View Single Post
Old January 29, 2019, 01:45 PM   #43
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,231
We know walls provide almost zero effectiveness in this situation, since the majority of illegal aliens cross borders via aircraft/airports anyway, and walls without constant surveillance are easily defeated (climbed, tunneled under, or simply walked or boated around). If you have to provide surveillance anyway for a wall to be effective, why not just spend the money on better surveillance and interdiction?
I'm not suggesting its the right thing for US, but to say walls are ineffective seems foolish. And, in what countries do the majority of illegal aliens arrive via aircraft?? Great Britain? Cyprus? Australia? other islands?? And, while a wall must be manned (or robotically surveilled) to be its most effective, the simple fact it is a physical barrier that requires effort to get over, under, around, or through does have an effect.

If you think walls don't work (or are "not effective), go talk to any of the millions of people still living that were stopped by the Iron Curtain. During its existence, only a relative handful of people managed to get past it, and the "majority" of them didn't do via commercial air travel.

Back on topic, I don't really see what the point in discussing military handgun choice, other than as something to pass the time. The military cares nothing for our opinions, and are not overly concerned with either the handgun's combat effectiveness, or its personal defensive ability.

Since, at present, and for the near future, the military round is a FMJ 9mm Luger, it really makes little difference which 9mm pistol they choose. None of them can perform better than the ammo they shoot.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Page generated in 0.04033 seconds with 8 queries