Subject:
|
Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:11:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
873 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > Think about this for a moment:
> > 1) Are all walls the same?
> > 2) Are all washing machines the same?
> > 3) What angle will a bullet hit a wall at?
> > 4) What angle will a bullet hit a washing machine at?
> >
> > I concede that a bullet may well go through a wall and a WM. But, I also
> > argue that it may not go through a wall (my own are 200-300mm sandstone) or
> > a WM.
>
> Call the question.
>
> Are we arguing ballistics, or discussing the role of a well regulated
> militia in a free society? (or even in Canada, not quite free at this time)
> I'm confused.
>
> For the record, I concede that there is a non zero probability that a bullet
> fired may go in ANY direction after impacting ANY thing. That includes
> directly back at the shooter after hitting a feather pillow, and that
> includes going straight through a 3M thick stone fireplace. Both of those
> are highly (ridiculously?) unlikely but cannot be ruled out.
>
> So what?
>
> That is, what is your point exactly?
My point is that, even when well trained (and I doubt you are), when a
person fires a gun the bullet can end up almost anywhere.
>
> Discussing all this ballistics stuff is at best mildly amusing, but totally
> beside the point, IMHO.
In your opionion.
Scott A
>
> I for one *accept the risk* from this and from all sorts of other unintended
> consequences of having and using this and various other tools. The tool
> benefits are too large to turn aside from them. That risk trade off applies
> to all classes of tools. I make that trade off every time I get in an
> automobile, which tool is more likely to kill me than my gun (since I've
> owned my first gun I've had precisely 0 gun related accidents or near
> accidents but have been involved in several accidents and near accidents
> with automobiles, at least one of which could have killed me with no
> trouble) (1)(2)
>
> Further, force projection devices are in a special category for reasons I've
> already discussed... and I don't judge them merely by their utility vs.
> probability of harm, like I do paring knives, high tension lines, cleaning
> solvents and unicycles, to name a few other tools. They get a pass even if
> they are dangerous. No need to be a darn fool around them, of course, but
> they are not subject to the same calculus as pitchforks (even LEGO ones).
>
> 1 - Highly unscientific, no statistical validity as a predictor, but I can
> name off three LUGNETters who have been in car accidents, none of them their
> fault, just since LUGNet started. Maybe it's a right wing conspiracy to keep
> them quiet, but to my knowledge no LUGNetter has been involved in a gun
> accident. What's that you say? Apples and oranges comparision? So are most
> of the other statistics quoted so far.
>
> 2- BTW none of the accidents and near misses I've been in have been my
> fault, except for one near miss in which I was being a darn fool, using my
> cell while driving and paying too much attention to the call and not enough
> to the road. I almost rear ended someone, had to swerve around them.
>
> Thank goodness no one was in the shoulder. Thank goodness the shoulder was
> paved and it was a dry sunny day, or I would have lost control. As it was I
> had to fight for several hundred meters to regain control of the Stratus.
> Thank goodness I was in the Stratus, I would have rolled the Durango for
> sure since I was 45 degrees from direction of travel decelerating from 60
> MPH several times trying to recover and the Durango has grippy tires.
>
> But I ain't giving up driving and I ain't giving up cell phones (although I
> am trying to swear off using them at the same time... it's very hard for a
> road warrior like me to give up calling ahead to see if my flight is on
> time!)... too useful. Still, I have to try to be more careful with cars, I
> do like to go fast.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) While some people were working the theme for humor value, who was actually arguing that point in a serious way? No one. You need to draw some meaningful conclusion from it or it has no relevance. That's not just an opinion, that's the way (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) Call the question. Are we arguing ballistics, or discussing the role of a well regulated militia in a free society? (or even in Canada, not quite free at this time) I'm confused. For the record, I concede that there is a non zero probability (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
