handgun when I turned 18 for open carry (I live in a state where that is legal). My collection has grown slightly in the past few years, and I've been short a decent semi-automatic rifle ever since I sold my AK. Money's tight, but at least I can afford ammunition for training. Owning a gun is only half of it, the rest is time and effort spent becoming more proficient in its functions and uses than you are with any other machine. >Blyskawica-pattern submachine gun, made in a basement in the Warsaw ghetto with minimal tooling. This pattern of submachine gun was more or less standardized during the early days of the Polish resistance, primarily because of its mechanical simplicity and ease of manufacture.

>>7394 This is literally my policy on guns. I was taught about guns from my grandfather and he had that strict policy on gun safety as well. That is what I thought all gun owners were until I started to grow up and I saw the horrible way a lot of gun owners handle guns. No discipline at all. People like to use Switzerland as an example of a Utopian gun owning society. Yet they have way more training and structure around guns. In the US we just hand them out like they are candy with no restrictions or training, except in "communist states" as some like to call them.

>>8262 Switzerland is turning to the same 1984 soykafhole like any other country. 10 Years ago you could own non automatic rifles and shotguns without permit. Now you need to show id to even buy ammo.

>>8263 ...trying to avoid US style school shootings before they start.

>>7394 I don't disagree that people should be safe with guns; in fact, I was raised in very much the same way as you, with a focus on safety and responsible use. However, guns are more than just a weapon or a tool. On a large scale, mass ownership of guns constitutes a kind of political power for the masses. Today, as our economies and governments are being skewed towards favoring the top, I think that access to guns should be as unobstructed as possible. They may be the Plan B in case they are ever necessary (hopefully not.) There might even be a situation like >>7366 describes, where guns are already necessary, but not in supply. >if you truly mean to do no harm with them What if you intend to use them against the state running the background checks? This is why background checks may not be a good idea. If you are known to have anti-government or even anti-mainstream opinions (perhaps gathered from your online activity), you may be denied gun ownership, regardless of how safe and responsible you might otherwise be. Background checks are designed to deny certain people weaponry. That's not a bad thing, until the definition of "certain people" changes.

I like guns quite a bit, though I'm currently not allowed to own them due to a suicide attempt. I have to wait to get my raifu again, but I'm used to waiting for things. I miss shooting the most I think, I always found it to be almost a form of meditation. Focusing on your breathing, the movements, the target, and the trigger pull. Reassessing your aim after a hit or a miss. Was relaxing, though discouraging as I was never happy with my groupings.

>>8311 That definition will never change. The best barrier for entry is just to make it an investment and a personal item for people. Something they're very careful handing out, picky to buy, and make a part of themselves. Cheap soykafty guns like burner phones have a purpose of being for the poor or more commonly, an average criminal. Both should be legal. But I'd remove the accessibility for the cheap gun with a talk to the Arms industry saying jack your prices up 300% or it will be in tax. Simply put it would make the rifle like your car. Probably nothing special, but you use it and develop sort of a relationship with it. Keeping out excess in purchase. But back to certain people, as long as no one knows you as a wanted criminal and you're not in prison/jail you should be allowed to purchase a gun with at most the small talk from the clerk. And the clerk should always have the right to refuse a sale if they feel like it.

It's sort of bullsoykaf a felon that commited a violent crime 30 years ago with no violent crimes since can't get a gun.

If the 2nd amendment is meant to protect against tyranny, then where are the paramilitary groups? Or do people think they can organize a successful militia strong enough to defeat the worlds greatest military force just on a whim?

>>8997 a bunch of rice and goat farmers were able to do it

I've been kind of considering getting some kind of compact handgun, just something I can carry concealed so I feel a little more safe when I'm having to go into the sketchier parts of town. Over the years I've started to see using a gun (or some other form of self-defense, but guns are highly practical) to be up there with driving, cooking, using a computer, etc. as skills that every adult should know, and this is what drove me to start thinking of buying one myself and getting licensed to carry.

I have yet to own any firearms but I support the right to own guns 100% including the same semi-autos that keep getting hit with the buzzwords "assault rifle/weapon," "military weapon," or "high powered." I personally think gun violence is a fake issue since the term does not differentiate justifiable shootings from criminal acts or either from deliberate suicides. The people complaining about the issue would prefer that a burglar stab an innocent person to death than for that burglar to get shot in self-defense. If the burglar did, he would be thrown into the same category as an actual innocent kid getting shot to death when gun control advocates throw around numbers about "gun related deaths" or the mislabel "gun murderers." Also, the FBI reported that gun-related deaths and crimes which include police shootings in the US declined as private gun sales legally rose. Also, I find it bemusing when gun control advocates bash southern states for having lenient gun laws but say nothing about New Hampshire and Maine having lenient gun laws. In both states, you can conceal carry a loaded handgun without a permit and I think it is the same in Vermont despite recent gun control pushes. Also, people have this habit of assuming the European nations and other nations have strict gun laws like the UK yet the Czech Republic allows private ownership and conceal carry of handguns and I think without additional permits for carry. New Zealand has more lenient gun laws than Australia yet Australia has a higher violent crime rate (no offense to Aussies here).

Im generally in favor of civil access to guns, but now im having second thoughs on just how significant it really is. I dont think many people in this thread would find it outlandish to suggest that armed citizenry wouldnt work if you wanted to create a democracy in a place like Syria. You would first have to implement civil society, democractic culture, traditions, etc and eradicate anti-democratic culture and traditions. But once you have done that, there would be no use of weapons anymore since conflict and tyranny wouldnt arise. Theres a certain romanticism in the scenario of common citizens taking up arms against tyranny. But how many positive examples are there of societies harboring arms sustaining a healthy democracy? By the time that regular people are taking to arms, democracy is long dead. And then there is the question of how a militia is supposed to fare against a modern military with a modern surveillance state. And where would that militia come from? I doubt that you could have paramilitary groups existing alongside democracy, it would definitely have destabilizing and eroding effects. Guns are useless if they dont come to use, but whats left to save when you finally use them?

>>9011 >Guns are useless if they don't come to use, but whats left to save when you finally use them? the crux of this is that by not using them, you end up in a loop where you will not have or need them, which necessitates their need and use and repeat. as the saying goes "an armed society is a civil society" which to me brings to mind warrior clans more so than a bunch of people with guns. proficiency with weapons is a mentality, not a simple task. the ease of use of firearms has lessened this idea significantly. the inherent value of the weapon is lost. weapons exist to kill, humans have weapons to kill fellow humans. humans kill fellow humans for a variety of reasons. in many cases, those doing the killing cannot be reasoned with. the need to able to kill those who would kill you or your clan produces the value of weapons. there is also the saying that if you want peace, you should prepare for war. this has multiple implications, on the one hand, war will produce an inevitable peace, either through an agreement following hostilities, the absolute domination of one nation/group, or loss of both sides populations. alternatively, the meaning extends to a virtual "big stick" which means that he with the greater weapons is too formidable to be attacked without significant loss (i.e. war is itself avoided by ones preparation thereof) the age old question is why do humans need and use weapons, when there are many other ways of conflict resolution. the answer is that there are as many reasons under the sun that necessitate weapons as there are weapons themselves, weapons are after all, purpose built machines. in the end, it is humans that can choose to start or stop civil discussion, just as it is humans who produce weapons to threaten or end conflicts, or at least bring them to a point to where civil discussion becomes ideal (the latter implying that things are so disrupted that any form of civility has since disappeared)