Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BlackHeartKabal]

Bullets are pretty cheap.

It's still money, and if shooting guns is a hobby, odds are that the money is going to rack up in time. Kinda like how when you look at your Steam account, you wonder how you've created a library worth 1.5K USD over a few years.

Always buying on sale - almost always 75% off or more.

It's still money going into bullets for shooting bottles and targets. You'd use up what you buy fast, and why wouldn't anyone selling anything not want constant demand for whatever they're selling?

I was responding exclusively to the Steam bit

Ah. You know, if someone's already given up on trying to explain to me, maybe I should just dismiss it and leave. Yeah, I'll do that.

[Cthulhu]

Interest in what you have to say fell off after the first response, because I found it rude. I'm not sure I understand the second response, so I'm choosing not to respond to that.

His point is that when we're dealing with self-defense hypotheticals "He's probably not huge or whatever, i don't see why you'd need more than a 9mm pistol" isn't really sufficient.  Remember that failure in this hypothetical means you are dead. There is actual research-based information on this subject, and the conclusion is "long rifle if at all possible, largest caliber you can handle"

[BlackHeartKabal]

Interest in what you have to say fell off after the first response, because I found it rude. I'm not sure I understand the second response, so I'm choosing not to respond to that.

His point is that when we're dealing with self-defense hypotheticals "He's probably not huge or whatever, i don't see why you'd need more than a 9mm pistol" isn't really sufficient.  Remember that failure in this hypothetical means you are dead. There is actual research-based information on this subject, and the conclusion is "long rifle if at all possible, largest caliber you can handle"

Yeah, you don't seem like the type of person to cite imaginary research, so I'll just remember this, search for that research when I have time, and remember it. Thanks for your patience.

Right, uh, I may have derailed us a bit.

[Orange Wizard]

I think it's more of a bonding thing.  You gather around the fire and eat the rich.

And then distribute their wealth and the means of production among the proletariat?

[Helgoland]

Naah, just let the state - as the embodiment of the workers' collective will - seize them. It'll help with the alienation for sure, trust me.

[Loud Whispers]

Eat the rich never made much sense to me.  There are a lot more poor people to eat.

But a lot more on a rich

Interest in what you have to say fell off after the first response, because I found it rude. I'm not sure I understand the second response, so I'm choosing not to respond to that.

1. Whatever, you've got to be pretty daft to think I mean you hostility, I mean no trouble
Read what I said in an angry SHOUTING VOICE - it is hostile
Now read it as if it was Jackie Chan saying it - it is now friendly
Emotional cues do not travel through textual mediums well, so take my written word for it

2. Someone bigger, stronger and faster than you is the probable scenario, as those who buy them are not going to be those confident in their physical stature. Thus they will be more likely to take more shots from weaker calibers and assuming they don't have a gun of their own, wrek ur shit fam

[BlackHeartKabal]

Interest in what you have to say fell off after the first response, because I found it rude. I'm not sure I understand the second response, so I'm choosing not to respond to that.

1. Whatever, you've got to be pretty daft to think I mean you hostility, I mean no trouble
Read what I said in an angry SHOUTING VOICE - it is hostile
Now read it as if it was Jackie Chan saying it - it is now friendly
Emotional cues do not travel through textual mediums well, so take my written word for it

2. Someone bigger, stronger and faster than you is the probable scenario, as those who buy them are not going to be those confident in their physical stature. Thus they will be more likely to take more shots from weaker calibers and assuming they don't have a gun of their own, wrek ur shit fam

1. Noted. Disregard me, then.

2. I just thought that physical advantages were marginal when faced with a gun. Wow, gun control is a harder problem to solve than I thought.

[Orange Wizard]

It's not really, most Western countries have it in the bag. It's just the US that's having trouble.

[Loud Whispers]

1. Noted. Disregard me, then.

No worries, we all do it, it's human nature to be cautious
Sorry for any shite punctuation on my part

2. I just thought that physical advantages were marginal when faced with a gun. Wow, gun control is a harder problem to solve than I thought.

Nothing is easy :D
I like the adage, where you should content yourself because at the end of the day, you've probably only ever had the option to do the wrong thing or the wrong thing

It's not really, most Western countries have it in the bag. It's just the US that's having trouble.

They also have jihad in the bag

[Flying Dice]

The real problem with gun control in the U.S. is that there are already so many weapons in the wild that it'd take major political will to get everything non-legal under whatever new legislation was enacted. And that's probably never going to happen, both because the pro-weapon crowd are going to drag their heels even if they're a sharp minority, one of the three largest lobbies in the country is devoted to preventing it, and the government is scared of dealing with dozens of Wacos when the crazies decide to blaze-of-glory it.

Never mind that the industry leaders who actually cared about responsible gun ownership are dead and gone, leaving the manufacturing companies to be owned and operated by pure capitalists who don't care about anything beyond their profit margin.

[syvarris]

This thread moves too fast.  Whenever I see someone I want to respond to, there's already someone who's responded to it and said what I was gonna say.  I like discussions about guns, I wanna be a part. >.<

FD's right though, our problem is just that serious gun restrictions aren't really practical within the short term.  I imagine gun control will get better at a glacier's pace, but not in any immediately meaningful way, and probably with very stupid and nigh-useless steps like restricting assault weapons.

[Spehss _]

The real problem with gun control in the U.S. is that there are already so many weapons in the wild that it'd take major political will to get everything non-legal under whatever new legislation was enacted.

"Save an assault life, bin that assault rifle." Kinda rhymes.

[Baffler]

The reason the NRA and other organizations oppose even seemingly minor restrictions so vigorously is because they know that once it gets through, it only has to hang on for a few years before it becomes entrenched and nearly impossible to remove. So if movement to the right is effectively permanent, then people who like it on the left have to treat even slight rightward movement as seriously as a big leap forward or they leave themselves vulnerable to salami tactics.

[mainiac]

What a load of paranoid crock.

The slippy slope is a fallacy mate.  Them supporting common sense measures today doesn't open the door to tyrannical despotism later.  If you dont like tyrannical despotism then dont vote for it.

[Baffler]

I didn't say I thought that. I said they think that, though perhaps not as clearly as I could have.