Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I got robbed at gunpoint today....

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
    If you really think that giving everyone a gun will decrease gun violence, then I submit we should give every country nukes, for the same exact reason, since no one would risk retaliation.

    And if you say "It only takes one crazy", then yeah, you made my point. You don't want crazys having weapons, because they will use them, no matter the risk of retaliation.
    I think the biggest difference here between nukes and guns is ismple... If I wanted to get a fully automatic assualt rifle all I have to do is take a walk down to Tod Lane and knock on "Ricky's" door and he'll show me his collection and and I can pay cash and walk out with what I bought today. Maybe it isn't quite that simple, I suppose I'd have to get to know Ricky enough that he would trust selling to me, but the point still remains.

    Illegal guns are easy to come by. They always will be regardless of how progressive gun laws become. Regulating gun ownership is only preventing legal gun ownership and making the black market stronger.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
      But you forget a few things: The distribution across the US isn't flat. The southeast, for instance, is far more heavily armed, so if you distributed the forces properly, you can get the proper amount of soldiers to armed civilians.

      You also forget to factor in state/local police forces, which would likely side with the government.
      Also, I'm pretty sure 1 soldier in a tank or F22 could kill 310 armed civilians. Really really easily.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
        Also, I'm pretty sure 1 soldier in a tank or F22 could kill 310 armed civilians. Really really easily.
        I'm pretty sure you'd be surprised by how difficult urban combat really is. What you need for urban settings are snipers. Lot's and lots of well placed snipers. Any military leader worth his salt will know this.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by duby229 View Post
          I'm pretty sure you'd be surprised by how difficult urban combat really is. What you need for urban settings are snipers. Lot's and lots of well placed snipers. Any military leader worth his salt will know this.
          Urban combat is only difficult if you are trying to protect civilians or the existing infrastructure. If you are free to bomb the city into the stone age, it's really easy. Otherwise, sure, the easiest solution is to blockade it and wait until the people inside starve and have to come out.

          Comment


          • #95
            That kind of stuff doesn't fly in todays age. The Geneva documents set precedence that we -have- to abide by. Bombing a city to rubble isnt an option at all.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by duby229 View Post
              That kind of stuff doesn't fly in todays age. The Geneva documents set precedence that we -have- to abide by. Bombing a city to rubble isnt an option at all.
              So you think the US military is going to start killing it's own civilian population, but will give up and lose because of foreigners and the Geneva Conventions?

              Ha ha ha ha ha.

              The entire premise is ridiculous - but if you've accepted that, then it's hard to believe something as silly as international opinion is going to matter. That opinion would already be about as low as possible, after a military force started killing it's own population in a democratically elected country. At that point, you might as well play to win, because things aren't going to get any better. Look at places like Syria - they aren't exactly concerned with the Geneva conventions. They're mostly only concerned that outsiders don't come in and help the rebels.
              Last edited by smitty3268; 12-20-2013, 02:11 AM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Something to think about

                "Since the first casualties in the battle of Lexington, to recent operations in Afghanistan, the US death toll comes to 1,171,177. By contrast, the number killed by firearms, including suicides, since 1968, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI, is 1,384,171.
                That 212,994 more Americans lost their lives from firearms in the last 45 years than in all wars involving the US."

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  So you think the US military is going to start killing it's own civilian population, but will give up and lose because of foreigners and the Geneva Conventions?

                  Ha ha ha ha ha.

                  The entire premise is ridiculous - but if you've accepted that, then it's hard to believe something as silly as international opinion is going to matter. That opinion would already be about as low as possible, after a military force started killing it's own population in a democratically elected country. At that point, you might as well play to win, because things aren't going to get any better. Look at places like Syria - they aren't exactly concerned with the Geneva conventions. They're mostly only concerned that outsiders don't come in and help the rebels.
                  Who said anything about the US military killing american citizens? It wasn't me. And even if this country did fall into a civil war you can bet every dollar you have reliably that the government isn't going to bomb it's own cities into rubble.

                  It's just not gonna happen.

                  Frankly, I'm sure as hell glad that international opinion is different from mine. You have places like France with nearly 50% unemployment rates bragging about how great they are. Iran who is perpetually stuck in the 70's bragging about how smart they are. North Korea who's population is leaving in mass droves bragging about how big they are. All the while the bottom line fact is that none of them are as rich as we are, as free as we are, or as educated as we are.

                  It's all in their dilusions

                  So yeah, we abide by the Geneva documents. It's our moral obligation because we are smart enough and rich enough and free enough to do just that.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by DDF420 View Post
                    Something to think about

                    "Since the first casualties in the battle of Lexington, to recent operations in Afghanistan, the US death toll comes to 1,171,177. By contrast, the number killed by firearms, including suicides, since 1968, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI, is 1,384,171.
                    That 212,994 more Americans lost their lives from firearms in the last 45 years than in all wars involving the US."
                    Show me the statistics? How many of those guns were legal? How many were illegal? What percentage was homeowners defending their property? How many was cold blooded murder?

                    The fact is, whether you like it or not, that a lot of those people deserved what they got. A homeowner killing a robber has every right to do so. His gun is probably legal. A convenience store robber killing a store clerk doesn't have that right, and chances are highly likely that his gun was illegal.

                    It's an old cliche but guns don't kill people, people kill people. People who have illegal guns are the vast majority. Those are the most dangerous people. Like I've already said, a gun is a commodity. Just like any other commodity, where theres a demand there will be a supply. If you want to kill the black market for illegal guns, the only way to do so is to make it so easy to get a legal gun that just about anybody could. By making all guns illegal, you havent removed guns from the market, you've only moved them from store shelves to the back of some guys living room. It's those dangerous people that will have guns and nobody else will.

                    Thankfully our constitution protects us from that. It allows us to get guns for our own defense. It is set in law specifically so that we can defend ourselves when we need to.

                    Legal guns arent the problem, it's the illegal guns that are. If you look at some actual statistics I'm absolutely convinced that what you'll find is the majority of those deaths you quoted were inflicted by illegal guns. As it is that quote you gave has no meaningful value. It doesnt give any statistical analyses at all.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                      Show me the statistics? How many of those guns were legal? How many were illegal? What percentage was home owners defending their property? How many was cold blooded murder?

                      The fact is, whether you like it or not, that a lot of those people deserved what they got. A homeowner killing a robber has every right to do so. His gun is probably legal. A convenience store robber killing a store clerk doesn't have that right, and chances are highly likely that his gun was illegal.

                      It's an old cliche but guns don't kill people, people kill people. People who have illegal guns are the vast majority. Those are the most dangerous people. Like I've already said, a gun is a commodity. Just like any other commodity, where theres a demand there will be a supply. If you want to kill the black market for illegal guns, the only way to do so is to make it so easy to get a legal gun that just about anybody could. By making all guns illegal, you havent removed guns from the market, you've only moved them from store shelves to the back of some guys living room. It's those dangerous people that will have guns and nobody else will.

                      Thankfully our constitution protects us from that. It allows us to get guns for our own defense. It is set in law specifically so that we can defend ourselves when we need to.

                      Legal guns arent the problem, it's the illegal guns that are. If you look at some actual statistics I'm absolutely convinced that what you'll find is the majority of those deaths you quoted were inflicted by illegal guns. As it is that quote you gave has no meaningful value. It doesnt give any statistical analyses at all.
                      I'm sure their is a percent that deserved it but how many of the 32000+ each year does not. If the answer is even just one that is one to many.

                      If someone broke into your house and was trying to rape/kill you or a family member, stopping the attacker,even if by means of shooting them, could be seen as legit self defence.
                      I then hear about Starbucks asking customers not to come into their stores with legal firearms,or i see how your general public is treated when pulled over by the law on an episode of COPS,where you are guilty first proof your innocence and expected of carrying a weapon thanks to that wonderful constitution and thus treated as such. SO how many of those 32000 probably didn't deserve it at all.

                      So is the problem 32000 accidental deaths? 32000 self defence acts? Is it 32000 police shootings? Is it 32000 gang related shootings? Legal or illegal it appears you have a serious problem.

                      Help me understand how news of yet another school shooting massacre,where some kid getting teased,decides one day to get up and go around shooting 30 or 40 kids translates to the victims deserving it ?

                      It kind of sounds like you would prefer no prison system at all and basically a free for all where if you have a gun you can be the judge,juror and executioner for every crime you see fit. So we are clear, on what crimes do you think the offender is punishable by death,or you have the right to shoot them?


                      People kill people but guns make it much to easy
                      People have the right to self defence
                      People kill people less when guns are not a commodity or right
                      Legal or illegal you guys have a serious gun problem

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DDF420 View Post
                        I'm sure their is a percent that deserved it but how many of the 32000+ each year does not. If the answer is even just one that is one to many.

                        If someone broke into your house and was trying to rape/kill you or a family member, stopping the attacker,even if by means of shooting them, could be seen as legit self defence.
                        I then hear about Starbucks asking customers not to come into their stores with legal firearms,or i see how your general public is treated when pulled over by the law on an episode of COPS,where you are guilty first proof your innocence and expected of carrying a weapon thanks to that wonderful constitution and thus treated as such. SO how many of those 32000 probably didn't deserve it at all.

                        So is the problem 32000 accidental deaths? 32000 self defence acts? Is it 32000 police shootings? Is it 32000 gang related shootings? Legal or illegal it appears you have a serious problem.

                        Help me understand how news of yet another school shooting massacre,where some kid getting teased,decides one day to get up and go around shooting 30 or 40 kids translates to the victims deserving it ?

                        It kind of sounds like you would prefer no prison system at all and basically a free for all where if you have a gun you can be the judge,juror and executioner for every crime you see fit. So we are clear, on what crimes do you think the offender is punishable by death,or you have the right to shoot them?


                        People kill people but guns make it much to easy
                        People have the right to self defence
                        People kill people less when guns are not a commodity or right
                        Legal or illegal you guys have a serious gun problem
                        Your premise falls short on one simple basic fact. People are going to have guns whether you want them to or not. It will happen. Making all guns illegal actually means that all guns are going to be illegal and those are most definitely more dangerous people.

                        You don't understand a quote that you made and now you want me to try and explain it to you? Sorry I don't understand it either. Your quoted information simply doesnt have enough data to be useful for anyone. How do you expect that I can justify it when it isn't useful information at all?

                        I heavily suspect that if the same number of people that were lisenced to drive a car were also licensed to carry a legal gun, then gun violence would just about disappear.
                        Last edited by duby229; 12-20-2013, 11:37 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                          Also, I'm pretty sure 1 soldier in a tank or F22 could kill 310 armed civilians. Really really easily.
                          First off a tank in urban combat is a death trap. You disable the tracks and it plus, its passengers are sniper bait. In regards to a F22 if we are in a situation that F22's are bombing your local supermarket, we are going to be at full on war and everyone is going to have F22's. You thing there are no civilians in the US that can or will figure-out how to fly a F22?

                          Comment


                          • Bomb their OWN cities to rubble?

                            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                            Urban combat is only difficult if you are trying to protect civilians or the existing infrastructure. If you are free to bomb the city into the stone age, it's really easy. Otherwise, sure, the easiest solution is to blockade it and wait until the people inside starve and have to come out.
                            Where I live that would mean bombing Washington DC to rubble, which would be 9-11 on steroids. They could not do this without killing their own paymasters. The Vietnamese talked of "grabbing Uncle Sam by the belt" meanign get close to neutralize air and artillery weapons. This still works today: they could bomb outlying neighborhoods but occupying rich neighborhoods by force would then provide automatic bomb shelters.

                            They could try to engage insurgents house by house with guided munitions, but in the US a mosquite swarm of cheap improvised drones, some with jet engines (>$3000 at one place I know!) would contest control of the skies at low altitude and stop attack helicopters entirely. Hackers and GPS spoofing would redirect some of the PGM's from their intended targets to other targets preferred by the insurgents. Hell, even in Iraq and Afghanistan US air power was not able to stop insurgents armed with small arms, IED, and suicide bombers seemingly able to reach and take out targets at will. Air power is nothing but another kind of artillery, just as suicide bombers are. Hell, it can be argued that in Iraq, with warhead yields limted by proximity to pro-US forces, both sides had near artillery parity when all weapon systems are considered together.

                            I've actually considered the siege issue of cutting off food and how to counter it. In progressive communities here in DC there is already emphasis on urban gardening. If war was looming surely activists in many communities would warn of food security hazards not only from a siege but also from economic collapse. The latter commonly occurs in civil wars-and in the US could cause catastrophic food shortages affecting all sides. In fact, a city under siege with urban gardens might even have the edge over troops awaiting shipments of crops that might not be harvested or might not make it over roads swarming with their enemies. This is not new, in the old days some sieges were defeated by food shortages among the beseigers and who started out with the most food stored away would likely come out on top.

                            Lastly, don't forget that any civil war in the US would divide the US military, guaranteeing some access to the latest high-tech war toys to both sides. If this ever happens in the US, combinging this with ugly racial and religious hate could turn it into the bloodiest civil war outside the Congo (Congo has suffered 6 MILLION dead in fighting spurred by outsiders lusting for Coltan ore). The last civil war here was bad enough, losses were comparable to 1.2 million in today's population. Please do not hope that class struggle in the US devolves into a civil war on racial, religious, and regional lines-ask anyone in Iraq what THAT can lead to!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Luke View Post
                              Lastly, don't forget that any civil war in the US would divide the US military, guaranteeing some access to the latest high-tech war toys to both sides.
                              If the military ever was ordered to go after large masses of civilians, i have no doubt there would be rebellion in it. However, then you are talking about the military fighting the military, and arming civilians with military weaponry. That's a completely different argument than the military just going after armed civilians and arguing that those civilians need their rifles or the military would beat them. In reality, the military would crush them regardless - but the military would splinter into factions, making the entire thought exercise of civilians vs the military incorrect from the start.

                              I just find it hilarious the way some people actually think civilians could beat the military. Guys, we spend trillions of dollars making sure they are unbeatable. When they get beat, it's generally because they aren't willing to cross certain lines, which happens when you are prosecuting a war of choice overseas. When it is in your backyard and you are fighting for your life, things get a whole lot dirtier. A civil war would guarantee a whole lot of chaos, death, and suffering on all sides.
                              Last edited by smitty3268; 12-20-2013, 10:07 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by zester View Post
                                You thing there are no civilians in the US that can or will figure-out how to fly a F22?
                                You seem to be missing the point. Do you think there wasn't anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan who could figure how to fly a F22?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X