"If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-12-2015, 10:19 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 10:02 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 09:35 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Hmm... the Axis included Japan, and it took a couple of really big bombs to beat them...

Not sure what that adds.

You seemed to be saying that one gun per soldier was all it took to defeat the Axis powers. I'm pointing out that this is not quite correct. Even in Europe, there was lots of firepower beyond the soldiers' rifles.

If your point was something else, never mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
22-12-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 08:50 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Oh goody. Another gun thread.

I was having symptoms of withdrawal.

Rolleyes

A thought occurred recently when thinking about the Trolley Problem...

The reason why people are more likely to take responsibility for the death of the one guy in the first scenario but not the second is supposed to be the proximity of the victim ... pulling a lever is a more remote action than physically and personally pushing the dude off the bridge.

I was wondering if this might (at least partially) account for the popularity of guns over e.g. knives.

Consider

That might have some substance in the case of a person intent on killing, but for self-defense it is simply a question of effectiveness.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 09:25 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Sounds right to me.

A further observation: The Allies defeated the Axis in WWII and the millions of individual soldiers needed one gun apiece, a rifle.

Often a pistol and a rifle, not to mention artillery and air power. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 10:44 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 10:19 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 10:02 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Not sure what that adds.

You seemed to be saying that one gun per soldier was all it took to defeat the Axis powers. I'm pointing out that this is not quite correct. Even in Europe, there was lots of firepower beyond the soldiers' rifles.

If your point was something else, never mind.
I did point out that the common grunt needed one gun. Somebody else brought up nuclear weapons. Tongue
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 10:48 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 10:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 09:25 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Sounds right to me.

A further observation: The Allies defeated the Axis in WWII and the millions of individual soldiers needed one gun apiece, a rifle.

Often a pistol and a rifle, not to mention artillery and air power. Drinking Beverage

I see I swooshed some here, so let me give you deep background. I live in Redneckistan. My large collection of relatives are the poster children for gunnuttery. They have this thing, "The Big Fifty", being the fifty people with the most guns. Between them they have in excess of 7,000 guns. Makes Burt Gummer's rec room look like a Sunday School teacher's purse.

Do they need all those guns? No. Did they help when the graboids came for them? A bit, but they still got run out of their home.

The above over-the-top example is by way of illustration that a lot of people have a lot of guns and nothing actual to do with them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 10:49 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
Yep, we'd still be speaking English and eating bland food if'n we hadn't... oh, wait.....

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 10:55 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 08:50 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Oh goody. Another gun thread.

I was having symptoms of withdrawal.

Rolleyes

A thought occurred recently when thinking about the Trolley Problem...

The reason why people are more likely to take responsibility for the death of the one guy in the first scenario but not the second is supposed to be the proximity of the victim ... pulling a lever is a more remote action than physically and personally pushing the dude off the bridge.

I was wondering if this might (at least partially) account for the popularity of guns over e.g. knives.

Consider
I prefer knives , they are much more personal, almost intimate, and I'm such an extrovert, I love expressing my feelings.
Angel

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 11:00 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
India
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 11:04 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 10:44 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 10:19 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You seemed to be saying that one gun per soldier was all it took to defeat the Axis powers. I'm pointing out that this is not quite correct. Even in Europe, there was lots of firepower beyond the soldiers' rifles.

If your point was something else, never mind.
I did point out that the common grunt needed one gun. Somebody else brought up nuclear weapons. Tongue

OK, but the common grunt didn't win the war all by himself, and probably couldn't have without air support, artillery, bombs, tanks, etc.

I agree that people with enormous stashes of guns are silly. I just wasn't quite getting that from your statement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
22-12-2015, 11:10 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 11:04 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 10:44 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  I did point out that the common grunt needed one gun. Somebody else brought up nuclear weapons. Tongue

OK, but the common grunt didn't win the war all by himself, and probably couldn't have without air support, artillery, bombs, tanks, etc.

I agree that people with enormous stashes of guns are silly. I just wasn't quite getting that from your statement.
But the "common grunt" is what would be fighting TYRANNY!!!! if it ever came to the US. Those gombahs wouldn't be able to form a coherent and effective fighting force on the level of the Wolverines. But they keep on saying they're defending liberty, and will keep on doing that until the shit hits the fan (and their shorts at the thought of actually having to do all that bullshit they keep saying they'll do.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: