Print

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

[Yoink]

Guns are the only insurance we need! Screw the companies! Deus vult!

We don't need outside lights here, we have guns.

   

[TempAcc]

THE GUN IS GOOD

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[smjjames]

Membership fees, brah. Also the extra income from insurance premiums.

Gotta fund their lobbying somehow.

So perfectly legit enterprise.

Even if legit, it still feels slighly iffy/shady, probably the ethical issues that hector mentioned.

Also, despite the severe bias of the article, the author does have a point about insurance companies and risk assessment because there is so little data on the risk because the NRA has blocked all attempts at any sort of data gathering. So, the NRA has pre-shot itself in the foot here, in a way.

[Eric Blank]

Guns are the only insurance we need! Screw the companies! Deus vult!

We don't need outside lights here, we have guns.

   

What a horrible excuse. You cant see what youre shooting at without decent lighting. Any gun owner should know that.

A lot of places dont have street lights except on very busy streets simply because the city government cant afford it, and county, state, or federal level governments just dont care about the details like that. Rural areas will only have street lights on major intersections with highways. Residents end up buying and paying the electricity for their own flood lights to install on their house.

My family has these dirt cheap solar powered lights all over. They often arent even on because they dont get enough sunlight with too much cloud cover. You cant hardly see anything besides the light itself, so navigating the yard in the dark is pretty much entirely by memory/habit.

[Reelya]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/wikipedia-or-encyclopaedia-britannica-which-has-more-bias/#4480be2f7d4a
I just read an article about bias comparison between Wikipedia and Brittanica. The byline is "In almost all cases, Wikipedia was more left-leaning than Britannica".

But then you get to the details, which requires you to click through to page 2 of the 3-page article. They compared article-to-article and found that there was more use of "liberal terms" e.g. "minimum wage" per article in Wikipedia vs Brittanica. So they can say there are more terms used by liberal per-aritcle. Fair enough.

However, wikipedia articles are longer than the equivalent Brittanica articles, and when the analysis was done per-word, the "bias" completely vanished. 1000 words of Wikipedia contain no more "liberal terms" than 1000 words of Brittanica. A better explanation is that liberal terms are more mainstream for college-educated folks, and that gives both Brittanica and Wikipedia a skew towards liberal terms, which is then amplified "per article" for Wikipedia because Wikipedia artlcles are longer.

Good thing we can trust the completely unbiased reporting of journalists.

[Akura]

Guns are the only insurance we need! Screw the companies! Deus vult!

We don't need outside lights here, we have guns.

   

What a horrible excuse. You cant see what youre shooting at without decent lighting. Any gun owner should know that.

According to that article, the first guy who was shot was shot in the dark. Of course, the shooter fired three times and hit only once, and the article never mentioned where the other two bullets ended up after they missed because that is something you have to take into account when firing a gun.

Seriously, every single gun owner named in that article were doing extremely irresponsible things with guns that show that they should not be allowed to carry a gun. The first one fired on an unknown person with little or no warning in the dark, one guy was crippled by guns fired randomly into the air(protip: bullets going up must come down eventually), a pregnant woman and her sorta-unborn(legally it was considered born) child were killed by someone juggling a loaded firearm in front of her.

I'm not against gun ownership, but like a car(analogy was used in the article), you need to be responsible with it, including the possibility of losing the right to have it if you screw up. And unlike a car, a gun is specifically intended for killing(regardless of reason), so the threshold for losing a gun should be far, far less than what it is required for losing your car license.

[Hanslanda]

Over penetration is a serious concern for me when I consider the situations that I may need to use my gun in. I work in a busy supermarket so I could easily accidentally hurt bystanders in like a robbery or whatever. This is why I also have a knife and a cell phone. If it ain't safe to shoot, stab. If that ain't safe, call the cops and hope they arrive in time.

(always call the cops first. Always.)

[Lord Shonus]

The right ammunition choice can greatly reduce the risk of overpenetration. Most self-defense rounds mushroom so much that they rarely exit with enough velocity to pose a threat. Naturally, they are a constant target for ban attempts.

And unlike a car, a gun is specifically
intended for killing(regardless of reason), so the threshold for losing a gun should be far, far less than what it is required for losing your car license.

It is. Even the most minkr felony conviction or involuntary mental health treatment bars you from gun ownership for life, and all three of the cases cited should have (didn't, apparently, but should have) resulted in felony convictions.

Meanwhile you can only lose a driver's license through gross misconduct, and can always get it bak eventually.

[Silverthrone]

Indeed, ammunition choices in regards to penetration ability is important, particularly to law enforcement. However, it can be awfully misunderstood.

The reason why that latched on to my mind was that I remember when the Swedish police decided that they were going to switch from ordinary pistol ammunition to hollow-point ditto. There were very sound reasoning behind it, for there were plenty of instances where shots passed clean through the suspect under fire. Not particularly safe, naturally. Hollow-point bullets (I believe that is what they are called), however, are less prone to over-penetrate.

Then, there were a bit of a dust-up. Various left-wing groups, I remember, kicked up an awful row and claimed that the police were switching to special 'killing-bullets', for use against them. Other parts of the public were also rather concerned, that the police wandered about with bullets designed to better rip up flesh than the ordinary ones.
Of course, the matter eventually died down, and I believe that a lot of those complaining were convinced of the benefits eventually. Hollow-point bullets does dreadful things to the body, but it is better that the bullet remains in the knife-wielding, berserking narcotics abuser that the police are forced to shoot at, rather than pass clean through and sail on to hit a nearby old lady and the kitten in her basket.

As for the NRA insurance feature, well... It is rather gauche, but a great deal of it is because it is meant to address difficulties for gun-owners in legal difficulty that the NRA has helped cause. It is, however, one more safe-guard against legal cases that can absolutely scuttle a man's life, to no use. It is difficult to not be partly in favour or such a thing.

[CABL]

Today I saw a fly on the door to the balcony (it was on the balcony side). I tried to carefully punch the door, so the fly will fly away, but it didn't work. So I caught it with a kitchen rag, ripped its head off, and dropped the body and the head in the sink. I always like to kill some flies, but it didn't move at all, which is very weird.

[Akura]

Perhaps it was already dead?

[heydude6]

It could have been cold. Cold flies don't move much

[smjjames]

Today I saw a fly on the door to the balcony (it was on the balcony side). I tried to carefully punch the door, so the fly will fly away, but it didn't work. So I caught it with a kitchen rag, ripped its head off, and dropped the body and the head in the sink. I always like to kill some flies, but it didn't move at all, which is very weird.

I'd probably assume that it was already dead and had managed to cling to the screen. Then again, wouldn't 'carefully punching the screen' knock it off?

[CABL]

Perhaps it was already dead?

Nah, it moved its legs when I caught it.

It could have been cold. Cold flies don't move much

Probably. Rains are quite frequent right now.

[smjjames]

Perhaps it was already dead?

Nah, it moved its legs when I caught it.

It could have been cold. Cold flies don't move much

Probably. Rains are quite frequent right now.

*shrug* then.