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Once again, you seem to be laboring under some odd belief that were the gun ban repealed, the UK would suddenly and inexplicably turn into the American Old West, with gun battles on every corner.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?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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
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?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.)
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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?
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
thats an accurate summation of a lot of America's military action in the past decade or so.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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."
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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?
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
