Our Biggest Immediate Terrorist Threat

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Private use of force in the pursuit of private security is permtted as long as it is its legitimacy from that of the state’s.

My position hasn’t changed. You simply do not understand what I’m writing.

[/quote]

As you flop around and continue to underestimate me and my intelligence, you whole handily ignore anything I have to as because you don’t seem to comprehend that anyone could possibly disagree with your world view.

I certainly understand what you are writing, and it is still bullshit. I do not belong to the state, and the defense of my life, my kids life or the life of a loved one I choose isn’t dependent upon the state or the state condoning it.

In my “state” if someone tries to car jack me, and uses a firearm, I am required by law to “run or flee first”. Fuck that. My family is in that car, he is going to have to execute me, because that car isn’t his if I’m alive and mobile.

There isn’t single combat/self defense thing I’ve encountered that said “check with your state’s laws before defending yourself.” No. You end the threat before it ends you, if the attacker dies, that is a result of their poor choices in life. What the state says, what it condones, and what it thinks are legitimate is moot.

102

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No such thing as “battle caliber.”[/quote]

The differention between an assault rifle and battle rifle is made by caliber. They are utilized in different capacities. [/quote]

You take yourself serious… It’s so cute.

Barrel length & components, gas system, optics, training… None of that matters, just the switch between two, and only two calibers…

Obvi, the bigger “flatter flying” calibers are better over longer distances, but good lord dude… Lay off this shit.

103

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Well, as far as the U.S. Military is concerned,

Assault- 5.56X45mm (or a comparable round)

Battle- 7.62X51mm (or a comparable round)

[/quote]

Bis, seriously, the U.S. military uses a standardized NATO round for most foot soldiers by agreement with other countries for various reasons, but the main one is just that, standardization, and they had to pick something. One of the reasons the round was selected is that testing shows its a more “humane” round than some others that just tear people apart, even though there might be better or more accurate rounds to kill people with. The other reasons and the history are laid out pretty well in wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56Ã???45mm_NATO

[/quote]

The Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad

https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/04183AF4-34EB-47F0-BCEE-29C93432DA49-1274564010088/3-21.8/toc.htm

Refer to the differention between a rifleman and a squad designated marksmen.[/quote]

Based on your link, a “rifleman” uses a Nato Round (5.56) because they are “currently” issued an M4 rifle. Which is exactly what I said above. There’s nothing magic about the round that makes it an “assault” round other than that’s the one they picked to use for infantry.

“RIFLE
2-38. Rifleman and Infantry leaders are currently armed with the M4 rifle. The M4 rifle is a direct fire weapon that fires ball and tracer 5.56-mm ammunition. The rifleman’s primary role is to kill the enemy with precision fire. In this capacity, the rate of fire for the M4 rifle is not based on how fast the Soldier can pull the trigger. Rather, it is based on how fast the Soldier can accurately acquire and engage the enemy. The second role of the rifleman is to engage likely or suspected enemy targets with suppressive fire.”

106

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Private use of force in the pursuit of private security is permtted as long as it is its legitimacy from that of the state’s.

My position hasn’t changed. You simply do not understand what I’m writing.

[/quote]

As you flop around and continue to underestimate me and my intelligence, you whole handily ignore anything I have to as because you don’t seem to comprehend that anyone could possibly disagree with your world view.

I certainly understand what you are writing, and it is still bullshit. I do not belong to the state, and the defense of my life, my kids life or the life of a loved one I choose isn’t dependent upon the state or the state condoning it.

In my “state” if someone tries to car jack me, and uses a firearm, I am required by law to “run or flee first”. Fuck that. My family is in that car, he is going to have to execute me, because that car isn’t his if I’m alive and mobile.

There isn’t single combat/self defense thing I’ve encountered that said “check with your state’s laws before defending yourself.” No. You end the threat before it ends you, if the attacker dies, that is a result of their poor choices in life. What the state says, what it condones, and what it thinks are legitimate is moot. [/quote]

I’ve skimmed through the recent posts here but I can’t seem to see exactly what you and bis are arguing about in terms of the state and the monopoly of force. Can you summarise?

107

It’s Max Weber’s conception of the state from his Politics as a Vocation. The Weberian state is a “human community [government] that successfully claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.” The state in this sense comes about from a transition from Hobbes’ state of nature to a society underpinned by the social contract.

Politics as a Vocation

Monopoly on the legitimate use of force
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physical_force.html

Bean’s somehow twisted the sentiments expressed above to accuse me of being a hippy dippy gun-control advocate.

108

[quote] Bismarck wrote:

Private use of force in the pursuit of private security is permtted as long as it is its legitimacy from that of the state’s.

[/quote]

What is the function of the state?. It is to safeguard the natural rights of the citizens. Theoretically, anything the state does to imperil the natural rights of the individual has no legitimacy. As Cicero said, an unjust law is not law. When the state loses legitimacy, the people are under no obligation to submit to the monopoly of force. If the state’s transgressions become intolerable, the people have a duty to overthrow the state. All theoretical of course.

By the same token, it needs to be understood that when the citizen arms himself against the state he is challenging the monopoly of force held by the state. Herein lies the same concept we see between states - the balance of power. Is it theoretically legitimate for the citizens to seek parity with the state? If the citizens are seeking parity they constitute an existential threat to the state. And an internal arms race would ensue which the state would no doubt win.

109

[quote]Bismark wrote:
It’s Max Weber’s conception of the state from his Politics as a Vocation. The Weberian state is a “human community [government] that successfully claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.” The state in this sense comes about from a transition from Hobbes’ state of nature to a society underpinned by the social contract.

Politics as a Vocation

Monopoly on the legitimate use of force
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physical_force.html

Bean’s somehow twisted the sentiments expressed above to accuse me of being a hippy dippy gun-control advocate. [/quote]

Yes, that’s why I was unsure what beans was saying. See my post above which briefly outlines the underlying conundrum of interpreting the 2nd Amendment as a right to arm oneself against the state as opposed to for private security.

RE Weber: also see Carl Schmitt’s Concept of the Political.

http://www.toqonline.com/blog/carl-schmitts-concept-of-the-political/

110

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Some have sure… I would bet my local LEO’s closest thing to simulated combat in training is drinking during a bar fight.[/quote]

If we let anecdotal evidence become the primary method of viewing subject matter, you get people like angry chicken and his viewpoint of Christianity.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Everyone loses their head in a combat situation. Unless we are talking highly trained military and special forces, everyone loses “it”. Your front brain shuts off and midbrain takes over, reverting you back to the level of training you’ve mastered.

If Joe Smith has stood in his living room, and over the last three years pulled his glock, fired 15 rounds, dropped a mag, inserted another, and dry fired another 15 into his TV every night, 30 times, that is what he will do in that situation. He won’t even realize he did it until it’s all over.

Anyone who has a range that doesn’t suck has done moving drills.

Yes some people who are CCW will freeze, some will panic and shit themselves, but still fire. Some people are wolves, some are sheep, and some are sheepdogs. I’d rather have the initial shooter have to deal with people fighting back and not. Read Jeff Cooper’s pamphlet Principles of Personal Defense.[/quote]

I don’t dispute any of this.

I am asking whether you believe that they will accurately shoot at the shooters or cause more collateral damage.

Now, in a case of a terrorist attack like in Mumbai, I suppose a bunch of people shooting at the terrorist will be better than no one being able to shoot back. Whether they cause collateral damage or not, at least it’s probably not as severe as the damage that will probably be caused by the terrorists.

But in less severe situations?

111

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Do you base this opinion on your vast amount of experience with gun owners?[/quote]

Are you saying that most gun owners have spent a great deal of their time doing training drills and learning how to fire accurately under pressure?

I am basing that on my understanding of basic human response. If you run into an unprecedented and extraordinary situation for which you have never prepared yourself for, chances are you’ll lose your head.

CountingBeans is making the argument that gun owners will shoot if they have their guns with them. I would probably think they’d do the same.

I question whether they’ll be actually effective in achieving anything positive. I believe the folks who are saying armed people will be effective in situations like these are overestimating the ability of said armed people.

112

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Bismarck wrote:

Private use of force in the pursuit of private security is permtted as long as it is its legitimacy from that of the state’s.

[/quote]

What is the function of the state?. It is to safeguard the natural rights of the citizens. Theoretically, anything the state does to imperil the natural rights of the individual has no legitimacy. As Cicero said, an unjust law is not law. When the state loses legitimacy, the people are under no obligation to submit to the monopoly of force. If the state’s transgressions become intolerable, the people have a duty to overthrow the state. All theoretical of course.

By the same token, it needs to be understood that when the citizen arms himself against the state he is challenging the monopoly of force held by the state. Herein lies the same concept we see between states - the balance of power. Is it theoretically legitimate for the citizens to seek parity with the state? If the citizens are seeking parity they constitute an existential threat to the state. And an internal arms race would ensue which the state would no doubt win.[/quote]

I tried discussing this conundrum recently, and even though I specifically said I wasn’t advocating gun control I was castigated. It’s something that threatens the narrative of US gun rights advocates - as example, Ernst Rohm’s SA was a “well regulated militia” in the sense meant by US gun rights advocates. I’m not proffering gun control as a remedy. I’m merely trying to highlight the conundrum so intelligent discourse can take place.

113

[quote]magick wrote:
I am asking whether you believe that they will accurately shoot at the shooters or cause more collateral damage.

Now, in a case of a terrorist attack like in Mumbai, I suppose a bunch of people shooting at the terrorist will be better than no one being able to shoot back. Whether they cause collateral damage or not, at least it’s probably not as severe as the damage that will probably be caused by the terrorists.

But in less severe situations?

[/quote]

I believe, based on everything authoritative source I read, that fighting back is the best choice in the vast majority of cases.

Fighting back causes stress, and stress deters the attacker’s performance. I’ll take the chance that that deterrent of performance will reduce casualties much more than any collateral damage caused by defenders.

114

[quote]magick wrote:
Are you saying that most gun owners have spent a great deal of their time doing training drills and learning how to fire accurately under pressure?[/quote]

Yes.

Again, the woman who sits in her robe at night drawing and dry firing a couple hundred times a night, and switching mags while watching tv will do that under pressure as a conditioned response.

The fact is, most people, not getting upper level combat training, aren’t going to shoot period. I WWII there was some rate like 10% of people, without a commanding officer telling them to shoot, that shot at the enemy. This includes the attackers.

Yes there will be people that return fire, and yes some will miss, but the more armed people, the more people returning fire.

I don’t know how many times I have to type this. Unless we are talking about trained, well trained, combat warriors, everyone, absolutely everyone will “lose their head”. Even trained warriors piss themselves at a insane clip of like 50%.

Losing your head doesn’t mean NOT returning fire. And it certainly doesn’t mean shooting wild bill all over the place. It means reverting back to the level of training you’ve mastered. And if Joe citizen has mastered a 8 inch group with 15 shoots at 45 feet, they’ll have an 8 inch group at 45 feet with 15 shots.

And I believe you are eating up gun confiscation propaganda.

Look, even trained LEO have collateral damage, all the damn time. Any stress put on the attackers reduces their effectiveness in slaughtering the innocent.

115

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Bean’s somehow twisted the sentiments expressed above to accuse me of being a hippy dippy gun-control advocate. [/quote]

If by “twisted” you mean pointed it out, yeah… I agree.

116

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I’ve skimmed through the recent posts here but I can’t seem to see exactly what you and bis are arguing about in terms of the state and the monopoly of force. Can you summarise?[/quote]

He thinks rhetoric and typing in his best college educated speak makes his statements mean something they don’t. I’m pointing out the blatant statist in his world view, which using his own words makes one a slave to the state, only capable of self determination if condoned by the state.

In short he says its swell people have guns, but are only allowed to use them when daddy .gov gives them a permission slip.

In other news, making fun of the caliber snafus in this thread and subsequent internet searches ending in me looking at sweet rifle builds on google image searches kept me at work an extra 10mins, which in turn means I didn’t have the drive through the shoot out in the street that happened 100’ from the police station last night. So, because of that, thanks for the hilarious “battle caliber” convo, maigh have saved my hide.

117

^^Glad to hear you got home alive.

118

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^Glad to hear you got home alive.[/quote]

Shootings in that city aren’t rare. Where it happened was however, which is why I take that way home, lol.

It was a mess. at least 22 shots, three suspects and the victim was medflight into Boston this morning.

The safe assumption was it was gang related, but could have been anything… A robbery maybe, I don’t know.

119

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Bean’s somehow twisted the sentiments expressed above to accuse me of being a hippy dippy gun-control advocate. [/quote]

If by “twisted” you mean pointed it out, yeah… I agree. [/quote]

I’ve explicated stated otherwise in both this tread and numerous others. Your inability to engage in intellectually honest discussion is your issue, not my own.

120

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Bean’s somehow twisted the sentiments expressed above to accuse me of being a hippy dippy gun-control advocate. [/quote]

If by “twisted” you mean pointed it out, yeah… I agree. [/quote]

I’ve explicated stated otherwise in both this tread and numerous others. Your inability to engage in intellectually honest discussion is your issue, not my own. [/quote]

Your thinly veiled ad homs that you claim aren’t can’t be covered by your vocabulary, but keep on convincing yourself of that fact, when you are out of college it will go over well at employers.