Why would he need to be, given that he is faced with non-Wyatt-Earp-like opponents? Or are you deliberately contriving stupid objections?
They may not be Wyatt Erps but I imagine professional and reckless criminals who have the advantage of surprise are still a coupple steps ahead of our hero.
Not at all. The suburbanite sits in his bedroom, aware of the intruder. He hears a creak, and knows that the intruder is in the middle of the staircase to the second floot.
the master bedroom door is at the top of the staircase, on the side, with the hinges on the side away from the strairs, opening inwards -- so the suburbanite eases the door open a little. The intruder cannot see this unfortunate (for them) layout, but the suburbanite now has full view of the landing on top of the stairs, without being exposed -- the bedroom is dark, but the landing is faintly lit by the lights coming in through the window. The moment the intruder steps onto the top stair, the suburbanite will be able to see him and shoot him, without the intruder even being aware of the "ambush".
Oh yes very plausible, And I presume nothing could go wrong there....
What I described above the layout of my house. I don't own a gun, but had i had one, I would most certainly be able to use my knowledge of the layout to spring an effective ambush. Hell yes, I would have a good chance against the intruder.
In your imagination pal. Seriously your ego is inflated and your sense of mortatility deficient.
You see what happens when you don't think? You start sounding like a parody of the archetypical whiny gun-grabber.
Ah yes and my parody is so much less realistic and logical then your idea of civilians facing off against professional armies and armed intruders....
quote:Sure he would. Armed fat men beat down gansters all the time.they wouldn't have to beat them down -- shooting first from concealment is much better.
they can't afford the risk, you idiot.
How do you know? Do you doubt there are depserate criminals or some too dumb to care about the risks?
And can the typical man afford the risk? Is it really worth risking your's and your families life to save some household products?
A criminal can't take even a 10% chance of death with each piddling residential robbery, as they have to pull off a whole lot of such piddling residential robbering to make ends meet.
Well then they plan it out better. Problem solved. Also it depends on each house they hit and what they take. Also a lot of times they go after houses for guns, that to me seems like owning a gun would increase your chance of getting robbed, not decrease.
or will not come at all; and if they still do, they will be at a disadvantage due to the creaking stairs and the ignorance of the floor plan...
Yeah in how many cases? And what makes you think they wouldn't hear the creaking themselves?
Also some criminals, believe or not, are desperate and/or reckless. They will come whether they risk their life or not, in fact they do.
Do the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ math, will you, idiot?
Ah nice objection. I can tell how this issue for you is driven by objective,logical analysis and not blind passion....
responsibility is my solution to crime.
i.e. vigilantaism.
Police is fine, but courts have repeatedly ruled that they are not responsible for defending individuals.
That's bull.
If each individual took responsibility for defending themselves, there would be a whole lot less crime around.
Unwarranted speculation which does not explain why there was such a lack of crime in the wild west. Or why there is so much crime in China, England,Japan,France and Germany.
I mean according to you the criminals should be stealing guns and hitting a dozen houses a day since they can "afford the risk" I wonder why they ain't.
As it is, you are advocating taking the game-theoretic "free-rider" position; not only cowardly and irresponsible, but also immoral.
Ah yes the true nature of your arguments: right-wing extremism. If I am not willing to pick up a gun a join you, I am an immoral. free-riding,coward who is against you.
but guess who knows the lay of the land better?
I'd say the soldiers. Most civilians do not study the local geography. Armies have spies, intel agencies and spy sattelites.
I come from a country with a history of highly successfulk guerilla warfare -- USSR "partisany" inflicted a whole lotta damage on nazis during WWII; and that was with general population unarmed. Finns, with general population armed, kicked USSR's ass in 1938. Yeah, the guerillas can be damn effective against a regimented army...
Yes but again for every success there are dozens of failures.Your statement is also misleading and I will get to it in a bit.
Most of what I read about history state that guerillas did little to nothing against the Nazis.
How about the needless deaths and suffering which the rebellion was started to avert ?
Would it avert it? I doubt that.
or should Russians in 1941, or Finns in 1938, just rolled over under onslaught from a better-armed and better-trained opponent?
The Russians had a government backing them against the Nazis, as well as US aid.
As for your statement concerning Finland, it was hardly some isolated guerillas fighting of the Soviet Army but an actual war.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/f/finnishr1.asp
Note that Finland had assistance in terms of supplies from France and Germany, and volunteers from Swededn and Norway
and Finland still lost.
To quote the article:
Finally, however, small Finland was no match for the USSR. Air bombardments and well-prepared frontal attacks (Feb., 1940) on the Karelian Isthmus brought Finnish resistance to the verge of collapse. In the peace treaty signed on Mar. 12, Finland ceded part of the Karelian Isthmus, Vyborg (Viipuri), and several border territories to the USSR.
Bold text is added.
You disgust me, you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ coward.
Behold the rationality and moral decency of the pro-gun lobby!
not only coward, but a moron as well...
Ah so since this debate started I am a "◊◊◊◊◊◊◊" coward, immoral,moron,idiot, and "free-rider".
I am a Green liberal, foreigner, and I live in an ultra-liberal area of new England; I am not pro-gun -- i am pro-freedom ,
SO anyone against gun control is then anti-freedom? Your stance stinks of extremism.
and I know what I am talking about, because I came from a country where freedoms were few and far between.
So did Ayn Rand....
The paintball match I mentioned took place a couple of years ago, and I personally know some people who participated in it.
Still an anecdote.
No; but it does prove the falsehood of your contention that the civilians are like sheep before the guns of trained soldiers.
How so if it doesn't reflect real war conditions?
Ah yes, mr.moron, do you know why they are called 'elite"? Not just because they are better, but also because they are few. There's not enough of such units to throw them into your run-of-the-mill combat.
Enough I imagine to take out your run-of-the-mill militia I imagine.
Also you know another reason why they are called elite? Because they are damn good. You don't need as much of them to take out a large group of people as you would other troops.
These "elite" make mince meat out of ordinary troops, what do you think will happen to civilians in the face of such men?
Half of there are inapplicable to guerilla warfare,
Actually guerillas need to worry about high-tech weaponry,supplies,spying,etc. You have no idea of what you are talking about.
and most of the rest can be easily solved with modern consumer-grade technology.
Yes, which is why Afghanistan and Iraq fair so well against the US army....
Enough of this idiocy. it's obvious that you are more interested in making excuses that in reasoning out the actual factors involved.
Why? Have I been using the extremist language and incorrect accounts of history? No...that was you.
Your obviously too involved in your right-wing realities to see objectively on the issue but unlike you I am willing to continue the debate of course in a half-way civil manner. That's what being open minded and critical is all about.
