For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6375 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Cashmere wrote:
To me it's really simple...
I actually mean "liberal" fairly broadly to mean any idiot whose ideals are incommensurate with real life.
I disagree with little you say.
However I know some folks who own a prrus as well as a nice big gun safe and some conservatives with diesel dually pickups and not even a pocket knife to their name.
The deal that gets me is splitting the room into the realists (who of course think like you) and the idiots that don't - not a way to sway opinions I'm thinking.
If that is what you have in mind. _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4066 Location: Graceland
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
GeoJAP wrote:
BigTex wrote:
It seems to me that if both sides are equally well armed and violence has already started, you are looking at a very long session of violence as each side struggles against the other, but neither side can actually overcome the other.
I would interpret this situation as the most favorable in any mass conflict scenario, of which you are theorizing. It's regrettable that the conflict started in the first place, but let's assume that many humans have a violent, avaricious nature and that many conflicts are inevitable. If the conflict is fought to a draw because both sides are equally armed, then both sides were able to protect their population and resources from tyranny or domination from outsiders. This is the whole idea that legitimizes the notion of defensive violence in the first place.
The alternative would be that the stronger side would essentially rape, pillage and murder the weaker. That isn't preferable to you, is it?
The problem is these things are frequently not fought to a draw, they just turn into a meat grinder for both sides, since each side has invested too much to give up.
See:
Iran-Iraq war
U.S.-Vietnam conflict
U.S.-Iraq II
U.S. Civil War
World War II
World War I
In each of these conflicts the two sides were well-matched, but the effect wasn't that they quickly fought to a draw and went home. When they fought to a draw, they just kept on fighting, sometimes for years.
***
I am not making an argument against using violence. I am simply suggesting that people understand what they are signing up for when they decide it's time to use violence as a problem solving tool. Often the cost/benefit analysis used to justify violence is out of whack. _________________
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
To further illustrate Pop's point, on the rear of my car I have a "Texas State Rifle Association" sticker right next to my "Obama '08" sticker. Conflicting interests for sure, but sometimes life gets complicated.
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6375 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 1:21 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
GeoJAP wrote:
To further illustrate Pop's point, on the rear of my car I have a "Texas State Rifle Association" sticker right next to my "Obama '08" sticker. Conflicting interests for sure, but sometimes life gets complicated.
There ya go; black and white make gray. _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6375 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
BigTex wrote:
Often the cost/benefit analysis used to justify violence is out of whack.
See that is the thing, I'm 50, no combat training or experience and the only one with the experience in our 2 person household to use them to any effect.
Yea I have a couple of tools and a few supplies to go with but what is the chance I would have need of more than 2 or 3 and the supplies to use them more than a couple hundred times to any effect? _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Joined: Aug 11, 2005 Posts: 662 Location: Eastern NC
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 2:03 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Sorry bigtex but no gun is so prepeak oil. It assumes police, it assumes plenty of resources for all, and it assumes some respect for human life on all side. Your list of wars are all except two nation state wars. And in the those two armed individuals held sway. You argue that equally armed sides tend to have prolonged wars, yes that is true from a historical point, unequally armed one's are generally called genocide. Yes there are tough consequences if you use a gun in self defense, I agree that one should be "as the rabbit" in Heilein' books. But the consequence of not having a gun in a declining situation is more frequently .. being dead.
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 2:23 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Quote:
The deal that gets me is splitting the room into the realists (who of course think like you) and the idiots that don't - not a way to sway opinions I'm thinking.
If that is what you have in mind.
I yield the point, Pops.
I have oversimplified the issue.
I meant it as a bit of a sarcastic nit pick - didn't work.
I really have no rigid definition of liberal.
I suppose I associate the word "liberal" with those i have met in life who are dangerous because they have unworkable, destructive solutions to problems. The solutions usually involve tax and government.
I'm not sure I'm right about many things.
I am sure I'm right about taxes and government.
So when I meet somebody who thinks that . . .
1. There is a solution to every problem.
and
2. Who thinks that the job of government is to take care of every problem.
I think of "liberal".
But don't be misled.
While I think the NeoCons and right wingers are very much realists, I think they are dangerous for exactly that reason.
I dislike liberalism because it's dangerous because it's based on unworkable solutions.
I dislike the fascists running the joint right now because they're dangerous because their solutions, while workable, are evil.
Unfortunately, i think both sides are equally capable of garnering the support of the masses, who, in the end, really just don't want any responsibility.
Socialism led by idiots or fascism led by bastards. That's the choice for the population of Sgt. Schultzes among who I live.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4066 Location: Graceland
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Fishman wrote:
Sorry bigtex but no gun is so prepeak oil. It assumes police, it assumes plenty of resources for all, and it assumes some respect for human life on all side. Your list of wars are all except two nation state wars. And in the those two armed individuals held sway. You argue that equally armed sides tend to have prolonged wars, yes that is true from a historical point, unequally armed one's are generally called genocide. Yes there are tough consequences if you use a gun in self defense, I agree that one should be "as the rabbit" in Heilein' books. But the consequence of not having a gun in a declining situation is more frequently .. being dead.
Woah there partner, who said I didn't have a gun(s)?
You aren't seeing the point from which I am arguing.
I'm not anti-gun. I love guns. I've got a bunch. I love shooting stuff. I find it very relaxing.
What I am saying is that even if you are in a position to use your gun in a perfectly justified manner and you're all set to fire, if you have a way of resolving the situation without using violence, you may still want to consider it, because the avoidance of violence may give you less trouble in the long run.
That's all.
The fact that YOU were the one who introduced violence to the situation can sometimes come back to haunt you, again, even where you are perfectly justified in what you did.
As for the effect of unbalanced sides in a conflict, I tend to think that when sides are evenly matched a lot of people get killed when the shooting starts and when the sides are NOT evenly matched a lot of people get killed.
For unbalanced fights that still lingered forever, see:
Israel-Palestine
British-IRA
The entire African continent
Much of Latin America
Bottom line: make sure vioence really is the last resort before using it, since once it comes into play, it can be hard to control. _________________
Joined: Mar 18, 2005 Posts: 2570 Location: Minnesota
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
IMHO to not react against violence is the same thing as saying "it's ok, take my life...take my food...Hell, while y'r at it take the lives of my spouse & kids as well".
Violence begets more violence...bullshit!
THERE...I have spoken! _________________ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4066 Location: Graceland
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 2:34 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Cashmere wrote:
When the hell is somebody going to put a Cashmere quote in their signature? How many pearls do I have to cast?
It's kind of like a nickname, as much as you may want to pick one for yourself, it's got to come from someone else or it just won't stick. _________________
Joined: Aug 11, 2005 Posts: 662 Location: Eastern NC
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 2:40 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Bottom line: make sure violence really is the last resort before using it, since once it comes into play, it can be hard to control.
Bigtex I can agree with that.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4066 Location: Graceland
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
RonMN wrote:
IMHO to not react against violence is the same thing as saying "it's ok, take my life...take my food...Hell, while y'r at it take the lives of my spouse & kids as well".
Violence begets more violence...bullshit!
THERE...I have spoken!
Read what you wrote again. You said that violence, or attempted violence, committed against you requires a violent response.
Do you think the guy on the other side is thinking that way? He's probably thinking that he will use the threat of violence to get what he wants and it will work out okay, but it won't, because you're going to whip out the RonMN heater and start blasting. When it's over, perhaps he will be dead and you will still be alive, but if history is any judge, you will now be a target of the intruder's tribe and you may have to use violence against some or all of them.
That's what I mean when I say violence gets away from you. It's not really an opinion of mine, it's just true that escalations of force will be met by escalations on the other side until one side becomes exhausted, but that point of exhaustion can sometimes be several generations later.
I'm not saying this is a reason NOT to use violence when threatened. I'm just saying that if you employ violence it's good to do it with an understanding of what may follow--i.e., more violence.
For example, I think the U.S. has gotten involved in military adventures that this principle was not fully appreciated. We chose to use violence in Iraq to achieve political goals. However, the violence that we hoped to administer in a concentrated and contained way has now spilled over into the entire country and it's everywhere now with no end in sight.
Joined: Sep 03, 2007 Posts: 598 Location: Sunny Virginia, USA
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Cashmere wrote:
Socialism led by idiots or fascism led by bastards. That's the choice for the population of Sgt. Schultzes among who I live.
I'm going to frame this response, I think... what wonderful wording!
BigTex wrote:
The problem is these things are frequently not fought to a draw, they just turn into a meat grinder for both sides, since each side has invested too much to give up.
See:
Iran-Iraq war
U.S.-Vietnam conflict
U.S.-Iraq II
U.S. Civil War
World War II
World War I
Tex, as usual you make some pretty good points, however, while WW II was caused by the policies of the armistice of WW I, it was a war of naked aggression. Had Hitler not been a crazy bastard and stopped after reclaiming the Rhineland and demanded peace, things would have almost certainly turned out differently. So differently that we'd probably all be speaking German by now.
Even if the US leaders had had the brains and courage to work through the problems with Japan, I suspect Germany would have eventually forced us to enter the fight.
pops wrote:
See that is the thing, I'm 50, no combat training or experience and the only one with the experience in our 2 person household to use them to any effect.
Pops, this tells me that you are simply that much more dangerous... you know your limitations and can factor it into your plans. It's the idiot who thinks a gun makes him invincible that won't live past the first encounter. _________________ When somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him he's crazy. Ask him what he means. -- Otto Harkaman, Space Viking
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
