ARF ARF......Your Not A Comedian Hillary

[Revoltingest]

I don't care. My interest in firearms extends only as far as it is necessary to ridicule the american's religious-like love of them.

But wouldn't this be a religious-like criticism of them?

 

[esmith]

I don't care. My interest in firearms extends only as far as it is necessary to ridicule the american's religious-like love of them.

If you are going to ridicule us wouldn't it behoove one to become educated on the subject so that what you put forward is accurate?

 

[Mycroft]

If you are going to ridicule us wouldn't it behoove one to become educated on the subject so that what you put forward is accurate?

Not really!

 

[Revoltingest]

Not really!

But think of the greater influence you'd have if you understood more, & could wax poetically
about the subtle differences between the .222 Remington & a 5.56 NATO rounds?

 

[Mycroft]

But think of the greater influence you'd have if you understood more, & could wax poetically
about the subtle differences between the .222 Remington & a 5.56 NATO rounds?

What I understand is that guns provide no protection whatsoever in the scheme of things. They enable atrocities much more than they enable personal security.

 

[esmith]

arf arf arf

 

[Underhill]

You do realize there is no such thing as a AR 55 don't you? Buy any chance do your mean a AR-15 or AR 556 semi-automatic rifle; maybe you mean the military version of the AR-15 which is fully automatic? Just to continue your education AR does not mean automatic rifle or assault rifle, it stand for Armalite Rifle, the original manufacture.

It's easy to understand the confusion though. There are probably dozens of companies now selling variations of the AR. My favorite is the .308 AR-10.

 

[Revoltingest]

What I understand is that guns provide no protection whatsoever in the scheme of things. They enable atrocities much more than they enable personal security.

Are you ready for an absolute shocker?
I disagree.
(I hope you were sitting down for that.
But I did give you a trigger warning.)

 

[metis]

What I understand is that guns provide no protection whatsoever in the scheme of things. They enable atrocities much more than they enable personal security.

In most cases, yes, and that is logical. Let me give an example.

You are the good guy with a gun, and I'm the bad guy with a gun, and we're just standing around by ourselves.

Bang-- you're dead.

You see (but some really don't want to see), I'm going to pull my gun on you when you are least prepared, but you cannot do the same to me because you're the good guy who would get into legal trouble if you did. Carrying a gun around makes one about as safe as carrying a security blanket-- probably even worse than that. At least with a security blanket, any adult should know that it ain't really protecting them, therefore they had better be careful about what's in their surroundings. An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.

 

[Revoltingest]

In most cases, yes, and that is logical. Let me give an example.
You are the good guy with a gun, and I'm the bad guy with a gun, and we're just standing around by ourselves.
Bang-- you're dead.
You see (but some really don't want to see), I'm going to pull my gun on you when you are least prepared, but you cannot do the same to me because you're the good guy who would get into legal trouble if you did.

The above is like arguing that seat belts are dangerous because one might jam
when you're stalled on the railroad tracks in front of an oncoming freight train.
Both are reasonable views if no other scenarios were likely.
But the real world would disagree with you.

 

[Mycroft]

Are you ready for an absolute shocker?
I disagree.
(I hope you were sitting down for that.
But I did give you a trigger warning.)

If someone wants to shoot you dead, they will find the right opportunity. Someone intent on killing you knows that you can't possibly be armed 24/7, and probably wont be expecting it.

Take that poor Alison woman and her cameraman who were both shot while they were at work. They can't carry guns at work, so the shooter thought to himself "there's two nice unarmed targets."

Same for schools. You can't carry a gun in school, so anyone inside one is pretty screwed if a shooter turns up one Monday.

If I wanted to shoot you, there's millions of opportunities in an average week to do so. As you get out of your car to go into work, or as you come out of your house in the morning, whatever.

The point is that someone determined to kill someone will find a way to do it, and owning a gun provides zero protection against that kind of tenacity. Don't believe me? Just ask Alis...oh wait.

 

[Mycroft]

In most cases, yes, and that is logical. Let me give an example.

You are the good guy with a gun, and I'm the bad guy with a gun, and we're just standing around by ourselves.

Bang-- you're dead.

Let me posit another scenario.

I'm the bad guy with a gun. I know you probably own one, so I just wait for an opportunity. As you get out of your car to go into work....bang, you're dead.

How'd the gun - safely locked up at home - work out for your protection?

 

[Deidre]

Actually, an actual dog should run for President...probably would be more qualified and ...loyal. Dogs are very loyal.

 

[Revoltingest]

If someone wants to shoot you dead, they will find the right opportunity. Someone intent on killing you knows that you can't possibly be armed 24/7, and probably wont be expecting it.

Aye, I never expected that carrying was useful against assassins.

Take that poor Alison woman and her cameraman who were both shot while they were at work. They can't carry guns at work, so the shooter thought to himself "there's two nice unarmed targets."
Same for schools. You can't carry a gun in school, so anyone inside one is pretty screwed if a shooter turns up one Monday.

Advertised gun-free zones are definitely problematic.

If I wanted to shoot you, there's millions of opportunities in an average week to do so. As you get out of your car to go into work, or as you come out of your house in the morning, whatever.
The point is that someone determined to kill someone will find a way to do it, and owning a gun provides zero protection against that kind of tenacity. Don't believe me? Just ask Alis...oh wait.

Again, the dedicated assassin scenario is one of the rarest.
I also don't expect my handgun to be effective against nuclear weapons, blitzkriegs, tanks, & SWAT teams.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, an actual dog should run for President...probably would more qualified and ...loyal. Dogs are very loyal.

But there is the impropriety of our leader sniffing other leaders' butts.
(That would happen more often.)

 

[Deidre]

But there is the impropriety of our leader sniffing other leaders' butts.
(That would happen more often.)

haha ''more often''

 

[Mycroft]

Aye, I never expected that carrying was useful against assassins.

Advertised gun-free zones are definitely problematic.

Again, the dedicated assassin scenario is one of the rarest.
I also don't expect my handgun to be effective against nuclear weapons, blitzkriegs, tanks, & SWAT teams.

They don't necessarily have to be an assassin, merely an opportunist. Such as the guy who gunned down poor Alison. Perhaps they don't even care that you are armed due to mental disturbance. Perhaps your gun is holstered and he shoots you even before you can draw yours.

Perhaps you do draw yours and you manage to shoot him. But he's shot you and so you're dead anyway.

See, nobody in England worries about being shot dead at school or at work because nobody has very easy access to guns.

 

[Revoltingest]

They don't necessarily have to be an assassin, merely an opportunist. Such as the guy who gunned down poor Alison. Perhaps they don't even care that you are armed due to mental disturbance. Perhaps your gun is holstered and he shoots you even before you can draw yours.
Perhaps you do draw yours and you manage to shoot him. But he's shot you and so you're dead anyway.
See, nobody in England worries about being shot dead at school or at work because nobody has very easy access to guns.

I don't worry about being shot dead either.
You're arguing that there are circumstances in which carrying a gun wouldn't prevent one's death.
I agree completely. I always have recognized this.
The only purpose in carrying is for other circumstances (the ones wherein it would make a difference).

Parenthetical aside....
I also don't worry about my buildings burning down either.
But I buy fire insurance, & take other precautions.
Such things offer no guarantee, but they're worth doing.
I've known a few Unity Church ministers who say this is wrong.
It's because if you think about bad things, the universe delivers them to you.
So you shouldn't take any precautions.
One minister was even criticized by a member of his flock for closing his office blinds when
he was away. (He had a new computer. These were spendy things back in the 80s.)
People sure have very different perspectives on reality, eh?

My approach:
Plan for the worst, & hope for the best.

 

[metis]

Let me posit another scenario.

I'm the bad guy with a gun. I know you probably own one, so I just wait for an opportunity. As you get out of your car to go into work....bang, you're dead.

How'd the gun - safely locked up at home - work out for your protection?

That's not the issue I was raising, namely that one's having a gun can give them a false sense of security and that the proliferation of guns simply does not and has not made us any safer as a society. Matter of fact, the stats show the reverse is true. This has been discussed ad nauseum, and I and many others have on numerous occasions posted what I think should be done.

 

[metis]

See, nobody in England worries about being shot dead at school or at work because nobody has very easy access to guns.

And that's a very important point.