Thread: Trading with a sane president...

Originally Posted by Dave K

Ha ha! You know where I"m going, but you won't let me get there because you know I have a good point. No, takes more than one sip to kill everyone in the house, much like it takes more than one bullet to kill everyone in the house.

Originally Posted by Dave K

I don't believe the subject of what we were talking about was "what's the most dangerous stuff in a house".

Sure we were.
You were comparing windex to a hi power.
Sip of what?

They don't issue household chemicals to soldiers to wage war with.. they issue them guns... because guns are designed to kill people quickly and efficiently and at little risk to the soldier.

Originally Posted by JoeE.

They don't issue household chemicals to soldiers to wage war with.. they issue them guns... because guns are designed to kill people quickly and efficiently and at little risk to the soldier.

It really is that simple but apparently not to all.

Originally Posted by JoeE.

They don't issue household chemicals to soldiers to wage war with.. they issue them guns... because guns are designed to kill people quickly and efficiently and at little risk to the soldier.

I've worn NBC and level 4 MOPP gear while in theater. Have you?

You say "little risk". I can name 20+ friends that have taken a "little risk" to have the honor to serve our country, and did not live to see their next birthday. Some of them I knew for 30+ years. You're welcome. Hopefully you remembered Memorial Day in between your ANTIFA protest schedule dates.

I have an 18 year old who reports to MEPS in less than 2 weeks.

Columbus MEPS

NBC suit - Wikipedia

MOPP - Wikipedia

Originally Posted by Miguels244

Doubling a low chance is still doubling it.
The numbers are real.
If you have a gun your family and friends are more likely to be shot than an intruder.

Look, I'm supportive of real logical data, and have an open mind. I'm not a 100%, everyone should have guns in their hands at all times, can't ban RPGs from people, type of guy...

But just like any topic, you have to look at the data with skepticism before accepting it as truth and parroting it. Those are not legitimate statements. They're carefully worded, deceptively, based upon poorly framed criteria, with poorly defined context, and then stated broadly in a way to trigger (heh) a certain conclusion in the listener/reader which isn't supported by the data.

It's not unique to the topic of firearms or gun rights, and like abortion, it's one of the very big issues that gets political attention little else... so there is plenty of FUD. From both sides, yes, but you can't ignore that it's FUD.

There's no decent method to it. The whole "more likely to shoot a friend than an intruder" is framed about as well as a clickbait headline. There may be a kernel of truth in there, barely, but after examining the source, you see it's crap. Click bait.

Originally Posted by Miguels244

You were comparing windex to a hi power.

Shit, I missed the convo about one of my favorite classic handguns.

Hipower > 1911

*runs away laughing*

Originally Posted by JNieman

It's not unique to the topic of firearms or gun rights, and like abortion, it's one of the very big issues that gets political attention little else... so there is plenty of FUD. From both sides, yes, but you can't ignore that it's FUD.

My feeling is, none of the FUD matters. IT'S THE LAW. We get to have guns. And swords and knives and trained boa constrictors, too. If you don't like it then change the law but let's not be hypocrites. Laws that are not honored only degrade respect for law in general. It's not the right way to do things.

btw, what part of "shall not infringe" does the mentally-retarded Supreme Court not understand ? A third-grader could manage that, but guys with fifty years on the bench no comprende senor ?

Originally Posted by Miguels244

Sure we were.
You were comparing windex to a hi power.
Sip of what?

Sip of drano maybe? What ever is under most peoples kitchen sinks.

Originally Posted by Dave K

Sip of drano maybe? What ever is under most peoples kitchen sinks.

Sip of drano will give you a nasty burn.

Originally Posted by SeaMoss

My feeling is, none of the FUD matters. IT'S THE LAW. We get to have guns. And swords and knives and trained boa constrictors, too. If you don't like it then change the law but let's not be hypocrites. Laws that are not honored only degrade respect for law in general. It's not the right way to do things.

btw, what part of "shall not infringe" does the mentally-retarded Supreme Court not understand ? A third-grader could manage that, but guys with fifty years on the bench no comprende senor ?

I agree completely.
And tanks, RPGs, nukes.
Shall not infringe!

Originally Posted by JNieman

Shit, I missed the convo about one of my favorite classic handguns.

Hipower > 1911

*runs away laughing*

No matter where you stand on this issue, you gotta love John Browning.

Originally Posted by JNieman

Look, I'm supportive of real logical data, and have an open mind. I'm not a 100%, everyone should have guns in their hands at all times, can't ban RPGs from people, type of guy...

But just like any topic, you have to look at the data with skepticism before accepting it as truth and parroting it. Those are not legitimate statements. They're carefully worded, deceptively, based upon poorly framed criteria, with poorly defined context, and then stated broadly in a way to trigger (heh) a certain conclusion in the listener/reader which isn't supported by the data.

It's not unique to the topic of firearms or gun rights, and like abortion, it's one of the very big issues that gets political attention little else... so there is plenty of FUD. From both sides, yes, but you can't ignore that it's FUD.

There's no decent method to it. The whole "more likely to shoot a friend than an intruder" is framed about as well as a clickbait headline. There may be a kernel of truth in there, barely, but after examining the source, you see it's crap. Click bait.

Funny thing about that data.
Federal law prevents collecting data on gun injuries.
Well, technically it prevents the federal government from collecting the data or funding research.

Originally Posted by Scottl

..."Recently, the American Medical Association (“AMA”) passed an emergency resolution at its annual conference declaring gun violence a public health crisis and calling for both restrictions on access to firearms and increased research into gun-related violence."

Gee, I can't believe how lucky I've been.

I've owned guns all my life, and none of them ever turned violent on me...

Originally Posted by guest

...I've owned guns all my life, and none of them ever turned violent on me...

I once had an M-79 grenade launcher take a bite out of my hand. The Drill Sergeant told me it was operator error but he described the operator with a twelve-letter word prefaced by "dumb" and hurt my feelings, so I still blame the weapon.

Originally Posted by guest

Gee, I can't believe how lucky I've been.

I've owned guns all my life, and none of them ever turned violent on me...

Never had a car turn on me.
We should eliminate all regulations on operators and design.

Originally Posted by Oldwrench

I once had an M-79 grenade launcher take a bite out of my hand. The Drill Sergeant told me it was operator error but he described the operator with a twelve-letter word prefaced by "dumb" and hurt my feelings, so I still blame the weapon.

My first gun was a .30-06 Rem 740. My dad had to cut the stock down to fit me. He would not let us kids have .22's and BB guns.

When I shot that .30-06 it gave me a pretty good belt- there was never any question in my mind that gun meant business.

Originally Posted by guest

Gee, I can't believe how lucky I've been.

I've owned guns all my life, and none of them ever turned violent on me...

I guess if it ever happens you'll stop posting.

I've personally known 3 that committed suicide. The 2 were ex military and blew their heads off with a shotgun. The real tragedy is that the 2 that blew their heads of both had 2 young kids each.

Originally Posted by Miguels244

I agree completely.
And tanks, RPGs, nukes.
Shall not infringe!

Text says bear arms, so if you can carry around a tank or a nuke, be my guest

Originally Posted by SeaMoss

Text says bear arms, so if you can carry around a tank or a nuke, be my guest

That was basically the position taken by the late Antonin Scalia, i.e. anything that can be carried should be allowed. It gets a little scary, given the possibility of "suitcase" nukes. So, where does one draw the line? Or, does anyone think the 2nd amendment should include nukes?

Originally Posted by SeaMoss

Text says bear arms, so if you can carry around a tank or a nuke, be my guest

I'm sure there was a spelling mistake in the text and it should have said "The right to bare arms".

Roll up your sleeves and head west.