Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A Redneck Weekend...
- Thread starter iGary
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The war of 1812 involved the US declaring war on Britain and invading Canada.The Alamo was part of the Texas revolution and not a war between US and Mexico.
Haha. I actually think its kinda funny, but stupid. That little girl is going to give me nightmares.
StealthRider said:
Okay...got me on 1812....however:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 said:
Anyway...we're missing the point here: do Americans really need the right to own guns in their homes to defend themselves against foreign invasion? I think not.
IMO: If foreign troops were on American soil, it's an invasion, no matter who declared war first.
Don't forget, the Japanese set foot on two(I think it's two) Alaskan islands during WWII. They weren't there for long, but they invaded.
iGary thanks for sharing.iGary said:
Loved the video.
Shot my first shotgun (410) and rifle (22) at age 8. Been shooting since then.
Biggest that I've shot is a 20mm chain gun (both the ADA and Attack helicopter versions). Sent a few 105mm rounds downrange as well. Of course LAW, TOW, 2.75 inch rockets, 30 and 50 cal. The 203 round from both helicopters and individual launcher.
Shot many a different rifle, automatic and machine gun.
Pistols are fun as well.
My favorite is still a 22 rifle that I have. Can shoot all day for pennies.
Attachments
This video made me sick to my stomach.
Although one thing i found funny was that everyone kept shooting (for a while) after the damn car blew up! What the hell? Fire more bullets!
Although one thing i found funny was that everyone kept shooting (for a while) after the damn car blew up! What the hell? Fire more bullets!
MacRy said:
It is, sadly, not that much harder for a moron to put a knife into someone's flesh and end their life that way.
L
Lau
Guest
mkrishnan said:
Actually, I was discussing this the other day with a friend (in a non-serial killer way, honest
). We both agreed that if we were had to shoot someone we could probably do it - you would pull a trigger from a distance away and they would die. But we both agreed it would be really difficult to stab someone, because you'd have to actually poke the knife into them and you'd be really aware of what you were doing. In some ways, i would say I would find it harder to punch someone really hard in the face (like breaking their face hard) than I would shoot them. And that isn't just because I'm a girl who can't punch, before you ask. Obviously me and my friend are happy-go-lucky pacifisty types, so maybe the kind of person who kills someone else doesn't have these issues. But I thought it was interesting. I suppose if I really suspend reality for a second and imagine being so angry with someone that I wanted to kill someone I might shoot them in a moment of anger, but I doubt I'd be able to actually stick that knife in them. I might throw it at them though.
Before someone comes round my house and arrests me for being mentally unstable, in that situation I would go "Arrrrrrgh! You're such a wanker!" and maybe throw something comical at them.Aaaanyway.
My point is
that based on the way I feel about it, I would say the gun would make it easier to kill someone, as it removes the physical connection between the killer and the recipient.Most of the gun related deaths in the U.S. involve criminals using unlicensed guns to commit crimes. Legally licensed guns are rarely used to commit crimes or kill people.OutThere said:
Lau said:My point is
That's fair.... I'm not at all an opponent of increased gun control. Quite the contrary. And I'm also mostly a pacifist. I've never really even been in a fist fight. Much less strapping a nine or trying to stab someone.
I'm living in a country where guns are illegal, although I am trained in certain firearms during my stint in the army and I am quite a good shooter. Personally, I don't see how firearms can improve our personal security especially if we are living in a "civilized" country. I am not a big fan of violence and seeing that little girl shooting away, kinda reminds me of those photos where you see little boys running around with guns in their hand in those war-torn countries.
The military had the same idea centuries ago - hence the development of weapons that kill from further and further away. Fists->Stones->Swords->Bow and arrow->Catapult->Rifle->Howitzer->Aircraft->Missile.Lau said:Actually, I was discussing this the other day with a friend (in a non-serial killer way, honest
Most people can stomach the thought of killing someone from a distance. It becomes like a video game. It's up close that is the hard bit. Plus it gives the other guy a better chance of killing you.
There was a fascinating programme last year looking at this. They found that about 95% of soldiers in WW2 didn't kill anyone, or didn't even come close to hitting anyone, in close quarter combat.
L
Lau
Guest
Nickygoat said:
Interesting. I suppose the guy that presses the button that drops the bomb that kills 2000 people might be slightly less inclined to kill 2000 people individually with a blunt object.
Lau said:
All of this is well documented. I recommend reading "On Killing" by Col. Dave Grossman. You should be able to find summaries of it on Amazon. It's a thoroughly researched, well documented treatise on people killing other people. It includes both military and criminal activities. It's where I saw the WWII comment cited above. (By the way, training methods for the military have changed since WWII. The "problem" of very few soldiers shooting at the enemy has been solved, and it won't be happening again...)
There's some very scary stuff in this book. But it's also a great look into the human psyche.
Drugs are much more of a problem in the U.S. than guns, and drugs are outright illegal.MacRy said:
Outlawing firearms would only make the illegal gun problem worse, not better.