Started by Caruthers612, July 02, 2010, 12:34:40 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on December 29, 2012, 04:04:07 AMOh, did I lose you in the Dixie Chicks thing and reminding you of what you said about your past president? Or was it the asking how you expected teachers to fit in the same intense weapons training necessary for CQB? Perhaps it was reminding you of the non deterrance of haviing guards, and asking for your evidence to suggest otherwise? Maybe you don't know...but if you want to go back to your pet bone 'liberals' and it's many facets and how it fits into the current budget deficit in the USA; is it worth reminding you that the global recession happened in the tenure of Dubya? What is this crap about loathing people in the military? In a perfect world we wouldn't have a miilitary; but sadly it isn't a perfect world, and absoolute power corrupts, disputes and tensions break out, and have done throughout history..can you cite an example where any government not on the receiving end of a coup d'Ã©tat loathes it's military? In several cases it's the military that keeps the government in power; I would strongly suggest that isn't and hasn't ever been the case in the USA (Unless you're including the civil war!).Here's a link that if what you say is true, would be embracing Obama's 'liberal' and 'socialist' policies...http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/09/obam-s07.htmlPssst...he doesn't.Interesting you mention Reagan..He was more liberal than Obama; he even tried to persuade our Prime Minister in 82 not to try and retake the Falkland Islands. Instead wanting her to broker a compromise...She asked him what he'd do if Alaska was invaded...Can you imagine ANY US president these days not supporting the defence of a western protectorate by it's NATO ally? In the event, Reagan was persuaded by his defence chiefs that the UK had a cast iron case and to their credit ensured the UK was afforded all assistance, including using Ascension Island as a stop off point for our aircaraft and shipping. I recommend reading '607 Squadron'..A tale of military discipline, inginuity and guile overcoming the odds. The UK were even assisted indirectly by the then Soviet submarine service. Strange but true.
Quote from: Paper*Boy on December 29, 2012, 04:38:38 AM How often do people with guns practice? The people I know do it fairly frequently, it's a hobby for them. They are pretty good shots, have respect for potential danger of the weapon, and are extremely careful.
QuoteReferencing the World Socialist web site, the International Committee of the Fourth International to convince me Obama is 'Right-wing? That's hilarious. Now I at least know where you are coming from. Let me just say that the hard Left thinks Obama is not destroying the country fast enough and articles like this are meant to pressure him to move faster. Doesn't mean he isn't one of them, it's just that even a President has limits to what he can do in a given time frame.
QuoteGiven this article was printed in Sept and is criticizing his campaign for "banality, hollowness, self-glorification and unadulterated lying", I would cynically say that most candidates paint themselves in the best light, attack their opposition, and say as little as possible about thier own positions - the more details they give during the campaign, the more reason various people will have to vote against them. So campaigns are mostly run on platitudes. Nothing new there. I think spending a little time here instead of getting mostly filtered news would give you a broader perspective on US politics. It's that way for anyone viewing events from afar.
QuoteReagan. What was wrong with asking Thatcher if those mostly empty far away islands were worth going to war for, and if she'd stay the course? He got his answer and backed her up even at the expense of alienating all of our Latin American allies.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on December 29, 2012, 05:08:52 AM... But you're convinced he'll eventually fullfil the wishes of the WSW?...
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on December 29, 2012, 05:08:52 AM... Mostly empty islands not worth protecting? Is that how you view Guam, Howland and Jarvis islands? Alienating your Latin allies? You do know who was in control of Argentina at the time don't you? Are you seriously suggesting you'd want to be associated with that filth and call them allies? Oh hang on, I see where you're coming from now, the military dictatorship at the time was right wig, so must have been the good guys I guess.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on December 29, 2012, 05:08:52 AMPracticing on a closed range wearing ear defenders at a target is one thing; and entirely different to being in the middle of teaching double English literature, looking up and seeing a figure in the doorway with a rifle pointing at your head...I asked specifically when and where these teachers were expected to practice CQB in a real world scenario. NOT target practice...
Quote from: Paper*Boy on December 29, 2012, 03:21:28 PM(1) ...No, they don't need continual SWAT training, just a 'good guy' having a gun is usually enough for the intruder to retreat rather than take the chance of being shot.(2) Notice no one ever goes into inner city schools where kids are known to be packing to try to shoot up the place.
Quote from: Paper*Boy on December 29, 2012, 03:21:28 PM You don't get it and Piers doesn't get it, so I'm going to give up now.
Quote from: Ben Shockley on December 31, 2012, 03:22:25 AMIn regard to the fantasy of "minimum-wage Rambo" school teachers, (1) Okay, P*B-- where has that happened? Where has a school shooter retreated at the presence of anyone with guns? On the contrary, I don't think any of the "big ones" have shown any particular fear of death -- you know: what with killing themselves and all.(2) That assertion is bizarre and tangential almost to the point of not being worth addressing. Your assertion implicitly assumes that shooters choose schools on an initially totally random basis-- that, for example, they would go into a school they had never seen before-- YET, they know where there are guns and aren't guns and that they choose gun-less schools.Let's go deeper.You almost accidentally acknowledge that it's mostly White-ish, suburban-ish schools that get shot up. You suggest that this is only because the shooters know that the Black kids (and I feel confident in assuming that that's what you mean by "inner city") would shoot back-- because, hey, they're all strapped by age 7, right?I'm sure that you, P*B, have never heard of the social-psychological concept of propinquity. People who are going to do something will do it with what's near and available. The majority of serial killers and mass murderers are White males. If they're going to do that, they'll do it somewhere that they're familiar with. These mass-killing White males quite likely aren't familiar with "inner city" (Black) schools any more than you are, and it is social distance that keeps them from shooting up those places -- not the fear of the savage Black kids shooting back.
Quote from: Paper*Boy on December 31, 2012, 04:27:39 AM 1 - Where has it happened? Umm, nowhere, since, you know, these killers don't choose schools where there are armed guards
Quoteor where some kids are known to be carrying. Since guns aren't allowed at nearly all schools, and shooters don't attack the ones where they are, it's pretty hard to find examples of where they've retreated when one gets pulled out by a law abiding citizen. Is this really something you had to ask someone?
Quote1a - The profile of these people is they don't want someone else to shoot them, unless it is specifically their intent to committ suicide (aka 'death by cop'). That's why they do it themselves when the cops finally show up. 2. Not worth adressing. You might be on to something there: You guys are the ones claiming taking guns away from honest citizens will stop gun crime. I point out that people carrying out these massacres manage to choose places where guns are already prohibited.
Quote I give examples of schools with armed guards or where some kids are known to carry, and that those schools are never the target. And you think that somehow proves... something or other about why we need more gun restrictions?
Quote from: Paper*Boy on December 31, 2012, 04:27:39 AM1 - Where has it happened? Umm, nowhere, since, you know, these killers don't choose schools where there are armed guards or where some kids are known to be carrying. Since guns aren't allowed at nearly all schools, and shooters don't attack the ones where they are, it's pretty hard to find examples of where they've retreated when one gets pulled out by a law abiding citizen. Is this really something you had to ask someone? You guys are the ones claiming taking guns away from honest citizens will stop gun crime. I point out that people carrying out these massacres manage to choose places where guns are already prohibited. I give examples of schools with armed guards or where some kids are known to carry, and that those schools are never the target. And you think that somehow proves... something or other about why we need more gun restrictions?
Quote from: Ben Shockley on December 31, 2012, 04:38:57 AM... P*B is like an online lighthouse: up here to weather all storms of truth and bravely keep the light of right-wing fantasy shining to guide any foundering hopefuls out there, so that they can see the steady light of fantasy and hearken to it and take solace from it's never-wavering standard, which never bends to all the worldly forces that otherwise make those foundering souls feel less than superior and assured.
Quote from: Ben Shockley on December 31, 2012, 04:51:52 AM... But aside from that: who's this "you guys?" I am not advocating taking anything away from anyone. I just advocate for some serious restrictions from here on out. You can keep your Mini-14 that you think will stop that unspecified UN tank (from the nation of "UN"). After all, right-wing males are so well-known as being unlikely to do anything bad on a mass scale. Let's just get a little more stringent from here on out.Why would you argue with that?
Quote from: Ben Shockley on December 31, 2012, 04:51:52 AM... Why would you argue with that?
Quote from: Paper*Boy on December 31, 2012, 06:20:15 AM Hey, I'd like to get the guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them too, while leaving people alone that pose no threat to anyone - do you have any recomendations for how to do that?
QuoteI would argue with it because it doesn't work. As far as the new restrictions on 'assault weapons', that law was passed at one point and expired a number of years later. It didn't accomplish anything when it passed and nothing different happened after it expired. It's just Congress trying to look like they are 'doing something'.
QuoteI would argue with it because instead of passing more new laws restricting the non-criminal, we need to repeal laws that set up 'gun free' neighborhoods and cities. We need to allow anyone that can pass a background check to be able to get a concealed weapon permit if they want one.
QuoteEver notice that the people that want us to put up signs stating certian areas are 'gun-free' zones don't have these same signs in front of their homes? Why not, if that makes everyone safer, just likeYorkshire Pud thinks people knowing cops don't have guns makes the cops safer?
QuoteMaybe the anti-gun folks shoud lead be example and put these signs up in front of their homes (note, please do not actually do this, it's a really bad idea)
Quote from: Ben Shockley on December 31, 2012, 07:56:25 AMYp, you did well before to just stop trying. Still, jousting with P*B may serve as valuable drill once and if the rest of the right-wing horde come back in here, as I suspect that some may have been away doing rituals.I'm guessing that you, Yp, haven't seen the whole Rightie crew around here in action... Forum founder Em Vee, The General, stevesh, Sardondi- although he's been around lately... ye shall know them by their bullshit as it cometh.
Quote from: Ben Shockley on December 31, 2012, 08:36:40 AM "if only" -- and that's why they want all the high-tech stuff: to substitute for what they never got to touch in the military.
Quote from: Paper*Boy on December 31, 2012, 06:20:15 AM... I would argue with it because it doesn't work. As far as the new restrictions on 'assault weapons', that law was passed at one point and expired a number of years later. It didn't accomplish anything when it passed and nothing different happened after it expired. It's just Congress trying to look like they are 'doing something'...
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on December 31, 2012, 07:42:01 AM... Nothing happened? No-one was murdered with one? Not one person? I wonder how 9000+ people were unlawfully killed in 2010 (more in 2011) with guns? Try telling the family of a murder victim 'nothing happened'....
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on December 31, 2012, 07:42:01 AM... Which bit of 'Our police have repeatedly voted against being routiely armed' didn't you understand? It isn't what I think, it's what the police know..They know that if they go to an incident any use of firearms will only escalate the situation. But don't take my word for it.. It's from 2006, but still a common sentiment; and since 2006, gun deaths are massively reduced in the UK..there were 51 last year, down on the previous year...http://www.polfed.org/federationpolicy/firearms.asp
Quote from: Paper*Boy on December 31, 2012, 01:11:16 PM I really can't speak to what your police want or don't want, or why they hold certain opinions or ideas, or the environment they are operating in, never having been to the UK and all. Reading that article, they do seem to be concerned about lack of training, lack of reliable equipment, possible lack of backup. Maybe they don't feel comfortable with the idea of being issued and carrying weapons after never having done so before. Maybe PC-ness has been drilled into their heads. Heck, maybe they really are safer not carrying, although half said they felt their lives had been in jeopardy since the previous survey. Here's what goes on in the US though. The police chiefs and upper officers in the larger cities, are more politician than policeman - political hires and appointees from within the ranks made by the (usually liberal) mayors. They typically don't rise through the ranks starting out as street cops - they come from 'records', or HR, or dispatch, or recruitment, or training, or 'community liasons', and climb the career ladder like the best of the corporate slugs. Here, when they say 'police want' this or support that, it's really what the chiefs and senior officers want or support, not what beat cops out actually dealing with criminals want. So although in this linked article they say this is a survey, consider how many of the respondents are what we would think of as actual police, and not just pencil pushers working inside the station. And note the rest of them DO want to carry a gun.
Quote from: UFO Fill on January 13, 2013, 10:11:38 AMMaybe if all weapons were more friendly looking, such as my avatar's Hello Kitty AK, we could all get along.