Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mefustae on April 17, 2007, 07:13:50 am
-
As with Columbine and the many others in recent US history, the shooting (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,46633.0.html) in (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting) the (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6563565.stm) news (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/16/vtech.shooting/index.html) will undoubtedly lead to a resurgence in calls for stricter gun restrictions and regulation. With guns so ingrained in American culture such calls will most likely fall on deaf ears, but the issue is bound to be hotly debated for months to come. So, let's get in on that action in the finest tradition of the Meeting Hall:
Do incidents like Virginia Tech demonstrate the need for stricter gun control, or even across-the-board restrictions, within the US? Or would such a move simply prove unsuccessful and ultimately useless in the long run? Discuss.
-
Well, it was already illegal to bring guns onto campus. What are we supposed to do, make it more illegal?
Personally I'm in favor of letting students defend themselves. The gunman had a building full of unarmed targets cowering in corners. If even a couple of those students had been armed, this might have been stopped sooner.
-
Do incidents like Virginia Tech demonstrate the need for stricter gun control, or even across-the-board restrictions, within the US? Or would such a move simply prove unsuccessful and ultimately useless in the long run?
A stricter gun control would probably be less effective on the short run than on the long run. As you said, guns are so ingrained in American culture that right now it would encounter a lot of resistance. On the long run it would probably decrease the rate of such crimes.
-
Keep in mind Virginia has no registration or background checks involved in purchasing a firearm. Alarm bells are ringing, Willie.
-
Well, it was already illegal to bring guns onto campus. What are we supposed to do, make it more illegal?
Personally I'm in favor of letting students defend themselves. The gunman had a building full of unarmed targets cowering in corners. If even a couple of those students had been armed, this might have been stopped sooner.
So you would advocate students having a fire-fight in their halls of residence? Exactly how well trained do you expect these kids to be?
-
Keep in mind Virginia has no registration or background checks involved in purchasing a firearm. Alarm bells are ringing, Willie.
Not saying that there shouldn't be registrations or somesuch; that makes sense. But banning firearms outright, that's just ridiculous. If somebody wants a gun badly enough, they'll go to all sorts of measures to obtain one. Therefore to ban firearms just disarms innocent people; lawbreakers don't abide by gun control laws. Education in gun safety should be required, however. It seems to work in Switzerland.
-
Stricter gun control will solve nothing - anyone with a serious desire to kill people is going to do it. Firearms make it easier, but in many places, especially in the United States, it is a simple matter to acquire them legally or illegally. In short, making it tougher for law-abiding residents to obtain firearms is not going to reduce the amount of crimes committed by guns.
Conversely, however, some control over who is able to obtain firearms does need to be in place. Canada has a MUCH lower rate of death-by-firearm, suicide, homicide, or accident, than does the United States. The reason for this is two-fold:
1. Canada has a much less prominent gun culture, and Canadians in general are less likely to have an interest in firearms or own them.
2. Canada has a long history (even before the idiotic Firearms Act and its now-defunct registry) of taking a greater interest in who is able to own firearms legally. This does not curb illegal firearms possession. It DOES address three things:
A. The liklihood of unbalanced or dangerous individuals legally acquiring and possessing firearms is reduced. The Firearms Act has marked a drop in domestic violence using legally acquired firearms.
B. Improper storage or possession of firearms is limited; it results in fewer thefts of legal firearms.
C. Legal firearm owners are registered (forget registering the guns themselves; THAT is idiotic). Thus, legitimate firearm retailers have a criteria upon which they can sell their goods.
Bear in mind, none of these measures have a significant impact on criminal enterprise, especially gangs and organized crime. They do reduce the number of accidents, however, and they also reduce the number of "He just lost it" shootings - a major factor in those events is immediate psychological distress, in which case removing the means to commit an act often reduces the liklihood of it actually occurring.
I'm not an advocate of gun-control so much as gun owner control. US states need to start mandating a registration and licensing process for people who wish to possess any firearms - that is not to say this must be extremely difficult or demanding. The idea is to stem the number of "questionable" gun sales from legitimate retailers, and actually confine illegal gun sales and possession to an undeniably criminal element. This is essentially what Canada does, and I fully support it. I've been through the licensing process. I can legally possess and accquire any firearm which can be legally purchased or imported into this country. It wasn't hard.
I noticed that some favor the idea of concealed carry on campus. This is a sticky issue. Yes, a trained individual with a concealed carry permit could likely have stopped this guy. An untrained "hero" in a situation like this could get himself and more people killed (this particular incident is likely a bad example). I'm on the fence when it comes to concealed-carry, but I don't think just anyone should be able to apply for it. Some form of law enforcement or military training, or at least a course on emergency use, should be a mandatory requirement.
All this said, there is no clear solution. The US has a very specific culture which favors self-defense in lieu of law enforcement protection, and so it is difficult to make specific suggestions which do not contradict the culture at its core.
-
Whoops, didnt see this tread when posting in the pub.
I think if they increase gun control, homocidal people will just find other ways to kill people.
Or if they were really determined they could get a gun on the black market anyway.
Just my 2 cents. :)
-
Whoops, didnt see this tread when posting in the pub.
I think if they increase gun control, homocidal people will just find other ways to kill people.
Or if they were really determined they could get a gun on the black market anyway.
Just my 2 cents. :)
Anyone who plans to get a gun can do just that, legally or illegally. What has wide-spread bannings of drugs done? It made it underground. Drugs are just as, if not more, now that they're illegal, versus when the drug was legal or pending ban. Don't even think that homicidal people will find other ways to kill people... they will simply acquire illegal weapons that make them even more dangerous than legal weapons.
I highly doubt gun violence will decrease with them outright banned.
-
Banning firearms basically takes them out of the hands of citizens who would use them for a positive purpose, and lets the people who are willing to use them in a negative manner run around practically invincible.
One good example of this being the shootings in which Charles Whitman held himself up on that Texas campus way back when. As well as police coming to aid, many civilians that were probably better equipped also arrived on scene to aid in any way possible with their personal firearms. Firearms do not have intent, they do not have personality, the person firing the weapon does.
Police forces are very effective, but they aren't perfect. In many rural areas, and in some urban ones, it can take quite a while before police can arrive on a scene, and in that time lots can happen. If I can neutralize the threat of someone trying to enter my home and harm me, my family, or to steal my personal belongings, I think I should have the right to defend myself from that threat by any means.
The only thing banning firearms does is move the market from the public market, where it can be controlled to some degree, to the black market. Things such as background checks I think should be instituted, as these measures, if nothing else, show that someone is interested in obtaining a firearm. Should the background check prevent them from obtaining it, officials now know who might try to get one from underground markets, and they can act accordingly.
Oh, and lastly, banning firearms will do very little to actually get them off the streets, as they are already well saturated throughout the country.
-
Bother, I knew this topic would be coming up...
-
They can't really do anything that wouldn't lead to more problems. . You can't eliminate them altogether (against the constitution for those not informed), so you're stuck with some insane restriction. People would keep the guns anyway. I'm not quite sure what the hunting gun laws are, but they certainly wouldn't give the guns up. It would lead to just more stupid arrests.
IMHO, just try and find the things that cause people to do them. Those are the real problems, because they can still use knives or almost anything else (to a smaller scale). Of course, require more effective lockdowns. I mean, seriously.
-
Ya, I agree. Ever wonder what a person bent on destruction could do with a pickup truck in NYC to pedestrians?
-
Most of the people who have shot others probably weren't consistent psychopaths who stopped at nothing to get their hands on a gun. Rather they got really pissed off at someone, happened to have a gun lying around, and did something extremely stupid they would never have done if they didn't already own a gun. The whole "banning firearms lets only the murderers have them" is bull****. Yes, we might save some people from dying in a shooting rampage, but the total amount of shootings would decline significantly.
-
The situation you are describing is an anger problem, coupled with a lack of self-control (ie, discipline), and perhaps a psychological problem as well. People with those kinds of issues shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. Of course, if most people owned them, it would provide an effective deterrent in most cases, IMHO.
-
Or we could just not let anybody have guns, so we don't have to kill them to protect ourselves.
-
Or we could just not let anybody have guns, so we don't have to kill them to protect ourselves.
See though, that's impossible, so the next best solution is to let everyone have them by the logic I've seen so far. :p
-
Or we could just not let anybody have guns, so we don't have to kill them to protect ourselves.
See though, that's impossible, so the next best solution is to let everyone have them by the logic I've seen so far. :p
By the logic you've seen so far. But now that everybody has a gun, the number of impulse shootings goes way up. If it's premeditated murder, neither gun control nor better-armed students would help, because as soon as he takes his gun out, the person's dead. All that can happen is that the shooter is himself killed. If it's a mass shooting, then the "give everyone guns" argument has some merit, but there aren't many of those. If it's an impulse decision to kill someone, say, in an argument, then if there's no gun there to shoot with, the attack is much less likely to be deadly. Of course, the enraged party could carry a knife around, but whatever.
-
In all honesty, I think background checks should be tougher, and some sort of psychological evaluation should be done.
The problem still persists though, that even though you could ban guns tomorrow, that would do very little to get them off the streets. IIRC it's estimated that somewhere around 70 million are confirmed to own a gun in the U.S. That's likely to be a low estimation. How are those guns going to be removed from the black market that forms after a ban is enacted?
-
Or we could just not let anybody have guns, so we don't have to kill them to protect ourselves.
Why don't we make it easier for them and kill ourselves right now?
-
Wow I just realized I misread Mr. Vega's comment.
Sorry, my sarcasm detector is broken today. :(
-
Or we could just not let anybody have guns, so we don't have to kill them to protect ourselves.
Why don't we make it easier for them and kill ourselves right now?
If you're going to ignore my earlier arguements, then waste more time and write a couple paragraphs please.
-
I would, but I'm so lazy (I probably didn't even read your earlier arguments).
My point still stands, though. A total firearm ban is unconstitutional.
-
Banning firearms basically takes them out of the hands of citizens who would use them for a positive purpose, and lets the people who are willing to use them in a negative manner run around practically invincible.
Bollocks. If having such widespread gun ownership "protects" people, explain why so many Americans die every year from guns?
One good example of this being the shootings in which Charles Whitman held himself up on that Texas campus way back when. As well as police coming to aid, many civilians that were probably better equipped also arrived on scene to aid in any way possible with their personal firearms.
That's right! Because having dozens of armed civilians running around in a crisis situation makes everyone so much safer! :doubt:
Police forces are very effective, but they aren't perfect. In many rural areas, and in some urban ones, it can take quite a while before police can arrive on a scene, and in that time lots can happen. If I can neutralize the threat of someone trying to enter my home and harm me, my family, or to steal my personal belongings, I think I should have the right to defend myself from that threat by any means.
I don't suppose you could cough up some statistics that show that owning a gun will provide effective protection against breaking-and-entering? I mean,
The only thing banning firearms does is move the market from the public market, where it can be controlled to some degree, to the black market.
But in doing so it would put firearms out of reach of those who would kill on impulse. Of course, you'd still be able to buy a 9mm just as you can go down to a bad neighbourhood and buy some crack, but that's better than having legal vendors that sell guns with no accompanying registration or background checks. The idea is to make firearms harder to obtain so that it becomes more difficult for killings like this to take place. Nobody is under any illusion that mass-murders and such would stop dead if firearms were banned, simply that they wouldn't be so damn easy to pull off.
Oh, and lastly, banning firearms will do very little to actually get them off the streets, as they are already well saturated throughout the country.
Well, obviously. There would need to be a major initiative to put a dent in gun ownership, but isn't saving just a few lives worth the effort?
-
It seems like no one is listening to me.
Anyone ever heard of the second amendment?
You can't just go reversing the Bill of Rights. It's kind of why we have it, you know how crazy times make governments crazy and start removing civil liberties, but with the BoR, they can't do that.
(BTW, first ten amendments is the Bill of Rights. Everything else was added later.)
-
It seems like no one is listening to me.
Anyone ever heard of the second amendment?
You can't just go reversing the Bill of Rights. It's kind of why we have it, you know how crazy times make governments crazy and start removing civil liberties, but with the BoR, they can't do that.
The Second Amendment is a hold-over from a time when the United States didn't have a standing army, and instead relied upon militia forces to protect the nation from hostile invasion. Logically, to have a solid militia you would need to have widespread gun ownership amongst the population, but modern armies have superceded this need and now widespread gun ownership serves only to protect people from the widespread ownership of guns.
In a nutshell: The Second Amendment is woefully out of date and requires revision if not complete erasure to better suit modern society.
-
It seems like no one is listening to me.
Anyone ever heard of the second amendment?
You can't just go reversing the Bill of Rights. It's kind of why we have it, you know how crazy times make governments crazy and start removing civil liberties, but with the BoR, they can't do that.
The Second Amendment is a hold-over from a time when the United States didn't have a standing army, and instead relied upon militia forces to protect the nation from hostile invasion. Logically, to have a solid militia you would need to have widespread gun ownership amongst the population, but modern armies have superceded this need and now widespread gun ownership serves only to protect people from the widespread ownership of guns.
In a nutshell: The Second Amendment is woefully out of date and requires revision if not complete erasure to better suit modern society.
But when you think about it... you can't invade Middle Eastern countries with a militia... suddenly this whole thing is looking a lot better... :D
-
It seems like no one is listening to me.
Anyone ever heard of the second amendment?
You can't just go reversing the Bill of Rights. It's kind of why we have it, you know how crazy times make governments crazy and start removing civil liberties, but with the BoR, they can't do that.
The Second Amendment is a hold-over from a time when the United States didn't have a standing army, and instead relied upon militia forces to protect the nation from hostile invasion. Logically, to have a solid militia you would need to have widespread gun ownership amongst the population, but modern armies have superceded this need and now widespread gun ownership serves only to protect people from the widespread ownership of guns.
In a nutshell: The Second Amendment is woefully out of date and requires revision if not complete erasure to better suit modern society.
Yes I know that.
But it doesn't matter. It's a right that the people have. The Bill of Rights was the only reason some of the states signed the constitution, and that second amendment was certainly one of them, even if it was like that. Also, remember when I said crazy times make crazy people ( :ick: ), it is certainly true that a large portion of the U.S. is stupid, and with the repealment of that right would possibly create some instability in some of the "less civilized" regions.
If it was really as obsolete as you say, then the government would have repealed it by now.
EDIT: Honestly, if the second amendment was not there, I would be all for the ban of guns.
Just so you know...
-
It seems like no one is listening to me.
Anyone ever heard of the second amendment?
You can't just go reversing the Bill of Rights. It's kind of why we have it, you know how crazy times make governments crazy and start removing civil liberties, but with the BoR, they can't do that.
The Second Amendment is a hold-over from a time when the United States didn't have a standing army, and instead relied upon militia forces to protect the nation from hostile invasion. Logically, to have a solid militia you would need to have widespread gun ownership amongst the population, but modern armies have superceded this need and now widespread gun ownership serves only to protect people from the widespread ownership of guns.
In a nutshell: The Second Amendment is woefully out of date and requires revision if not complete erasure to better suit modern society.
Yes I know that.
But it doesn't matter. It's a right that the people have. The Bill of Rights was the only reason some of the states signed the constitution, and that second amendment was certainly one of them.
If it was really as obsolete as you say, then the government would have repealed it by now.
So the reason we shouldn't repeal it is because we haven't already done so? (Hold on, I can't believe I'm saying "we".) It's a right of the people because it was made one by the government of the United States, and the government of the United States can remove it, with, of course, the ratification of the representatives of the public.
-
The US is more of a republic than a democracy. (representational democracy essentially is a republic)
-
Mefustae, I keep reading your post over and I can't figure out if you're totally against legal firearms ownership at all, or just somewhat extreme in favor of responsible ownership (i.e. stricter controls on the 'who' as opposed to the 'what').
Mind clearing that up before I respond and discover that I totally mis-read you? :)
-
Mefustae, I keep reading your post over and I can't figure out if you're totally against legal firearms ownership at all, or just somewhat extreme in favor of responsible ownership (i.e. stricter controls on the 'who' as opposed to the 'what').
Mind clearing that up before I respond and discover that I totally mis-read you? :)
While I advocate the notion of complete restriction, such a hope is merely a pipe-dream. Hence, I support the idea of tougher restrictions on how one obtains firearms and who is allowed to do so.
So, yeah, while my standing regarding firearm ownership itself is a bit ambiguous, it's more my disgust towards the notion that gun ownership is somehow 'essential' or otherwise needed in modern US society, where one of the biggest dangers in life is getting held up by someone with a gun, that defines my position in the argument.
-
In a nutshell: The Second Amendment is woefully out of date and requires revision if not complete erasure to better suit modern society.
You, sir, are dangerous.
What, pray tell, is to hold a representative government responsible, if it is the only power wielding weapons? People tend to abuse power if they know they can get away with it. I do believe the crime rate in Britain / Australia has gone up, am I correct? See, I don't believe the weapon involved matters much. Someone that's totally snapped, blown his lid, you think he's actually going to look around for a gun, and, not finding one, take a few breaths, count to ten, and just relax? You are aware that you can physically beat someone to death, and that this does happen from time to time, aren't you (sarcastic, don't take that personally). Baseball bats make the aforementioned a bit easier. Ban all baseball bats, maybe? Outlaw martial arts, perhaps? Oh, now we just had a recent example of alternative weapons a little while ago... box cutters anyone? People who lose it will usually find something to harm the person they're upset with. BTW, they don't just have guns lying around, and then when they're mad, they grab it and shoot someone. They keep guns whereever they put them, in a closet, under their bed, etc. It is unlikely that someone who has a gun is just going to have it lying around... BTW, perhaps while we're banning everything, maybe ban pencils from school? I do seem to recall one or two instances of someone being fatally stabbed with a pencil before. Those you do find just lying around.
Does anyone catch my point here? The only difference that a firearm makes it in its range and power. There are, however, other things more powerful then a firearm (4,000 pound vehicles come to mind.) Now, if you ban firearms, and the only people owning firearms are the government and the police, take a guess who's the only other group that's going to have them... bingo, the crime world. Also, like I said, having an armed citizenry does tend to curtail the government somewhat.
So, what do you think so far? Please try to avoid using anything unduly provoking, or I shall have to sick m on you to make sarcastic footshot remarks; I'm sure he'd be tickled pink. :drevil: :lol:
-
Or we could just not let anybody have guns, so we don't have to kill them to protect ourselves.
Why don't we make it easier for them and kill ourselves right now?
If everyone had a gun and knew how to use it, it would radically change things. Pulling a gun in anger in a public area would quite possibly result in serious injury or death, and actually using it would assure one or the other.
Because everyone would have the power to kill in self-defense, the immediate consequences of pulling or using a gun for something bad would be far, far, worse than before.
Quite simply, I think that most people don't want the kind of responsibility that owning a gun would force them to take on. So instead of taking action to give themselves the same power as the would-be perpetrator, they choose the only other route: force the would-be perpetrator down to their level. Hence why gun control is such an attractive proposition.
Before believing an argument that either complete gun control or lack thereof will make any significant difference, I'd want to see some actual studies of places that the policy has been implemented.
-
Britain.. Australia.
-
What, pray tell, is to hold a representative government responsible, if it is the only power wielding weapons? People tend to abuse power if they know they can get away with it. [...] Also, like I said, having an armed citizenry does tend to curtail the government somewhat.
Come again? What does that have to do with the issue? Please tell me you're not attempting to paint government as a Machiavellian organisation that will brutally oppress the citizenry the second they let down their guard? :rolleyes:
See, I don't believe the weapon involved matters much. Someone that's totally snapped, blown his lid, you think he's actually going to look around for a gun, and, not finding one, take a few breaths, count to ten, and just relax?
The idea is that by taking away readily-available firearms, the number of impulse-killings will be curtailed. If someone who wants to kill his school-chums has to go through a lengthly process to get a firearm, or can't get a firearm at all, then the chances of him or her working out the issue in another, preferably non-violent way, go up. Of course, the lack of firearms would never stop impulse killings or mass murders, but you've got to keep in mind that it's a little difficult to go on a murdering-spree and kill 32 people with a knife or similar weapon. Had firearms not been so easily accessible, those news reports would probably read "Virginia Tech stabbings: 2 confirmed dead".
You are aware that you can physically beat someone to death, and that this does happen from time to time, aren't you (sarcastic, don't take that personally). Baseball bats make the aforementioned a bit easier. Ban all baseball bats, maybe? Outlaw martial arts, perhaps? Oh, now we just had a recent example of alternative weapons a little while ago... box cutters anyone? People who lose it will usually find something to harm the person they're upset with. [...] BTW, perhaps while we're banning everything, maybe ban pencils from school? I do seem to recall one or two instances of someone being fatally stabbed with a pencil before. Those you do find just lying around.
Your argument is completely irrelevant. Restricting access to firearms would not end violent crimes, but doing so would undeniably limit the power to commit violent acts.
Moreover, taking your example to the extreme would mean people should be allowed to own and bear Hydrogen Bombs, because if they can kill with a pencil, then what difference does it make?
Now, if you ban firearms, and the only people owning firearms are the government and the police, take a guess who's the only other group that's going to have them... bingo, the crime world.
So you support vigilantism?
-
Hydrogen bombs cannot be used for self-defense; they are purely offensive / retaliatory / MAD weapons... (sane) countries, yes, individuals, of course not.
So you support vigilantism?
No. But until the day police can respond within 30 seconds of a call...
The idea is that by taking away readily-available firearms, the number of impulse-killings will be curtailed. If someone who wants to kill his school-chums has to go through a lengthly process to get a firearm, or can't get a firearm at all, then the chances of him or her working out the issue in another, preferably non-violent way, go up. Of course, the lack of firearms would never stop impulse killings or mass murders, but you've got to keep in mind that it's a little difficult to go on a murdering-spree and kill 32 people with a knife or similar weapon. Had firearms not been so easily accessible, those news reports would probably read "Virginia Tech stabbings: 2 confirmed dead".
Cuts down on the number of people that can be hurt per incident, yes. Not the number of actual incidents... except for the logic that the incidents themselves would drop if more people owned firearms... because it wouldn't be worth it to try and kill a bunch of people and then instead you end up maybe killing one or two, and being quickly blown away...
-
Britain.. Australia.
You mean two of the first world countries with the lowest death by firearms rate in the world?
By the logic dictated in this thread, one would expect almost every country in the world but the US to be a chaotic, violent cesspool.
-
Not death by firearms... what's the murder rate? The burglary rate? Up or down?
-
Not death by firearms... what's the murder rate? The burglary rate? Up or down?
That has nothing to do with this thread, unless you can give us a link to statistics demonstrating a definite link between firearms ownership and burglary. Just saying "Australia hasn't got very many guns and thus has a higher burglary rate" is outright fallacious without further evidence.
-
Hence my question.
-
Hence my question.
Homicide rates in Canada, Britain, and Austrailia are all significantly lower than the United States. All firearms-related crime is also significantly lower, including the number of suicides.
The United States pays for its gun culture with a much higher proportion of violent crime involving death and specifically crimes committed using firearms.
That said, the difference in rates is likely due to cultural differences concerning firearms and violence, as opposed to sheer availability of firearms themselves. A gun ban in the US will not bring its crime rates in line with the other countries named - the problem goes much deeper than sheer availability.
-
It's a right of the people because it was made one by the government of the United States, and the government of the United States can remove it...
Whoa, slow down there. It's a right of the people because they already had that right, along with the others listed in the Bill of Rights and many others not listed therein. The government does not grant rights and cannot take them away. They can recognize rights, but that has no bearing on whether the rights exist or not.
As for whether or not gun control works:
Breitbart, January 25, 2007 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paFiguresThurs18Crimefiguresud2Substitute&show_article=1)
Labour has been accused of losing control of gun crime as new figures show a sharp rise in armed robberies.
Guns were used in 4,120 robberies last year - a 10% jump - including a 9% rise to 1,439 in the number of street robberies where guns were used.
There was also a rapid and unexplained increase in the number of times householders were confronted in their own homes by armed criminals. Residential firearms robberies show a 46% leap, a record 645 cases in England and Wales - up 204 on the previous year and four times the level recorded in 2000-01.
The Guardian, February 24, 2007 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2020346,00.html)
Gun ownership is widespread in Lithuania; anyone who does not have a criminal record is eligible to have a licence. According to police statistics, of the 294 murders committed in the country last year, only 11 involved a firearm, encouraging the widely held view that the greater the number of weapons in circulation, the less crime is committed. "Maybe Britain should consider changing its gun laws and legalising weapons," said Mr Milevskis.
Furthermore, after Texas passed a concealed-carry gun law in 1995, Texas murder rates dropped 50% from 1995 to 2000, 1.58 times faster than the decline in the national murder rate. (National Center for Policy Analysis, May 26, 2000.)
-
OK here are some facts.
Most people who decide to rob a small store are first-time offenders who mask their face. Many of those people have no intent to hurt anyone. We have never banned ski-masks in public.
This is similar. Most people who will go on rampage are known to have psychological problems, generally banned from legally owning a gun. They're hell-bent on getting a gun. So, what do they do? They leave the legality of obtaining a gun to the knowledge of the authorities. They buy a gun from the black market. Then, even the legal authorities won't know they have it until they use it or are busted.
A significant percent of gun crimes are committed with ILLEGAL firearms. Most LEGAL firearms are either hobbies or protection. Now, there should be more lax gun laws for who can get one, but tighten up restrictions on things like background checks mandatory, tests that are actually HARD (not answering NO to every question), and serial numbers wrote on more than one place, perhaps on the firing mechanism?
Ban guns and take away any hope for vigilante help in a dangerous situation.
Let me share with you guys a short story about what happened to my friend's family:
The family were at the time living in a two-story townhouse in an urban area. The father is a police officer, the mother stays at home, and there are two children who aren't even teenagers yet. Well, one day there was some criminal activity near; a burglar broke into the house. In desperate defense of the family, the mother goes to a coffee-table and pulls out a firearm, loads it, and rallies the two children and herself upstairs. Standing on the staircase, she takes the safety off, and points at the door. The burglar is rummaging through her house, the defensive mother ready to kill any mother****er who opens the door. After a few minutes, the burglar leaves the house without trying the door she was protecting with her husband's gun and her own life.
Truth is in that story; her own situation was exactly why people want legal firearms in their home. If properly training they will be put to good use. If that burglar would have opened that door, there would be one less scumbag on this planet; his death justified by the damage that he might have incurred.
Take weapons from possible victims and you're asking for a problem.
-
Hence my question.
Homicide rates in Canada, Britain, and Austrailia are all significantly lower than the United States. All firearms-related crime is also significantly lower, including the number of suicides.
The United States pays for its gun culture with a much higher proportion of violent crime involving death and specifically crimes committed using firearms.
That said, the difference in rates is likely due to cultural differences concerning firearms and violence, as opposed to sheer availability of firearms themselves. A gun ban in the US will not bring its crime rates in line with the other countries named - the problem goes much deeper than sheer availability.
The US doesn't necessarily pay for having a "gun culture"; we pay because of ethnic divisions. Look at countries with the lowest violent crime rate: Switzerland and Japan. Both are nearly ethnically homogeneous, meaning no racial tension or religious violence between the various groups. The US is on the entire other end of the spectrum, however.
So you support vigilantism?
How the **** is self-defense all of a sudden vigilantism? Frankly, it's better to be able to pull out a handgun and blast an armed robber in the leg rather than have to dial the phone, wait for an answer, then wait for the police to show up at your house.
Your argument is completely irrelevant. Restricting access to firearms would not end violent crimes, but doing so would undeniably limit the power to commit violent acts.
Anyone who wants to commit a violent act badly enough can find a way to; if they want to, they'll find a way to get a firearm, or they'll just some other, less humane instrument (box cutter, baseball bats). Banning firearms for violent crimes makes about as much sense as banning automobiles because of automobile-related fatalities.
Come again? What does that have to do with the issue? Please tell me you're not attempting to paint government as a Machiavellian organisation that will brutally oppress the citizenry the second they let down their guard? :rolleyes:
Yeah, actually, that's what it is. It's extremely naive to believe that government is inherently good; the people in power are still people in power, and unless you can get a Congress full of Cincinnatus's or George Washingtons, they'll always try to increase their power.
Remember that thing called the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, all of the anti-terror legislation passed by Parliament, CCTV, wiretapping, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus? Don't try to tell me government doesn't want to take rights away. :doubt:
-
Can someone tell me where this quote is originally from?
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I've heard it before, but I don't know the source. I think it's pretty much true, though. Which is why we have checks and balances. Including an armed citizenry.
-
Not death by firearms... what's the murder rate? The burglary rate? Up or down?
Burglary rate - Down (http://www.uwa.edu.au/media/statements/media_statements_2007/april/burglary)
Murder rate - Down and Up (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0e5fa1cc95cd093c4a2568110007852b/669c5a997eaed891ca2568a900139405!OpenDocument) (down in some, up in others)
Can someone tell me where this quote is originally from?
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Lord Acton - here (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/288200.html)
-
It is generally heard when describing absolute monarchs, dictators, emperors. Once one person can have complete control, history and logic say they will be corrupted, no matter the deed they did to get into power. One thing; those are stats for Australia. The USA is where we are arguing about. Check out the US's crime rates. Also note that states such as Texas allow you to carry a gun anywhere. Gun crime is way down because of this; anyone near you could have a gun close-by. If there is a burglary you witness, you go to where you carry your gun, draw it, and stop the criminal. Vigilante has its good points and its bad points; we already have a good police force though they're a little slow. No need for them to start executing criminals because they THINK the criminal did something bad; they hold them until proper authorities will arrive. It's called a Civilian Arrest, iirc. You can hold law-breakers until legal authorities arrive and take-over.
-
A significant percent of gun crimes are committed with ILLEGAL firearms. Most LEGAL firearms are either hobbies or protection. Now, there should be more lax gun laws for who can get one, but tighten up restrictions on things like background checks mandatory, tests that are actually HARD (not answering NO to every question), and serial numbers wrote on more than one place, perhaps on the firing mechanism?
Actually, that's not entirely true. Legally owned and possessed firearms contribute to many deaths in domestic situations every year. But that is the exception - for the most part, violent crimes involving firearms use weapons illegally obtained.
The US doesn't necessarily pay for having a "gun culture"; we pay because of ethnic divisions. Look at countries with the lowest violent crime rate: Switzerland and Japan. Both are nearly ethnically homogeneous, meaning no racial tension or religious violence between the various groups. The US is on the entire other end of the spectrum, however.
Explain Canada and Britain then - both are just as ethnically diverse as the United States. Yet, last I looked, violence RATES involving firearms in Canada was 1/10th of that of the United States.
Frankly, it's better to be able to pull out a handgun and blast an armed robber in the leg rather than have to dial the phone, wait for an answer, then wait for the police to show up at your house.
If you're shooting a robber in the leg to stop him, you're not only foolish, but you're not acting in self-defense. Unless you're a trained expert marksman with nerves of steel, you're going to be lucky to hit a person you have to shoot from anything more than 10 feet away (which, I might add, is half the distance required to get a shot off safely before you can be rushed, as taught in law enforcement Use Of Force [which I've completed]). You're not going to be doing any fancy Hollywood shooting either - you're going to panic, and your only hope of an accurate shot is center of mass.
Do you know why police often fire upwards of 50 rounds of ammunition when they get into a firefight? It's not because the "bad guy" is invulnerable or has X number of hitpoints - its because in that sort of situation, the adrenaline gets going, and most people can't aim for ****, including highly trained police officers.
There is nothing that pisses me off more than people who say they're going to stop a robber by shooting him in the arm or leg. Frankly, you're going to be bloody lucky to hit him at all, even at point-blank range.
-
One thing; those are stats for Australia. The USA is where we are arguing about.
He was arguing that Australia's crime rate was increasing. Read what he asked.
-
Banning firearms basically takes them out of the hands of citizens who would use them for a positive purpose, and lets the people who are willing to use them in a negative manner run around practically invincible.
Bollocks. If having such widespread gun ownership "protects" people, explain why so many Americans die every year from guns?
One good example of this being the shootings in which Charles Whitman held himself up on that Texas campus way back when. As well as police coming to aid, many civilians that were probably better equipped also arrived on scene to aid in any way possible with their personal firearms.
That's right! Because having dozens of armed civilians running around in a crisis situation makes everyone so much safer! :doubt:
Police forces are very effective, but they aren't perfect. In many rural areas, and in some urban ones, it can take quite a while before police can arrive on a scene, and in that time lots can happen. If I can neutralize the threat of someone trying to enter my home and harm me, my family, or to steal my personal belongings, I think I should have the right to defend myself from that threat by any means.
I don't suppose you could cough up some statistics that show that owning a gun will provide effective protection against breaking-and-entering? I mean,
The only thing banning firearms does is move the market from the public market, where it can be controlled to some degree, to the black market.
But in doing so it would put firearms out of reach of those who would kill on impulse. Of course, you'd still be able to buy a 9mm just as you can go down to a bad neighbourhood and buy some crack, but that's better than having legal vendors that sell guns with no accompanying registration or background checks. The idea is to make firearms harder to obtain so that it becomes more difficult for killings like this to take place. Nobody is under any illusion that mass-murders and such would stop dead if firearms were banned, simply that they wouldn't be so damn easy to pull off.
Oh, and lastly, banning firearms will do very little to actually get them off the streets, as they are already well saturated throughout the country.
Well, obviously. There would need to be a major initiative to put a dent in gun ownership, but isn't saving just a few lives worth the effort?
#1. Because people want to kill other people. Even if there was some way to get guns off the streets, I think the deaths would just transfer over into people dying via stabbings and bludgeoning.
#2. Got a point there.
#3. Could you come up with some to prove me wrong?
#4. That's right, I'd rather see it made much harder to purchase them though, not a total ban.
#5. Explain an effective way to clean them up without spending billions of dollars on, a likely unsuccessful, program.
Just to make my position clear on this:
I DO support a U.S. citizen's right to own firearms.
I DO support gun control.
I DO NOT support a total ban.
The fact that this man was not even a U.S. Citizen. That fact is enough to make me support tougher gun laws, but not a total ban.
I think the age to purchase a pistol should be raised to around 25-28.
The age to purchase a rifle should be raised to 21.
Assault weapons should require special permits, and that someone go through a full psychological evaluation, at their expense.
Background checks should remain in place.
Lastly, I'm going to go for a bit of a craziness here and say that wide spread gun ownership provides some basic means for the public to revolt, and to defend itself in the event of an attack. However unlikely either of those would be.
-
The only problem with not a total ban is that to make a big difference, you would need too make some mega crazy restriction that would be a huge hassle.
-
Explain Canada and Britain then - both are just as ethnically diverse as the United States. Yet, last I looked, violence RATES involving firearms in Canada was 1/10th of that of the United States.
It helps that Canada also has 1/10th the population of the United States too. Fewer people, fewer crimes committed. Simple as that.
If you're shooting a robber in the leg to stop him, you're not only foolish, but you're not acting in self-defense. Unless you're a trained expert marksman with nerves of steel, you're going to be lucky to hit a person you have to shoot from anything more than 10 feet away (which, I might add, is half the distance required to get a shot off safely before you can be rushed, as taught in law enforcement Use Of Force [which I've completed]). You're not going to be doing any fancy Hollywood shooting either - you're going to panic, and your only hope of an accurate shot is center of mass.
What makes you think that someone who A) knows his house better than the intruder and/or B) possibly knows how to use a firearm fairly well should he own one, wouldn't be able to get off a decent shot or two at an intruder? I mean, honestly, how hard can it be to get a shot off at somebody from down a hallway even if the defender is in a panic? Or in the kitchen?
Alright, I'll admit the leg thing was inaccurate; it was actually intended to be more poetic imagery than anything. The fact is, what's more detrimental to a criminal, a panicked, cowering resident, or knowing that someone may have a handgun hiding under their bed? At any rate, what's the chance that a criminal is going to come up with the exact analysis that you just came up with? A guy with a gun is just that; a guy with a gun. Guns can hurt, even criminals know this.
-
Actually, this topic brings up a funny story about my Great Aunt.
About twenty years ago my great aunt was the victim of a home invasion. Her and her husband, who has sadly passed since then, were both asleep at the time. When the door opened, she woke up, and stayed in bed for a moment listening, trying to see if anything was happening, hoping a light would come on and it would be someone she knew. Whoever it was that came in started rummaging through drawers, and moving through the house, without turning the lights on. So she went for the .38 that was in her dresser drawer. She got in here doorway and jumped out pointing the gun at the crook. She started pulling the trigger and nothing but a "click, click" was heard. Junior, her husband, had taken the bullets out a while back for exactly this reason. After that, Junior woke up and called the cops, and the guy was picked up.
The point of this condensed story being that, even if you don't fire a gun, just the mere sight of it, or sound of cocking, is usually enough to scare someone away.
Actually, I have a personal experience with nothing but a couple of warning shots scaring someone off, but it's kinda late to post that one right now. I'll probably post it tomorrow.
-
My grandfather scared a peeping tom out from his neighbor's window with an unloaded rifle once. :lol:
-
The point of this condensed story being that, even if you don't fire a gun, just the mere sight of it, or sound of cocking, is usually enough to scare someone away.
Actually, I have a personal experience with nothing but a couple of warning shots scaring someone off, but it's kinda late to post that one right now. I'll probably post it tomorrow.
That is exactly why people should have guns; even unloaded guns will defend you (and no I'm not talking about pistol-whipping). What could be interesting is allowing anyone to have a gun, but requiring background checks for ammo and firing mech.
-
It helps that Canada also has 1/10th the population of the United States too. Fewer people, fewer crimes committed. Simple as that.
Which is why I emphasized RATES, another word for which is proportion. It takes into account population size relativity.
What makes you think that someone who A) knows his house better than the intruder and/or B) possibly knows how to use a firearm fairly well should he own one, wouldn't be able to get off a decent shot or two at an intruder? I mean, honestly, how hard can it be to get a shot off at somebody from down a hallway even if the defender is in a panic? Or in the kitchen?
Alright, I'll admit the leg thing was inaccurate; it was actually intended to be more poetic imagery than anything. The fact is, what's more detrimental to a criminal, a panicked, cowering resident, or knowing that someone may have a handgun hiding under their bed? At any rate, what's the chance that a criminal is going to come up with the exact analysis that you just came up with? A guy with a gun is just that; a guy with a gun. Guns can hurt, even criminals know this.
You ever have the oh-so-pleasant experience of force response under stress? It's HARD. Really hard. Especially because many people who own guns don't really have an appreciation for how to use them properly. Think of it this way: if you divide a room into 9 mm squares, how many squares in it don't cover an assailant's body? That's the number of chances you have of just missing entirely.
Yeah, there's definitely going to be an element of uncertainty of a criminal aggressively going up against a fellow with a gun - on the other hand, they may not know you have a gun. Or they may think you don't know how to use it. Or this may make them more desperate and inclined to use their own weapon.
I'm not saying people shouldn't defend themselves - I'm saying people need to appreciate the difficulties involved. It won't be a simple matter of yanking your 'piece' from under the bed and popping a few shots at your attacker, and anyone who thinks this way is probably going to end up dead, maimed, or in jail.
-
That is exactly why people should have guns; even unloaded guns will defend you (and no I'm not talking about pistol-whipping). What could be interesting is allowing anyone to have a gun, but requiring background checks for ammo and firing mech.
Pointing an unloaded gun at someone who has intent to commit a crime is a good way to either die or end up in jail yourself. Self-defense legislation requires a follow-through. If a situation is not threatening enough to actually use force, then brandishing a gun is illegal in most jurisdictions.
In Swantz's case, depending on his jurisdiction and specific circumstances, popping off a few warnings shots could have landed him in court quite easily.
-
That's another law I think should be changed.
When someone is intent on causing you bodily harm, or harming/stealing your personal property, you should be allowed to use whatever force necessary to protect either. Curling up in a corner and just letting them have their way does no good.
-
That's another law I think should be changed.
When someone is intent on causing you bodily harm, or harming/stealing your personal property, you should be allowed to use whatever force necessary to protect either. Curling up in a corner and just letting them have their way does no good.
But, to play the Devil's Advocate:
1. Is your "stuff" worth more than another person's life?
2. How do we know their intent is to cause bodily harm? That's a pretty wide definition. What if I showed up on your lawn and said I hated your guts? Is that intent to cause harm? OK, so maybe I show up and say I'd like to beat the crap out of you. But is that intent to cause harm? See what I'm getting at here?
People have a limited right to self-defense and to the defense of others entrenched in law. Exceptions to normally prosecuted behaviours due to mitigating circumstances are presently left to prosecutors and the courts, as they should be.
Part of the price of living in a society governed by law is that everyone is supposed to abide by them, and those who don't are dealt with accordingly by the legal system. Principles of law are fundamentally incompatible with vigilante ideals.
-
1. It's not so much the "stuff" as the principle of the thing with me. While some people may not understand the difference between good and bad, and see stealing as a means of surviving, they also should understand that they risk retribution. The legal system hardly provides any real retribution. People who commit robbery usually get off with a simple slap on the wrist, or may not even be caught. If someone knows they risk being shot when they try to steal from someone's home, they may think twice about doing it in the first place.
2. I should have been more clear. When someone shows "clear" intent to cause bodily harm. Such as rushing you, or attempting to harm you with a weapon of their own first.
-
You ever have the oh-so-pleasant experience of force response under stress? It's HARD. Really hard. Especially because many people who own guns don't really have an appreciation for how to use them properly. Think of it this way: if you divide a room into 9 mm squares, how many squares in it don't cover an assailant's body? That's the number of chances you have of just missing entirely.
Yeah, there's definitely going to be an element of uncertainty of a criminal aggressively going up against a fellow with a gun - on the other hand, they may not know you have a gun. Or they may think you don't know how to use it. Or this may make them more desperate and inclined to use their own weapon.
I'm not saying people shouldn't defend themselves - I'm saying people need to appreciate the difficulties involved. It won't be a simple matter of yanking your 'piece' from under the bed and popping a few shots at your attacker, and anyone who thinks this way is probably going to end up dead, maimed, or in jail.
Hmm, even point and shoot from the hip has better odds than that. What you're saying is that you have as much chance of shooting yourself as shooting the attacker; you make no sense.
-
Hmm, even point and shoot from the hip has better odds than that. What you're saying is that you have as much chance of shooting yourself as shooting the attacker; you make no sense.
Actually, it makes perfect sense.
Law enforcement staff are trained that you require at minimum 21 feet of distance between yourself and an attacker, when prepared, to draw and fire a weapon in order to stop them. That's when you're prepared for it. To fire a weapon before an attacker can rush you when it has been drawn and aimed requires a minimum of 8 feet. That's when you have the gun (or whatever) aimed at the guy's chest. Any closer than that and he could stab you, knock your hand, etc. If your weapon is in your hand but not aimed, you need about 12-15 feet, minimum.
How many houses have you been in where you would have anywhere near that much room between you and an attacker? Furthermore, the attacker is prepared for the situation. They are willing to use violence toward their own goals. Is everyone who owns a gun for "self-defense" going to be willing to kill another human over a TV set? Or may they hesitate?
In a home invasion or any sort of attack in confined spaces, unless you are trained and completely prepared, you have a much better chance of being maimed or killed by an attacker, even with your own weapon, than you have of stopping them. How's that for sobering reality? The odds are always in the favour of the aggressor.
I've worked in both security and federal law enforcement; I've been in some ugly situations. I know the technical details and the statistics. Anyone who tells you its a simple matter of firing a warning shot, shooting someone in the leg, or getting into a gunfight in the living room doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. If you want to be serious about self-defense and defense of your home, then you'd better get some training on the subject, not justshove a gun (especially an unloaded "detterent gun", that's even more idiotic) in your bedside table.
-
Well, you're assuming the attacker knows as much about your residence as you do, and also that he knows where you are. You're also assuming said attacker can see you, so you're assuming a daylight raid (not likely, IMHO). If you wake up and an unauthorized person is in your house, I'm betting you'd at least be willing to make a barricade of your own room (ie, shut & lock your bedroom dorr), and get ready to serve hot lead to whoever came smashing through it. Now, if you had little kids, you'd probably take a more offensive stance. Of course, you call the police, when they show up 10-15 minutes later, maybe they can help if the matter isn't already sorted one way or another.
Oh, one more thing: I've heard before that the best weapon for home defense is a sawed off shotgun. Then you don't have to worry so much about accuracy.
And, then again, if you have an alarm system, you may save yourself all of this trouble in the first place, unless the attacker finds & disables it.
-
An alarm system doesn't eliminate that whole time lag between the alert being sent out, and the police getting there. It does help though.
-
I meant that it might scare the intruder off. Especially if it turns on the lights & is really loud.
-
The average burglary runs approximately 4 to 10 minutes. More organized criminals will find out how long it takes for the police to arrive on scene on a GOOD DAY. They'll aim for that time, minus 2 minutes. In, out, and gone in a few minutes. If I had anyone else in my house and someone walked in, be sure to God I'd do everything to stop them. Friends, girlfriends, wives, siblings, children, parents, &c. I would make sure that bastard would at least be in pain after commiting a crime.
I consider my stuff above a criminal; a criminal is no more important if they stoop to that level to enter someone's house they forfeit all rights as a person.
The US legal system is quite frankly ****ed up. A burglar broke into a woman's house, stepped on a shard of broken glass, and successfully sued the woman who owned that house! That burglar should have been put in jail for life! Instead, he got a slap on the wrist and millions of dollars!
-
Heh, check this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIllRdSzSug&mode=related&search=) out!
-
The average burglary runs approximately 4 to 10 minutes. More organized criminals will find out how long it takes for the police to arrive on scene on a GOOD DAY. They'll aim for that time, minus 2 minutes. In, out, and gone in a few minutes. If I had anyone else in my house and someone walked in, be sure to God I'd do everything to stop them. Friends, girlfriends, wives, siblings, children, parents, &c. I would make sure that bastard would at least be in pain after commiting a crime.
I consider my stuff above a criminal; a criminal is no more important if they stoop to that level to enter someone's house they forfeit all rights as a person.
The US legal system is quite frankly ****ed up. A burglar broke into a woman's house, stepped on a shard of broken glass, and successfully sued the woman who owned that house! That burglar should have been put in jail for life! Instead, he got a slap on the wrist and millions of dollars!
And now we get into the whole death penalty debate. Do you get to take away somebody's life, simply because they want to take your things? If there's a bully in your kid's schoolyard who takes your kid's lunch money, (You or I may not have kids, but this is just an analogy) then should you show up in a car and pop a cap in his face? Think what has to happen to somebody before they want to break into someone's house. Doesn't that person deserve sympathy, instead of your bullets? Do you treat a person as an inanimate object, simply because they made a mistake? I can't speak for the US justice system, and I doubt your story (has that woman ever heard of a lawyer?), but a burglar does not get life without parole in any justice system I've ever heard of.
-
Hmm, even point and shoot from the hip has better odds than that. What you're saying is that you have as much chance of shooting yourself as shooting the attacker; you make no sense.
Actually, it makes perfect sense.
Law enforcement staff are trained that you require at minimum 21 feet of distance between yourself and an attacker, when prepared, to draw and fire a weapon in order to stop them. That's when you're prepared for it. To fire a weapon before an attacker can rush you when it has been drawn and aimed requires a minimum of 8 feet. That's when you have the gun (or whatever) aimed at the guy's chest. Any closer than that and he could stab you, knock your hand, etc. If your weapon is in your hand but not aimed, you need about 12-15 feet, minimum.
How many houses have you been in where you would have anywhere near that much room between you and an attacker? Furthermore, the attacker is prepared for the situation. They are willing to use violence toward their own goals. Is everyone who owns a gun for "self-defense" going to be willing to kill another human over a TV set? Or may they hesitate?
You can still point the weapon in the general direction of the enemy and press the trigger, the chances are completely different than "split the room into many random 9mm squares and randomize". It does not work like that! Pointing a gun into the general direction of your enemy is almost instinctive - you can easily hit or hurt an enemy at under 10m distances without using sights at all. It might not kill them, but it will propably stall or incapacitate them.
I have trained close quarters combat with automatic and semiautomatic weapons, grenades and explosive ****. It's extremely difficult and I wouldn't want to face someone who knows what to do under those circumastances, unless I had some comrades protecting me. And grenades and stuff. Provable presence of a ballistic weapon has, in itself, a huge deterrance value.
In a home invasion or any sort of attack in confined spaces, unless you are trained and completely prepared, you have a much better chance of being maimed or killed by an attacker, even with your own weapon, than you have of stopping them. How's that for sobering reality? The odds are always in the favour of the aggressor.
But a weapon does not work like that. Even if you coldly calculate the distances, while taking note about general ballistics and hit percentages of said type of weapon under stress, the presence of a gun itself is a suppressive force.
Of course, if you don't know how to handle a gun and face someone who knows just how to counter a gun in close encounter, you're already ****ed - or, if you face someone who knows what to do, you're probably ****ed no matter what you do.
According to my training and the army guidebooks I waded through, when adversaries with similar training, similar weaponry and similar numbers meet in a built-up area, the defender has a slight advantage over the aggressor. In one-on-one situations the odds favour the defender.
I've worked in both security and federal law enforcement; I've been in some ugly situations. I know the technical details and the statistics. Anyone who tells you its a simple matter of firing a warning shot, shooting someone in the leg, or getting into a gunfight in the living room doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. If you want to be serious about self-defense and defense of your home, then you'd better get some training on the subject, not justshove a gun (especially an unloaded "detterent gun", that's even more idiotic) in your bedside table.
Shooting someone in the leg is much more difficult than shooting a shot that is intended as lethal or noncapacitating. I
A gun is a tool - it's useless unless you know how to use it. In close combat guns, even assault rifles, loose to something more... instinctive, like a knife, unless you know how to deal with them and how to use your weapons (not very difficult). However, ranged weapons give you much more time to deal with your enemy than a melee weapon, but that requires training. Owning a gun does not constitute as training. If you have a gun, you can simply point it and press the trigger, even when injured.
-
The point of this condensed story being that, even if you don't fire a gun, just the mere sight of it, or sound of cocking, is usually enough to scare someone away.
Actually, I have a personal experience with nothing but a couple of warning shots scaring someone off, but it's kinda late to post that one right now. I'll probably post it tomorrow.
That is exactly why people should have guns; even unloaded guns will defend you (and no I'm not talking about pistol-whipping). What could be interesting is allowing anyone to have a gun, but requiring background checks for ammo and firing mech.
Why not just give everybody any gun they want?
-
define gun
=firearm
define firearm
do howitzers apply?
-
The point of this condensed story being that, even if you don't fire a gun, just the mere sight of it, or sound of cocking, is usually enough to scare someone away.
Actually, I have a personal experience with nothing but a couple of warning shots scaring someone off, but it's kinda late to post that one right now. I'll probably post it tomorrow.
That is exactly why people should have guns; even unloaded guns will defend you (and no I'm not talking about pistol-whipping). What could be interesting is allowing anyone to have a gun, but requiring background checks for ammo and firing mech.
Why not just give everybody any gun they want?
Because that wouldn't make sense. You don't necessarily need an assault rifle to defend your home when a pistol (or a shotgun) will do just fine.
What there should be is a required course (or mandatory extracurricular course) in high school about how to handle a gun and responsible usage... it seems to work in Switzerland pretty well, doesn't it?
-
The average burglary runs approximately 4 to 10 minutes. More organized criminals will find out how long it takes for the police to arrive on scene on a GOOD DAY. They'll aim for that time, minus 2 minutes. In, out, and gone in a few minutes. If I had anyone else in my house and someone walked in, be sure to God I'd do everything to stop them. Friends, girlfriends, wives, siblings, children, parents, &c. I would make sure that bastard would at least be in pain after commiting a crime.
I consider my stuff above a criminal; a criminal is no more important if they stoop to that level to enter someone's house they forfeit all rights as a person.
The US legal system is quite frankly ****ed up. A burglar broke into a woman's house, stepped on a shard of broken glass, and successfully sued the woman who owned that house! That burglar should have been put in jail for life! Instead, he got a slap on the wrist and millions of dollars!
And now we get into the whole death penalty debate. Do you get to take away somebody's life, simply because they want to take your things? If there's a bully in your kid's schoolyard who takes your kid's lunch money, (You or I may not have kids, but this is just an analogy) then should you show up in a car and pop a cap in his face? Think what has to happen to somebody before they want to break into someone's house. Doesn't that person deserve sympathy, instead of your bullets? Do you treat a person as an inanimate object, simply because they made a mistake? I can't speak for the US justice system, and I doubt your story (has that woman ever heard of a lawyer?), but a burglar does not get life without parole in any justice system I've ever heard of.
Has she ever heard of a lawyer? Definately. Have you ever heard of children? I am not going to disclose the names of my friend's family, beyond the children are named Anthony and Alex; I know Anthony quite well and I've met his sister a few times.
The whole death penalty debate. There is a differance between home invasion and a common bully. I would say something to the administration or teach my kid how to fight (as in karate, which I already practice). If a man walked into my home for less-than-friendly reasons, force will be used to protect myself, my loved ones, and my stuff! If that person must resort to crime to get money, ought he be on social security or something else of the sort? A serious criminal was a person who gave up his or her humanity. They did make a mistake; they could have done quite a bit to avoid it.
Burglars can be rehabilitated easier than most. Still, if they walk into my family I would fully plan to make sure they're carried out on a stretcher.
Note: The story is true though vague from two things; i don't give out the full names of friends and families online and I last heard the story about a year ago. Still, it is completely true from my memory.
-
If that person must resort to crime to get money, ought he be on social security or something else of the sort? A serious criminal was a person who gave up his or her humanity. They did make a mistake; they could have done quite a bit to avoid it.
Burglars can be rehabilitated easier than most.
Now we're into layperson criminology. Most people know less about crime than they do about quantum physics.
Constructing the criminal as an "other" is a serious mistake. Most people have committed a crime at some point in their lives. Crime is simply an arbitrary social distinction regarding an act - in general, crimes are the most serious social violations, but there are many others, and the definitions of crimes vary both across time and culture.
Most people who commit common property crimes (vandlism, petty theft, theft, robbery, breaking and entering, etc) come from a lower socioeconomic status - lower class. In general, this correlates with poor education, substance abuse, broken families, etc (in fact, the biggest predictor of the class you die in is the class your parents were when you were born - so much for the "American Dream").
In general, the criminal element you're thinking of is actually characterized almost completely by people who have had no opportunity, whom humanity has abandoned, rather than the other way around. Doesn't excuse crime, but it sure does point to how poor a job Western society does of understanding its causes.
-
@MP-Ryan:
Personal responsibility. If you want to badly enough, you can make something of yourself. There is help available. The problem is that alot of people are too lazy, too uninformed, or too just plain rotten. Sometimes it's partly society's fault; but still, if you are determined, you should be able to succeed. This is America; if the folks at one town are unfair, you can move 1,000 miles away without asking anyone. With all the stories you hear about people ripping off welfare, taking money under the table, and cheating Medicare / Medicaid, you'd think that we were being kind to a fault. (Although I know of cases where the welfare ppl have unfairly denied access to people who need it... some of them seem to develop hubris.)
-
The point of this condensed story being that, even if you don't fire a gun, just the mere sight of it, or sound of cocking, is usually enough to scare someone away.
Actually, I have a personal experience with nothing but a couple of warning shots scaring someone off, but it's kinda late to post that one right now. I'll probably post it tomorrow.
That is exactly why people should have guns; even unloaded guns will defend you (and no I'm not talking about pistol-whipping). What could be interesting is allowing anyone to have a gun, but requiring background checks for ammo and firing mech.
Why not just give everybody any gun they want?
Because that wouldn't make sense. You don't necessarily need an assault rifle to defend your home when a pistol (or a shotgun) will do just fine.
What there should be is a required course (or mandatory extracurricular course) in high school about how to handle a gun and responsible usage... it seems to work in Switzerland pretty well, doesn't it?
I like that idea, quite a bit actually.
-
Switzerland has a rather different culture.
-
Switzerland has a rather different culture.
True, but gun safety is gun safety. Americans still need to know how to properly turn on the safety and disarm a gun, right?
EDIT: Looks like Texas pre-empted me.
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html
This is unsurprising, since the standards for getting a concealed carry license in Texas are the strictest in the nation. One must be at least 21 years of age, submit a photo and fingerprints for a background check, pay a $140 fee and take ten to fourteen hours of coursework. In addition, applicants must pass both a written test covering laws pertaining to deadly force and gun safety and a shooting accuracy test. Even with all of these hurdles, more than 200,000 Texans have received concealed carry permits.
-
That (Texas) sounds like a good idea.
-
The average burglary runs approximately 4 to 10 minutes. More organized criminals will find out how long it takes for the police to arrive on scene on a GOOD DAY. They'll aim for that time, minus 2 minutes. In, out, and gone in a few minutes. If I had anyone else in my house and someone walked in, be sure to God I'd do everything to stop them. Friends, girlfriends, wives, siblings, children, parents, &c. I would make sure that bastard would at least be in pain after commiting a crime.
I consider my stuff above a criminal; a criminal is no more important if they stoop to that level to enter someone's house they forfeit all rights as a person.
The US legal system is quite frankly ****ed up. A burglar broke into a woman's house, stepped on a shard of broken glass, and successfully sued the woman who owned that house! That burglar should have been put in jail for life! Instead, he got a slap on the wrist and millions of dollars!
And now we get into the whole death penalty debate. Do you get to take away somebody's life, simply because they want to take your things? If there's a bully in your kid's schoolyard who takes your kid's lunch money, (You or I may not have kids, but this is just an analogy) then should you show up in a car and pop a cap in his face? Think what has to happen to somebody before they want to break into someone's house. Doesn't that person deserve sympathy, instead of your bullets? Do you treat a person as an inanimate object, simply because they made a mistake? I can't speak for the US justice system, and I doubt your story (has that woman ever heard of a lawyer?), but a burglar does not get life without parole in any justice system I've ever heard of.
Has she ever heard of a lawyer? Definately. Have you ever heard of children? I am not going to disclose the names of my friend's family, beyond the children are named Anthony and Alex; I know Anthony quite well and I've met his sister a few times.
The whole death penalty debate. There is a differance between home invasion and a common bully. I would say something to the administration or teach my kid how to fight (as in karate, which I already practice). If a man walked into my home for less-than-friendly reasons, force will be used to protect myself, my loved ones, and my stuff! If that person must resort to crime to get money, ought he be on social security or something else of the sort? A serious criminal was a person who gave up his or her humanity. They did make a mistake; they could have done quite a bit to avoid it.
Burglars can be rehabilitated easier than most. Still, if they walk into my family I would fully plan to make sure they're carried out on a stretcher.
Note: The story is true though vague from two things; i don't give out the full names of friends and families online and I last heard the story about a year ago. Still, it is completely true from my memory.
Wait, so children acted as witnesses for the burglar's case? Or were children lawyers for the woman? Or the burglar's children were injured by the glass? What are you trying to say? I'm not calling you a liar, now I know that it was an experience of someone you knew well, but I just want to know how this could have happened.
Also, if a Swiss man tried to shoot his neighbour with his government-distributed rifle, half a dozen knife blades and assorted implements would be sticking out of his back before he could raise his gun. They don't sell foreigners real Swiss army knives. :D
-
Wait, so children acted as witnesses for the burglar's case? Or were children lawyers for the woman? Or the burglar's children were injured by the glass? What are you trying to say? I'm not calling you a liar, now I know that it was an experience of someone you knew well, but I just want to know how this could have happened.
He's saying that even a percieved threat to your child is reason enough to kill, although whether or not that would hold up in court is another story.
-
Wait, so children acted as witnesses for the burglar's case? Or were children lawyers for the woman? Or the burglar's children were injured by the glass? What are you trying to say? I'm not calling you a liar, now I know that it was an experience of someone you knew well, but I just want to know how this could have happened.
He's saying that even a percieved threat to your child is reason enough to kill, although whether or not that would hold up in court is another story.
Hold on, that's not what he said. He said the burglar sued for damages, having stepped on a shard of glass.
-
Oh, well that's bollocks, shoot the ****er I say. :p
-
The average burglary runs approximately 4 to 10 minutes. More organized criminals will find out how long it takes for the police to arrive on scene on a GOOD DAY. They'll aim for that time, minus 2 minutes. In, out, and gone in a few minutes. If I had anyone else in my house and someone walked in, be sure to God I'd do everything to stop them. Friends, girlfriends, wives, siblings, children, parents, &c. I would make sure that bastard would at least be in pain after commiting a crime.
I consider my stuff above a criminal; a criminal is no more important if they stoop to that level to enter someone's house they forfeit all rights as a person.
The US legal system is quite frankly ****ed up. A burglar broke into a woman's house, stepped on a shard of broken glass, and successfully sued the woman who owned that house! That burglar should have been put in jail for life! Instead, he got a slap on the wrist and millions of dollars!
And now we get into the whole death penalty debate. Do you get to take away somebody's life, simply because they want to take your things? If there's a bully in your kid's schoolyard who takes your kid's lunch money, (You or I may not have kids, but this is just an analogy) then should you show up in a car and pop a cap in his face? Think what has to happen to somebody before they want to break into someone's house. Doesn't that person deserve sympathy, instead of your bullets? Do you treat a person as an inanimate object, simply because they made a mistake? I can't speak for the US justice system, and I doubt your story (has that woman ever heard of a lawyer?), but a burglar does not get life without parole in any justice system I've ever heard of.
Has she ever heard of a lawyer? Definately. Have you ever heard of children? I am not going to disclose the names of my friend's family, beyond the children are named Anthony and Alex; I know Anthony quite well and I've met his sister a few times.
The whole death penalty debate. There is a differance between home invasion and a common bully. I would say something to the administration or teach my kid how to fight (as in karate, which I already practice). If a man walked into my home for less-than-friendly reasons, force will be used to protect myself, my loved ones, and my stuff! If that person must resort to crime to get money, ought he be on social security or something else of the sort? A serious criminal was a person who gave up his or her humanity. They did make a mistake; they could have done quite a bit to avoid it.
Burglars can be rehabilitated easier than most. Still, if they walk into my family I would fully plan to make sure they're carried out on a stretcher.
Note: The story is true though vague from two things; i don't give out the full names of friends and families online and I last heard the story about a year ago. Still, it is completely true from my memory.
Wait, so children acted as witnesses for the burglar's case? Or were children lawyers for the woman? Or the burglar's children were injured by the glass? What are you trying to say? I'm not calling you a liar, now I know that it was an experience of someone you knew well, but I just want to know how this could have happened.
Also, if a Swiss man tried to shoot his neighbour with his government-distributed rifle, half a dozen knife blades and assorted implements would be sticking out of his back before he could raise his gun. They don't sell foreigners real Swiss army knives. :D
I know how it is in Switzerland; I want to move to Switzerland after I finish college. I am a quarter Swiss, quarter German, quarter Austrian, and the other quarter is other assorted American blend.
Two different stories...
The first was of what happened to my friend and friend's mother. She was a stay-at-home mom then, if you remember her husband is involved in New York State law enforcement (I won't say the specific one, same reasons as before). The second was of another case before then where a man breaks into a woman's house. During be burglary he stepped on a shard of glass that went through his sneakers, while in the act. He is disabled by the glass, caught, treated, then goes on to sue the woman whose house he broken into. He successfully won for damages; either he bought off the jury or they were ALL high.
Anyways; I like the idea from Switzerland. Excellent military-training for all civilians--to teach about using guns, properly, in High School would be an excellent way to both train future military (iirc military service is mandatory; though the military is simply for defence. I've had many great Uncles who have served.)
-
I think the United States should adopt a required "state service" term. In this term, you could choose military service, or if you have any religious/physical problems with military service, you could work at say, road cleanup or something.
-
I know how it is in Switzerland; I want to move to Switzerland after I finish college. I am a quarter Swiss, quarter German, quarter Austrian, and the other quarter is other assorted American blend.
Two different stories...
The first was of what happened to my friend and friend's mother. She was a stay-at-home mom then, if you remember her husband is involved in New York State law enforcement (I won't say the specific one, same reasons as before). The second was of another case before then where a man breaks into a woman's house. During be burglary he stepped on a shard of glass that went through his sneakers, while in the act. He is disabled by the glass, caught, treated, then goes on to sue the woman whose house he broken into. He successfully won for damages; either he bought off the jury or they were ALL high.
Anyways; I like the idea from Switzerland. Excellent military-training for all civilians--to teach about using guns, properly, in High School would be an excellent way to both train future military (iirc military service is mandatory; though the military is simply for defence. I've had many great Uncles who have served.)
Okay, relax. You like the fact that every male of a certain age is drafted? You think that everyone should be taught to use guns in high school, so that they can join the army when they're old enough? Is this why you want to go to Switzerland? Should everyone join the Swiss Army? Why? Is it the knives? I knew they were just a clever ploy!
-
I know how it is in Switzerland; I want to move to Switzerland after I finish college. I am a quarter Swiss, quarter German, quarter Austrian, and the other quarter is other assorted American blend.
Two different stories...
The first was of what happened to my friend and friend's mother. She was a stay-at-home mom then, if you remember her husband is involved in New York State law enforcement (I won't say the specific one, same reasons as before). The second was of another case before then where a man breaks into a woman's house. During be burglary he stepped on a shard of glass that went through his sneakers, while in the act. He is disabled by the glass, caught, treated, then goes on to sue the woman whose house he broken into. He successfully won for damages; either he bought off the jury or they were ALL high.
Anyways; I like the idea from Switzerland. Excellent military-training for all civilians--to teach about using guns, properly, in High School would be an excellent way to both train future military (iirc military service is mandatory; though the military is simply for defence. I've had many great Uncles who have served.)
Okay, relax. You like the fact that every male of a certain age is drafted? You think that everyone should be taught to use guns in high school, so that they can join the army when they're old enough? Is this why you want to go to Switzerland? Should everyone join the Swiss Army? Why? Is it the knives? I knew they were just a clever ploy!
The fact that they do have a draft but don't shove half-a-million men into a hell-hole is what is inviting. The military is always there for defence; I would gladly die in the defence of my own country's territory. I will refuse to enter the US Military for several reasons; they shove people into Iraq and Afghanistan, they're world police; out of their own jurisdiction, and I don't support the wide corruption at so many levels (NYS has so many corrupt politicians who people blindly vote for out of party lines, not to mention the US Vice President's scandal).
The fact is it is a great way to do service for your county. I would gladly accept Swiss citizenship and all the benefits and drawbacks of said citizenship. I would gladly go back after what is currently happening in the USA. The real Swiss knives; just a perk ;7
-
The fact that they do have a draft but don't shove half-a-million men into a hell-hole is what is inviting. The military is always there for defence; I would gladly die in the defence of my own country's territory. I will refuse to enter the US Military for several reasons; they shove people into Iraq and Afghanistan, they're world police; out of their own jurisdiction, and I don't support the wide corruption at so many levels (NYS has so many corrupt politicians who people blindly vote for out of party lines, not to mention the US Vice President's scandal).
The fact is it is a great way to do service for your county. I would gladly accept Swiss citizenship and all the benefits and drawbacks of said citizenship. I would gladly go back after what is currently happening in the USA. The real Swiss knives; just a perk ;7
Okay, I understand, I guess. All the same, I am tempted to quote Ursula K. LeGuin, in her book The Left Hand of Darkness: "How does one hate a country, or love one? ... I know people, I know towns, farms, hills and rivers and rocks ... but what is the sense of giving a boundary to all that, of giving it a name and ceasing to love where the name ceases to apply? What is love of one's country; is it hate of one's uncountry? Then it's not a good thing. Is it simply self-love? That's a good thing, but one musn't make a virtue of it, or a profession.
-
We had something similar happen here in Australia in 1996. A sick loonie by the name of Martin Bryant wanted to be remembered, so he went and shot 35 people dead and injured 36 on a main strip in Port Arthur with an AR-15 and a FN FAL (both automatic machie guns).
There were gun restrictions and total bans on these guns, but there is still a black market for handguns and shotguns, and people still get killed out here.
Besides, not to offend people ,but George W Bush doesnt really seem like the sort of person to want to crack down on guns. I think he enjoys....... 'action'.
-
yet another necrothread brought to us by VC!
learn to say (http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7576/necronew3su5.png)
Anyways, i agree with the bush thingy. Being Canadian i don't like him much either :P
Kinda stupid that i guy wants to be remembered by killing people. If i remember him I'll remember him as useless.
-
My take on it - if someone breaks into my house I have aright to defend myself with force.
I would try to disable him (shoot in the kneecaps or something), not kill him. But then atgain, I'm saying this while I'm completely calm and rational...when the adrenaline starts pumpin' and you fear for your own life and that of your loved ones, you might act differently...especially if it's dark and not well lit.
If a burglary ends with the burglars death at the hands of the house owner, I'm don't think the owner should be sued for homicide....
-
Well i dunno about America (or Croatia in your case Trashman) but you don't go to court for self defense here.
-
My take on it - if someone breaks into my house I have aright to defend myself with force.
I would try to disable him (shoot in the kneecaps or something), not kill him. But then atgain, I'm saying this while I'm completely calm and rational...when the adrenaline starts pumpin' and you fear for your own life and that of your loved ones, you might act differently...especially if it's dark and not well lit.
If a burglary ends with the burglars death at the hands of the house owner, I'm don't think the owner should be sued for homicide....
No kidding.If some one robbed my house and i had a gun and/or knife i would kill him slowly.(aww theres no sigh to suit my craziness).This will do- :hammer:. :D I really mean it.
-
Hades, you have no idea what it's like to kill somebody. I don't either, and I'm sure nobody here on HLPBB does either, but the least i could do is put a bullet to the head and be over with the trouble. I don't like a knife. To be honest I'd rather hold a gun then a knife.
-
I was kidding about the knife.But not the gun.....I might beat them to death......
-
...My point is i prefer guns over anything that involves being so close to your enemy(http://images.devshed.com/fdh/smilies/2gunsfir.gif)...besides, guns can kill alot faster then a knife depending on your skill at either one. Besides, knifes are alot more gruesome if you ask me...
-
Hades, you have no idea what it's like to kill somebody. I don't either, and I'm sure nobody here on HLPBB does either, but the least i could do is put a bullet to the head and be over with the trouble. I don't like a knife. To be honest I'd rather hold a gun then a knife.
Knife in the head...bullet in the head...insta death in both cases...
You can be "mercifull" with both weapons...who said a knife hurts more than a gun anyway?
-
me, i guess. lol. :snipe: (http://images.devshed.com/fdh/smilies/camper.gif)
-
What is that smiley???
-
the sniper rifle one is one a found on a thread earlier today
-
Hmm does the Green one work? :tmgho:
-
No kidding.If some one robbed my house and i had a gun and/or knife i would kill him slowly.(aww theres no sigh to suit my craziness).This will do- :hammer:. :D I really mean it.
I don't know what it's like to kill someone, I do know what it's like to threaten to kill someone, and I know what it's like to be threatened.
It's not a ****ing game, not something to be toyed around with; if the people on BET did what they said they did, they're phycopathic sociopaths. Death is not a joke; and while there can be good jokes about death, there is no valid humor involving killing someone. Don't **** with what you don't know anything about; don't pretend you do if you don't. One thing I do know: killing someone should NEVER be fun.
All the people I know save a couple who contemplate the killing of others are nothing but dangerous posers... and in the end those are the people who commit things like Virginia Tech.
-
yet another necrothread brought to us by VC!
3-4 Months I can cope with, as long as it doesn't happen on too frequent a basis, it's when we start talking years, and for no apparent reason, that I get annoyed :p
-
You know, there was a survey done by acouple of criminologists...
57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
Check this article (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html) out.
-m
-
this might sound genocidal n stuff but, im all for americans whiping eachother out with guns n stuff, havent yet seen a country as advanced be in such anarchy, canada rocks, what 12 gun murdersl ast year compared to 120k in america? (random numbers)
-
Most people that own guns legally are in good moral standing but the few insane fools give the rest of us a bad rap!!!
-
:welcome:
Exactly...
-
You know, there was a survey done by acouple of criminologists...
57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
Check this article (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html) out.
-m
On the other hand, that's 43% that disagreed.
-
And your point is ?????
On the other hand, that's 43% that disagreed.
[/quote]
-
Shouldnt' you postcount be 2 now? :wtf: Or does this start from 0?
oh..allmsot forgot - BAN GUNZ!
-
And your point is ?????
On the other hand, that's 43% that disagreed.
My point is that a substantial portion, though not a majority, disagreed.
-
Hmm. Care to know the percentage of folks opposed to slavery at the onset of the Civil War?
-
You miss the point JR2. What if the 43% who disagree consider people with guns more of a challenge. Part of a gang initiation?
There's nothing hard about shooting someone without a gun while robbing them but some criminals might consider it manly to kill a guy who drew a gun on them.
Of course criminals might be more scared of people carrying guns. That doesn't mean that they would give up a life of crime and go do something else instead. It simply means that they'd be more violent in committing crimes.
-
Since when did criminals give up their lives of crime? What is the recidivism (spelling?) rate for armed robbers? Armed robbers that do drugs? Either or who have murdered in the past?
-
Shouldnt' you postcount be 2 now? :wtf: Or does this start from 0?
Post counts don't apply here (you should know that!)
Shooting someone with a gun might be considered self-defence?
-
If he is attacking or if you are attacking?
If everyne has the right to kill in self defence, hten everything is self defence really..I want to kill ou, you try to kill mein self defense and now I have to kill you in my own self-defense. Does one forgo his right at self-defense if he is an attacker? I'd think so.
But how does one determine who is the attacker and who is the defender?
-
Since when did criminals give up their lives of crime?
That's kinda my point.
People who quote the fact that criminals are scared of people with guns act as though that simply means that if more people had them then criminals would give up. That's nonsense of course. Before guns when everyone had knives and daggers criminals simply trusted their skill and luck to see them through.
Giving everyone a gun doesn't mean less crime. It just means more shootings during crime. Sure that would take out a few extra criminals but not enough to really make a difference.
-
Armed citizens are less likely to fall victim to certain forms of crime like muggings or mass shootings.
Yes guns bring their own problems, but some people accept those as the lesser of two evils.
Mankind will face crime problems for the rest of his natural existence until either the Rapture or the government simply drugs everyone "happy". Now you can personally choose whether to be armed or not, but I don't think criminals will go easy on anyone for being good victims.
No matter what you do the criminals will adapt, even if you do nothing.
Some folks might believe in pacifism for confronting violence, but its not their right to enforce that belief on others.
-
Okay... point being: 57% of criminals would rather face trained, armed policemen who would try to arrest them and have them sent to jail (and only shoot/kill them if they resisted) than face anyone else with a gun. This is probably due to the fact that an armed victim is judge, jury, and executioner on the spot.
BTW: They banned guns in Australia... and then banned swords because that's what people picked up next.
Just so you know: I would not mind if only police officers and soldiers had guns... the problem is: How would you enforce it? Think about it: If you are a criminal (robber, rapist, murderer) and the government tells everyone to turn in their guns... would you do it? Of course not, because the government just guaranteed that your victims will definitely not be able to shoot you, but so long as you don't turn in your gun, you can make them do whatever you want.
Also: If everyone (excluding police officers and soldiers) had no guns, who would have the advantage? The younger, the stronger, and the better trained. That's why gun has been called "The Great Equalizer." Because now the elderly, the weak, and those who don't stand a chance in hand-to-hand combat (women for example, assuming they have no self-defense training) can defend themselves against attackers.
-m
-
If only police officers and soldiers were alllowed to have guns, then the only people to have guns would be police officers, soldiers, and criminals who had murdered police officers or soldiers to get their weapon.
-
Because now the elderly, the weak, and those who don't stand a chance in hand-to-hand combat (women for example, assuming they have no self-defense training) can defend themselves against attackers.
Yeah, but not many of them can dodge bullets either. Thing is, if someone wants to waste you, he/she can, unless you live in a bunker.
-
I see a more practical way to solve this...
Get youre whole friggin army to help the police and combe the whole city from top to bottom.
I'd like to see criminals try something with A1M2's, marine units and several AH-64's patroling the area.. :lol:
Not to mention commandos, who are trained to excellence in urban combat.
-
Somehow, I think that declaring martial law and suspending habeas corpus within major US cities might not go over too well with the citizenry.
Of course sidestepping the major problem of escalation.
-
Just temporaty...sweep trough the city with MASSIVE numbers and firepower and confiscate any and all weapons.... if lucky you might get rid of gangs in the process if they try to resist..
Or there's allways the ancient tactic of "KILL EM ALL AND LET GOD SORT EM OUT!"
-
sweep trough the city with MASSIVE numbers and firepower and confiscate any and all weapons
When I was a young kid one of my first jobs in the family was finding my Grandmothers reading glasses.
...It quickly dawned on me that glasses are small, houses are big, and things would be far worse if someone was actively trying to hide them from me.
The reality is a good number of people will not simply dump their weapons in a bin, Criminals are not clearly defined or marked for arrest, and illegal weapons don't sit on exposed counter tops for the cops collecting convenience.
-
tehy do drug searches...and weapon searches in Irak...they can do it here too!
*points a 120mm cannon and severral missile launchers at you*
GIMME YOUR WEPNZ! NOW!
-
Ignoring the fact that it also allows the elderly, the weak, and those who don't stand a chance in hand-to-hand combat to commit crimes they otherwise couldn't.
-
If only police officers and soldiers were alllowed to have guns, then the only people to have guns would be police officers, soldiers, and criminals who had murdered police officers or soldiers to get their weapon.
or got other means of acquiring them... Look at here, in the netherlands, only people with a licence are allowed to get guns, and that licence is very very very hard to get (Effectivly, only police officers and soldiers have them), however, criminals seem to get their guns from somewhere else... (for example, from the country at our southern border)
-
Ignoring the fact that it also allows the elderly, the weak, and those who don't stand a chance in hand-to-hand combat to commit crimes they otherwise couldn't.
Since the strong obviously wont give up their ability to kill or cause mischief, this puts the weak on equivalent fighting terms.
Do you have a problem with equality? :wtf:
-
The funny thing about that was after the guy had killed himself, armed cops and SWAT teams were still showing up.
Americans are friggin stupid.
-
D'um, huh *drool* uh, whayuu saiii? Duuuh I'm a stupid American. Now come over here so I can kick your a**. (j/k, but still.. :hopping: ) The only stupid people are those that choose to be stupid, and it's an individual decision. :p
And, BTW, the 2nd amendment was put into place to prevent tyranny. Y'know, illegal seizure & searches, etc.
-
tehy do drug searches...and weapon searches in Irak...they can do it here too!
*points a 120mm cannon and severral missile launchers at you*
GIMME YOUR WEPNZ! NOW!
Criminal's response: "I don't have any!"
House searched, no weapons found. Weapon found in neighbors' doghouse; neighbor arrested; criminal digs up his other gun from the other neighbors backyard, along with the grenades the military also didn't find there.
...see the problem? In case you don't, someone already said it:
When I was a young kid one of my first jobs in the family was finding my Grandmothers reading glasses.
...It quickly dawned on me that glasses are small, houses are big, and things would be far worse if someone was actively trying to hide them from me.
The reality is a good number of people will not simply dump their weapons in a bin, Criminals are not clearly defined or marked for arrest, and illegal weapons don't sit on exposed counter tops for the cops collecting convenience.
-m
-
Y'know, illegal seizure & searches, etc.
So, you'd be willing to start shooting cops and government agents if they tried to search your place without the proper documentation?
-
It's within my rights. Depending on the circumstances, definitely. What do you think one of the reasons we broke up with Great Britain was?
-
It's within my rights. Depending on the circumstances, definitely. What do you think one of the reasons we broke up with Great Britain was?
This is the type of attitude I just don't get. It's the 21st Century, we're talking about one of the most advanced and most powerful nations on the planet, and we have people openly supporting the idea that it's well within their rights to start a shooting war with the government whenever they feel they're being "oppressed" or "under the heel of tyranny".
Support the ownership of firearms any way you want; protection, hunting, small penis, whatever. Just don't bring outdated notions of patriotism in the face of tyranny into the fray when they clearly have no place in modern society.
-
It's within my rights. Depending on the circumstances, definitely. What do you think one of the reasons we broke up with Great Britain was?
This is the type of attitude I just don't get. It's the 21st Century, we're talking about one of the most advanced and most powerful nations on the planet, and we have people openly supporting the idea that it's well within their rights to start a shooting war with the government whenever they feel they're being "oppressed" or "under the heel of tyranny".
Your words. Get them out of my mouth. I said "Depending on the circumstances"... I DID NOT SAY whenever the heck I feel like it, and you are claiming that a search of a US citizen by his/her government, without a warrant, isn't oppression and tyranny? I don't suppose you would be among the crowd that feels we are committing heineous crimes against humanity when we interrogate a poor Islamic fanatic who just wants to wipe Israel and America off the face of the Earth? (Notice said fanatic is an enemy combatant, not a law-abiding citizen of the United States!)
Support the ownership of firearms any way you want; protection, hunting, small penis, personal insults... compensating, are we? whatever. Just don't bring outdated notions of patriotism is in the face of tyranny into the fray when they clearly have no place in modern society. You are a disgrace. OK, that's over the top. But you get my sentiment. American patriotism in the face of internal and or external tyranny will never be outdated for the forseeable future. And, just a note, we will probably be stuck hauling the rest of the world out of their messes for the forseeable future, too.
And I am not saying that each individual American is a law unto themselves, so don't even start. When the government arbitrarily sets aside the very laws set to up to govern its interactions with its people, then that government is abusing its power.
-
Your words. Get them out of my mouth. I said "Depending on the circumstances"... I DID NOT SAY whenever the heck I feel like it, and you are claiming that a search of a US citizen by his/her government, without a warrant, isn't oppression and tyranny? I don't suppose you would be among the crowd that feels we are committing heineous crimes against humanity when we interrogate a poor Islamic fanatic who just wants to wipe Israel and America off the face of the Earth? (Notice said fanatic is an enemy combatant, not a law-abiding citizen of the United States!)
Your phrasing, "depending on the circumstances", just seemed a little ambiguous given the subject matter. While I would agree that a government that sanctions search-and-seizures or arbitrary imprisonment without warrant does qualify as tyranny, it's still a long way from prompting the citizenry into an armed insurgency against the government. We're talking about a nation that holds itself as a pillar of freedom, democracy and all that nice stuff, and yet the threat of horrible oppression remains strong enough to warrant an armed population? Come again?!
The second half of your response here is off-topic, and has no bearing on this discussion.
personal insults... compensating, are we?
Not an insult, just a vain attempt at humour (see the appropriate Family Guy eppy for the reference). Although if you choose to take it as such, I can't be held accountable.
You are a disgrace. OK, that's over the top. But you get my sentiment. American patriotism in the face of internal and or external tyranny will never be outdated for the forseeable future. And, just a note, we will probably be stuck hauling the rest of the world out of their messes for the forseeable future, too.
Ignoring the United States' supposed charge of "hauling the rest of the world out of their messes" for a moment, let's stay on the issue here: You are claiming that the US population needs to remain armed to offset tyranny and oppression from foreign and domestic evils. By holding this to be accurate, you are claiming that the US Government is liable to oppress its citizenry in the future, and that the US military is incapable of defending the nation from an international threat. You seem like a reasonably nationalistic lad, so would you care to rephrase your answer?
And I am not saying that each individual American is a law unto themselves, so don't even start. When the government arbitrarily sets aside the very laws set to up to govern its interactions with its people, then that government is abusing its power.
I never argued to the contrary. There can be no doubt that a government that violates its duty is guilty of abusing the power bestowed upon it by the people. What I am arguing is that the threat of this occurring within the US is not nearly enough to warrant dissemination of arms amongst the population. In short, it's just plain asinine to use the threat of 'oppression from the government' as a reason for people to keep their guns.
-
I don't suppose you would be among the crowd that feels we are committing heineous crimes against humanity when we interrogate a poor Islamic fanatic who just wants to wipe Israel and America off the face of the Earth? (Notice said fanatic is an enemy combatant, not a law-abiding citizen of the United States!)
As terrible as this may sound, there are moments when I think that somethnig like that wouldn't be such a bad thing for the world...
And, just a note, we will probably be stuck hauling the rest of the world out of their messes for the forseeable future, too.
Selling weapons to all sides of a conflict and inciting them is a going to GUARANTEE that you do...
-
As terrible as this may sound, there are moments when I think that somethnig like that wouldn't be such a bad thing for the world...
I kind of agree...
-
Your words. Get them out of my mouth. I said "Depending on the circumstances"... I DID NOT SAY whenever the heck I feel like it, and you are claiming that a search of a US citizen by his/her government, without a warrant, isn't oppression and tyranny? I don't suppose you would be among the crowd that feels we are committing heineous crimes against humanity when we interrogate a poor Islamic fanatic who just wants to wipe Israel and America off the face of the Earth? (Notice said fanatic is an enemy combatant, not a law-abiding citizen of the United States!)
Your phrasing, "depending on the circumstances", just seemed a little ambiguous given the subject matter. While I would agree that a government that sanctions search-and-seizures or arbitrary imprisonment without warrant does qualify as tyranny, it's still a long way from prompting the citizenry into an armed insurgency against the government. By that time, it's too late, silly. We're talking about a nation that holds itself as a pillar of freedom, democracy and all that nice stuff, and yet the threat of horrible oppression remains strong enough to warrant an armed population? Come again?! Without the right to bear arms, what's to stop them? Power-hungry people stop at nothing. Little 'accidents' take care of those who would stand against them, and when they gain power, they abuse it. Given enough time, it would happen. You think that such people don't exist? That they would not do anything to gain and keep their power?
The second half of your response here is off-topic, and has no bearing on this discussion. Except that, if it is true (that you think this way), then you are illogical.
personal insults... compensating, are we?
Not an insult, just a vain attempt at humour (see the appropriate Family Guy eppy for the reference). Although if you choose to take it as such, I can't be held accountable. OK, well, you do need to realize that not 100% of people that post on the Internet watch Family Guy. And even if they have seen some episodes, or parts of episodes, (like I have), they might not have watched the same ones you have. That seemed like a childish insult... and I still don't know what to make of it.
You are a disgrace. OK, that's over the top. But you get my sentiment. American patriotism in the face of internal and or external tyranny will never be outdated for the forseeable future. And, just a note, we will probably be stuck hauling the rest of the world out of their messes for the forseeable future, too.
Ignoring the United States' supposed charge of "hauling the rest of the world out of their messes" for a moment, let's stay on the issue here: You are claiming that the US population needs to remain armed to offset tyranny and oppression from foreign and domestic evils. Yes. By holding this to be accurate, you are claiming that the US Government is liable to oppress its citizenry in the future, It is quite possible, yes. There are laws in place to protect freedom, but tyrants do not abide by laws. and that the US military is incapable of defending the nation from an international threat. Soldiers are citizens, and most are patriots, I think. Maybe in your country they hire mercenaries? (Ha-ha, there's a little bit of humor for you.) You seem like a reasonably nationalistic lad, so would you care to rephrase your answer?
And I am not saying that each individual American is a law unto themselves, so don't even start. When the government arbitrarily sets aside the very laws set to up to govern its interactions with its people, then that government is abusing its power.
I never argued to the contrary. There can be no doubt that a government that violates its duty is guilty of abusing the power bestowed upon it by the people. What I am arguing is that the threat of this occurring within the US is not nearly enough to warrant dissemination of arms amongst the population. And you would suggest, in the event of an in-flight emergency, that overhead compartments would release arms to the citizens??? I said it before, it's a little too late then. In short, it's just plain asinine to use the threat of 'oppression from the government' as a reason for people to keep their guns. Only if you have complete faith in your government. Your government will supply all your need. While you are screaming on the phone for help, I'm on the phone, and helping myself / my family... or risking my neck to help you. :p Although someone did post about using old computer keyboards in self-defence earlier. *shrugs* If you wanna try that, it's fine by me. Oh, and if your government turns on you, it's all over. Who are you gonna call? 1-800-HLP-ME-US? If our government were ever foolish enough to turn on us, it would soon turn again.. like I mentioned before, our soldiers are citizens.
I don't suppose you would be among the crowd that feels we are committing heineous crimes against humanity when we interrogate a poor Islamic fanatic who just wants to wipe Israel and America off the face of the Earth? (Notice said fanatic is an enemy combatant, not a law-abiding citizen of the United States!)
As terrible as this may sound, there are moments when I think that somethnig like that wouldn't be such a bad thing for the world...
You are right, that does sound terrible. Name one reason that the US didn't conquer the world in 1945. I'm waiting.
And, just a note, we will probably be stuck hauling the rest of the world out of their messes for the forseeable future, too.
Selling weapons to all sides of a conflict and inciting them is a going to GUARANTEE that you do... Hmm. And I thought it was French, German, and Russian weapons we were finding in Iraq...
As terrible as this may sound, there are moments when I think that somethnig like that wouldn't be such a bad thing for the world...
I kind of agree...
That does it./me reaches for sodium chloride
-
I'd like some salt on my fries.
-
But instead I'll pour it on your head!
-
And? What happens?
-
/me shrivels up and melts.
-
Why? I don't get it. :(
I never get jokes. :(
-
Without the right to bear arms, what's to stop them? Power-hungry people stop at nothing. Little 'accidents' take care of those who would stand against them, and when they gain power, they abuse it. Given enough time, it would happen. You think that such people don't exist? That they would not do anything to gain and keep their power?
Aren't you americans free-loving people? Don't your soldiers pledge themselves to the people? If the people would revolt, do you really think your own soldiers would move against you? Do you really think and goverment like that would get the support it needs?
You are right, that does sound terrible. Name one reason that the US didn't conquer the world in 1945. I'm waiting.
You weren't crazy enough to try somethings as stupid like that? :blah:
Selling weapons to all sides of a conflict and inciting them is a going to GUARANTEE that you do...
Hmm. And I thought it was French, German, and Russian weapons we were finding in Iraq...
I was refering to weapons sold to Isreal, Palestina, Siria and the rest of the world...
-
You are right, that does sound terrible. Name one reason that the US didn't conquer the world in 1945. I'm waiting.
More war? Hooray! God bless America!
-
Blah
It's actually really hard to get a bearing on where you're coming from. On one hand, you display the mannerisms and beliefs of a stalwart right-wing ****cock, and yet at the same time you display staggering distrust of the government of a whiny left-wing armchair-scholar. Curious, indeed.
Anyway, to be succinct: Governments don't change overnight, they change over a period of years. Moreso, any shift towards "oppression and tyranny" could only occur with the support of the citizenry, so no amount of firearms is going to make a lick of difference when anyone who would use them has either fled the country or openly supports the new regime. But that's neither here nor there, since such an idea is baseless and absurd to begin with.
The argument of firearms acting as "protection" from government oppression is outdated and just plain flimsy at best. There are better arguments out there, and I suggest you use them rather than trying to fall back on anti-government rhetoric and convoluted reasoning. Seriously man, you're starting to sound like some sort of conspiracy nutter.
-
I think I'll also participate in here to comment one thing, namely that the human kind is evolved enough so there is no need to carry guns around. That's the kind of things they said in 1930s, also in here. And what did we find, our dear neighbor is coming back "home" by force. In the aftermaths, one of the reasons this place didn't succumb to a Warsaw pact nation was exactly the civil disobedience when people were supposed to disarm but instead of doing that they hid the weapons. When this was discovered, it is said to have influenced the decision makers in Kreml enough to leave us alone - for a moment at least.
I see the problem in US is not actually the guns, but the intolerance between different ethnic groups and different people. I think that is the root of Virginia shootings also. However, I do agree that some sort of legal background tracking system and lessons about using the weapon are needed to make an effective deterrent. But Americans can carry guns for all I care. They have done so in the past and did manage along quite well. Why not now? And regarding democracy, I find it more democratic that you can carry guns whenever the hell you want. In general, there should be nothing to fear from a guy who is carrying a gun, especially visibly.
Besides, here you actually have an American (jr2) who is actually questioning the wisdom of the government and seems to be ready to topple it if necessary. Now the only thing needed is a mandatory military service for US. That will surely make the general population think if the war is really worth it. I actually would also recommend the military service to all Europeans also. The equivalent for that would be a year exchange trip to the Svalbard archipelago (If anyone wondered, both of them require person to learn the use of a gun but for different reasons). But I really have to stop before I start babbling about the stupidity of banning the land mines and all the related stuff.
Mika
-
Well, I suppose a clarification is in order: I am not a conspiracy nut. And, I don't think that if all guns were banned in the US, we'd have tyranny overnight... it'd probably catch my children or grandchildren (if I ever get married and have any :doubt: ). Also, if a policeman/woman showed up at my door without a warrant and asked me if they could have a look around, I'd be like "Hey sure, no probs - how can I help".
I was referring to police forcing their way in, which in current circumstances, is unimaginable. If they bust open the door and say they have a warrant, I'll take their word for it and let them do whatever they want. I was more referring to a hypothetical situation where 10 or 15 years after a steady grabbing of power by corrupt ppl (hard to imagine, yes, but I think possible if they covered up sufficiently) and searches / seizures without warrant became the norm.
No police officer in the US is going to go searching a house without a warrant. It's stupid.. you'll end up either getting your pants sued off and loosing your job (likely) or shot (less likely, but still possible). Most law-abiding citizens will be glad to assist an officer of the law. (Me included.) I was being extremely hypothetical in my response to Mefustae. When I wrote that the 2nd amendment was to prevent illegal search and/or seizure, I meant that it is a long-term deterrent from the government ever getting any ideas.
I thought Mefustae was referring to a situation where I was being targeted by an illegal search / seizure, but somehow inferred that such was the norm for the situation he was referring to. I suppose you meant a one-time incident, Mefustae? In that case, I would sue the pants off of them... and they wouldn't find anything, anyways, besides downloads of stuff I already own... :rolleyes:
I think I'll also participate in here to comment one thing, namely that the human kind is evolved enough so there is no need to carry guns around. That's the kind of things they said in 1930s, also in here. And what did we find, our dear neighbor is coming back "home" by force. In the aftermaths, one of the reasons this place didn't succumb to a Warsaw pact nation was exactly the civil disobedience when people were supposed to disarm but instead of doing that they hid the weapons. When this was discovered, it is said to have influenced the decision makers in Kreml enough to leave us alone - for a moment at least.
Good points
I see the problem in US is not actually the guns, but the intolerance between different ethnic groups and different people. I think that is the root of Virginia shootings also. Hmm... and ignoring the warning signs displayed in the people before they commit these crimes... However, I do agree that some sort of legal background tracking system and lessons about using the weapon are needed to make an effective deterrent. Sounds good to me... you need a license to drive a car But Americans can carry guns for all I care. They have done so in the past and did manage along quite well. Why not now? Yeah... I don't get it. Oh, right, I forgot... according to the others, the US is the root of all evil. Should've left them to the Axis and then nuked them 10 yrs later when they tried to take us over. (being sarcastic... and besides, Nuke would've loved it. And regarding democracy, I find it more democratic that you can carry guns whenever the hell you want. In general, there should be nothing to fear from a guy who is carrying a gun, especially visibly.
Exactly
Besides, here you actually have an American (jr2) who is actually questioning the wisdom of the government and seems to be ready to topple it if necessary. Only if said government has become twisted and is flagrantly violating my rights. :rolleyes: Now the only thing needed is a mandatory military service for US. That will surely make the general population think if the war is really worth it. Umm, huh? I'm not against mandatory military service, with exemptions for ppl who have religious issues (I don't, but some do). I wasn't suggesting we overthrow the government we have now. I was referring to if things ever got that bad. Mefustae, rly, tell someone else they have a small weiner, and feed them your lofty attitude (if you don't have one, I'm sorry, it appeared to me that you did... although that seemed to change in your response to my long response)... you obviously got me pretty ticked, I appear to have made ppl think I am a revolutionary. I actually would also recommend the military service to all Europeans also. Ooo, yeah... then maybe they'd make some sense when referring to certain situations, at least hopefully. The equivalent for that would be a year exchange trip to the Svalbard archipelago (If anyone wondered, both of them require person to learn the use of a gun but for different reasons). But I really have to stop before I start babbling about the stupidity of banning the land mines and all the related stuff. Uh, whatever... :blah:
Mika
Without the right to bear arms, what's to stop them? Power-hungry people stop at nothing. Little 'accidents' take care of those who would stand against them, and when they gain power, they abuse it. Given enough time, it would happen. You think that such people don't exist? That they would not do anything to gain and keep their power?
Aren't you americans free-loving people? Don't your soldiers pledge themselves to the people? Yeah, to the constitution ... against all enemies, foreign and domestic...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
If the people would revolt, do you really think your own soldiers would move against you? Do you really think and goverment like that would get the support it needs? Didn't I already address this? Yes, I did. See my previous answer.
You are right, that does sound terrible. Name one reason that the US didn't conquer the world in 1945. I'm waiting.
You weren't crazy enough to try somethings as stupid like that? :blah: Because we didn't want to. Period. We certainly had the capability, if we were that type of nation. The nuclear club at that time consisted of one member.
Selling weapons to all sides of a conflict and inciting them is a going to GUARANTEE that you do...
Hmm. And I thought it was French, German, and Russian weapons we were finding in Iraq...
I was refering to weapons sold to Isreal, Palestina, Siria and the rest of the world... Israel is the only democratic bastion of freedom in the Middle East. Go to Israel, and express that you are of the opinion that the Israeli government is stupid, and are all butchers. Say that you hate their God, and that He is bloodthirsty and evil. Now, go to any neighboring country (surprise, you can!! you are still alive and free). Say that the government is a bloodthirsty bunch of terrorists, and that Allah is an evil god of destruction. Now go to the nex-- oh, I'm sorry, you can't... you are dead or being tortured in prison, depending on your luck and which country you picked.
So, I have no problems with us selling weapons to Israel, whose neighbors have all expressed in their native languages to their people that they wish to take Israel off the face of the map, and have for the most part said so (and sometimes attempted it) since Israel became a nation. Now, I am not aware that we sold weapons to Palestine and Syria... unless you mean indirectly through humanitarian aide, or arms that were supposedly for their police forces to keep law and order (yeah, right... whichever one of us believed that needs their head examined and a transfer to secretarial work!) Do you know of a good source that says different?
You are right, that does sound terrible. Name one reason that the US didn't conquer the world in 1945. I'm waiting.
More war? Hooray! God bless America!
What? You obviously didn't read all of what I've posted, or you don't understand it. /me puts on steel toed boots and taps them threateningly
/me retreats into his titanium reinforced shell and sniggers
-
Aren't you americans free-loving people? Don't your soldiers pledge themselves to the people? Yeah, to the constitution ... against all enemies, foreign and domestic...
You're saying your own soldier would consider the populace the enemy???
If the people would revolt, do you really think your own soldiers would move against you? Do you really think and goverment like that would get the support it needs? Didn't I already address this? Yes, I did. See my previous answer.
So you truly belive your friends in the military would turn against you? Against their own people? How many soldiers in the US have friends, or various (extended) family members that are civilians? If the people are to revolt, you they would move against htem?
Your lack of faith in your fellow man, in the people that are supposed to protect you ...is disturbing.
You weren't crazy enough to try somethings as stupid like that? :blah: Because we didn't want to. Period. We certainly had the capability, if we were that type of nation. The nuclear club at that time consisted of one member.
And you really think you could have? How naive!
If you tried something like that the whole world would unite against you and chrush you.. You didn't have nearly enough nukes to conquer the whole world back then, and even if you had it would still be hte end of the US..what would happen if every muinority in the US revolted? If ALL armies in the world headed to US? If Canada and Mexico invaded you? Would you use nukes on your own soil?
Israel is the only democratic bastion of freedom in the Middle East. Go to Israel, and express that you are of the opinion that the Israeli government is stupid, and are all butchers. Say that you hate their God, and that He is bloodthirsty and evil. Now, go to any neighboring country (surprise, you can!! you are still alive and free). Say that the government is a bloodthirsty bunch of terrorists, and that Allah is an evil god of destruction. Now go to the nex-- oh, I'm sorry, you can't... you are dead or being tortured in prison, depending on your luck and which country you picked.
Bastion od freedom and democracy.. :lol:...right.. :wakka: Gotta watch out for those buldozers...
I'd probably dissaper and never be heard off again...
So, I have no problems with us selling weapons to Israel, whose neighbors have all expressed in their native languages to their people that they wish to take Israel off the face of the map, and have for the most part said so (and sometimes attempted it) since Israel became a nation. Now, I am not aware that we sold weapons to Palestine and Syria... unless you mean indirectly through humanitarian aide, or arms that were supposedly for their police forces to keep law and order (yeah, right... whichever one of us believed that needs their head examined and a transfer to secretarial work!) Do you know of a good source that says different?[/color]
Don't you read newspapers?
-
@TrashMan: Somehow you have turned what I meant on its head. I meant, that in defense of the Constitution, the soldier would protect the populace.
-
So what's the problem then? If you are certain that your soldiers would protect you even from your own government, why guns?
-
The funny thing about that was after the guy had killed himself, armed cops and SWAT teams were still showing up.
Americans are friggin stupid.
a. I understand the sentiment, however if Americans are all that stupid why do you care that 37 of them ate it exactly?
b. The second largest school shooting in Columbine High School, here in Colorado, was commited by two people; our officers are generally trained to assume that there's more than one person in these cases.
I don't suppose you would be among the crowd that feels we are committing heineous crimes against humanity when we interrogate a poor Islamic fanatic who just wants to wipe Israel and America off the face of the Earth? (Notice said fanatic is an enemy combatant, not a law-abiding citizen of the United States!)
As terrible as this may sound, there are moments when I think that somethnig like that wouldn't be such a bad thing for the world...
And this makes you better than them how? Behind every stupid country there are many innocent people. Take North Korea for example. Granted they're all brainwashed, but I think you'll agree that the world couldn't just nuke them all; it's not their fault. And yet this is the treatment you suggest for aproximently 5% of the worlds population.
-
This makes me far, far better than them...I'm not actually doing anything, nor activly hating anyone.
-
Passive hate is still hate though.
Your defence is simply that you're better cause you're lazy. :p
-
Nope..no real hate here...only temporary aggrivation whenever the said countries do something stupid. :p.. unfortunately, this happens quite often.
Oh, and I do not advocate the destruction of the coutries in the literal sense (kill populace)...but somethimes I wouldn't mind at all if they fell apart by themselves ;)
-
A couple of things, I believe I read about a survey in US Army Corps in which there were questions like: In which situations would you be ready to engage your own people? Or like: What would be the prequisite for you to use lethal / non-lethal force against your own people? Well I didn't serve in US and I actually have never visited US so don't ask me about the authenticity of that survey. But I suppose there are certain situations where army can be called to assist the civilian officials.
I see the weapon stuff in US has gone through quite an evolution, first it was to form any kind of army. Second when the gun was considered a self defense and also a necessity (Wild(?) West). I see that it is because of the structural change in society during the criminal waves when the guns became a symbol of outlaws, while normal people moving to sub-urbs found out they have no need for gun. Now, the fire weapon has a negative taint in it because of the criminality or because of the role in Virginia tech shootings. And people are buying (or are guided to buy) guns for self-defense. But a constitutional right is a constitutional right. And if a majority of people don't want to change the constitution there is pretty much nothing that can be done. Besides you can also face a possibile of mutiny of army. It is good that the civilians have also some guns in reserve if things start to go really bad.
Oh jr2, I never thought you would be a conspiracy nut. But saying certain things might help to gain respect in the eyes of Europeans, yes no? Besides, I would advice to take a good look in the doings of your current administration now. Certain recent laws are quite strange indeed. Not necessarily alarming, but still strange (this is not to say that our own recent laws would be flawless, far from it if you ask me). Now if we could get a US support for making us an exception in the land mine treaty... bah, but I suppose it will not happen due to the some really stupid and wanton usage of them in some other places of the globe. And talk about EU and Amnesty pressuring us to give them up here! They should be sued of criminal negligence, is all I can say! Why did I brought it up here? Because I see a strange parallel between US guns and the land mine treaty, which is international - but here we don't get US support. But I'm interested to see where this discussion heads next.
Mika
-
Missuse of power? Hell, we can write a whole library of big fat tomes about that. :rolleyes:
-
Missuse of power? Hell, we can write a whole library of big fat tomes about that. :rolleyes:
To say it BSG style:
It has happened before, and it will happen again.
-
You are right, that does sound terrible. Name one reason that the US didn't conquer the world in 1945. I'm waiting.
You weren't crazy enough to try somethings as stupid like that?
It wouldn't have been stupid; we had the Bomb; Russia, Europe and Japan (the only powerful resistance we would have had) were devastated by WWII; and all it would take is us dropping a few more nukes and the world would have surrendered... we would have become an American Empire.
Also; once we got into the cities; it would have been a piece of cake to conquer them, due to the fact that THE CIVILIANS WEREN'T ARMED!!! (except for the Swiss; Even Hitler couldn't get them, due to... mandatory military service and gun ownership.
Check this (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/659714/posts) out...
Tojo once said that the reason Japan never invaded the mainland of the United States was because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" ...
-
Act
You are right, that does sound terrible. Name one reason that the US didn't conquer the world in 1945. I'm waiting.
You weren't crazy enough to try somethings as stupid like that?
It wouldn't have been stupid; we had the Bomb; Russia, Europe and Japan (the only powerful resistance we would have had) were devastated by WWII; and all it would take is us dropping a few more nukes and the world would have surrendered... we would have become an American Empire.
Also; once we got into the cities; it would have been a piece of cake to conquer them, due to the fact that THE CIVILIANS WEREN'T ARMED!!! (except for the Swiss; Even Hitler couldn't get them, due to... mandatory military service and gun ownership.
Check this (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/659714/posts) out...
Tojo once said that the reason Japan never invaded the mainland of the United States was because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" ...
Actually, it is a stupid thing to do. Even now, it is impossible to control an country as large as the world.
-
Also; once we got into the cities; it would have been a piece of cake to conquer them, due to the fact that THE CIVILIANS WEREN'T ARMED!!!
Wrong. Northern regions of Italy were full of weapons used by citizens to repel the German invasion force(and those citizens kept the weapons with them for decades). Actually, Italy was known to be one of the most violent post-WWII countries. There have been plenties of homicides when the civil war seemed imminent.
And they were expert in guerrilla tactics.
Anyways, the USA "conquered" the world after WWII. They prepared armies of counter-insurgency soldiers. I don't know what happened in other European countries, but I know that the USA were ready to "start" a civil war here in case the communits took power. The main association was called "Gladio", Italian for "Gladius", and was mostly composed by Italians.
American Generals never talk about it. An Italian interiewer, during a show, asked an highly ranked member of the American army a few questions about Gladio. That guy escaped.
The USA already rule over the world.
-
USA ruling the worl...LOL....you cna't keep Iraw or Afganistan under control, let alone the world!
I asked you - what would the USA do if suddenly all of Canadian and Mexican forces swarmed into the USA (followed by every other country in the world)
Once they cross the border they are in your territory..would you nuke em? Would you have enough nukes to bomb the whole border line? If they're fast enough they can even push deep in your territory. What then? And by the time your'e done dealing with those two armies, the rest of the world would be at your doorstep.
-
USA ruling the worl...LOL....you cna't keep Iraw or Afganistan under control, let alone the world!
Don't confuse guerrilla with war. These two countries are supposed to be under control. But you obviously can't eliminate all fanatics as they conduct normal lives and can be mistaken for civilians.
I asked you - what would the USA do if suddenly all of Canadian and Mexican forces swarmed into the USA (followed by every other country in the world)
This is not going to happen. Canadian forces invading the USA?!? :wtf:
-
I am getting quite sick of this America bashing.
-
The US has not put the full brunt of its military force to action since the civil war era.
After WW2 the majority of their pacific fleet was in tip top shape and its Europe based military was the only self sufficient force still standing. They made so many spare boats, aircraft, trucks and engine parts that they supplied private industry and foreign military forces for decades afterwards. Much of the gear it uses today is verging on 50 years old because they've been working off of WW2 stock the whole time.
As far as manpower, its a nation of over 300 million now. I doubt it would be much trouble to have filled all those pre-made uniforms at any point.
If the goal of Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf war, or a hypothetical post WW2 conflict was to crush all opposition and make the world ready for an American empire then there is nothing logistically in the way of that plan.
Then theres the nuke advantage to consider.
Simple fact is that without an Emperor you can't have an Empire, and no one in the US is suggesting that they declare Bush president for life or anything of that nature (not forgetting the detail that Roosevelt (the president who ordered up the A-bombs) actually served more than two terms and his immediate successors could have twisted the presidency to be a de'facto dictatorship).
Yea Bush is not that great in the polls but... lets get keep some perspective here. :wtf:
-
The funny thing about that was after the guy had killed himself, armed cops and SWAT teams were still showing up.
Americans are friggin stupid.
I don't want to see anymore of these posts VC. If you don't have anything smart to contribute with then do not write at all.
-
Then theres the nuke advantage to consider.
Three cheers for Enrico Fermi :doubt:
The US has not put the full brunt of its military force to action since the civil war era.
After WW2 the majority of their pacific fleet was in tip top shape and its Europe based military was the only self sufficient force still standing.
Of course. They have never been attacked!
I know of two attempts. One "failed", the other never occurred.
1) Attack from Japan, using balloons loaded with bombs. Thanks to the wind, they could reach the USA. They inflicted minor damage(as far as I know, the only victims were a cow and a farmer);
2) Attack from Italy, probably the most ferocious one. A submarine would have attacked New York directly, devastating the port. In order to do this, a German submarine tanker was necessary. The Germans didn't put any of their submaries available so the attack has been delayed...forever. The Fascists also planned to "force" an insurgency in Little Italy;
They made so many spare boats, aircraft, trucks and engine parts that they supplied private industry and foreign military forces for decades afterwards. Much of the gear it uses today is verging on 50 years old because they've been working off of WW2 stock the whole time.
They did the right thing with the so called Marshal Plan, but remember that one of their most important objectives was to keep the hands of the Communist Russia far away from Europe...
-
I know of two attempts. One "failed", the other never occurred.
1) Attack from Japan, using balloons loaded with bombs. Thanks to the wind, they could reach the USA. They inflicted minor damage(as far as I know, the only victims were a cow and a farmer);
It was far more sucesfull than anyone though. Great fires have been ravaging the US. If Japan had continued it would have chrushed the US internally.
The US has not put the full brunt of its military force to action since the civil war era.
After WW2 the majority of their pacific fleet was in tip top shape and its Europe based military was the only self sufficient force still standing. They made so many spare boats, aircraft, trucks and engine parts that they supplied private industry and foreign military forces for decades afterwards. Much of the gear it uses today is verging on 50 years old because they've been working off of WW2 stock the whole time.
As far as manpower, its a nation of over 300 million now. I doubt it would be much trouble to have filled all those pre-made uniforms at any point.
If the goal of Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf war, or a hypothetical post WW2 conflict was to crush all opposition and make the world ready for an American empire then there is nothing logistically in the way of that plan.
LOL...300 million now, and even that is not that much. We're talking after WW2. How many soldiers then? How many that's actually combat capable?
Now how many soldiers can the countries closest to US muster? Far more than that. Nukes? You didn't have nearly enough nukes to kill off 5 billion people....not even a fraction of it. If the world turned on you back then they would swarm you and kill you off...one by one..like ants.
-
It was far more sucesfull than anyone though. Great fires have been ravaging the US. If Japan had continued it would have chrushed the US internally.
But they would have needed plenties of baloons. I think that the Italian attack would have been succesful, expecially with a nuclear bomb. Enrico Fermi went away and Ettore Maiorana disappeared(his jamming device would have been useful).
-
World pop in 1950 was 2,556,000,053
US pop in 1945 was 139,928,165, in 1950 was 152,271,417
EDIT: Total US military personnel serving in WWII: 32,225,132
Total US military deaths in WWII: 810,798
Sources:
http://www.infoplease.com/year/1945.html
http://www.infoplease.com/year/1950.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/WCPRINCIPAL.pdf
-
US population = mish mesh of Italians, Germans, English, etc etc
How can they attack the countries of their ancestors?
-
The same way they did in WWII, silly :rolleyes: ... except, you'd need about 20 years of Hitler-style lies and brainwashing to make them believe that the rest of the world was out to get them.
The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough the people will believe it. People are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one!
-
They didn't love the idea.
Hitler was the Master of Lies.
-
Now how many soldiers can the countries closest to US muster? Far more than that. Nukes? You didn't have nearly enough nukes to kill off 5 billion people....not even a fraction of it. If the world turned on you back then they would swarm you and kill you off...one by one..like ants.
Why eradicate all life in one day when you can hit a few facilities and starve half the planet to death over the next month.
Before the 40's were out the US had enough nukes and conventional weapons with the long range aircraft needed to take out almost every major port around the globe. It also had an uncontested navy and land army of massive scale.
How do you propose "the world" strike US factories?
Your not floating there and you sure as hell are not flying... you gonna walk across the Arctic circle?
There were a number of reason the US never went on the offensive over a large scale, but lack of military power was never one of them.
-
You can indeed float there... it's a big ocean and if you launch thousands of small boats most of htem will make it undetected. And while the other countris didn't have such a large navy, their ships combined would form a impressive flotilla...enough to jeopardize the US atlantic fleet, which was only a portion of hte pacific fleet b.t.w.
And another thing - you apparently forget that "the world" includes all countries on the same continent as yours as well..so yeah, they could very well walk there.
Fac it - the US simply doesn't have enough resources to patrol all of it's vast borders or stop a billion angry, armed people.
-
the US simply doesn't have enough resources to patrol all of it's vast borders or stop a billion angry, armed people.
Thats what artillery is for.
If your counting on Canada or Mexico to make up this bulk of this imaginary "army of the outraged" then you'd probably be in for a rude awakening. Being close allies (by proximity, trade, and politics) they'd stand to loose too much and would gain nothing from a war with their neighbor. The British were in a similar situation immediately after WW2 since much of their essential food and material supply came by ship from the west.
There were more people willing to fight with the US than against it in 1945.
Today, not so much, But when considering the number of weapons under their command the US is still not an enemy you want.
-
Allies yes...but in 1945 US didn't try to take over the world.. Methinks relations would have changed drasticly if they suddenly decided to go the Dr. Evil route :drevil:
-
Evil does not always have a fluffy cat in its lap.
America was at the peak of its popularity in the post war years, and the communists were not. The Americans eventually spun that influence into becoming the worlds central superpower (which is what Germany failed to achieve). If they had listened to men like Patton and Macarthur, things could have certainly gone the route of world conquest with few complaints.
Looking back, with the cold war and our current troubles in mind, marching on Moscow seems like the lesser of two evils.
If the Russians were in our position do you think they would have list such an advantage pass them by?
Considering how Stalin was, and how they eventually treated their neighbor states... me thinks not.
-
You point being? :wtf:
US conquering the world by military might is a DREAM.
-
You point being? :wtf:
US conquering the world by military might is a DREAM.
:yes:
They will never be able to suppress thousands of big and small insurgencies.
-
Looking back, with the cold war and our current troubles in mind, marching on Moscow seems like the lesser of two evils.
It may well have been, but I believe that may have miffed the Red Army a tad. I won't profess to have any detailed knowledge of how the mid-1945 armies of the Allies and Soviets matched up, but you're kind of undercutting the strength of the Soviet armed forces here. With Little Boy still two months off, those two titanic armies would have gone up against each other in totally conventional warfare at a scale not likely experienced by American forces up to that point. I certainly don't want to get into armchair general mode here (I hate those people!), but the Soviets weren't exactly going to just lay down and let the Allies waltz straight into Moscow.
I'm going to have to agree with TrashMan here: American global domination of the planet, even at the end of World War II, is just bullocks.
-
Le'ts not forget the russains had comisars - there was no retreat or surrender for the russian tropps.. Either they keep marching forward (and possibly get killed by the enemy) or they definately will get killed by a bullet in their back.
Plus their sheer numbers & the russian winter...
-
Le'ts not forget the russains had comisars - there was no retreat or surrender for the russian tropps.. Either they keep marching forward (and possibly get killed by the enemy) or they definately will get killed by a bullet in their back.
Plus their sheer numbers & the russian winter...
Exactly. Even if the Allies would have been able to break the momentum the Soviets had worked up, any incursion into Soviet territory would have been impossible without a heck of a lot of preparation. Logic would dictate that the Soviets, if pushed back, would do all they could to deny such preparation given the rather public knowledge of how far off the first Atomic bombs were at that point. There's just no way the Allies would have been able to take the Soviets down, let alone the rest of the planet. :rolleyes:
Pure military wank, that's all it is.
-
Here we start presuming America and the allies who stuck with it could never be as ruthless as the Fascists or the communists... which IS the point.
The US had at made at least a dozen more bombs between Nagasaki and Joe 1. Simple fact is there would be no getting stuck in Stalingrad for the winter when theres no longer a Stalingrad to be stuck in. The allies already had experience taking down japan in similar fashion (a nation who's warrior code made Jihad look like a joke).
When any dictator or Emperor would have been ramping up their military might for the endgame, the Americans stopped short and started talking about long term stability. They threw together stuff like the Marshall plan and helped to establish the UN then NATO among other things.
This does not sound like a nation with a world domination policy.
Maybe they want to always have their way on major issues... but doesn't everyone?
-
But we're talkinga bout a "what if" scenario here. USA didn'0t have enough bombs to force all the world to surrender...
Hell, a dozen A-bombs isn't even enough for the HUGE country like Russia (and no ICBM's then either...you had to carry it with a bomber...)
-
:rolleyes: Well, if we're talking "what-if" scenarios (and completely missing the point, yeah, well, that's par for the course), then you're forgetting the one area where the US and Britain had complete superiority: Air Power. The Russians' only good planes were the ones they got from us. (At that point, at least.) True, they were darned good at reverse-engineering them, building them again except only half as good, and slapping a new label on them, but there you go: US airpower pwns. Oh, and let me see... hmm. By 1955 we had 740 B-52s... Hmm.... :drevil:
-
but only a few bombs...and the russian were manufacturing tanks like crazy..I bet they good a lot of anti-air veichels too.
-
US airpower pwns. Oh, and let me see... hmm. By 1955 we had 740 B-52s... Hmm.... :drevil:
Have you ever heard of the Mig-25? And its successor, the Mig-31? :P
-
Also, our factories were in full-out build mode. We could have built as many nukes as we needed as soon as we needed them; along with the bombers to deliver them.
As far as insurgencies go... that's kind of my point. If your civilians are armed, then you can never truly (at least not for a long, long time) conquer the nation. You can uproot its government, but unless you show some strength and discourage insurgency (an area in which we have admittedly failed in Iraq), you will have troubles for quite a while.
So if you take away civilians' guns, any insurgency will pretty much be "I don't like you being here! Go away or I'll hit you with a hoe!"
And that's not what we want in the US if someone (somehow) takes over.
As for MiG-25s, their engines burn out if they reach maximum speed... And it was only prototyped in '64; it entered service in '70, just 2 years before the F-15, which whips its A**.
And the MiG-31 sucks almost as badly; especially compared to the F-22 and F-35. :lol: Even the Su-37 is nothing compared to the US's new aircraft.
And if Canada and Mexico attacked the US... here are the figures:
Canada: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces) about 110,000 Military Personnel
Mexico: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Forces) about 620,400 Military Personnel
USA: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Armed_Forces) about 2.3 million Military Personnel
Figure it out.
-m
-
I find "what-ifs" a pretty useless waste of time. Let me for instance point out that it's doubtful that the scientists behind the nuke would have built them for the totalitarian government the US would have needed to have been in order to use them for world domination.
It's doubtful that they would flee one totalitarian regime to go straight to another one. So why make the assumption America would have had the nuke in the first place?
-
As for MiG-25s, their engines burn out if they reach maximum speed... And it was only prototyped in '64; it entered service in '70, just 2 years before the F-15, which whips its A**.
They were designed to intercept the Valkyirie(which was scrapped). No matter of what an F-15 is capable of, the Mig-31 was strong enough to neutralize all US bombers approaching Russia.
And the MiG-31 sucks almost as badly; especially compared to the F-22 and F-35. :lol: Even the Su-37 is nothing compared to the US's new aircraft.
There wouldn't have been dogfights, just nuclear bombardments. The Mig-31 would have guaranteed a perfect protection from incoming bombers. And keep in mind that the other planes you mentioned are recent, too recent.
-
Here we start presuming America and the allies who stuck with it could never be as ruthless as the Fascists or the communists... which IS the point.
Not necessarily. Several people in the thread have mentioned the US "possessing the power to dominate the world" or claiming taking out the Soviets early would have prevented the Cold War. In such a case, the US would have maintained its righteous fury in going after them nasty commies, and it wouldn't have been too difficult to drum up the population against the Soviet threat without resorting to fascism.
The US had at made at least a dozen more bombs between Nagasaki and Joe 1. Simple fact is there would be no getting stuck in Stalingrad for the winter when theres no longer a Stalingrad to be stuck in. The allies already had experience taking down japan in similar fashion (a nation who's warrior code made Jihad look like a joke).
Perhaps. Keep in mind that Little Boy was still two months off on VE Day, and relegating those early atomic bombs to Europe against the Soviets would have left the Pacific Theatre wide open. Regardless, the first bombs produced were both too small and too few in amount to really make a difference to a front as wide as what would be expected if US/Soviet aggression had started right then and there on VE Day (a fair assumption given the value of keeping the momentum of advance).
Also, our factories were in full-out build mode. We could have built as many nukes as we needed as soon as we needed them; along with the bombers to deliver them.
There wasn't exactly a functioning production line for A-Bombs in 1945, and that's to say nothing of having to transport matierals to the front. The US industry on war-footing was a sight to behold, but that advantage was countered by that little puddle known as the Atlantic. The Soviets had no such obstacle.
Anyway, enough of this. I think we've established that there was quite a lot standing between the US and "world domination" after World War II.
-
As for MiG-25s, their engines burn out if they reach maximum speed... And it was only prototyped in '64; it entered service in '70, just 2 years before the F-15, which whips its A**.
They were designed to intercept the Valkyirie(which was scrapped). No matter of what an F-15 is capable of, the Mig-31 was strong enough to neutralize all US bombers approaching Russia.
And the MiG-31 sucks almost as badly; especially compared to the F-22 and F-35. :lol: Even the Su-37 is nothing compared to the US's new aircraft.
There wouldn't have been dogfights, just nuclear bombardments. The Mig-31 would have guaranteed a perfect protection from incoming bombers. And keep in mind that the other planes you mentioned are recent, too recent.
Too recent? I wasn't the one who brought up a 1970's plane to counter the fact that the US had over 500 B-52's in service by '55. :lol:
-m
-
Russia had planes....hordes of em.. even if they sucked, the russian ordes would PWN you :lol:
-
Oh, rly? How many did they have? :drevil:
-
It's classified. Do you really think that public informations about air forces are 100% true? Come on...
Hey everyone! Do you know that this region of our country is more vulnerable? The air abse is poorly defended and there only are <insert number> <insert name of the fighter> defending it. Attack now!
Modern "superfighters" are 10 or so years old design. Do you really think that there's nothing else?
-
If the US and USSR had gone to war there really wouldn't have been a winning side.
-
If the US and USSR had gone to war there really wouldn't have been a winning side.
:yes:
This is one of the most intelligent comments. Correct. Everyone would have been both victor and victim. Nukes devastate everything - even signatures!
-
:lol: Yes, good point.
-
If the US and USSR had gone to war there really wouldn't have been a winning side.
Depending of course on when they went to war... if it was before 1949 and the USSR's 1st nuke...
But this is all off topic anyway. :)
-m
-
Depending of course on when they went to war... if it was before 1949 and the USSR's 1st nuke...
True, but then the devastation would have been economic and social, rather than structural. Right from the get-go, the Cold War was an immutable stalemate. No side could guarantee a short, victorious conflict, so no war occurred.