22 Dec '12 02:05Originally posted by normbenignI am not disagreeing that the British were gonna lose anyway, but without the french blockade the Brits could have resupplied Yorktown indefinitely and who knows.
The early war went poorly for the colonists. But Cornwallis was beaten by Yorktown.
22 Dec '12 02:30Originally posted by kevcvs57We both know the effectiveness of militia warfare, today called unconventional. People defending their homeland have a lot more to fight for than mercenaries fighting on foreign soil.
I am not disagreeing that the British were gonna lose anyway, but without the french blockade the Brits could have resupplied Yorktown indefinitely and who knows.
The fact is the Rebels had right on their side, and you would be surprised how many Brits agreed with them.
22 Dec '12 05:40Originally posted by normbenignGeorge Washington disagreed:
We both know the effectiveness of militia warfare, today called unconventional. People defending their homeland have a lot more to fight for than mercenaries fighting on foreign soil.
22 Dec '12 06:40
22 Dec '12 07:26Originally posted by no1marauderYeah, armed police everywhere. Don't forget:
I'm not adverse to funding so that armed police can patrol schools though it would be an expensive undertaking. I am opposed to that duty being pawned off to citizen volunteers or private contractors.
I also continue to support the abolition of large capacity mags though not an "assault rifle" ban.
22 Dec '12 09:35Originally posted by SoothfastThere's no proposal that will insure that there will never be another mass shooting. The presence of armed police does deter these incidents, however.
Yeah, armed police everywhere. Don't forget:
Movie theaters
Sikh temples
Gatherings at parking lots
Malls
Burger joints
Office buildings
etc. etc.
Of course, two armed sheriffs were present at Columbine at the time of that massacre, and neither succeeded in taking out the assailants.
A "good guy" was present with a gun at the melee in Arizo ...[text shortened]... cimate the NRA as a political power. Break it, and leave it a shadow of its former self.
22 Dec '12 10:02Originally posted by normbenignActually being on a school premises is probably not high up on the priority list of anyone contemplating such a crime. By doing this surely all you do is move the atrocity to a different location.
There is a strong likelihood that the presence of an armed person would deter most nuts away from schools to softer targets.
Detroit Public Schools have guards and metal detectors. Any shooting is always outside the schools.
22 Dec '12 10:05Originally posted by no1marauderI have no objection in principle to having armed guards around, but won't loony shooters just always pick some public place where there aren't any around? I don't think it's feasible to put armed guards everywhere. Just seems like a huge waste of money to buy some faux security.
There's no proposal that will insure that there will never be another mass shooting. The presence of armed police does deter these incidents, however.
I'm less interested in political power plays and more interested in reducing the chance that more six year olds get slaughtered. If your priorities are different, they are misplaced.
22 Dec '12 10:09Originally posted by KazetNagorraSchools and children are particularly vulnerable. I don't think protecting them better is a "huge waste of money".
I have no objection in principle to having armed guards around, but won't loony shooters just always pick some public place where there aren't any around? I don't think it's feasible to put armed guards everywhere. Just seems like a huge waste of money to buy some faux security.
22 Dec '12 10:11Originally posted by thaughbaerThere have been 12 mass shootings at schools in the US over the last 30 years of 62 overall. They are the second likeliest place for such atrocities to occur (behind only workplaces). http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
Actually being on a school premises is probably not high up on the priority list of anyone contemplating such a crime. By doing this surely all you do is move the atrocity to a different location.
22 Dec '12 10:17Originally posted by normbenignHow likely is it that the US is going to suffer a military invasion ? For the same reason that I would not stake my life on a game against Magnus which country has their brains so boiled as to attempt to invade the US ? You cannot include acts of terrorism on or off US soil which is not the same as an invasion and is unlikely to be countered by armed militia. Google tells me the last time this happened was 1815. What's more it would have to happen in such a short time frame that the militia could not be armed by arrival at military establishments.
We both know the effectiveness of militia warfare, today called unconventional. People defending their homeland have a lot more to fight for than mercenaries fighting on foreign soil.
22 Dec '12 10:24Originally posted by no1marauderIn the real world political power plays are unavoidable on this issue. The NRA is part of the problem. It has too many elected officials cowed into inaction in the face of a rampant proliferation of military weaponry amongst the citizenry.
There's no proposal that will insure that there will never be another mass shooting. The presence of armed police does deter these incidents, however.
I'm less interested in political power plays and more interested in reducing the chance that more six year olds get slaughtered. If your priorities are different, they are misplaced.
22 Dec '12 10:27Originally posted by no1marauderAgreed that protecting children better is a good thing. The question is the method employed. Schools are not the only place where children are particularly vulnerable. If there are groups of children in multiple places you need to cover all of them. If you make the schools safer the nutjob will just get them at a park instead. The only way this doesn't happen ( or is reduced ) is to take away the desire or the means.
Schools and children are particularly vulnerable. I don't think protecting them better is a "huge waste of money".
22 Dec '12 10:40Originally posted by Soothfast1, 5 are impossible and undesirable.
In the real world political power plays are unavoidable on this issue. The NRA is part of the problem. It has too many elected officials cowed into inaction in the face of a rampant proliferation of military weaponry amongst the citizenry.
Some of the priorities, to me, are these:
* Banning all semiautomatic weapons - and I mean retroactively (i.e. ...[text shortened]... nse.
* A 100% sales tax on ammunition to help pay for the enforcement of all of the above.
22 Dec '12 10:45Originally posted by thaughbaerSpeculation is one thing, reality another. The reality is that shootings at schools have become far too common. Many cities already station police in schools and it seems to have good results. I'm unconvinced by your logic which seems to be typical "the best is the enemy of the good" (Voltaire) thinking.
Agreed that protecting children better is a good thing. The question is the method employed. Schools are not the only place where children are particularly vulnerable. If there are groups of children in multiple places you need to cover all of them. If you make the schools safer the nutjob will just get them at a park instead. The only way this doesn't happen ( or is reduced ) is to take away the desire or the means.
More guns the answer???
Back to Top