[split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-11-2014, 08:35 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(11-11-2014 07:49 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 06:43 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  Destroy all guns, all blueprints of guns and then kill everyone who knows how to make a gun, then forbid people to even talk about guns. All you need is a totalitarian regime and guns can be forgotten in a generation!

Or educate there danger, guns are like dragons, they a better in fiction so it would be good to just destroy all guns and gun blue prints.

What's the climate like on your planet? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
11-11-2014, 08:44 PM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2014 08:48 PM by yakherder.)
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(11-11-2014 08:00 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  This is my problem (I say 'my' because it seems more a problem with myself than anything else) with arms ownership, it's just such a foreign concept and culture to me; I really cannot imagine, or perhaps I'd rather not imagine that in a nation like the USA those scenarios could happen... Probably because it didn't happen here when arms restrictions came into place.

In the U.S. it is an interesting game that's being played. As an example of how things work here, even though the sale of fully automatic weapons are no longer allowed, no mention of actually trying to take away those which people already owned has ever been attempted or mentioned as a possible intent. This avoids the scenario of having to order federal officers to walk up to automatic weapon owners and ask them to hand them over. It is also "allowed" to pass, so to speak, by gun owners for a number of reasons. First, whether for hunting, home defense, or to bolster a militia bent on preparing for doomsday, the use of fully automatic weapons is rarely rational. And second, just about any gun enthusiast knows how to easily convert a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon. If I truly had the need, I could do it in 10 minutes in my garage with a drill. It was, therefore, not deemed as a major threat to gun owners.

The 10 year federal assault weapons ban was a different story. Again, they didn't actually attempt to confiscate those which were already owned, nor did they attempt to prohibit the sale of those which had already been produced (in anticipation of the ban, a SHITLOAD were produced). Thus, all they accomplished was making the price of assault weapons temporarily go up. They were never not available. And for that minor win, if you want to call it that, the Democratic party paid dearly. The gun enthusiasts who would have otherwise been uninterested in politics wanted to make sure that whoever was in office when it came time for the 10 year ban to be brought to the table and potentially extended was pro gun, and for those who would have otherwise been anti-Bush, Al Gore did not fit that highly relevant criteria. Thus, in 2000 he was elected and his 2004 reelection occurred in the months following it's expiration. For those of you who were anti-Bush even before it was cool, remember how close the election was (Gore won the popular vote), and now consider how different it would have been if Clinton had never entertained the idea of the ultimately useless federal assault weapons ban.

Moral of the story? Choose your battles very, very carefully.

With recent pushes for gun control in the wake of shootings like at Sandy Hook, much the same thing has occurred. Feeling threatened, people who otherwise would have either been in the middle or possibly even leaned liberal but happened to be gun owners went republican just a few days ago, resulting in one of the most crushing Republican sweeps in recent history, and at a time when many liberals had enthusiastically convinced themselves that the Republican party was finished.

The opposition is well aware of this, and it's no coincidence that Obama has been silent in regards to gun control recently. If the Democratic party pushes the gun control issue right now, as 2016 looms in the not so distant future, I can absolutely guarantee that they will lose the presidential election. In a year or so when they start their debates and such, don't be surprised if the Democratic nominee is unusually silent on the issue despite prodding from supporters.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
11-11-2014, 08:59 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(11-11-2014 07:49 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 06:43 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  Destroy all guns, all blueprints of guns and then kill everyone who knows how to make a gun, then forbid people to even talk about guns. All you need is a totalitarian regime and guns can be forgotten in a generation!

Or educate there danger, guns are like dragons, they a better in fiction so it would be good to just destroy all guns and gun blue prints.

Hypothetically speaking, if dragons actually did exist how would you get rid of them?

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 05:15 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(11-11-2014 08:59 PM)yakherder Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 07:49 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Or educate there danger, guns are like dragons, they a better in fiction so it would be good to just destroy all guns and gun blue prints.

Hypothetically speaking, if dragons actually did exist how would you get rid of them?

Swords, thats how stories killed them, or pollution.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 06:36 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(12-11-2014 05:15 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 08:59 PM)yakherder Wrote:  Hypothetically speaking, if dragons actually did exist how would you get rid of them?

Swords, thats how stories killed them, or pollution.

I've never been able to understand the concept of using swords to kill dragons. It makes no sense to me: here you've got a typically gargantuan, flying, flame spewing lizard adorned with natural plate armour in the form of scales, not to mention the talons or tail you'd find on such a beast.
And there you've got your valiant knight set to slay the dragon: lets say you've got an average medieval dude, about 1.7 meters tall, lets say the dude is wearing typical battle attire; full chain mail, probably a woollen surcoat over it, let's give our valiant knight a typical longsword of about 100 centimetres long, it's probably about just over half the size of the dragon's larger teeth and we'll throw him a very stereotypic kite shield.

I may be presumptuous in my ruling, but I bet our Knight in Soon-To-Be-Charred Armour isn't going to last long against a typical European-style dragon.
I doubt any swordsman would get within a meter of the dragon: it spews fire and can fly; even if it didn't roast our wanna be dragon slayer or fly away not giving a shit it could probably just sit there and swat him away with its tail like an elephant would swat an annoying fly.

A dragon dying by the sword would strike me as a "Death by a thousand papercuts" scenario accomplishable only by Zerg Rush-esque tactics and can you image in casualties that would be incurred?
If I may quote Dark Souls lore as part of my prediction of the battle "Our Knights fought valiantly, but for every one of them, we lost three score of our own."

Fuck swords or any remotely close combat; I say lure the dragons into traps and make it a ballista pincushion, assuming those have sufficient power to penetrate the dragon's scales.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
12-11-2014, 07:27 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(12-11-2014 06:36 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(12-11-2014 05:15 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Swords, thats how stories killed them, or pollution.

I've never been able to understand the concept of using swords to kill dragons. It makes no sense to me: here you've got a typically gargantuan, flying, flame spewing lizard adorned with natural plate armour in the form of scales, not to mention the talons or tail you'd find on such a beast.
And there you've got your valiant knight set to slay the dragon: lets say you've got an average medieval dude, about 1.7 meters tall, lets say the dude is wearing typical battle attire; full chain mail, probably a woollen surcoat over it, let's give our valiant knight a typical longsword of about 100 centimetres long, it's probably about just over half the size of the dragon's larger teeth and we'll throw him a very stereotypic kite shield.

I may be presumptuous in my ruling, but I bet our Knight in Soon-To-Be-Charred Armour isn't going to last long against a typical European-style dragon.
I doubt any swordsman would get within a meter of the dragon: it spews fire and can fly; even if it didn't roast our wanna be dragon slayer or fly away not giving a shit it could probably just sit there and swat him away with its tail like an elephant would swat an annoying fly.

A dragon dying by the sword would strike me as a "Death by a thousand papercuts" scenario accomplishable only by Zerg Rush-esque tactics and can you image in casualties that would be incurred?
If I may quote Dark Souls lore as part of my prediction of the battle "Our Knights fought valiantly, but for every one of them, we lost three score of our own."

Fuck swords or any remotely close combat; I say lure the dragons into traps and make it a ballista pincushion, assuming those have sufficient power to penetrate the dragon's scales.

St. George used a lance.

[Image: st-george.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 07:28 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
I was originally intending to make the point that you couldn't just will the dragon away, but while we're still on the topic... Did they have anything like roofies? Cause I'm thinking send a sacrificial night to disable the dragon via knockout drugs, then have a second knight go in to have his way with him. Maybe just stuff a wet sock or some dirty underwear in its mouth/nose to minimize damage done to scales and the meat.

If in modern times, I'd be tempted to see how dragon scales stand up to depleted uranium rounds.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 07:31 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(12-11-2014 07:27 AM)Rik Wrote:  
(12-11-2014 06:36 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  I've never been able to understand the concept of using swords to kill dragons. It makes no sense to me: here you've got a typically gargantuan, flying, flame spewing lizard adorned with natural plate armour in the form of scales, not to mention the talons or tail you'd find on such a beast.
And there you've got your valiant knight set to slay the dragon: lets say you've got an average medieval dude, about 1.7 meters tall, lets say the dude is wearing typical battle attire; full chain mail, probably a woollen surcoat over it, let's give our valiant knight a typical longsword of about 100 centimetres long, it's probably about just over half the size of the dragon's larger teeth and we'll throw him a very stereotypic kite shield.

I may be presumptuous in my ruling, but I bet our Knight in Soon-To-Be-Charred Armour isn't going to last long against a typical European-style dragon.
I doubt any swordsman would get within a meter of the dragon: it spews fire and can fly; even if it didn't roast our wanna be dragon slayer or fly away not giving a shit it could probably just sit there and swat him away with its tail like an elephant would swat an annoying fly.

A dragon dying by the sword would strike me as a "Death by a thousand papercuts" scenario accomplishable only by Zerg Rush-esque tactics and can you image in casualties that would be incurred?
If I may quote Dark Souls lore as part of my prediction of the battle "Our Knights fought valiantly, but for every one of them, we lost three score of our own."

Fuck swords or any remotely close combat; I say lure the dragons into traps and make it a ballista pincushion, assuming those have sufficient power to penetrate the dragon's scales.

St. George used a lance.

[Image: st-george.jpg]

That right there is one small dragon.

A lance would certainly be a better weapon, but as Zeke said sword, I addressed sword.

But while lances or pikes would be better they still have similar problems of getting close enough to strike without being eaten, swatted, torn to shreds, crushed, left alone by a dragon who can fly and gives no fucks or turning into a knightly version of the meat you find in McDonalds burgers.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 07:51 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(11-11-2014 08:44 PM)yakherder Wrote:  In the U.S. it is an interesting game that's being played. As an example of how things work here, even though the sale of fully automatic weapons are no longer allowed, no mention of actually trying to take away those which people already owned has ever been attempted or mentioned as a possible intent. This avoids the scenario of having to order federal officers to walk up to automatic weapon owners and ask them to hand them over. It is also "allowed" to pass, so to speak, by gun owners for a number of reasons. First, whether for hunting, home defense, or to bolster a militia bent on preparing for doomsday, the use of fully automatic weapons is rarely rational. And second, just about any gun enthusiast knows how to easily convert a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon. If I truly had the need, I could do it in 10 minutes in my garage with a drill. It was, therefore, not deemed as a major threat to gun owners.

To clarify, the sale of existing automatic weapons was not disallowed, only the production and sale of new ones.

Quote:The 10 year federal assault weapons ban was a different story. Again, they didn't actually attempt to confiscate those which were already owned, nor did they attempt to prohibit the sale of those which had already been produced (in anticipation of the ban, a SHITLOAD were produced). Thus, all they accomplished was making the price of assault weapons temporarily go up. They were never not available.

Also, the law defined the term "assault weapon".
Wikipedia Wrote:In the United States, assault weapon is a legal and political term used in firearms laws to define and restrict specific firearms. Definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more tactical, cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively.

The 1994 law specifically mentioned 10 (or 12?) specific firearms and otherwise banned firearms largely based on what they looked like.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
12-11-2014, 08:02 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(11-11-2014 08:44 PM)yakherder Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 08:00 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  This is my problem (I say 'my' because it seems more a problem with myself than anything else) with arms ownership, it's just such a foreign concept and culture to me; I really cannot imagine, or perhaps I'd rather not imagine that in a nation like the USA those scenarios could happen... Probably because it didn't happen here when arms restrictions came into place.

In the U.S. it is an interesting game that's being played. As an example of how things work here, even though the sale of fully automatic weapons are no longer allowed, no mention of actually trying to take away those which people already owned has ever been attempted or mentioned as a possible intent. This avoids the scenario of having to order federal officers to walk up to automatic weapon owners and ask them to hand them over. It is also "allowed" to pass, so to speak, by gun owners for a number of reasons. First, whether for hunting, home defense, or to bolster a militia bent on preparing for doomsday, the use of fully automatic weapons is rarely rational. And second, just about any gun enthusiast knows how to easily convert a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon. If I truly had the need, I could do it in 10 minutes in my garage with a drill. It was, therefore, not deemed as a major threat to gun owners.

The 10 year federal assault weapons ban was a different story. Again, they didn't actually attempt to confiscate those which were already owned, nor did they attempt to prohibit the sale of those which had already been produced (in anticipation of the ban, a SHITLOAD were produced). Thus, all they accomplished was making the price of assault weapons temporarily go up. They were never not available. And for that minor win, if you want to call it that, the Democratic party paid dearly. The gun enthusiasts who would have otherwise been uninterested in politics wanted to make sure that whoever was in office when it came time for the 10 year ban to be brought to the table and potentially extended was pro gun, and for those who would have otherwise been anti-Bush, Al Gore did not fit that highly relevant criteria. Thus, in 2000 he was elected and his 2004 reelection occurred in the months following it's expiration. For those of you who were anti-Bush even before it was cool, remember how close the election was (Gore won the popular vote), and now consider how different it would have been if Clinton had never entertained the idea of the ultimately useless federal assault weapons ban.

Moral of the story? Choose your battles very, very carefully.

With recent pushes for gun control in the wake of shootings like at Sandy Hook, much the same thing has occurred. Feeling threatened, people who otherwise would have either been in the middle or possibly even leaned liberal but happened to be gun owners went republican just a few days ago, resulting in one of the most crushing Republican sweeps in recent history, and at a time when many liberals had enthusiastically convinced themselves that the Republican party was finished.

The opposition is well aware of this, and it's no coincidence that Obama has been silent in regards to gun control recently. If the Democratic party pushes the gun control issue right now, as 2016 looms in the not so distant future, I can absolutely guarantee that they will lose the presidential election. In a year or so when they start their debates and such, don't be surprised if the Democratic nominee is unusually silent on the issue despite prodding from supporters.


I have stood in a voting booth and tried to decide if I want to vote for the person who wants to take away my constitutional rights to a weapon or my individual rights to my body and my right to choose.

maybe most people dont think about those issues when casting their ballot but when we know the next President (for instance) will be appointing to the Supreme Court, then a person should be considering those things.


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bows and Arrows's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: