Standard load for the US military is 7 thirty round mags. You can carry more or less, but that is the general amount.

My biggest complaint would be that if we are assuming these to be WW2 Marines, there is no way a force of 300 would all be carrying Thompsons. In general, they would be using BARs or M1 Garands. If they were Korean era, M14s. These would have used a much more deadly projectile that easily could penetrate multiple targets packed close together.


Could a force armed correctly for the time period indicated actually kill that many targets? Numbers would suggest they would run out of ammo with some Romans still alive. However, we then run into some intangibles.

One must factor the sheer shock value of a force literally laying your fellow soldiers out in windrows. I would suspect that even highly disciplined Roman soldiers would begin to break and flee at some point.

Assuming they did not break ranks, the soldiers would still have bayonets, grenades, and personal sidearms. The Romans would still also be attacking an elevated position. As the Korean war showed us, it could go either way, but the likelihood is that the elevated position would eventually triumph in hand to hand combat. Not to mention that the Romans would be dealing with typically healthier, larger, and better trained soldiers.

Now if this was 300 current era Marines, it would be a slaughter. They would be using highly accurate 5.56 weapons with around 63000 rounds of ammo.

Lawrence Wilkerson's dismissive comments about self defense are very disrespectful to people who have had to resort to self defense. He wouldn't say things like that had he been unfortunate enough to have had such a personal experience. (As one parent of a Fla victim said - his child would have given anything for a firearm at the time of the event.)

Re. 2nd amendment, yes, it's not for pure self defense. The reasoning is provided within the text. The government is denied legal powers over gun ownership ('shall not be infringed') in order to preserve the ability of the people to form a civilian paramilitary intended to face [presumably invading] foreign militaries in combat ('militia').

It's important to remember that the U.S. is a republic - so the citizens are literally the state (not in abstract, but actually so). As such, there is very little distinction between self defense and state defense - given that self and state are one.

Personally, I believe any preventative law is a moral non-starter. Conceptually they rely on doling out punishment via rights-denial to all people, because some subset might do harm. Punishment should be reserved for those that trespass on others - violating their domain (body/posessions/etc). Punishment should not be preemptive, simply to satiate the fears/imaginations of persons not affected by those punished. Simply, there should be no laws against private activities among consenting individuals. Folks don't have to like what other folks do, and they don't have to be liked either. It's enough to just leave one another alone in peace.

Re. Fla, the guilty party is dead. People should not abuse government to commit 3rd party trespass onto innocent disliked demographics (gun owners) just to lash out. Going after groups of people out of fear or dislike is unjustified.







---------------------------------------------------




As an aside, the focus on "assault rifles" makes gun control advocates appear not sincere, and rather knee-jerk/emotional. Practically all gun killings utilize pistols.

There are only around 400 or so total rifle deaths per year (for all kinds of rifles combined) - which is almost as many as the people who die each year by falling out of bed (ever considered a bed to be deadly? With 300 million people, even low likelihood events must still happen reasonably often. It's important to keep in mind the likelihood, and not simply the totals.).

Around 10'000 people die each day out of all causes. Realistically, rifles of all sorts, especially assault rifles, are not consequential enough to merit special attention - given the vast ocean of far more deadly things to worry about.

If they were calling for a ban+confiscation of all pistols, with a search of every home and facility in the U.S., then I'd consider the advocates to be at least making sense regarding the objective of reducing gun related death.

Also, since sidearms have less utility in a military application, a pistol ban is less anti-2nd-amendment than an assault rifle ban.







As a technical point, ar15s are not actually assault rifles - they just look like one (m4/m16).
Assault rifles are named after the German Sturm Gewehr (storm rifle). It's a rifle that splits the difference between a sub-machinegun (automatic+pistol ammo) and a battle rifle (uses normal rifle/hunting ammo).

- SMG is easy to control in automatic, but has limited damage. (historical example : ppsh-41)

- Battle rifles do lots of damage, but are hard to control (lots of recoil, using full power hunting ammo). (historical example : AVT-40)

- An 'assault rifle' uses something called an 'intermediate cartridge'. It's a shrunken down, weaker version of hunting ammo. A non-high-power rifle round, that keeps recoil in check when shooting automatic. It's stronger than a pistol, but weaker than a normal rifle. But that weakness makes it controllable in automatic fire. (historical example : StG-44)

- The ar15 has no automatic fire. This defeats the purpose of using weak ammo (automatic controlability). So in effect, it's just a weak normal rifle. (The M4/M16 have automatic, so they can make use of the weak ammo to manage recoil - and they happen to look the same).

Practically speaking, a semi-auto hunting rifle is more lethal. A Remington 7400 with box mag is a world deadlier than an ar15. An M1A looks like a hunting rifle, and is likewise deadlier than an ar15. Neither are viewed as evil or dangerous.

You can also get hunting rifles that shoot intermediate cartridges (eg. Ruger Mini14). The lethality is identical to an ar15, but because it doesn't look black and scary, no one complains.

In practice, what makes the ar15 scary is its appearance. The pistol grip, the adjustable stock, the muzzle device, the black color, all are visual identifiers, and those visuals have become politically more important than what it actually does.

You can see the lack of firearms awareness in the proposed laws - proposed bans focus on those visual features. No pistol grips, no adjustable stocks, etc. Basically a listing of ancillary features that evoke scary appearance, and nothing to do with the core capabilities of a firearm.

What has made the ar15 the most popular rifle in the country, is that it has very good ergonomics, and is very friendly to new shooters. The low recoil doesn't scare new shooters away, and the great customizability makes it like a gun version of a tuner-car.

I think its massive success, popularity, and widespread adoption, have made it the most likely candidate to be used in a shooting. It's cursed to be on-hand whenever events like Fla happen.

-scheherazade

No, because prohibition doesn't work.

Not for Alcohol.
Not for Cannabis.
Not for Guns either.

Should there be way fewer guns in general? Of course.

Should the process to obtain a gun legally be difficult? Of course.

Should LEOs be issued sidearms? FUCK NO.


Wanna hunt? Wanna shoot for recreation? Fine.

Just do it in a safe place.
Be properly trained.

Because:
"The only thing that stops a GOOD GUY with a gun"..

Is literally anyone else who wants a gun because they are ridiculous easy to get a hold of.

Really? I've never met a Liberal (I assume you mean the US swear word, not the Canadian political party, most of those clapping are "Conservatives", btw) who wanted all police officers (and he is one, a long, storied and honourable career) to be without a sidearm.

Oh shit, I didn't see who I was responding to... nevermind... I thought reason would work.

The problem (as I see it) is that we're conflating every-day street crime (which is statistically more rare than it used to be) with horrific gun rampages (which are statistically more common than it used to be, and obviously more rare than every-day street crimes.) They're completely different animals. Choggie would have us believe that baseball bats are just as dangerous as AR15s. Certainly, statistically, that is true when we're discussing average crime-rates. However, I've never heard of someone bludgeoning a classroom full of preschoolers with a louisville slugger.

As Americans, we have to decide: are we OK with horrific gun rampages a few times every year? Is your right to own a military sidearm or rifle worth the occasional shooting spree? Maybe it is. Maybe that's the price of freedom.

Certainly, absolutely we need to address street crime and the factors that contribute to it. However, its obvious from these statistics that WE ARE. The crime rate has gone down.


And yet the shooting spree rate has gone up.

Good job at attacking me and not my actual statement BTW.
>> ^spoco2:

>> ^swedishfriend:
You would really get riled up about Gandhi and Martin Luther King then as they provoked the law as well. If the police can break the law openly and on film and still get to carry a loaded gun then maybe gun rights are kind of important. Or do you prefer to wait try to fight enslavement once only the police and the military have guns?
>> ^spoco2:
No, see, I really don't like dickheads like this.
Smug little shit who has read up on one law and then has probably gone out carrying a gun PURELY to run into a cop and be able to spout off this shit.
What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?
He thinks he's being some righteous individual, standing up for the rights of citizens everywhere... IN WHAT WAY? Hurray sir, you've been able to walk around with a loaded firearm. You've improved our lives in what way?
If you want to improve our lives by railing against authority figures, why not do it by standing up for rights that actually IMPROVE our lives?
Just dangerous stupidity on this dick's part.


You are the exact type of person I refer to in paragraph 3 of my post.
Trying to say that this guy is in ANY WAY like MLK or Gandhi just demonstrates how utterly you have failed to grasp this.
Him having a gun on his person makes everyone less safe (including him), not moreso. He's a dick who loves guns and feels like a big man by walking around with one on his hip. He's discovered he's within his rights to walk around like that, and likes to wave that right in people's faces, no matter how scared he makes people or anything else.
The LAW may be on his side, but that doesn't make him 'right'...
I for one sure as shit don't want people walking around on the street with sidearms.

The police is more likely to be a threat so if you don't want citizens to carry guns then we have to get rid of armed officers too. I don't want anyone to have a gun but if you read what I said you might have noticed that I specified that gun rights are important in the situation we are in where known criminals in the police like the officer doing the detaining in this video are allowed to carry guns.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^swedishfriend:
You would really get riled up about Gandhi and Martin Luther King then as they provoked the law as well. If the police can break the law openly and on film and still get to carry a loaded gun then maybe gun rights are kind of important. Or do you prefer to wait try to fight enslavement once only the police and the military have guns?
>> ^spoco2:
No, see, I really don't like dickheads like this.
Smug little shit who has read up on one law and then has probably gone out carrying a gun PURELY to run into a cop and be able to spout off this shit.
What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?
He thinks he's being some righteous individual, standing up for the rights of citizens everywhere... IN WHAT WAY? Hurray sir, you've been able to walk around with a loaded firearm. You've improved our lives in what way?
If you want to improve our lives by railing against authority figures, why not do it by standing up for rights that actually IMPROVE our lives?
Just dangerous stupidity on this dick's part.


You are the exact type of person I refer to in paragraph 3 of my post.
Trying to say that this guy is in ANY WAY like MLK or Gandhi just demonstrates how utterly you have failed to grasp this.
Him having a gun on his person makes everyone less safe (including him), not moreso. He's a dick who loves guns and feels like a big man by walking around with one on his hip. He's discovered he's within his rights to walk around like that, and likes to wave that right in people's faces, no matter how scared he makes people or anything else.
The LAW may be on his side, but that doesn't make him 'right'...
I for one sure as shit don't want people walking around on the street with sidearms.

>> ^swedishfriend:

You would really get riled up about Gandhi and Martin Luther King then as they provoked the law as well. If the police can break the law openly and on film and still get to carry a loaded gun then maybe gun rights are kind of important. Or do you prefer to wait try to fight enslavement once only the police and the military have guns?
>> ^spoco2:
No, see, I really don't like dickheads like this.
Smug little shit who has read up on one law and then has probably gone out carrying a gun PURELY to run into a cop and be able to spout off this shit.
What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?
He thinks he's being some righteous individual, standing up for the rights of citizens everywhere... IN WHAT WAY? Hurray sir, you've been able to walk around with a loaded firearm. You've improved our lives in what way?
If you want to improve our lives by railing against authority figures, why not do it by standing up for rights that actually IMPROVE our lives?
Just dangerous stupidity on this dick's part.



You are the exact type of person I refer to in paragraph 3 of my post.

Trying to say that this guy is in ANY WAY like MLK or Gandhi just demonstrates how utterly you have failed to grasp this.

Him having a gun on his person makes everyone less safe (including him), not moreso. He's a dick who loves guns and feels like a big man by walking around with one on his hip. He's discovered he's within his rights to walk around like that, and likes to wave that right in people's faces, no matter how scared he makes people or anything else.

The LAW may be on his side, but that doesn't make him 'right'...

I for one sure as shit don't want people walking around on the street with sidearms.

I like how he throws the sword sidearm but it comes in flipping end over end.

Somehow I knew the guy's arm was going to get chopped off from the moment he grabbed the woman.

The video starts off, without much context (i.e. a start point), and after the issue has already started. From this video, it is not clear why the officer is dealing with the person in question. That is not the fault of the officer, but the person with the camera. Someone mentioned, this was started due to jay-walking. While not a crime often pursued, it is a crime in most cities and quite alot of towns in the USA. So, in a sense, the officer is well within his right to speak to the suspect and question them. But this *ISNT* in the video.

Now, when the second person assaults the officer, the officer is well within his right to defend himself. Maybe that girl should be lucky he didn't pull out his sidearm and point it at her! Likewise, a crowd forming around one, lone, officer, whom are behaving more like a mob to lynch, then to gank; should make any law enforcement person concern.

A person is considered INNOCENT until proven GUILTY! Whether its the suspect(s) or the police officer.

Few points:

- @joedirt: The attack occurred 65km (~40 miles) off the coast, not 90 miles. Source.

- While a nation's territorial waters extend for 20km off the coast, what's called International Waters starts some 200 nautical miles off the coast. Source.

- Neither Israel nor Turkey are signatories to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Source.

- At 0:53 in the video, you can clearly see one of the soldiers holding a paint-ball gun. This makes me believe their claims that those guns were their main weapons, and their sidearms were there only as a last resort in case of a threat to their lives.

- The Somali pirate analogy is a bad one. This wasn't a ship sailing by on it's way to Egypt. It was headed directly to break a military blockade. It was warned repeatedly that it would be stopped. They were offered to bring in their supplies overland into Gaza (Yes, they were. I didn't believe this at first either. Source) and they still went for the provocation.

------------------------

I'm not excusing the deaths in any way. They are 100% Israel's fault. We incurred that blame when we set foot on those ships. That being said, I do believe the soldiers fired only because they feared for their lives, mostly because of this video. My issue is with them being there in the firstplace.

What I'm saying is, please stick to the facts and leave the legal claims to lawyers.

There is a riot cop at 0:24 & 0:25 overseeing the whole thing. One with a gas mask & pepper shotgun. Or is that "fake". Also one of the national guard guys has a sidearm.

This is a perfect video to start a "What if the citizens where allowed to protect themselves" debate.
I know that our governments want us to beleive that the best defense is to cower, but I think a sidearm might come in handy in a situation like this.
Do you notice that the "failure to comply" penalty is the same whether it is administered from a cop or a criminal? They will use their weapons against us.
It's time to bow down or fight back, to both of these gangs of thugs.