Vanir Ausf B

Can we go back to talking about how the smuggleability (new word there) of items are based on their resale value, and our coming 1.7 billion dollar windfall when the Afghan war ends? I'm beginning to look back wistfully on that part of the discussion as a period of relative sanity.

Someone breaking into my house is not just anyone I see fit. It's a very small subset of anyone I see fit. In fact, I just went to check and I could not find anyone breaking into my house right now. That means that, unfortunately, I cannot constitutionally shoot anybody at all.

Oh, of course. Someone breaking into your home is "anyone you see fit". Wow.

And who IS constitutionally permitted to gun down whom they see fit?

Thereby proving you are a wiser man than I Yep. Mexico has a higher homicide rate than the US despite a much lower gun ownership rate. Switzerland has relatively lax (by European standards) gun laws and a high rate of gun ownership. Compared to, for example, the UK it has a higher rate of homicide by gun but it's overall homicide rate is lower. Here in the US the state of Wisconsin has a gun in about 44.4% of households and a homicide rate of 2.5 per 100,000. The proud state of Louisiana has a nearly identical gun ownership rate of 44.1% of households but a homicide rate of 11.8 per 100,000. Clearly it's not the guns that are the difference. IMO cultural and economic factors are the driving forces.

He does deserve a lot of credit, but this behavior was noted previously.

That culture plays a huge roll I think is beyond question. US homicide rates are not uniform across demographics. For example, over half of all homicides in the US are committed by African Americans. That is a staggering statistic considering that African Americans are only 13% of the US population. Anyone serious about crime in the US would be better served looking into this instead of guns, IMO. 9 of the top 10 states with the highest homicide rates are located below the Mason-Dixon line. As for "access", if you look at firearm ownership rates by state and homicide rates by state the results are all over the map. There are states with a lot of guns and a lot of homicides, and states with a lot of guns and relatively few homicides. I happen to live in one of the latter. In fact, I live in the state with the highest per capita firearm ownership rate in the US. It also coincidentally has a homicide rate half the national average. At the other extreme end of the spectrum you have the District of Columbia, which had a near total ban on handguns from 1976 to 2007 and has a gun ownership rate smaller than any state, yet sports a homicide rate over 4 times the national average. The good news is that the homicide rate in the US has dropped by almost half over the last 20 years. In fact, rates of crimes of all types are way down. I'm guessing that is not due to tougher guns control laws since there really haven't been any, except for the Brady Law, which I support since it aims to keep guns out of the hands of criminals specifically.

It's no surprise you refuse to admit you're blowing smoke.

Wrong. That is my reason for thinking it would not work, i.e. the deescalation would have to be voluntary because it could not be imposed on the criminals. I never claimed Magpie thought it would be voluntary. This obviously speaks to our earlier difference of opinion on the feasibility of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals through legislation. The ref awards you a card for reading comprehension failure.

80% for all methods of resistance combined. 97% for gun/knife specifically.

That is... interesting. Out of 32,180 cases sampled, overall 32% were classified as rape and 68% as attempted rape. In cases where the victim "brandished" a gun or knife the numbers are 3% rape, 97% attempted rape. They don't break it down into that level of detail. They do give an overall knife or gunshot wound rate at 3% for rapes and 2% for attempted rapes, but they do not break it down by type of resistance. They do note that women who resist in some way (they don't break it down by means) are more likely to be injured (beyond the rape itself) than those who do not resist. However, women who do not resist are far more likely to be raped. Among methods of resistance, which are broken down in this instance, gun/knife (they are lumped together) was by far the most effective at preventing the rape. However, almost anything worked better than nothing. Overall, when a woman attempted to protect herself in any way the rape was "not completed" in more than 4 out of 5 cases. When the woman made no attempt to resist the rape was successful 2/3 of the time.

Really? It certainly seems to make a difference in preventing rape. The logic that guns are only useful to criminals doesn't compute.

No, it's not a strawman. And no, it hasn't worked everywhere else it's been tried. Shame on you for making that false claim. And as for your claim that there is nothing but anecdotal evidence regarding the effectiveness of using a gun to defend yourself, a 1979 Department of Justice study (Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities) found that when a female victim used a gun or knife to defend herself the percentage of attempted rapes that were successful were only 3% compared to 32% overall. The total number of times guns are used defensively is hard to pin down, in large part because in most cases in which they are nobody is shot, and in fact the gun is usually not even fired. Estimates range from a high of 2.5 million times per year to a low of 80,000 per year. In 1997 Tom W. Smith at Northwestern University School of Law did a study that put a reasonable conservative estimate at 256,500-373,000 defensive gun uses per year.

Appealing to a criminal's sense of fair play is a sucker's bet.

Assuming for the sake of argument that is true, what is a better form of self-defense? And BTW, the "power" I was referring to in that statement you quoted was in reference to the circumstances under which lethal force could be used, not the means allowed.

The education of the young knight was in reality for the most part physical education. Petrus Alfonsus (1062-1140) was probably the first to define the aristocratic curriculum by introducing the septum probitates as the knightly equivalent of the septum artes liberales1. These probitates or knightly arts which formed a compendium of the noblemen’s education are admirably described in Johannes Rothe’s (1936) Der Ritterspiegel (Knight’s Mirror), near the beginning of the 15th century. (The poem describes riding, swimming, shooting, climbing and dancing as well as these, which apply more directly to our image of chivalry): “The fifth part I shall speak of Is that he (the knight) is good in tournament, That he fights and tilts well, And is honest and good In the joust. The sixth art is wrestling, Also both fencing and fighting, Beat others in the long jump From the left as well as from the right.” It is not difficult to see in this program of knightly education the reflection of the feudal ideals of chivalry in which physical prowess played a major role. From a practical point of view, the nobleman’s life depended on his physical skills and endurance. As Jusserand2 remarks, dressing in a harness (armor) in these days was a physical exercise in itself. The reports of the chroniclers leave little doubt that the medieval knights were indeed in excellent physical condition. According to his biographer, Bousciacaut, famous chevalier and Maréchal of France, could in his youth turn a summersault in full armor, except for his helmet, and scale the inside a ladder equipped in harness by pulling himself up by the arms3. Link

Basing policy on single incidents is almost always a bad idea. After all, if we were to jump to conclusions based on this fiasco it would seem that the police should be disarmed. Also, being a civilian does not necessarily mean untrained. I am a civilian who was never in the military, but I have received formal training from the local Sheriff department (it's offered free to the public; we only have to supply our own gun).

..........

I'm with Chad. The Combined Arms setting was the most popular for PBEMs in the CMx1 games. It's sorely missed.

It's the communication that is faster, not the physical aiming of the weapon.

Actually, that was the initial concept and still is. It was always intended that the player would assume the role of the leader of each individual unit as opposed to a single higher-level commander, although a surprising number of people seem to be unaware of this.

My attitude? It's the law. Sorry if you don't like it.

Looks like US rockets will still have to be banned in PBEMs. This surprises me. And no, I have never seen an explanation or any official comment on the subject.

How long does it take to drop a TV? I probably wouldn't shoot right away in that situation, but I have no problem with it being allowed. Then that seems to run counter to Mapie's "no action stronger than the legal punishment" principle as I understand it. You are misrepresenting the law by saying it gives Carte Blanche. It does give considerable leeway, but there have been some cases here where an overzealous homeowner has been sent to prison, primarily when an intruder was shot while attempting to flee. We are required to have a reasonable suspicion they are there to commit a felony at least. If someone blows away their daughter's boyfriend caught sneaking in the window I think there would be some pointed questions asked.

To me an execution is the killing of a helpless individual, not getting the drop on someone invading your home. Secondly, how far do you take this logic? Does that mean that a person in Australia, which has no capital punishment, cannot use deadly force against someone trying to kill him because doing so would be inflicting a "punishment" greater than what the law would impose? What about rape? Despite our noted unfriendliness towards criminals, rape is not a capital offense in the US. Should a woman be allowed to use deadly force to stop a rape? Magpie's criteria suggests not.