[Variable]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

...

Of course you couldn't

Good exit.

No.

Then what were you trying to do by generalizing the people where I'm from (ergo me I suppose) rednecks?

Way to be a class below.

How is the continental origin of a shooter relevant at all to begin with?

European militaries tend to view (or are seen as viewing) marksmanship in a way more resembling North American law enforcement.

Not just in terms of personnel, but in terms of resources as well. Numbers wouldn't be the only factor, but they would be a definite factor in the context of the scenario initially discussed.

Which resources are we talking? The 'context' initially discussed made only wide open assertions, which were wrong.

.. Nevermind.

Again, good exit. For someone who quickly takes to calling opinions he doesn't agree with as 'stupid' 'idiotic' etc... you were taking that point well into the realm of completely asinine.

How is this at all germane to what I said?

You said the American contribution was less than the Pakistani contribution... they worked closely together, and often dependently on each other. It's completely releveant to what you said.

You quoted my questions and then typed some crap after them that appeared to be related to the subject matter of the questions. You've also attempted to answer a number of other questions, many of which aren't even related to the topic of this thread. Seems like a logical assumption.



Also, please address this, re: your point about handguns:

My above post was me restating my position, stand alone from your comments. Anyway, how about this... how about you answer your own questions and then describe how that result supports your argument, or takes apart mine.

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

finally, you have yet to establish that a) legally purchased guns are responsible for a majority of these deaths, and b) that gun control would improve these figures any.

emotionalism ftw!

b) is going to be hard to prove, especially since crime rates don't necessarily correspond with legal gun ownership rates, and gun control laws. Montana, Idaho, for example, have high gun ownership rates, but low crime rates. They also have low population densities, and are racially homogenous... Idaho in particular is a pretty poor state...

Lots of things contribute to crime statistics.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by Variable

Good exit.

How was that an exit, especially given the text quoted immediately above it? Do you seriously need further explanation when presented with your own words?

An exit is when you repeatedly ignore the crux of an argument by pretending large blocks of a post don't exist, and refusing to ask the questions posed within them.

Originally Posted by Variable

Then what were you trying to do by generalizing the people where I'm from (ergo me I suppose) rednecks?

Way to be a class below.

You seem to indulge in whiny indignation a lot. Especially when your own tactics are used against you.

Originally Posted by Variable

European militaries tend to view (or are seen as viewing) marksmanship in a way more resembling North American law enforcement.

So how does their usage of tripods relate to this? Or were you generalizing? Didn't you also generalize about Americans and their ability with firearms, btw?

Originally Posted by Variable

Which resources are we talking? The 'context' initially discussed made only wide open assertions, which were wrong.

Funds, heavy & light weaponry, heavy & light armored vehicles, etc

Originally Posted by Variable

Again, good exit. For someone who quickly takes to calling opinions he doesn't agree with as 'stupid' 'idiotic' etc... you were taking that point well into the realm of completely asinine.

Uh.. how was I taking the point into the realm of the asinine? I made a completely coherent statement and your response was:

Originally Posted by Variable

huh? mig badger what?

Indicating you had no clue what I was talking about. So I discontinued that vein of discussion since a) it was over your head, b) it wasn't really relevant to the original topic of the thread

Originally Posted by Variable

You said the American contribution was less than the Pakistani contribution... they worked closely together, and often dependently on each other. It's completely releveant to what you said.

This is like asking how you separate out the US & British contributions in the Iraq war. It makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Variable

My above post was me restating my position, stand alone from your comments. Anyway, how about this... how about you answer your own questions and then describe how that result supports your argument, or takes apart mine.

Given that you're willing to answer a hundred other questions on other topics that don't really have anything to do with this thread, why aren't you willing to answer very simple questions that are directly relevant to the topic of this thread? Why would I answer the questions I asked you? I want to hear what your answers are - hence my repeated usage of "what do you think," etc.

Again:

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

If a reliable police force can't stop the populace from committing crimes with guns, how and why do you think said "reliable" police force is going to enforce anti-gun laws? If there is an entrenched gun/violence culture, why would one think guns wouldn't just become widely available illegally? Can you name any country with an entrenched gun/violence culture that has become safer through gun control?

Finally, do you think Mexico would be more or less safe with more lax gun control laws, but a more reliable police force?

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

What do you think is the effective range for a handgun? At what range do you think most gun violence occurs?

What do you think is more easily available in the US - rifles, or handguns?

Which type of weapon do you think is more heavily restricted? Which type of weapon is more concealable and portable? Which type of weapon do you think is used in most murders or crimes committed using firearms?

Quit wriggling and answer the questions.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

How was that an exit, especially given the text quoted immediately above it? Do you seriously need further explanation when presented with your own words?

You didn't address or explain anything with regards to the point.

You seem to indulge in whiny indignation a lot. Especially when your own tactics are used against you.

No whining over here... just pointing out what you said.

So how does their usage of tripods relate to this? Or were you generalizing? Didn't you also generalize about Americans and their ability with firearms, btw?

By saying Americans don't know how to fire a controlled burst? No, I was pointing out how up until recently their rifles and carbines weren't equipped with full auto capability.

Funds, heavy & light weaponry, heavy & light armored vehicles, etc

They'll always be 'short' on funds given their goals (a la the future combat system). They aren't short on the weaponry, vehicles or armor needed to wage a successful campaign. I don't know where you're getting this.

Uh.. how was I taking the point into the realm of the asinine? I made a completely coherent statement and your response was:





Indicating you had no clue what I was talking about. So I discontinued that vein of discussion since a) it was over your head, b) it wasn't really relevant to the original topic of the thread

Your comment:

The comparison here is primarily between MiG 21s and Badgers vs American fighter/stealth bombers. The MiG 21 that was utilized for a large portion of the Afghan war was a piece of crap by modern standards. Also, reference the original context of the discussion.. how likely is it America would carpetbomb their own nation to deal with an insurgency?
came totally out of left field. I don't know why you made this leap to specific air units or why you think that affects anything. You appear to be confused on a couple of issues there too.

This is like asking how you separate out the US & British contributions in the Iraq war. It makes no sense.

No... it makes plenty of sense... The US provided x amount of resources and support in such and such a way, and the British provided y amount of resources and support in such and such a way.

The case with Afghanistan was different... either group, American or Pakistani, needing the other to properly support the mujahideen.

Given that you're willing to answer a hundred other questions on other topics that don't really have anything to do with this thread, why aren't you willing to answer very simple questions that are directly relevant to the topic of this thread? Why would I answer the questions I asked you? I want to hear what your answers are - hence my repeated usage of "what do you think," etc.

Again:





Quit wriggling and answer the questions.

No one's wriggling, I'm not playing your games. Bring them up as points, and I'll deal with them.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by Variable

You didn't address or explain anything with regards to the point.

Originally Posted by Variable

1+1=3

Originally Posted by Variable

1+1=2

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Originally Posted by Variable

Hmm. What's your point?

Originally Posted by Variable

By saying Americans don't know how to fire a controlled burst? No, I was pointing out how up until recently their rifles and carbines weren't equipped with full auto capability.

What? The BAR was used by American soldiers in WW1. Then there was the M2 and M14 in the 1950s & finally the M16 in the 1960s (I'm guessing that's the gun you're thinking of? Even that was over 40 years ago). I don't think there are any infantrymen or special forces left that remember the M1 Garand or that weren't trained on M16s/smgs.

Originally Posted by Variable

They'll always be 'short' on funds given their goals (a la the future combat system). They aren't short on the weaponry, vehicles or armor needed to wage a successful campaign. I don't know where you're getting this.

Equipment For Added Troops Is Lacking - washingtonpost.com

Aside from that, there's body armor, fuel, and other logistic issues.

Originally Posted by Variable

came totally out of left field. I don't know why you made this leap to specific air units or why you think that affects anything. You appear to be confused on a couple of issues there too.

It was relevant to military technology. What do you think I'm confused about?

Originally Posted by Variable

No... it makes plenty of sense... The US provided x amount of resources and support in such and such a way, and the British provided y amount of resources and support in such and such a way.

The case with Afghanistan was different... either group, American or Pakistani, needing the other to properly support the mujahideen.

Are you saying Pakistan never supported the mujahideen independently of the US?

Originally Posted by Variable

No one's wriggling, I'm not playing your games. Bring them up as points, and I'll deal with them.

The set of questions about gun control & law enforcement literally ask your opinion. I can't think of any answers that would do anything but undermine your argument. That's why I'm asking you, to see if you've got anything else.

The set of questions about handguns are largely rhetorical and have very easy right or wrong answers. This set of questions illustrates the ridiculousness of your reasoning behind the idea that we should ban semi-automatic rifles vs handguns, given that:

- 99% of gun violence occurs within effective handgun range

- rifles & shotguns are far more readily available in most states without any permit. the same is not true for handguns. handguns are much more heavily restricted on average than rifles/shotguns.

- handguns are more concealable/portable than rifles

- most gun violence & gun related crimes involve handguns

Basically, you have no answer the first set of questions & saw where the latter set of questions was leading you, so you childishly attempted to hide behind a petulant attempt at superficially dictating the discourse instead of making an attempt to answer the questions or address the points made.

Lame. You're pretty much done here.

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by Variable

They could 'investigate' the illegal guns of apprehended criminals too.

If the apprehended criminals made their own guns, there's nothing really to investigate.

There are certain kinds of guns anyone can easily make. Like chairs for example, the difficulty in craft depends on how simple or complicated you want to make them.

However, counterfeiting money does not work the same way, since it is not something anyone can do on their own.

[Variable]

My point about bolt actions (and it wasn't a very big one) has been made for anyone with an elementary understanding of firearms.

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

What? The BAR was used by American soldiers in WW1. Then there was the M2 and M14 in the 1950s & finally the M16 in the 1960s (I'm guessing that's the gun you're thinking of? Even that was over 40 years ago). I don't think there are any infantrymen or special forces left that remember the M1 Garand or that weren't trained on M16s/smgs.

The M16 and M4 (mostly) are not fully automatic...

Equipment For Added Troops Is Lacking - washingtonpost.com

Aside from that, there's body armor, fuel, and other logistic issues.

That article is talking primarily about battlefield kits specifically necessary to a role of occupation and counter-insurgency. Besides that's an old article; they've since began to fill many of those requisition columns with different, more appropriate vehicles.

It was relevant to military technology. What do you think I'm confused about?

The role and importance of strategic air strikes, the application of tactical air support and the gap between American and Soviet capabilities. Also, the Mig21 wasn't the main fast air support in Afghanistan, but one more analogous to the American A-10.

If anything your point only serves to bolster an argument for the importance of American help which you seem to have been trying to diminish.

Are you saying Pakistan never supported the mujahideen independently of the US?

No.

The set of questions about gun control & law enforcement literally ask your opinion. I can't think of any answers that would do anything but undermine your argument. That's why I'm asking you, to see if you've got anything else.

The set of questions about handguns are largely rhetorical and have very easy right or wrong answers. This set of questions illustrates the ridiculousness of your reasoning behind the idea that we should ban semi-automatic rifles vs handguns, given that:

Dude, I'm not trying to make any point that hand guns should be allowed and semi-autos banned. I think they should all have heavier restrictions, hand guns most of all... if Americans want to bring their rate of gun deaths back to something resembling that of the rest of the developed world.

My points regarding semi-autos vs hand guns was more to illustrate why semi-autos should be banned if autos are going to be.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by Variable

The M16 and M4 (mostly) are not fully automatic...

The initial version of the M16 was fully automatic. The M16A2, which replaced full auto with 3 shot burst, was only adapted by the US Army in the 1980s.. "relatively recent." The BAR was a full auto rifle used in the 1910s. After that, there was the tommy gun, the grease gun, the M14, M2, and the M16A1. Also, there were and still are full auto variants of the M16 & M4 used by some Airborne divisions, Marines, SEAL teams, etc.

Originally Posted by Variable

That article is talking primarily about battlefield kits specifically necessary to a role of occupation and counter-insurgency. Besides that's an old article; they've since began to fill many of those requisition columns with different, more appropriate vehicles.

Wasn't what the Russians were doing "occupation & counter-insurgency?"

Originally Posted by Variable

The role and importance of strategic air strikes, the application of tactical air support and the gap between American and Soviet capabilities. Also, the Mig21 wasn't the main fast air support in Afghanistan, but one more analogous to the American A-10.

The MiG-21 was the main fighter/bomber utilized for air support in Afghanistan for the first few years of the war.. it wasn't replaced by the Frogfoot & Badger until later, after it'd proven totally ineffective in that role.

Also, the A-10 has always been known for its ability to provide air support. That's specifically what it was designed for.

Originally Posted by Variable

If anything your point only serves to bolster an argument for the importance of American help which you seem to have been trying to diminish.

I didn't say it was unimportant. I said the impact of it was greatly exaggerated.

Originally Posted by Variable

Dude, I'm not trying to make any point that hand guns should be allowed and semi-autos banned. I think they should all have heavier restrictions, hand guns most of all... if Americans want to bring their rate of gun deaths back to something resembling that of the rest of the developed world.

My points regarding semi-autos vs hand guns was more to illustrate why semi-autos should be banned if autos are going to be.

Let me clear something up, for the purposes of this discussion. Talking about handguns and semi-autos as though they're two separate things makes no sense.

When talking about semi-autos in terms of handguns, people generally mean autoloading (uses a magazine) SA/DA/DAO (or SA/DA but let's not get into that) pistols. In terms of firing action, SAO revolvers are mostly relegated to the role of collectors pieces. So revolvers are all "semi automatic" as well, in the sense that you can fire them as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Thus, my statement:

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

What about handguns? Should they be banned entirely, since they're all semi-automatic?

To which you responded:

Originally Posted by Variable

Handguns definitely are geared to assault, and yeh, I see that as a problem. But they have far less penetration and range than a rifle - something that law enforcement has a much easier time dealing with when called to the scene.

Hence my line of questioning.

My other questions still haven't been responded to.

[MossadConspiracy]

somebody's been reading wikipedia

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

somebody's been reading wikipedia

that's sort of like assuming you've been reading fph just because you made a random snide/catty remark

thanks for the contribution

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

that's sort of like assuming you've been reading fph just because you made a random snide/catty remark

thanks for the contribution

He does read FPH....