User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 107

  1. #51
    Sweet Ocean Cloud SD45T-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sp
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    They are when your groups look like this at 30 feet with .357 coming out of your 6" ruger gp-100.



    I doubt that the target was running, shooting back, or took you by surprise. Good shot placement though.

    There are a few ways that getting shot can kill/incapacitate a person. 1: a person gets shot, the wound gets infected, and the person dies. That takes awhile.

    2: blood loss causes the person to loose consciousness. This usually takes awhile.

    3: the round causes skeletal damage that makes the person unable to run/fight. Some examples would be breaking a leg, hip, or arm.

    4: the round takes out the brain.

    5: the round damages the heart/lungs. This does not necessarily stop the person instantly. Even if the heart is stopped the person may still have enough oxygen to keep going for 15 or 20 seconds, which may be more than enough time for them to shoot/stab/hit you.
    1w2-6w5-3w2 so/sp

    "I took one those personality tests. It came back negative." - Dan Mintz

  2. #52
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SD45T-2 View Post
    I doubt that the target was running, shooting back, or took you by surprise. Good shot placement though.

    There are a few ways that getting shot can kill/incapacitate a person. 1: a person gets shot, the wound gets infected, and the person dies. That takes awhile.

    2: blood loss causes the person to loose consciousness. This usually takes awhile.

    3: the round causes skeletal damage that makes the person unable to run/fight. Some examples would be breaking a leg, hip, or arm.

    4: the round takes out the brain.

    5: the round damages the heart/lungs. This does not necessarily stop the person instantly. Even if the heart is stopped the person may still have enough oxygen to keep going for 15 or 20 seconds, which may be more than enough time for them to shoot/stab/hit you.
    If I've done my job right, they won't be behind me and people don't serpentine when they run, so I think I'd still manage.

    Even better if they're not armed and I'm not, and I get to use a little Muay Thai.

  3. #53
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mia. View Post
    I agree with the constitution.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    So, everyone who owns firearms must serve in the militia? That would be one way to manage gun training and licensing, as well as to ensure an adequate body of people able to respond capably to crises.

    Quote Originally Posted by xisnotx View Post
    The constitution is an old relic that should be taken with a grain of salt. I wouldn't be expected to follow the code of Hammurabi either. I'm growing increasingly weary of people who hide behind a document that is 200 years old as if it was the end all and be all of human civilization. Society changes, and with it, the laws that govern it must adapt as well.
    The last amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1992. This makes the Constitution a living, evolving document, however imperfect it remains. (Even things > 200 years old can meet present needs, if people have maintained them over the years.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrinth View Post
    That's simply not the case, obviously. Some people object to the "unfair advantage" one has when wielding a gun against an unarmed opponent, but that advantage applies to all weapons.

    *Shrug* I simply don't know what people are hoping to solve by getting rid of guns. The use of guns are a symptom, not a cause. Humans are fragile creatures, banning guns simply means that people will kill each other with different means.
    The highlighted is certainly true, and echoes the old slogan, "guns don't kill people; people kill people". That being said, guns have a significant advantage over other weapons in acting over appreciable distances from the target, and with far more power than a manually propelled missile weapon. The main exception is bow/arrow, but I'm not sure these have featured much in urban violence since the days of Robin Hood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    I think it's important to keep in mind that restrictive laws work mostly against ''peaceful'' people, as criminals won't hand over their guns because of that. So in a way, it is a very unfair situation.
    This is an important reality. If we really could eliminate all firearms tomorrow, I might consider it, but things don't work that way. Making guns illegal won't keep them from criminals, since by definition, criminals do not obey the law. A society in which only criminals have guns is not preferable to one in which they are more generally distributed among the population.

    And then there is this:
    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    If things keep going the way they have, I don't want to be one of the last first world populace's that gives up it's ability to physically overthrow it's government.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  4. #54
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SD45T-2 View Post
    Your criteria are perplexing.
    Probably because guns are not a strong area of interest to me, and the lines I drew were more somewhat based on some measure of what felt reasonable sense, but not extensive research (and the mentioning of semiautomatic weapons at all was, in fact, a mistake) and as I noted it's a very low political priority for me anyways. The point is we all agree Gatling guns and RPGs are not safe nor logical to sell to the general public, and all agree that selling, say, hunting knives is probably fine. It's basically a debate between where that "reasonable line" is (or, pinpointing at what point are more lives lost than saved, or more harm done than good).

    I'm basically saying I don't think, except in extreme cases, it's as simplistic as this "Pro-Gun" and "Anti-Gun" stuff a lot of people talk about. It is a much fuzzier sort of individual level of comfort discussion.

    That said, I do feel a lot of the scenarios in which guns are/will be used to save themselves or others are fairly rare (in any case, I rarely hear such stories from news outlets, and have never met anyone who has done it, nor has anyone I know ever told me THEY know someone who has done it) and something of a fantasy (I myself have had daydreams of heroics), though I understand the "I'd rather have it than not" mentality. And even with multiple assailants, I seriously doubt anything much heavier than a semiautomatic pistol is really going to be necessary or even practical. In fact, perhaps the most famous (and perhaps controversial) case in history of someone defending themselves from multiple attackers is Bernie Goetz, and he didn't even use a semiautomatic weapon, just a revolver, and took down all four potential assailants.
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

  5. #55
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    The highlighted is certainly true, and echoes the old slogan, "guns don't kill people; people kill people". That being said, guns have a significant advantage over other weapons in acting over appreciable distances from the target, and with far more power than a manually propelled missile weapon. The main exception is bow/arrow, but I'm not sure these have featured much in urban violence since the days of Robin Hood.
    Even a bow and arrow requires considerably more skill and effort to kill someone, much less multiple people, than a gun. While maintaining a moderate position on the issue, and strictly addressing the fact that guns strongly increase the capacity for successful murder or violence compared to less advanced weapons and no other aspect of this debate, one has to admit it's much easier to potentially survive or escape an attacker with a knife, and guns are an extremely good facilitator for whatever homicidal or criminal urges an otherwise incapable or non-threatening person may have. It would be silly to pretend anything else. Even children or partially paralyzed people could kill someone with a gun fairly easily.

    EDIT: I also don't quite get the "we need to be able to fight back against the government" bit. If the government became openly violent towards people and basically switched things up and made this a dictatorship (which seems so wildly improbable on the face of it), why do you assume the men and women of the army would just go along? If the government truly stopped caring about the well-being of it's people, what's to stop them using drone strikes on particularly hostile areas, making your guns utterly useless? It doesn't seem like a very realistic scenario to me on so many different levels. Can anyone tell me exactly the idea there?
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

  6. #56
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPowers View Post
    Even a bow and arrow requires considerably more skill and effort to kill someone, much less multiple people, than a gun. While maintaining a moderate position on the issue, and strictly addressing the fact that guns strongly increase the capacity for successful murder or violence compared to less advanced weapons and no other aspect of this debate, one has to admit it's much easier to potentially survive or escape an attacker with a knife, and guns are an extremely good facilitator for whatever homicidal or criminal urges an otherwise incapable or non-threatening person may have. It would be silly to pretend anything else. Even children or partially paralyzed people could kill someone with a gun fairly easily.
    I was almost robbed once, in a really bad part of town parked at a Hess station, I had 2 of my guns in the car (I had been to the range), and they tried to block me in, but I started the car and got around them, because I saw that I still had time to escape.

  7. #57
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPowers View Post
    Even a bow and arrow requires considerably more skill and effort to kill someone, much less multiple people, than a gun. While maintaining a moderate position on the issue, and strictly addressing the fact that guns strongly increase the capacity for successful murder or violence compared to less advanced weapons and no other aspect of this debate, one has to admit it's much easier to potentially survive or escape an attacker with a knife, and guns are an extremely good facilitator for whatever homicidal or criminal urges an otherwise incapable or non-threatening person may have. It would be silly to pretend anything else. Even children or partially paralyzed people could kill someone with a gun fairly easily.

    EDIT: I also don't quite get the "we need to be able to fight back against the government" bit. If the government became openly violent towards people and basically switched things up and made this a dictatorship (which seems so wildly improbable on the face of it), why do you assume the men and women of the army would just go along? If the government truly stopped caring about the well-being of it's people, what's to stop them using drone strikes on particularly hostile areas, making your guns utterly useless? It doesn't seem like a very realistic scenario to me on so many different levels. Can anyone tell me exactly the idea there?
    The government has hard men. Men without families back home. Men who don't care. Men who will do what they're told and not ask questions.

    That isn't every soldier, but I bet there are maybe more than a few out there like that.

    Guerrilla warfare is very effective.

    Not to mention the fact that the world would intervene before they would let them kill us all.

  8. #58
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You clearly have no idea how successful guerrilla warfare is.
    I understand that guerrilla warfare against a superior power, though generally resulting in higher casualties, is effective and can keep conflicts going a very long time and even lead to victory. But I also believe A) the chance of this happening at all is incredibly slim B) if it does I don't see any compelling reason why military and police would go along with it (if they did, I would assume whatever is occurring is politically popular enough that we're looking at a fair percent of the general population charing that stance, and basically a civil war), and believing they would do so blindly is practically an insult to them C) A non-democratic, openly hostile government is not restricted by the moral restrictions a democratic government would be in warfare. That would make the US military forces even deadlier than they are at present, and I would assume the vast majority of people, even many gun-owning people, would give up very quickly on opposing whatever new regime this is. A minority group keeping the fight going for a long time in that scenario is not only possible, but likely. Of course, most effective guerrilla campaigns have largely relied on the superior power eventually tiring of the conflict and giving up as the key to victory, which will not happen with a non-democratic government inside its own boarders.
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

  9. #59
    Sweet Ocean Cloud SD45T-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sp
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I was almost robbed once, in a really bad part of town parked at a Hess station, I had 2 of my guns in the car (I had been to the range), and they tried to block me in, but I started the car and got around them, because I saw that I still had time to escape.
    It's like the late Jeff Cooper said; what's between your ears is more important than what type of gun you have in your hands.
    1w2-6w5-3w2 so/sp

    "I took one those personality tests. It came back negative." - Dan Mintz

  10. #60
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPowers View Post
    Even a bow and arrow requires considerably more skill and effort to kill someone, much less multiple people, than a gun. While maintaining a moderate position on the issue, and strictly addressing the fact that guns strongly increase the capacity for successful murder or violence compared to less advanced weapons and no other aspect of this debate, one has to admit it's much easier to potentially survive or escape an attacker with a knife, and guns are an extremely good facilitator for whatever homicidal or criminal urges an otherwise incapable or non-threatening person may have. It would be silly to pretend anything else. Even children or partially paralyzed people could kill someone with a gun fairly easily.
    I agree with the distinction between modern firearms and bow/arrow. I am am simply making another distinction between weapons that operate at a distance, and those that require one to be within a few feet of one's opponent (missile vs. melee weapons, in RPG parlance).

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPowers View Post
    EDIT: I also don't quite get the "we need to be able to fight back against the government" bit. If the government became openly violent towards people and basically switched things up and made this a dictatorship (which seems so wildly improbable on the face of it), why do you assume the men and women of the army would just go along? If the government truly stopped caring about the well-being of it's people, what's to stop them using drone strikes on particularly hostile areas, making your guns utterly useless? It doesn't seem like a very realistic scenario to me on so many different levels. Can anyone tell me exactly the idea there?
    I am not making any assumptions on this question, nor even taking a position, simply agreeing with the member (Disco?) who initially raised it as a consideration. The American colonists found it quite handy to have firearms when the revolution began, and I don't remember reading about significant defections to the "rebels" on the part of the British military.

    When I was in the military, I found my active duty colleagues (and even many of the civilians) to be much more supportive of government policies than other folks. They often came across as apologists for misguided or heavy-handed policies, and were much more likely to ridicule rather than sympathize with opposition activities like OWC, etc. There is probably a threshold of government violence against peaceable civilians beyond which most of them would object, too, but with the technology available today, substantial inroads on rights and freedoms can be made without resorting to such blatant heavy-handedness.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Similar Threads

  1. [Other] Firearm - Lord of War
    By Maha Raj in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 04:35 AM
  2. Title of this sector.
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-04-2007, 05:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO