On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 21:34:16 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Your local neighbourhood burglar? Sure, maybe.

Frequently, according to gun rights proponents.  And you do hear of it 
happening.

At the same time, people who think that putting more guns into a crowded 
cinema when some whackjob in full body armor decides to throw a tear gas 
grenade in and then starts shooting people is a good idea, they're 
deluding themselves.  (And that's what happened in Aurora, CO that 
sparked this most recent round of gun control talk in the US).

This guy seriously planned ahead, and he fully intended to survive the 
event (which in itself is somewhat rare).

Professional SWAT team members have said that *they* wouldn't start 
shooting at the perp in a circumstance like that - and they're trained 
extensively on dealing with situations like this.

Some cowboy with a Glock 9 or a Colt .45 isn't going to stop someone like 
that.  They're more likely to (a) make themselves into a target, and (b) 
end up shooting innocent bystanders who are panicing and trying to get 
the hell out.

Adding more guns to that situation would NOT have helped at all.  It 
would've turned it into even more of a bloodbath.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2012 14:26, 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.
>


Have you ever watched people taking a photo and trying to fit just a bit 
more into the frame? With plenty of room behind them, they'll still lean way 
back.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2012 10:57, Warp wrote:
> The idea has its merits. It's difficult for a totalitarian oppressive
> state to form if its citizens have the firepower to resist.

It has also been pointed out that Japan (supposedly) avoided invading 
continental USA during WW2 because everyone and their uncle had a hand gun.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2012 13:34, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> YOU ARE OUT-GUNNED.

Until you shoot the guy driving the tank and take his tank.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:38:26 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 8/8/2012 13:34, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> YOU ARE OUT-GUNNED.
> 
> Until you shoot the guy driving the tank and take his tank.

Unless he gets out of the tank, that requires some pretty serious 
firepower or a lot of luck.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2012 9:10 AM, Warp wrote:
> 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.
>
Same is actually true of one state in the US. The rest of the country 
must have stupid drugs, and weekly injections of violence vitamins, or 
something. Even the old canard of, "Its movies and TV", is BS. So.. 
like.. any day now, all of Europe, who also watch American movies, are 
going to grab a gun and turn nuts too? No? Well, then something else has 
to be doing it...

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2012 10:57 AM, 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.
>
Right up to the point where standing armies exist, and that whether or 
not that totalitarian oppressive state is supported by, or apposed by, 
the armies. Then.. Things get a bit problematic for the armed citizens.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2012 3:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:59:48 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> NRA - But, people have been known to kill other people with paper clips.
>> If you have a paper clip, I should have the right to defend myself with
>> a bigger paper clip, and if I can have that, why not a knife, or a gun,
>> since, if I get a knife, so will you, so I obviously need a gun!
>
> "When you can kill 20 people and wound 30 others with a paperclip in
> under 30 seconds, then we might have something to talk about."
>
> Jim
>
Yeah, seen that argument too. Its usually from someone that likes to 
invent scenarios. My fav had to be the, "Well, if a guy with a gun, but 
not necessarily drawn, comes into my yard, I am going to be there with a 
gun, to defend my property." Somehow these things get ignored in that 
scenario:

1. Is this person lost, or otherwise not there intentionally?

2. If you draw a gun on them, isn't their logical reaction, especially 
if #1 is the case, to also draw, to defend themselves?

3. You seriously think using lethal force is necessary to protect 
"property"?

4. How do you know you won't panic and miss?

5. I repeat, why the hell escalate things?

6. Oh, and, again, WTF is wrong with you, that you think lethal force is 
needed to protect "property"?

These people's skulls seem to be, however, impervious to logic.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/08/2012 04:26 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> These people's skulls seem to be, however, impervious to logic.

I've noticed that a lot...

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.08.2012 01:37, schrieb Darren New:
> On 8/8/2012 10:57, Warp wrote:
>> The idea has its merits. It's difficult for a totalitarian oppressive
>> state to form if its citizens have the firepower to resist.
>
> It has also been pointed out that Japan (supposedly) avoided invading
> continental USA during WW2 because everyone and their uncle had a hand gun.

It's much more likely that they avoided invading continental USA because 
they just couldn't fuckin' reach it. Not with any force worth noting at 
least.

Post a reply to this message