10
   

It's hard not to think of guns these days . . .

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 01:14 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
That wasn't a remark about sex . . . it was about the intelligence
and the cultural sophistication of gun proponents.
In other words: u don 't mean what u say,
nor say what u mean ??


It matters not; the forces of Freedom won.
U repressionists lost.

We can afford to be magnanimous in success.





David
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 09:07 pm
@oralloy,
Yeah, I guess you want to be just like all those sophisticated folk who walk the streets of London, Paris, Berlin and Rome, the men wearing holsters with a pair of six guns in them and the women with their special handbags with a holster on the outside, all so they could carry guns.
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 09:08 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Don't you understand satire?
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 12:06 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
Yeah, I guess you want to be just like all those sophisticated folk who walk the streets of London, Paris, Berlin and Rome, the men wearing holsters with a pair of six guns in them and the women with their special handbags with a holster on the outside, all so they could carry guns.
It used to be considered indecent to go around unarmed. In some places, it was illegal.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 12:06 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
Don't you understand satire?
OK
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 12:22 am
@oralloy,
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/129130078330247893.jpg
HE is a truely BEAUTIFUL Lion; yet this shows the need of wearing a .50 caliber revolver.
I 'm not sure that even my .44 magnum revolver woud be enuf
to control the situation; maybe.





David

Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 08:17 am
I suppose I'm liberal on most issues. Gun proliferation and control is horribly complicated though. I don't really think anyone can have a good, reality-based perspective on it without first acknowledging the pros and cons of gun ownership:

1. If you think that disallowing guns by law will take care of crimes that involved guns, you're missing the point that those willing to break the law and attack don't much care about any laws that prohibit them.

2. If you think that having a gun will *always* keep you safe, you're forgetting that not only must have if there at the ready at all times to be effective, but that once introduced into the situation, there's a good chance you can be hurt by your own bullet. Its a risk factor that must be recognized, no matter how assertive, clever or strong you are.

3. For anyone who keeps a gun for defense. If you haven't already seriously considered it, you probably out to soberly answer the question: Are you ready to kill someone? Could you actually pull that trigger? Can anyone know, before the fact, that they could do it? Personally, I think I could - but It'd be naive of me to not consider that at that moment of truth, that I might not be able to do it.

I believe that people (especially in the current culture of fear and deification of material goods) have both a need and implied "right" to keep the tools of defense for themselves. But one must admit that this brings both risk and protection.
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 08:23 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Please note that in this post, you used the past tense. Humans have made progress since the days when it was considered "indecent" to be unarmed. Indecent by whom, I wonder.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 11:17 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
Please note that in this post, you used the past tense.
Humans have made progress since the days when it was considered "indecent" to be unarmed.
"Progress" toward WHAT ?



plainoldme wrote:
Indecent by whom, I wonder.
By the general population n by the powers that be ( or the powers that were );
e.g., it woud be unthinkable, when calling upon the Lt. Governor
to present your compliments on the King 's birthday,
to fail to wear your best sword.





David



OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 11:36 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
I suppose I'm liberal on most issues.
That 's sad.





Khethil wrote:
Gun proliferation and control is horribly complicated though.
I don't really think anyone can have a good, reality-based perspective on it
Is that perspective affected by one 's experiences
wherein use of defensive emergency equipment,
succeeded in the victim prevailing over the predator ?





Khethil wrote:
without first acknowledging the pros and cons of gun ownership:

1. If you think that disallowing guns by law will take care of
crimes that involved guns, you're missing the point that those
willing to break the law and attack don't much care
about any laws that prohibit them.
If government intimidates future crime victims into being unarmed,
that makes life better for perpetrators, safer for them on-the-job, like O.S.H.A.



Khethil wrote:
2. If you think that having a gun will *always* keep you safe,
THAT is unrealistic.
Your gun will not keep u safe from heart attacks, getting hit by lightning,
indigestion, hair loss, drowning in the ocean, nor from IRS audits.





Khethil wrote:
you're forgetting that not only must have if there at the ready
at all times to be effective,
Like the spare tire in your trunk





Khethil wrote:
but that once introduced into the situation, there's a good chance you can be hurt by your own bullet.
Its a risk factor that must be recognized, no matter how assertive, clever or strong you are.
Every predatory emergency is a contest of power; the victim needs to be able to control that emergency.




Khethil wrote:
3. For anyone who keeps a gun for defense. If you haven't already seriously considered it, you probably out to soberly answer the question: Are you ready to kill someone? Could you actually pull that trigger? Can anyone know, before the fact, that they could do it? Personally, I think I could - but It'd be naive of me to not consider that at that moment of truth, that I might not be able to do it.
GOOD LUCK !





David



0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 12:25 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
So, why not join the Knights of Columbus or become a Renaissance Fair actor? Then you can dress with your best sword.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 01:21 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
So, why not join the Knights of Columbus or become a Renaissance Fair actor?
Then you can dress with your best sword.
The Society for Creative Anachronism (q.v.); I briefly toyed with the idea of joining.

Part of the answer to your question
is that I 'm too lazy for that.
I 'm good at that, because I practice a lot.





David
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 01:55 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Good response.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 06:55 pm
@plainoldme,
"It's hard not to think of guns these days . . ."

Yeah; its fun to do it more ofen


I prefer revolvers; thay r more reliable, and safer.





David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 01:45 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/129130078330247893.jpg
HE is a truely BEAUTIFUL Lion; yet this shows the need of wearing a .50 caliber revolver.
I 'm not sure that even my .44 magnum revolver woud be enuf
to control the situation; maybe.





David


The .50 S&W sounds to me like it is too powerful to be practical. It has the same energy as a 12 gauge 3-inch magnum shell, which is quite a lot of recoil even in a long gun that has a shoulder stock and is gripped in two different places. I can't imagine what it would be like firing a handgun with that much energy.

If the .44 magnum isn't enough power, the only alternative I'd recommend would be the .454 Casull.

And only if the person carrying the gun can handle it well. If the .454 Casull is too much for them, they will be better off defending themselves with the .44 magnum even though it has less power.


(Incidentally, I believe that is a intentionally staged shot with a circus lion and a lion tamer.)
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 03:03 pm
@oralloy,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/129130078330247893.jpg
HE is a truely BEAUTIFUL Lion; yet this shows the need of wearing a .50 caliber revolver.
I 'm not sure that even my .44 magnum revolver woud be enuf
to control the situation; maybe.





David
oralloy wrote:
The .50 S&W sounds to me like it is too powerful to be practical.
I join in that point of vu.
I 've never fired a .50 caliber handgun; .44 magnum the heaviest that I 've fired in a handgun.
From what I understand, the .50 has triple the power of a .44 magnum.



oralloy wrote:
It has the same energy as a 12 gauge 3-inch magnum shell,
which is quite a lot of recoil even in a long gun that has a
shoulder stock and is gripped in two different places.
I can't imagine what it would be like firing a handgun
with that much energy.
Yes; I have spoken with guys who have fired a .50 revolver, tho.
One fellow described needing 3 rounds to take down a charging boar;
last round in the head.

He said that while dressing the boar, he found that his earlier
gunfire had blown out his lungs, but he kept charging anyway.
The shock wave from the .50 had not been enuf to take him down.






oralloy wrote:
If the .44 magnum isn't enough power,
the only alternative I'd recommend would be the .454 Casull.
Understood. For anti-personnel purposes,
I don 't believe that more than .44 special is appropriate.





oralloy wrote:
And only if the person carrying the gun can handle it well.
If the .454 Casull is too much for them, they will be better off
defending themselves with the .44 magnum even though it has less power.
Well, remember that recoil has no effect on the first shot.
In a defensive situation, u 've gotta get the job done.




oralloy wrote:
(Incidentally, I believe that is a intentionally staged shot with a circus lion and a lion tamer.)
I was thinking that.
There r several possibilities to avoid the risk n inconvenience
of moving lions around, e.g. using a computer graphic lion,
or a stuffed lion.





David
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2010 10:02 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

I have never supported gun ownership.


Neither did Hitler.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2010 10:08 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

plainoldme wrote:

I have never supported gun ownership.


Neither did Hitler.
Stalin was against it too.
After Castro took over,
he sent troops searching house-to-house for guns.
He made sure that the commies kept a monopoly of power.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2010 10:23 am
Quote:
It's hard not to think of guns these days . . .
but its a lot of FUN to think about them, and to COLLECT them





David
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 09:26 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:



Why does one carry a gun? Allegedly to defend against criminals.

My daughter-in-law . . . five feet tall and 90 pounds . . . said what if someone breaks in while you are asleep or in your basement doing laundry? What do you say? Excuse me while I get my gun?


Your example does not fit your question.
If your daughter-in-law was carrying a gun on her person she would be in the position to say get out of my ******* house right now!

A .38 special Air-weight revolver or a Glock 19 would be pistols she should consider keeping on her person.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 06:50:07