|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Because they didn't have enough guns. |
Nothing to do with the tactical skill of the Wehrmacht? Nothing to do with supplies and logistics? There's more to fighting a war than just having a bunch of guns.
| Quote: |
| In the meantime, the occupants resisted for 50 days, totally dispelling your asinine account that guns make no difference and that cops can just steamroll over civilians. |
They took 50 days because the FBI didn't want to lose a single guy. It's not a warzone. Better to take 50 days negotiating and planning after the initial failure (As much a failure of their planning and execution).
Do you really think a compound full of people could hold out for 50 days if there was a full on insurrection and the regular army was involved?
| Quote: |
| If you could provide even a single scrap of evidence that Koresh was planning a mass suicide, then it would be relevant. |
The issue isn't what Koresh was planning. The issue is whether or not the FBI saw the potential for a Jonestown and if that entered into their planning. There are two parties involved and two processes of thinking occurring simultaneously to create the whole situation. If its relevant to one party, its relevant to the situation.
| Quote: |
| Yeah, keep making excuses. I'm sure anyone who was actually hauled off to a death camp would have a different view on the matter, but if you think it's okay to let thugs have their way you and your family, then that's your business. I will NEVER share your views on the matter, so you needn't waste time commenting further. |
So Ghandi and MLK should have reached for a gun instead of heading off to jail? Mandela should have started a civil war?
| Quote: |
| Oh gawd... You sound like you're trying to write a script for some 5th rate political thriller or something. |
How is your prediction that you would "take a few with me" fact and my prediction that it you'd get gunned down while reaching for your weapon pure fantasy?
How many cop-civilian standoffs/raids have ended with a bunch of cops dead and how many have ended with the suspect dying in a hail of gunfire without even taking any cops with them?
Which is more likely?
But your outcome will be different, why? Because you say so? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm just gonna drop this here..
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/241709/chinese-teen-kills-9-in-knife-attack-reports
| Quote: |
Chinese teen kills 9 in knife attack�reports
BEIJING�A teenager has been arrested after killing nine people and wounding four others in a knife attack in northeast China, state media reported Thursday.
The 17-year-old, who was identified only by his surname Li, barged into the home of his girlfriend armed with a knife following an argument and killed two relatives of the girl, the Legal Daily said.
As he left his girlfriend�s home in Liaoning province�s Xinbin county, he stabbed six more people to death and wounded five, it said.
|
I think they should really do something about those guns in China. Oh wait. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, now imagine how much higher that number would likely have been had the young man in question been walking around with a hundred round clip in an assault rifle instead of a knife. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Yes, now imagine how much higher that number would likely have been had the young man in question been walking around with a hundred round clip in an assault rifle instead of a knife. |
3 more? Actually killing "only" 9 people in a shooting rampage is still pretty damn high. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have an open carry for about 15 US states and a concealed carry permit for Texas. California is complicated; I can conceal carry legally only in some counties.
I only own a couple fully-auto assault rifles, but own 10+ each long guns, shotguns & handguns. Only a few of them I shoot regularly.
I bought three handguns last year in one transaction. They were mailed right to my door. The package was marked "sewing machine". The box was perfectly intact.
Just thought I'd share that. I will never commit any crimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
I have an open carry for about 15 US states and a concealed carry permit for Texas. California is complicated; I can conceal carry legally only in some counties.
I only own a couple fully-auto assault rifles, but own 10+ each long guns, shotguns & handguns. Only a few of them I shoot regularly.
|
Cool stuff. What do you got? I always wanted a full-auto AK.
How hard is it to get a permit for a full-auto weapon? You also have to get one for each weapon right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
I have an open carry for about 15 US states and a concealed carry permit for Texas. California is complicated; I can conceal carry legally only in some counties.
I only own a couple fully-auto assault rifles, but own 10+ each long guns, shotguns & handguns. Only a few of them I shoot regularly.
I bought three handguns last year in one transaction. They were mailed right to my door. The package was marked "sewing machine". The box was perfectly intact.
Just thought I'd share that. I will never commit any crimes. |
I'm presuming all of this was done in the US? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
I have an open carry for about 15 US states and a concealed carry permit for Texas. California is complicated; I can conceal carry legally only in some counties.
I only own a couple fully-auto assault rifles, but own 10+ each long guns, shotguns & handguns. Only a few of them I shoot regularly.
|
Cool stuff. What do you got? I always wanted a full-auto AK.
How hard is it to get a permit for a full-auto weapon? You also have to get one for each weapon right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fermentation wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Yes, now imagine how much higher that number would likely have been had the young man in question been walking around with a hundred round clip in an assault rifle instead of a knife. |
3 more? Actually killing "only" 9 people in a shooting rampage is still pretty damn high. |
Yes, and imagine how much lower that number would have been if he had used only a fork or a spoon. Clearly we should ban all kitchen knives, since they could fall into the wrong hands! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| You missed what I think is the value of this article. |
No, I read the article you linked. If you wanted to make some other argument, perhaps you should have used a different source.
| Quote: |
| I didn't call a "gun" a murder weapon. I called an assault rifle a murder weapon, contrasting it against certain other classes of guns in doing so. If you had bothered to understand the nuance of my case at all, you'd have seen that. |
I don't know why you assumed I either didn't read or didn't understand the entirety of your post. You absolutely did call a gun a murder weapon: "This isn't about the right to own a gun. It's about the right to own a murder weapon." The fact that you would use that label for any gun is ridiculous, which is why I don't particularly care that you tried to make some irrelevant distinction.
A weapon designed to kill a large number of people in a short period of time is nothing more than that: a weapon designed to kill a large number of people in a short period of time. A murder weapon would be a weapon designed to unlawfully or unjustifiably kill, no matter how high the number of intended victims or how long the time required to kill them. Ya know, maybe something like this. Perhaps that is a distinction you are emotionally unable to make, but if so, don't whine about it when it's pointed out to you.
I don't have the same issues with reconciling the advances in modern weaponry and a several hundred year old political document like some here apparently have. I have to doubt the intellectual honesty of someone who claims that the US would not see an overall drop in violent crimes if a national firearms ban were to take effect. As a statistic, I have no doubt I would be safer with such a nationwide gun ban. However, as an individual trained to carry and use a firearm, I would absolutely be less safe if such a thing were to happen, as would anyone else who's decided to take upon himself the responsibility of defending his and others' lives. Do I need "a hundred round clip in an assault rifle" to accomplish this? No. But does that make that kind of gun a murder weapon? Please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| You missed what I think is the value of this article. |
No, I read the article you linked. |
I did not say you failed to read it, geldedgoat. I said you failed to extract the value from it I intended. I then clarified that value so it could not be missed a second time. You don't have to be so defensive about that, geldedgoat. It is not a big deal.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I didn't call a "gun" a murder weapon. I called an assault rifle a murder weapon, contrasting it against certain other classes of guns in doing so. If you had bothered to understand the nuance of my case at all, you'd have seen that. |
I don't know why you assumed I either didn't read or didn't understand the entirety of your post. |
Because your response was based on either a failure to read my post, a misunderstanding of my post, or an intentionally misconstrual of it. I was being polite by limiting the possibilities to the first two, but it's absolutely clear to me now it was really the third -- probably driven by an emotional reaction to any negative language at all being used to describe that holy of holies, "the gun" -- because you double down on and defend the original mistake:
| geldedgoat wrote: |
You absolutely did call a gun a murder weapon: "This isn't about the right to own a gun. It's about the right to own a murder weapon." The fact that you would use that label for any gun is ridiculous, which is why I don't particularly care that you tried to make some irrelevant distinction.
A weapon designed to kill a large number of people in a short period of time is nothing more than that: a weapon designed to kill a large number of people in a short period of time. A murder weapon would be a weapon designed to unlawfully or unjustifiably kill, no matter how high the number of intended victims or how long the time required to kill them. |
You analyzed a single sentence of my post in an invalid way that ignored a distinction emphasized by the rest of the post, and having been called upon it, you continue to twist and turn to defend it instead of admitting your error. This kind of thing might fly if you were making political ads for Mitt Romney, but as I am not running for the highest office in the land, I really do not want to keep wasting my time on dealing with such distortions. I'm not interested in arguing semantics with you here regarding what specific criteria must be met in order for a killing device to make the leap from legitimate tool to murder weapon; either make an effort to understand my intended meaning -- which you hint at yourself when you say, "Do I need "a hundred round clip in an assault rifle" to accomplish this? No." -- or leave off, because I'm not interested in quibbling with you about the particular connotation of a specific word in order to assuage your feelings. Whichever you chose, I feel I have provided you with sufficient amplification of my position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think as originally intended guns aren't really the end all be all of safeguards against tyranny, but just a part. More important than the guns themselves was the militia that used them. Compared to the national guard today it inolved a much larger percentage of the population, and represented a time when civic participation was seen as a virtue rather than a weird foible. Anyway, I still want my guns, but agree somewhat with the position that by themselves they do not guarantee security, but they are part of the equation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| I think as originally intended guns aren't really the end all be all of safeguards against tyranny, but just a part. More important than the guns themselves was the militia that used them. Compared to the national guard today it inolved a much larger percentage of the population, and represented a time when civic participation was seen as a virtue rather than a weird foible. Anyway, I still want my guns, but agree somewhat with the position that by themselves they do not guarantee security, but they are part of the equation. |
Another strawman. Who really argues that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right?
The 2nd Amendment is the last defense against tyranny. It is not the first, nor the only, and probably not even the most effective defense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been. My position is that guns are part of a bulwark against tyranny, and that other parts of that bulwark involve measures to strengthen citizen participation in the affairs of state.
Am I missing something? How is my argument a strawman? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
