So this is what we are expected to learn



  • @WeatherGod said:

    Just because the US citizens of over 50 years ago played a key role in ending both World Wars does not automatically endow all 2nd genereation decendants the characteristic of being 'brave' or whatnot.  Just as the actions of French, Dutch, Polish (etc.) citizens of over 50 years ago do not automatically mean that all of the descendents are 'cowards' (as some view it) or 'brave' (as others view it).

    No, but when you justify the cowardice of your country during that time and act shocked that someone would actually stand up and fight the Nazis, you are a pretty big pussy.  And when you basically say America is lame and should stay out of wars unless, you know, they're saving your ass, you are a hypocritical douchebag.  And when you say that all Americans are ignorant hicks and have absolutely no information to back that up, you show your own ignorance, especially when you don't seem to even know a lot about the history of your own continent, let alone the rest of the world.  Add the three together and you have the Dutch.


    @WeatherGod said:

    Like West Virgina?   </sarcasm> 

    Nobody said we wanted West Virginia either.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    The state of Texas actually enacted its conceal carry laws after a psycho crashed into a restaurant and killed something like 21 people with a shotgun.  Nobody could do anything because none of them were armed: you had a room full of Texans standing there, watching their loved ones being gunned down and with absolutely no way to stop the madness.  If even one of them had a pistol that son of a bitch wouldn't have taken anywhere near two dozen lives.  And even if you assume the absolute worst case, that the individual who was carrying concealed couldn't stop the rampage, at least they would have had a chance.  Their only option wouldn't be cowering on the floor, praying that it was all a bad dream as a lunatic calmly walks around the room and murders one after the other.
     

    Morb, you might already know this, but there was a woman there who watched her entire family gunned down. I forget who or what office she held, but she had been strictly anti gun prior to this.

    She is now 100% pro-gun and is working hard for better gun laws. She also has been on record as stating since that day she has been carrying a weapon ever since. Her statements about the incident were along the lines of: If I had only woken up sooner and had a weapon that day I might have saved my family's life instead of cowering under table watching the events unfold.

    I don't have time to find the story, I believe I read it in a magazine, but I am sure we could find her story somewhere if we look for it. I am sure most of the anti gun people here won't believe it without three credible sources  with her personal written statement attached in triplicate to each.



  • @slyadams said:

    Pitiful British education? The education system that leaves America dead? You obviously know fuck all about anything outside your country. You do realise that then American education system is laughed at the world over?

    That's because most of the world is ignorant and it's easy to hate the people on top.  I also would like to see the proof that the British education system is immensely superior to the US one.  And no standardized test scores, either, because those are a really poor indication of actual intelligence.  Furthermore, the US doesn't force the children who aren't as intelligent and don't score as high into special vocational schools; they continue in the same system until graduation.

     

    @slyadams said:

    People who know absolutely nothing about what goes on outside their borders. You are the embodiment of this.

    Actually, I know quite a bit about the rest of the world.  Just because I don't like your crappy country doesn't mean that I don't have a long list of reasons for it.  The way I see it, the US has all the good parts of other cultures and very little of the bad.  It's not like people are beating down the doors to get into your countries anyway, but people have been immigrating to the US for centuries.  They didn't leave because their old countries were awesome, either.

     

    @slyadams said:

    I would be prepared to bet a great deal of money that I am more educated that you, but yet you want to make sweeping judgements about people and their country.

    More educated?  You probably have had more schooling than me, but I doubt you are more educated.  And who is making sweeping judgements now?

     

    @slyadams said:

    You are a pathetic little moron and I'm done with you. I actually wanted to have a real debate about this, but you seem to be so stubborn and ill informed that its really not worth it. Every time I make a point or ask a question, I get back a stream of abuse.

    That's because you seem incapable of reading any of the information sources we have provided and instead parrot the same arguments MPS and myself have ass-raped many times.   And I fail to see how having many sources of information to back me up is being "ill-informed", but maybe it means something different to Britfags.

     

    @slyadams said:

    Can I just ask, how old are you? I'm genuinely interested.

    My age is the same as the length of my penis (in inches): 24.

     

    @slyadams said:

    I'll bet you're also glad that the person who you want protecting from is also carrying protection.

    Well, I'd prefer if I didn't need the protection at all, but this is the real world and there are dangerous people.  I'd rather have some protection rather than just bending over and letting evil people brutally pound my tender ass.  Oh, and the US doesn't share Britain's proud history of sodomy, so being pounded in the ass by evil people is a bad thing.

     

    @slyadams said:

    It really isn't that hard to understand that in a country where a large subset of guns are legal, it is easier for people to get them illegally that in a place where you cannot buy them at all. It really isn't hard to graps, seriously.

    Nobody here said it wasn't easier to get illegal guns in the US.  However, even the toughest gun control laws on Earth won't stop some criminals from getting guns, it will only stop law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves.  This isn't hard to "graps", either, but you seem unable to comprehend it.

     

    @slyadams said:

    Good luck in life. You disagree with me, therefore you are wrong and ignorant. You are a pathetic fool.

    Seriously, when the fuck are you getting of my Internet?  I promise, we have no tea, no scones and no young boys to sodomize.  Just leave our Internet in peace.

     

    @slyadams said:

    And the award for the person who most embodies the type of American that the rest of the world hates goes to you my friend.

    The rest of the world is shitty, though, so why do I care if they hate my country?  It's not like they're going to be able to do shit about it anyway.  "Oh no, they're holding up 'Bush is a Naziii' signs again!  What shall we do??"

     

    @slyadams said:

    You go and conquer everyone if you want, you're clearly the only country that matters and your view points are the only ones that matter. Once again, pathetic.

    I'd say it's way more pathetic to live in a country that tried to conquer everyone but failed and now has become irrelevant except as a source of funny accents.  Then there's the fact that football hooligans can basically break into your house, rape your dog and steal your collection of model ships and all you are legally allowed to do is sit in the corner and cry.  Does England need a hankie?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @WeatherGod said:

    Just because the US citizens of over 50 years ago played a key role in ending both World Wars does not automatically endow all 2nd genereation decendants the characteristic of being 'brave' or whatnot.  Just as the actions of French, Dutch, Polish (etc.) citizens of over 50 years ago do not automatically mean that all of the descendents are 'cowards' (as some view it) or 'brave' (as others view it).

    No, but when you justify the cowardice of your country during that time and act shocked that someone would actually stand up and fight the Nazis, you are a pretty big pussy.  And when you basically say America is lame and should stay out of wars unless, you know, they're saving your ass, you are a hypocritical douchebag.  And when you say that all Americans are ignorant hicks and have absolutely no information to back that up, you show your own ignorance, especially when you don't seem to even know a lot about the history of your own continent, let alone the rest of the world.  Add the three together and you have the Dutch.

    If one should condem (or praise) another, it should be based on the actions that they have done.  Therefore, you would be (somewhat) justified if you were specifically condemning the poster, but not for the Dutch in general.  On the flip side, saying that the current citizens of the US (by saying "We Americans") is so 'brave' or 'great' because of the actions of past generations is also not justified.  Fighting in WWI and WWII is their legacy, not ours.  We can say that they were great, but it does not immediately mean that we are still great.  We must call upon something that our generation has done, and even then, it would be a generalization, which is not entirely fair. 



  • @WeatherGod said:

    We must call upon something that our generation has done, and even then, it would be a generalization, which is not entirely fair. 
     

    Well, next time the netherlands is invaded by blood thirsty Nazis bent on genocide, we will see who is going to save the netherlands.

     

    I bet it wont be anyone in Europe.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Well, next time the netherlands is invaded by blood thirsty Nazis bent on genocide, we will see who is going to save the netherlands.I bet it wont be anyone in Europe
    Nope, it'll be the americans once they realise they're next.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @slyadams said:

    Pitiful British education? The education system that leaves America dead? You obviously know fuck all about anything outside your country. You do realise that then American education system is laughed at the world over?

    That's because most of the world is ignorant and it's easy to hate the people on top.  I also would like to see the proof that the British education system is immensely superior to the US one.  And no standardized test scores, either, because those are a really poor indication of actual intelligence.  Furthermore, the US doesn't force the children who aren't as intelligent and don't score as high into special vocational schools; they continue in the same system until graduation.

    Since when does this happen in the UK? People who pass certain exams can move into grammar schools, if they are available in their area. If you aren't so intelligent, you don't get forced into 'vocational' schools. So well played on that one. 0-1.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @slyadams said:

    People who know absolutely nothing about what goes on outside their borders. You are the embodiment of this.

    Actually, I know quite a bit about the rest of the world.  Just because I don't like your crappy country doesn't mean that I don't have a long list of reasons for it.  The way I see it, the US has all the good parts of other cultures and very little of the bad.  It's not like people are beating down the doors to get into your countries anyway, but people have been immigrating to the US for centuries.  They didn't leave because their old countries were awesome, either.

    Erm, do you know anything about the world? One of the biggest problems the UK currently faces is the massive influx of people into the country, both from the EU and from immigration. Keep trying, 0-2.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @slyadams said:

    I would be prepared to bet a great deal of money that I am more educated that you, but yet you want to make sweeping judgements about people and their country.

    More educated?  You probably have had more schooling than me, but I doubt you are more educated.  And who is making sweeping judgements now?

    Well, seeing as you can't really quantify, or qualify really, your level of self education ("X for dummies" perhaps?), I will assume that my 1st class MEng will come out on top. 0-3

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @slyadams said:

    You are a pathetic little moron and I'm done with you. I actually wanted to have a real debate about this, but you seem to be so stubborn and ill informed that its really not worth it. Every time I make a point or ask a question, I get back a stream of abuse.

    That's because you seem incapable of reading any of the information sources we have provided and instead parrot the same arguments MPS and myself have ass-raped many times.   And I fail to see how having many sources of information to back me up is being "ill-informed", but maybe it means something different to Britfags.

    I havn't parroted anything. All I have done is ask you to answer questions when you avoid them (things you have repeatedly done). 0-4

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @slyadams said:

    Can I just ask, how old are you? I'm genuinely interested.

    My age is the same as the length of my penis (in inches): 24.

    Its hard to take someone seriously in a debate when parts of their argument centre on the size of their cock.

    @morbiuswilters said:

     @slyadams said:

    I'll bet you're also glad that the person who you want protecting from is also carrying protection.

    Well, I'd prefer if I didn't need the protection at all, but this is the real world and there are dangerous people.  I'd rather have some protection rather than just bending over and letting evil people brutally pound my tender ass.  Oh, and the US doesn't share Britain's proud history of sodomy, so being pounded in the ass by evil people is a bad thing.

    So rather than actually tackling the social problems that makes your country so ravaged with violent crime, your answer is to allow every right and proper citizen to carry a gun to protect themselves? Yeah, that's a long term solution. Good luck with that. 0-5

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @slyadams said:

    It really isn't that hard to understand that in a country where a large subset of guns are legal, it is easier for people to get them illegally that in a place where you cannot buy them at all. It really isn't hard to graps, seriously.

    Nobody here said it wasn't easier to get illegal guns in the US.  However, even the toughest gun control laws on Earth won't stop some criminals from getting guns, it will only stop law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves.  This isn't hard to "graps", either, but you seem unable to comprehend it.

    I am perfectly capable of understanding it. However, your solution of 'a few criminal will be able to get hold of guns, therefore everyone has to have them thereby giving every other criminal an easy method of getting a weapon' seems, how shall we saw, non-future proof. 0-6

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @slyadams said:

    Good luck in life. You disagree with me, therefore you are wrong and ignorant. You are a pathetic fool.

    Seriously, when the fuck are you getting of my Internet?  I promise, we have no tea, no scones and no young boys to sodomize.  Just leave our Internet in peace.

    I'll get off your internet when you get off my WWW.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @slyadams said:

    And the award for the person who most embodies the type of American that the rest of the world hates goes to you my friend.

    The rest of the world is shitty, though, so why do I care if they hate my country?  It's not like they're going to be able to do shit about it anyway.  "Oh no, they're holding up 'Bush is a Naziii' signs again!  What shall we do??"

    Perochial much?

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @slyadams said:

    You go and conquer everyone if you want, you're clearly the only country that matters and your view points are the only ones that matter. Once again, pathetic.

    I'd say it's way more pathetic to live in a country that tried to conquer everyone but failed and now has become irrelevant except as a source of funny accents.  Then there's the fact that football hooligans can basically break into your house, rape your dog and steal your collection of model ships and all you are legally allowed to do is sit in the corner and cry.  Does England need a hankie?

    Failed? How about the largest empire the world has ever seen. Is there any end to your ignorance?



  • @morbiuswilters said:


    @slyadams said:

    It really isn't that hard to understand that in a country where a large subset of guns are legal, it is easier for people to get them illegally that in a place where you cannot buy them at all. It really isn't hard to graps, seriously.

    Nobody here said it wasn't easier to get illegal guns in the US.  However, even the toughest gun control laws on Earth won't stop some criminals from getting guns, it will only stop law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves.  This isn't hard to "graps", either, but you seem unable to comprehend it.

     

    except for the post one page back you mean.



  • @slyadams said:

    All I have done is ask you to answer questions when you avoid them (things you have repeatedly done)
     

    Everything you have asked has been answered pages ago. Why do you feel we are obligated to go back and argue the same thing again? Why don't you read the thread?

    Oh wait, you ignore that each time, why should I bother?

    @slyadams said:

    makes your country so ravaged with violent crime

    And yet you have failed to provide any evidence at all for that, and morbius has provided evidence against it. England is the country with more violent crime. Just because you cannot properly interpret statistics or read this thread doesn't mean you can keep flapping your gums with no backup.

    @slyadams said:

    Yeah, that's a long term solution.
    @slyadams said:
    seems, how shall we saw, non-future proof

    Apparently it is. Our violent crime is on it's way down, and your is on it's way up. Or did you miss that part of this thread as well?

    @slyadams said:

    How about the largest empire the world has ever seen.

    So you are proud of oppressing most of the world, and then having almost all of those places rise up, kill most of the English people there and make their own states?

    Wow, I have never been immensely proud of American history, but in comparison I guess I should be.



  • @slyadams said:

    People who pass certain exams can move into grammar schools, if they are available in their area. If you aren't so intelligent, you don't get forced into 'vocational' schools.

    So what does happen to those unfortunate, retarded souls or those who do not have grammar schools available in their area?  They become forum trolls?

     

    @slyadams said:

    One of the biggest problems the UK currently faces is the massive influx of people into the country, both from the EU and from immigration.

    And immigration is a problem why?  Ah well, just because some people would prefer a shit sandwich over a turd casserole doesn't mean England doesn't suck.  Provide more evidence of England not sucking and maybe I will believe you.

     

    @slyadams said:

    Well, seeing as you can't really quantify, or qualify really, your level of self education ("X for dummies" perhaps?), I will assume that my 1st class MEng will come out on top.

    Why should I tell you my education level?  You're the one losing this argument, not me.  See, in the US we don't have a dick-measuring contest over who went to what school, we use our actual dicks.  This leads me to...

     

    @slyadams said:

    Its hard to take someone seriously in a debate when parts of their argument centre on the size of their cock.

    It's hard for me to take hilariously stupid Brits with microscopic penises seriously, but at least I'm making an effort her.  Okay, I lied, I'm not really.

     

    @slyadams said:

    However, your solution of 'a few criminal will be able to get hold of guns, therefore everyone has to have them thereby giving every other criminal an easy method of getting a weapon' seems, how shall we saw, non-future proof.

    I never said everyone has to have them, I said that law-abiding citizens who meet certain criteria should be permitted to have them if they wish.  Besides, it's a fundamental human right, I'm just arguing the reduction in crime angle because that's a nice benefit of it.  As far as being future-proof, it's worked for us for 250 years and it scared your pansy, inbred, Anglo asses off so it must have some value.

     

    @slyadams said:

    I'll get off your internet when you get off my WWW.

    Who's gonna make me?  You seem to forget that your country is militarily impotent and can't even sneeze with out our permission.  Besides, the WWW is useless without an Internet to run it over and it was invented at CERN, so really the Swiss own it.  Since they have a higher rate of gun-ownership than the US, they probably aren't going to side with your weepy ass.

     

    @slyadams said:

    Perochial much?

    Learn your own goddamn language you dumbass.  And seriously, the best you have is saying that I have a narrow outlook?  You're just restating what I already said: that until the rest of you pussies get off your asses and invade my country I don't have to give a shit what you whine about.

     

    @slyadams said:

    Failed? How about the largest empire the world has ever seen. Is there any end to your ignorance?

    Wow, you were briefly able to use your advantage of guns to oppress other people.  Unless, like the Colonists, they had guns of their own in which case you turned tail and ran back to your dreary island home to brood like the lowly sacks of shit you are.  Don't you get it?  I'm enjoying insulting you.  I already provided evidence of why I'm right pages ago.  You can keep bawwing or you can try to bring a tiny flicker of knowledge to your ignorant ass by reading what I wrote.  Honestly, you think I care if the rest of the world restricts gun ownership?  Hell, I'm glad your governments have disarmed you all so successfully -- it will make conquering you and taking your crude oil all the easier.  Promise me one thing: after your house is taken over by criminals, you've shoved your children into the path of the burlars, run to the nearest corner and your microdick is furiously spouting urine all over the place -- just before one of the robbers puts a round into your skull -- please let your last thought be "Morbius was right".  Also, try to work something in there about England sucking and America kicking ass if you have time.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @slyadams said:

    People who pass certain exams can move into grammar schools, if they are available in their area. If you aren't so intelligent, you don't get forced into 'vocational' schools.

    So what does happen to those unfortunate, retarded souls or those who do not have grammar schools available in their area? 

    Given the current output of (local to the country) BBC (and other local) news, they become the perpetrators/victims of knifings (no guns here, you see. See below,) drink to excess, get pregnant (usually if they're female) and get easy maths exams.

    Given the Commons were discussing yesterday, in education, whether or not they should be providing nursery school children with at least one of their 'five a day' (portions of fruit and veg) at school since my tax is already doing this with primary schools, I somewhat dispair. It's not as if the opposition is contemplating changing things. It was ''their' question about nursery schools.

     

    Re: knife crime - the purported solution? Metal detectors in school. Stuff the streets, the BBC need something to report every other day (or so it seems at the moment.)



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @ammoQ said:

    I'd say "self defence" has a different meaning for them
     

    It means staying alive no matter the odds. What does it mean for you?

    A security guard or soldier has to expect a heavily armed, highly determined attacker, so he needs equivalent equipment too. And of course he is willing to bear the consequences, like carrying several kilograms of weaponry and ammo with him. For the same reasons, soldiers wear helmets and bulletproof wests and I don't. Survival means hundreds of things to them, while for me it means taking care in road traffic and having my health checked regulary.

    As a peace-loving non-rich person, I simply have no reason to expect any kind of attack that could not be taken care of with a .38 pistol. In fact, I have hardly any reason to expect any kind of serious attack at all. I feel safe even without a gun in my home. Since I have two kids, I feel even safer without guns. But, well, the city where I live in is pretty safe in terms of felony, YMMV.

     

    @ammoQ said:

    I wonder how many rounds American hunters need to kill a deer?

    Usually one, how does this make any difference in having a bolt action or a semi-auto rifle?  You cannot always guarantee a clean kill, some people would like to have a round ready in case there is a problem. If you are saying in your country no one ever needs to take a second shot on large game, then you are either clueless or lying.

    Also, where there are deer, there are often bears and other animals. Would you like to take a shot on a deer and suddenly be confronted by a bear? In that case you will be hoping and praying for something that can fire more than one round.

    We obviosly have a different concept of "hunting" here. In Austria, deer hunters most likely sit in a high seat when they shoot. Bears... well, there are less bears in Austria than trolls in the TDWTF forum. Except in a few areas where those twentysomething bears live, hunters simply will never ever encounter bears, wolves or any other predators larger than foxes.

    Of course our hunters often need a second shoot, too. And yes, that
    means a few seconds to reload the rifle. Two years ago, I hit a wild pig with my car. It survived, but was badly
    injured. I called the police, they called hunters and IIRC the hunter needed
    three rounds to kill the poor pig. A semiautomatic riffle might have helped, but on the other hand, I don't like the idea of hunters shooting round after round close to a busy road.

    Over here anyone of use could be drafted at any time. Therefore encouraging competitions for markmanship is not only a great activity and a lot of fun, it could help us in a war someday to have a large portion of people familiar with AR-15s.

    Obviously, it takes a lot more to make someone an effective soldier than just his ability to handle a gun. During the last months of WWII, the nazis threw poorly educated kids and old men against the enemy. Needless to say that they were hardly anything more than cannon fodder. Anyway, since the regular military forces of the US have enough power to scare off any potential enemy, chances are extremely low that normal people will ever be drafted to defend their country. Unless "fighting in an oil-rich country on the other side of the world against alleged terrorists" counts as self-defence.



  • @ammoQ said:

    carrying several kilograms of weaponry and ammo with him.
     

    No one is advocating carrying a rifle with you everywhere you go. But if I hear someone in my home, I am going to make my way to rifle or shotgun before investigating the noise. The extra weight you speak of is not stored on me while I sleep, so what difference would this make?

    @ammoQ said:

    I simply have no reason to expect any kind of attack that could not be taken care of with a .38 pistol.

    Any attack that would require using deadly force warrants the largest, highest capacity weapon you can possibly have on you at the time. When you are fighting for your life, you should not feel shy in being the best equipped that you can possibly be.

    @ammoQ said:

    I don't like the idea of hunters shooting round after round close to a busy road.

    If they are shooting more than one round, than it is because they need to put the animal down. The same is in your story. The hunters shouldn't be firing into the air or without a safe backdrop and clear shot anyway. 

    I am not sure what kind of shooting you guys do in Austria, but you seem to have some very misguided concepts of hunting. 

    @ammoQ said:

    Obviously, it takes a lot more to make someone an effective soldier than just his ability to handle a gun.

    Sure, but it sure doesn't hurt to have a bunch of people to draft from that can already handle your main battle rifle... At least then you can focus on the other skills and make a better soldier.

     @ammoQ said:

    Anyway, since the regular military forces of the US have enough power to scare off any potential enemy, chances are extremely low that normal people will ever be drafted to defend their country. Unless "fighting in an oil-rich country on the other side of the world against alleged terrorists" counts as self-defence.

    If any reasonably sized country either attacked us, or we attacked them at this point, we would need the draft. The draft is where America's army really gets it's numbers. It would not be likely for a small war like Iraq, since it is obviously not very popular. But next time Austria spawns a blood thirsty leader bent on genocide, you can bet our young men and women will be drafted to come back to Europe to kick his ass back to the stone age.

    And please don't even talk about how ill trained or anything else those men and women would be. Germany may have been stupid about doing it, but remember we killed Austria's last major mistake with our drafted military, and they did things no one ever thought possible in TWO theatres of battle.



  • @ammoQ said:

    For the same reasons, soldiers wear helmets and bulletproof wests and I don't.

    As MPS pointed out, you wouldn't carry the rifle with you all the time, but if it comes down to shooting wouldn't you want the best gun you could have?  Don't be mistaken, Americans aren't carrying automatic rifles as they walk down the street, but in your home you want the odds in your favor.  Sure, you aren't going to wear a bulletproof vest all the time, but I bet if you knew there was an intruder in your home and it was possible they had a gun, you'd sure as hell want a bulletproof vest then.

     

    @ammoQ said:

    Survival means hundreds of things to them, while for me it means taking care in road traffic and having my health checked regulary.

    And when you buy a car, do you not look for the best safety features?  Are you going to say "oh, well, this car is twice as likely to kill me in an accident, but as a good driver I surely don't need more safety than that".  You can be the best driver on Earth, but all it takes is one other person on the road being drunk for your life to be at risk.

     

     



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @ammoQ said:

    carrying several kilograms of weaponry and ammo with him.
     

    No one is advocating carrying a rifle with you everywhere you go. But if I hear someone in my home, I am going to make my way to rifle or shotgun before investigating the noise. The extra weight you speak of is not stored on me while I sleep, so what difference would this make?

    It means I need another weapon if I don't trust the neighborhood and don't walk the streets unarmed. 

    Any attack that would require using deadly force warrants the largest, highest capacity weapon you can possibly have on you at the time. When you are fighting for your life, you should not feel shy in being the best equipped that you can possibly be.

    So why not have a panzerfaust and a stinger under the bed, just in case my home is attacked by a tank and/or attack helicopter? Because it simply won't happen. If you live in a land where burglars are regulary heavily armed, well, get all the weaponry you can so you win the inevitable shootout. Fortunately, I don't have to fear that.

    @ammoQ said:
    Obviously, it takes a lot more to make someone an effective soldier than just his ability to handle a gun.

    Sure, but it sure doesn't hurt to have a bunch of people to draft from that can already handle your main battle rifle... At least then you can focus on the other skills and make a better soldier.

     

    How long does it take to teach them the handling of an assault rifle? Hardly more than a few days. In a large-scale war like WW2, it hardly matters. The rest of the military training takes much more, a couple of months at least.

    But next time Austria spawns a blood thirsty leader bent on genocide,
    you can bet our young men and women will be drafted to come back to
    Europe to kick his ass back to the stone age.

    It's one thing to spawn a crazy guy and another thing to make him the leader.



  • Crap!  I've been drinking and I hit "Post" instead of "Quote"...

     

    @ammoQ said:

    As a peace-loving non-rich person, I simply have no reason to expect any kind of attack that could not be taken care of with a .38 pistol. In fact, I have hardly any reason to expect any kind of serious attack at all. I feel safe even without a gun in my home.

    I feel safe without a gun in my home to.  I have never been the victim of a crime, I have never known anyone who was the victim of a crime.  Nobody has ever even tried to hurt me.  I live in a city that is probably safer than a good deal of those in Europe or Japan.  However, I still intend to obtain a gun.  I don't have any reason to expect any kind of attack that I can't take care of with my cell phone and my two fists, but the last thing I want to do is end up dead because I wasn't prepared.  It's not paranoia, I don't fear my fellow man and I feel extremely safe walking down the street at 2 AM after having closed out the bars.  I frequently will walk through abandoned areas at night where I could easily be mugged, but statistically speaking I know I'm safe.  The thing is, I consider being armed as part of being responsible for my own safety.  It's not the responsiblity of the police (although I feel they do a great job here), it ultimately falls on me.  And I would much rather kill someone who is dangerous than end up killed, especially because that person will almost certainly go on to kill again.  I find it reassurring that there are normal, responsible citizens all over carrying firearms.  I know muggers are less likely to try to jump me because they don't know if I am armed or not.  It also reassures me that I can be in the most crowded public place and if some psycho were to pull out a gun and start shooting there is a good chance he would be taken down before much damage was done.

     

    @ammoQ said:

    Since I have two kids, I feel even safer without guns.

    Guns can be quite safe around children.  Young children should be taught basics of safety and what to do if they ever encounter an unsecured gun.  All guns should be locked up, as well.  This is common in the US and the tragic deaths that occur always come back to blatantly irresponsible parents.  You can say "well, that's a good argument there for not allowing guns", but those same parents are the types to leave matches and gas cans out as well.

     

    @ammoQ said:

    But, well, the city where I live in is pretty safe in terms of felony, YMMV.

    My city has a population of just over 100k.  I looked up 2004 and 2005 as those were the easiest years to find.  In 2004 there were no murders, there were 3 in 2005: one strangling (a wife killed by her husband -- no motive) and two arson (an elderly woman and her young grandson).  Not a single gun-related fatality.

     

    @ammoQ said:

    We obviosly have a different concept of "hunting" here. In Austria, deer hunters most likely sit in a high seat when they shoot.

    Same here.

     

    @ammoQ said:

    Bears... well, there are less bears in Austria than trolls in the TDWTF forum.

    I resent that.

     

    @ammoQ said:

    During the last months of WWII, the nazis threw poorly educated kids and old men against the enemy. Needless to say that they were hardly anything more than cannon fodder.

    Yes, I have heard many stories of American soldiers who took out enemy positions firing at them only to discover children as young as 12.  It often resulted in long-term psychological trauma to the Allies who had unwittingly killed children.

     

    @ammoQ said:

    Unless "fighting in an oil-rich country on the other side of the world against alleged terrorists" counts as self-defence.

    See, now, I thought you were being quite smart and reasonable up until this point.  Yes, Iraq is oil-rich.  That is not why the US is there, please discard whatever delusions you have been told.  Being on the other side of the world means nothing -- Japan literally is on the other side of the world and we fought a war there as well.  If Russia had launched a ground offensive into Western Europe during the Cold War, I believe Austrians would be delighted that Americans were fighting a war "on the other side of the world".  I should point out, I never supported the war in Iraq, but that still doesn't mean I need to invent reasons for it being stupid.  And "alleged terrorists" may be the most ignorant thing you have said -- like it or not, the people attacking US forces are fundamentalist, Muslim terrorists.  They are engaged in Jihad and would kill American or European civillians including women and children with delight if they could.  The US pretty much boned up the entire operation, but I don't see the rest of the world doing too much to stop these murders, either.  It seems like every day you hear about another suicide bomber who had no qualms with detonating himself or herself in the middle of a crowded marketplace.  All because they think they will go to some Heaven and be rewarded for their sacrifice.  This is the same depraved ideology that killed rail commuters in Madrid, bus passengers in London and office workers and airplane passengers in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.  I know the war in Iraq is not popular in Europe -- hell, it's not popular here -- but to pretend that the people attacking American, British, Australian and Iraqi soldiers are "freedom fighters" or anything less than women-hating, Judeo-Christian-hating, Western Civilization-hating Jihadist murders is absurd.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    As MPS pointed out, you wouldn't carry the rifle with you all the time, but if it comes down to shooting wouldn't you want the best gun you could have?  Don't be mistaken, Americans aren't carrying automatic rifles as they walk down the street, but in your home you want the odds in your favor.  Sure, you aren't going to wear a bulletproof vest all the time, but I bet if you knew there was an intruder in your home and it was possible they had a gun, you'd sure as hell want a bulletproof vest then.

    In the highly unlikely case of a shootout between a burglar and me (assuming I had a gun at all), chances are that a small gun under my pillow is worth more than the rifle in the cellar. Sure as hell I'd want a bulletproof vest then, but there's a lot of other things I would want, like better locks on the door and a (preferably large) dog. But then... well, I don't have any statistics ready, but I think in my country, when a burglar meets the inhabitant, in most cases it's because the inhabitant came home and surprised the burglar. So what will I do if I ever come home and see the door is broken? Call the fscking police and walk away! They have the guns, the vests, the education and training.

    And when you buy a car, do you not look for the best safety features?  Are you going to say "oh, well, this car is twice as likely to kill me in an accident, but as a good driver I surely don't need more safety than that".  You can be the best driver on Earth, but all it takes is one other person on the road being drunk for your life to be at risk.

     

    I would not buy the ultra-most-safe car, but I also would not buy one of those cheap Chinese death-traps either. You are completely right, being an excellent driver does not safe you from being involved in an accident. So I'd buy a decent car with reasonable crash-test ratings. And yes, I use the safety belts whenever I drive, not only because it's mandatory in my country.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I find it reassurring that there are normal, responsible citizens all over carrying firearms.  I know muggers are less likely to try to jump me because they don't know if I am armed or not.  It also reassures me that I can be in the most crowded public place and if some psycho were to pull out a gun and start shooting there is a good chance he would be taken down before much damage was done.

    Maybe the psycho was on those normal, responsible citizens until he had a bad day.

    Guns can be quite safe around children.  Young children should be taught basics of safety and what to do if they ever encounter an unsecured gun.  All guns should be locked up, as well.  This is common in the US and the tragic deaths that occur always come back to blatantly irresponsible parents.  You can say "well, that's a good argument there for not allowing guns", but those same parents are the types to leave matches and gas cans out as well.

    A properly locked up gun might be worthless in a case of self-defence, for all the time it takes to unlock and load it. So I'd guess those people who are always afraid of intruders probably do not lock their weapons properly away. 


    @ammoQ said:

    During the last months of WWII, the nazis threw poorly educated kids and old men against the enemy. Needless to say that they were hardly anything more than cannon fodder.

    Yes, I have heard many stories of American soldiers who took out enemy positions firing at them only to discover children as young as 12.  It often resulted in long-term psychological trauma to the Allies who had unwittingly killed children.

    The fact those kids were unexperienced enough not to recognize when they had lost made them dangerous to the individual soldier, though they had little strategic effect.


    @ammoQ said:

    Unless "fighting in an oil-rich country on the other side of the world against alleged terrorists" counts as self-defence.

    See, now, I thought you were being quite smart and reasonable up until this point.  Yes, Iraq is oil-rich.  That is not why the US is there, please discard whatever delusions you have been told.  (...)  I should point out, I never supported the war in Iraq, but that still doesn't mean I need to invent reasons for it being stupid.  And "alleged terrorists" may be the most ignorant thing you have said -- like it or not, the people attacking US forces are fundamentalist, Muslim terrorists.  They are engaged in Jihad and would kill American or European civillians including women and children with delight if they could.  The US pretty much boned up the entire operation, but I don't see the rest of the world doing too much to stop these murders, either.  It seems like every day you hear about another suicide bomber who had no qualms with detonating himself or herself in the middle of a crowded marketplace.  All because they think they will go to some Heaven and be rewarded for their sacrifice.  This is the same depraved ideology that killed rail commuters in Madrid, bus passengers in London and office workers and airplane passengers in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.  I know the war in Iraq is not popular in Europe -- hell, it's not popular here -- but to pretend that the people attacking American, British, Australian and Iraqi soldiers are "freedom fighters" or anything less than women-hating, Judeo-Christian-hating, Western Civilization-hating Jihadist murders is absurd.

     

    Maybe I misunderstand you, but: There were hardly any islamic fundamentalists in Iraq until the invasion. Saddam's regime was rather secular. Religious fanatics were his natural enemies. There is no Saddam-Osama connection.

    Anyway, I didn't mean specifically Iraq. What I meant was the following: should there ever be a draft in the US in the forseeable future, it's most likely not because you have to defend your homeland against intruders. Much more likely it will be a war against terrorists and their supporters, and chances are that those wars do not happen in countries without natural resources. "Terrorists" are the new commies.



  • @ammoQ said:

    So why not have a panzerfaust and a stinger under the bed, just in case my home is attacked by a tank and/or attack helicopter?
     

    Because they are illegal and would pose no advantage in personal offense. You are now using the tactics of the others where you throw your argument to the extreme and make yourself look like a fool. Have some dignity and either go silent on the matter or agree you might have been wrong. Dont start doing this crap.

    @ammoQ said:

    get all the weaponry you can so you win the inevitable shootout.

    Or, I will just get the proper tool for the job. If you think a .223 rifle is incredible and way overkill for personal protection simply because it is a semi-auto, then you definitely have a fear of guns.

    Your continual comparison of a semi-auto .223 rifle to things like rocket launchers and tanks is kind of disturbing...

    @ammoQ said:

    How long does it take to teach them the handling of an assault rifle? Hardly more than a few days.

    Teaching someone to use a gun, and teaching someone to be a marksman are two very different things. I am happy that our military understands this difference.

    @ammoQ said:

    In a large-scale war like WW2, it hardly matters.

    It very much does. Perhaps this was the philosophy of the Germans, and that is why America won? It was certainly never our philosophy.



  • @ammoQ said:

    chances are that a small gun under my pillow is worth more than the rifle in the cellar.
     

    A pistol is fine, no one is arguing it isn't but you shouldn't be knocking the fact that other people in this world prefer to have a rifle or shotgun in addition to their pistol. 

    Your continued argument on this point based on your personal preference was fine up until you start relating a rifle to a stinger missile.

    @ammoQ said:

    So what will I do if I ever come home and see the door is broken? Call the fscking police and walk away! They have the guns, the vests, the education and training.

    Ok, imagine you just came home and your front door is busted open. You know your wife was home, and you can now hear screams from inside.

    Time to wait for the police outside! She is a tough girl, she will be fine!

    Feel free to replace wife with kid(s).

    I know I want to know I can go inside and (hopefully) handle any situation, or at least die knowing I did my best.



  • @ammoQ said:

    Maybe the psycho was on those normal, responsible citizens until he had a bad day.
     

    Normal, responsible citizens don't spontaneously go psycho and try to kill people they don't know. Thanks for another ridiculous statement. Maybe you could just shoot them with your panzerfaust?

    @ammoQ said:

    for all the time it takes to unlock and load it. So I'd guess those people who are always afraid of intruders probably do not lock their weapons properly away. 

    Please stop with this stuff. At least use google before stating this stuff as fact.

    There are many boxes on the market to keep your weapons that only require the touch of your fingertips (or a set number of people also programmed in) to get into.

    Any responsible gun owner capable of getting a CCW should know this, since it is taught and demonstrated in the CCW courses you are required to take.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Or, I will just get the proper tool for the job. If you think a .223 rifle is incredible and way overkill for personal protection simply because it is a semi-auto, then you definitely have a fear of guns.

    Your continual comparison of a semi-auto .223 rifle to things like rocket launchers and tanks is kind of disturbing...

    I was discussing the "the more firepower, the better" issue. I completely aggree with your "proper tool for the job" approach. Question: What is the "job"? Is killing the intruder the last resort or the basic strategy? 

    Teaching someone to use a gun, and teaching someone to be a marksman are two very different things. I am happy that our military understands this difference.

     

    So all US riflmen are marksmen?


    @ammoQ said:

    In a large-scale war like WW2, it hardly matters.

    It very much does. Perhaps this was the philosophy of the Germans, and that is why America won? It was certainly never our philosophy.

    Oh come on, don't be silly. The German army was very well prepared for the war. But a country the size of Germany can't win against the rest of the world, except Japan. They were simply megalomaniac. And it should be mentioned at least once in this whole discussion that the US didn't single-handedly defeat Germany. The red army's contribution to the victory was just as important. (Though one could argue that the A-bomb would have been enough to eventually defeat the Reich...)



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Ok, imagine you just came home and your front door is busted open. You know your wife was home, and you can now hear screams from inside.

    Time to wait for the police outside! She is a tough girl, she will be fine!

    Feel free to replace wife with kid(s).

    I know I want to know I can go inside and (hopefully) handle any situation, or at least die knowing I did my best.

     

    This situation is highly unlikely. But even if, I probably don't have my gun (assuming I had one) with me, so it would be worthless; even worse, they might already have found it. Anyway, in such a situation, going inside is brave but stupid. It might be the last resort if you live in a house miles away from the next police station. Within a city, it's definitely a no-go.



  • @ammoQ said:

    What is the "job"? Is killing the intruder the last resort or the basic strategy? 
     

    I cannot (lawfully) do anything to an intruder. An intruder that poses an imminent threat to my life? Yes, I plan to cause as much harm to them as necessary until the no longer pose a danger.

    @ammoQ said:

    So all US riflmen are marksmen?

    That is the goal.

    @ammoQ said:

    Oh come on, don't be silly.

    You made the original post, I am just following your lead. Saying training doesn't matter in a large scale war is a lot sillier than me saying the Germans were ill equipped and not properly trained.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @ammoQ said:

    Maybe the psycho was on those normal, responsible citizens until he had a bad day.
     

    Normal, responsible citizens don't spontaneously go psycho and try to kill people they don't know. Thanks for another ridiculous statement. Maybe you could just shoot them with your panzerfaust?

     

    On the other hand, psychos don't wear a sign saying "I'm no longer a normal, responsible citizen". Imagine a shooting within a crowd with many armed people. Many people probably won't notice who shot first, so they might as well start shooting at anyone holding a weapon, i.e. those other normal, responsible cititzens that try to stop the psycho.



  • @ammoQ said:

    But, well, the city where I live in is pretty safe in terms of felony, YMMV.
     

    It must be a real shame that MPS and morbius both live in areas where mothers and daughters and children are raped and killed every minute and therefore carrying a gun is a requirement.

    Of course, had they spent as much time developing brains as they did penis size, they could always have opted to move to a less dangerous area, like downtown Baghdad, where females are raped/killed only every hour instead. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @ammoQ said:

    What is the "job"? Is killing the intruder the last resort or the basic strategy? 

    I cannot (lawfully) do anything to an intruder. An intruder that poses an imminent threat to my life? Yes, I plan to cause as much harm to them as necessary until the no longer pose a danger.

    So I'll ask a more specific question: In case you notice there is an intruder in the house, but you cannot yet see who he is or what he wants, would you consider firing a few rounds into the air to (most likely) scare him off? 


    You made the original post, I am just following your lead. Saying training doesn't matter in a large scale war is a lot sillier than me saying the Germans were ill equipped and not properly trained.

     

    Of course training matters. Probably more than anything else. What I meant was: Either you have the time for proper preparation, then it doesn't matter if the people have a little extra training from their private weapons. You train them until they are ready. Or, in a rather unfortunate case, you have been suprised by the attacker and must throw whatever you have into the battle. In that case, well, it might be a good thing to have people who already know how to handle the weapon, but seriously: Can you imagine the US attacked in surprise?!?



  • @ammoQ said:

    Can you imagine the US attacked in surprise?!?
     

    In that case, we'll have to depend on high school kids and their hunting rifles and pickup trucks to defend us until a plucky fighter pilot is shot down nearby to give them some guidance. 



  • @ammoQ said:

    The fact those kids were unexperienced enough not to recognize when they had lost made them dangerous to the individual soldier, though they had little strategic effect.

    They had no strategic effect except to act as corpse road-blocks for the Allied forces so the German High Command had more time to flee.  My point is that it was tragic for everyone involved.  American soldiers did not enjoy capturing an artillery point only to find they had killed children.  Although it is often not mentioned in mainstream depictions of the war, it was quite psychologically traumatizing for the Allied soldiers, many of whom were not prepared for such things.  Add in the joy of liberating the numerous concentration and death camps and I'm very thankful I was not an American in Europe in 1945.

     

    @ammoQ said:

    Maybe I misunderstand you, but: There were hardly any islamic fundamentalists in Iraq until the invasion. Saddam's regime was rather secular. Religious fanatics were his natural enemies. There is no Saddam-Osama connection.

    True, but it definitely drew them out of the woodwork.  I don't think it's reason enough to justify the war, but I'm still glad the terrorists are being drawn to Iraq where the US Marine Corps can deal with them, instead of running all over the world.  Even if some of the insurgents weren't fundamentalist terrorists before the war, they were definitely close to becoming just that.

     

    @ammoQ said:

    Anyway, I didn't mean specifically Iraq.

    See, it was clearly implied whether you mentioned it or not.  I will make an exception because you are not a native English speaker and perhaps you are not familiar with the finer points of rhetoric in my language, but a statement like the one you made unambiguously refers to the war in Iraq.  Part of this really could be a cultural different -- English speakers tend to understate things and rely on inferrence by the audience, especially when dealing with delicate topics.  Perhaps Austrians are more direct in their speech.  That would be consistent with what I know of the culture and people.

     

    @ammoQ said:

    What I meant was the following: should there ever be a draft in the US in the forseeable future, it's most likely not because you have to defend your homeland against intruders. Much more likely it will be a war against terrorists and their supporters, and chances are that those wars do not happen in countries without natural resources.

    Most likely, yes.  For one, no country would be stupid enough to directly attack the United States.  Additionally, geopolitics is extremely complex at this point in history and America may find itself fighting another defensive war in foreign lands.  Americans do not desire offensive wars of conquest, despite what seems to be popular opinion in much of the world.  I am not defending our tactics, but I am defending our intentions.

     

    @ammoQ said:

    "Terrorists" are the new commies.

    Absolutely.  And just like with the Communists during parts of the Cold War, we have not yet found the most effective way to fight terrorism.  With Communism the best strategy turned out to be a strong defensive capacity, including a large arsenal of nuclear weapons that we promised to use if the United States or our allies in Western Europe were attacked.  Other than that, we just had to sit back and wait for the failed economic system to crumble, being prepared to swoop in and assist in the securing of nuclear weapons.  We made a few tactical blunders during the Cold War, including Vietnam.

     

    Terrorism is turning out to be the same -- we don't know the best way to fight it, but we are trying different methods and are willing to adapt as circumstances dictate.  The vast, vast majority of Americans don't want to be fighting any war that we don't have to.  However, it has also fallen on us to confront this threat.  That's part of being the world's only superpower, as well as taking the criticisms, insults and accusations from nations that will ultimately benefit from our sacrifice.  Believe me, I'd love nothing more than for us to pull up stakes, seal our borders and not give one thought to terrorism ever again.  However, that would not be fair to our allies in Europe and Asia and it ultimately would not protect us from future harm.  I'm hoping that in 50 years (or sooner) when this mess is over and the Arab nations have achieved stable democracies that emphasize and protect individual rights that the US will be able to stop fighting all of these damn battles.  I don't want to have some guy shove a rubber glove up my ass every time I try to get on a plane, either, so the "security" around airports better lighten up as well.



  • @ammoQ said:

    The red army's contribution to the victory was just as important.

    The Red Army did more to destroy the war machine of the Germans than the US did, no doubt.  However, the US didn't join the fight until much later, mostly due to the fact that we were incredibly unprepared for war.  Remember, prior to WWII the US was a very isolationist nation and we were in the middle of an economic depression.  What little weaponry we did produce prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor was sold to the British.  However, I think most Western Europeans are thankful they were liberated by the British and Americans instead of the Russians, especially considering what happened to most of the countries Russia "liberated".   Also consider that if Russia had won the entire war by themselves all of that German nuclear and rocket technology would have ended up in Russian -- not American -- hands.



  • @MarcB said:

    It must be a real shame that MPS and morbius both live in areas where mothers and daughters and children are raped and killed every minute and therefore carrying a gun is a requirement.

    Of course, had they spent as much time developing brains as they did penis size, they could always have opted to move to a less dangerous area, like downtown Baghdad, where females are raped/killed only every hour instead.

    You're right, I'm going to move to Canada where I will be much safer!  Now, is failing a basic reading comprehension test a strict pre-requisite for citizenship, or do I just have to smoke enough weed to kill all my brain cells? 



  • @ammoQ said:

    In that case, well, it might be a good thing to have people who already know how to handle the weapon, but seriously: Can you imagine the US attacked in surprise?!?

    Well, assuming we're talking about military action by an established national army, it would take some pretty amazing technology to sneak up on the US.  However, I can assure you that the second a foreign soldier set foot on US soil that whatever country he represented would be nothing but a smoldering hole in the ground.  We don't have a massive reserve of nuclear weapons just for show, mmkay? 



  • @ammoQ said:

    Many people probably won't notice who shot first, so they might as well start shooting at anyone holding a weapon, i.e. those other normal, responsible cititzens that try to stop the psycho.
     

    You are right, just like cops shoot everyone on scene when there is shooting.



  • @ammoQ said:

    But even if, I probably don't have my gun (assuming I had one) with me, so it would be worthless;
     

    Well, you are partially right about this. The only gun that matters is the one you have on you. If you read the rest of the thread you might have seen that I advocate CCW, this would be one of the reasons why.

    @ammoQ said:

    Within a city, it's definitely a no-go.

    Even in a city police can take several minutes to arrive. I would certainly not want to wait while my loved ones were being hurt.



  • @MarcB said:

    It must be a real shame that MPS and morbius both live in areas where mothers and daughters and children are raped and killed every minute and therefore carrying a gun is a requirement.
     

    Ahhh MarcB, nice to see you back. I see you couldn't handle the actual debating going on and have decided to follow suit with a bunch of other posters and just add incredibly stupid and exaggerated statements in.

    You can do whatever you want in your region, but why does it bother you so much that we choose to have the right to defend ourselves?

    Honestly. Tell us why. You truly seem bothered by our right to defend ourselves and to own firearms. Enlighten us as to why we should not have that right.

    @MarcB said:

    Of course, had they spent as much time developing brains as they did penis size

    Oh how clever.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @ammoQ said:

    Many people probably won't notice who shot first, so they might as well start shooting at anyone holding a weapon, i.e. those other normal, responsible cititzens that try to stop the psycho.
     

    You are right, just like cops shoot everyone on scene when there is shooting.

    So how do you recognize the psycho among all the other guys carrying weapons? 



  • Forgive my ignorance, but what is CCW? Google insists it's some kind of tire, while wikipedia doesn't know it at all. 



  • @ammoQ said:

    So how do you recognize the psycho among all the other guys carrying weapons? 
     

    Because contrary to whatever you have been watching in movies, the cops are not trained to shoot anyone and everyone with a weapon. They are trained to shoot at someone posing an imminent threat of life against them or another person.

    Also, you seem to act as if everyone in the crowd would be armed. The last statistic I have heard on CCW is that it is around 5% in the US. And of those 5% I doubt you would even see 20% of them actually carrying on a regular basis. CCW is a privilege, it is not handed out to anyone and everyone here.

     

    I know you have some pretty crazy notions based on whatever shoot em up games or movies you are experiencing but I don't think you understand quite how off base you are here.



  • @ammoQ said:

    Forgive my ignorance, but what is CCW? Google insists it's some kind of tire, while wikipedia doesn't know it at all. 
     

    Thats funny. First result in google for 'CCW' is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry

    Perhaps your government is doing a little filtering on your behalf? It would explain a lot of the crackpot ideas circulating in this thread.

    Here, compare your results to mine, this is what I entered:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=ccw

     



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Even in a city police can take several minutes to arrive. I would certainly not want to wait while my loved ones were being hurt.

    I also would not want to wait. But it's the most sensible thing to do. Without knowing how many intruders there are, how well they are armed, what their intentions are etc. it's more likely that my attempts to rescue my loved ones actually make their situation worse.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Perhaps your government is doing a little filtering on your behalf? It would explain a lot of the crackpot ideas circulating in this thread.

    Great, now you got ammoQ sent to a "re-education camp".  Thanks a lot, MPS.

     

    Also: dibs on his +5 Staff of Moderation. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @ammoQ said:

    Forgive my ignorance, but what is CCW? Google insists it's some kind of tire, while wikipedia doesn't know it at all. 
     

    Thats funny. First result in google for 'CCW' is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry

    Perhaps your government is doing a little filtering on your behalf? It would explain a lot of the crackpot ideas circulating in this thread.

    Here, compare your results to mine, this is what I entered:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=ccw 

     

    Thanks. Most likely the difference in Google's results are because google offers me German results first. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @ammoQ said:

    So how do you recognize the psycho among all the other guys carrying weapons? 
     

    Because contrary to whatever you have been watching in movies, the cops are not trained to shoot anyone and everyone with a weapon. They are trained to shoot at someone posing an imminent threat of life against them or another person.

    Also, you seem to act as if everyone in the crowd would be armed. The last statistic I have heard on CCW is that it is around 5% in the US. And of those 5% I doubt you would even see 20% of them actually carrying on a regular basis. CCW is a privilege, it is not handed out to anyone and everyone here.

    Ok, I think I understand you better now. Should have asked about CCW earlier.



  • @ammoQ said:

    Thanks. Most likely the difference in Google's results are because google offers me German results first. 
     

    Keep telling yourself that.



  • @MarcB said:

    mothers and daughters and children are raped and killed

    penis size

    downtown Baghdad, where females are raped/killed

     

    BTW ammoq, I would appreciate a level playing field here. If you are going to delete posts for being rude, offensive and off topic, why is this post still here?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Less than lethal weapons are great for police, but a bad idea for regular people. 

    I'm curious as to why you think this. If it's sutiable for police then why not the general public, or on the flip side, if it's a bad idea for the general public then why would it be a good idea for police?

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    The only time the use of deadly force is authorized is when you are imminent danger of significant bodily damage or death. Therefore, when put into a situation when I know it is me or the attacker, I will opt for the most lethal thing I can get my hands on, thank you very much.

    With the use of Tasers they can paralyze the attacker regardless of how tough they are. Chances are if you are in a situation where you are in significant danger by the time you can use your gun you could have also used your taser, which both disable the attacker. Ones just less lethal then the other. Each to their own opinoin I geuss.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @ammoQ said:

    carrying several kilograms of weaponry and ammo with him.
     

    No one is advocating carrying a rifle with you everywhere you go. But if I hear someone in my home, I am going to make my way to rifle or shotgun before investigating the noise. The extra weight you speak of is not stored on me while I sleep, so what difference would this make?


    Isn't this exactly what you're saying? You need the gun in case you're being robbed. Or do you think the burglar will just say "yeah, you get your gun while I wait here for you" after he has spotted you? (which is very likely if you're going to investigate some noise)



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    BTW ammoq, I would appreciate a level playing field here. If you are going to delete posts for being rude, offensive and off topic, why is this post still here?

     

    If anything in this thread has been moderated, it was done by another mod. Moderating a discussion where I also post is IMO bad style. (Of course I would do that in extreme cases, but MarcB's post definitely isn't that extreme)



  • @ammoQ said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @PeriSoft said:

    I really, really don't think that 200+ million guns in the US would make it harder to take the country over
     

    Tell that to our 4000+ dead soldiers in Iraq that know what any country in this age should know by now. You can take over a country, and win against their military, but the PEOPLE pose the biggest threat. Sure a lot of outside funding/training/etc is going on there, but the fact is, it is very hard to invade and hold a country full of dedicated, armed citizens.

     

    One has to wonder how Saddam Hussein managed to rule this country as a dictator, against masses of dedicated, armed citizens. Granted, some people probably got their weapons in the chaos immediately after the invasion, but that's hardly enough of an explanation. 

    [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sippenhaft"]Sippenhaft[/url]



  • @alegr said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I think if US citizens were allowed to carry guns on planes then 9/11 would be little more than a cheesy movie plot.

    If US citizens were allowed to carry guns on planes, we would see more than one plane per year depressurised and maybe crashed because of an unruly redneck blowing a window out.

    Crap. I assume that you are referring to depressurization by explosive decompression. Nope. One itsy-bitsy handgun round isn't going to cut it. See [url="http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/00to49/episode-08.html"]here[/url] or [url="http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2004/01/mythbusters_explosive_decompre.html"]here[/url]. If you want to see for yourself, the video is on bittorrent.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.