The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[El_Machinae]

Unfortunately, I knew waaaay more ammosexuals who were all about confrontations and killing the intruder than those who were packing bird shot or rock salt. They weren't really worried about trying to escape, they practically fantasized about killing someone who broke in.

To me, ammosexuals are a lot like people who fantasize about their zombie survival strategies. There are much more pressing concerns that are (a) more likely and (b) need to be defended against. I don't care how badass you look with your baseball bat wrapped in barbwire if you're trying to eek a living in an environmental catastrophe while dying from an antibiotic-resistant infection.

Ammosexuals are scary. But honestly, so is the person who puts rock-salt into their shotgun. There is an intensely thin Venn intersection when it comes to "people who need to be shot" and "people who will be stopped by rock salt". If you're shooting someone, it's because you're shooting someone who needs to be stopped, for life-and-death reasons.

I would never disagree with a 12 gauge for utility. I only see '20 gauge' when it's specifically home defense. They're so much easier to use compared to the loss of stopping power. As well, the number 3 shot gives a much better lead/recoil ratio in the 20.

 

[rah]

Stronger flavor than beef, chewier.

Yeah, it's also good for jerky.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

For the record, Commodore is conflating the issue of eating deer meat you hunt with actually hunting for subsistence.

I know. It's in the same vein as when he says the 2nd amendment is the most important thing ever and then when someone asks what his opinion would be if it was replaced/repealed, he goes:

Like I said, we believe in the ideas, not the document.

 

[Farm Boy]

Never fired a 20 truth be told. 12s are a little bit muley.

 

[Lexicus]

I know. It's in the same vein as when he says the 2nd amendment is the most important thing ever and then when someone asks what his opinion would be if it was replaced/repealed, he goes:

It's like the difference between gardening and subsistence farming

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think he's already specified he means the contents of the document are important, rather than the literal physical incarnation of it, so there's no contradiction there.

 

[El_Machinae]

Except your "sensible gun laws" effectively put the entire supply of firearms under government control. And who controls the government? The same billionaires I see a lot of people who are for control complaining about.

You're right of course. I'll point out that 'military definitions' are also much more under the sway of billionaires as a counterpoint. It's less 'political', just more 'determined by lobbyists'. You're trusting appointed bureaucrats who're accessed by lobbyists more than politicians who are a bit more accountable to the electorate (even if not by much). The military comes from the same culture that took the 2nd Amendment and the War on Drugs, and decided that militarizing the police and private prisons was the best response . It's a mindset. The best you can hope for is that the politicians weed out the bad bureaucrats. And for that, you need to trust the electorate.

You might be wondering why your argument isn't resonating. It's because it's coming across as post-hoc and you're trying to preach without being a member of the community. It's like me trying to convince a Christian what Jesus meant when he's quoted as saying "turn the other cheek". There are interpretations of the idea, but you just suspect that my interpretation has readings other than 'more closely following Jesus'

In other words, people don't think that you're actually an ally when it comes to dismantling the power of billionaires over society. You're perceiving 'hypocrisy', but it's from the outside looking in, which means that (because you're not an ally on the actual concern) you're not perceiving the nuance under which your criticism is being ignored. Also, the fact that you're not actually an ally (but perceived as hostile to both underlying goals) means that your point is being discounted in a way that an ally's wouldn't be.

 

[El_Machinae]

Never fired a 20 truth be told. 12s are a little bit muley.

The main risk is that people trim down the weight of the 20 too much. Then you still have a lot of recoil transfer, which makes training the family harder.

 

[EgonSpengler]

To me, ammosexuals are a lot like people who fantasize about their zombie survival strategies. There are much more pressing concerns that are (a) more likely and (b) need to be defended against. I don't care how badass you look with your baseball bat wrapped in barbwire if you're trying to eek a living in an environmental catastrophe while dying from an antibiotic-resistant infection.

You gotta admit it does look pretty badass, though.

Ammosexuals are scary. But honestly, so is the person who puts rock-salt into their shotgun. There is an intensely thin Venn intersection when it comes to "people who need to be shot" and "people who will be stopped by rock salt". If you're shooting someone, it's because you're shooting someone who needs to be stopped, for life-and-death reasons.

I remember hearing that you aren't supposed to shoot to wound, that you're only supposed to shoot when lethal force is the only thing you have left. I suppose it's easy to "accidentally" kill someone with a shot to a leg or a shoulder, as opposed to what you see in the movies all the time. And I think you can f someone up for life by shooting them in the shoulder, because it's such a complicated joint. Maybe that's true for the leg, too.

---

In other news, I heard on the radio this morning that two of the victims in Ohio were hit by police bullets. One of them was a minor wound, and the other, while they would have died from the police bullet, was also mortally wounded by the gunman. The news report noted that the gunman had been shot 24 times, and I wondered how many shots the police fired. In the video, I think you can see at least one of the officers reloading as he moving forward. I think the gunman was down by that point, but if each of the 3 officers we could see firing emptied his magazine, that's, what, 36 rounds altogether? 48? And that's if the pair that exited offscreen didn't fire at all. So here again is another illustration of the limits of gunfire as a good solution to gunfire (as opposed to, "we as a society have screwed this all up so badly that we're left with five cops emptying their magazines on a crowded street and calling that a win").

 

[Farm Boy]

D-Fs on the street gawking then being a pain in the ass about it later at church when I try to teach my son how to use a pellet gun are a bigger hindrance because the spouse seems to think their opinion is worth anything past flushing. And they call officers about stupid things because they are stupid.

 

[El_Machinae]

I remember hearing that you aren't supposed to shoot to wound, that you're only supposed to shoot when lethal force is the only thing you have left. I suppose it's easy to "accidentally" kill someone with a shot to a leg or a shoulder, as opposed to what you see in the movies all the time. And I think you can f someone up for life by shooting them in the shoulder, because it's such a complicated joint. Maybe that's true for the leg, too.

Shooting to wound is a very different thing from shooting to 'cause pain so they quit'. Rocksalt and the finer shot pellets will basically ablate skin if you're lucky, which might cause an incapacitating amount of pain if you're lucky. As you see with the police video, 'shooting to incapacitate' is this weird confluence of luck already, since even potentially lethal rounds can fail to slow down someone. Sometimes it's blunt trauma stopping someone, where they're being hit as hard as the palm of your hand is being hit by the recoil (minus any momentum if the bullet leaves their meat). Sometimes it's actual blood loss. Sometimes it's pain. The least of these is pain.

The defensive culture where I am from is that you only pull the trigger when death is necessary. It's why targets that depict actual people are so utterly offensive. I've seen defensive communities where targets depicting despised celebrities are 'acceptable', and I was so agog at my culture shock I handled it very poorly.

 

[Farm Boy]

Only jackoffs actually fire at pictures of real people for practice. Maybe assassins. And they might be jackoffs by default.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Nope. Hunters today still get it done in one shot. Like I've said though, an AR is useful for when you get attacked by another predator out there. When that happened to hunters back then, they were pretty much screwed since they'd have to tangle hand to hand with whatever was attacking them. And I don't know if you are aware or not, but compared to other animals, humans aren't the most physically adept species out there. It's our brainpower that saves us, and our brainpower allowed us to think up all kinds of neat weapons to compensate for our lack of physical prowess.

Ok, how about you support that claim. Can you show me how many instances there have been where people have had to defend themselves from wild beasts and used an AR?

 

[El_Machinae]

Even then, it's selection bias. People defend themselves based on what they have. If people are carrying knives, you're going to find more stories where people used knives instead of bullwhips.

You're more asking for cases where 30-round magazines were essential. The AR-15 platform is not the worst for going into the woods, since multiple guns are expensive and it's relatively lightweight.
But if you're loosing more than 10 rounds while dealing with a predatory animal (without the opportunity to reload), it's probably time to take up fishing.

Only jackoffs actually fire at pictures of real people for practice. Maybe assassins. And they might be jackoffs by default.

Absolutely. Now, the entire culture here finds it deeply offensive. What I wasn't ready for was how it was seen as 'perfectly acceptable'. Heck, if the response had been "that's something jerks do, sometimes", I'd have been more capable of hiding my disgust.

 

[Lexicus]

Absolutely. Now, the entire culture here finds it deeply offensive. What I wasn't ready for was how it was seen as 'perfectly acceptable'. Heck, if the response had been "that's something jerks do, sometimes", I'd have been more capable of hiding my disgust.

Honest question, would you be disgusted if it was like a printout of Hitler?

 

[El_Machinae]

Honest question, would you be disgusted if it was like a printout of Hitler?

Probably not. That might fall into the 'zombie' or 'monster' vibe, in my head. The actual incident involved modern celebrities (so, depictions of living people). I've no idea how I'd react to historical people.

I'd be offended if someone was shooting a depiction of Jesus or Ghandi or whatevs. But that's just because of rudeness. But, closer to the question, I don't know how I'd feel about people who're legitimately targeted for death. (bin Laden would've been an example from that time). I don't think I'd mind bin Laden. Not sure where I sit on the local spectrum on that, either.

The use of celebrities was just too much like 'fantasizing about murder'. It's a real no-no. The shooting community here doesn't treat guns as murder weapons. Merely killing ones (lol).

 

[Lexicus]

Probably not. That might fall into the 'zombie' or 'monster' vibe, in my head. The actual incident involved modern celebrities (so, depictions of living people). I've no idea how I'd react to historical people.

I'd be offended if someone was shooting a depiction of Jesus or Ghandi or whatevs. But that's just because of rudeness. But, closer to the question, I don't know how I'd feel about people who're legitimately targeted for death. (bin Laden would've been an example from that time). I don't think I'd mind bin Laden. Not sure where I sit on the local spectrum on that, either.

The use of celebrities was just too much like 'fantasizing about murder'. It's a real no-no. The shooting community here doesn't treat guns as murder weapons. Merely killing ones (lol).

Makes sense. Was just curious about your thoughts there.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't think I'd mind bin Laden

At best, extremely trashy.

 

[El_Machinae]

Makes sense. Was just curious about your thoughts there.

I'm just describing cultural mores as well. The liberal in me cannot say why it's disgusting, if it doesn't actually hurt anybody. It's just against the vibe of the culture.

 

[Farm Boy]

The culture holds things sacred, and pulling down the sacred weakens the barriers of taboo, scours the protective communal value, the crusting of civilization. Fantasizing can be cathartic. Video game characters aren't real, they don't purport to be real. Acting violently in them describes a situation, addresses an urge or desire. A despised face if real and identifiable, killing it in effigy, in front of others, reinforces a specific desire to commit specific savagery. Depictions of sexual violence, for example, are much more dangerous once you put a real person's face or name on the fantasy. It's a short path to incitement once the target is real.