Gun Control, Really?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Woody, Apr 19, 2007.

  1. phlogistician Banned Banned

    What a stupid comment.

    I'm sure that's the report he filed with the PD, and it wasn't tainted my macho bullshit or self justification one iota,...

    If your Dr friend carries a gun for self defense, it means he'salready made his mind up about people's intentions, and the value of their life. Doesn't really sit alongside the Hippocratic oath though, does it?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Er, exactly not. Compare the prison populations of the USA to the UK. Check out your homicide rates. Capital punishment doesn't stop people from committing crime in the USA.

    You have freedom? No you don't, you just buy what you are being sold, and you are being sold the idea that you are free. Living in fear of muggers and invaders isn't freedom. I hardly think your average obese citizen is in a position to fight an invading Army. Without training and discipline , they'd probably kill more US citizens than invaders. We know what it's like when Americans wield guns, if they are hunting, they shoot each other, and if they are fighting a war they shoot their allies, and then have a frikking hoe down if they do manage to hit an enemy target.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    hospital workers in kingston jamaica are armed with pistols, they have to have gun handling training aswell,

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    it is true that american troops do shoot their allies an awful lot, you wouldent find british troops killing that many allies, or shooting each other especialy hitting certain convoys cough cough.

    and whats with the attitude of your average american soldier, they are like a bunch of school boy morons pumped up taking pleasure in the innocents that they kill, and getting happy and emotional on the battlefield

    i dont understand the mentality of your young troopers. they are wierd why would you put such idiots on the battlefield? they are a liability to the rest of the army and your allies. atleast the majority of british troopers are sensible in battle and not always acting the fool.

    sure there are exceptions.

  8. heliocentric Registered Senior Member

  9. heliocentric Registered Senior Member


    Basically gun control is just pragmatism - if it were genuinely possible to completely cure mental illness and people feeling disenfrancised then yes; we could forget about guns altogether and simply magic away mental illness.
    The fact is though - we cant take mental illness out of circulation, we can however take guns out of circulation.
    As i said its pure pragmatism.
    Btw ive never heard anyone seriously suggest that taking guns out of the equation will stop people from killing each other - im sorry but thats a complete straw man.
    Gun control lobbiests simply argue on the basis that taking guns out of circulation will reduce murders - which is a statistically proven fact.
  10. mikenostic Stop pretending you're smart! Registered Senior Member

    I know you didn't just bash our troops. I know you didn't.
    You seem to be British. How bout I start bashing that old cunt that you call your queen? Do you like that?
    How the fuck does bashing our troops have anything to do with civilian gun control here in the states?
    I'd kick your ass right now if we were in person.
    First off, our troops do what they are told. If you have a problem with our military, take it to the top. Leave the troops out of this. They bust their ass everyday. Slam Bush, slam the gub'mint, slam congress, but leave our troops out of this, *******.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2007
  11. Fenris Wolf Banned Banned

    Actually, he's right. The US military has an extremely high rate of blue on blue incidents compared to those of other western nations, and have had as far back as WW2, even if it was not as widely publicised back then. There is a definite difference in the attitude and care taken by American troops when compared with those of their allies.
    The stats are out there. Go do some reading.

    What this has to do with civilian gun control? Attitude.

    Have a look at rates of gun ownership in (for example) Canada. Then have a look at their murder statistics, look at America's, and do some mathematics.
    The problem is more America than it is guns. The simple minded would prefer to lay blame at the doorstep of the weapons themselves - it helps them avoid looking deeper. Your troops display very similar attitudes to the use of their weaponry as your civilians. Other countries don't.

    Ask yourself why.

    Perhaps, if you look at little deeper, you can see it - right there, in your post. Shoot, don't think.
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2007
  12. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Even if gun control was 100% proven to be the answer, it is far too late at this point in history.

    Alot of you need to be reminded that americans got their freedom from the barrel of a rifle. Guns founded the country. Give that culture up is very difficult and so far there has been little reason in this modern - so-called - enlightened world to do so.

    Problem *#1* is lack of morality in the world. Correct this and you may then correct other problems such as the specific provisions of dangerous tools/weapons such as firearms. No new gun law would have prevented this latest massacre and that's a fact. Exhisting laws even in Virgina could not prevent it. People shitting on eachother day in and day out is the cause and effect of this situation. Go to any public washroom and see what your fellow american has left for you on the toilet seat.
  13. mikenostic Stop pretending you're smart! Registered Senior Member

    Really? Our military is a little bit bigger than Britain's, and we have much more equipment, so I would expect more friendly fire incidents. Friendly fire is going to happen during war. Unfortunately it's a fact of life. It sucks that that A-10 destroyed the British convoy. My condolences are with the family. It's a part of war. My unit had to bury a Marine who was killed in Nasariya when an A-10 struck his aamtrak. I wish it didnt' happen, but it does.

    I don't disagree one bit that it's America moreso than it is guns, but you're NOT going to sit there and tell me that our troops have bad attitudes and poor weapon control. But what do I know? I only spent 7 years in the Marines. Yeah, it's true that we are taught to be gung-ho and aggressive, but would you expect us to go into combat with a feeble Woody Allen attitude? It's that same 'attitude' that you mention that has allowed us to keep our freedom. As you mentioned, WW2 is a prime example. Would we have even been in that situation for friendly fire to even exist if the Japanese hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor? NO!
    Now, I will be the first to say that the U.S. has gotten a bit arrogant and has a chip on their shoulder (I think you would too if terrorists bombed one of your ships and slammed airliners into two of your buildings).
    Our troops are probably some of the most professional in the world. They follow orders. If you have a problem with the way the military is ran, bitch about the ones who run it (i.e. the gub'mint), and leave the troops out of it.

    My problem wasn't with Chi's mention of the high rate of friendly fire incidents, it was with this:

    What innocents? The last time I checked, any incident involving needless slaughter of innocents gets dealt with. The Marines involved in the Haditha issue are all on trial. We don't tolerate that shit anymore than anyone else does.
    I'd be getting happy and emotional on the battlefield too if my unit killed a bunch of insurgents siding with those responsible for the twin towers.
  14. phlogistician Banned Banned

    I started the blue on blue angle, and I'm British.

    Yeah, please do, I'm no royalist and laughed a bucket load when Lady Di copped it. So feel free to criticise the Queen, I know I do. See you think that British people are as mindlessly patriotic as most Americans. We aren't.

    If you'd read and understood, the point was about proficiency of weapon use. That includes identifying the correct target.

    No, you'd try, miss and punch a passer by. You are an American, after all.

    In the case that was brought back to media attention recently, where one of your A10's shot up a clearly marked British vehicle, it was the Pilot's decision. Nobody, not even God, told him to do it.

    Abu Grhaib, jackass, ... Bush told troops to attach electrodes to the inmates testes, did he? Or did they make that one up for themselves. Don't try an absolve your troops of their failures and blame it all on Bush.
  15. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    She is an old cunt.
  16. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Nope I agree with Chi on that one. U.S military (not Marines - all my respect to Marines) are TRIGGER HAPPY COWBOYS. I have lost a few aquaintences(Canadian Forces) to U.S airforce(f16) and US army(a10). Worst record for FF incidents.
  17. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member


    No Jackass, President Bush Did not, if you have proof that was ordered please provide it, and I will lead the charge to the White House door to arrest the President, and as far as Blue on Blue, the British have as much of it as any one else, it is part of war,

    Blue on Blue ground incidents during Operation Iraqi Freedom
    The first reported ground fratricide incident during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) occurred shortly after midnight on March 24, when a British Challenger II tank fired on another near Basra. This incident is of particular interest. The two tanks, Britain's most advanced MBT types, were part of a squadron of the Queen's Royal Lancers attached to the 1st Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusliers Battlegroup of the 7th Armoured Brigade. The tanks were engaging pockets of Iraqi soldiers near a bridge over the Qanat Shat Al Basra canal which runs along the western edge of the city. In a nearby sector, a troop of CR2 of 2RTR was tracking a group of enemy personnel through their thermal sights, which had been reported by the battle group HQ. The 'target' was indicated as an enemy bunker position. The QDL Challenger was, unfortunately, in turret-down position, below the skyline, its crew working on the turret top, visible to the 2 RTR crew as the reported "enemy" troops.

    The RTR TC requested clearance to shoot, which was granted. Firing two shots of HESH at 4000 yards blew the turret off the QDL Challenger, killing two of the crew and seriously wounding the two others. Both tanks were fitted with visual identification systems in working order, but could not render clear visual contact, due to the hull-down positioned tank.

    According to reports, tanks in OIF were issued bolted-on identification panels, including those emitting thermal signature which can be seen at long distance using IR observation devices. However there seemed to remain also some of the older fluorescent sheets, used during Desert Storm on some of the AFVs.

    And here is a good example of British efficency in operations from the Falklands.

    The Falklands war: the Bluff Cove disaster.

    From: Military Review | Date: 11/1/2004 | Author: Bolia, Robert S.
    Print Digg
    GIVEN THE Falkland Islands' location, one would expect an invasion or defense would require joint operations, an expectation that was certainly borne out when Argentina invaded the Islands in 1982 and the United Kingdom dispatched a joint task force to reclaim them a week later. The Falklands War involved a number of joint operations by the British task force, many of them highly successful, including amphibious landings, naval gunfire support of infantry operations, and the insertion of Special Forces by helicopter and ship. One of the less successful joint operations was the amphibious landing of the Welsh Guards on 8 June 1982 at Fitzroy, in which failures in jointness were in part responsible for the ensuing disaster

    1939 (10 September - early World War II) – British submarine HMS Triton sank another British submarine, HMS Oxley, mistaking it for a German U-boat and having received no responses to challenges. Oxley was the first Royal Navy vessel to be sunk and also the first vessel to be sunk by a British vessel in the war.

    1941 - Fleet Air Arm torpedo attack on HMS Sheffield during the hunt for the German battleship Bismarck

    41 - RAF fighter ace Wing Commander Douglas Bader shot down in what recent research suggests was a friendly fire incident [8].

    1942 - Polish submarine ORP Jastrząb was mistakenly sunk by British destroyer HMS St. Albans and minesweeper HMS Seagull.

    1944 - British flotilla attacked by RAF Hawker Typhoons, off Cap d'Antifer, Le Havre. HMS Britomart and HMS Hussar sunk. HMS Salamander damaged beyond repair and scrapped. HMS Jason escaped major damage.

    1956 - Suez: Attacks from British Royal Navy carrier-borne aircraft caused heavy casualties to UK 45 Commando and HQ.

    1982 - HMS Cardiff shoots down AAC Gazelle (UK) in the Falklands Islands.

    1982 - 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, British Army (UK) Companies A and C engage each other in an hour-long firefight in the Falkland Islands involving heavy weapons and artillery strikes. At least 8 UK casualties.

    1982 - United Kingdom UK Special Boat Service Commando killed in firefight with UK Special Air Service
    Commandos. Falkland Islands.

    2003 - British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.[6]

    2003 - British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight, blowing off the turret and killing two crew members, Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke [12]
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2007
  18. phlogistician Banned Banned


    No, it's largely part of the American Gung Ho attitude. Whether hunting, or fighting wars, you have 'if it moves, shoot it' attitude.

    "The scale of "friendly fire" casualties on the allied side during the Second World War has been estimated in one US study at 15 per cent of the total. In the first Gulf war, 17 per cent of American casualties were the result of friendly fire."


    "In addition to the above, due to the number of UK personnel having been killed by U.S. forces, in Britain the term 'friendly fire' is used in a semi-ironic way to imply U.S. Military incompetence"


    Sorry, no time to cut and paste specific American fuck ups, it would just take too long, there were 8,000 killed in 'nam alone.
  19. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member


    Personally I think you have your head fully inserted so far up your fourth point of contact that you couldn't see daylight if you were given a industrial vacuum to suck the lint out of your bell button, I am a retired Sergeant First Class, U.S. Army, and can tell you that the fire discipline in the units that i served with war exceptional, and I can also tell you that FF incident will and do happen, when you have maneuver units with massive fire power, and any lag in position reporting, or obscuring of the vision spectrum which can be caused by weather, smoke-(natural) ( tactical), or just plain exhaustion, caused by tactical tempo, you have a situation for mistakes, it is a absolute wonder to me that it is as low as it is, and that we don't have more, so unless you have been on the Dime your self you have no reference of judgment for you opinion, so take your head out.
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    How does friendly fire work itself into gun control?
  21. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    it doesnt.
    its a red herring attempt to hijack the thread.
  22. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Ok and I know, but your pilots are cowboys, sorry my opinion and I welcome you to attempt to insert my head up my ass at any time.
  23. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Actually what happens is that people tend to idealize the past.

    The fact is that the violent crime rate in the US has gone down 17.6 percent in the last 10 years and as of a couple of years ago was at the lowest point since the FBI began keeping these statistics in 1973.

    The human mind however, is fairly bad at statistics. It evolved to track immanent threats and local incidents in small tribes not to analyze threats being reported by 6 billion people across the globe via modern media. Due to this we have a strong tendency to greatly overestimate the actual threat to us directly. The reporting and concern about SARS is a wonderful case-study of this. The general perception of violent crime is another. In reality, swimming pools are a greater danger to children in the US than are handguns.


Share This Page