HOME | DD
wingsofwrath — Taking aim
Published: 2011-02-20 19:42:53 +0000 UTC; Views: 6537; Favourites: 92; Downloads: 81
Redirect to original
Description
This was originally designed as a 500X100 pixel banner for "Shadowless", but I might have gone a bit overboard with the detailing so I'm posting it as a full fledged drawing, despite it's minimalism.It's meant to represent Jeanne, taking aim with her Md.1886 scoped Lebel rifle trough the mist...
Related content
Comments: 17
I could suggest some targets after what happened yesterday. Great job on the Lebel and her uniform
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And yet, I think that is exactly the worst attitude we can have towards this. In the words of the immortal Martin Luther King Jr. :
“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate."
That does not mean we should take this lying down - far from it! Find the ones responsible and subject them to the full rigour of the law. But don't give in to hate and retribution, because that will simply sow the seeds of violence and hatred for the next generation. And the next.
Also, I think that, ultimately, terrorism doesn't work as a tactic and will undoubtedly backfire against their cause. Unlike armed insurgency against an foreign occupier, you lack both the direct justification and moral high ground. Also, sporadic incidents will never demoralise your opponent, they will simply strengthen their will to resist while, simultaneously, driving away potential supporters and fractionating your own camp. Good grief, does nobody learn from the past's mistakes?
Not even the sustained bombing campaigns of WW2, both German and Allied, managed to break the spirit of the opponent, and we were talking daily and nightly raids, hundreds of aircraft filled to the brim with high explosives and thousands upon thousands of victims!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I applaud your nobility of spirit and purpose. I must respond with my typical rejoinder--from Orwell--to pacifism. 'Pacifism is a luxury which a privileged many enjoy because a few brave men are willing to do violence in their behalf.' They WILL kill you if they get the chance. Killing empowers them. For a moment, they become God with the power of life and death.
You must be ready, and able to defend yourself, and those you love, and the lives of those you will save by holding the line and fighting back.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, absolutely.
Which is also why I am Army Reserve and have been for the last nine years.
It's true, I have never been active operationally and right now I am in a Ceremonial Guard unit, but in the event of a war, I will be on the front lines.
In fact, late last year we got called on a pre-mobilization alert when the Crimean Crisis flared up (Romania is a member of NATO, right next door to the Ukraine, and I have been there before to commemorate fallen Romanian soldiers on Ukrainean soil during WW2). Luckily, nothing happened and we were told to stand down mere hours afterwards.
When it comes to self defence though, while I am every inch a strong supporter of having a well trained military, the thing I really dislike is the US approach of just letting everyone own a gun. To quote Blackadder, one of my all time favourite shows, "That is the worst idea since Olaf the Hairy, high chief of all Vikings, ordered 80000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside"
Particularly if universal gun ownership happens without making firearms training mandatory- I think it's stupid and irresponsible, because more armed people, especially if they're not properly trained ones means less safety, not more.
I used to live in Colorado and almost got my head blown off by some idiot who was very nonchalantly drinking beer and shooting empty cans in his back yard and didn't look where he was pointing his shotgun. All he could provide as justification was "oops, didn't see you there" as the buckshot sailed by my ear...
Not to mention the old chestnut of how being armed is a "deterrent". That, unfortunately, is an outright lie. If somebody wants to do you harm and they suspect you might be armed, then what's stopping them from shooting you in the back from a safe distance?
Also, if someone wants your wallet and you whip out your gun, that ups up the ante considerably - they guy doesn't want to die anymore than you do, so whereas earlier he might have been willing to just give it up and run if you put up too much resistance, now he is literally fighting for his life, because he doesn't know wherever you won't try to shoot him as soon as his back is turned, so the chances increase that he will try to fight you and either you or him will end up dead.
Especially if he's already within arm's reach - there is nothing more moronic than trying to point a gun at somebody who can actually reach out and take it from your hand.
And shooting first is no option either, because, if you are alone, for example, how do you prove he was trying to assault you and not a random passer-by you just shot for your own obscure reasons?
In Romania, we have very strict gun control laws, and, because of that, very few firearm related crimes. Off the top of my head, I know of only three in the last five years, and one of that was a very jealous cop who learned that his hairdresser wife was cheating on him, so he went over to the salon, killed her then one of her co-workers who tried to intervene, and then shot himself.
By comparison, I can tell you I have never felt less safe than in the US in my entire life, not even in the Ukraine - when I was in San Diego there was a fatal shooting one block away from where I lived, and that was smack in the middle of town. I can understand why US cops are on edge permanently if they are afraid for their lives, so the likelihood of them shooting first "just to be on the safe side" increase astronomically. Especially if they are also not held accountable for their actions.
In a nutshell, a strong military is a good idea, any old idiot with acess to firearms is not. I can think right now of at least three people I would never want to see armed, and I'm sure you can as well.
So yeah, I think that reply kind of spiralled out of control, but that's just me - I take a given subject that I like talking about and run away with it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I understand your passion. I will save you a lot of passion if you understand that I am a member of the U.S. National Rifle Association and could not disagree with you more on the subject of firearms ownership and self defense. Let us not argue, but salute, and let this area not be a battlefield. I come here to see interesting thing and experience beauty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, I see.
I agree with you that it's no use in trying to convince each other.
Besides, I think our respective viewpoints on the topic of firearm ownership might be diametrically opposed, but they actually work in our respective cultures - if you already gave guns to the public it'd be madness to try to take them back now, just as it would be madness to give firearms to people who never had them.
Also, if you don't mind me asking - what side of the debate on mandatory firearm training are you on? I have US friends who are NRA members and are all for it and some who are strictly against. Just curious, although, personally, I would probably be able to tolerate wider gun ownership as long as people were trained.
One thing I think we can both agree on though - going to the range is a lot of fun, specially with powerful cartridges. My personal favourite is 7.62X54R.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think anyone who wants to use a typewriter, word processor, or camera needs to take a mandatory course on libel, slander, and media ethics, their grades and passing determined by the people currently in control of the government and their subjective, arbitrary standards. That way, the WRONG people will never be able to voice a dangerous opinion that might provoke violence!
I assume the irony is clear? I'm too poor these days to do too much shooting, alas. But I only shoot at paper targets.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh and you might think it irony, but, in Romania, before 1989, when we were in the grip of a Communist repressive regime imposed on us at gun point form Moscow, if you owned a typewriter, you were supposed to pass a government test as well as give a sample of writing, to make sure you wouldn't be able to type anti-government manifestos without being caught.
And that answers a lot of my questions, thank you - it's clear you don't like the government very much, and I tend to agree. It would be so much better if everyone just took responsibility for their own actions and we wouldn't have need for a government.
Unfortunately, if there is one common human trait, that is laziness, which is why a lot of people are happy to just let others take all the decisions for them... Really pisses me off, but there you have it. :/
Of course, when I was thinking of the firearm training, I was thinking a scheme where that is organised at a local level and you can attend it privately at your own convenience and the only time it would matter is if you were in a shooting incident, the police would ask you wherever you had the training and you'd flash them your NRA card, for example. It's how it works here, with ANDA (National Association of Firearm Owners) or ANCA (National Association of Firearm Collectors), which are both privately owned but you have to join if you want to own a gun.
That would certainly make this kind of thing less common, because that kind of shooting is dangerous and irresponsible: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVN3nq… .
Had the clerk been properly trained, it would have taken him four rounds for both robbers. Instead, he fired twelve and nearly shot his coworker in the process.
I wasn't thinking of the government organizing anything, because, if you allow me some crassness, the government (either mine or yours) is not able to organize a piss-up in a brewery and instead are only good for getting in people's way...
Also, it dawned on me why we think the things we do on the subject of firearm ownership - you think guns in private ownership can keep the government in check, because they'd be afraid of an armed uprising.
That is true, but also, I KNOW, having survived the 1989 Romanian Revolution, that it really doesn't matter if the people don't have access to guns, the government can still be brought down with relative ease, even an ultra repressive one like we used to have (think North Korea, because that's where Ceausescu got the idea from). The deciding factor is always the Army and who the army decides to side with.
Because, really, when it comes down to the wire, it's the training that makes the difference, which is also why I'm so adamant about it.
In '89 very few of the casualties were from "old regime loyalists" firing on the population at large, most of them came from giving people weapons they weren't trained to use so they ended up with a lot of "blue on blue" incidents. And I bet a lot of grudges also got settled and then blamed on "terrorists". Which is also why I think just giving people weapons is such a bad idea.
Yeah, ammunition sure is expensive - luckily I get the occasional trip to the range where the ammunition comes from the Army...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am grateful for your polite and rational tone, and your perspective is a very good one. I use the phrase 'Ceausescu Moment' all the time, and I enjoy repeats of that great occasion when they occur elsewhere. I would LIKE to believe that unarmed resistance could work--I know much of Ghandi, and what happened in Eastern Europe was incredibly wonderful. But Ghandi faced a humane empire, the Eastern Europeans faced a collapsing one.
I don't think it works well enough to accept disarmament in the name of safety, or a promise of it, which the Charlie Hebdo staff aren't alive to point out was false. My nation came to be through armed resistance to armed repression. What happened in Budapest in 1956, the Warsaw Ghetto, Tian-an-Menh square and a long, bloody list of other places keeps me firm in my belief that tyrants and rulers for life need to see teeth, instead of necks, when they consider repression. Just a criminals respond better to the unwavering muzzle of a firearm than to a victim's pleas.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, I agree with your view that unarmed resistance will not work on a someone determined and ruthless enough, just, as you put it, "the unwavering muzzle of a firearm", which is why, again, I chose to be the one holding that "unwavering muzzle".
In the end, I think our opinions don't differ that much after all, but my view is coloured by the fact I know just how important training is and how catastrophic lack thereof can be.
If you ask me, professional soldiers > conscript army > armed citizenry, because fighting isn't only about knowing how to use your gun, you have to organise and fight as a team as well, else the enemy is just going to pick you off one by one or use superior tactics to outmanoeuvre you, etc.
The American Revolution worked because the instruction level for both sides was somewhat similar, and, in fact, some of the Patriot militias were made out of outdoorsmen who had a lot more experience in both shooting and movement than the average Loyalist soldier, who was taught basic manoeuvres and rank shooting in the general direction of the enemy (that's muskets for you - definitely not my favourite firearm to shoot, and I have shot one before)
The Romanian 1989 revolution worked because of two things- we had universal conscription in place, of both genders (both my parents were reserve Second Lieutenants at the time), so most people involved had at least a smidgen of military training before they were handed guns, and the bulk Army pretty much sided with the Revolutionary side pretty early on, with only isolated contingents fighting for the other side. Even so, there was a lot of confusion and blue on blue incidents which accounted for the bulk of the casualties, so maybe a lot less people would have died if people just left the army to do the fighting instead.
Also, in this day and age, if you try to pit armed but untrained citizens against even "weekend warriors" like myself (Army Reserve/National Guard), let alone active duty soldiers, what you will get is a one sided massacre, so gun ownership as a deterrent for the government is pretty much a paper tiger as far as I'm concerned. It's better to just get the army in your corner from the get-go.
In the case of Charlie, it's debatable wherever arming the journalists would have prevented the massacre - most likely it would not have made a single shred of difference, because being suddenly attacked at point blank range by people armed with AK47s is a losing proposition even for the most hardened pro, let alone for casual shooters.
I know for sure CCW holders have stopped other people from going nuts with their guns, but there are still a lot of cases where that didn't happen.
In the end it all comes down to statistics to see wherever something works or not - I'm certainly not going to cite any figures, because, at this point, I assume both sides of the question are playing with loaded dice and those figures are unreliable, but I am going to pose several issues you can research for yourself if you like.
For example, see if the potential victims in mass shootings that have been stopped by CC and how that figure compares with the number of victims in cases where CC didn't stop the perpetrators, and that will give you just how effective CC is.
Another question would be how those shootings happened in the first place- would the shootings still have happened if a gun weren't readily available? Maybe it was opportunity which dictated how the crime was done and the lack thereof would have radically changed the end result.
A third question would be the number of fatalities due to negligence with a firearm, versus the number of lives saved. If more people have died because they or someone else around them did something stupid with a gun, then I think it would be high time some of those people got at least safety training, if not the guns taken from them.
But again, it's not my place to dictate any sort of opinion to you, because there isn't a single "truth" and I'm certainly not the sole holder of it, just different ways to do stuff, some better than others, but all just as imperfect.
Also, please allow me to thank you for this most enjoyable conversation.
It is indeed a pleasure to see such differing opinions exchanged as rational adults and not as is sadly the norm on the internet, by increasingly louder shouting followed by ad hominem attacks and improper references to our respective mothers...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've been busy and tired, forgive me, I hope, for my delay in responding.
I approve of a conscript army on some grounds--that the people, being citizens, have a stake in fighting hard and ending the war, since they are defending their homes and want to return home. Professional long-term soldiers tend to fight better than RECENT conscripts, we used a leavening of veterans to achieve excellence in our draftee armies. For now, we're managing with superb professionals--who leave the military sooner or later and return home. I don't think they should be disarmed once they take off their uniforms, and neither did the founders of our country.
I don't really agree with you that the British Regulars were at anything near the same level of training as the Colonials who fought them, at first. The British were MUCH BETTER trained. What the Colonials had was civilian ownership of arms which bought them time to recruit numbers and foreign aid, and the time to train up to where the Continentals could face the best of the British and defeat them in open battle. I'm so glad Romania wrested free--at least anyone wanting to be the next Tito had to worry about how many people could oppose his effort to make himself the next dictator. When the Castro brothers disarmed the Cuban people at the start of decades of merciless oppression, they responded to complaints with 'Arma para que?' Weapons for what? The response should have been, 'Su!' Guns in civilian hands are useful even in the event of a 'President for Life.'
You might find this document interesting, I certainly did:
tinyurl.com/oz9f97k
The shooter, who proclaimed himself a psychopath with grandiose plans for slaughter, went through a series of mental evaluations and never once got considered by anyone but his peers as a threat. What stopped him was the approach of the school's armed guard, prompting his last moment of the god-like power of life-and-death he sought--when he shot himself. Those inclined to murder are much less inclined when there is a chance that they might meet strong resistance. The SS suddenly ceased their forays into the Warsaw Ghetto when their informants told them of a shipment of pistols smuggled in. It's only fun when the other fellow gets hurt. I believe that terrorists and other potential murderers do not care to havey their fire returned. Accordingly, we must be ready always to pose the threat of rapid return fire. The Swiss keep their army weapons at home.
I'm all for familiarity with firearms, and training--very suspicious of people requiring it and keeping track of who has it. Laws restricting firearms and their use affect only the law abiding. Those are NOT the people to worry about. At the best, they leave the harmless defenseless and only inconvenience the murderous.
I hope I've been clear? I am trying sincerely to match your courteous and professional tone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
E grozav desenul. Cred ca este unul dintre cele mai faine desene cu Jeanne pe care l-am vazut pana acum.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Imi pare bine ca iti place.
Asta este exact nivelul de calitate pe care il vreau de la benzile mele desenate si e amuzant ca a trebuit sa astept sapte ani ca sa imi dezvolt tehnica...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Is this in "No Man's Land" or just on a random field?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, it used to be a random field, now it's No Man's Land, and after the whole bloody mess is over it'll turn back to being just a field...
To tell you the truth, I hadn't thought that far - I just wanted a nice contrasting background for my banner and the mist and earth just looked like a good combination.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
At least she is not trying to use a FM Chauchat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope, if she really has to use a machinegun she prefers the Madsen.
The Chauchat is good as a melee weapon, but not much use beyond that...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0