5,460 Forum Posts by "HighlyIllogical"
At 6/19/07 08:55 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Absolutely not. If we get something lighter we want something much lighter, but that has to be coupled with a giant leap forward in firepower, communications to make it more potent over all, and more agile to make its lesser armor irrelevant.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about for the AGS...It can have armor up to proof to direct hits from 30mm cannon shells and RPGs (at level III protection, it has ERA)...
The AGS also was tiny, with a 105mm cannon (that's as good as the original M1), only needs 3 crew, M1A2 equivalent fire control system...and get this:
"The AGS is capable of Low Velocity Air Drop (LVAD Parachute) or more conventional roll-on/roll-off delivery by airlift aircraft. A C-130 can carry one AGS, while the larger C-141, C-17, and C-5A can carry two, three, and five AGSs respectively."
That's way better than the M1A2. I mean, seriously, you can't do better than that.
The Sheridan wasn't just lacking in firepower as you suggest, it was lacking in technology
over all, its armor was weak, and its lighter weight doesn't negate its vulnerability.
I said that the Sheridan's Shilalegh missile was crappy due to its reliability issues. But the M551 has awesome factors going for it! It's air-droppable, worked well up through post-Gulf War, FLOATS, etc. etc. Naturally, its armor sucked, but the system as a whole was a good idea. That's what we should start up with again – a TRACKED, tank-caliber weapon with lighter (RPG and 30mm cannon resistant) weapon system.
And incredibly obsolete in basically every aspect.
You've got to be kidding.
TItanium MODULAR armor ranging from basic to enhanced with ERA, M1A2 fire control technology, 300 mile range (better than the M1 series's ~275), equivalent cross country and road speed to the M1A2, etc..
A few Hmmwvv's can outperform those tanks in anti-armor applications when they have TOE missiles, and are more agile, which makes their lesser armor irrelevant when they take on armored vehicles and tanks.
TOW missiles and 105mm cannons in combination are quite lethal.
Regardless, a HMMWV couldn't survive much more than small arms. The M8 AGS could even take RPG hits...
So I don't how you come to the conclusion that old tanks that were phased out a long time ago should be adopted, or that canceling them was a mistake..
Okay, then. Airborne attacks without big-gun support is no good. We've known that for a loooooooong time. Here's a recent scenario: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wirele ss_Ridge
The Brits had light tanks. They won. Naturally, they had superior training and all, but when you have armed tracked vehicles, you clearly posess an advantage.
Now, now, don't insult them, they're just dissafected Catholics.
Guess my movie reference, I dare ya.
:: No, seriously, guess.
At 6/19/07 09:31 PM, Malachy wrote: I woke up today next to my beautiful fiance, made love to her...made love to my fiance again and watched some TV with her.
5,000 cool points to you.
At 6/19/07 10:02 PM, Proteas wrote: Jury of your peers my ass.
And there we go.
Fli's idea makes quite a bit of sense, in many ways, but, still, I dunno about the logistics of it.
According to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftri als/Simpson/Jurypage.html, the jury in the OJ trial had 9 African-Americans, 1 Hispanic and 2 Caucasians. What does that prove about the blindness of justice?
The M1A2 SEP is awesome, no doubts there, but we could certainly use a nice light tank for airborne units, say, a super-duper M551 (without the Shilalegh). Take the M8 AGS as an example. It's smaller, more mobile, cheaper but lighter armored than the M1A2. But you get advantages like mobility etc...the M8 AGS was cancelled, though, and that was a major error.
The best thing that those bastards did was die (and wake us up to come get their terrorist brethren)!
At 6/19/07 03:42 PM, hongkongexpress wrote: Golan Heights is well I guess Golan heights has some agricultural value.
And a significant amount of strategic value. Posessing the high ground, even when you're infinitely superior to the enemy, is a good thing.
At 6/19/07 06:21 PM, fli wrote: no--
not naked. Just imagine an Abercrombie catelog-- but, much more artistic and dramatic.
Uh, ew?
At least, from my point of view. Not a big fan of Abercrombie here.
Speaking of Abercrombie (not really), I'm so friggin' scared about the college process. I just finished my sophomore year with a not half bad GPA (~4.00 is what it is, and last year was ~3.7), but I'm going to be inundated by the college fear-ness.
I have a list of approximately 40 schools:
American U.
Amherst College
Boston College
Boston University
Bowdoin College
Brandeis U.
Brown U.
Claremont McKenna College
Clark University
Colby College
Colgate University
College of William and Mary
Columbia U.
Dartmouth College
Dickinson College
Duke University
Emory U.
George Washington U.
Georgetown U.
Goucher College
Hamilton College
Hampshire College
Haverford College
Kenyon College
Lehigh University
Lewis & Clark College
McGill U.
New York U.
Oberlin College
Princeton U.
Reed College
Swarthmore College
Tufts U.
UMass-Amherst
Union College
University of Chicago
University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
University of Pennsylvania
University of Virginia
Vassar College
Wesleyan University
Williams College
Augh!
Book of 1980s homoerotic pictures?
I'm gonna take a wild guess: Big hair, fluffy sleeves, velvet and naked men?
Lolz @ teh 80z lawl
At 6/18/07 10:07 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
WRONG
Here's an example of the problems with that source...
"were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively"
Based on that, he's just ASSUMING that there are many DGUs...Kleck has no even SEMI-empirical research to cite.
At 6/18/07 10:20 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Or a bunch of horny, Hawking-IQ-having teenagers and 20-somethings who are currently getting laid.
Fixed for the greater good of humankind.
At 6/18/07 10:01 PM, stafffighter wrote: she offers sex, he thinks trophies.
Sex = Trophies?
WWFD?
What would Freud diagnose? (besides an oedipal complex)
"based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges"--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_D uke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal#_note-Dr opping_Case
Innocent is 100%, but since nothing is 100%, it's as close as you can get. Not guilty just means that a reasonable doubt exists...
Clearly, there was plenty of reason to doubt the veracity of the charges.
Come on, guys...
Sam Fisher is cool, but he dies in 2 hits! Snake takes shots from poisoned crossbows and keeps on coming...plus, he can carry an M-16, M-60, C4, Claymores, a FIM-92, a shotgun, a bunch 'o pistols and grenades, too, while Sam only has a shitty-ass assault rifle...
At 6/18/07 06:55 PM, JakeHero wrote: I tend to think Michael Savage is intellectually disabled.
Fixed for the greater good of humankind.
Okey dokie. Let's address the "self defense" claim.
"In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or
their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed
or armed with weapons other than firearms...Because the NCVS collects victimization data
on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for
self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms."
"On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property." That's 83,000 victims of the "931,000
violent crimes." Not much, especially when you consider that 83,000 includes cops.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsda ft.txt
Here's another study, this time from Emory University's Center for Injury Control at the Rollins School of Public Health.
"In 42% of cases, the offender fled without confronting the victim. Victims who avoided confrontation were more likely to lose property but much less likely to be injured than those who were confronted by the offender. Resistance was attempted in 62 cases (31%), but the odds of injury were not significantly affected by the method of resistance."
Just as importantly: Three victims (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-protection.
And this is in the gun toting south, people...1.5%! Come on!
"Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose. "
At 6/18/07 06:09 PM, TheMason wrote: Furthermore, I am an avid collector of military weapons.
But it was an illegal weapon, no?
These guns were widely available, the only effect the AWB had on it was to make the guns (slightly) more expensive.
The ban specifically mentioned the weapons you discussed and clones thereof, so how were they legal?
And yes while they came with 5-rd mags these were easily returned to their original high-cap state and you could buy pre-ban 30+ magazines through a wide variety of sources.
All legally...
Since when? During the ban, 30+ round mags were illegal......as were weapons that could accept them (except those which were grandfathered or otherwise exempt...exemptions that should have been ended through a guns for cash program)
I have already addressed this issue and shown that this statistic is HIGHLY misleading.
The point remains, there were less traces because there were less crimes and/or investigations.
it is proof that you are being misled.
With accurate figures that cross check? I think not.
Again an estimate for a period 10 years ago....
"6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995 beyond [other factors.]
That's quite considerable...How many hundreds of lives were saved, again...?
At 6/18/07 07:32 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote:At 6/18/07 01:53 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: If no one has guns, you certainly can't steal them.Nor can you protect your family.
Right...It's entirely fallacious to assume that guns are commonly used to defend against criminals.
Someone has got to sig that conversation, it's just too funny not to.
At 6/18/07 07:28 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote: Making English the official language would make it so that all US documents and ballots would be printed in English.
Plus, schools will no longer have to speak spanish to a spanish speaking kid. Either he speaks english or he fails.
Those things are blatantly discriminatory, anyway.
It might lead to denial of service and equal opportunity to succeed.
Hence why adopting English as the official language UNDER LAW is bad.
I'll put it this way.
What would Milton Friedman say?
Making english "official" has problems...
According to http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-
t37/tab01a.pdf, 28,101,050 Americans speak Spanish or Spanish Creole at home (of that, the vast majority speak English "well" or "very well," though)
At 6/17/07 12:28 AM, TheMason wrote:
1) The AWB did not halt the sale of M-16 or AK-47 clones or Mini-14s
Subtitle A of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the AWB, which has since been negligently allowed to sunset), states, and I quote:
"The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;"
and then there's the other stuff, the bayonet, threaded barrel etc...
It does however accept high-capacity magazines and uses the same semi-auto action insides as a pre-ban AK-47.
Then how was it legal? Any semiauto that took high cap magazines was made illegal unless grandfathered.
The AWB failed
Riiiiight.
"Between 1994 and 1995, the criminal use of assault weapons, as measured by law enforcement agency requests for BATF traces of guns associated with crimes, fell by 20 percent, compared to an 11 percent decrease for all guns."
"Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends."
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/aw_final.pdf
Btw, the authors are from UPenn...
When cookies become more than a hobby.
What a teaser that would be for the evening news...
I can see it now.
:: Stone Phillips reporting to you live from the Dough-adone clininc...
At 6/18/07 12:31 AM, JakeHero wrote:
Right, like they are in the UK, Australia, and every other gun-control shithole.
If no one has guns, you certainly can't steal them.
Child slavery is bad.
Sweatshops, not necessarily.
It all depends. For example, the wages paid by multinationals are typically quite high compared to the typical wage in that nation.
Here's a great article:
At 6/18/07 11:46 AM, Twiligh wrote: Should the United States adopt English as its national language?
It is the national language, not the official one.
Making English "official" would complicate everything.
At 6/17/07 07:43 PM, 5uicideX wrote: who gave the UN the right to take the palestinian land?
Hmm...ya ever heard of the Mandate? The Brits turned it over to the UN.
[Generic Mobster] Cookies, you stupi f*ker!?!? Get me some f*kin' Capicola! [/Mobster]
What that is, I didn't know.
