Buddhas Hand Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 This site ---> http://members.aol.com/amerwar/ff/ff.htm lists American ff casualties at 18% If 406,000 Americans were killed, that places the friendly fire death toll at roughly 78,000 Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_there_any_statistics_on_US_'friendly-fire'_casualties_in_World_War_2#ixzz22CGgUCP0And sixty years later the problem still happens with a lack of proper fire control by US troops. Example the 4 dead and 8 wounded Canadian soldiers who were bombed by the USAF in 2001, in Afghanistan. Two F16 pilots attacked the Canadians as they were conducting a live fire range exercise. The pilots claimed that they were "under fire" from the ground. The aircraft were flying at 20,000 feet, and the ground fire was at ground targets, with small arms weapons, not anti-aircraft missiles. No infantry weapon can reach 20,000 feet of altitude. The AWACS controller told the F16's to "hold your fire" but they didn't listen, and four young Canadians died as a result. Just one modern example of how dangerous it is to be near U.S. army troops when you are a "friendly force". Americans have killed more of their "allies" than any other country . they even seem to manage to kill a fair percentage of themselves when they go to war ! but i suppose guns don't kill people , rappers do . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 In North America, only members of elite police and military units are likely to be better trained with firearms than any halfway serious civilian. Its just as with martial arts, basically anybody with a pulse can become better than someone in uniform who typically only recieves rudimentary fight training and doesn"t do any additional training on their own time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butters Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Good luck with gun control... its a losing battle. Forget the current debate. Someone has already made a working gun with a 3D printer. You will need a very draconian society if you want gun control going forward. So might as well just get used to em. http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Good luck with gun control... its a losing battle. Forget the current debate. Someone has already made a working gun with a 3D printer. You will need a very draconian society if you want gun control going forward. So might as well just get used to em. http://www.forbes.co...lcome_mjx.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Good luck with gun control... its a losing battle. Forget the current debate. Someone has already made a working gun with a 3D printer. You will need a very draconian society if you want gun control going forward. So might as well just get used to em. http://www.forbes.co...lcome_mjx.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butters Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I'd just render them useless by making sure they can't get ammunition for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 that's interesting. It sounds like the only effective solution, altho I'm not sure if it could ever become accepted. Producing your own ammo would probably not be as hard as producing a gun (pre 3d printers) tho. COuld print the casings, just need to make gunpowder. Just wait until 3d printers gain a bit of traction. If a person can print a gun at home, how enforcable are any laws that you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 that is well put, but if everything with a 1 in 22,000 chance or higher was removed from society, what would we have? Cars, processed food, tobacco and other drugs all have a chance of killing you. Not trying to lessen your point, but the question is where is the line drawn on what is "safe" and what isn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Just for those who are younger than SS and I, my reference to 22,000 is from a Moody Blues song: 22,000 Days. Basically it's about that we as humans have about 22,000 days each on this planet... Yes, I agree, those other things can kill you too - but those are more self punishment or accident... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The most plausible solution to the "gun control" problem is to ignore the 2nd Amendment, and regulate ammunition versus guns .. a gun without ammo is just a fancy club .. nowhere is anyone "guaranteed" the right to "bear ammunition" .. simplicity at its very best .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamero89 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 We need a permit but yes we can be allowed to carry concealed weapons also, you need to compare apples to apples, those 2 percentages represent very diiferent crimes and amounts of crimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamero89 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 that is well put, but if everything with a 1 in 22,000 chance or higher was removed from society, what would we have? Cars, processed food, tobacco and other drugs all have a chance of killing you. Not trying to lessen your point, but the question is where is the line drawn on what is "safe" and what isn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsedin33 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 that is well put, but if everything with a 1 in 22,000 chance or higher was removed from society, what would we have? Cars, processed food, tobacco and other drugs all have a chance of killing you. Not trying to lessen your point, but the question is where is the line drawn on what is "safe" and what isn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Things like tobacco and processed food are gradual and generally self inflicted and give you a chance to quit. And when you have a bad day you cant load up on burgers and cigarettes and mow down a crowd of innocent people in a movie theater. You get the wrong guy on the wrong day who has a gun in his kitchen counter as this guy probably did, you have no recourse after you've pulled the trigger. The guy is dead. Needless to say, I barely trust a cop with a gun, much less some random dude/chick I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyledude Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 America's problem isn't guns - it's sociopathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyledude Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 You can back ground check someone until the cows come home, at the end of the day, a person with a clean slate is just someone who hasn't committed an offense yet. Civilians should have a severe limit to how much fire power they can obtain and possess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 So by that measure because you suggest the right to bear arms in the US is archaic so too must be the first amendment because freedom of speech, religion, and assembly were almost non-existent when "the constitution was written". It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the 18th century argument is terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 What I am saying is that too much of anything, even freedom isn't a good thing, I am saying there should be SOME limits, freedom of speech doesn't include the right to incite a riot or hatred against others. There should be some limits on the TYPE of weapons available, your argument is typical NRA fueled paranoia. My freedom to swing my fist end where your nose begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 What I am saying is that too much of anything, even freedom isn't a good thing, I am saying there should be SOME limits, freedom of speech doesn't include the right to incite a riot or hatred against others. There should be some limits on the TYPE of weapons available, your argument is typical NRA fueled paranoia. My freedom to swing my fist end where your nose begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SukhKular Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 thats not an everyday occurance, the u.s. isn't grand theft auto or something outliers of society make the news, but 99% of people don't do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.