Self Destruct......

[Shyal_malkes]

i would prefer a sword, or more realistically a long knife or dagger. unless i get employed with shooting things i don't really see much need for something long range (and i hate to admit it but i am somewhat gunshy(not anti munitions just a bit gunshy))

[StrangeWulf13]

They're loud and noisy and they scare me.

That about sum it up?

Listen, I know you may be a bit gunshy, but so long as the barrels not pointed at you, you generally don't have much to worry about. I think they make most ammunition ricochet (sp?) proof these days.

But hey, if you don't like guns, you can always get some martial arts training, if you don't already have some.

Either way, you won't be invincible, but you will be just a bit safer than with no gun or martial arts skills.

Now where's my 2x4? I've got some punk gangsta heads to bash in...

[SolidusRaccoon]

Colt SAA, the feel of it, the smell of it, the sound of it, the legacy of it, I love that gun.

[Msd22000]

#1 is a given. Everybody likes to think that they are smarter than everybody else. It's a simple matter of ego.

Your entire post is rooted in this one statement, which I truly hope, for your sake, you do not sincerely believe.

When a customer comes to my shop, I believe he is smarter than I in deciding what he wants done and why. I will ask several questions to clear up any misunderstanding, and then do my job.

When a plumber comes to repair my water pipes, I believe he is smarter than I regarding what needs to be done and how. I will answer his questions as clearly as I can, and let him do his job.

Life is not always a contest of egos, but is often a cooperative effort.

No UncleMontey I do not believe that I am smarter that everyone else. I try to keep a good track of my own personal limitations, which are legion. Personally I believe that there are areas where yes I am smarter, but there are also areas where I am dumber. For example I know that I am a pretty good VB6 programmer. Not an elite, but still better than many. I also know that if I tried rewiring a house that it would more likely than not end up burning down, or that the oven would turn on when you flushed the toilet.

The point I was trying to make is more that no one likes to think of themselves as stupid. So there is a natural human tendency to think of ourselves as at least being above average. Depending on personality and other factors this can be a simple tendency, or it can be a self deluding loop. And that even people who recognize the tendency in themselves can still get caught up in the loop for a while before breaking free.

What I was trying to say, and perhaps I should have been clearer, is that when it comes to politics (and some other things) this viewpoint seems to often times come to the fore. That people can get caught up in an internal loop of: I have made all the right connections so my viewpoint must be right, therefore anyone that disagrees with me must have put the pieces together wrong. And since it is so perfectly clear and logical to me you would have to be stupid not to understand.

I think that this tendency has been reinforced by the echo chambers that many political websites and forums have turned into. It has also been reinforced by the tendency of both the Democratic and Republican parties to accept nothing less than total victory. They have become so obsessed with scoring points off of each other that they can't admit it when the other side has a point. There has also been an increasing tendency towards the 'if you aren't with us you are against us' mindset. Dissent within the party is seen as something to be avoided at all costs because otherwise the opposition might be able to score some points.

I feel that this is exemplified by representative Hastert's famous statement that bills would only be passed in the house if the "marjority of the majority" supported them. And on going attempts by the Republican majority to eliminate Democrat involvement in the legislative process. Or my local idiot McDermott complaining about our plans to attack Iraq, from Baghdad, and his other legendary examples of foot in mouth disease.

Well I seem to have gone off on a little bit of a rant. So I will end this by laying some of my cards on the table. First of all I trust both Democrats and Republicans about as far as I can drop kick my car. However, despite agreeing with many of the points Republicans make I vote almost exclusively Democratic. Why? Because I see the Republican party engaging in a very thinly veiled power grab that is attempting to leave their viewpoint not only the law of the land but the only viewpoint that will be allowed. And because I find many aspects of their Hyper-Nationalism disturbing. Admitedly I also find the Democratic 'can't we all just get allong' mentatlity childishly myopic. What I would really love to see is a true centerist party.

[Aurrin]

Because I see the Republican party engaging in a very thinly veiled power grab that is attempting to leave their viewpoint not only the law of the land but the only viewpoint that will be allowed. And because I find many aspects of their Hyper-Nationalism disturbing. Admitedly I also find the Democratic 'can't we all just get allong' mentatlity childishly myopic. What I would really love to see is a true centerist party.

Hear, Hear!

[Starfury]

Quick step back to the whole gun thing....
Whenever I mentioned to me friends at college that I intended to get a gun when I was on my own, (And take sourses, the whole nine yards. I don't like the idea of blowing a limb off), they thought I was nuts. In particular they said this...

You want to give the mugger a gun?

Is there some kind of sentement where muggers are smarter, faster, more powerful then the average armed/trained citizen?

My friends are smart, normally well thought people. But this really got me. What the crap happened?

[RHJunior]

See, in order to be a liberal, you have to believe that a mugger can grab a gun from you faster than you can pull the trigger....

but that he'll stand there with his thumb up his butt while you pull out a cellphone, dial 911, and wait for the police to arrive.

[Starfury]

None of these guys are liberal in any way except this. So I question wether its simply lack of education, parental influence, or what. Either that or they think that I personally am incapable of actually shooting an idjit. I dunno. Just an oddity in an otherwise normal bunch of friends.

[Sharuuk]

None of these guys are liberal in any way except this. So I question wether its simply lack of education, parental influence, or what. Either that or they think that I personally am incapable of actually shooting an idjit. I dunno. Just an oddity in an otherwise normal bunch of friends.

It seems to be more a case of induced ignorance...with a healthy dose of "willful blindness". I would imagine that your friends have gotten most if not all of their "gun education" thru the media and from Hollywierd.

A perfect example is an episode of "Montel Williams" where he had several women on both sides of the gun issue as his guests. When this tiny woman stated that she had a handgun for self defense, most of the audience "booed" and Montel decided to demonstrate "how easy it is for a mugger to take your gun away and use it against you". He had this 6'4" stage master act as a mugger, and Montel, who professed to be an "experienced martial artist" stood just at arm's length (his) and held this revolver on the "mugger" with one hand and at arm's length with the gun about 18in from the dude. As he turned to address the audience, the guy snatched the gun from him! (can you spell "set-up?)

Of course Monty expressed oh so much surprise and dismay at being disarmed so easily since he was a matial artist etc etc......

I was screaming at the TV I was so pissed off.......show the audience the absolute worst way to hold someone at gunpoint and make it seem like that's the only way an "untrained civilian" could ever act.....pure unadulterated bullsh*t.

Then God smiled.......

They came back from break and the same tiny, like maybe 5ft, older lady told Montel that she'd let him stand close enough to touch her and that he couldn't get the gun before she'd put at least two rounds in him.

Oh it was on then......he tried to decline because he "didn't want to hurt her", she countered that he was an "experienced martial arts expert" and she trusted his control etc etc........he kept trying to weasle out and she kept pressing until he finally agreed (delicious irony). Now Montel towers a foot or more over this woman and his arms are as long as her legs. The gun was again proven to be empty and she then gripped it in her left hand and held it against her left hip pointing at Monty.

He just stood there looking at her.......she told him to try and grab the gun, and in a fantastic moment of enlightenment said: "I can't". She told him to try anyway because he was so much larger and faster and younger etc, etc.....he made his move while they were talking and before he got anywhere near the gun, she rocked backward slightly and you heard 3 distinct sharp clicks as she snapped off 3 "shots" that would have hit him center mass.

You could have heard a fly fart the audience was so quiet........after maybe 5 of the longest seconds for Monty......she administered the coup d' gras with this statement........

"Anyone who would hold a gun on an attacker the way you just did, deserves to have it taken away and used as a suppository!"

The audience went nuts.......and the show ended.

I have never in my life seen a TV talk show host absolutely blown out of the water that dramatically as well as get their entire agenda totally destroyed in front of a live audience..................and God smiled.......again.

S'aaruuk

[CasVeg]

Do you think it might be fun to see what one could do with a combination of training in gunmanship, martial arts, and show magic (and the right gun design)?

[Narnian]

Colt SAA, the feel of it, the smell of it, the sound of it, the legacy of it, I love that gun.

Nice but too long. More interested in a small semi-automatic pistol versus a revolver. More like a SIG 229 or 239 (in two tone nickel!). I've always liked the look of Walthers.

[UncleMonty]

#1 is a given. Everybody likes to think that they are smarter than everybody else. It's a simple matter of ego.

No UncleMontey I do not believe that I am smarter that everyone else.

If you're going to argue with yourself, why post it to this forum? You can do that in the privacy of your own home.

[StrangeWulf13]

Colt SAA, the feel of it, the smell of it, the sound of it, the legacy of it, I love that gun.

Nice but too long. More interested in a small semi-automatic pistol versus a revolver. More like a SIG 229 or 239 (in two tone nickel!). I've always liked the look of Walthers.

Well, if you wanna go that route, you can. However, Sharuuk convinced me (though PM I think) that revolvers are a smarter way to go. Why? Two reasons.

1. They don't jam. At least not as often as semi-autos do. If nothing happens when you pull the trigger, you just keep pulling it until you get a bang. With semi-autos, you have to go through this whole process that takes three steps and might unjam the gun. All while your attacker is advancing. No thank you.

2. Semi-autos tend to hold more rounds than a revolver. But more bullets means nothing if your aim is crap. Besides, anyone who owns a gun (or who has played the Ratchet & Clank games) knows that ammunition can be expensive, especially if wasted. With good enough accuracy, five or six bullets per gun is all you need. Anything more is really unnecessary, unless you're facing multiple attackers.

He might've given more reasons, but these two are what I remember most. And they're why I'll buy a revolver if I ever get a gun. I can't think of any better reasons to prefer them over semi-autos.

[Sharuuk]

Do you think it might be fun to see what one could do with a combination of training in gunmanship, martial arts, and show magic (and the right gun design)?

Watch Jackie Chan......he does some things like that......and with just about anything he lays hands on as well.

S'aaruuk

[Sharuuk]

Well, if you wanna go that route, you can. However, Sharuuk convinced me (though PM I think) that revolvers are a smarter way to go. Why? Two reasons.

1. They don't jam. At least not as often as semi-autos do. If nothing happens when you pull the trigger, you just keep pulling it until you get a bang. With semi-autos, you have to go through this whole process that takes three steps and might unjam the gun. All while your attacker is advancing. No thank you.

2. Semi-autos tend to hold more rounds than a revolver. But more bullets means nothing if your aim is crap. Besides, anyone who owns a gun (or who has played the Ratchet & Clank games) knows that ammunition can be expensive, especially if wasted. With good enough accuracy, five or six bullets per gun is all you need. Anything more is really unnecessary, unless you're facing multiple attackers.

He might've given more reasons, but these two are what I remember most. And they're why I'll buy a revolver if I ever get a gun. I can't think of any better reasons to prefer them over semi-autos.

SrangeWulf,

Thank you very much for the kudos, and I'm glad I was helpful in your decision. However, I need to point out that I was recommending a small double action (DA) revolver as a first gun if you had little or no handgun experience and for the reasons you so eloquently stated above.

Thanks again

S'aaruuk

[Luna_Northcat]

<snip> First of all I trust both Democrats and Republicans about as far as I can drop kick my car. However, despite agreeing with many of the points Republicans make I vote almost exclusively Democratic. Why? Because I see the Republican party engaging in a very thinly veiled power grab that is attempting to leave their viewpoint not only the law of the land but the only viewpoint that will be allowed. And because I find many aspects of their Hyper-Nationalism disturbing. Admitedly I also find the Democratic 'can't we all just get allong' mentatlity childishly myopic. What I would really love to see is a true centerist party.

Well said, (no, actually, excellently said) -- and again, hear hear!

[Luna_Northcat]

<snip>

Is there some kind of sentement where muggers are smarter, faster, more powerful then the average armed/trained citizen?

My friends are smart, normally well thought people. But this really got me. What the crap happened?

My thought? They might be thinking of the sort of "combat paralysis" which most people (and I do mean most people) display when they are attacked. The simple, sad fact is that in most cases the attacker has a speed and reaction advantage over a normal person because he comes prepared to do violence, and he is initiating the action. Speaking from unfortunate experience -- unless you have had some form of training or prior experience which will eliminate it, when you are attacked you freeze for a fraction of a second out of sheer surprise, or shock that you've been attacked. It is not the kind of thing that happens to people in the normal run of events, after all. And when you freeze -- and seriously, freezing is the normal response -- the mugger or attacker has a chance to take whatever you're carrying off you. It is a very rare person who does not have combat training or experience and does not give the attacker that advantage.

Also, unless you have your gun somewhere you can get to it within a fraction of a second, which means you can't be carrying it in the bottom of a bag -- then your attacker is armed and you aren't -- and as soon as he sees you fumbling around for something he's going to make sure you are helpless or wounded and then he's going to take it off you.

Which is why, IMO, if you are going to get a gun it is also VERY worthwhile to take martial arts or the more serious self-defense classes as well, so that you have the reflexes you need.

[Msd22000]

#1 is a given. Everybody likes to think that they are smarter than everybody else. It's a simple matter of ego.

No UncleMontey I do not believe that I am smarter that everyone else.

If you're going to argue with yourself, why post it to this forum? You can do that in the privacy of your own home.

Please note the use of the word LIKES. Do I LIKE to think of myself as being smarter than most people, yes. Do I actually THINK that I am smarter than most people, no. This is not a logical inconsistency. Now, admitedly I should have said 'most people' or 'many people' or 'a lot of people' instead of everyone.

[Shyal_malkes]

and besides: why argue with yourself in the privacy of your own home when you can post and let everyone else watch you do it?

[Msd22000]

and besides: why argue with yourself in the privacy of your own home when you can post and let everyone else watch you do it?

Anyway, if you argue with yourself you can get into a loop where you can't see the faults in your own arguments. It sometimes takes someone else to point out the blindingly obvious.