Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
You think this guy would have gone through with it even if an unarmed stranger was on the roof with him?
You think this guy would have gone through with it even if an unarmed stranger was on the roof with him?
7704A
Well-known member
Something like that. I accidentally hit "send" before finishing, see my edit which basically says the same thing.
7704A
Well-known member
Huh? Who's the unarmed stranger?
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
Only a dipshit brings fists to a gunfight. I'm sure telling an armed person to put the gun down would work out real well for our unarmed civilian hero.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
Anybody. You answer to how more guns make things safer is that an armed man on the roof with the sniper would have stopped him.
I’m saying literally any man, armed or not, being on the roof with him would have kept it from happening
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
This is the same level of naivety displayed by every unarmed person who tried to stop an armed person and died as a result.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
If you guys agreed with me I’d be worried lolSomeone shot at you ?
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
I think that's fantasy land. A world where everyone has a gun covering everyone else...
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
That’s why he went to a roof hundreds of yards away, to be alone
shar-vell Dan
Well-known member
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
Uh, it was so he doesn't get shot by an armed secret service sniper not because he was afraid of the civilian hero somehow stopping him.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
Well half of that is true.
shar-vell Dan
Well-known member
84superchamp
Well-known member
Interesting read, thanks.British Empire[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) Penal colony in the Andaman Islands, British Raj (c. 1890s)
With the passage of the Transportation Act 1717, the British government initiated the penal transportation of indentured servants to Britain's colonies in the Americas, although none of the North American colonies were solely penal colonies. British merchants would be in charge of transporting the convicts across the Atlantic to the colonies where they would be auctioned off to planters. Many of the indentured servants were sentenced to seven year terms, which gave rise to the colloquial term "His Majesty's Seven-Year Passengers".[1][2][3][4] It is estimated that between 1718 and 1776 about 30,000 convicts were transported to at least nine of the continental colonies, whereas between 1700 and 1775 about 250,000 to 300,000 white immigrants came to the mainland of North America as a whole. More than two-thirds of these felons were transported to the Chesapeake to work for Southern landowners; in Maryland, during the thirty years before 1776, convicts composed more than one-quarter of all immigrants.[5] However, it is commonly maintained that the vast majority of felons taken to America were political criminals, not those guilty of social crimes such as theft; for example, it was noted of Virginia that "the crimes of which they were convicted were chiefly political, and the number transported for social crimes was never considerable."[6] The colony of Georgia, by contrast, was planned by James Oglethorpe specifically to take in debtors and other social criminals. Oglethorpe referred to them as "the worthy poor" in a philanthropic effort to create a rehabilitative colony where prisoners could earn a second chance at life, learning trades and working off their debts.[7][8] The success of Oglethorpe's vision is debated.[9]
When routes to the Americas closed after the outbreak of American Revolutionary War in 1776, British prisons started to become overcrowded.[citation needed] Since immediate stopgap measures proved themselves ineffective, in 1785 Britain decided to use parts of what is now known as Australia as de jure penal settlements, becoming the first colonies in the British Empire founded solely to house convicts. Leaving Portsmouth, England on 13 May 1787, the First Fleet transported the first ~800 convicts and ~250 marines to Botany Bay.[citation needed] Between 1788 and 1868, about 162,000 convicts were transported from Great Britain and Ireland to various penal colonies in Australia.[10] Australian penal colonies in late 18th century included Norfolk Island and New South Wales, and in early 19th century also Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania) and Moreton Bay (Queensland).[citation needed]
I wonder if there was some kind of distinction between a convict and an indentured servant? There is no (prominent) mention of this in historical accounts but of course the Australian penal colonies are well known.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
To me the difference is only in what use they are put to once they are transported. One group is put to work by the troops the other by free settlers. The same happened here.
7704A
Well-known member
Ah, I see. That doesn't seem certain, but I suppose it depends on whether he wants to wait for a better time or not (edit: like @VonBonfire mentioned it could go south if he's impatient) or if he sees the stranger. Anyhow, the thought was that the extra person would not be immediately visible on the roof, but we're getting too far into the example.
My point wasn't "here's an obvious plan they should have done" but "this question is too shallow to be of any good use in the discussion" since it allows the equally shallow and trite answer "have another guy with a gun exclusively responsible for that roof." Doesn't matter if it's an armed person on the roof (possibly deterring them like you mentioned and kicking the can down the road) or an extra sniper exclusively watching the roof, or whatever. One gun with a clear shot of the roof, dedicated to the roof. Guy crawls onto roof, sets up rifle, and gets popped before he can do anything. Trivial answer to a trivially posed question, both are moot and not useful to the broader discussion. Right now I'm taking issue with discussion form, not any one side of the argument. Given this is OTC though, in hindsight critiquing form seems like a stupid thing to do. Disengaging from this now, back to the spectator stands.
84superchamp
Well-known member
Lots of mentions of endentured servants but nothing about convicts. Selective history I guess.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
shar-vell Dan
Well-known member
Its elaborate but it would not 100% surpise me if the whole hit on dt's ear was staged.
But if youre picked up by the cops here's what you do ------
But if youre picked up by the cops here's what you do ------
84superchamp
Well-known member
Something I’m still trying to figure out is the eyewitness account by the red haired guy who said he was pointing out the shooter on the roof to security guards; was that before the shooting or after?