Post: #1

(10-13-2010 07:50 AM)Rocco81 Wrote:  You are right 'iknow' except there is one part I want to suggest a difference on, and that is the girls still want you for you but that "you" is partly because you're a stable man.

Two good points by you here,

First-- that in the second and third world, reliability talks and bullshit/cocky funny walks--usually.

That being said, not all places in Russia are 2nd/3rd world, and really young ( <22) and/or dumb girls are clueless everywhere. They'll go for Yuri the 27 YO doomed but super cute and alpha dope dealer in Moscow over even a pretty interesting 45 year old.

If you find a girl with half a brain out in the secondary cities, they're going to respect a guy who works. The girl from the working class family I knew actually only had one pair of pants. Literally. It's huge what their witless or smart friends think. Women are sheep.

Second: You still have to be alpha, which essentially means ready to walk and not willing to tolerate poor behavior. Even women who come from places were reliability is not an option still have shit-test circuitry built-in.

Post: #2

(10-03-2010 01:27 PM)exe Wrote:  My point is that in none of these countries was the German invasion long & drawn out like in Operation Barbarossa. Eben-Emael fell in a little over 6 hours.

No, it just went as planned (although Norvay and Warsaw garrison took longer than expected, and OKW did not recognize the issue there).
Barbarossa was originally planned to end up in Aug; Moscow was supposed to fall well before the winter. So it wasn't planned as a long operation. But Russia's ability to create new divisions to replace those captured/killed.

Quote:From the gate, Hitler and the OberKommando der Wehrmacht disagreed on their target city priorities. This actually delayed Barbarossa initially and at times suspended the operation, which cost the Germans valuable time & strategic opportunities.

When? AFAIK it was mostly logistics and Mussolini screw-ups; the last delay was caused by Yugoslavia.

Quote:The peripheral operations outside the city, including Operation Uranus, were not as significant or relevant to the Battle of Stalingrad as was the urban warfare that the Russians implemented - called Rattenkrieg (the Rat War) by the Germans.

I thought you did not really know the stuff you're talking about. This is not true, as you mentioned Uranus. Please accept my sincere apology for that.
The issue here is what to consider "the Battle of Stalingrad". I consider it the whole set of operations (including those before Uranus, involving major battles east of Stanlingrad which main goal was to prevent Paulus from concentrating the forces on Stalingrad), up to the moment when the 6h Army was captured. This includes Small Saturn and Ring.

Quote:If it wasn't for Rattenkrieg, Stalingrad would have fallen, the Germans would have advanced to the east bank of the Volga, and continued on. Operation Uranus would have been moot. Rattenkrieg was so significant to winning the battle for Stalingrad that Chuikov - the Russian commander who implemented it - was awarded The Order of Lenin and The Order of the Red Star.
Choosing to ignore the fact that Stalingrad WAS mostly about urban warfare is like saying Operation Iraqi Freedom (and its sub ops) has mostly been conventional/symmetrical warfare.

Indeed. But this was just a small (but important) piece of the battle. The Rattenkrieg did not win the battle, it only won time. Uranus and Small Saturn were what actually won the battle, and they were NOT about urban warfare at all.

Post: #3

About battling Russia--
I don't have the historical knowledge the discussants have.

It may sound shallow, but I just remember seeing the stolid faces on the Moscow subway, and how I thought to myself--"These people don't expect happiness, they aren't disappointed like those in the 1st world when they don't get the right color Mercedes. They're not scared of when things go wrong.

This was soon after the end of the cold war, and I thought to myself: It's a really good thing we didn't get in a war with these people.

This is not to say Russians are inherently hostile or negative. I quite liked them. Just that they looked like people who are very, very hard to intimidate. People who are quite ready for suffering.

About whether a girl really likes you for yourself--
I am always reminded of a poem by Yeats--

For Anne Gregory
By William Butler Yeats

‘Never shall a young man,
Thrown into despair
By those great honey-coloured
Ramparts at your ear,
Love you for yourself alone
And not your yellow hair.’

‘But I can get a hair-dye
And set such colour there,
Brown, or black, or carrot,
That young men in despair
May love me for myself alone
And not my yellow hair.’

‘I heard an old religious man
But yesternight declare
That he had found a text to prove
That only God, my dear,
Could love you for yourself alone
And not your yellow hair.’

=======================

We all love illusions. Just try to love a good one.

Post: #4

(11-13-2010 04:28 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  It may sound shallow, but I just remember seeing the stolid faces on the Moscow subway, and how I thought to myself--"These people don't expect happiness, they aren't disappointed like those in the 1st world when they don't get the right color Mercedes. They're not scared of when things go wrong.

This is a very accurate and true description of Russians. We call it "emotionally stable". A typical American behaves like a hysterical emotional train wrecks comparing to a typical Russian; a typical Russian behaves like an emotionless computer comparing to a typical American. It quite shocked me when people here asked me if I was excited to score or to go to Thailand. Excitement is reserved to cases like getting a Nobel prize; how could one get excited just because he fucked a girl or purchased a plane ticket is beyond my understanding.

Similarly, grief is reserved for the cases like when your kid died from brain cancer. Getting fired or breaking up with your GF is not a reasonable case for grief.

This is one of the pieces of Western culture/lifestyle which I'm sure I will never accept.

Post: #5

First of all the whole world thinks Americans live like the show 90120 in Malibu houses. Dumb shows like Baywatch, Cribs etc brainwash these people (girls) into thinking America is the promised land.
I have travelled to EEurope and know very well the "look" these people have in there eyes, everyone has that serious look. I guess it has something to do with communism (history).
Russian are the toughest SOB's on the planet, this is clearly evident by the Wars they have fought. I recall them crawling on there stomachs and fighting in brutal winter climates, they would eat an American soldier for breakfast.
I bought my gal on a visit to Canada, she felt the need to criticize and I had to bite my tongue a few times. As much as I like visiting EEurope, living there for any length of time would grind on me. In North America we get everything and yes we get upset b/c we cannot get the latest Mercedes.

Post: #6

Quote:I have travelled to EEurope and know very well the "look" these people have in there eyes, everyone has that serious look.

I thought I was the only one. To be honest, they aren't that 'open' when compared to people outside of Europe.

Post: #7

(10-03-2010 11:55 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  I don't ask this rhetorically, I actually don't know, but can any South American country match the creations of Stravinsky, Dostoyevsky, Nijinsky, Baryshnikov?

I do know. An the answer is: Not even close!

Post: #8

Im sorry but the USA is the promised land for many many things. Actually if is wasnt the women would be much nicer. As I have always said, the countries where women have it the hardest is where they are generally the nicest. The sad this is because we are the greatest country in the world it has turned many of our women into spoiled bitches.

Many countries have their greats, asian medicine, italian art, german engineering, russian music on and on and on.

Side note: My dad used to play Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff as background music in our house when I was younger, you should have seen the face on my real estate agent 10 years ago (I was 23) when I knew who and what score she was playing in her car. She almost crashed.

Post: #9

I don't quite understand all of the Russia glorifying. They've had a 1000 years to make their mark on the world. United States 235. And before the United States, England ran the show. I actually have more respect for Anglo Saxon tenacity and military skill sets than I ever would Russian. One thing I can say about the Anglo Saxon line, they have a "we'd rather all die than serve someone else" mentality about them!

Post: #10

(11-15-2010 06:46 PM)Urban Renaissance Man Wrote:  I don't quite understand all of the Russia glorifying. They've had a 1000 years to make their mark on the world. United States 235. And before the United States, England ran the show. I actually have more respect for Anglo Saxon tenacity and military skill sets than I ever would Russian. One thing I can say about the Anglo Saxon line, they have a "we'd rather all die than serve someone else" mentality about them!

Russia pre 19th century was a very vast country with poor transport infrastructure with people living in isolated villages and towns which made them fairly independent from Moscow. Also, people from different regions vary quite a bit, from pure Asians like mongolians to slavs in the western parts. It was pretty hard to organize this country through out history until early 20 century when Lenin forced his 'ideas' at great cost. To say they did not make their mark on the world would be a bit unfair. They used to be great in literature, music, mathematics.

England is quite different from any other European country. Pre 19th century and before aviation, difficulty of conquering an island nation was a huge strategic advantage for them. As an island, developing their navy was a military advantage which also spread to merchant navy that made them rich. They developed a bit faster during that time as they didn't face so many wars on their land, unlike the great plains of Europe where wars where almost constant.

If you put US in place of Russia and vice versa geographically, the states might not be so mighty today. Their land is tough, with harsh winters, building anything there is a big task even today.

Post: #11

(11-15-2010 09:46 PM)CrackerJack Wrote:  

(11-15-2010 06:46 PM)Urban Renaissance Man Wrote:  I don't quite understand all of the Russia glorifying. They've had a 1000 years to make their mark on the world. United States 235. And before the United States, England ran the show. I actually have more respect for Anglo Saxon tenacity and military skill sets than I ever would Russian. One thing I can say about the Anglo Saxon line, they have a "we'd rather all die than serve someone else" mentality about them!

Russia pre 19th century was a very vast country with poor transport infrastructure with people living in isolated villages and towns which made them fairly independent from Moscow. Also, people from different regions vary quite a bit, from pure Asians like mongolians to slavs in the western parts. It was pretty hard to organize this country through out history until early 20 century when Lenin forced his 'ideas' at great cost. To say they did not make their mark on the world would be a bit unfair. They used to be great in literature, music, mathematics.

England is quite different from any other European country. Pre 19th century and before aviation, difficulty of conquering an island nation was a huge strategic advantage for them. As an island, developing their navy was a military advantage which also spread to merchant navy that made them rich. They developed a bit faster during that time as they didn't face so many wars on their land, unlike the great plains of Europe where wars where almost constant.

If you put US in place of Russia and vice versa geographically, the states might not be so mighty today. Their land is tough, with harsh winters, building anything there is a big task even today.

I realize russia has made contributions to the world, as has most other nations. When I say "make their mark " I'm talking about ruling it or being the most dominant
influence. Every country has advantages and disadvantages. england has the advantage of being an island which makes it harder to invade, yet has the disadvantage of a smaller population as well as a limited natural resource on that island. america's advantage of having fewer wars due to being far away could also be seen as a disadvantage by possibly making it war shy or soft. Russia's winters as mucg as anything kept it safe, which can be seen as an advantage. I think in the end it sort of balances out, yet it was the anglo saxon line, not the russian which ended up mastering the world.

Post: #12

That same Rockfeller cunt and his family are in the process of bringing down the good ole USA.

People want to come to America b/c they have been brainwashed by the media.
I still don't understand what is so great about NYC, maybe the shopping that is all. I really don't want to get into it this site is about pussy after all. Miami is a great spot but there are too many places like Baltimore, Detroit, Buffalo etc ( I could go on).

Post: #13

Rudeboy America has its problems, but just because you dont like to go to New York, Baltimore etc Means nothing, its your opinion and just because you might find New York crowded, cold, ugly (whatever list of descriptions you could throw in on NYC) doesn't make it any less powerful or important of a city. I do not necessarily disagree with your assessment that we are heading down hill here in the States, but its certain not "neo-Cons" as you say, that are solely responsible for this. Look a little deeper than that is all Im suggesting.


OldNemesis: No you dont have random school shootings in Russia, You just have an agv life expectancy of 50 outside of Moscow and St. Pete, oh and you had an entire school full of schoolchildren herded and slaughtere (over 330 dead I think) and many more wounded in Stand off in Russia. Just saying shit can happen anywhere. In this example, pretty large scale I say. We hear about a few fucked up "gamer" omegas teens hopped up on Zoloft in Colorado or at VA Tech (over medication is more American problem than random violence IMO) and its suddenly proof of a horrible and uber violent place to live.

Post: #14

(11-12-2010 04:28 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(10-03-2010 01:27 PM)exe Wrote:  My point is that in none of these countries was the German invasion long & drawn out like in Operation Barbarossa. Eben-Emael fell in a little over 6 hours.

No, it just went as planned (although Norvay and Warsaw garrison took longer than expected, and OKW did not recognize the issue there).
Barbarossa was originally planned to end up in Aug; Moscow was supposed to fall well before the winter. So it wasn't planned as a long operation. But Russia's ability to create new divisions to replace those captured/killed.

Quote:From the gate, Hitler and the OberKommando der Wehrmacht disagreed on their target city priorities. This actually delayed Barbarossa initially and at times suspended the operation, which cost the Germans valuable time & strategic opportunities.

When? AFAIK it was mostly logistics and Mussolini screw-ups; the last delay was caused by Yugoslavia.

Quote:The peripheral operations outside the city, including Operation Uranus, were not as significant or relevant to the Battle of Stalingrad as was the urban warfare that the Russians implemented - called Rattenkrieg (the Rat War) by the Germans.

I thought you did not really know the stuff you're talking about. This is not true, as you mentioned Uranus. Please accept my sincere apology for that.
The issue here is what to consider "the Battle of Stalingrad". I consider it the whole set of operations (including those before Uranus, involving major battles east of Stanlingrad which main goal was to prevent Paulus from concentrating the forces on Stalingrad), up to the moment when the 6h Army was captured. This includes Small Saturn and Ring.

Quote:If it wasn't for Rattenkrieg, Stalingrad would have fallen, the Germans would have advanced to the east bank of the Volga, and continued on. Operation Uranus would have been moot. Rattenkrieg was so significant to winning the battle for Stalingrad that Chuikov - the Russian commander who implemented it - was awarded The Order of Lenin and The Order of the Red Star.
Choosing to ignore the fact that Stalingrad WAS mostly about urban warfare is like saying Operation Iraqi Freedom (and its sub ops) has mostly been conventional/symmetrical warfare.

Indeed. But this was just a small (but important) piece of the battle. The Rattenkrieg did not win the battle, it only won time. Uranus and Small Saturn were what actually won the battle, and they were NOT about urban warfare at all.

No worries bud. Apology accepted. And yes, I do see what you mean. The peripheral opps that created the 'kessel' and crushed it was what manifested the win, although I'd have to give Rattenkrieg the MVP award.

Post: #15

(11-17-2010 02:48 AM)Rocco81 Wrote:  OldNemesis: No you dont have random school shootings in Russia, You just have an agv life expectancy of 50 outside of Moscow and St. Pete,

67.8 actually. But it is mostly affected by heavy drinking and smoking; if you do not smoke, and drink moderately, you'll easily live into your 80s.

Quote:oh and you had an entire school full of schoolchildren herded and slaughtere (over 330 dead I think)

You're comparing apples vs oranges. A well-planned and well-funded terrorist attack have happened anywhere, and there is little to nothing you can do to prevent it.

On the other side, casual school shootings are something unique to USA and very rare in other countries - because of Jesus-fearing "keep your government hands away from my guns" bigots.

Post: #16

Old Nemesis...you are correct about the school shootings in USA. I wont argue that.

The carefully timed terrorist attack could happen anywhere, true. However the Russians Gov't response in the case of the gym full of kids was more telling than the tactics of the terrorists.

I completely disagree with you about the right wing nutcases wanting to keep guns. They are just an easy target for the media that most people watch. I blame the culture of "blame" as a matter of fact. The lefties who drug up kids with anti-depresants (from colombine to Virginia Tech Zoloft was involved) and tell them nothing is their fault. The parents who are too soft on their kids, the school system that is not allowed to pin point these troubled losers for fear of "singling" and isolating a natural born fuck up. With or without guns these kids would have done something to make a wave and with the media now you have your 15 minutes of fame for such an act. I could go on forever about this topic.

Also the life expenctancy outside of Moscow and St. Pete might be closer to 50. If you factor in the money and education in those two places, your average rises. If you go to smaller towns full of miners and harder living is when you would see more ailments at younger ages I would imagine.

For the record, I do not know a whole lot first hand about Russia, but I know in other Eastern countries I've been to, the city vs. country living is def. different.

Post: #17

Look at england, banned guns, and have/had a HORRIFIC epidemic of stabbings.... criminals will ALWAYS get guns too, I would much rather have a population with guns then without. Do you ever hear about home invasion robberies in TX? Hell no, they will kill your ass. Granted you have armed narcos on the border now but one thing is for sure, no foreign entity will ever be able to take over states in the midwest or south, EVERYONE has a gun, a rifle etc... and knows how to use it.

I am so sick of people using that stupid ass example of why we SHOULDNT have guns, its BS, its like saying... look how many drunk drivers killed innocents, no more alcohol, woah, JUST in Tampa bay area 1100 people have been run over by cars in the last MONTH, so should we ban cars? If you use that mentality where does it end? No more fire crackers, motorcycles, bicycles, and on and on and on.

Post: #18

iknowexactly: As always you have allot of good POV's and wisdom.

I don't think any sane person would ever say that tobacco or alchohol will enhance your health. However the older I get I do think it comes down to genetics. Not just predisposition to disease, but the kind of mind set or lack of control that leads someone to smoke 1+ packs a day as opposed to social smoking, a few here and there on the weekend.

Post: #19

Right on CLR. That is the way we are heading nowadays. Absolutely ZERO personal responsibility for anything. Ban Guns, alchohol, smoking, gasoline, oil heat, soon you won't be able to ride in anything but a green car with 100% safety rated and fail proof air bags. Forget hobbies like sky diving..nope far too dangerous.

Our gov't now is in the business of saving people from themselves. Maybe our grandkids will live in a world where everyone lives a long boring life to be 100. Body condoms for sex, sanitizing washdowns everytime you get some dirt on your hands, no more exposure to the sun..

Post: #20

(11-22-2010 03:22 PM)clr Wrote:  Look at england, banned guns, and have/had a HORRIFIC epidemic of stabbings....

The obvious difference with stabbing is that it is extremely hard for a single crazy nut on anti-depressants, or a religious fanatic to stab 30 people to death. Do you really think something like VA tech could have happened if Cho brought a bunch of knives instead of guns?

Quote:criminals will ALWAYS get guns too, I would much rather have a population with guns then without.

My main concern is not criminals, it is idiots. Like Cho, Roberts or Hasan. Or the one who after being fired came back with a gun and shoot three executives of the company right here in Bay Area. Or the one who after being dumped by a GF shot her and her new BF.

Quote:Do you ever hear about home invasion robberies in TX? Hell no, they will kill your ass.

I guess you speculate as FBI does not report home invasion robberies separately from other robberies.
176 158
For 2005 comparing TX versus CA I'm getting 158 versus 176. That's just 10% difference, and CA has the harshest gun laws among all states.

And what about other crimes? You know, crime is not limited to home invasions.

Quote:I am so sick of people using that stupid ass example of why we SHOULDNT have guns

It is a good example, and so far (I participated in ten or so discussions about guns) nobody was able to provide a meaningful answer.

Quote:If you use that mentality where does it end? No more fire crackers, motorcycles, bicycles, and on and on and on.

Note that you can also reverse it too. Why stop on guns? What if one wants to have a pack of grenades? A flamethrower? A bazooka? A tank? Anti-aircraft gun? Nuclear bomb?

Post: #21

(11-22-2010 03:00 PM)Rocco81 Wrote:  The carefully timed terrorist attack could happen anywhere, true. However the Russians Gov't response in the case of the gym full of kids was more telling than the tactics of the terrorists.

Indeed, it could have been done better. We know it now. However at that moment, having the information they could have had I'd say they did their best. Same as 9/11 - it was possible to prevent it countless times.

Quote:I completely disagree with you about the right wing nutcases wanting to keep guns. They are just an easy target for the media that most people watch.

My opinion about guns actually came up after discussing the issue with various gun owners. Straight to the facts, I do not watch ANY media at all (I never had a TV during last ten years), the only American news I read is CNN, and I only read news, skipping all the commentaries, opinions and other crap made for people who cannot use their own brain. I form my own opinions based on what I read and what I hear - and I do not like either.

Quote:I blame the culture of "blame" as a matter of fact. The lefties who drug up kids with anti-depresants (from colombine to Virginia Tech Zoloft was involved) and tell them nothing is their fault.

Yes. But it was the consequence of "gun culture" which pushed them to get a gun and shoot others, and this was the overall availability of guns which provided them with weapons. Nutcases are everywhere, but only when a nutcase can get a gun it leads to major disaster. When the guns are not really available, it is much harder for them. Some gun right activists like to say that criminals can guns anyway, and this is true. However it is not true for nutcases - where a dude, who was dumped by his GF and decided to get a gun and shoot her and her family, is going to get a gun when they're restricted? He cannot buy it in a store or "borrow" it from his friend, and not being a criminal he has no access to black market. Even if he approaches an illegal dealer who doesn't know him, the dealer would likely to surrender him to the police, and get brownie points for that.

Quote:The parents who are too soft on their kids, the school system that is not allowed to pin point these troubled losers for fear of "singling" and isolating a natural born fuck up.

Your explanation is actually continues this line, which plagued America. The line is
"it is always someone else fault". Not yours, and in your case the fault is not related to guns availability.

Quote:With or without guns these kids would have done something to make a wave and with the media now you have your 15 minutes of fame for such an act. I could go on forever about this topic.

So let's speculate. What would Cho do if he didn't have access to guns? How would he kill the same number of people?

Quote:Also the life expenctancy outside of Moscow and St. Pete might be closer to 50. If you factor in the money and education in those two places, your average rises. If you go to smaller towns full of miners and harder living is when you would see more ailments at younger ages I would imagine.

This is not correct. The regions where people live the longest are quite far away from Moscow. Altai, for example. It is not education, everyone in Russia gets 11-year education. It is alcohol consumption. Moscow is actually quite shitty in that matter - polluted air, a lot of stress, available fast food. You barely see fat people outside Moscow/SPB.

Post: #22

If you look at gun statistics, you will see that the USA has a lower % of citizen to gun ownership than it did probably ever in the history of the country. Back in the early 1900's both in and out of medium and large sized cities, households had 3-4 guns per person in some cases (this is true today in some areas). Go to the mid-West or deep South and you have people with enough guns in one house, to arm the entire neighborhood. Why aren't these people blasting away like the wild west movies?

For years in Washington DC anything but a long rifle (with loads of paper work , fees and red tape) was illegal, yet the murder rate per capita was the highest in the USA? Why has the murder rate declined over the years and esp. after they allowed hand gun ownership in the city limits to law abiding citizens? Prior to this law, guns were not obtained legally. Criminals will have guns weather its in Europe or South America or USA. The only difference is normal law abiding, tax paying citizens lack of gun ownership in these cases.

Forget about focusing on the USA for a moment and look at any number of places in the world with restrictive gun laws that have several times the murders, thefts and overal violent crime of the USA, and I'm not talking about war torn 3rd world deserts or jungles, I'm talking fairly advanced cities in Brazil, South Africa, Mexico etc. Places where there are not political wars or foreign invaders.

Maybe its multi-culturalism, I don't claim to have the answer to exactly why, but I do not think removing the guns removes the intent. People can make bombs just like in Northern Ireland, a 1st world area with tons of guns and violence and no legal permits for these weapons.

Post: #23

(11-23-2010 11:37 AM)Rocco81 Wrote:  If you look at gun statistics, you will see that the USA has a lower % of citizen to gun ownership than it did probably ever in the history of the country.

If you mention any statistics, could you please provide the link to such statistics, so I can check it too? It is not because I think you're saying unsubstantiated things, but I'd like to see what you consider statistics. As I said, I've participated in such debates before, and would like to avoid a situation when I find myself arguing with an article written by Fox News using the "statistics" which comes from NRA.

Quote:Back in the early 1900's both in and out of medium and large sized cities, households had 3-4 guns per person in some cases (this is true today in some areas). Go to the mid-West or deep South and you have people with enough guns in one house, to arm the entire neighborhood. Why aren't these people blasting away like the wild west movies?

Again a common argument, and again an easy one. There are three easy things to consider (there are even more, but those should be enough for starter):

First, a hundred year ago the societies around the world relied significantly more on self-defense than on law enforcement. Quite a lot of countries in Europe, Russia including, had very relaxed gun laws comparing to what they had now. Things started only getting tight around WWII.
Second, Spanish-American war just ended, and looking back in recent history one could predict that the next war is around the corner.
Third, how do you know they did not? It is not like they had Internet and could post about it.

Quote:For years in Washington DC anything but a long rifle (with loads of paper work , fees and red tape) was illegal, yet the murder rate per capita was the highest in the USA? Why has the murder rate declined over the years and esp. after they allowed hand gun ownership in the city limits to law abiding citizens?

You obviously did not check the FBI UCR yourself. Murder rate declined nationwide in 2009, not just in DC. By the way, Baltimore still had more murders in 2009 than DC despite having significantly less gun control. And St.Louis is still the leader, despite having pretty much no gun control.

Quote:Prior to this law, guns were not obtained legally. Criminals will have guns weather its in Europe or South America or USA. The only difference is normal law abiding, tax paying citizens lack of gun ownership in these cases.

This is not correct. Not all criminals have guns - only those who need them for "work". Do you really think a burglar needs a gun? A shoplifter? A pickpocketer? I know for sure they do not in Russia, because the criminal penalty for having an illegal gun is significantly larger than for such a crime.

And as I said above, it is not criminals or terrorists who concern me. It is law-abiding citizens who went crazy.

Quote:Forget about focusing on the USA for a moment and look at any number of places in the world with restrictive gun laws that have several times the murders, thefts and overal violent crime of the USA, and I'm not talking about war torn 3rd world deserts or jungles, I'm talking fairly advanced cities in Brazil, South Africa, Mexico etc. Places where there are not political wars or foreign invaders.

I don't think comparing Mexico with the USA is apples-to-apples. It is more reasonable to compare the USA with other first world countries with similar culture and background, like Canada, Australia and UK.

From this link, listing firearm homicide rate, and total homicide rate per 100,000:

Australia: firearm 0.31, total 1.57
England & Wales: firearm 0.12, total 1.45
Canada: firearm 0.54, total 1.58
USA: firearm 2.97, total 4.55

As you see, just the homicide rate by firearm only is twice larger than the combined homicide rate in Australia and UK, and almost twice larger than in Canada. Comparing firearm homicide rates, the US firearm homicide rate is almost 25 (!) times higher than UK.

Quote:Maybe its multi-culturalism, I don't claim to have the answer to exactly why, but I do not think removing the guns removes the intent. People can make bombs just like in Northern Ireland, a 1st world area with tons of guns and violence and no legal permits for these weapons.

So how do you explain then why the firearm homicide rate in UK is dramatically (25x!) lower than in US despite having armed criminals and unarmed citizens?

Regarding other violent crimes, check [url =http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob-crime-robberies]robbery rates[/url] (while nationmaster crime statistic is not relevant for some crimes, it matched my numbers for robberies). As you can see, gun ownership doesn't really help US citizens to prevent robberies.

And I am still waiting for answer to my question: what, in your opinion, would Cho do if he didn't have access to guns? How would he kill the same number of people?

Post: #24

Since the thread was about marrying foreign chicks, I highly doubt we need a gun here. no matter how bitchy she is, I won't shoot her.

I would like to have another dangerous object however-- a motorcycle to flee the house if/when she becomes intolerable so I can pick up some other girl. As a side note, a pre-Twin-Cam Harley will surreptitiously vibrate her snatch, doing some of your work for you before you stop by the scenic riverside under the moon to unload your sob story about your evil foreign wife.

As a total leftwing pinko librul bleeding heart socialist commie, I consider gun control a lost cause. Buy all you want. You win. I'm sure you won't shoot me. Really.

Let's argue about something else, like where all the money really goes. Does a hedge fund manager really [morally] _earn_ 3 Billion a year ( Paulson did in 2007) , thirty thousand times what a medical doctor earns seeing patients 60 hours a week? Or does he just legally steal it?

With guns, almost all discussions quickly descend to very primitive levels related to feelings of powerlessness and alienation. I believe it might be nice to approach it from a public health perspective, but it's impossible. The emotional attachment to guns trumps any statistical argument. .50 caliber sniper rifles anyone?

Post: #25

@iknowexactly - great post again. Those wall street scum are robbing the country blind, while the ordinary man has to cutback on everything.