His motives are very clear...he wants to make the risks of war clear to those who have the power to declare it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I'm going to introduce legislation to have universal military service to let everyone have an opportunity to defend the free world against the threats coming to us."
They have an opportunity. It's called "enlisting of your own free will". And if we're going to have mandatory service, it should be for the members of the government who vote in favor of the war. If they want it, let them fight it. If this bill passes, it will have been passed by the same people who voted for war. In other words, it won't have changed their mind about anything.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Oh, yeah, this is going to work.
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
Tim: That might be his point...I don't think he intends for it to pass, but he's hoping that when it comes up, people will be watching Congress's reaction very closely. That's my guess, at least.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Conscription..... A sorry thing....
It is a bad idea, moral would fall off, Tim McVeigh's have a better chance of spring up...
A wartime draft, well we have that, so it's no biggie...
Besides, then the politicians now that they have a full military, what makes him think that they, the polis, would twist this around and make war more often???
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
Sieg Hiel!!
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Shoudln't that be Hail Siegfried????
Well, okay, maybe not....
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
This just goes to show that nothing good ever came out of New York.
With the exception of my wife and closed-cell foam produced in my plant.
I wouldn't support this, under any condition. Do you really want someone like me in the military? Thought so. Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :
This can only create more problems IMO.
#1 Is the military setup for this?
#2 Do you really want people in the military that dont want to be there serving with people who have volunteered for duty?
Granted this situation already exists but on a much larger scale it could really become a moral and force protection issue.
#4 If this does pass, how long would they have to be commited for? 2 years? a year? 4 years?
I'm thinking the period of time people must serve would become an issue, how do you build unit cohesion with people who after 9 months are basiclly done with their commitment.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
You hire more hard-ass drill sergeants.
Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :
Thats the thing Cartman, during the Clinton years the training in the military with the exception of the USMC was pussified to no belief.
Drill Sergeants are not allowed to be hard asses anymore. As a Drill Sergeant you are not allowed to call someone a "Meathead" or a "Dogface".
Now I know a curse words doesnt make you a soldier. But if a troop can't take a grown man cursing at him how are they going to react during a fire fight? or if they are captured?
"An ounce of sweat in training saves a gallon of blood in battle"
Read the following article by Col. Hackworth about the training (or lack there of) at Fort Jackson, SC
The facts in this article have been echoed by friends of mine that have returned from "Relaxing Jackson" after Basic. Now this article was writtin about training with volunteers, now imagine this with people who were dragged into training?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I saw this guy interviewed on TV last night.
If this guy were vodka, he'd be Absolut Idiot.
Basically, he's against the war and he'll do or say anything to push his agenda. He was actually saying that we needed to give the underpriveleged a chance to fight and die with the volunteers.
He also implied that somehow, the volunteers were too stupid to understand that they signed on for the possibility of warfare when they volunteered (An astoundingly insulting position for an elected official to take).
Or at least, that was what he was saying about half of the time. The other half he was babbling about "shared risk," as though he thought that the draft would put the kids of congressmen in danger (Like it did in Vietnam?) and make them re-think their position. The whole thing seemed to me to be some bizarre attempted vote extortion.
If THIS is what the Democrats are fielding as leadership, they're in even worse shape than I thought they were.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
For some strange reason, I agree with you, First.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Of course, as bad as the idea might be, the argument that mandatory military service is unworkable and harmful in all cases is blatently untrue.
Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :
I dont think that its unworkable. It's just not needed right now.
For example Israel has mandatory service and a good system for it. But in this country we really have to step back and plan this well. As always the first step here is going to be the hardest.
I think that if this had any chance of passing it was back in the months after 9/11.
Public support for this is going to be hard to come by because its simply not needed right now.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I know that Germany also has mandatory military service (last I heard, anyway) -- although objectors can opt for 3 years of civil service instead of 2 years (or 18 months?) of military duty.
Still, the idea is simply so boneheaded that it won't work. This guy's apparent goal is to make the Congressmen more reluctant to move towards war. And yet he's using the public as his tool for that.
As a private citizen, I'm already opposed to any potential war with Iraq under the current circumstances. Why should I be forced to sign up for the military to help prove a point to the other lawmakers, when I already agree?
The sad thing is that there will still be loopholes wherever we go. And this will do nothing but fuck up the lives of so many people who do not believe in a current need to join the military. A peacetime draft is simply a greater provocation for war rather than a reason against it. And the draft itself is primarily a method for organizing the recruiting of additional military personnel in times of extreme need -- it's not a political weapon for government games on Capitol Hill.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
It would give us a huge inactive reserve force that is already trained, but that would be secondary, since there are people now that can be pulled for the jobs, the only jobs with no civilian counterpart are combat positions.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
"When they change our way of life, they have won"
Well - if this isn't changing your way of life...
Noone is about to invade your country. Terrorism isn't fought (ahem, at home) with an Army. The Iraq thing sorta sprang up from no-where. Why not try promoting a need for less dependence on oil?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Watch it, Exxon, Shell, BP, Texaco, etc... they have spies everywhere....
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
"I think, if we went home and found out that there were families concerned about their kids going off to war, there would be more cautiousness and a more willingness to work with the international community than to say, 'Our way or the highway.' "
NO, you'd never have thought that any family wouldn't be concerned about thier husbands, fathers, or children going off to war in some dustbowl country.
I sound sarcastic, but who is this guy? Who wouldn't be concerned about family members going to war? It has this guy never had a family member in the military? Cause it sounds like he hasn't experienced the concern of your parent, child, or sibling one day going to war, and maybe dying for whatever reasons happen to start said war. My older brother joined the RCAF right before the whole Kosovo thing. My whole family worried that he'd be sent down there. But thankfully he didn't
BTW, Happy New Year. How can it be happy with all this war talk going on? just a thought...
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
For another witness statement on conscription, our little Finland has mandatory military service for able-bodied native males from age 18 up, and volunteer service for other ages, states of healt, genders and nationalities. Once you're in, these distinctions disappear. Duration of service ranges from mere 6 months for basic grunts to 12 for specialists and for reserve noncoms and officers. A 13-month civilian service is mandatory to those who turn down military service for whatever reason (one need not specify the reason in any way). There are a number of political prisoners who refuse even this type of service, but I personally don't feel particularly sorry for them.
OTOH, we also have a policy of not fighting outside our current national borders. Except as a properly mandated part of UN forces, and that doesn't involve the conscripts in any way - you have to be career military if you want to join the volunteer UN troops.
That's pretty much the exact opposite of the US situation. Americans won't be fighting much *within* their national borders... A small country also virtually has to resort to massive drafting in a military crisis, so it only makes sense to have all the draftees pretrained in things military (even if it is only for six months).
The previously mentioned problems with conscription aren't all that severe. Motivation is generally very high, especially as modern Finland mainly has a history of moderately successful defensive warfare. (Even back when we were Swedish mercenaries, motivation was relatively high, thanks to all the loot ) Physical fitness of draftees is abysmal, but then again, so is that of volunteers nowadays. And psychologically, I'd rather share a foxhole with a draftee than with a career soldier - and I'm sure the career soldier would share the sentiment!
Professional military forces have had a hard time taking root in those places of Europe where they aren't historically secure - even in the comfort-conscious democracies and parliamentary monarchies of the north, mainly because the national population simply isn't big enough to provide a credible volunteer force. You'd have to be the size of Germany or France or Poland to have a large professional force and not collapse your economy.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I dunno about the US but I know that the British military is strongly opposed to any kind of conscription, except in times of war. They are professionals and intend to stay that way. Which is why we have the best trained forces in the world.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
The Brits that were partying in Graffenwoerh(sp) had a habit of drinking on the barracks, falling off, running to the ladder, climbing up, and starting over....
I'll give you that they have hard heads.....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah look how peaceful Israel is. ...nothing like every screwball in your whole country knowing how to use heavy ordance and being trained to kill. Smart. Imagine the thousands disturbed people n every major city with that kind of training. Fun City. Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Liberation armies in the making.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Hmm... of course, conversely, you'd have the advantage of all those potential whackos having gone through some sort of physical and psychological screening at some poitn, which could conceivably be a good thing...
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I agree. Not everybody who is eligible for mandatory military service will for sure get into the military. It'd be intellegent to have some screening measures in place to keep the disturbed people away from guns and some other explosive/dangerous objects.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Bayonet training was fun....
KILL, KILL, KILL!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Da_bang80: It'd be intellegent to have some screening measures in place to keep the disturbed people away from guns and some other explosive/dangerous objects.
...by legal means, at any rate.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So why are there no Psyche screening for private firearms?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Trying to put myself in mind of someone who wants to make sweet love to the second ammendment (or whichever one it is):
Possibly because it's there in case the government turns bad and the local populace have a means of taking on the government and it's tanks and stuff. If you had psyche tests, the government could stop people that they don't like from having guns, and they could then strip away your personal freedoms.
Thank god the terrorist attack came along and they could use that as an excuse instead.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Guns are honorless killing devices anyway. Killing by remote control. Gutless.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Yup. Give me a lightsabre any day.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
It'd be worthless in YOUR hands.
Unless you take pleasure in dismembering yourself.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
In response to JA:
When you see someone on the battlefield, then you kill him with a gun from 200m away, that's not war, that's just wrong. During the middle ages people fought hand to hand mostly. Bows/Crossbows weren't very effective at close ranges against individual targets. During Hand to hand, the stronger warrior usually won. Rather Darwinian actually. It may seem barbaric now. But is it really worse than getting a bullet through your chest and waiting in severe agony to bleed out, which could take a few minutes?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
As opposed to getting a sword through your gut and waiting to bleed out?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers were on C-SPAN tonight, most likely a playback, saying that they thought the idea was no good, that the volunteer military is a more professional force, etc...
The reports tried getting him to talk about the military now as opposed to the late 60's...
Do those idiots know that there was a war and a draft taking place then??? Apples and oranges make for good side by side comparisions...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Ok!!!! Let's bring back Medieval warfare!!! it's sooooooo much more manly!!! Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
If something like this were to come into force over in the UK I'd tell Tony Blair to shove it up his ass and shed his blood for peace rather than everyone else's. I am not a killer or a soldier and I would rather go to prison and be called a coward than fight and get shot at and gassed by the enemy.
War is a total waste of time, it doesn't benefit anyone. Fight over a piece of land, religion . . . anything. Why? We're all human. We all have a right to live. Just because a few tossers think that they should rule the world, the world is spoilt for everyone else. What about the families? "Oh, so sorry. Your dad/mother/brother/sister/son/daughter/other family member was killed because we wanted to let off some steam/take that country."
Piss off back to where you came from you morons and leave us all in peace!
GRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Sorry my fellow Flare members, but I'm just pissed off with the politicians screwing everything up for the citizens that they serve and had to get that off my chest. Sorry if my attitude offends anyone, but it is my own.
War is wrong, war is stupid, war is futile. Someone stop it now before it begins, runs out of control and kills us all.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
War sucks. It's also sometimes our best option.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Da_bang80: In response to JA:
When you see someone on the battlefield, then you kill him with a gun from 200m away, that's not war, that's just wrong. During the middle ages people fought hand to hand mostly. Bows/Crossbows weren't very effective at close ranges against individual targets. During Hand to hand, the stronger warrior usually won. Rather Darwinian actually. It may seem barbaric now. But is it really worse than getting a bullet through your chest and waiting in severe agony to bleed out, which could take a few minutes?
It's wrong....so is all war. I really was more refering to firearms as a rule and their legality as a "citizen's right to bear arms". Loada crap. 99% of people with weapons permits are the last possible people you'd want to have them! I really just dislike the "equalizer" mentality that lets a 15 year old gang banger off anybody regardless of skill or consequence. It's no diffrent than North Korea having a nuke: only the number of targets is higher. We'll do anything to prevent a big psycho like Sadamm from having that kind of power, but here in America we have the worlds largest handgun mortality rate with no war in sight. Why are'nt we tackling the problem of indiscriminate killing here at home at all? Political contrubutions and the NRA is why. Let's see this fuck-o from NY call for a mandatory firearms ban: never happen.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Why are'nt we tackling the problem of indiscriminate killing here at home at all? Political contrubutions and the NRA is why. Let's see this fuck-o from NY call for a mandatory firearms ban: never happen.
Also because the availability of weapons seems to have bugger-all to do with the homicide rate, otherwise Norway and Canada would have pretty much similar rates to ours.
It is, sad to say, probably our culture at large, not our "gun culture," which causes this problem.
quote: 99% of people with weapons permits are the last possible people you'd want to have them!
99.99% of statistics "quoted" in this manner are unadulterated crap. I'm betting this one is, too.
It's amazing, the sheer number of lunkheads who actually seem to believe that societal pacifism is viable while predators exist. Dude, tell it to the antelope. He lives by running away, and when he can't run, he dies.
You cannot HAVE freedom if you are not willing to defend it. When you expect others to defend you, you are giving them power over you. Sometimes, power extending to life-and-death decisions.
You might have missed it but, those model ships you build? They have phaser strips and photon torpedo launchers. Even in Utopia.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I don't want to bring back Medieval Warfare. I'm just saying I'd rather have a chance to fight it out with some guy then get shot at by a sniper from over a kilometer away. Swords are also way cooler
quote: War sucks. It's also sometimes our best option.
And sometimes it's our only option. Unfortunately.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:Why are'nt we tackling the problem of indiscriminate killing here at home at all? Political contrubutions and the NRA is why. Let's see this fuck-o from NY call for a mandatory firearms ban: never happen.
Also because the availability of weapons seems to have bugger-all to do with the homicide rate, otherwise Norway and Canada would have pretty much similar rates to ours.
It is, sad to say, probably our culture at large, not our "gun culture," which causes this problem.
quote: 99% of people with weapons permits are the last possible people you'd want to have them!
99.99% of statistics "quoted" in this manner are unadulterated crap. I'm betting this one is, too.
It's amazing, the sheer number of lunkheads who actually seem to believe that societal pacifism is viable while predators exist. Dude, tell it to the antelope. He lives by running away, and when he can't run, he dies.
You cannot HAVE freedom if you are not willing to defend it. When you expect others to defend you, you are giving them power over you. Sometimes, power extending to life-and-death decisions.
You might have missed it but, those model ships you build? They have phaser strips and photon torpedo launchers. Even in Utopia.
Be real. If you want to make comparisons then find me civillians in the trek universe with phasers. There are none. Starfleet is the Federation's equivalent of the military and there is no need of police- they've outgrown the attitude you expressed. I think you'll find that nobody is killed by a stray phaser blast in Trek. Civillians have no phasers or any personal weapons. It's much more difficult to take a life if you have to look a person in the eye....not just point a small killing machine at them and click their life away like it's a TV station you don't want to watch. That's why handguns should be illeagal. If someone that bought a handgun for protection from one of these "preadator" boogeymen you speak of gets really pissed at the guy that just flipped him off, he'll be much more likely to do something stupid if all he has to do is point and shoot. The old adage of "if handguns are outlawed, only outlaws will have handguns" has been bandied about by the NRA for years while the inncoent bystander deathtoll has grown exponentially. Explain your attitude to parents of kids that get shot at school by other kids showing off their guns.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:I think you'll find that nobody is killed by a stray phaser blast in Trek.
Riva's chorus. Sisko's wife. The Colonists on Cestus III. Any civilians the Borg assimilated.
quote:Civillians have no phasers or any personal weapons.
Even the pacifist who turned out to be a douwd had one, although it was non functional. Guinan had a rifle. Quark had access to weapons.
quote: If someone that bought a handgun for protection from one of these "preadator" boogeymen you speak of gets really pissed at the guy that just flipped him off, he'll be much more likely to do something stupid if all he has to do is point and shoot.
My brother and father have both displayed firearms to ward off "boogeymen" as you so foolishly call them. They exist.
quote: The old adage of "if handguns are outlawed, only outlaws will have handguns" has been bandied about by the NRA for years while the inncoent bystander deathtoll has grown exponentially.
An unabashed lie, "exponentially" is. It's not even going up. It's been going down for years. Moreso in places which encourage carry permits.
quote: Explain your attitude to parents of kids that get shot at school by other kids showing off their guns.
It's already illegal for kids to have guns. Adding a new law won't help. Most of those guns were obtained illegally in the first place.
You probably don't know that since the handgun ban in England, handgun crime there has actually risen. Bad guys don't care about another law to break.
Quit swallowing propaganda and start actually looking for facts. You may be surprised.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:I think you'll find that nobody is killed by a stray phaser blast in Trek.
Riva's chorus. Sisko's wife. The Colonists on Cestus III. Any civilians the Borg assimilated None of wich were killed by other federation citizens and were all killed in an act of war by outside agressors.
quote:Civillians have no phasers or any personal weapons.
Even the pacifist who turned out to be a douwd had one, although it was non functional. Guinan had a rifle. Quark had access to weapons.
The Dowd was not a Federation citizen and Worf allowing Guinan to have a big 'ol rifle was just bad writing......not that she's a Fed. citizen either (likely).
quote: If someone that bought a handgun for protection from one of these "preadator" boogeymen you speak of gets really pissed at the guy that just flipped him off, he'll be much more likely to do something stupid if all he has to do is point and shoot.
My brother and father have both displayed firearms to ward off "boogeymen" as you so foolishly call them. They exist..[/QUOTE] ...and it's lucky that they themselves were'nt hurt or killed in armed conflict.
quote: The old adage of "if handguns are outlawed, only outlaws will have handguns" has been bandied about by the NRA for years while the inncoent bystander deathtoll has grown exponentially.
An unabashed lie, "exponentially" is. It's not even going up. It's been going down for years. Moreso in places which encourage carry permits.[/QUOTE] You may be right: it may be holding steady or even slightly declining, but even one innocent death is reason enough to change things.
quote: Explain your attitude to parents of kids that get shot at school by other kids showing off their guns.
It's already illegal for kids to have guns. Adding a new law won't help. Most of those guns were obtained illegally in the first place.[/QUOTE] It is illeagal but manufacturers make thousands of handguns each year, making it easy for even kids to obtain one. You probably don't know that since the handgun ban in England, handgun crime there has actually risen. Bad guys don't care about another law to break. [/QUOTE] Possibly due to a lack of the law's enforcement. At least they're doing something! Here in America we conviently look the other way.The fact is that handguns kill and until people like you give up the giddy sense of power that having a gun gives you, we'll all be forced to repeat the cycle of fear and violence that comes with the firearms obsession.
Quit swallowing propaganda and start actually looking for facts. You may be surprised. [/QUOTE] The fact is that handguns kill and until people like you give up the giddy sense of power that having a gun gives you, we'll all be forced to repeat the cycle of fear and violence that comes with the firearms obsession.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
You don't have to quote the whole thread.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually, I was kinda in a rush at work and that seemed to be the easiest way.... ...thesystem here is a bit diffrent than what I'm used to at SSM's forums. I'll be more discreet next time. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
You know, out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of weapons I've watched, not a single one to date as killed anyone.
These weapons range from ity-bity 5.56mm rifles to 203mm howitzers, so there is a wide variation on which I do draw my conclusion that anyone that thinks a weapons kills is leaning towards be a propaganda fed dolt....
But that is just my opinion....
and, further, I do wish people would get it through their heads that a weapon of any type, is a TOOL, similier to a cigarette lighter or a car, both of which have been used to kill people...
Lighters have started fires that have killed people, and during the last ban-the-bomb thread a woman used her car to drive in to a building in the Gaylord, MI area to kill her passengers...
Ban weapons for common people to use, fuck education, then what to ban next, books??? the 'net??? Both can be used to spread bad ideas pertaining to the murder and maiming of any ethnic group you want to search for....
You know, working 7 days a week, 10 to 12 hours a day, for the last 7 weeks this Sunday has really made me irritable....
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"You cannot HAVE freedom if you are not willing to defend it."
That's the crux, isn't it? You, The Guardian Of Justice, The Valiant Defender Of Freedom and The American Way, vs. The Evil Menace To Society.
It's hilarious how you seem to think you'd MATTER if push came to shove. Which (SUPARHEROES WIHT JUSTICE POWARS take note) it hasn't for the past two centuries, and is not going to.
"When you expect others to defend you, you are giving them power over you."
You must have a DEEP hatred for the military, then.
"I do wish people would get it through their heads that a weapon of any type, is a TOOL"
Right. A tool to KILL.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
"Ban weapons for common people to use, fuck education, then what to ban next, books???"
It'd have to be a pretty biiig fucking book to kill someone!
"Guns are TOOLS!"
For what? You sure can't garden with them. Tools for killing is right.
You've watched thousands of guns? Where? Gun shows? Were they next to all the Nazi propaganda that is invariably at those shows? Mabye you watched something on TV too often.....Red Dawn?
"You know, working 7 days a week, 10 to 12 hours a day, for the last 7 weeks this Sunday has really made me irritable...."
...so you're tired, irritable and own firearms? ((shudder)) Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: "Ban weapons for common people to use, fuck education, then what to ban next, books???"
It'd have to be a pretty biiig fucking book to kill someone
You should see some of my text books!! They are leathal weapons. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
When did Guinan have a big phaser rifle?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
No, you see I was an infantryman for 10 years, so I have been trained to use these fun little things you call 'guns'... I haven't been to a gun show in all my years, so that's out....
So have have watched all of these weapons systems while on guard duty, in the field, etc... Never has one killed anyone, much like you can watch a rake. It won't rake anything without some help...
No, I don't own a weapon, except for kitchen cutlery... I can't say I like them anymore, but I HATE the idea of forcing ones will upon another....
Speaking of which, you make the insinuation I am a Nazi,or believe some sort of Nazi propaganda, and you want to control the way people behave and what they can and can not own???
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Pistol, in the ep. where she out shoots Worf in the holodeck, much to Worf's dismay....
A civilian outshooting a security officer, oh, the horror...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
"Night Terrors" the bar crowd gets rowdy, Guinan pulls out a phaser rifle and shoots the ceiling. probably one of the most memorable Guinan moments.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
You probably don't know that since the handgun ban in England, handgun crime there has actually risen. Bad guys don't care about another law to break.
Quit swallowing propaganda and start actually looking for facts. You may be surprised.
True. And on this subject, where'd you get the "handgun crime in the UK since the ban" has risen thing from anyway? From what I recall, it went down drastically, and has only gone back up in the past year or two.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: A) No, you see I was an infantryman for 10 years, so I have been trained to use these fun little things you call 'guns'... I haven't been to a gun show in all my years, so that's out....
B)So have have watched all of these weapons systems while on guard duty, in the field, etc... Never has one killed anyone, much like you can watch a rake. It won't rake anything without some help...
C)No, I don't own a weapon, except for kitchen cutlery... I can't say I like them anymore, but I HATE the idea of forcing ones will upon another....
D)Speaking of which, you make the insinuation I am a Nazi,or believe some sort of Nazi propaganda, and you want to control the way people behave and what they can and can not own???
A) You were in the MILITARY! There are so many controlls and safeguards aganst weapons going missing or being misused that it negates the point. I'm not speaking about the military, they by definition, need guns to prorect and serve- as do police officers. I'm talking about civilians owning firearms.
B)See point A), but any inanimate object has the same properties: it's the hotheads and nutjobs in the general populace that should be restricted in their ability to have firearms. I live in a state where it's easy to geta concealed weapons permit (at least prior to 9/11) but totally illeagal to carry a pocket knife with a blade longer than the width of your palm! Senseless.
C)I agree with that sentiment, and I'm not advocating governmental control (something I loathe)but you don't feel that a gun is required to protect yourself, so why should others? Fear and firearms is very bad combonation. Lots of people buy a handgun after being involved or hearing of a dangerous situation: a lot of gun accidents start off that way. There's not even a standardized gun-locking mechanism law from state to state-thanks to the NRA. What a bunch of swell guys.
D)No, I don't think you're a nazi and I meant no personal offense. If you've ever been to a gun show, you'd see guys waving the nazi flag all over and buying LOTS of high powered ordanince that has no use other than killing humans. Nobody hunts a deer with a submachine gun or needs one to protect his home. The "Red dawn" crack was a bit out of line, but that's exactly the kind of mentality these gun show pyschos have. I certainly DO want to control at LEAST the kinds of guns people can own! Whats wrong with that: we already have numerous half-assed weapons restrictions that don't work. Again, I see no good reason for anyone to have a assult rifile. That is not "full auto" but can be converted with an easily obtainable kit from those shows amkes it even scarier. Would you feel safe if you new neighbors has those kinds of weapons? Not me, man. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"No, I don't own a weapon, except for kitchen cutlery... I can't say I like them anymore, but I HATE the idea of forcing ones will upon another...."
So, anarchy is the way for you, then, eh?
Every law in existence ever has been the forcing of someone's will onto someone else. Should be repeal all laws against murder, rape, etc. simply because there will always be someone out there who will want to do those things, and we can't force our wills on them? Except that then we're letting them force their will on someone. If someone wants to kill you, and you don't want to be killed, one of you is going to have to force your will onto the other. There's no possibility that both of you can have your way.
So, if a will needs to be forced somewhere, I say let it be the one that doesn't make people die needlessly. And banning these guns to make it harder for the crackpots to get them seems a perfectly reasonable way to do that.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
TSN, thank you, you are bringing a point up....
Where to draw the line on laws and freedoms...
No, anarchy seems a bit of a pain in the ass...
Instead of more laws education and enforcement of existing laws is the thing to do, to me....
SMGs/automatics and heavy bore sp equipment are already illegal to own....
JA, no offense was taken, since I know how I stand on the issues, only the truth hurts....
The reason I don't fear people killing me with a firearm could be A) I have a very low value on my life and don't care, B) I am a Christian and I am Saved, or, C) the incident rate is very low and I am not worried about it....
I think that here in Port Huron there have only been two occasions in which a firearm was used in a crime, both times in the heat-of-passion, there was malice, but little or no aforethought. Knives, bats, and bricks have been used more often to cause bodily harm. Port Huron has a population of roughly 25,000 and has a good drug and alien trade with Canada....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I grew up in MIami back when we were still "murder Capital of the World" and I never felt the need to carry a gun or own one: even after being involved in a robbery and having one pointed at me. It makes me sick to think that anyone anywhere is a potential victim from the Pope to the kids in ellementary school because guns are so easy to aquire for anyone regardless of their background or level of skill. It's a user -friendly device with no redeeming qualities (like IMac) and each year we don't ban firearms is another decade worth of guns manufactured right here in the United States. The genie will remain out of the proverbial bottle much longer the more we hesitate now.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:In a study released late last month, researchers found that the criminal use of handguns in Britain had increased by almost 40% in three years, to 3,685 incidents from 2,648. The study was sponsored by the Countryside Alliance, which represents farmers, rural landowners and the hunting community.
The Centre for Defence Studies at King's College used national crime statistics to examine the unilateral ban on handguns enacted in 1997. The ban came in response to a school shooting in March 1996 in Dunblane, Scotland, that killed 16 children and their teacher. The shooter had a registered weapon.
quote:A "gun summit" to deal with the unexpected and alarming 35% rise in gun crime in the past 12 months will today provide the launchpad for a sustained government campaign to tackle Britain's burgeoning gun culture. Yesterday's far higher than expected figures showed nearly 10,000 incidents involving firearms in England and Wales in the past 12 months. The Home Office figures put the gun-related death toll at a record 97 murders, with a further 558 serious casualties.
quote:The crime figures show that gun crime has risen every year for four years, with almost 10,000 incidents involving firearms recorded in the 12 months to September 2002.
This startling jump from 7,300 incidents in 2000/01 has been driven by a 46% surge in the use of illegal handguns which are now seen as a "fashion accessory" by some in the inner cities but which will soon attract a minimum five year prison sentence.
quote:The survey shows that guns are now used in 70% of all robberies and has helped to drive the murder rate up to 858, the highest in more than 50 years.
The rate of Washington D.C police officers arrested is 19 per 1000, and the rate of New York City police officers arrested is 3 per 1000. But the rate of Florida concealed handgun permit holders arrested is 0.9 per 1000. Who should we be disarming?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well one things for sure: removing the handgun ban in Britan is not going to make the deathtoll go down! It does suck that the ban has not proven effective. I think that the brits need to examine where these guns are coming from? Were they smuggled into the country or were they made prior to the ban? Both alternatives are pretty scary, If there's that much smuggling of firearms into the country then the border is really lax. If the guns were there prior to the ban, then the situation is worse in that no one with ulterior motives (like selling the gun) turned their firearms in and no one fears reprisals of gun posession! Got any stats on the gun's origins?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
One of the articles I read seems to suggest that many guns are being smuggled in via an Eastern European countries - Northern Ireland connection.
Probably others are smuggled in with drug shipments, the same way weapons bans can be defeated over here. "Smith, put some AK-47's in with the coke next time."
quote:no one with ulterior motives (like selling the gun) turned their firearms in and no one fears reprisals of gun posession!
Where I come from, we call these people with ulterior motives "criminals," and we realize that it's pretty ludicrous to expect them to obey the law. Why other people can't seem to grasp that, I don't know.
If the criminals will not turn their guns in when the ban comes, what good is the ban? It only harms the vast majority who would obey the laws in the first place, and makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding people.
It is therefore bad policy.
quote:Well one things for sure: removing the handgun ban in Britan is not going to make the deathtoll go down!
I don't know how 'for sure' this is. Your own state showed a marked drop in crime when the concealed carry permits came into effect. As have several other locales.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
"It ... makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding people."
Assuming there are people out there who have never broken a law in their lives, and who happen to be in violation of this law before it exists and choose not to follow it when it does. This, of course, could be true of any law ever put into effect for all time. Obviously, we're not going to stop making laws just because some "law-abiding citizen" out there might be in violation of it and not want to follow it.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
There's a thing called "civil disobedience."
But yes, we will stop passing those laws, when the people they affect number in the many thousands, and they vote.
quote:Assuming there are people out there who have never broken a law in their lives, and who happen to be in violation of this law before it exists and choose not to follow it when it does.
Like Prohibition.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I think another issue that should be brought up while were talking about guns for protection is Gun Education.
Sure anyone will think: "Gee, if I get a gun, then I just point one end at the bad guy and pull the trigger." But there's more to it. (Some guns are quite a bit more sophisticated) If a person is just a bad marksman,or they just don't know how to use a gun, then what's to stop that person from missing the bad guy, and accidentally shooting an innocent, then probably getting killed or wounded by the bad guy? (Whose now probably going to be more aggressive towards you now)
There is Drivers ED to teach someone how to properly control a vehicle so they are not a menace to others. So it's only logical for people who want to own a firearm to take a course on how to properly operate one. and maintain one. So they can shoot thier intented target, and not someone or something else. And be able to maintain thier gun so there's less chance of it jamming, or misfiring.
I think there SHOULD be mandatory gun education courses for anyone who wishes to own a firearm. Of course how that's going to be enforced is beyond me, if they can't even get a ban to work. Or gun registration, which is a big issue up here in Canada right now.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"If the criminals will not turn their guns in when the ban comes, what good is the ban?"
Halting their proliferation.
As in:
Preventing FUTURE criminals from obtaining them in the FIRST place.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Not unless you've got an impossible degree of enforcement, it won't.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Da_Bang, yes, education is the thing....
EC, the Brits have certainly made sure that no new weapons get in to the hands of new/aspiring criminals, with weapons related crimes going UP....
Do you realize exactly how big this country is??? That is way we are having a miserable time stopping the drug trade, the borders are enormous. I'd cite you a mileage number, but I have no time to look it up as I have to get ready for work, maybe later.
A ban is not the answer, education is, metal detectors in weapons free locations, bars being one, hotels, places where people gather in reasonably large groups. There are other, better, alternatives than a ban that would be the beginning of the end, when used in conjuction with the Homeland Security....
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: EC, the Brits have certainly made sure that no new weapons get in to the hands of new/aspiring criminals, with weapons related crimes going UP....
There's a big fuss at the moment about how replica and decommissioned guns are being modified in order to fire real bullets. Replicas and decommissioned guns were not banned in the original Act, but I think the government will introduce an amendment bill. The crime rate involving guns has gone up dramatically in the last few years; the murder rate with guns is still one hell of a lot lower here than in the US though (1 in a million compared to 44 in a million- according to the UN). The few functioning weapons are mainly coming in from Eastern Europe, as are many decommissioned guns that are then recommissioned over here.
I think it's quite interesting how many US states are considering a ban on outside smoking (and possibly on smoking full stop) on the grounds that there is a health risk, but not guns which are considerably more lethal.
quote: If something like this were to come into force over in the UK I'd tell Tony Blair to shove it up his ass and shed his blood for peace rather than everyone else's
If The Dear Leader tried something like this in peacetime, then I imagine the military would do that for you...
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
The replica guns are totaly incapable of firing live ammunition (That's why they're replicas). The dimensions of the chamber and barrel are off by a few millimeters (But not enough to make the replica look wrong). And it would be impossible to replace the those parts with real ones. Although deactivated firearms are another story. Maybe a very skilled machinist may be able to fix a replica to fire live ammunition. But I wouldn't think so. Besides there are alot less replica firearms than real firearms out there anyways.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
can you post a link to this UN info...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
"Where I come from, we call these people with ulterior motives "criminals," and we realize that it's pretty ludicrous to expect them to obey the law. Why other people can't seem to grasp that, I don't know."
Mabye they don't turn them in because there is only a token fine for owning a banned weapon that was purchased prior to the ban? Here in the US a simple "I didint know" will get you off if you have no prior record. Look at the US: there are whole militia's stalking and training for combat and learning new and creative ways to make things explode, and for what reason do we allow this to go on? The jerkoffs responsible for the bombing of the ATF building were in one of these "constutionally protected" militias. Fun city. Do they really need to arm themselves for fear of mabye another U.S. state invading or Iraqui paratroopers starting an homeland invasion from BFE Utah.....they could take over America if we're not all armed and ready! ...an of course, there's the ever looming possibility of Canada invading with their evil free healthcare and low crime rate...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: can you post a link to this UN info...
Sorry; it was on the TV news ("According to the UN...")
Also; it apparently takes 1/2 an hour to recommission a gun.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Okay, I searched the UN site with now luck, trying a multitude of searches, then search google, but the newest data seems to be from 99....
EC, the weapons you want to ban may be one of the few things that keeps the big government from getting bigger... Don't think this is far fetched, what, with gas meter readers and other utitlity workers being assigned to report info to the Dept. of Homeland Security....
One small step for the government, one big kick in the balls to the citizans....
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Look at the US: there are whole militia's stalking and training for combat and learning new and creative ways to make things explode, and for what reason do we allow this to go on?
Actually, the events in OK City pretty much began the slow, wasting death of the militia movement in this country, which is why you don't hear about them anymore. There are more guys walking through the woods with paintballs than there are militia guys nowadays. Only the diehard paranoids are left, and without any real public support, they're going nowhere.
Besides, communications is always more important than weapons acquisition, and these guys' communications are now far past being compromised.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: EC, the weapons you want to ban may be one of the few things that keeps the big government from getting bigger... Don't think this is far fetched, what, with gas meter readers and other utitlity workers being assigned to report info to the Dept. of Homeland Security....
Maybe. The idea though of the country managing to get it's act together, forming some sort of militia, and being effective against a government that will almost certainly have military support if something like this is necessary seems a little far fetched itself.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Depends. Some folks think that it's the simple act of resistance which is the most important thing. It doesn't matter if they win, just that they fought back.
There was a black poet, Claude McKay, who wrote a poem called "If we must die" in that mindset. It's one of my all-time favorites, possibly THE favorite.
quote:If we must die, let it not be like hogs Hunted and penned in an inglorious spot, While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs, Making their mock at our accurs�d lot. If we must die, O let us nobly die, So that our precious blood may not be shed In vain; then even the monsters we defy Shall be constrained to honor us though dead! O, kinsmen! we must meet the common foe! Though far outnumbered let us show us brave, And for their thousand blows deal one death-blow! What though before us lies the open grave? Like men we'll face the murderous, cowardly pack, Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!
or...
quote:"You know, it's funny I was thinking about what you said. 'The pre-eminent truth of our age is that you cannot fight the system.' But if, as you say, truth is fluent, that the truth subjective, then maybe you can fight the system as long as one person refuses to be broken, refuses to bow down." "But can you win?" "Every time I say 'no'." -- Sheridan and his interrogator
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Not unless you've got an impossible degree of enforcement, it won't."
Certainly doesn't stop you from trying to win the War On Drugs, does it? Now THAT is a complete failure to combat cause instead of symptom.
"EC, the Brits have certainly made sure that no new weapons get in to the hands of new/aspiring criminals, with weapons related crimes going UP...."
So you're an advocate of lifting the ban? Which will cause weapon related crimes to go up EVEN FURTHER?
"Do you realize exactly how big this country is??? That is way we are having a miserable time stopping the drug trade, the borders are enormous. I'd cite you a mileage number, but I have no time to look it up as I have to get ready for work, maybe later."
There are only THREE hot spots along the entire length of the border: New Mexico, Texas, and Florida. By no means is it impossible to guard them.
Anyway, this is a moot point. Guns aren't smuggled INTO the United States, because, unlike drugs, there's no DEMAND for them that isn't already met by NATIONAL production.
"A ban is not the answer, education is, metal detectors in weapons free locations, bars being one, hotels, places where people gather in reasonably large groups. There are other, better, alternatives than a ban that would be the beginning of the end, when used in conjuction with the Homeland Security...."
Education can only go so far. You educate people about drugs, too. And about alcohol. And about sex. See where I'm going? There will ALWAYS be people who can't hack the responsibility.
Also, I don't need to remind you that the HS act would never have passed through Congress if it didn't have the wake of 9/11 imparting MASSIVE additional momentum.
"EC, the weapons you want to ban may be one of the few things that keeps the big government from getting bigger... Don't think this is far fetched, what, with gas meter readers and other utitlity workers being assigned to report info to the Dept. of Homeland Security...."
The idea of an organised militia defeating an oppressive government was plausible two centuries ago. These days, it's a little far-fetched. Don't get me wrong, though. Nothing would please me more than to watch the National Guard forcefully remove that babboon from office. But it's a safe bet the guns *I* want to restrict availability of aren't headed for the NG.
[ January 13, 2003, 15:22: Message edited by: E. Cartman ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Certainly doesn't stop you from trying to win the War On Drugs, does it? Now THAT is a complete failure to combat cause instead of symptom. I think you mean to say "symptom instead of cause." Aside from that, I have to agree. Of course, the 'War on Drugs' is a half-assed attempt, and not a "war" at all. We start striking cartel operations with tomohawks, then we can call it a war.
So you're an advocate of lifting the ban? Which will cause weapon related crimes to go up EVEN FURTHER?
And your data which supports this claim that the UK will suddenly become the wild west if the ban is lifted consists of...?
In any case, no, we don't propose lifing their ban. We propose having the good sense not to repeat the same mistake here.
There are only THREE hot spots along the entire length of the border: New Mexico, Texas, and Florida. By no means is it impossible to guard them.
Those spots are hot because they are fairly convenient. (I notice you forgot California). If they dry up, others will be found. Boats can come in almost anywhere.
Anyway, this is a moot point. Guns aren't smuggled INTO the United States, because, unlike drugs, there's no DEMAND for them that isn't already met by NATIONAL production.
Right. Also because there's no ban. (Although returning soldiers did frequently bring back working souveniers, plus we did trade with other countries.. the AK-47 and the Glock and the Walther and the Luger are not US-made, you know.
Education can only go so far. You educate people about drugs, too. And about alcohol. And about sex. See where I'm going? There will ALWAYS be people who can't hack the responsibility.
And these people are best removed from society.
Also, I don't need to remind you that the HS act would never have passed through Congress if it didn't have the wake of 9/11 imparting MASSIVE additional momentum.
People have realized that the world has changed.
The idea of an organised militia defeating an oppressive government was plausible two centuries ago. These days, it's a little far-fetched.
*yawn* I already covered that.
it's a safe bet the guns *I* want to restrict availability of aren't headed for the NG. Why? They already have handguns and rifles and more. What's left?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:People have realized that the world has changed.
Has the world changed or has the US finally woken up to what the world is? People from Europe have put up with terrorism for years, the US was hit and suddenly the world is a different place? I don't think so, what has changed is the US, the rest of the world already knew what was going on and who was causing most of the problems.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Let me guess, US....
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Something I read somwhere said something along the lines of; Americans think September 11th changed the world, everyone else thinks September 11th changed America.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Use the magnifying glass.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Education can only go so far. You educate people about drugs, too. And about alcohol. And about sex. See where I'm going? There will ALWAYS be people who can't hack the responsibility.
And these people are best removed from society.
Normally, I'd post something about extreme reactions. But if the US had folloed Rob's idea a few decades ago, then GWB would no longer be on the planet. And this would be a good thing. So, you go Rob!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Talk about extreme reactions!
Dude, "removed from society" doesn't necessarily mean "killed." You know, there's jail, and asylums, and treatment centers.
Only one of your ilk would automatically assume I meant killed.
Pretty heavy on the doltage there, bulldog.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Liam has an ilk, now?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Apparently.
Plus, y'know, I was kinda basing it on past opinions of yours which seemed to say "People get one chance, and then they should be hanged until dead."
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Liam has an ilk, now?
quote:Apparently.
You have a large, furry, horse sized thing with fur and horns? Where do you keep it?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
The 'd' and the 'v' are far apart, so it wasn't voltage....
'e' and 'i', Liam now also has an elk....
I do beleive elks have hair, not fur...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Ahhhh; well, that was what threw me... Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
"Well. Unfortunately, guns are going to be around for a very long time. At least until we find a more efficient way to slaughter each other. So we better find a way to deal with them. OR WE'RE ALL DOOMED! DOOMED I TELLS YA!"
That was the official statement of a classmate of mine (no names) when our discussion drifted towards gun control. I may or may not have initiated the debate... Well OK actually I did. Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I have a question: While everyone's throwing around figures for gun murders, and crimes committed involving the use of a gun, compared between the US and the UK, what about figures for accidental shootings (whether fatal or not)?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
If people would think and place trigger locks on or remove the firing pins, depending on type or weapon, the number of accidents, especially with kids, would all but become nil...
As to the actual numbers, well, it happens, but with the way the US media grabs ahold of such things, it doesn't happen all that often, but when it does it is a tragety(sp)...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
But wait, don't tell me, trigger guards would be ruled unconstitutional. . . 8)
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Only for 'stupid bastards and religious freaks, so safe in their castle-keeps, turn away as a mother weeps, under the gun....'
Okay, I feel better now...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
"Outside in the cold distance, a wildcat did growl, two riders were approaching, and the wind began to howl?"
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Did I miss something? Do all our posts have to be poetic now?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yes, some time ago a Maryland hotshot politician was holding a press conference and was going to demonstrate the "value" of trigger locks.
His aim was to show how a child could not remove it, but that an adult could.
But during the demonstration, he couldn't work the lock mechanism and had to have a police officer help him.
Ah, here'a a brief summary:
quote:Last March, Maryland Governor Parris Glendening tried to demonstrate the "Saf T Lok" magazine lock, one of several different options currently available to state and federal governments at a press conference designed to promote legislation making the locks required under state law. It took the Governor nearly two minutes of struggling to finally unlock the gun.
In the real world (where not everybody has an armed security detail standing by), he'd be dead.
I'd be interested in knowing the proportion of these accidents which take place in locations WITHOUT Concealed Carry Permits -- locations where people are more likely to leave their weapon in an unsecure place, because they aren't allowed to carry it around.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Whats the point in having a gun if you take out the firing pin? MAYBE if the parents TAUGHT thier children about guns then maybe they wouldn't shoot themselves. If I have children, then I plan to teach them about guns and why not to play with them.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That's what my dad did. And despite iving in a house filled with guns, we've never come close to having an accident. Because we treat all the guns, even the non-functional ones and the ones we know are empty, as if they were always loaded.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Exactly. My father never taught me to stay away from guns. I knew what they were and I stayed away from them.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Rob: Yeah, but some people are too stupid to bother to teach their kids that, or even realize it themselves. But, by your logic, they should still get to have guns, because, if they don't, someone might shoot them someday, and they couldn't defend themselves.
[ January 21, 2003, 00:06: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Well ya know, that's one of the reasons WHY I keep saying that training in safety and proper use SHOULD be mandatory for gun owners.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Which doesn't help if they learn it just so they can get the gun, and then promptly continue to refrain from giving a shit.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Well ya know, that's one of the reasons WHY I keep saying that training in safety and proper use SHOULD be mandatory for gun owners.
And we all know how well that's worked with Driver's Ed. Why, thanks to the requirements for proper lessons and qualifications in handling cars, the roads are perfectly safe places to be.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"But wait, don't tell me, trigger guards would be ruled unconstitutional. . . 8)"
Assuming they made it past the lobbies of Uncle Sam's widespread tumor, the NRA.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by E. Cartman: "But wait, don't tell me, trigger guards would be ruled unconstitutional. . . 8)"
Assuming they made it past the lobbies of Uncle Sam's widespread tumor, the NRA.
You know, you really should read the posts AFTER the ones you agree with, before spouting poop like that.
Trigger guards = demonstrated failure. Dangerous to owner, do not protect children.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Which doesn't help if they learn it just so they can get the gun, and then promptly continue to refrain from giving a shit.
I wish that sentence had an understandable structure.
Plus, if this were true, why do we even bother having to pass a safety test to drive a car?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet:
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Well ya know, that's one of the reasons WHY I keep saying that training in safety and proper use SHOULD be mandatory for gun owners.
And we all know how well that's worked with Driver's Ed. Why, thanks to the requirements for proper lessons and qualifications in handling cars, the roads are perfectly safe places to be.
You're right. We should abolish driver's ed and all drivers training programs immediately.
What's that you say? You don't want that? Because the training DOES make the streets many, many times safer than no training would?
You're too smart to say such a stupid thing.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I wish that sentence had an understandable structure."
This from the man w/ the English degree? Need me to diagram the sentence for you, or something?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, YOU'RE the one who says that if something doesn't work - gun control in the UK, for example - then it should be abolished. Despite all the required licensing of drivers, there are still dangerous idiots on the road. So why bother licensing at all? Oh, right, because without any licensing at all it'd be a lot worse. And, um, gee, here's a thought: gun crime would be a lot worse in the UK if there weren't the current limits on gun ownership, meaing that it's not all that easy to acquire a firearm. Perhaps you should rename yourself Double Standards. 8)
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
An American named double standards. How apt. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
here's a thought: gun crime would be a lot worse in the UK if there weren't the current limits on gun ownership
Which, of course, flies in the face of all evidence and logic...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Like a 7,000 year old Earth!
Flash FM is funky.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Wow, Omey's taking ME to task for ignoring evidence and logic? Amazing. Let me clarify it for you, oh homeschooled one: While - as Firsty constantly reminds us - current gun control legislation does not completely stop gun crime, the simple fact is it still isn't that difficult to get a gun, and merely owning most types is a crime. That means that many of the people who might find a gun useful in committing crimes, even something like trying to scare your ex's new partner, never mind holding up the local cornershop or killing your boss (all things I've considered doing at one time or another), these people aren't able to acquire the necessary tool so don't. That doesn't always stop them, as I'm sure you'll point out, but it will in most cases. Capisce?
Now, go read your "Where's Waldo?" and let us know if you need any help. 8)
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Which, of course, flies in the face of all evidence and logic..."
Like some fundies I know.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:And, um, gee, here's a thought: gun crime would be a lot worse in the UK if there weren't the current limits on gun ownership.
But we've already determined that this is an untrue statement.
Gun crime in the UK was never very high to begin with. If the various Home Office and police statements (discussed many times previously) are to be believed, then gun crime has risen to levels ABOVE pre-ban highs.
Once again, you seem to be laboring under some odd belief that were the gun ban repealed, the UK would suddenly and inexplicably turn into the American Old West, with gun battles on every corner. (Which wasn't true of the Old West, either, but that's beside the point). However, if this were true, why wasn't the UK like that BEFORE the ban?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Because society is not a static thing? Because getting rid of a rule might not make things go back to how they were before the rule? Because the UK is a different place that is was a decade ago?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That's a reasonable assumption.
However, he seems quite insistent that the UK 'WILL' take that path, not 'might.'
I say that while it may not be possible to restore the previous balance, it might at least be possible to ameliorate the weight distribution.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:He also implied that somehow, the volunteers were too stupid to understand that they signed on for the possibility of warfare when they volunteered
Most recruits into the military don't expect to go to war. They want money for college. Despite the training, they never expected to see combat, and if they had, might not have enlisted. And I have this from guys who signed up for the military to pay for college, and wound up going to Panama or Iraq.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
What did they think the military was for, competition tiddlywinks?
If you enlist in the military without even considering that you might see combat, and making that part of your risk analysis... you're probably too dumb to serve in the military. Or any other capacity.
My Uncle enlisted in the US Army, just before Vietnam. He went. And later, to Grenada. And Panama. And Iraq. He's retired now, so he won't have to go again.
Incidentally, he's coming to visit my folks on Tuesday. I intend to ask him his opinions on all of this, from whether the Iraqis are lying (He was in Intel for most of his career) on up.
Any good questions?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Most recruits into the military don't expect to go to war. They want money for college. Despite the training, they never expected to see combat, and if they had, might not have enlisted. And I have this from guys who signed up for the military to pay for college, and wound up going to Panama or Iraq.
Interesting; I was reading an article in the paper today that says the exact opposite and that soldiers were, on the whole, eager to go to war and use the training. I'm not entirely sure of the accuracy of this though; most of the forces people I know don't exactly want to go to war but they do accept it is their duty and job to do so. they certainly don't sign up for college money (main difference between our forces and the Americans I think- ours are professional, it is a permanent job for most.)
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: What did they think the military was for, competition tiddlywinks?
If you enlist in the military without even considering that you might see combat, and making that part of your risk analysis... you're probably too dumb to serve in the military. Or any other capacity.
too dumb to stop a bullet?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: too dumb to stop a bullet?
Probably so dumb you'll try and stop your OWN side's bullets. Intentionally. With your head.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
thats an accurate summation of a lot of America's military action in the past decade or so.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Er, is it? In the 90s we saw the Iraqi army obliterated, the Serbian army deprived of any ability to move around within their own country (since everything that moved found itself highlighted by laser and scattered in many different directions by high explosives), and Haiti, uh, whatever was going on in Haiti. The only serious U.S. military blunder in the past decade seems to have been in downtown Mogadishu, but I have a hard time seeing how one incident constitutes an overall pattern. But I'm sure I'll be enlightened.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:If you enlist in the military without even considering that you might see combat, and making that part of your risk analysis... you're probably too dumb to serve in the military. Or any other capacity.
I have to find myself in agreement with FOT on this one. Don't want to go into combat, don't join the military. I just wanted to go to college is not a good excuse. The only thing I would have changed in your statement FOT was ".... you're probably too dumb to go to college."
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
sorry, im reeling from the fact that there were more friendly-fire and accidental explosive fuckup deaths in Afghanistan than actual combat deaths, and all the friendly fire horror stories i got back from Desert Storm.
anywho, yes, we are quite fearsome. USA USA! happy now?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
No.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Neither am I.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Mike is right though, we scare the shit out of everyone, ourselves included....
or...
Mike is right though, we scare the sit out of everyone since we are willing to kill ourselves and our allies to get to them....
Although the last one reeks of the same stench as the suicide bombers...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) Physical fitness of draftees is abysmal, but then again, so is that of volunteers nowadays. And psychologically, I'd rather share a foxhole with a draftee than with a career soldier - and I'm sure the career soldier would share the sentiment!![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)