Tiberius Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 Because it's about the evolution of fleet doctrine away from World War 1's Mahanian/Nelsonian "single decisive battle" foundation, and how the battle line came to be replaced by carrier air power as the decisive fleet arm. That story basically ends early on June 5, 1942, when Yamamoto cancels the Midway operation and turns back the Main Fleet. After that, carrier doctrine evolves, but Mahanian fleet doctrine is decisively repudiated. And after 1945, fleet doctrine is largely theoretical anyway, since there hasn't been a major naval battle since (argue the Falklands if you want, but that naval battle begins and ends with Belgrano being sunk by HMS Conqueror.) So it's a logical place to end the analysis. (Fun side note: the Argentine cruiser Belgrano was originally the USS Phoenix, a Brooklyn-class cruiser that was at Pearl Harbor. And HMS Conqueror sunk her with a spread of old WWII-era torpedos, as the guided Tigerfish torpedos were woefully unreliable. So the last surviving Pearl Harbor ship was sunk almost 40 years later by a nuclear submarine using a 40-year old torpedo.) Hey! That is interesting! I recall the media reporting it was a battleship and there was a debate as to the necessity of sinking it.
GoBills808 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I would love to hear your reasoning for this. It should be interesting. Because I'm fairly certain the chances of getting to blow a jihadi away are miniscule compared to the amount of innocent people killed by guns every year.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 Because I'm fairly certain the chances of getting to blow a jihadi away are miniscule compared to the amount of innocent people killed by guns every year. I think it's absolutely adorable that you believe disarming law abiding citizens will make law abiding citizens safer.
GoBills808 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I think it's absolutely adorable that you believe disarming law abiding citizens will make law abiding citizens safer. I see where you're getting confused. Sorry: I meant everyone would get disarmed. Not just law abiding citizens.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I see where you're getting confused. Sorry: I meant everyone would get disarmed. Not just law abiding citizens. I also think it's adorable that you believe that criminals will obey laws and turn over their weapons.
Rockpile233 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 You'd think there would be more reports of law abiding citizen stopping crime with his concealed carry. I'm not "get rid of guns" guy, but fear mongering arguments are cute.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 You'd think there would be more reports of law abiding citizen stopping crime with his concealed carry. I'm not "get rid of guns" guy, but fear mongering arguments are cute. Who do I report "crime that didn't happen" to?
Rockpile233 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 Who do I report "crime that didn't happen" to? You are trying too hard here, you know what I mean.
boyst Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I see where you're getting confused. Sorry: I meant everyone would get disarmed. Not just law abiding citizens.who's gonna go collect the guns? I'll give you my cousins addresses. I dare ya to go try. They own a !@#$ing cannon. Literally. A cannon.
unbillievable Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 You are trying too hard here, you know what I mean. Despite the obvious problem of proving something that didn't happen, three are more stories of people fighting back than there are mass shootings. They just don't get national attention. So google local stories.
boyst Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 You'd think there would be more reports of law abiding citizen stopping crime with his concealed carry. I'm not "get rid of guns" guy, but fear mongering arguments are cute. it happens in my town a lot. Plus the factor that often times people will avoid certain places and areas when they know that there is a chance that the store owner or such are carrying. There are several gas stations that get hit repeatedly and they don't have a gun. They got a gun one day and the owner carried it openly. Guess what? They haven't been robbed in 3 yrs. Guy had his son killed, or son in law... yeah... sorry snowflake.
GoBills808 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I also think it's adorable that you believe that criminals will obey laws and turn over their weapons. You're an idealist. I get it. I like it. You're also starting to parrot the lobbyist line re: 'only criminals will have guns'. Gonna get bored quickly. who's gonna go collect the guns? I'll give you my cousins addresses. I dare ya to go try. They own a !@#$ing cannon. Literally. A cannon. Make ammunition for illegal firearms impossible to obtain. Keep tabs on brass and powder for the DIYers. This ain't rocket science.
Rockpile233 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 it happens in my town a lot. Plus the factor that often times people will avoid certain places and areas when they know that there is a chance that the store owner or such are carrying. There are several gas stations that get hit repeatedly and they don't have a gun. They got a gun one day and the owner carried it openly. Guess what? They haven't been robbed in 3 yrs. Guy had his son killed, or son in law... yeah... sorry snowflake. Once again, I'm not outlaw guns guy, but you don't carry the thought out far enough to see the larger gun culture is responsible for both the good and the bad. Once again...your obsession over your own specific ways you identify actually make you the snowflake. There are a lot of you on both sides these days.
Greg F Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I think bolt action long rifles and shotguns should be the only firearms citizens can legally carry. I'd outlaw handguns and anything high capacity or semi automatic..leave those for the military and law enforcement. I am quite sure it wouldn't include body guards for the rich and famous nor private security for private schools where the rich and famous send their kids. Welcome to the Animal Farm mentality.
GoBills808 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I am quite sure it wouldn't include body guards for the rich and famous nor private security for private schools where the rich and famous send their kids. Welcome to the Animal Farm mentality. I'd also outlaw private schools.
Hank II Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I'd also outlaw private schools. Genuinely curious, why?
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 You are trying too hard here, you know what I mean. Actually, I'm not trying at all. The Cato institute did a comprehensive study on this determining that tens of thousands of crimes are prevented every year by ordinary armed citizens. Read it here.
GoBills808 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 Genuinely curious, why? Off topic and I apologize...I think they perpetuate the attitude of entitlement we suffer from today. I think they're insular, self-congratulatory, undemocratic, wholly unAmerican.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I'd also outlaw private schools. So your newest assertion is that children belong to the government, and their parents should have no say in how they are educated. Swell.
GoBills808 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 So your newest assertion is that children belong to the government, and their parents should have no say in how they are educated. Swell. And you just referenced the Cato Institute. I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Recommended Posts