Special Ops Paintball: Suicidal Lemming - Viewing Profile - Special Ops Paintball

Jump to content

Suicidal Lemming's Profile User Rating: **---

Reputation: 0 Neutral
Active Posts:
1,230 (0.4 per day)
Most Active In:
The Lounge (970 posts)
26-July 06
Profile Views:
Last Active:
User is offline Apr 28 2012 03:28 PM

My Information

Member Title:
Yes, that is a lemming with an AK in my avatar, 2 points to you.
24 years old
May 18, 1990
Male Male
Bournemouth, UK

Contact Information

Click here to e-mail me
Website URL:
Website URL  http://

Previous Fields

Brigade Name:
Phoenixblade UK

Latest Visitors

Posts I've Made

  1. In Topic: Top Gear

    25 January 2009 - 09:34 PM

    I can't get enough of Top Gear, it's the by far the best thing on the TV, and I'm pleasantly surprised to find that it's successful in the US as wel :D

    I think this clip sums up just how awesome this show really is - http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=NbVkcQhyceo
  2. In Topic: obama

    02 November 2008 - 04:58 PM

    View PostTeufel_Hunden, on Nov 2 2008, 04:07 PM, said:

    View PostDeus Ex Machina, on Oct 30 2008, 09:27 AM, said:

    I like Obama. I t

    I want to give my top ten reasons why.

    1. He wants to create small business tax credits to help them provide health insurance for their employees.

    and the taxpayer foots the bill on this one

    2. He wants to give non-violent, first time offenders with drugs the ability to serve their sentence in rehabilitation, not prison.

    only reason is because he was a coke user.

    3. He wants to end the Iraq War by 2010 through a phased withdrawal.

    meanwhile cutting military spending. and just like the past, some military members will not be allowed to re-enlist because of downsizing.

    4. He wants to provide a "Making Work Pay" tax credit, which could eliminate income tax for millions of Americans.

    sounds good but where are we going to get money for his billions being sent overseas?

    5. He wants to work to rewrite NAFTA.

    cant answer this one, dont know what he wants

    6. He wants to focus on giving youth the ability to work with the energy sector.

    what does this mean? kids working with electricity? explain please.

    7. He wants to improve the education system by supporting systems like GEAR and TRIO.

    again, taxpayers dollars at work

    8. He wants to create a central database for lobbying and funding in Washington, and create a "Google for Government".

    and it will show how the public is being raped on their taxes.

    9. He wants to provide $2 billion to global education, to prevent extremist schools from being the only option for children, and win the battle of ideas.

    and yet again. who is he going to be getting all this money from? and do you think a terrorist is going to "talk" about anything? countries in the middle east are somewhat unreasonable. there backstabbers to anyone thats an infidel. he wants us to be like france.

    10. He wants to restore America on the world stage through diplomacy, not invasion.


    The excuse "but it's taxpayer's money that will be spent" is not really a valid reason. The reason that people pay taxes is so that the country's vital systems can be funded.

    Everyone has a right to education and healthcare, so if he's going to spend taxpayer's money on improving education and healthcare in America, then good. That's where your money should be going. Improving the latter is especially important, considering how low America's healthcare system is ranked compared to the rest of the world.

    As for cutting military spending, that's actually a good thing. There is no cold war anymore, and absolutely no justification for the current level of spending. By cutting down the size of the military and the reducing your spending, said money can be spent on more pressing matters, such as improving the healthcare system.

    There are valid reasons for disliking Obama, but the fact that he will put taxpayer's money to good use is obviously not one of them.
  3. In Topic: Crazy Tree Huggers

    01 October 2008 - 12:38 PM

    HAR DE HAR HAR!, that cracked me up. Those people are insane.
  4. In Topic: BMW 3-Series vs. Audi S5

    01 October 2008 - 12:18 PM

    My dad has a BMW 3 series, and I can tell you, it's an awesome car.
    Get it, you won't be disappointed.
  5. In Topic: Firearms on college campus

    01 October 2008 - 12:06 PM

    View PostAshrak, on Sep 22 2008, 11:42 PM, said:

    View PostSuicidal Lemming, on Sep 22 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

    Not been here for a bit, my thoughts quickly -
    All US campus' should have armed guards on duty, whether it be a handful or a considerable number. It would be very reasonable to suggest that the policing of the campus should be left to them, as opposed to letting students carrying their own guns. This is because they are professionally trained to do what they do - it's their job. They have been taught what to do and what not to do in the event of a shoot-out, they are mentally and physically prepared for it. It's their job, their livelihood, and they WILL know what they're doing.

    Police Departmens across the country are struggling to recruit, train, and retain fit and able bodied men and women. Policing does not pay enough to make people a decent living, so the high class recruits go elsewhere. You're left with the really motivated people, who are the vast majority, and the second class and third class recruits. These lower tiers are often less in shape, work another job to make up for low salary, and may even have trouble passing a drug and background check. The same issues would hold true for any Campus Police Department. Where would the money come to pay for such a force? You would need to pay their salaries, benefits, training, weapons, ammunition, tactical gear, etc. for these Campus PDs to be truly trained and ready for a another Virginia Tech. As I said, where does the money come from? The government? The college?

    Students, or any civilians for that matter, do not necessarily know what they're doing. In fact, most carrying civilians are not half as prepared as they think they are. They are far more likely to cause further casualties either by poor aiming, incorrect identification of who's a threat and who isn't and so on. Let somebody who's ACTUALLY trained do the protecting; simply having the right to carry doesn't mean you SHOULD be carrying.

    Not true. As has been pointed out, people who carry concealed weapons go through extensive training and background checks before being granted that privilege. Most likely, they have trained extensively in shooting themselves before even applying. I have been looking into shooting courses lately, and have been amazed at the level of training a citizen can undergo. One local place has a SWAT instructor run a live fire course with MP5s. Also, police marksmanship is not the best simply because they are police. My dad, who is a police officer, has told me that police nationally miss their target 20% of the time at close range shootings. I believe this figure is correct though it has been some time since we discussed it, so don't quote me on that. By the way, close range shootings is 20-30 ft. So a civilian may actually be more qualified and more accurate than a police officer. Quite frankly, I want whoever is more accurate, not who has a badge.

    There's also the fact that, by letting civilians carry, it means that guards, the police and other gun-wielding civilians are going to find it far more difficult to know who's on a rampage and who isn't. Think about this - a police officer bursts into a room, and sees two people having a gunfight. Both are carrying pistols, both are in civilian clothes, and both are opening fire. There are innocents in the room, in danger of being shot, and there's considerable danger of the officer being taken down eventually as well. What does he do? He's trained to react in a split second, make split second decisions without hesitation, and he's also trained to aim to kill. So, he does what any good officer would do - he takes them both down before there are further casualties. The gun-wielding civilian may be trying to do the right thing, protecting friends and innocents etc., but he only has himself to blame.

    "Gunfights" don't last very long. This isn't 24, where gunbattles last forever, especially in the setting of a college. Factor in police response time, and the shooting is over long before they arrive. Also, a police officer would most likely not head into a situation like that without backup. One officer takes one target, the other officer takes the secondary target. Something else to consider -homicidal nuts typically wear full camo, and a face mask. At least that is the established track record. So picking a hostile out of a crowd is easier than you make it sound.

    There isn't really a counter-argument for it either; allowing people to carry on campus simply complicates things if their are armed guards in the vicinity who's job it is to protect. The length of the gunfight, whetehr it's over a minute or under 30 seconds is irrelevent - the damage can easily be done in that time. If there aren't armed guards on your campus and there isn't a police station very close nearby, then by all means carry - but in an ideal world, American campuses would have their own small armed force to protect, and civilians should not get in the way.

    Why should citizens always rely on "someone else"? What if the "someone else" gets stuck in traffic, has a flat tire, hits another car while racing to the scene, or is one of the secondary or third level tiers of recruitment? I want to depend on myself, not some other entity that may or may not arrive in time to prevent my untimely demise. And I would prefer to not be constantly guarded by a paramilitary force wherever I go. That seems rather fascist to me.

    1. If salaries are not high enough, then that is what needs to be addressed. Rather than gloss over it, you need a large advertising campaign, a decent pension/dental/healthcare scheme and higher salaries. The US government already spends more than it needs to on the military; you can use some of that budget to fund forces such as I propose. The taxpayer should have some responsibility obviously, and so should the university. I'm not saying it would be easy, and until a force is set up by all means carry; but it IS possible, it IS ideal and it IS a better alternative to letting civilians carry.

    2. If they have been given training, then fair enough - but if they've only been self-taught as some people here are claiming, then carrying still has the possibility to be more of a hinderance than help.
    Even so, even if they HAVE been given a decent amount of training, they still lack uniforms or any other way of seperating them out from who's doing the killing and who's trying to help. That can still be a problem.

    It also doesn't change the fact that they won't be half as well-trained as a proffessional guard, and considering it isn't their occupation, they won't be regularly training with their gun and with drills. They will let their skills slip, and unless there are gun control laws testing them and checking up on their abilities regularly, they are likely to let their abilities slide.

    Accuracy is one thing, but you're forgetting many other factors, such as the ability to cope under pressure and be accurate under pressure, the ability to defuse situations, the ability to determine what is and what isn't a threat (and police may also have bullet-proof vests; I'm not sure how common they are for US police officers though).

    We shouldn't have whoever is the most accurate in the shooting range, we should have whoever is the most effective under pressure and in a gunfight. All these people who practice in shooting ranges regularly would not necessarily make good police officers or soldiers, and in most cases they won't be able to handle the pressure of a real gun battle half as well. You need to be trained for that sort of thing, and I want whoever has the training.

    3. It still doesn't rule out the fact that if you let people carry, there will be several armed civilians on site. Considering that they aren't trained for gunfights - accuracy training, perhaps, but no training for being in combat and under pressure - they're more likely to shoot whoever has the gun. You could quite easily wind up with numerous civilians starting up their own individual gunfights with eachother as they mistake eachother for being on the rampage, leading to higher casualty rates. This wouldn't happen if you had a trained force permanently on site and on patrol.

    And they don't necessarily have face masks etc., and in hundreds of cases they do not. There is still going to be a higher casualty rate on average than if you simply had a trained force on campus.

    4. Because citizens cannot perform the same task as well as someone who is proffessionally trained to do so, and that is a fact.
    We've established that you shouldn't rely simply on police the whole time, but this is a campus we're talking about. It's a relatively small area with well-defined boundaries. If you had a trained force on campus, you wouldn't have to worry about someone ebing tuck in traffic, they'd be right there.

    It doesn't matter if you want to depend on yourself - if someone else can do it better with a lower risk to themselves and others, you're going to have to let them.
    And I can see why you wouldn't want to be guarded like that, but you may just have to be - it doesn't have to be this way in every country, but it seems to be the right choice in the US. You're 6 times more likely to be killed in the US than in my country, and the figure keeps rising. You're having more and more shoot outs, and more and more are occurring on campus. Besides, this is only a security force for campuses, it won't be wherever you are. We already have armed guards in banks, offices, even shops, and considering that university and school campuses are seeing more and more horrific shootouts, with or without civilians carrying on site, it's time for a change. An armed security force is the best way to go, really.



Page 1 of 1
  1. Photo


    16 Jul 2008 - 15:55
    Yes, that is a lemming with an AK in my avatar, 2 points to you.
    Ak47 or AK74?
  2. Photo


    05 Jul 2008 - 09:27
    I have confirmed your sources and they do seem to be correct, but the point is making something illegal is not going to decrease the amount of crimes commited with them.
  3. Photo


    03 Jun 2008 - 11:41
    Anti-Jihadists need to stick together. ^_^
  4. Photo

    Suicidal Lemming 

    23 May 2007 - 05:17
    Cheers :)
  5. Photo

    *Prisoner of Paintball* 

    18 May 2007 - 21:09
    HAPPY B-day
    just thought I would say that.
Page 1 of 1