Yes. It was a joke. I'm starting to suspect that Master Shake is also joking.
Advertisement
by Galloism » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:28 pm
Tubbsalot wrote:Galloism wrote:However, leaving the gun at home, unless in a very fixed heavy safe, is pretty irresponsible. One of the largest ways criminals get guns is via home theft.
Again, this is really an argument for not allowing civilians to have guns.
If that was why they required you to carry, then that's ridiculous. If only detectives are keeping their guns on them, then the supply of illegal weapons is reduced by like 0.001%. Whoopee.
by WestRedMaple » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:29 pm
Esternial wrote:Big Jim P wrote:
Both weapons that I mentioned have plenty of internal safeties to prevent accidental discharges. Modern revolvers (with the transfer bar system) are inherently safe.
Edit: The safeties on a Glock can be disabled, but that requires disassembling the gun and reassembling it with a round chambered. Anyone that stupid should be shot.
Ah, I see.
Ultimately that goes to show, then, that having a gun out in public is just an extra hazard for you and others.
by Master Shake » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:30 pm
by St Williams Parr County » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:30 pm
by Galloism » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:32 pm
St Williams Parr County wrote:I think it's a good idea to tell the child maybe later on that the mother killed herself instead of saying that he killed her, because that child couldn't possibly remember shooting the mother.
by WestRedMaple » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:33 pm
Tubbsalot wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:A knife is nearly always less effective than a firearm.Unless you're already in a situation where you are wrapped up grappling with an opponent, a firearm is the clear winner. A knife is a poor choice for self-defense. It has very poor stopping ability in comparison to a firearm or bludgeoning weapon. Pepper spray is quite inadequate. It's range is very short, it is quite ineffective if you cannot get at someone's face, it's not very effective on everyone, a decent wind can make it very difficult to use or even cause you to get more of it than your target, recovery from its effects is much faster, and even if you've effectively applied it, it still has less stopping power than a firearm, leaving your attacker more opportunity to hurt you.
Given that most encounters are going to be short-range, and you're not carrying your gun ready to fire, you are highly likely to be either grappling or severely/lethally wounded. So yes, a non-lethal or melee weapon would be preferable, especially since they require less preparation.
by Skeckoa » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:34 pm
They don't have their fingers on the triggers. They are acting safer than the people in like 80% of people w/ guns photos. Good for them!
Small town in rural Idaho. If the kid stays living in the town then they are going to find out eventually that he killed his own mother. Can't keep secrets in towns, especially one like that.St Williams Parr County wrote:I think it's a good idea to tell the child maybe later on that the mother killed herself instead of saying that he killed her, because that child couldn't possibly remember shooting the mother.
by Kazirstan » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:34 pm
Organized States wrote:"The only thing to stop a Two-year old with a gun is another two year old with a gun!"Kazirstan wrote:If civilians were not allowed to carry firearms around in public, then none of this would have happened. Why do you even need to carry your gun around in Walmart? In Canada, we don't carry firearms around with us, and the country is still running (and has a lower murder rate, and a less corrupt government). It's pointless, and dangerous.
Please. We're not going to amend the constitution and outlaw every firearm over a group of isolated incidents that could be fixed easily with more education programs such as gun safety courses (that the NRA and a number of other groups offer for free or at low cost).
by WestRedMaple » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:35 pm
Seno Zhou Varada wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:
Alrighty, your claim is obviously ridiculous, but let's give you a chance to support your wild claim: A guy walks up a few feet away from you on the sidewalk, points a gun at you, and threatens your life.....what tool for self-defense would you prefer? How is a concealed firearm useless? (Especially given the fact that it has been used quite successfully in exactly such a situation).
Just had to respond.
My bare hands of course. What you do is put your hands up and plead him not to shoot then move closer into him while moving to the side grab the gun then turn the barrel towards him and then to his side giving him a less intense grip and pull the gun away close to your body barrel facing the attacker and slowly back away keeping it pointed at him (all hims are him/her) and even if they fire the gun while your holding it you'll have adrenaline pumping.
That is of course circumstantial to where they do it basically point blank from up front.
by Galloism » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:36 pm
WestRedMaple wrote:Tubbsalot wrote:Given that most encounters are going to be short-range, and you're not carrying your gun ready to fire, you are highly likely to be either grappling or severely/lethally wounded. So yes, a non-lethal or melee weapon would be preferable, especially since they require less preparation.
So you think that if someone is shooting at you, not shooting back is the preferred method of defense. You think that if someone is up close trying to harm you, that you should needlessly give them more opportunity to do so by intentionally using less effective methods, such as a knife or pepper spray.
By all means, though, explain how your alternatives would require less preparation.
by Skeckoa » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:37 pm
Could he possibly be the Delaware Crossbow murderer that was posted on these threads a few weeks back?Galloism wrote:Well, I have a friend that carries a knife for really short range, a scimitar for short to medium range defense, a taser for disabling at short range, a few rocks for medium range, and a crossbow for long range.
He gets stopped by the police a lot.
by Spoder » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:38 pm
Galloism wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:
So you think that if someone is shooting at you, not shooting back is the preferred method of defense. You think that if someone is up close trying to harm you, that you should needlessly give them more opportunity to do so by intentionally using less effective methods, such as a knife or pepper spray.
By all means, though, explain how your alternatives would require less preparation.
Well, I have a friend that carries a knife for really short range, a scimitar for short to medium range defense, a taser for disabling at short range, a few rocks for medium range, and a crossbow for long range.
He gets stopped by the police a lot.
by MERIZoC » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:38 pm
Galloism wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:
So you think that if someone is shooting at you, not shooting back is the preferred method of defense. You think that if someone is up close trying to harm you, that you should needlessly give them more opportunity to do so by intentionally using less effective methods, such as a knife or pepper spray.
By all means, though, explain how your alternatives would require less preparation.
Well, I have a friend that carries a knife for really short range, a scimitar for short to medium range defense, a taser for disabling at short range, a few rocks for medium range, and a crossbow for long range.
by WestRedMaple » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:38 pm
Seno Zhou Varada wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:
A knife is nearly always less effective than a firearm. Unless you're already in a situation where you are wrapped up grappling with an opponent, a firearm is the clear winner. A knife is a poor choice for self-defense. It has very poor stopping ability in comparison to a firearm or bludgeoning weapon. Pepper spray is quite inadequate. It's range is very short, it is quite ineffective if you cannot get at someone's face, it's not very effective on everyone, a decent wind can make it very difficult to use or even cause you to get more of it than your target, recovery from its effects is much faster, and even if you've effectively applied it, it still has less stopping power than a firearm, leaving your attacker more opportunity to hurt you.
Yes it is less effective if your untrained with it (like most of the general populace) but a knife is very deadly if you know how to use one (no stabbing).
by WestRedMaple » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:39 pm
Big Jim P wrote:Soldati senza confini wrote:
Then fuck it, next thing we should be doing is introducing gun safety classes in schools.
Look, I don't disagree with people carrying weapons. But I want to be sure that those who are issued a gun are not complete irresponsible tools.
We used to have gun-safety (and gun clubs) in schools.
by St Williams Parr County » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:40 pm
Galloism wrote:St Williams Parr County wrote:I think it's a good idea to tell the child maybe later on that the mother killed herself instead of saying that he killed her, because that child couldn't possibly remember shooting the mother.
I think saying "there was an accident" is probably quite sufficient.
No need to jump straight to suicide.
by Spoder » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:41 pm
WestRedMaple wrote:Seno Zhou Varada wrote:Yes it is less effective if your untrained with it (like most of the general populace) but a knife is very deadly if you know how to use one (no stabbing).
And if you are trained with it, it is still less effective. It's range is much lower. It's ability to penetrate whatever someone is wearing is much lower. It has less stopping power, often leaving even a mortally wounded person ample time to harm or kill the defender.
That doesn't mean that someone extremely well-versed in the knife couldn't be more effective with the knife than someone who has never held a firearm before can be with a firearm, but a person knowing what they are doing with both would be more effective with a decent handgun
by WestRedMaple » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:41 pm
Tubbsalot wrote:Big Jim P wrote:So, you refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong when you stated this, even in the face of evidence to the contrary:
Firstly, no, that statement still stands. By "good option," I mean preferable to non-lethal weapons.
Secondly, you have yet to produce any evidence aside from "look at my sig, lol this guy's so dumb i keep telling him, rofl."
by Galloism » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:45 pm
by WestRedMaple » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:46 pm
Tubbsalot wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:You asked for realistic scenarios, and I gave you one that has actually happened. It sounds like maybe you're confused by the meaning of "realistic".
No, it was a perfectly reasonable scenario, it's just that a gun wouldn't help you in that scenario. Which was sort of my point.WestRedMaple wrote:If you think you're better with your hands than with a firearm, then you must be woefully useless with a handgun.
If someone is pointing a gun at you from a metre away, then yes, you have a much much much better chance if you rush them vs. if you pull your gun out and try to fire before your prepared, already-aimed assailant.
by St Williams Parr County » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:49 pm
by WestRedMaple » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:49 pm
Galloism wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:
So you think that if someone is shooting at you, not shooting back is the preferred method of defense. You think that if someone is up close trying to harm you, that you should needlessly give them more opportunity to do so by intentionally using less effective methods, such as a knife or pepper spray.
By all means, though, explain how your alternatives would require less preparation.
Well, I have a friend that carries a knife for really short range, a scimitar for short to medium range defense, a taser for disabling at short range, a few rocks for medium range, and a crossbow for long range.
He gets stopped by the police a lot.
by Dread Lady Nathicana » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:51 pm
by United Marxist Nations » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:52 pm
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Al-Haqiqah, Diarcesia, Elejamie, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Hidrandia, Hurdergaryp, Ifreann, Likhinia, Minoa, Port Carverton, Pridelantic people, Ravemath, Southland, Spirit of Hope, Squirreltopia, Tarsonis, Temple of the computer2, Tesseris, The Socialist State of Brazil, Welskerland
Advertisement