Gun violence > enough's enough

These shooters should shoot themselves dead first then shoot other people

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPpBOsQafrs


22 Comments

Did you like this post? Vote Up or Down.
0

Chris Rock has the right idea

Rajah's picture

Texans tell me they have less crime, is that true?

TMundo's picture

...or just made up.  Does having people walking around with guns in the open really bring crime down?

Texans have less crime than what?

Scumby's picture

That's the problem in answering that question.  The usual case study packin' people refer to is Kennesaw GA, where they made it mandatory for homeowners to own a gun:

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl

daz's picture

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi

 

Not saying gun regulation isnt needed, but if people dont have guns, theyll just kill themselves some other way.

 

 

And fuck firefoxs apostrophe bug.

How to reduce gun violence

FearlessFreep's picture

Nationalize the companies that manufacture weapons.

Ban rocks

Rajah's picture

And sharp sticks

It's hard to deal with this problem...

MH's picture

when a large number of people are absolutely convinced that Obama's gonna take their guns away (despite him never saying anything like that - matter of fact, I don't recall ever hearing him talk about gun control one way or another).  Let's be honest, gun control is an issue that liberals have mostly given up on for political reasons (aka they don't want to take on the NRA), so there's not even going to be much more of what should be common sense legislation in the near future (banning assult weapons, cop killer bullets, that sort of thing), let alone any over-arching attempts to ban firearms in general...

Put snipers on all the ships to eliminate pirates

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

Wulfgar and Coaster will like this article, maybe a little too much:

 

"A Sniper's Precision View to A Kill"

 

By Stephen Hunter

 

Special to The Washington Post

Tuesday, April 14, 2009;

 

The three quick shots off the fantail of the USS Bainbridge that terminated the piracy incident in the Indian Ocean early Sunday night made a number of points for various pointy-headed political pundits to chew on, cudlike, for a few weeks. But one they'll probably miss is the following: The three shots make clear to a wider public what has been clear to people who pay attention to such things -- we are in the golden age of the sniper. 

http://tinyurl.com/ckrvkn

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/13/AR200904...

{;-) Dan in Miami

If the law would just allow

jazzdrive3's picture

If the law would just allow ship owners to let their crews carry weapons, this wouldn't be a problem. They're being hijacked by pirate groups of just a few people who have 2 or 3 guns, and all they have to do is take one person hostage to get the whole boat while the Navy does a bunch of posturing.

Arm the crew, and these hijacking stop. Right now there's almost no risk for the pirate crews. So why in the world should they stop?

The UN should fight piracy

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

The Security Council at the UN can get the ball rolling by requiring all ships with their countries' flag be required to have armed soldiers or policemen on all the ships going through pirate infested waters. 

Then the rest of the UN should vote to do the same.  This will be necessary because the ship owners are balking at putting armed men on their ships.  The governments involved should force the ship owners to do the right thing.  Without the proper armed men the ships would not be allowed to dock when they get to port.

Piracy has always been illegal. 

If pirates approach your ship you fire a few rounds over their bow as a warning.  If they keep coming, you start to pick them off one by one with sniper fire.  If that doesn't work you fire a shoulder launched guided missile at the pirates and sink them.

{;-) Dan in Miami

Most ship owners WISHED they

jazzdrive3's picture

Most ship owners WISHED they could have trained and armed crew onboard. These are million dollar plus ransoms they are paying out. But laws are so strict that they make it near impossible. Once again this is a government inspired problem at the core.

International Maritime Law says no weapons. Period. But then even if it allowed them, there are still problems.

One, they risk being accused of gun smuggling at their port of call if they have weapons because of how strict the laws are.

Two, once you get to within twelve miles of shore, you are no longer in international waters and the local law of the land is in effect. Since merchants are civilian ships, they have no practical right to be armed in the vast number of countries they visit.

KILL THE PIRATES??!!! GUNS!!! WHAT IS THIS???

Coaster's picture

I just wanted to download a few Metallica songs.  Sheesh.

The ship crews should not be armed

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

They have enough to do and don't have the proper training.

Cut the Gordian Knot.  If ships want to dock in the US they must have  military personel on board to kill the pirates.

Other countries will soon follow.  Their voters will demand it.  This is a huge winner for politicians.

{;-) Dan in Miami

Why shouldn't they have the

jazzdrive3's picture

Why shouldn't they have the option to be armed? Or have designated security personnel?

The ships crews should be able to carry anything their owners allow. Period. It's their ship.

Anti-Piracy efforts are the responsibility of governments

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

I'm a Libertarian, not an anarchist.  The taking of human life is a serious thing.  Crew members should not be expected to make those life and death decisions.  That's not their job.

Governments should place their very well trained military personnel on these private ships.  These service men would of course communicate with their superiors in the military when an emergency presented itself.   No action would be taken without the authority of higher ups in the military and/or civilian elected officials. 

If the ship owners don't like it they can go suck eggs.

{;-) Dan in Miami

These aren't real pirates

Rajah's picture

I didn't see one hook, eyepatch or a peg leg amongst them

What does anarchism have to

jazzdrive3's picture

What does anarchism have to do with this? I'm not talking about getting rid of the Navy. This is about basic private property rights? Why are you so hostile to the basic right of a ship owner to allow what he wants on his own ship?

Let's say it's your house instead of a ship...do you use the same argument? So a government bureaucrat knows better than you? Hey, if you don't like it, you can go suck eggs.

Yes, taking a life is a serious thing. So why do you think Governments are well-equipped to make these decisions? How does getting paid with taxpayer money suddenly make you better equipped to handle the situation?

Regardless, ship's would rarely be put into a position to take a life. The threat alone of an armed crewed would discourage most of these would-be pirates. Remember, they haven't even killed anyone yet. The SEALS drew first blood.

And I can guarantee if they finally allowed this, there would be a huge demand for maritime security personnel. Talk about true job creation...

It's always good to remember the story of Alexander the Great and the pirate, as told by St. Augustine in the "City of God".

Alexander the Great caught a pirate in the Mediterranean. The Emperor angrily demanded of him, "How dare you molest the seas?" To which the pirate replied, "How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor."

St. Augustine thought the pirate's answer was "elegant and excellent."

Reply to Jazzy on Pirates

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

Jazzy:  What does anarchism have to do with this? I'm not talking about getting rid of the Navy. This is about basic private property rights? Why are you so hostile to the basic right of a ship owner to allow what he wants on his own ship?

Answer:  It is the ship owners who have tried to prevent their crews from being armed.  They don't care about thier crews.  They want to keep the level of violence down to prevent their ships from being damaged.

Jazzy:  Let's say it's your house instead of a ship...do you use the same argument? So a government bureaucrat knows better than you? Hey, if you don't like it, you can go suck eggs.

Yes, taking a life is a serious thing. So why do you think Governments are well-equipped to make these decisions? How does getting paid with taxpayer money suddenly make you better equipped to handle the situation?

Answer:  A ship being attacked by small speed boats in the open sea is vastly different from home defense.  As a practical matter it is far better to shoot the pirates dead while they are still a long way from the ship.  A crew member is not expert enough in firearms to do that.  A military person is.  You don't want the pirates to get on the ship where a running gun battle could easily get out of control.

We all have the right to defend ourselves.  Most of us are glad to turn the job over to the pros when it is practical to do so.

Jazzy:  Regardless, ship's would rarely be put into a position to take a life. The threat alone of an armed crewed would discourage most of these would-be pirates. Remember, they haven't even killed anyone yet. The SEALS drew first blood.

Answer:  The Somalis are desperately poor.  They have nothing to lose.  The threat of fire arms is not enough.  You have to actually kill them.  The military is expert at this.  See above.

Jazzy:  And I can guarantee if they finally allowed this, there would be a huge demand for maritime security personnel. Talk about true job creation...

Answer:  The company formerly known as Blackwater offered their services to the ship owners.  There were no takers.  This proves to me that the government will have to force the ship owners to accept military personel on their ships.

Jazzy:  It's always good to remember the story of Alexander the Great and the pirate, as told by St. Augustine in the "City of God".

Alexander the Great caught a pirate in the Mediterranean. The Emperor angrily demanded of him, "How dare you molest the seas?" To which the pirate replied, "How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief.

You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor."

St. Augustine thought the pirate's answer was "elegant and excellent."

Answer:  Yes George Bush was a pirate and a war criminal.  Time to put him on trial.

{;-) Dan in Miami

"Pirates" are defending Somalia vs. Europirates

Scumby's picture

 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html

 

The Somali pirates are an ad hoc coast guard (since Somalia has no govt to speak of) attacking nuclear waste dumpers and foreign fishing trawlers.

I for one support the Somali pirates.

 

Hey, that's how most

jazzdrive3's picture

Hey, that's how most governments used to start anyway. Bringing it back old school. "Robbers writ large" = Government.

Pretty soon they'll form a more organized council, begin having "elections", and be formally recognized by the UN. Well, once America goes broke and has to bring it's ships closer to home.

International law on piracy

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

Here are some quotes that partially support Jazzy and also support a few of my arguments. They are from slate.com the liberal web site:

International law has long regarded theft on the high seas as a scourge transcending the normal rules of national sovereignty. Piracy, in fact, inspired the concept of "universal jurisdiction," which allows any nation-state to take action against transgressors, even if it is not a victim of the crime. (In this case, any state is allowed to arrest and prosecute pirates, even if the ship they've pirated is flying another country's flag.) This principle has since been codified in the 1958 Convention on the High Seas and the United Nations' 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.

International law on piracy—which reflects universal interests—is firm on principle but mushy on enforcement. It's not clear, for instance, whether a merchant ship's captain and crew have the right to shoot armed pirates boarding their ship, unless the pirates shoot first. This is lame—and it's one reason freighter companies don't want armed marshals onboard.

So here are some modest proposals for a fleshed-out legal code on combating pirates:

Allow authorized crewmembers to shoot pirates—the fact that armed outsiders are boarding a merchant ship in international waters should be deemed sufficient provocation. Declare a safety zone around merchant ships—anyone crossing into the zone is warned to cross back; those who proceed face the risk of getting shot. Armed marshals should be required onboard merchant ships traveling through straits declared to be dangerous, especially if they are carrying particularly sensitive goods; the marshals could be paid out of a common international fund.

http://www.slate.com/id/2216163/pagenum/all/#p2

{;-) Dan in Miami

Sailor sues over safety of pirated Maersk Alabama

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

By JUAN A. LOZANO,

Associated Press Writer Juan A. Lozano, Associated Press Writer – 25 mins ago

HOUSTON – A member of the crew on the U.S.-flagged ship hijacked by African pirates sued the owner and another company Monday, accusing them of knowingly putting sailors in danger. Richard E. Hicks alleges in the suit that owner Maersk Line Limited and Waterman Steamship Corp., which provided the crew, ignored requests to improve safety measures for vessels sailing along the Somali coast.

Hicks asked that the two companies improve safety for ships by providing armed security or allowing crew members to carry weapons, sending ships through safer routes, and placing such safety measures on ships as barbed wire that would prevent pirates from being able to board vessels.

"We've had safety meetings every month for the last three years and made suggestions of what should be done and they have been ignored," Hicks said. "I'm just trying to make sure this is a lot better for other seamen."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090427/ap_on_re_us/piracy_lawsuit

{;-) Dan in Miami

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.