... and they're apparently pretty good at it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uqD8Ja6IZ0

Post a reply to this message

On 07/08/2012 06:38 PM, clipka wrote:
> ... and they're apparently pretty good at it:

Pro-tip: Don't lean backwards while firing a gun.

Jesus, I've never even *touched* a gun and I figured that out...

Post a reply to this message

Am 07.08.2012 21:15, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On 07/08/2012 06:38 PM, clipka wrote:
>> ... and they're apparently pretty good at it:
>
> Pro-tip: Don't lean backwards while firing a gun.
>
> Jesus, I've never even *touched* a gun and I figured that out...

Yeah.

Another Pro-tip: Don't leave any loaded & armed gun where your toddler 
can grab it.

Post a reply to this message

On 07/08/2012 09:15 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 07.08.2012 21:15, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>> On 07/08/2012 06:38 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> ... and they're apparently pretty good at it:
>>
>> Pro-tip: Don't lean backwards while firing a gun.
>>
>> Jesus, I've never even *touched* a gun and I figured that out...
>
> Yeah.

Also, hold on to the gun firmly while firing it, and for a rifle, make 
sure it's pressed hard into your shoulder /before/ firing. Sheesh, it's 
not rocket science... it's ballistics! :-D

> 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??

Post a reply to this message

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? ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:26:43 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Why do so many people lean back when firing?

Inexperience.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2012 2:30 PM, Warp wrote:
> 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).
>
And, most of them are the same people that imagine that they will be 
able to get to it, load the ammo, and remember to turn off the safety, 
in the short frame of time it takes someone breaking in to their house, 
or the like, to point and fire their *already loaded, safety off, and 
pointed* gun at them.

Having a long discussion on this on a blog today. It has, as usual, 
degenerated into two arguments, one from each side:

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.

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!

One of them even argued that, without guns, the US would somehow fall 
into 3rd world country territory, and gangs of youths might rampage 
around with machetes (you know the ones given to them by the African 
military, or government...), raiding people's homes, and killing them.

Yeah, well. If we go third world, its going to be due to gun nuts + 
right wingers + 1%ters, or the sort that support the first two, because 
the first thing to go with be the economy, then semi-effective law 
enforcement, and.. oddly, I don't imagine the common citizens being in a 
position to buy a lot of guns, to defend themselves against roving bands 
of government funded teenagers, without money, jobs, or an economy. But, 
when does logic have jack shit to do with the sort of idiots that pass 
laws like we have in Arizona:

1. You must, to buy from a trade show, have ID, no criminal record, etc.
2. As soon as you leave the show, you can change your mind, and give 
away all the weapons you bought to anyone you like, on the street.

The only thing more bloody stupid, imho, is the few states that don't 
even bother with some limited form of #1, or where some other loophole 
is available, which lets people get one easily, without knowing who the 
fuck they are, or how likely they are to use the things.

Apparently, their waiting for a "bigger" body count. See, a few dozen 
people isn't big enough. Someone has to show up, alone, and kill 
thousands, without being stopped, and even then they have to do with 
without a) someone else with a gun intervening, and b) with most of the 
dead people armed. If they are stopped, after only a few hundred people, 
but someone else with a gun, then QED the problem wasn't that 100 people 
died, but that two of those people where not armed.

:head-desk:

Post a reply to this message

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

Post a reply to this message

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

Le 2012-08-07 16:29, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> 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

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

On 10/08/2012 01:19 PM, clipka wrote:
> 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.

Or the fact that it's 18 times bigger than them.

Or maybe they just didn't /want/ it?

Post a reply to this message

On 8/10/2012 5:23, Invisible wrote:
> Or maybe they just didn't /want/ it?

Well, what I read is that this is something the Japanese leaders had 
actually said was one of the reasons.

-- 
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

Le 2012-08-09 20:22, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> 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
>
Meh.  A spearman fortified on a hill square can take out dozens of 
tanks, and even a battleship or two.

-- 
/*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

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:43:47 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:

> Meh.  A spearman fortified on a hill square can take out dozens of
> tanks,
> and even a battleship or two.

I take it this is humour again? ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 10/08/2012 21:44, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:43:47 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:
> 
>> Meh.  A spearman fortified on a hill square can take out dozens of
>> tanks,
>> and even a battleship or two.
> 
> I take it this is humour again? ;)

Nope, statistic. On dice roll.
Now, using square instead of hexagon, that's not a true wargame.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:01:36 +0200, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> Le 10/08/2012 21:44, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:43:47 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> 
>>> Meh.  A spearman fortified on a hill square can take out dozens of
>>> tanks,
>>> and even a battleship or two.
>> 
>> I take it this is humour again? ;)
> 
> Nope, statistic. On dice roll.

Oh, in a gaming world. :)

> Now, using square instead of hexagon, that's not a true wargame.

I'm with you there. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.08.2012 20:43, schrieb Francois Labreque:
> Le 2012-08-09 20:22, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> 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
>>
> Meh.  A spearman fortified on a hill square can take out dozens of
> tanks, and even a battleship or two.

Dunno about spears, but a Lance or two will do, yeah...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-52_Lance

Post a reply to this message