Am 07.08.2012 22:43, schrieb Stephen:
> On 07/08/2012 9:15 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Another Pro-tip: Don't leave any loaded & armed gun where your toddler
>> can grab it.
>
> Why? ;-)

Well, the guy at 00:20 could tell you... if he could.

Post a reply to this message

Am 07.08.2012 23:26, schrieb Warp:
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Pro-tip: Don't lean backwards while firing a gun.
>
> Why do so many people lean back when firing? They are *begging* to lose
> their balance and hurt themselves.

Because they chose a gun that is too heavy for them to hold otherwise?

Post a reply to this message

> On 07/08/2012 09:15 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Another Pro-tip: Don't leave any loaded & armed gun where your toddler
>> can grab it.
>
> FUCK YES! o_O
>
> Who the HELL would do that??

Too many people, unfortunately.

some Americans are (rightly or wrongly) so scared of burglars that they 
leave a loaded weapon in their night table.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Am 07.08.2012 23:30, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> ... and they're apparently pretty good at it:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uqD8Ja6IZ0
>
> Some more pro tips:
>
> "There are two types of gun owners. Those who have had their guns
> discharge accidentally, and those who will have their guns discharge
> accidentally."
>
> "Treat a gun as if it's always loaded, especially when it's not."
>
> There are probably thousands and thousand of cases of people shooting
> themselves or others accidentally, sometimes fatally, believing that
> a gun is not loaded (or that the safety is on, or whatever).

Relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IouUsPsUg4Y

Post a reply to this message

On 07/08/2012 10:26 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Pro-tip: Don't lean backwards while firing a gun.
>
> Why do so many people lean back when firing? They are *begging* to lose
> their balance and hurt themselves.

"Apprehension" is the only thing I can think of...

When you're nervous about something, you unconsciously do all sorts of 
odd things with your body.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Regulation - Less guns tend to produce less deaths, including in the 
> homes of the people that own them, and some guns are just bloody stupid 
> to have at all.

It depends a lot on the country. For example in Finland there is a
relatively high amount of legally owned firearms per capita, yet Finland
has a pretty low rate of firearm-related crime and accidents, when compared
to all other countries.

The United States is completely in its own league with this. It's probably
a cultural/upbringing thing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:10:31 -0400, Warp wrote:

> The United States is completely in its own league with this. It's
> probably a cultural/upbringing thing.

It's entirely cultural.  When the US was nothing more than the British 
colonies, King George III attempted to disarm the populace in order to 
prevent an uprising.

The colonists felt they had the right to defend themselves, and did so - 
and based on the experience of the revolutionary war, decided that it 
should be one of the fundamental rights of citizenship so the government 
couldn't take other rights away at a whim.  The purpose was to provide 
for defense (indeed, that's part of the 2nd amendment to the constitution 
- "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free 
State [...]"

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> The colonists felt they had the right to defend themselves, and did so - 
> and based on the experience of the revolutionary war, decided that it 
> should be one of the fundamental rights of citizenship so the government 
> couldn't take other rights away at a whim.  The purpose was to provide 
> for defense (indeed, that's part of the 2nd amendment to the constitution 
> - "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free 
> State [...]"

The idea has its merits. It's difficult for a totalitarian oppressive
state to form if its citizens have the firepower to resist.

OTOH, such gun-craziness probably has more negative effects than the
hypothetical positive...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/08/2012 06:57 PM, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:
>> The colonists felt they had the right to defend themselves, and did so -
>> and based on the experience of the revolutionary war, decided that it
>> should be one of the fundamental rights of citizenship so the government
>> couldn't take other rights away at a whim.  The purpose was to provide
>> for defense (indeed, that's part of the 2nd amendment to the constitution
>> - "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
>> State [...]"
>
> The idea has its merits. It's difficult for a totalitarian oppressive
> state to form if its citizens have the firepower to resist.
>
> OTOH, such gun-craziness probably has more negative effects than the
> hypothetical positive...

I think the idea is antiquated.

Once upon a time, the world's finest armies fought using hand guns and 
rifles. So if ordinary citizens could own these, they would be as 
well-armed as the government forces.

Fast-forward several centuries, and the government now has tanks, aerial 
bombers, guided missiles, chemical weapons for area denial, and not 
forgetting FREAKING THERMONUCLEAR WARHEADS! :-P Exactly what good is 
having a revolver, or even a warehouse full of AK-47s? Guns don't work 
on armoured tanks. Some general sitting in a concrete underground bunker 
can watch you in real-time on his spy satellite, and at the flick of a 
button he can send in supersonic missiles to blow your entire weapons 
cache to oblivion before you fire a single shot. YOU ARE OUT-GUNNED.

More to the point, a technological super-power like the USA doesn't even 
/need/ guns. If they want to subdue the populous, they could easily slip 
something into the water and drug everybody into submission. And no 
amount of guns are going to stop them.

Really, anybody who thinks sleeping with a gun is going to stop one of 
the most powerful military nations on God's Earth is delusional. Your 
local neighbourhood burglar? Sure, maybe. The US government? Not gonna 
happen. So y'all better hope the government /doesn't/ suddenly just flip 
out. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:57:13 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> The colonists felt they had the right to defend themselves, and did so
>> - and based on the experience of the revolutionary war, decided that it
>> should be one of the fundamental rights of citizenship so the
>> government couldn't take other rights away at a whim.  The purpose was
>> to provide for defense (indeed, that's part of the 2nd amendment to the
>> constitution - "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the
>> security of a free State [...]"
> 
> The idea has its merits. It's difficult for a totalitarian oppressive
> state to form if its citizens have the firepower to resist.

Yep.

> OTOH, such gun-craziness probably has more negative effects than the
> hypothetical positive...

I agree.  Especially since the amount of firepower has changed a lot 
since the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791 (IIRC).

I don't think there was a weapon available in 1791 that could fire 35 
rounds a second.  That's pretty commonplace now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message