On 8/7/2012 3:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:59:48 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> NRA - But, people have been known to kill other people with paper clips.
>> If you have a paper clip, I should have the right to defend myself with
>> a bigger paper clip, and if I can have that, why not a knife, or a gun,
>> since, if I get a knife, so will you, so I obviously need a gun!
>
> "When you can kill 20 people and wound 30 others with a paperclip in
> under 30 seconds, then we might have something to talk about."
>
> Jim
>
Yeah, seen that argument too. Its usually from someone that likes to 
invent scenarios. My fav had to be the, "Well, if a guy with a gun, but 
not necessarily drawn, comes into my yard, I am going to be there with a 
gun, to defend my property." Somehow these things get ignored in that 
scenario:

1. Is this person lost, or otherwise not there intentionally?

2. If you draw a gun on them, isn't their logical reaction, especially 
if #1 is the case, to also draw, to defend themselves?

3. You seriously think using lethal force is necessary to protect 
"property"?

4. How do you know you won't panic and miss?

5. I repeat, why the hell escalate things?

6. Oh, and, again, WTF is wrong with you, that you think lethal force is 
needed to protect "property"?

These people's skulls seem to be, however, impervious to logic.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/08/2012 04:26 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> These people's skulls seem to be, however, impervious to logic.

I've noticed that a lot...

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.08.2012 01:37, schrieb Darren New:
> On 8/8/2012 10:57, Warp wrote:
>> The idea has its merits. It's difficult for a totalitarian oppressive
>> state to form if its citizens have the firepower to resist.
>
> It has also been pointed out that Japan (supposedly) avoided invading
> continental USA during WW2 because everyone and their uncle had a hand gun.

It's much more likely that they avoided invading continental USA because 
they just couldn't fuckin' reach it. Not with any force worth noting at 
least.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/08/2012 01:19 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 10.08.2012 01:37, schrieb Darren New:
>> On 8/8/2012 10:57, Warp wrote:
>>> The idea has its merits. It's difficult for a totalitarian oppressive
>>> state to form if its citizens have the firepower to resist.
>>
>> It has also been pointed out that Japan (supposedly) avoided invading
>> continental USA during WW2 because everyone and their uncle had a hand
>> gun.
>
> It's much more likely that they avoided invading continental USA because
> they just couldn't fuckin' reach it. Not with any force worth noting at
> least.

Or the fact that it's 18 times bigger than them.

Or maybe they just didn't /want/ it?

Post a reply to this message

On 8/10/2012 5:23, Invisible wrote:
> Or maybe they just didn't /want/ it?

Well, what I read is that this is something the Japanese leaders had 
actually said was one of the reasons.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-08-09 20:22, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:38:26 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 8/8/2012 13:34, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> YOU ARE OUT-GUNNED.
>>
>> Until you shoot the guy driving the tank and take his tank.
>
> Unless he gets out of the tank, that requires some pretty serious
> firepower or a lot of luck.
>
> Jim
>
Meh.  A spearman fortified on a hill square can take out dozens of 
tanks, and even a battleship or two.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:43:47 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:

> Meh.  A spearman fortified on a hill square can take out dozens of
> tanks,
> and even a battleship or two.

I take it this is humour again? ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 10/08/2012 21:44, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:43:47 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:
> 
>> Meh.  A spearman fortified on a hill square can take out dozens of
>> tanks,
>> and even a battleship or two.
> 
> I take it this is humour again? ;)

Nope, statistic. On dice roll.
Now, using square instead of hexagon, that's not a true wargame.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:01:36 +0200, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> Le 10/08/2012 21:44, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:43:47 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> 
>>> Meh.  A spearman fortified on a hill square can take out dozens of
>>> tanks,
>>> and even a battleship or two.
>> 
>> I take it this is humour again? ;)
> 
> Nope, statistic. On dice roll.

Oh, in a gaming world. :)

> Now, using square instead of hexagon, that's not a true wargame.

I'm with you there. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.08.2012 20:43, schrieb Francois Labreque:
> Le 2012-08-09 20:22, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:38:26 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/8/2012 13:34, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> YOU ARE OUT-GUNNED.
>>>
>>> Until you shoot the guy driving the tank and take his tank.
>>
>> Unless he gets out of the tank, that requires some pretty serious
>> firepower or a lot of luck.
>>
>> Jim
>>
> Meh.  A spearman fortified on a hill square can take out dozens of
> tanks, and even a battleship or two.

Dunno about spears, but a Lance or two will do, yeah...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-52_Lance

Post a reply to this message