Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4073 Location: Graceland
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Jack wrote:
BigTex wrote:
A good rule of thumb is to ALWAYS assume that violence begets more violence.
I prefer to reflect on the wisdom contained in the phrase: "Peace through superior firepower."
For the more advanced, there is also: "Give me your (expletive) hearts and minds or I'll burn your (expletive) hooch down.
Search for the light. It's probably Willy Pete.
Reminds me of a very conservative friend who heard someone refer to an aircraft carrier as a "war machine." "No, no, no, my friend", he said, "you see, those are not war machines at all. Those are peace machines."
Jack, I know you are a big fan of well stocked arsenals, but no matter how well armed you are, if you engage your enemy long enough, he will find your weakness. That's where we are in Iraq now.
Shock and Awe would have been great if it had worked.
Now we are in an attrition situation, and I would always give the attrition advantage to the defender of his home country. _________________
Last edited by BigTex on Fri May 02, 2008 12:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Legless_Marine wrote:
{Hey guys, I split this from the five rules thread so we can keep that thread on topic. Pops}
Iaato wrote:
Ha. While I have entrenched a commie leftist attitude about civil liberties recently, I have learned that the redneck right has a real point about guns. I have developed a new fondness for guns, and am taking up target practice.
I've always had a distaste for guns, and subscribe to Heinlein's philosophy that guns, in a survival situation, make you dumb.
Thoughts?
yes , in most dictaships its the gun carriers than are in charge , look at european history - thats why your founding fathers allowed arms to the people - We in britain are unarmed - except for the police and criminals . do I feel safer ? atleast if I was armed and trained , I might be better off. and can fight back .
yes I might end up dead , or unarmed , then starving and then dead in a detention center.
guns do not kill - people do ( with others weapons if guns are not available)
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:22 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Legless_Marine wrote:
{Hey guys, I split this from the five rules thread so we can keep that thread on topic. Pops}
Iaato wrote:
Ha. While I have entrenched a commie leftist attitude about civil liberties recently, I have learned that the redneck right has a real point about guns. I have developed a new fondness for guns, and am taking up target practice.
I've always had a distaste for guns, and subscribe to Heinlein's philosophy that guns, in a survival situation, make you dumb.
Thoughts?
Stick to your ideas pal, when a machete wielding robber enters to your house you can amaze him with your cleverness. _________________ Stocking up on popcorn
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:23 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
If you were a Jew in World War II Europe, your chances of survival was greater if you participated in the Warsaw Uprising than if you meekly marched off to one of the camps. _________________ "I've been dazed and confused for so long it's not true."
Led Zeppelin
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:27 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
I'm a knee jerk pacifist and Canadian, so have an almost genetic anti-gun predisposition....however--the argument that violence always begets more violence is flawed. It's an imbalance of potent force that rewards and emboldens the aggressor that carries the greatest risk for accelerating levels of violence. In Canada, I am in balance, without carrying a weapon. In the U.S, I may be more vulnerable.
In the Yugoslavian conflict of the early nineties, the Serbs, who had been the controlling force in the region, pre Glasnost, had access to guns. The U.N. intervened in the conflict and imposed an arms embargo on the region, leaving an armed and rampaging Serbian populace against an unarmed Croatian, Muslim, Kosovar population, with no access to arms. That clusterf*** went on for years longer than it would, had firepower been more balanced.
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:32 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
I think that the first line of defense is a locked door. At night we always lock up. Security lights are a great thing too. They can be bought in solar. That said the third line is a firearm. I have begun to realize that you need to have something ready in case people break in to your house who are not easy to reason with. Sad, but true.
Things are getting increasingly hairy out there. I think that a lot of people are moving into the anger stage now that denial isn't an option any more.
I don't think it pays to have too much firepower, but having some allows me to sleep a little easier. _________________ Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
threadbear wrote:
In the Yugoslavian conflict of the early nineties, the Serbs, who had been the controlling force in the region, pre Glasnost, had access to guns. The U.N. intervened in the conflict and imposed an arms embargo on the region, leaving an armed and rampaging Serbian populace against an unarmed Croatian, Muslim, Kosovar population, with no access to arms. That clusterf*** went on for years longer than it would, had firepower been more balanced.
Agreed. Your example illustrates a point when one must take up arms and defend themselves (if possible). At some point, defensive deadly force must be taken against an aggressor to preserve one's own Liberty.
Like my CHL instructor said (pardon the obtuseness of his example, but it does illustrate the point), "You do not retreat if someone pulls out a samurai sword and runs right at you. Are you going to run away and let him slice your back open? No. That is when you must square yourself and draw."
But this does not invalidate BigTex's point either. The reason that this violence occurred in the former Yugoslavia is that the seeds were sown from previous violence generations earlier. And this killing the 1990's will give birth to further violence in the future as well.
At some point you have to defend yourself, but only as a last resort, due to the far-reaching consequences.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4073 Location: Graceland
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:38 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
threadbear wrote:
I'm a knee jerk pacifist and Canadian, so have an almost genetic anti-gun predisposition....however--the argument that violence always begets more violence is flawed. It's an imbalance of potent force that rewards and emboldens the aggressor that carries the greatest risk for accelerating levels of violence. In Canada, I am in balance, without carrying a weapon. In the U.S, I may be more vulnerable.
In the Yugoslavian conflict of the early nineties, the Serbs, who had been the controlling force in the region, pre Glasnost, had access to guns. The U.N. intervened in the conflict and imposed an arms embargo on the region, leaving an armed and rampaging Serbian populace against an unarmed Croatian, Muslim, Kosovar population, with no access to arms. That clusterf*** went on for years longer than it would, had firepower been more balanced.
threadbear, are you suggesting that if both sides to a conflict are equally well-armed that the downward spiral of violence will not occur?
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.
Hasn't this been the case in many conflicts where both sides were more or less equally well-armed? I'm thinking Iraq/Iran, USSR/Afghanistan, and situations like that.
OTOH, I would be likely to say that when one side has the ability to use overwhelming force, this is probably the situation where there is the least likelihood of accelerating levels of violence. I would cite the first gulf war as an example of this kind of violence not leading to more violence. _________________
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
To me it's really simple.
I guess I tend to try to find whatever black and white there is.
If you have a gun, you have a gun.
If you don't, you don't.
If you are the kind of person who believes that guns cause problems, then guns probably aren't for you.
I believe people cause problems.
People around me know that I carry - always.
What deterrent has that created in the minds of would be teeves and villains?
They know that they come to Cashmere's lair, they will be fired upon.
Sure, it might not help with the out of town folks, but anybody who passes by on a regular basis will often see me and mine - and hear - firing off semi rounds - lots of em.
You see a couple of liberals with PVs on their roof, a prius in the driveway, and they look well-fed -
That's called a zombie magnet.
Sorry for the "narrow labels" Pop.
I actually mean "liberal" fairly broadly to mean any idiot whose ideals are incommensurate with real life.
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
BigTex wrote:
Jack wrote:
BigTex wrote:
A good rule of thumb is to ALWAYS assume that violence begets more violence.
I prefer to reflect on the wisdom contained in the phrase: "Peace through superior firepower."
For the more advanced, there is also: "Give me your (expletive) hearts and minds or I'll burn your (expletive) hooch down.
Search for the light. It's probably Willy Pete.
Reminds me of a very conservative friend who heard someone refer to an aircraft carrier as a "war machine." "No, no, no, my friend", he said, "you see, those are not war machines at all. Those are peace machines."
Jack, I know you are a big fan of well stocked arsenals, but no matter how well armed you are, if you engage your enemy long enough, he will find your weakness. That's where we are in Iraq now.
Shock and Awe would have been great if it had worked.
Now we are in an attrition situation, and I would always give the attrition advantage to the defender of his home country.
The mess would never have even begun if Iraq hadn't been embargoed and essentially neutered by the UN, after the Desert Storm conflict. The world is such that the weaker players often end up getting hammered initially, by imperialist forces, or stronger neighbours, and then have to resort to guerilla warfare to try to play catch up. This gives the "never ending" flavour to a situation that could have easily been avoided if the U.S had a little more healthy fear of the Iraqis, right from the start.
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:45 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
aflurry wrote:
hey legless, interested in that Heinlein idea. Where is it from?
It's from Tunnel in the Sky. The final exam for the course in solo survival is to be sent to an unknown, uncolonized planet and survive for 48 hours. The exam isn't supposed to last more than 10 days at the most, but something goes wrong and the class is stranded.
You can take anything with you that you can carry, so some people go with guns, dogs, etc. If I remember right, the hero of the story goes with not much more than a knife. The ones with the dogs, guns, etc. end up blundering into dangerous situations or attracting problems and get wiped out early. The ones that survive make it by being defensive and banding together for protection.
God, I'd forgotten all about that book until Legless mentioned that. I must have read it at an impressionable age, because I can remember most of the story and the lessons have stuck. I can't say that about most of the stuff I read as a kid.
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6375 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Surprisingly only 25% of the posts so far in this thread have been expressly attacks on either th Right or the Left, not bad I'm thinking.
In the overall scheme of things my plan is preemptive retreat. I am not trained in combat nor police action and as well I ai't 18 anymore. Seems my best defense is to remove myself from large populations, become known and valued in my area - which includes just a hint of "don't walk in unexpectedly".
Jack, a little WP would sure be handy at the front door - even if WP stands for Whistling Pete. Not quite the same result but perhaps to good effect. _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
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?
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Cashmere wrote:
To me it's really simple.
I guess I tend to try to find whatever black and white there is.
If you have a gun, you have a gun.
If you don't, you don't.
If you are the kind of person who believes that guns cause problems, then guns probably aren't for you.
I believe people cause problems.
People around me know that I carry - always.
What deterrent has that created in the minds of would be teeves and villains?
They know that they come to Cashmere's lair, they will be fired upon.
Sure, it might not help with the out of town folks, but anybody who passes by on a regular basis will often see me and mine - and hear - firing off semi rounds - lots of em.
You see a couple of liberals with PVs on their roof, a prius in the driveway, and they look well-fed -
That's called a zombie magnet.
Sorry for the "narrow labels" Pop.
I actually mean "liberal" fairly broadly to mean any idiot whose ideals are incommensurate with real life.
You misuse the term, liberal. Liberals are generally people who can think and aren't given to wild hillbilly shoot 'em up scenarios. It's unfortunate for the U.S, that your entire society is centered around competition, that undermines cooperation. It worships money over all else, and has created a winner take all mentality, where pacifists like me are forced to carry guns, to ensure their safety. It's NOTHING to brag about.
Joined: Sep 03, 2007 Posts: 598 Location: Sunny Virginia, USA
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Failure to use your brain is one of the leading causes of death.
Thinking a gun solves the problem of an intruder is like thinking a baseball bat hits a ball. The gun is a tool that, when used correctly, provides valuable options.
Case in point. Some years back, my wife was carrying a gun in her purse while we traveled through the Midwest. In one instance (do to my naivitae, I allowed a car to block us into a parking spot at which point the man jumped out of the car and came to my window. My wife did the following: put purse on lap, put hand on gun in purse, put a calm look on her face. I quickly changed my demeanor from shock (caused by my realization I did something stupid) to a similar expression of calm. Then I cracked the window.
The gentleman came to the window, looked in, mumbled something and left. To this day I believe he was up to no good, but the quick thinking of my wife saved the day. Could someone bluff as well? Yes. Could she or I bluff that well, I doubt it. Guns give options.
Now, if you think I'm going to try to defend a location post peak without other people in the area thinking as I do, then you are mistaken. The best way to defend yourself is to be amongst a group of like minded, prepared people.
As for the Heinlein remark. You will find that all fiction writers who discount the use of a gun allow their protagonists clever ways to defeat the enemy (unless running furthers the story). David Brin's book The Postman would have been quite boring if the hero had been able to kill the three attackers in chapter one. _________________ 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
