The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
That about sums it up.No ship with armed guards aboard has been hijacked by Somali pirates...
Sorry, but this article is the typical liberal anti-gun garbage. "Some" people use excessive force. (And not much data to back this up). This "might" lead to "wild west" situations. Blahblahblah hand wringing.Moby wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-0 ... tain.story
The gunfire exchange highlights a lack of rules governing the use of weapons on the high seas amid questions over how much force is legal and necessary to fight Somali piracy attacks, which targeted a record 237 ships last year. The video, presented at a shipping conference in December and leaked on the internet last month, has fueled debate over when is it acceptable to open fire -- and to keep shooting.
I could not have said it better.VMI77 wrote:Wow, read the article and listen to what those idiots from the UK have to say about "proportional" use of force....their "rate of fire" was not acceptable.....too fast apparently. To be really fair the guards should only shoot one of the pirates after one of the guards is shot, and not shoot any more of the pirates than the pirates shoot of the guards. And if the pirates are bad shots, it's not fair to have guards that are good shots. The liberal cancer has apparently destroyed the UK. It's a good thing these liberal idiots weren't around back when the Nazis were preparing to invade England....no doubt the "rate of fire" of the defending British forces would have been unacceptable to these loons.
Actually, they were around initially. His name was Neville Chamberlain..."PEACE FOR OUR TIME"...I'm sure he had plenty of backers. Funny how reality caught up with them eventually...God Bless Winston Churchill.VMI77 wrote:Wow, read the article and listen to what those idiots from the UK have to say about "proportional" use of force....their "rate of fire" was not acceptable.....too fast apparently. To be really fair the guards should only shoot one of the pirates after one of the guards is shot, and not shoot any more of the pirates than the pirates shoot of the guards. And if the pirates are bad shots, it's not fair to have guards that are good shots. The liberal cancer has apparently destroyed the UK. It's a good thing these liberal idiots weren't around back when the Nazis were preparing to invade England....no doubt the "rate of fire" of the defending British forces would have been unacceptable to these loons.
And a lot of the British upper class actually supported the Nazis..at least before they began preparations to invade England. But I'm suggesting the difference between then and now is not that there weren't people like this in the WWII era, but that they didn't comprise the majority of the population, or even the majority of the ruling elites, as they apparently do now.Heartland Patriot wrote:Actually, they were around initially. His name was Neville Chamberlain..."PEACE FOR OUR TIME"...I'm sure he had plenty of backers. Funny how reality caught up with them eventually...God Bless Winston Churchill.VMI77 wrote:Wow, read the article and listen to what those idiots from the UK have to say about "proportional" use of force....their "rate of fire" was not acceptable.....too fast apparently. To be really fair the guards should only shoot one of the pirates after one of the guards is shot, and not shoot any more of the pirates than the pirates shoot of the guards. And if the pirates are bad shots, it's not fair to have guards that are good shots. The liberal cancer has apparently destroyed the UK. It's a good thing these liberal idiots weren't around back when the Nazis were preparing to invade England....no doubt the "rate of fire" of the defending British forces would have been unacceptable to these loons.
Understood, thanks for the clarification.VMI77 wrote:And a lot of the British upper class actually supported the Nazis..at least before they began preparations to invade England. But I'm suggesting the difference between then and now is not that there weren't people like this in the WWII era, but that they didn't comprise the majority of the population, or even the majority of the ruling elites, as they apparently do now.Heartland Patriot wrote:Actually, they were around initially. His name was Neville Chamberlain..."PEACE FOR OUR TIME"...I'm sure he had plenty of backers. Funny how reality caught up with them eventually...God Bless Winston Churchill.VMI77 wrote:Wow, read the article and listen to what those idiots from the UK have to say about "proportional" use of force....their "rate of fire" was not acceptable.....too fast apparently. To be really fair the guards should only shoot one of the pirates after one of the guards is shot, and not shoot any more of the pirates than the pirates shoot of the guards. And if the pirates are bad shots, it's not fair to have guards that are good shots. The liberal cancer has apparently destroyed the UK. It's a good thing these liberal idiots weren't around back when the Nazis were preparing to invade England....no doubt the "rate of fire" of the defending British forces would have been unacceptable to these loons.