Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Paranoia Feeding American Gun Culture


  • Please log in to reply
130 replies to this topic

#61    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,287 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:13 AM

Beware of videos telling us about "the psychology of" that can't spell the word psychology.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#62    Drayno

Drayno

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,764 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:58 AM

View PostOrder66, on 10 January 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

I've never owned a gun, but this debate makes me want to go out and buy one just to antagonize self-righteous politicians who keep telling everyone what to do. Maybe this is what's fueling gun sales?

Either people are buying them to be contrary, out of paranoia - as some people would cite, or out of genuine concern for this countries projection and the safety of themselves and their families. It can't be more than those three things.

"Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings."
- William Shakespeare, Richard II, Act III, Scene II

#63    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 11 January 2013 - 01:00 AM

Quote

Either people are buying them to be contrary, out of paranoia - as some people would cite, or out of genuine concern for this countries projection and the safety of themselves and their families. It can't be more than those three things.

Honestly we dont know. It could be the government itself buying up guns and ammo. Itleast in part. And especially ammo and C3 gear.


#64    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 13,121 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milky Way Galaxy 3rd planet

  • They're wearing steel that's bright and true
    They carry news that must get through
    They choose the path where no-one goes

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:56 AM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 10 January 2013 - 10:26 PM, said:

Hey good for you. The last one is tough though. I don't own, yet, but if someone kicks down my door and I was packing I'd aim at center mass given that I hold my composure and hope I didn't kill them. I'm not sure I could aim at someone's head and shoot. It's such an unpredictable and circumstantial event that who knows what the heck I would or could do. This scenario is they kick the door down and I'm right there to greet them. If it were an all out attack on me or anyone else in the house, including my dog, I'd hope to be more aggressive and determined.
That's exactly where you shoot...center mass...heart!  And don't hope you don't kill them...shoot them and kill them, because if you don't kill them...they might pull out an ankle gun and kill you with it...but never aim for the head...and don't hesitate...if you do pull a gun on someone...don't tell them to do jack...just kill them.  That's it!  Sounds harsh...but remember...they are in YOUR house..uninvited.   If someone is well versed in self defense techniques they can take that gun away from you in the blink of an eye from 20 feet away.  Before you can even think to shoot...they'll have it.  Okay boys and girls...recap...never pull a gun on someone unless you intend to kill them...and when you pull the gun...kill them and ask questions later.  Finally, one more thing I'll never forget, is what my conceal carry instructor taught us a long, long, time ago...it's better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six. :gun:

Edited by joc, 11 January 2013 - 03:57 AM.

Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation

#65    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:57 AM

This belongs here too:

Hardy, p. 1237. "Early Americans wrote of the right in light of three considerations: (1) as auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; (2) as enabling an armed people to deter undemocratic government; and (3) as enabling the people to organize a militia system."

Malcolm, "That Every Man Be Armed," pp. 452, 466. "The Second Amendment reflects traditional English attitudes toward these three distinct, but intertwined, issues: the right of the individual to protect his life, the challenge to government of an armed citizenry, and the preference for a militia over a standing army. The framers' attempt to address all three in a single declarative sentence has contributed mightily to the subsequent confusion over the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment."

Merkel and Uviller, pp. 62, 179 ff, 183, 188 ff, 306. "[T]he right to bear arms was articulated as a civic right inextricably linked to the civic obligation to bear arms for the public defense."

Posted Image

~MEH~


#66    F3SS

F3SS

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:33 AM

View Postjoc, on 11 January 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:


That's exactly where you shoot...center mass...heart!  And don't hope you don't kill them...shoot them and kill them, because if you don't kill them...they might pull out an ankle gun and kill you with it...but never aim for the head...and don't hesitate...if you do pull a gun on someone...don't tell them to do jack...just kill them.  That's it!  Sounds harsh...but remember...they are in YOUR house..uninvited.   If someone is well versed in self defense techniques they can take that gun away from you in the blink of an eye from 20 feet away.  Before you can even think to shoot...they'll have it.  Okay boys and girls...recap...never pull a gun on someone unless you intend to kill them...and when you pull the gun...kill them and ask questions later.  Finally, one more thing I'll never forget, is what my conceal carry instructor taught us a long, long, time ago...it's better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six. :gun:
Thanks guys but I do completely agree with ya. I think what I'm trying to say is that I'd hate to take someone's life if all they wanted was my TV. But of course, how am I to know? Maybe they intend on more than that and I'd have to assume so. It would just suck to have to deal with it on a personal level plus I don't want some strange angry ghost floating around my house, lol.
One more thing... I wouldn't think I'm in the movies where you shoot the bad guy and immedidiately take your eyes off him to give your girl a hug. I promise, if I take charge of the situation I'll remain in charge. This is all a bit redundant ATM anyways because all I have is an old but pretty nice single shot pellet rifle that I haven't shot in probably over a decade and an old civil war era shotgun hanging on my wall that is no more useful than a club.

Posted Image

#67    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 36,035 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:24 PM

View PostOrder66, on 10 January 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

I've never owned a gun, but this debate makes me want to go out and buy one just to antagonize self-righteous politicians who keep telling everyone what to do. Maybe this is what's fueling gun sales?

View PostSweetpumper, on 10 January 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

Hell yes it is.  I've never considered an assault rifle but am now.  No one is going to tell me I can't.

Well, looks like you understood the game but are drawing the wrong conclusions. Assault rifles are only useful as man stopper if they are shot full auto. Anything below a .32 (and that is most so called "assault rifles") will cause damage, even death but the effect will not be immediate. With single shots an assailant will just keep coming unless hit in a critical spot (and that requires training and cold blood).

As far as hunting goes, they are way to imprecise to make a good kill.

So, you are buying a famed item that, besides the bragging value, is about as useful as tits on a bull for the purpose of most normal people. If you want a rifle to protect yourself get yourself a classic M1, or anything else above caliber 32. That way you just have to hit the target to disable it. And it will save you a lot of money.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#68    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:30 PM

And even on full auto, aren't assault rifles still pretty lackluster? You have to contend with the continuous recoil, your magazine runs dry lickitysplit, and aiming's the shizz because of, well, that horrible continuous recoil.


#69    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 36,035 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:43 PM

View PostHasina, on 11 January 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

And even on full auto, aren't assault rifles still pretty lackluster? You have to contend with the continuous recoil, your magazine runs dry lickitysplit, and aiming's the shizz because of, well, that horrible continuous recoil.

Yes, but it has the advantage that you don't really have to know how to handle a weapon, you hold it in the general direction and squeeze the trigger, a few bullets will find the target. And that was the general idea at the time when assault rifles were developed. And taken to the epitome by Stalin who insisted that all his soldiers were equipped with automatic weapons arguing that if the average soldier lasts 2 days in combat why should he be trained for weeks, maybe months, to learn to shoot.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#70    F3SS

F3SS

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:01 PM

The extent of my experience with a machine gun comes from playing Call of Duty. I know it's not exactly a simulator but short bursts are the only way to be accurate. It's a lot of fun unloading a 60 round magazine with one long squeeze but it's akin to a baby holding a fire hose. You're spraying everywhere but where you need it and if the target's moving you ain't gonna hit it and if the target is still you better hit it immediately or do short bursts. No sane person would use one in their house for protection. You'd tear the place apart.

Posted Image

#71    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 13,121 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milky Way Galaxy 3rd planet

  • They're wearing steel that's bright and true
    They carry news that must get through
    They choose the path where no-one goes

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:53 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 11 January 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

Well, looks like you understood the game but are drawing the wrong conclusions. Assault rifles are only useful as man stopper if they are shot full auto. Anything below a .32 (and that is most so called "assault rifles") will cause damage, even death but the effect will not be immediate. With single shots an assailant will just keep coming unless hit in a critical spot (and that requires training and cold blood).

As far as hunting goes, they are way to imprecise to make a good kill.

So, you are buying a famed item that, besides the bragging value, is about as useful as tits on a bull for the purpose of most normal people. If you want a rifle to protect yourself get yourself a classic M1, or anything else above caliber 32. That way you just have to hit the target to disable it. And it will save you a lot of money.
Much, much more effective...and scarier if you are looking down the barrel of it, is the pump shotgun he was talking about...point and click...you don't even have to aim...

Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation

#72    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,287 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 January 2013 - 01:03 AM

View Postquestionmark, on 11 January 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

Yes, but it has the advantage that you don't really have to know how to handle a weapon, you hold it in the general direction and squeeze the trigger, a few bullets will find the target. And that was the general idea at the time when assault rifles were developed. And taken to the epitome by Stalin who insisted that all his soldiers were equipped with automatic weapons arguing that if the average soldier lasts 2 days in combat why should he be trained for weeks, maybe months, to learn to shoot.
What are you talking about?  Do you think that the definition of an assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon now?   The assault rifles that are RELEVANT to your constantly meandering arguments about gun control in the US are SEMI AUTOMATIC.  You pull the trigger, and ONE BULLET comes out.

Now it's civilians not hitting their target as the flavor of the day to ban the 2nd Amendment?   As if that's the problem we need to solve now?   What are you doing?   Try out some statistics in war like shots fired to enemy KIA or wounded.  WWII:  ~20,000 bullets expended for one enemy KIA or wounded.  Vietnam: ~200,000 bullets expended for one enemy casualty.   If the problem is really about rate of fire and sloppy fire and not hitting the intended target, how come all those wildly fired bullets aren't hitting anyone you care about?   Because it's an absolute double standard made possible by a bridge burned to the ground between what you wish to impose on free people compared to government employees.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#73    Drayno

Drayno

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,764 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:02 AM

Posted Image

Now a lovely message from the Left.

"Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings."
- William Shakespeare, Richard II, Act III, Scene II

#74    Gummug

Gummug

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,370 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas

  • "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" -- Shakespeare

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:23 AM

View PostYamato, on 10 January 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:

There was an underground effort I think in Western Europe, during the 2nd World War to arm free Jews with small .22 cal handguns.  "For every Jew, a .22", the idea being that fighting back against the Nazis became possible.  If they were caught and going to be taken, they'd be able to pull their weapon before a weapon was pulled on them.   Or more heroically, they could actively hunt Nazis one at a time, pursuing them in the streets, shooting them in the back of the head.
You probably heard about the "liberty pistol"? It was a cheap, mass-produced single-shot .45 with room for extra cartridges in the handle, if I remember correctly. The allies dropped them behind enemy lines if I remember so that the resistance and others could use them to kill the enemy and then take his gun.
Let's see if I can put in a picture:
Posted Image

Edited by Gummug, 12 January 2013 - 02:25 AM.

Posted Image


#75    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 13,121 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milky Way Galaxy 3rd planet

  • They're wearing steel that's bright and true
    They carry news that must get through
    They choose the path where no-one goes

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:50 AM

View PostYamato, on 12 January 2013 - 01:03 AM, said:

What are you talking about?  Do you think that the definition of an assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon now?   The assault rifles that are RELEVANT to your constantly meandering arguments about gun control in the US are SEMI AUTOMATIC.  You pull the trigger, and ONE BULLET comes out.

Now it's civilians not hitting their target as the flavor of the day to ban the 2nd Amendment?   As if that's the problem we need to solve now?   What are you doing?   Try out some statistics in war like shots fired to enemy KIA or wounded.  WWII:  ~20,000 bullets expended for one enemy KIA or wounded.  Vietnam: ~200,000 bullets expended for one enemy casualty.   If the problem is really about rate of fire and sloppy fire and not hitting the intended target, how come all those wildly fired bullets aren't hitting anyone you care about?   Because it's an absolute double standard made possible by a bridge burned to the ground between what you wish to impose on free people compared to government employees.
Is there anything...anything? you can comment on without being wound up tighter than a spring in a Clay Pigeon Launcher?  ?mark was just stating how in effective automatic machine gun fire can be.  I read no where...no where...in the mans post anything about banning automatic weapons.  Actually if you followed through on his line of reasoning about the ineffectiveness of automatics like that...there would be no reason to ban them because they would be absolutely useless....I agree with about .5% of things ?mark says...but reading all of that into his statement is just ridiculous.  
And don't think I plan on bantering back and forth with you about it...I'm sure you'll go off on me like you do anyone who crosses your highly stressed path.

Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users