Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Nuclear Deterrence / NSA

To propose and debate astonishing propositions of law. Please stay polite and rational.

Re: Nuclear Deterrence / NSA

Postby Russell » Tue Jul 19, 2016 10:48 am

atticus wrote:You may think me tiresome; but so very much worse than tiresome is the daily slaughter committed in the US by people wielding guns. So very much worse than tiresome is the fact that kids in kindergarten are given survival training in practice lockdowns. So very much worse than tiresome is the number of shootings by people acting in erm "self defence" of people who are unarmed.

Yes, shooter, sneer on.


Yes guns are misused. Same as religion but you wouldn't ban religion (which is statistically far worse). Why?
If you can't talk about the problem, how are you ever going to even start talking about the solution?
Russell
 
Posts: 1453
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:47 pm

Re: Nuclear Deterrence / NSA

Postby shootist » Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:22 pm

Russell wrote:Yes guns are misused. Same as religion but you wouldn't ban religion (which is statistically far worse). Why?


Ban religion? He doesn't even want to ban cars, nasty lethal things, but oh, so convenient.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Nuclear Deterrence / NSA

Postby diy » Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:26 pm

I think the issue that people struggle with, is the desire to own something that is designed to kill. I think more people can appreciate the "art" in a fine sward, more than a top end fire arm, but its fundamentally the same. You'll never convince someone of the legitimate safe pleasures of a weapon, if they don't appreciate the mechanics and design. I must admit I struggle with gun ownership for home, homeland or self defence, though I can see why a person could make sport out of military grade weapons.

I don't see any parallels with a nation owning weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2425
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Nuclear Deterrence / NSA

Postby 3.14 » Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:15 pm

Hide in the noise. #hackerwisdom
User avatar
3.14
 
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: Nuclear Deterrence / NSA

Postby shootist » Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:29 pm

diy wrote:I think the issue that people struggle with, is the desire to own something that is designed to kill. I think more people can appreciate the "art" in a fine sword, more than a top end fire arm, but its fundamentally the same. You'll never convince someone of the legitimate safe pleasures of a weapon, if they don't appreciate the mechanics and design. I must admit I struggle with gun ownership for home, homeland or self defence, though I can see why a person could make sport out of military grade weapons.

I don't see any parallels with a nation owning weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent.


I am interested in the background to your struggle with the concept of owning a firearm for self defence. Much would depend upon the need and there is very little need in the UK. Bear in mind though that it is not because any potential assailant is unlikely to have a gun. By way of example the correct response to an assailant with a knife is self defence with a firearm. There is no requirement to engage in a 'fair fight' when dealing with an assault.

I currently own about 25 firearms, including one military weapon, several hunting firearms, quite a few sporting firearms and some collectible pieces. None of these are readily accessible to me in the event of some sort of 'home invasion'. I do not feel the need, and there may be other surprises in store for any would be burglar. Personal security is a state of mind.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Nuclear Deterrence / NSA

Postby 3.14 » Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:33 pm

shootist wrote:the correct response to an assailant with a knife is self defence with a firearm.
A sword would be my preference but knives are just as good. It wouldn't be a fair fight. There is a massive difference between someone who has a knife and someone who has trained in different bladed instruments.
Hide in the noise. #hackerwisdom
User avatar
3.14
 
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: Nuclear Deterrence / NSA

Postby shootist » Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:44 pm

3.14 wrote:
shootist wrote:the correct response to an assailant with a knife is self defence with a firearm.
A sword would be my preference but knives are just as good. It wouldn't be a fair fight. There is a massive difference between someone who has a knife and someone who has trained in different bladed instruments.


Always assuming that the bloke with the knife wasn't well trained (or lucky). And remember, In a knife fight, a draw means you both lose. Interestingly, if you read up the old Elizabethan sword masters, the most dangerous opponent was the one with the dagger, not another sword.

To forestall some answers, a sword is so much more that just a weapon. It is often a badge of office or status, can be carried for many different purposes, and it can have many roles within combat. A dagger is just a killing device.

An interesting thread. From nukes to shivs.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Nuclear Deterrence / NSA

Postby Russell » Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:48 pm

The deterrent issues is about the unknown. There is no way to test if it has or hasn't changed anything. However, the end result has been decades of peace amongst those that have weapons. Which may or may not be be due to the weapons. Its a big risk to take that away.
If you can't talk about the problem, how are you ever going to even start talking about the solution?
Russell
 
Posts: 1453
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:47 pm

Re: Nuclear Deterrence / NSA

Postby 3.14 » Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:54 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNhYJgDdCu4

Robert A Heinlein - Starship Troupers wrote:“If we can use an H-bomb--and as you said it's no checker game; it's real, it's war and nobody is fooling around--isn't it sort of ridiculous to go crawling around in the weeds, throwing knives and maybe getting yourself killed . . . and even losing the war . . . when you've got a real weapon you can use to win? What's the point in a whole lot of men risking their lives with obsolete weapons when one professor type can do so much more just by pushing a button?'

Zim didn't answer at once, which wasn't like him at all. Then he said softly, 'Are you happy in the Infantry, Hendrick? You can resign, you know.'

Hendrick muttered something; Zim said, 'Speak up!'

I'm not itching to resign, sir. I'm going to sweat out my term.'

I see. Well, the question you asked is one that a sergeant isn't really qualified to answer . . . and one that you shouldn't ask me. You're supposed to know the answer before you join up. Or you should. Did your school have a course in History and Moral Philosophy?'

What? Sure--yes, sir.'

Then you've heard the answer. But I'll give you my own--unofficial--views on it. If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cuts its head off?'

Why . . . no, sir!'

Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy with an H-Bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an ax. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how--or why--he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people--"older and wiser heads," as they say--supply the control. Which is as it should be. That's the best answer I can give you. If it doesn't satisfy you, I'll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can't convince you--then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier.”
Hide in the noise. #hackerwisdom
User avatar
3.14
 
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: Nuclear Deterrence / NSA

Postby diy » Tue Jul 19, 2016 4:00 pm

I recall from a knife course I did at uni while teaching martial arts. that the correct response was to run like feck. if you are less than 20 feet from knife man with a holstered gun. statistically you're stuffed.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2425
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Just Mooting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest