Reply to post: Re: A gun is involved in every single mass shooting.

Developer goes rogue, shoots four colleagues at ERP code maker

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: A gun is involved in every single mass shooting.

"Even assuming you could muster all of them which wouldnt happen (at most you'd get a few hundred thousand crazies), how do you reckon they'd fare against some B52 carpet bombing, abrams tanks, A10s or cruise missiles ? Ask the Taliban how well that works out long term. You see, this is the thing, people like you still think its 1850. Wake up."

Well, you clearly don't understand the issues, do you?

Dunning and Kruger warned me there'd be days like this.

Let's see...

The most powerful military in the world, and its allies, have been trying to subdue Afghanistan for seventeen years now. They have drones, satellites, artillery, armour, missiles, jets, lots of shiny high tech, unmatched surveillance... and the last time I looked, the government they were propping up didn't control much outside the capital, and not always all of that.

The terrain is relatively open, ideal for a power with total air dominance. Their opposition has small arms, explosives, and some support weapons like machine guns and mortars. These are also distant foreigners, and killing them does not have an immediate political backlash in the US.

The terrain is far more problematic in the US. Finding people on a mountainside in Afghanistan is one thing - trying to pick the same number of people out from the crowds in New York city is another thing entirely.

Carpet bombing New York would have vast negatives - if you did it, pretty much all of New York would turn on the military - for that matter a lot of the military would resist the attempt. Destroying their own civilian population and infrastructure is, to say the least, a counterproductive strategy.

And if the potential oppressors have tanks, you don't shoot at them while they are driving around, you wait till they are replacing a track, or taking a night off for a movie... and once you do something, you go back into the population.

You cannot usefully weild a military against your own civilians the same way you would against an armed foreign force. Certainly not in a western democracy. Any thought that you could is delusional.

For that matter I don't think B52 carpet bombing worked in Vietnam, either. The biggest gun doesn't always win the war.

There is far too much simplistic analysis of issues around firearms that is mostly intended to bolster beliefs that are held without regard for rationality... and your posts are a perfect example of that failing. Like a lot of issues, it isn't really all that easy to solve with simplistic nostrums like 'ban guns'... first you have to grasp the real causes, and then you have to find a way to address them. Gun control is just a pointless distraction from the real work.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019