You and the right to defend your property.

Strap · Post by **Strap** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 4:55 am

wasn't it introduced at the end of ww1 as the ultimate trench assault weapon?
so that troops could run over and not get completely "owned" if you will, when they jumped into the enemy trench. iirc it was never really used due to the war ending.

but then it came back for ww2

i think that if anyone breaks into my house they deserve to be bashed over the head at least.
shooting them has extreme circumstances with the law, they will not understand your situation in some cases. stupid law...

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 5:32 am

John Moses Browning's son used it in combat during WW1, it was a huge success.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 5:42 am

Hammer wrote:The B.A.R was a helluva fine weapon at the time. Sure it's 20lbs but I look at that as an advantage! Imagine shooting a 8lb weapon chambered in 30.06 on automatic.

Only thing that bugged me was the wingnut adjusted bipod, so I just keep my down when I'm out in the field...

I'm not talking so much about the weight as I am the fact that it was limited to 20 rnd. mags and didn't have interchangeable barrels. These are things that "gun geeks" (people who drool over pictures of guns but rarely or never handle let alone fire them) fail to factor in when formulating their fantasies.

Hammer wrote:(Reinactments of course)

Hehe...Hammer recreating the glory of past generations of Rangers. Point du Hoc, anyone?

Strapon2 wrote:wasn't [the BAR] introduced at the end of ww1 as the ultimate trench assault weapon?
so that troops could run over and not get completely "owned" if you will, when they jumped into the enemy trench. iirc it was never really used due to the war ending.

The BAR was part of a tactic known as "Walking Fire", which -- much to the consternation of some here, no doubt -- was a French idea in which every man would be issued a fully automatic rifle. The basic idea was to allow an attacking force to throw out so much fire that the defenders would be surpressed and the attackers could cross No Man's Land w/o taking any mentionable return fire. (Ya gotta love that scything machinegun fire...) While it would continue to offer an advantage once the enemy trench had been reached, the primary concern was the crossing of No Man's Land.

The BAR and both versions of the Chauchat (the 8mm Lebel as well as the US-made .30-06 version) were supposed to be used for this. However, the 8mm version of the Chauchat suffered from serious reliability issues and the B.A.R. wasn't ready in sufficient numbers before the end of the war.

The B.A.R. was used by the US in both WWII as well as Korea. The Chauchat was the most widely adopted light machinegun in the world at the outbreak of WWII. (Much to the chagrin of the users, no doubt.)

Cheers,

OTB

Strap · Post by **Strap** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:04 am

oh yes, now i remember what the history channel said

great for going up against those stationary machine guns when in nomansland.

anything special about the chauchat? good or bad

trythebill · Post by **trythebill** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:15 am

Strapon2 wrote:oh yes, now i remember what the history channel said ;)anything special about the chauchat? good or bad

i don't have my assault weapons book handy but if i recall it is known as the worst weapon ever devised and issued to troops. inaccurate, poorly made, unreliable, and french. i'm sure someone else knows specifics but it was a terrible weapon.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:17 am

Strapon2 wrote:oh yes, now i remember what the history channel said

Sorry, I don't watch the History Channel...or any TV, actually.

Strapon2 wrote:anything special about the chauchat? good or bad

The Chauchat could have been a revolutionary weapon, but French industry couldn't turn out a decent product the way that the Chauchat was supposed to be produced.

Since no factory could be shut down to retool to crank out a new weapon it was decided to turn manufacture of the Chauchat over to many different factories. No one produced the complete gun, rather various subcontractors produced various pieces which were then assembled at a plant. However, unlike the US, where the vast distances forced manufacturers to produce "drop-in" parts, i.e. ones that needed no adjustments (read: filing, aka "fitting") the French were not used to this kind of production. This, and the fact that some genius decided to put an open-sided magazine on it, meant that the Chauchat was a horribly unreliable weapon. They jammed constantly, to the point where some soldiers wondered if one had ever managed to fire off an entire 20 rnd. mag. w/o a jam.

Cheers,

OTB

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:43 am

trythebill wrote:take this somewhat hypothetical. You hire a babysitter to watch your children, bla bla bla

the actual situation was not as nice as you see above. no one arrived home in time to protect her. the babysitter was assualted while she was watching a couple's young children, three men broke into the home and beat her so badly she has three breaks in her spine and will most likely lose the baby. even if you had to kill her attacker to save her would you shoot him?

Well, again, this is a hypothetical situation. If you live in such a dangerous neighbourhood, maybe iron bars on the windows would be a good idea? Come on, if people are flowing in through doors and windows like flies, then why not get better "defenses" at your house?

Of course every situation is unique and every situation demands different kind of handling, but hey one of the guys has a pistol, right? Propably if I'd draw my gun and shoot, he or someone else would shoot back. That would mean a total of three dead, right? But hey, sure I'd be using any means necessary to protect her, but if I killed the poor bastard I'd have to pay for that. Taking a life is the worst you can do to another human being. If he kills the babysitter, he pays, if I kill him, I pay. Ditto.

Neon Dingo wrote:I never figured out why people have a problem with killing invaders of your territory. Telling people to call the police or use mercy on people threatening your life is going against the fundamentals of nature. It's like natural selection. Kill or be killed. Survival of the fittest.

So with that logic, it would mean that an intruder has full rights to rush in to your house and kill everybody because it's "the survival of the fittest"??? If he's faster than you and manages to cut your throat, good for him, because he deserved to live but you didn't???

Now if they're messing with your stuff, not threatening your life, make sure they won't have any functioning arms to steal anymore. But if you accidentaly kill them, oh well. No loss to society.

So you're saying that every criminal is below human? They have no value? So if you were a poor bastard and stole some guys tv to get some food and he'd shoot you, it's no loss to the society because you were a worthless bum anyways?

Who cares? Do you seriously believe that their life is worth preserving? I fucking don't. Like Hammer put it, a double-tap to the back of the head.

I find it hard to believe some of you people play Fallout. Of course there's always the "diplomatic" approach to everything in that game. When I tried that more often than not I ended up as a pool of human gore.

Shoot first, ask questions later.

Tells something about your nature and attitude towards others. I hope you'll never end up meeting real people.

I seriously hate the idea of not allowing people to defend themselves. This world has gone soft. All of you people who prefer to have people do things for you are weak and will not survive. That's not how things work. You can't expect people to clean up after you and sort out your problems.

No, no one's coming to "clean up after and sort your problems". The whole idea of society, if you've missed it mr. sosiopath, is that people do things t o g e t h e r with common sense and democracy. There's no "youse peoples" and "us peoples" and "those peoples who do the dirty works", we're all the same.

airsoftguy wrote:Killing a person isn't good and should be avoided but sometimes some people just deserve a bullet. I don't belive in shooting a man in the back unless he's a danger to someone else, it's just not sporting I do belive in Make My Day laws though, your home is your castle.

But who is worth measuring the value of human life? Yup, that's the point. No single human being (be that a villain or a victim) should judge who deserves to live and who deserves to die. That would mean an anarchy. As a society, all the people set rules to follow and that's how things should be. If there's a case where someone's life is to be measured (hostage situation, eutanasia...) it's the society's job, not a single person's! If the police force finds sniping the criminal is the only way to save the hostages, so be it. If a random by-passer desides that hot dog guy has way too high prices and beats him to a wet bulb, that ain't right.

B.A.R.B.A.R.B.A.R.B.A.R.B.A.R.B.A.R.B.A.R.

There are dozens of gun threads, don't start it here.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:57 am

yea and ther all locked THNX 2 JEW

Killa-Killa · Post by **Killa-Killa** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:01 am

Kashluk wrote:What he wrote, duh.

I agree with most of what you said, but I'm too lazy to point each thing out.
EDIT: Damnit, megatron posted while i was typing.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:09 am

Heh. Europeans are funny.

Killa-Killa · Post by **Killa-Killa** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:20 am

Did you just call me a european? as long as you don't mean I'm french, I don't care. I'd even thank you for calling me a german, as they are the best people on earth (Save the fins, of course)

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:21 am

No, I called Kash funny.

trythebill · Post by **trythebill** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:26 am

this is not the proper forum to argue these points. the fact remains that the defense of yourself is a fundamental right as is the right to deadly force. No matter who you are you do not have justification to take my God-given right to kill to defend myself and my loved ones. You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how mis-guided and wrong it may be, as i am entitled to kill to defend my life and in some states my property. i hope you never have to make the choice whether or not to use deadly force to protect someone, you will undoubtedly make the wrong one, and for that you are a coward.

carry on.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:30 am

soldiers kill for politicians, why cant civilians kill for there own protection EH?

airsoft guy · Post by **airsoft guy** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:59 am

But who is worth measuring the value of human life? Yup, that's the point. No single human being (be that a villain or a victim) should judge who deserves to live and who deserves to die. That would mean an anarchy. As a society, all the people set rules to follow and that's how things should be. If there's a case where someone's life is to be measured (hostage situation, eutanasia...) it's the society's job, not a single person's! If the police force finds sniping the criminal is the only way to save the hostages, so be it. If a random by-passer desides that hot dog guy has way too high prices and beats him to a wet bulb, that ain't right.

What do you suggest I do when I am in danger of being killed when I havethe option of killing him to save my life or someone elses? Especially if there are are multiple innocents? The way I see it someone who is less "evil" deserves to live over some guy who's in my house raping the babysitter or stealing my T.V. for "food." Guess what, you're in my house I will tell you once to freeze and if you don't, well you're going to have a bad evening. You can't simply shoot a man in the arm or leg, it's not like the movies where you can shoot a gun out of the prick's hand, you aim for the biggest target on them allowing you a higher hit ratio and reducing the chances of a round going off into the sticks killing a jogger or a mime, but who's going to miss a mime? You aim for center mass and do a double tap, simple as that, he might live and he might die, he had the intent to harm therfore he is less than human, a rabid dog to be put down. I'm sure he had freinds and family that loved him very much and I'm sorry for them, but for that pile of shit, nothing.

So you're saying that every criminal is below human? They have no value? So if you were a poor bastard and stole some guys tv to get some food and he'd shoot you, it's no loss to the society because you were a worthless bum anyways?

I don't know where you're living but who the Hell steals a T.V. for food? You steal T.V's for drugs. If you need food so bad that you'd steal a television wouldn't you just steal some goddamn food? Wouldn't you raid the refridgerator, not the living room? What kind of magical country do you live in where people steal your Magnavox so they can buy some peanut butter? Bums do not break into your house to steal shit, druggies do. That is some way left thinking.

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 5:26 pm

I'm not talking so much about the weight as I am the fact that it was limited to 20 rnd. mags and didn't have interchangeable barrels. These are things that "gun geeks" (people who drool over pictures of guns but rarely or never handle let alone fire them) fail to factor in when formulating their fantasies.

Everything you mention is valid however look at the weapons being used by our enemies at the time, mostly bolt action rifles. The use of the B.A.R in a support role was excellent due to the lack of other weapons in it's category. Sure the British Bren was a better weapon but I don't consider the B.A.R to be a huge step behind it, it certainly made more sense to lug around a B.A.R instead of a M1919 without the later buttstock and bipod configuration. Bottom line is the B.A.R seemed to fill in a niche that our old military doctrine called for, we centered around the Rifleman and his 8 shot M1 Garand, .30Cals were too heavy to charge up to the front lines with and SMGs couldn't reach as far as we'd like. What solved those problems? Why the B.A.R of course!

If you're comparing the B.A.R with weapons of today sure it's not good due to the limited 20rnd magazine, but weapons of the time like the FG42 or similar Japanese weapons were inferior to the B.A.R and did not really fill the roll of squad support weapon really well. Now if you're comparing it to modern day weapons sure it is inferior, I would in today's environment take a M14 MBR over a B.A.R in a combat situation. (Most crunchies tend to favor the ole M14

)

I just find it odd how you mentioned the B.A.R when speaking of Deagles, in my opinion I find the B.A.R to be one of John Browning's greatest designs, right next to the M1911 and Ma Deuce and to have it compared to a travesty such as the Deagle is nothing short of a disgrace!

Neon Dingo · Post by **Neon Dingo** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:22 pm

So with that logic, it would mean that an intruder has full rights to rush in to your house and kill everybody because it's "the survival of the fittest"??? If he's faster than you and manages to cut your throat, good for him, because he deserved to live but you didn't???

No, I'm not saying he has the "right" to. Since when do "rights" matter when you have a gun barrel to your head? If I'm too weak to be able to defend myself, my family, and my property then I lose. Game over. The end. That's why I have to be prepared. You know, like in Boy Scouts. Be able to hit whatever is thrown at you. If I'm killed defending my life, limb, and property at least I was killed defending it, not cowering under a coffee table with a phone in hand attempting to dial 9-1-1. The police are not a guranteed presence everywhere and anywhere at any given time.

So you're saying that every criminal is below human? They have no value? So if you were a poor bastard and stole some guys tv to get some food and he'd shoot you, it's no loss to the society because you were a worthless bum anyways?

No, I'm not saying that. No person can be "below human" or else they wouldn't be a human. I personally don't lie to myself into thinking that every person has value on this planet. There's too many people that fuck things up and it's stupid of you to try and say that they all have some kind of "value" when they're trucking off with your TV. If I was a "poor bastard" as you put it, I would more than likely live in the wilderness and hunt squirrels instead of stealing TVs. That's just how I am. I like nature.

People that steal have a high risk of getting caught, injured, or killed. THEY KNOW THE RISKS. It's not like I'm going to steal a TV and not know tha there's a possibility of my balls being blown off by a gun owner, or for my neck to be ripped out by a dog, or for me to be hogtied and beaten. What you just said seemed to justify "poor bastards" the right to steal from people without reprocussions from the homeowners. That's rediculous.

Tells something about your nature and attitude towards others. I hope you'll never end up meeting real people.

You're right, you got me! I hate 99% of the people I meet! People have proven to me time and time again that they're stupid and do not contribute anything to making my life better. I guess you caught me red-handed.

No, no one's coming to "clean up after and sort your problems". The whole idea of society, if you've missed it mr. sosiopath, is that people do things t o g e t h e r with common sense and democracy. There's no "youse peoples" and "us peoples" and "those peoples who do the dirty works", we're all the same.

The country I live in, The United States of America, is not a democracy. Neither is Finland. They're both republics, where the citizens elect representatives to do their voting for them.

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:44 pm

Finland brings us sugarless gum.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:36 pm

Hammer wrote:I just find it odd how you mentioned the B.A.R when speaking of Deagles, in my opinion I find the B.A.R to be one of John Browning's greatest designs, right next to the M1911 and Ma Deuce and to have it compared to a travesty such as the Deagle is nothing short of a disgrace!

I think we're having a misunderstanding here. I'm not comparing the Desert Eagle to the BAR, but rather the mystique that surrounds the Desert Eagle to that which surrounds the BAR. You could say that the MG42 is the Desert Eagle of the GPMG world. There are lots of guns that have a cult following and the people that belong to these cults are usually people who have never held let alone fired one.

Usually it's one factor (and/or the appearance) of the weapon that gets the gun geeks drooling. In the DE's case it's the .44 Mag or .50 AE chambering (never mind that it was originally a .357 Mag); in the BAR's case it's the idea of having a very portable full-auto .30-06; and in the MG42's case it's usually the 1200+ RPM ROF.

The difference between the BAR and the MG42 on one hand, and the DE on the other is that the former two aren't white elephants and have/had very real niches to fill. The DE, on the other hand isn't really good for anything. It's not concealable, so not very good for street carry. It's not as powerful as other handguns on the market, so not very good for hunting. The list goes on and on. It's just a white elephant.

Like I said, it's the mystique I'm referring to, not any of the actual properties when I group the DE w/the BAR (and also the MG42).

Cheers,

OTB

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:53 pm

It's not as powerful as other handguns on the market, so not very good for hunting.

Erm... Just a nit-pick I guess, but why does a pistol have to be the most powerful available to be useful for hunting? If you can bag a deer with a .357, why does the mere existance of .500 S&W or .454 Casull require you to use those cartridges?