911 Dispatcher Tells Woman About To Be Sexually Assaulted There Are No Cops To Help
- Thread starter Darthlawsuit
- Start date
Kage of the Hood
Member
guns shouldnt been invented since they are here we need Em..... the government will oppress a populus with no guns and crime on women and elderly will rise... murder and robbing can be done without guns....but u can't stop it without em
Gingka Uzumaki
Active member
Corrupt government. No law until you're on the other side of the gun. Such other underlying themes here. Glad she isn't dead.
It takes a lot to actually use the gun properly. Not everyone has temperament to use it even in the right conditions. You know..
There is an old joke:
A : I got robbed last night.
B: Didn't you have your gun with you?
A: Yes, I had. Thank god, they didn't see it and thus left it behind.
There is an old joke:
A : I got robbed last night.
B: Didn't you have your gun with you?
A: Yes, I had. Thank god, they didn't see it and thus left it behind.
Gingka Uzumaki
Active member
If yeen got the testicles to shoot a mf'er in the dome with a gun when you gettin threatened by some random dude, then you don't need life
Most people have a rather docile mindset. When suddenly hit with the unexpected, even life-threatening situations - they tend to experience a period of catatonic behavior - what we, in the military, call "the black." When you go "into the black" - memory and cognitive functions are impaired. Those that do act often do so erratically. It's a sign of poor training, usually.
Since most people don't train how to stare down the barrel of a gun and make rational decisions - they freeze up and forget that they have their own firearm. About 10% will 'freak out' and get themselves (and possibly a bunch of others) killed. Another 10% will actively and consciously respond to the problem. Most - about 80% - simply gawk and, once 'recovered,' go into a sort of 'stand-by' herd mentality mode where they await someone to provide the impetus to act.
That's of the general population. Trained or experienced demographics will have a different cross-section depending upon the scope of their training/experience and the nature of the catastrophe they are facing.
So, yes, in most cases - people forget they have a firearm to deal with the problem; and half of the ones that remember are exactly the half you do not want to be recalling that.
Which is why permits for concealed carry and programs to train people how to properly use their firearms and address threats are a good thing. Even if someone makes a bad call when using their firearm - you want them to be able to remember it and to be able to reflect on their actions, later.
I'm not exactly sure what you are implying, here.
That we train people to handle firearms and respond to situations that would/could involve them?
Or that we attempt to dictate who can own firearms based upon some arbitrary criteria for mental stability?
Darthlawsuit
Active member
Good, refuse to be a victim!And this is why I have a gun on my computer desk so I can shoot an ******* in the face if he breaks into my house.
? Not sure what you mean there, too vague.
Weapons can cause peace though. Imagine you have two people, both want the others land. If one of the has more power than the other they will use that power to take the land. If both people are equally armed and both are unwilling to let the other take the land but neither is willing to die for the land then neither will make a move. At that point the best move is to not fight over the land but try to negotiate so that both may benefit.
The cold war is a perfect example of this. Both the USSR and the USA were about equal in strength and unwilling to attack the other while they were equal. Both tried to gain power over the other and have an advantage and both succeeded, but both were equal in different ways. Neither would attack the other and eventually it just became a stalemate until economics solved the problems for us. Economics > any army
I do wish we were still using swords and axes, but oh well. Someone was bound to invent a gun sooner or later. All it consists of is a barrel, some explosive material, and objects being propeled.
That's a terrible example, Darth. Weapons, throughout history, have never caused 'peace'. The Cold War may not have been a nuclear one, but the US and the USSR waged dozens of 'wars' against each other on foreign soil with foreign nation's interests as their excuse.
Millions died in the 'Cold War'. The only thing that kept it from going nuclear and glassing the planet was the certainty of MAD.
The only reason the proletariat should arm itself would be to put the business-end of a gun against a recruiter's temple.
Millions died in the 'Cold War'. The only thing that kept it from going nuclear and glassing the planet was the certainty of MAD.
The only reason the proletariat should arm itself would be to put the business-end of a gun against a recruiter's temple.
Actually, both the USSR and United States would have survived a full nuclear exchange at the height of the Nuclear Arms Race. The nuclear weapons in reserve were horribly insufficient to ensure destruction of primary targets, let alone secondary and tertiary targets.
Though centralized government authority would be suspended for some time until surviving nodes could re-network and begin to route around destroyed sectors. Given the different histories of the respective countries - it would be more likely that the U.S. would recover its standing before the USSR did.
Still - enough of a deterrant to keep all but the most utilitarian of strategic planners from accepting strategic nuclear warfare as a valid strategy.
Though it's similarly unlikely that the two would have openly engaged each other even without nuclear weapons. Both countries know very well the economic costs of drawn-out wars. The USSR and United States were 'doomed' to proxy wars from the beginning. Neither the US nor the USSR really held ideas of invading each other's territory, proper. They were, however, each committed to spreading their respective influence and ideals. This meant proxy wars.
If either of us had actually wanted to invade the other (as we were all taught in school that the 'bad guys' wanted to do) - then MAD wouldn't have really prevented that conflict from happening. It's as silly as saying that tanks and artillery, when possessed by both sides, will prevent them from ever attacking each other - because the cost now becomes too high.
Kind of arguing for a third point here, really.
It doesn't matter what title a human holds.
When a group of people get together and decide to increase your taxes to levels where you can't live anymore - and you can't afford to move away... you've nothing left but to fight.
There are many ways of cornering people in ways that are deliberate, unintentional, well-intentioned, etc. That is the cost society inflicts upon individuals. The interaction with other people will inevitably put us into conflict with the wills, goals, motives, and resources of another. When this happens - a confrontation is to be expected. In most cases, a minor vocalization is all that is necessary to establish a sort of territory and both parties move on.
But, in other cases - there is no resolution to the problem that leaves both individuals or their respective groups alive. At which point - you will have murder, war, or whatever terms you whish to apply to the scale. There will always be people who will destroy you if left to their devices. It may be purely unintentional... it may be that they assert their control over you and your population while having no regard for your way of life.
When that happens... you've got to fight (in some sense of the term) or die. Peace is no longer an option that includes your survival.
Thus, wars will happen without militaries. They'll happen without governments, without corporations. They will happen without religion and without philosophical ideals. Stripping away all that separates us from other common predators - we'd have wars over hunting grounds, fertile crop regions, shelter from storms or desirable places to migrate to - the list goes on.
There is a Taoist concept developed out of Yin and Yang called Wu and Wei. Wu is 'empty' - or to not act. Wei is 'action.' In every sense of Taoism - you hardly ever counter something with itself. You don't counter force with force - that leaves both injured. Of course, if you counter someone biding his/her time with biding your own time... nothing happens. You, instead, capture their force and redirect it. Or - you apply force and have it directed - depending upon how the situation is presented. The idea is that, by using a harmonious opposite - a more productive and less destructive outcome can be achieved with very little effort on your part. Wei-Wu-Wei... "Action without effort."
Same concept, here. Sometimes, it's best to bring pen and paper. Other times, it's best to bring your rifle and a few extra magazines. One should always keep both strategies open to them.
Darthlawsuit
Active member
Its more the economic side of weapons that cause peace. Weapons cost a fortune and unless a side has something to gain then war is usually pointless.
Let me simplify this a little. Would you go to war with someone knowing you cannot win? Would you go to war knowing you cannot win but they cannot win as well?
A war of mutual destruction benefits neither so neither side wishes to start such a thing. Either it becomes an arms race in which both sides build up weapons of war until one's economy can no longer match it and has to stop, one side has an economic collapse from the arms race, or the two sides decide to call it off. Typically wars are started when you think your side has a major advantage over the other.
Then again we are talking about civilians and civilians rarely ever start wars
Whats that whole thing about a temple, seems random.
Last edited: