Mods are asleep - post firearms

[Tau]

[Chairman_Tiel]

BTW a question about the titles - are you going to change through those topics following my sleeping cycle ?

I don´t think they will.
Anyway, why´d the ISD not enter atmosphere?
It´s not like they can´t...

They can't. Victories are canonically the largest class that can enter the atmosphere safely, though that's a matter of debate among the Star Wars community.

Plus there really wasn't much of a reason to...just deploy the AT-ATs on barges, they march on the shield and pass through without any trouble. Much easier than trying to pound away at it.

[Ivan2006]

@Tau

I have the feeling that... gave me an idea of how some americans think about guns.
So, he made his point, now I make mine:
Is it really a benefit of having a gun?
Is it beneficial to have a thing designed specifically for killing people?
So, maybe you say you want to defend yourself with it, but if Obama really regulated guns more, the chances your "bad guy"-opponent has a gun are pretty low.
Honestly, I can´t imagine living somewhere where the danger of being attacked by someone with a gun outweights the benefit of possibly being capable of defending yourself in that situation if you have your gun with you at that time.
Might be cause I live in Europe.

Second point of that guy is that less guns=/= less violence, but what is the truth is that less guns = less violence with guns, and of all possible tools usable in violence, guns are the most deadly (okay, one could use a sledgehammer, but that would be a bit heavy for killing multiple people, right?)

[҉]

Anyway, why´d the ISD not enter atmosphere?
It´s not like they can´t...

It's really a question of what they'd do once they were in atmosphere. They still can't bombard the base, because the shield was there, and they can't fly through it. They can't land on the ground, but they don't need to because ground troops are deployed in shuttles from space anyway. Being in the atmosphere doesn't help them at all.

They can't. Victories are canonically the largest class that can enter the atmosphere safely, though that's a matter of debate among the Star Wars community.

Plus there really wasn't much of a reason to...just deploy the AT-ATs on barges, they march on the shield and pass through without any trouble. Much easier than trying to pound away at it.

Imperial I's can enter the atmosphere, at least, but they can't land. Venators can land at specially built facilities, and are seen doing so in Revenge of the Sith, and they're larger than Victorys.

[Tau]

@Tau

I have the feeling that... gave me an idea of how some americans think about guns.
So, he made his point, now I make mine:

Is it really a benefit of having a gun?

Is it beneficial to have a thing designed specifically for killing people?

So, maybe you say you want to defend yourself with it, but if Obama really regulated guns more, the chances your "bad guy"-opponent has a gun are pretty low.

Honestly, I can´t imagine living somewhere where the danger of being attacked by someone with a gun outweighs the benefit of possibly being capable of defending yourself in
that situation if you have your gun with you at that time. Might be cause I live in Europe.

Second point of that guy is that less guns=/= less violence, but what is the truth is that less guns = less violence with guns, and of all possible tools usable in violence, guns are the most deadly (okay, one could use a sledgehammer, but that would be a bit heavy for killing multiple people, right?)

1. Under many circumstances, it CAN be beneficial to have a gun for purposes other than defense. In rural America, wild animals are a very real problem. I happen to know this firsthand. (You don't want to know.) Also: recreational shooting, anyone?

2. It can be beneficial if the other guy has a gun, or even if he has some other equally deadly weapon. Say you were about to be attacked at close range with, say, a machete. A gun can kill or incapacitate the attacker before he has the chance to inflict harm.

3. If Obama regulated guns more, it would just lessen the chance of civilians having guns. Criminals don't give a shit about the law, and therefore will ignore gun legislation. In the city of Chicago, where guns are banned entirely, 98% of murders are performed by handgun, and 1% by rifle. None of the murderers registered these weapons, or obtained them legally for that matter.

4. In many parts of America, especially large cities and some rural communities, the risk of being assaulted or murdered by gun, or other means, is very real. Not just out in the open, but also in your own home. There have been situations where my father has had to take our shotgun(s) and defend our home and those of our neighbors. This has happened on three occasions, 2 involving our home and 1 involving our neighbors'. In all these events, our safety was put in risk, as all 3 criminals had rifles and other deadly weapons on their person.

5. Less guns does not mean less violence with guns, only fewer armed civilians. Gun legislation would decrease the number of guns, but would any of those guns be taken from the criminals who have guns? No! They'd all be taken from the law-abiding citizens who own guns. Only law-abiding citizens follow the law, and law-abiding citizens aren't the problem.

Guns aren't necessary for mass murder. In 2008, in Ahikabara (misspelled), Japan, a man killed 7 people in 15 minutes with a knife and a truck. In 2012, in the same week as the Newtown shooting, a man murdered 22 people in China with only a 4.5" knife.

There's a saying popular among US Conservatives. Guns don't kill people; crazy * kill people. Guns are a TOOL; like any other tool, they can be used for nefarious purposes. If put in the hands of a mentally infirm person, a hatchet or a hammer can be as deadly as any firearm.

[Chairman_Tiel]

Anyway, why´d the ISD not enter atmosphere?
It´s not like they can´t...

It's really a question of what they'd do once they were in atmosphere. They still can't bombard the base, because the shield was there, and they can't fly through it. They can't land on the ground, but they don't need to because ground troops are deployed in shuttles from space anyway. Being in the atmosphere doesn't help them at all.

They can't. Victories are canonically the largest class that can enter the atmosphere safely, though that's a matter of debate among the Star Wars community.

Plus there really wasn't much of a reason to...just deploy the AT-ATs on barges, they march on the shield and pass through without any trouble. Much easier than trying to pound away at it.

Imperial I's can enter the atmosphere, at least, but they can't land. Venators can land at specially built facilities, and are seen doing so in Revenge of the Sith, and they're larger than Victorys.

I'm pretty sure Victories were bigger than Vens, lemme check....hmm, looks like they're 200 meters bigger. Though, I haven't seen Venators entering atmospheres unless they're crashing (that one TCW episode with Aurra Sing and Boba) There was that scene in Episode III, but that could easily be explained by them just chilling in the upper atmosphere; there weren't any clouds in the sky. Same with the 2nd Battle of Geonosis - the Venators are holding station above the clouds, only the Acclamators enter the atmosphere.

[҉]

I'm pretty sure Victories were bigger than Vens, lemme check....hmm, looks like they're 200 meters bigger. Though, I haven't seen Venators entering atmospheres unless they're crashing (that one TCW episode with Aurra Sing and Boba) There was that scene in Episode III, but that could easily be explained by them just chilling in the upper atmosphere; there weren't any clouds in the sky. Same with the 2nd Battle of Geonosis - the Venators are holding station above the clouds, only the Acclamators enter the atmosphere.

I didn't say they could enter the atmosphere. I said they could *land*, on the ground (well, at a spaceport, but you know what I mean). The scene where Obi-Wan talks to Anakin right before he leaves for Utapau is set at a Republic naval facility on Coruscant, and there are several Venators on the ground in the background. They do it in some of the comics, too.

[Chairman_Tiel]

Welll...but...well...I got nothing :P

[Iv121]

1. Under many circumstances, it CAN be beneficial to have a gun for purposes other than defense. In rural America, wild animals are a very real problem. I happen to know this firsthand. (You don't want to know.) Also: recreational shooting, anyone?

2. It can be beneficial if the other guy has a gun, or even if he has some other equally deadly weapon. Say you were about to be attacked at close range with, say, a machete. A gun can kill or incapacitate the attacker before he has the chance to inflict harm.

3. If Obama regulated guns more, it would just lessen the chance of civilians having guns. Criminals don't give a shit about the law, and therefore will ignore gun legislation. In the city of Chicago, where guns are banned entirely, 98% of murders are performed by handgun, and 1% by rifle. None of the murderers registered these weapons, or obtained them legally for that matter.

4. In many parts of America, especially large cities and some rural communities, the risk of being assaulted or murdered by gun, or other means, is very real. Not just out in the open, but also in your own home. There have been situations where my father has had to take our shotgun(s) and defend our home and those of our neighbors. This has happened on three occasions, 2 involving our home and 1 involving our neighbors'. In all these events, our safety was put in risk, as all 3 criminals had rifles and other deadly weapons on their person.

5. Less guns does not mean less violence with guns, only fewer armed civilians. Gun legislation would decrease the number of guns, but would any of those guns be taken from the criminals who have guns? No! They'd all be taken from the law-abiding citizens who own guns. Only law-abiding citizens follow the law, and law-abiding citizens aren't the problem.

Guns aren't necessary for mass murder. In 2008, in Ahikabara (misspelled), Japan, a man killed 7 people in 15 minutes with a knife and a truck. In 2012, in the same week as the Newtown shooting, a man murdered 22 people in China with only a 4.5" knife.

There's a saying popular among US Conservatives. Guns don't kill people; crazy * kill people. Guns are a TOOL; like any other tool, they can be used for nefarious purposes. If put in the hands of a mentally infirm person, a hatchet or a hammer can be as deadly as any firearm.

Now let me tell you where everyone has a gun - in Iraq, and you know why ? Couse there is fking anarchy there ! You do not take the law in your hands - that is the basic rule of any civilized and organized culture or otherwise you end up in anarchy - If everyone has a gun everyone is a danger - how can you live if everyone poses a danger ? You can't live a normal life like that. As I said give the guns to the policemen so that they will actually save lives instead of taking them. There is nothing good in having a rifle in your house. I bet there were much more incidents with guns rather than lives saved with them because guns are designed to kill and they will kill eventually. Now tell me who does this gun see more commonly - your, your friends and your family, some innocent people or a robber who gets into the house ? I bet most of you didn't get robbers in your houses.

The gun is a tool but again you can't kill so many with a knife. Not everyone is that well trained like your Japanese Rambo so in this bloody calculation it will only help you.

Finally have you ever wondered why it is dangerous in the US with a chance to get shot in your house ? Because you hand out guns like candy, ofc if there are loads of guns there is a high chance some maniac will take them and use them. You should get rid of all your guns ASAP , fking hunt down your criminals that don't care about laws and take their weapons just like your weapons and everyone else's and put them to good use or at least destroy, you are not the death angel ... Tell me how most countries do that well WITHOUT giving guns to everyone ?

Guns are again tools for those who know to use them, you don't know how to use them, put them down. You don't take the doctor's scalpel and go to do surgeries, you don't take the policeman's gun and go shoot criminals, that or you have to force the whole population to pass soldier training every couple of months for the rest of their lives.

[Chairman_Tiel]

1. Under many circumstances, it CAN be beneficial to have a gun for purposes other than defense. In rural America, wild animals are a very real problem. I happen to know this firsthand. (You don't want to know.) Also: recreational shooting, anyone?

2. It can be beneficial if the other guy has a gun, or even if he has some other equally deadly weapon. Say you were about to be attacked at close range with, say, a machete. A gun can kill or incapacitate the attacker before he has the chance to inflict harm.

3. If Obama regulated guns more, it would just lessen the chance of civilians having guns. Criminals don't give a crap about the law, and therefore will ignore gun legislation. In the city of Chicago, where guns are banned entirely, 98% of murders are performed by handgun, and 1% by rifle. None of the murderers registered these weapons, or obtained them legally for that matter.

4. In many parts of America, especially large cities and some rural communities, the risk of being assaulted or murdered by gun, or other means, is very real. Not just out in the open, but also in your own home. There have been situations where my father has had to take our shotgun(s) and defend our home and those of our neighbors. This has happened on three occasions, 2 involving our home and 1 involving our neighbors'. In all these events, our safety was put in risk, as all 3 criminals had rifles and other deadly weapons on their person.

5. Less guns does not mean less violence with guns, only fewer armed civilians. Gun legislation would decrease the number of guns, but would any of those guns be taken from the criminals who have guns? No! They'd all be taken from the law-abiding citizens who own guns. Only law-abiding citizens follow the law, and law-abiding citizens aren't the problem.

Guns aren't necessary for mass murder. In 2008, in Ahikabara (misspelled), Japan, a man killed 7 people in 15 minutes with a knife and a truck. In 2012, in the same week as the Newtown shooting, a man murdered 22 people in China with only a 4.5" knife.

There's a saying popular among US Conservatives. Guns don't kill people; crazy * kill people. Guns are a TOOL; like any other tool, they can be used for nefarious purposes. If put in the hands of a mentally infirm person, a hatchet or a hammer can be as deadly as any firearm.

Now let me tell you where everyone has a gun - in Iraq, and you know why ? Couse there is fking anarchy there ! You do not take the law in your hands - that is the basic rule of any civilized and organized culture or otherwise you end up in anarchy - If everyone has a gun everyone is a danger - how can you live if everyone poses a danger ? You can't live a normal life like that. As I said give the guns to the policemen so that they will actually save lives instead of taking them. There is nothing good in having a rifle in your house. I bet there were much more incidents with guns rather than lives saved with them because guns are designed to kill and they will kill eventually. Now tell me who does this gun see more commonly - your, your friends and your family, some innocent people or a robber who gets into the house ? I bet most of you didn't get robbers in your houses.

The gun is a tool but again you can't kill so many with a knife. Not everyone is that well trained like your Japanese Rambo so in this bloody calculation it will only help you.

Finally have you ever wondered why it is dangerous in the US with a chance to get shot in your house ? Because you hand out guns like candy, ofc if there are loads of guns there is a high chance some maniac will take them and use them. You should get rid of all your guns ASAP , fking hunt down your criminals that don't care about laws and take their weapons just like your weapons and everyone else's and put them to good use or at least destroy, you are not the death angel ... Tell me how most countries do that well WITHOUT giving guns to everyone ?

Guns are again tools for those who know to use them, you don't know how to use them, put them down. You don't take the doctor's scalpel and go to do surgeries, you don't take the policeman's gun and go shoot criminals, that or you have to force the whole population to pass soldier training every couple of months for the rest of their lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... witzerland

[Iv121]

Well they don't really need an army there ... at least they know how to use guns couse they passed training for it, so do our soldiers, but here guns are not kept at homes - some people take their guns home during their time off and the gun duties rotate between the soldiers. In the end they all have to return their guns to the armory and they don't keep guns at home. Every few months they are called again for duty to refresh their training , and so until the age of 45 when they are finally relieved of duty - In the Israeli army the currently active forces are designed to hold the line for 24 hours until the reserves are recruited - every single man below the age of 45. You enter the military cycle at the age of 16.5 when you are first called to begin the recruitment process. at the age of 18 you are recruited to your unit. You will serve with that unit until the age of 21 and then you and your unit become reserve - you will be called for training every once in a while to keep you combat capable and if needed you will be called to serve with your unit...

Quite pain in the butt BTW most people don't like all that stuff in the middle of their normative lives ...


Also funny fact - tonight Sjin is making a shotgun

[Tau]

Also funny fact - tonight Sjin is making a shotgun

Who?

Speaking of Switzerland, I'm considering making my knife assortment a Victorinox One Hand Trekker and a Leatherman Micra, and maybe adding a Spyderco Police G10 once I get the cash. Any thoughts?

[Iv121]

Sjin from the Yogscast ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOkXOrKw ... MA&index=1

[joykler]

the dutch police has tasers

and only 1 on 5 has a gun
when they pull it its automaticly reported to the bureau

here guns are illegal you cant get them anywhere
if somoene owns a gun e is likely to get invaded by M.A

some people shoot for fun but for that they need to take a long psychological exam
and need to be under supervision of proffesionals in assigned areas they dont get to take the gun home

if someone owns a bow here its illegal to take it out of your house if it isnt in parts in a iron casing

and we have one murder every 2/3 months how many dead do you have a day ??????
we have wolves by the way but we dont need guns

[ACH0225]

Most nations have a far larger population, ergo, larger murder rate. The murder count daily here is ~1/7 a million a week, but there are 1.32 trillion owls, so that's not much.