Arizona Senator brings gun to senate, points it at reporter to demo laser sight

Bad^Hat said:
What kind of gun should I get if I want to shoot a thread to death.
Click to expand...



suicide-gun.jpg
 
ríomhaire said:
The only time a gun is safe is when there are no bullets in it.
Click to expand...

The only time a gun is safe when it's nowhere near a human or any other living creature.

To elaborate: I talked to an Internal Affairs guy once (my Dad's acquaintance), who explained how a lot of gun-related accidents happen: pure human stupidity and thinking "there are no bullets in it".

Case in point: a policeman's party, some alcohol was drunk, dares start flying. So, the guy unloads the gun, presses it against his head and pulls the trigger. Bam, one dead policeman. Where did he make the mistake? He pulled the slide to eject the bullet in the chamber and then took out the magazine. A mistake easy to make, but fatal in consequences. That's why I say a gun's still unsafe when you think there are no bullets in it.
 
Tagaziel said:
The only time a gun is safe when it's nowhere near a human or any other living creature.
Click to expand...

Or when it has no bullets in it. Tell me how its dangerous enough to be considered unsafe when its completely unloaded.
 
Ugh, some sickening murderous basterds ITT.
 
Krynn72 said:
Or when it has no bullets in it. Tell me how its dangerous enough to be considered unsafe when its completely unloaded.
Click to expand...
I think the idea is that it's too easy to make a mistake and that you're better off just assuming the gun could be loaded with secret invisible bullets.
 
Tagaziel said:
The only time a gun is safe when it's nowhere near a human or any other living creature.
Click to expand...
Silly Mikael, guns can shoot over long distances! They don't need to be nearby to kill.
 
Sulkdodds said:
I think the idea is that it's too easy to make a mistake and that you're better off just assuming the gun could be loaded with secret invisible bullets.
Click to expand...

Tagaziel said:
Sulkdodds understood the point. You did not.
Click to expand...

The statement you quoted and responded to was not "the only safe gun is a gun that might have no bullets in it" It was "has no bullets". Which still means your response was stupid, because a gun with no bullets in it is still safe, and that's the only thing riom said. If you're going to throw in "might"s and shit, then I'll go ahead and throw them into your statement as well, and say a loaded gun might still kill someone while they're bringing it to that nowhere place. See how stupid things get when you throw in stupid changes that ruin the intent of the original statement?
 
But I think it's clear (if counter-intuitive) that Mikael's statement relied on the subjectivity of human knowledge. In any human mouth the statement "this gun has no bullets in it" must necessarily and tacitly read "as far as I know this gun has no bullets in it." While in this case the objective truth will quickly make itself known upon pulling the trigger, the gun is until then in superposition, simultaneously loaded and unloaded. One should not casually invite that wave function to collapse. One therefore errs on the side of extreme caution because the consequences of being wrong are very serious.

EDIT: Oh, come on, ROBOTS?!? THAT'S JUST FREAKING RIDICULOUS
 
Sulkdodds said:
But I think it's clear (if counter-intuitive) that Mikael's statement relied on the subjectivity of human knowledge. In any human mouth the statement "this gun has no bullets in it" must necessarily and tacitly read "as far as I know this gun has no bullets in it." While in this case the objective truth will quickly make itself known upon pulling the trigger, the gun is until then in superposition, simultaneously loaded and unloaded. One should not casually invite that wave function to collapse. One therefore errs on the side of extreme caution because the consequences of being wrong are very serious.
Click to expand...
But it really just sounds like your typical 'afraid of guns' person who would rather keep guns as far away from themselves as possible (running away from the problem) rather than learn proper gun safety (dealing with the problem). You can easily check if any gun is loaded without pulling the trigger. Gun safety rules exist for a reason.

Nobody would (should) say a gun is unloaded unless they themselves checked the chamber beforehand. So therefore the statement is still wrong. Your reasoning is bordering on "how do I know the wall is still there if I'm not facing it" logic.
 
Well, I'm being facetious, but also I don't know anything about guns and what the gun safety rules are. I thought perhaps gun safety was way quantum.
 
It's ironic that the people who hate guns the most aren't interested in learning how to safely handle them so that they don't harm themselves or others if they ever do come in contact with one.
 
lord_raken said:
I might have agreed with you were it not for the sizable majority of gun owners who are very smart about guns and gun safety.

Edit: I literally face-palmed when I saw the gun. Its a WEAPON not an accessory! You dumb bitch!

on top of that, that type of gun is nearly useless. Its accuracy it crap, the small frame makes it hard to control, and the .380 cartridge is essentially a neutered 9mm (which has a deficit in power to begin with).
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the next time shoots you with a .380, you should tell us that it's underpowered.
 
Sulkdodds said:
But I think it's clear (if counter-intuitive)In any human mouth the statement "this gun has no bullets in it" must necessarily and tacitly read "as far as I know this gun has no bullets in it." While in this case the objective truth will quickly make itself known upon pulling the trigger,
Click to expand...

I disagree that Riom's statement must necessarily be read as a subjective statement, and I think its quite clear that he was in fact speaking in a context that required only the existence of the weapon. He was making the objective statement that an unloaded gun is safe. While it may not be safe for people to take unsafe actions with any gun loaded or not, it does not change the fact that an unloaded gun is perfectly safe. If I were to waive about a an unloaded gun at folk, it is still safe, regardless of my knowledge of the gun's state of being loaded or unloaded. If the argument Tagaziel was making was that the most assuredly safe interaction with a firearm is no interaction at all, I would agree with him. However, this was not his argument, and he make a statement that claimed any interaction with a firearm is unsafe, regardless of whether or not it is loaded, which is most definitely false.
 
Krynn72 said:
I disagree that Riom's statement must necessarily be read as a subjective statement, and I think its quite clear that he was in fact speaking in a context that required only the existence of the weapon.
Click to expand...
I actually completely agree with Mikael's correction of my statement.
 
And I now agree with Krynn! This is getting complicated.
 
Vegeta897 said:
It's ironic that the people who hate guns the most aren't interested in learning how to safely handle them so that they don't harm themselves or others if they ever do come in contact with one.
Click to expand...

That's only ironic if your 'if' happens.
 
So here is what I have gathered.

A gun that is, objectively, unloaded is only as dangerous as its ability to bludgeon people. However, ANY individual handling a gun should ALWAYS treat it like it is loaded and never point it at anything they don't want to kill. Following this philosophy to gun handling without exception is designed helps keep accidental shootings to a minimum.

Any bullet can kill you. Some do it faster than others, but lethality/effectiveness depends more on the shooter's skill and ammo type. That being said different rounds behave differently, and there is a measurable difference between the damage different rounds can do to a human or other target. Sometimes it can make a difference. The larger the caliber means a larger hole and more damage, that may make a difference. However, the most important factor in self defense is choosing a gun you can use and shoot well. If you weigh 90 pounds a .44 magnum is not for you.

As for me, I'll go with the 9mm for concealed carry, a 45 ACP for my home and 357 revolver for my car. (assuming I carry out my plan to acquire an arsenal)
 
lord_raken said:
So here is what I have gathered.

A gun that is, objectively, unloaded is only as dangerous as its ability to bludgeon people. However, ANY individual handling a gun should ALWAYS treat it like it is loaded and never point it at anything they don't want to kill. Following this philosophy to gun handling without exception is designed helps keep accidental shootings to a minimum.

Any bullet can kill you. Some do it faster than others, but lethality/effectiveness depends more on the shooter's skill and ammo type. That being said different rounds behave differently, and there is a measurable difference between the damage different rounds can do to a human or other target. Sometimes it can make a difference. The larger the caliber means a larger hole and more damage, that may make a difference. However, the most important factor in self defense is choosing a gun you can use and shoot well. If you weigh 90 pounds a .44 magnum is not for you.

As for me, I'll go with the 9mm for concealed carry, a 45 ACP for my home and 357 revolver for my car. (assuming I carry out my plan to acquire an arsenal)
Click to expand...

Except I've already proved that caliber and wound size don't really matter in self defense scenarios, as any wound that isn't to the central nervous system will not immediately incapacitate somebody. If anybody learns something from this thread, it should be that fact.
 
Krynn72 said:
Except I've already proved that caliber and wound size don't really matter in self defense scenarios, as any wound that isn't to the central nervous system will not immediately incapacitate somebody. If anybody learns something from this thread, it should be that fact.
Click to expand...

"will not" I'm sorry but you have not proven that. You have shown that a shot the the central nervous system is the only way to make SURE to incapacitate the target. Weather or not less critical hits incapacitates the target are subject to other factors. The study you brought in says this.

The human target can be reliably incapacitated only by disrupting or destroying the brain or upper
spinal cord. Absent that, incapacitation is subject to a host of variables, the most important of which are
beyond the control of the shooter. Incapacitation becomes an eventual event, not necessarily an immediate
one. If the psychological factors which can contribute to incapacitation are present, even a minor wound
can be immediately incapacitating. If they are not present, incapacitation can be significantly delayed
even with major, unsurvivable wounds.
Click to expand...

The study then goes on the say that round penetration is VITAL to the ability to incapacitate. A good round must penetrate clothing, skin, fat muscle, bone and organs to do its job properly. the 9mm has consistently higher penetration than the .380. So excluding all the arguments about "knock down power" and "wound volume" the 9mm is still the better choice.

here is the link to the penetration numbers.

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/l/aast9mmv380a.htm

Ammunition selection matters, just not in the way many of us (and I include myself in this group) generally think of it.
 
lord_raken said:
"will not" I'm sorry but you have not proven that. You have shown that a shot the the central nervous system is the only way to make SURE to incapacitate the target. Weather or not less critical hits incapacitates the target are subject to other factors. The study you brought in says this.
Click to expand...

The quote you make only serves to prove my point that the wound size doesn't really matter in these circumstances. You could blast a 10 inch hole in somebody and they can still continue the attack, with more than enough time to fire a gun back at you.

The study then goes on the say that round penetration is VITAL to the ability to incapacitate. A good round must penetrate clothing, skin, fat muscle, bone and organs to do its job properly. the 9mm has consistently higher penetration than the .380. So excluding all the arguments about "knock down power" and "wound volume" the 9mm is still the better choice.

here is the link to the penetration numbers.

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/l/aast9mmv380a.htm

Ammunition selection matters, just not in the way many of us (and I include myself in this group) generally think of it.
Click to expand...

I said as much in my first post with the article. On average, a .380 round will penetrate 8-10 inches if you're using a normal hollow point round, and 12+ inches with a full metal jacket, which is going to be enough any self defense case really unless you're shooting a fat guy whose organs are more than 8+ inches back from the front of his body. I will grant you one concession, and say that hollow point .380 rounds may be a bad idea since there's a chance they wont reach the spinal column for an immediate incapacitation. But again, in practical terms, the chance of hitting such a mark in such an extremely high-stress environment like a self-defense situation is very low anyways, so its probably not going to make a huge difference.
 
Raken you should just carry around an anti-materiel to be safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top