|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
and this does not happen because people have more guns? What has been stated above is true ofc, but the death rate is not changed. More guns = more deaths no matter how they die. Even if one wants to only look at homocide the rate is still extreme. 0.19 vs 3.7 is still a difference of the correct significance level. There is proven statistical correlation between the amount of people owning guns and the amount of people dieing, both as a whole and from the actual guns. Bowling For Columbine anyone?
"That means the United States is responsible for over 80 percent of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined. "
Michael Moore on Guns
Also remember the fact that there will always be people who want to kill others. "Every man has the right to bear arms" does not really sound very thought through when considering that.
|
Guns are for killing people. That is why it is so important to have the right to own them.
The revolutionary war was not fought against deer and paper cutouts.
|
On December 19 2012 08:54 Zaqwe wrote:
Guns are for killing people. That is why it is so important to have the right to own them.
The revolutionary war was not fought against deer and paper cutouts.
Go start a revolution and tell me how your gun worked against the frikkin US Army.
|
On December 19 2012 08:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:47 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 08:41 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2012 08:27 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:21 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:19 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:16 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:32 tokicheese wrote:
[quote]
What is your point? You compared a multi-million dollar military explosive device with no recreational use to a responsible person who likes to go out in the bush and fire off a couple rounds. Can you not see the difference? Well all assault weapons had some 50 years ago a military use. And who are you to decide that explosive devices have no recreational use? Who says . . . etc. My point was that Jinglehells argument about "can be used for something other than killing thus give it to the people" is not a good one. If you want to think of a better example, please go ahead. That actually isn't my argument at all. You're STILL ignoring what I actually was saying. I'm not even interested in that point right now. Whether people should own weapons for recreation is utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is that there is a COMMON argument against guns, that argument is "guns, or X guns are only intended to kill people", and I demonstrated that if we can ignore that concept with the person engaging in criminal activity, directing it at law abiding citizens is manifestly absurd. And if we're willing to consider that an armed intruder might not intend to kill anyone, we should certainly be willing to consider that an armed civilian might not intend to kill people. I'm not honestly sure how much simpler I can make this, but it's pretty straight forward logic. I'm not quite sure what your point is. A M16 is "clearly" designed to kill people but this doesn't imply that everyone with a M16 wants to kill people. I still think the streets would be safer if people don't run around with M16. (or any other fully automatic weapon) Edit: On December 19 2012 07:12 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
And I'm getting accused of ridiculous arguments.
You'd have to check local statutes. Generally, if your life isn't distinctly in danger, lethal force is illegal. So, if it's a typical traffic misdemeanor offense, no. Good job attempting to obfuscate things since you don't have an actual response. He has a point though. A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. Well, if humans could all read minds, we'd know which situations call specifically for deadly force. We aren't. It's erring on the side of caution. Would avoiding killing be good? Yes. But I don't put the intruder in my house. If I did, they wouldn't be an intruder, and since I don't know what their intents or responses to my presence are, I don't particularly see how this is relevant. It's actually possible to be charged as a criminal if you overreact or use demonstrably excessive force. Well this seems like a social problem: Where I live I'm quite sure that burglars don't shoot at me but run away. It seems like you can't be so sure if you live in a problematic part of Boston. So I see no need to carry a gun to defend myself. Waking up suffices. So imo the aim should be to give people the feel of safety instead of giving them more guns. The aim should be to give people the "feeling of safety" ? WTF, man. Take a look around the real world. Not everybody lives in your fantasy land. I can easily turn this around: How fucked up is either your country or your mind that you fear a burglar, who wants your money and a quick escape, rapes your daughter and shoots you in the face. because he can. Ok, so, my country is fucked up. It is what it is. Point is, break into a home in America, and you're lucky to leave with your life. Get the word out. The law does not punish breaking and entering with death. What you are advocating is that citizens indulge in vigilante executions. Oddly enough I think the legal punishment for doing that is actually death in a number of states. You might want to reconsider before you start murdering people. KwarK, much <3, but it's not vigilante, as the law provides for it. Noun
A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority... If the law considers it self defense, it's down to whether the laws need re-working. They desperately do, complete with better oversight, but if it's a scenario where it's considered self defense under the law, it's not murder either. Murder, after all, is a legal term, which I assume you agree with. Frankly, at the least regarding deadly force as self defense, we should have a much higher requirement to show evidence of imminent threat to well-being. That aside, if there is a reasonable threat to you as an individual, I see nothing wrong with deadly force as self defense. It comes down to that "clear and present danger" thing our politicians aren't always so good with. What Kaitlin is advocating is that the homeowner should attempt to execute anyone unlawfully within their home in order to create a deterrent, regardless of the threat they pose to their person or property. Earlier in the topic he advocated pulling up a chair and watching as a wounded victim bled out rather than calling the police because if you called the police they might survive whereas if you finished them off then it would be viewed as murder. It is contrary to both the letter of the law and the intent of the law which is designed to protect the individual, not create opportunities where you might be able to murder someone and get away with it.
Well, there's a difference between the scenarios of "shooting in self defense" and "use self defense to cover murder", yes.
Shooting someone who breaks into your home is (generally) regarded as a self defense situation within the law, avoiding vigilantism. In context, all I knew I was replying to was your specific statement.
I'm a big fan of our first form of extended gun control being taking them away from the psychopaths who give the rest of gun owners a bad name.
|
I don't see insurgents throwing out their guns due to uselessness.
And they are half way around the world where they have less access to soft targets like politicans.
|
On December 19 2012 08:54 Jaevlaterran wrote:and this does not happen because people have more guns? What has been stated above is true ofc, but the death rate is not changed. More guns = more deaths no matter how they die. Even if one wants to only look at homocide the rate is still extreme. 0.19 vs 3.7 is still a difference of the correct significance level. There is proven statistical correlation between the amount of people owning guns and the amount of people dieing, both as a whole and from the actual guns. Bowling For Columbine anyone? "That means the United States is responsible for over 80 percent of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined. " Michael Moore on GunsAlso remember the fact that there will always be people who want to kill others. "Every man has the right to bear arms" does not really sound very thought through when considering that.
How large is the population of the US comapred to the other 23 countries.... Texas has more population than Canada....
|
On December 19 2012 09:00 Zaqwe wrote:
I don't see insurgents throwing out their guns due to uselessness.
And they are half way around the world where they have less access to soft targets like politicans.
obvious troll is obvious :/
User was warned for this post
|
On December 19 2012 08:57 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:54 Zaqwe wrote:
Guns are for killing people. That is why it is so important to have the right to own them.
The revolutionary war was not fought against deer and paper cutouts.
Go start a revolution and tell me how your gun worked against the frikkin US Army.
And yet our crappy guns worked against the much superior force of Britain...
|
On December 19 2012 09:01 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 09:00 Zaqwe wrote:
I don't see insurgents throwing out their guns due to uselessness.
And they are half way around the world where they have less access to soft targets like politicans. obvious troll is obvious :/
Troll accusations: the last resort of an intellectual lightweight upon having their flimsy arguments torn to shreds.
|
On December 19 2012 09:01 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 09:00 Zaqwe wrote:
I don't see insurgents throwing out their guns due to uselessness.
And they are half way around the world where they have less access to soft targets like politicans. obvious troll is obvious :/
I kind of wish the people who think that way would try it against the US Army. Then, hopefully, after natural selection ran it's course, the rest of us who own guns wouldn't get guilt by association, and might look a little better.
|
On December 19 2012 09:03 Energizer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:57 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:54 Zaqwe wrote:
Guns are for killing people. That is why it is so important to have the right to own them.
The revolutionary war was not fought against deer and paper cutouts.
Go start a revolution and tell me how your gun worked against the frikkin US Army. And yet our crappy guns worked against the much superior force of Britain...
I admit it, my posts always provoke the smartest of responses possible.
in other words: I'm out for now.
|
United States43219 Posts
On December 19 2012 08:59 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:51 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2012 08:47 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 08:41 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2012 08:27 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:21 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:19 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:16 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:
[quote]
Well all assault weapons had some 50 years ago a military use. And who are you to decide that explosive devices have no recreational use? Who says . . . etc.
My point was that Jinglehells argument about "can be used for something other than killing thus give it to the people" is not a good one. If you want to think of a better example, please go ahead.
That actually isn't my argument at all. You're STILL ignoring what I actually was saying. I'm not even interested in that point right now. Whether people should own weapons for recreation is utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is that there is a COMMON argument against guns, that argument is "guns, or X guns are only intended to kill people", and I demonstrated that if we can ignore that concept with the person engaging in criminal activity, directing it at law abiding citizens is manifestly absurd. And if we're willing to consider that an armed intruder might not intend to kill anyone, we should certainly be willing to consider that an armed civilian might not intend to kill people. I'm not honestly sure how much simpler I can make this, but it's pretty straight forward logic. I'm not quite sure what your point is. A M16 is "clearly" designed to kill people but this doesn't imply that everyone with a M16 wants to kill people. I still think the streets would be safer if people don't run around with M16. (or any other fully automatic weapon)
Edit:[quote]
He has a point though. A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe.
Well, if humans could all read minds, we'd know which situations call specifically for deadly force. We aren't. It's erring on the side of caution. Would avoiding killing be good? Yes. But I don't put the intruder in my house. If I did, they wouldn't be an intruder, and since I don't know what their intents or responses to my presence are, I don't particularly see how this is relevant. It's actually possible to be charged as a criminal if you overreact or use demonstrably excessive force. Well this seems like a social problem: Where I live I'm quite sure that burglars don't shoot at me but run away. It seems like you can't be so sure if you live in a problematic part of Boston. So I see no need to carry a gun to defend myself. Waking up suffices. So imo the aim should be to give people the feel of safety instead of giving them more guns. The aim should be to give people the "feeling of safety" ? WTF, man. Take a look around the real world. Not everybody lives in your fantasy land. I can easily turn this around: How fucked up is either your country or your mind that you fear a burglar, who wants your money and a quick escape, rapes your daughter and shoots you in the face. because he can. Ok, so, my country is fucked up. It is what it is. Point is, break into a home in America, and you're lucky to leave with your life. Get the word out. The law does not punish breaking and entering with death. What you are advocating is that citizens indulge in vigilante executions. Oddly enough I think the legal punishment for doing that is actually death in a number of states. You might want to reconsider before you start murdering people. KwarK, much <3, but it's not vigilante, as the law provides for it. Noun
A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority... If the law considers it self defense, it's down to whether the laws need re-working. They desperately do, complete with better oversight, but if it's a scenario where it's considered self defense under the law, it's not murder either. Murder, after all, is a legal term, which I assume you agree with. Frankly, at the least regarding deadly force as self defense, we should have a much higher requirement to show evidence of imminent threat to well-being. That aside, if there is a reasonable threat to you as an individual, I see nothing wrong with deadly force as self defense. It comes down to that "clear and present danger" thing our politicians aren't always so good with. What Kaitlin is advocating is that the homeowner should attempt to execute anyone unlawfully within their home in order to create a deterrent, regardless of the threat they pose to their person or property. Earlier in the topic he advocated pulling up a chair and watching as a wounded victim bled out rather than calling the police because if you called the police they might survive whereas if you finished them off then it would be viewed as murder. It is contrary to both the letter of the law and the intent of the law which is designed to protect the individual, not create opportunities where you might be able to murder someone and get away with it. Well, there's a difference between the scenarios of "shooting in self defense" and "use self defense to cover murder", yes. Shooting someone who breaks into your home is (generally) regarded as a self defense situation within the law, avoiding vigilantism. In context, all I knew I was replying to was your specific statement. I'm a big fan of our first form of extended gun control being taking them away from the psychopaths who give the rest of gun owners a bad name.
I edited my previous post but basically the average citizen does not have the right to judge or punish another citizen, only the justice system does. It may, from time to time, be necessary for one man to use force against another to protect himself or his property but this is never justice, just reacting to the circumstances. The minimum amount of force should be used to secure himself (with reasonable allowances for the limitations of the scenario (not knowing if they are armed or not etc)) and the situation should be passed to the authorities empowered by society to deal with it as soon as possible. They have a monopoly on legitimate force.
What Kaitlin advocates is always using the maximum force possible, disregarding the threat posed, in order to maximise the potential for killing while trying to avoid involvement by the legal authorities wherever possible as "they'll give them a slap on the wrist".
|
On December 19 2012 09:04 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 09:03 Energizer wrote:On December 19 2012 08:57 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:54 Zaqwe wrote:
Guns are for killing people. That is why it is so important to have the right to own them.
The revolutionary war was not fought against deer and paper cutouts.
Go start a revolution and tell me how your gun worked against the frikkin US Army. And yet our crappy guns worked against the much superior force of Britain... I admit it, my posts always provoke the smartest of responses possible. in other words: I'm out for now.
In other words: you have no retort. You lost the argument.
Now you run away with your tail between your legs.
|
On December 19 2012 08:51 KwarK wrote:
What Kaitlin is advocating is that the homeowner should attempt to execute anyone unlawfully within their home in order to create a deterrent, regardless of the threat they pose to their person or property. Earlier in the topic he advocated pulling up a chair and watching as a wounded victim bled out rather than calling the police because if you called the police they might survive whereas if you finished them off then it would be viewed as murder. It is contrary to both the letter of the law and the intent of the law which is designed to protect the individual, not create opportunities where you might be able to murder someone and get away with it. Ultimately you simply do not have the right to kill another man, there are conditions under which it might be necessary but because you think you can get away with it or because he was on your property are not acceptable reasons.
Society has created a justice system based around a single authority empowered to judge people and mete out punishment, extrajudicial force may sometimes be necessary but is never legitimate and should be minimised when possible. If the collective decision of society is that the guy deserves to die then it will judge him accordingly and he will be executed legally, if the collective decision is that he does not deserve to die then you have no right to execute him yourself.
Bolded part not true. I wasn't advocating it, merely suggesting it as a specific course of action that the crazy old guy who overreacted could have done to have avoided the trouble he's in. I would not, nor would I suggest anyone else do the sit in the chair and wait for them to bleed out scenario. Only that the crazy old guy wouldn't be in the trouble he is in, had he done that instead.
Also, you should be more careful about usage of "murder" vs. "kill". Murder is a crime, with specific elements. Shooting an intruder dead in his tracks as he breaks into your home is killing, but not murder.
|
On December 19 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:59 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 08:51 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2012 08:47 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 08:41 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2012 08:27 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:21 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:19 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:16 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:03 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
That actually isn't my argument at all. You're STILL ignoring what I actually was saying. I'm not even interested in that point right now. Whether people should own weapons for recreation is utterly irrelevant.
What's relevant is that there is a COMMON argument against guns, that argument is "guns, or X guns are only intended to kill people", and I demonstrated that if we can ignore that concept with the person engaging in criminal activity, directing it at law abiding citizens is manifestly absurd.
And if we're willing to consider that an armed intruder might not intend to kill anyone, we should certainly be willing to consider that an armed civilian might not intend to kill people.
I'm not honestly sure how much simpler I can make this, but it's pretty straight forward logic.
I'm not quite sure what your point is. A M16 is "clearly" designed to kill people but this doesn't imply that everyone with a M16 wants to kill people. I still think the streets would be safer if people don't run around with M16. (or any other fully automatic weapon)
[quote]
Well, if humans could all read minds, we'd know which situations call specifically for deadly force. We aren't. It's erring on the side of caution. Would avoiding killing be good? Yes. But I don't put the intruder in my house. If I did, they wouldn't be an intruder, and since I don't know what their intents or responses to my presence are, I don't particularly see how this is relevant. It's actually possible to be charged as a criminal if you overreact or use demonstrably excessive force.
Well this seems like a social problem: Where I live I'm quite sure that burglars don't shoot at me but run away. It seems like you can't be so sure if you live in a problematic part of Boston. So I see no need to carry a gun to defend myself. Waking up suffices. So imo the aim should be to give people the feel of safety instead of giving them more guns. The aim should be to give people the "feeling of safety" ? WTF, man. Take a look around the real world. Not everybody lives in your fantasy land. I can easily turn this around: How fucked up is either your country or your mind that you fear a burglar, who wants your money and a quick escape, rapes your daughter and shoots you in the face. because he can. Ok, so, my country is fucked up. It is what it is. Point is, break into a home in America, and you're lucky to leave with your life. Get the word out. The law does not punish breaking and entering with death. What you are advocating is that citizens indulge in vigilante executions. Oddly enough I think the legal punishment for doing that is actually death in a number of states. You might want to reconsider before you start murdering people. KwarK, much <3, but it's not vigilante, as the law provides for it. Noun
A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority... If the law considers it self defense, it's down to whether the laws need re-working. They desperately do, complete with better oversight, but if it's a scenario where it's considered self defense under the law, it's not murder either. Murder, after all, is a legal term, which I assume you agree with. Frankly, at the least regarding deadly force as self defense, we should have a much higher requirement to show evidence of imminent threat to well-being. That aside, if there is a reasonable threat to you as an individual, I see nothing wrong with deadly force as self defense. It comes down to that "clear and present danger" thing our politicians aren't always so good with. What Kaitlin is advocating is that the homeowner should attempt to execute anyone unlawfully within their home in order to create a deterrent, regardless of the threat they pose to their person or property. Earlier in the topic he advocated pulling up a chair and watching as a wounded victim bled out rather than calling the police because if you called the police they might survive whereas if you finished them off then it would be viewed as murder. It is contrary to both the letter of the law and the intent of the law which is designed to protect the individual, not create opportunities where you might be able to murder someone and get away with it. Well, there's a difference between the scenarios of "shooting in self defense" and "use self defense to cover murder", yes. Shooting someone who breaks into your home is (generally) regarded as a self defense situation within the law, avoiding vigilantism. In context, all I knew I was replying to was your specific statement. I'm a big fan of our first form of extended gun control being taking them away from the psychopaths who give the rest of gun owners a bad name. I edited my previous post but basically the average citizen does not have the right to judge or punish another citizen, only the justice system does. It may, from time to time, be necessary for one man to use force against another to protect himself or his property but this is never justice, just reacting to the circumstances. The minimum amount of force should be used to secure himself (with reasonable allowances for the limitations of the scenario (not knowing if they are armed or not etc)) and the situation should be passed to the authorities empowered by society to deal with it as soon as possible. They have a monopoly on legitimate force.
Oh, absolutely. I in no way disagree with this statement.
Part of that would just come naturally if we had functional restrictions on the purchase and ownership of firearms, I think. The rest should be put into place in sane legislation (which would require both sides shutting up and sitting down for a while, so it isn't likely).
The biggest problem in the gun debate, though, is when the Armchair Quarterbacks show up and say "oh, well X situation was probably just (insert hypothetical here), so deadly force was obviously not called for, ban all weapons".
Absolutism and extreme viewpoints from the anti-gun side contribute just as much to the detriment of the situation as the same from the pro-gun.
I'm all for people being held more accountable, but that, in and of itself, doesn't mean I think deadly force in self defense is wrong. I just think people should be held to some sort of rational standards. If a cop uses their gun outside of a training environment, they have to do paperwork, about how many shots they fired, where they fired, what they fired at. They need to be able to find the brass.
Civilians not being held to similar standards is inexcusable. If it's really a legitimate case of self-defense, they should be able to give enough explanation to satisfy an investigation, which would make an investigation routine, rather than some form of violation.
In the end, though, if there were to be a (small) amount of error in the (very hypothetical) sane laws I wish would be drafted, I'd prefer if the error was in favor of the regular citizen, rather than in favor of the criminal.
|
On December 19 2012 09:04 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 09:01 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 09:00 Zaqwe wrote:
I don't see insurgents throwing out their guns due to uselessness.
And they are half way around the world where they have less access to soft targets like politicans. obvious troll is obvious :/ I kind of wish the people who think that way would try it against the US Army. Then, hopefully, after natural selection ran it's course, the rest of us who own guns wouldn't get guilt by association, and might look a little better.
To be fair I heard rumours about these insurgents in the middle east giving the Us army a run for their money...
|
On December 19 2012 09:05 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 09:04 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 09:03 Energizer wrote:On December 19 2012 08:57 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:54 Zaqwe wrote:
Guns are for killing people. That is why it is so important to have the right to own them.
The revolutionary war was not fought against deer and paper cutouts.
Go start a revolution and tell me how your gun worked against the frikkin US Army. And yet our crappy guns worked against the much superior force of Britain... I admit it, my posts always provoke the smartest of responses possible. in other words: I'm out for now. In other words: you have no retort. You lost the argument. Now you run away with your tail between your legs.
He lost an argument? The argument was that the personal guns of american citizens can defend them from the US military. That is not an argument, that is idiocy. You could take your guns and every weapon owned by your family, friends and colleague and you would not put a dent in a single tank, let alone a modern aircraft.
|
On December 19 2012 08:54 Jaevlaterran wrote:and this does not happen because people have more guns? What has been stated above is true ofc, but the death rate is not changed. More guns = more deaths no matter how they die. Even if one wants to only look at homocide the rate is still extreme. 0.19 vs 3.7 is still a difference of the correct significance level. There is proven statistical correlation between the amount of people owning guns and the amount of people dieing, both as a whole and from the actual guns. Bowling For Columbine anyone? "That means the United States is responsible for over 80 percent of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined. " Michael Moore on GunsAlso remember the fact that there will always be people who want to kill others. "Every man has the right to bear arms" does not really sound very thought through when considering that.
Bowling For Columbine is a deliberately deceptive fraud movie.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
I watched it also, but I had the critical thinking to question it. How about you? Did you find anything in the movie you disagreed with?
|
On December 19 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:They have a monopoly on legitimate force.
What Kaitlin advocates is always using the maximum force possible, disregarding the threat posed, in order to maximise the potential for killing while trying to avoid involvement by the legal authorities wherever possible as "they'll give them a slap on the wrist".
Kwark, please, "they have a monopoly on legitimate force" ? Maybe in the U.K., I don't know how it works over there, but here, people have a right to defend themselves. The results of that defense are not "justice" or actions of a vigilante, or illegal. There is no legal requirement for a homeowner to have perfect information about the intentions of an intruder. It's hard for prosecutors to overcome a homeowner shooting a rapid succession of gunfire into the chest of an intruder, as long as the angle of entry is from a standing position (of the intruder). Bullets through the chin are a different matter. Shots to the back of the head are a different matter. But shots into the chest of a standing intruder are difficult to make a case as other than self-defense. I don't know why people in this thread can't just accept that intruders risk their lives, justifiably so, by entering someone's home with nefarious intentions. Don't do it, and everybody lives.
|
On December 19 2012 09:13 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 09:04 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 09:01 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 09:00 Zaqwe wrote:
I don't see insurgents throwing out their guns due to uselessness.
And they are half way around the world where they have less access to soft targets like politicans. obvious troll is obvious :/ I kind of wish the people who think that way would try it against the US Army. Then, hopefully, after natural selection ran it's course, the rest of us who own guns wouldn't get guilt by association, and might look a little better. To be fair I heard rumours about these insurgents in the middle east giving the Us army a run for their money...
Yes, guerilla warfare intended purely to do as much damage as possible and stay in the shadows permanently is directly comparable to a shooting war intended to wrest control of a government, regarding the value of materiel.
Not quite.
Blowing up a few vehicles here and there, and taking sniper potshots to push out occupation via attrition and changing political will are not what you'd need to defeat an Army that won't be leaving ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
