*facepalm*FBM wrote:When it comes to firearms, I somehow don't think size means as much as you seem to think it does, aspire.
Oh dear, I seem to have touched a nerve. Sorry.
*facepalm*FBM wrote:When it comes to firearms, I somehow don't think size means as much as you seem to think it does, aspire.
The inverse relationship between size and gauge was created to reassure gun nuts about the size of their junk.aspire1670 wrote:*facepalm*FBM wrote:When it comes to firearms, I somehow don't think size means as much as you seem to think it does, aspire.
Oh dear, I seem to have touched a nerve. Sorry.
No need to apologize. I'm sure you're "adequate."aspire1670 wrote:*facepalm*FBM wrote:When it comes to firearms, I somehow don't think size means as much as you seem to think it does, aspire.
Oh dear, I seem to have touched a nerve. Sorry.
Actually, you're lying again. Your own link says, "Those who died by suicide were twice as likely to have a gun at home than either of the other two groups..."Blind groper wrote: Re: Guns used for lawful self defense
Postby Blind groper » Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:20 pm
To Pappa
That is a fair point, but it does not fall in line with observed data. Having a hand gun in the home increases the chances of a suicide by 400%. Having a rifle in the home, but no hand gun, increases suicide risk by a lot less.
Here is a Harvard University item on how high gun possession means high rate of death by suicide.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matte ... index.html
Then they probably shouldn't own a handgun. But to suggest that 300 million non-suicidal people should be prohibited from owning handguns just because a few suicidal individuals misuse handguns is ludicrous.Blind groper wrote:FBM
There is plenty of opportunity to interview suicide survivors, since most suicide attempts fail. As I pointed out, most American suicide attempts are with drugs or knife. However, most successful attempts are with hand gun.
Certainly those who attempt suicide are unhappy. Else why would they do it. The impulse to suicide is brief and temporary. The unhappiness is normally much longer lasting. But most causes of depression can be overcome in time.
No it's not. Some people need to be killed and handguns are one of many effective tools for getting the job done. You are fallaciously ascribing "motive" or "intent" to an inanimate lump of metal that have other purposes than just to "kill people." The vast majority of handguns in fact kill nothing at all and are used routinely to punch holes in paper and spang lead off of steel. That you don't think this is a justifiable recreational activity only demonstrates how mindlessly dedicated you are to your paranoid rantings.Blind groper wrote:Gallstones
Two points.
1. I have never claimed to be better than others.
2. I have never claimed that there is anything wrong with emotion. The problem with gun loving being strongly emotional is the self delusion of gun lovers who refuse to admit this fact to themselves. This is the rationalisation that is going on. Seth, for example, tries to convince us all that he has guns to defend the people's freedom. That is a form of self delusion. His reasons for having guns are purely emotional. In his case, because of the obsessive restating of the largely imaginary 'problem' of someone invading his home, I think fear is a powerful motivator, as well as that feeling of power.
There is nothing wrong with emotions, if we are honest enough to accept our own emotional make up. One of the great joys in my life is the love I have for my wife, and the love she returns to me. Those are powerful emotions, and I openly and gladly admit them. Earlier someone mentioned the love of musical instruments. If that love brings joy, then I am glad for the person blessed with that love.
The love of guns is also wrong when it is tied up with death and misery. If the guns have no use apart from killing humans, as with hand guns, then that love is wrong. If a person is a keen hunter, and puts meat on the table, and loves the rifle that enables him/her to do that, then I am glad for that person's pleasure. But glorifying in weapons that have no purpose other than to kill people is wrong, wrong, wrong!
Actually no. Gauge, only used in shotguns, has a much more interesting history:amused wrote:The inverse relationship between size and gauge was created to reassure gun nuts about the size of their junk.aspire1670 wrote:*facepalm*FBM wrote:When it comes to firearms, I somehow don't think size means as much as you seem to think it does, aspire.
Oh dear, I seem to have touched a nerve. Sorry.
"Why yes, you're a 410? That's MUCH better than being a 12!"
FACT
Also the .410 is actually a calibre and not a gauge (there are some firearms where you can use .410 or .45 long colt ammo interchangeably.The gauge of a firearm is a unit of measurement used to express the diameter of the barrel. Gauge is determined from the weight of a solid sphere of lead that will fit the bore of the firearm, and is expressed as the multiplicative inverse of the sphere's weight as a fraction of a pound (e.g., a 1⁄12th pound ball fits a 12-gauge bore). Thus there are twelve 12-gauge balls per pound (etc.). The term is related to the measurement of cannon, which were also measured by the weight of their iron round shot; an 8 pounder would fire an 8 lb (3.6 kg) spherical cast iron ball and had a bore diameter of about 91 mm (3.6 in).
Oh, Tero! Brace yourself for the inevitable attacks!Tero wrote:I certainly feel superior to gun nuts. My genes are better suited to Future Earth. People are going to give up all kinds of power to cohabit the crowded planet. We will round up all gun nuts and put them in a gun-leper colony. You can shoot each other. We will encourage it.
We will use teanquilizer darts and stung guns when we come and handcuff you.
We will use a combination of armchair sales data and Google Basement Tracker.PordFrefect wrote:How will you round us up? Convincing arguments? Stern looks? Colourful language? :p
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests