moi621 (imported) wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:54 pm
I still favor a voluntarily, open or concealed, armed public. Really. I have for a while.
Some hopefully being properly trained for such emergency responding.
Moi
Yes, and we can go back the days of the wild west. Everyone will have a six-shooter on their hip, and we'll have gun fights at high noon in the middle of the street. Who doesn't love that? Just think of the entertainment that will provide.
Do I smell a new reality TV series? We'll call it, 'High Tension at High Noon: Regular folks sort out their grievances.' It would easily replace those 'People's Court' type TV programs on now.
it's pretty rare for someone doing concealed carry to have better than a medium capacity 9mm. even this will be about 2lbs loaded, then add holster & reloads. .45's & magnums will start at 3lbs loaded & go up from there(then add holster & reloads). your laptop will be 4 or 5 lbs, plus accessories, plus bag. myself , i constantly shift the shoulder strap when carrying mine, so i take a pocket novel to the cafe instead. in addition to physical comfort, a big thick slab of metal under your jacket will be pretty obvious to any cops around. so if there was anyone at that theatre carrying, they wouldn't be carrying much. body armor would reduce 9mm to moderate bruising, but there'd be no chance of knockback. so its down to the faceshot. so you're scared shitless, massively outgunned & outarmored, & your only target is 5 inches of face(btw, if u see his face that means that he sees u). could u patiently line up a shot on a moving 5in target, WHILE HE'S WATCHING U DO IT? i'd hit the floor & crawl outta there.
Riverwind (imported) wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:28 pm
That's right Moi, this was clearly a lack of training because we all know this kind of thing happens all the time.
River
Years ago I had heard Teddy Kennedy was afraid of being shot.
He was trained to drop flat if a shot was heard and not poke his head up to look around.
There could be active, retired military or police persons in the audience.
OK lets see if I understand this right, I live in a small town, about 15k people we have one theater but its a new one with 12 mini theaters, so they run 12 movies at a time from noon to midnight, 2 cops/retired gun per theater, a small command center, call it 50 retired guns per day, times every day of the year, Yes I can see this Moi, in every theater in the country every single day because we know your not safe out there and must be protected from all bad things at all times.
OH the cost? I am sure tax payers wont mind a SAFETY TAX.
I became an avid gun collector when I was about ten years old, having earned the money to buy my first real gun by repairing things for other people. I still have that first gun, and use it regularly. It is a Weller S400, rated at 135 Watts.
After a few months, I was out on a job when I found I was not packing enough heat. So I got a Wen 250 rated at 250 Watts. Several years later, I once again found the need to pack more heat, and added a Weller D550, rated at 200 and 260 Watts, and shooting heat with both hands, using both the Wen 250 and the Weller D550 at its higher power, could pack about 500 Watts of heat, which made practical doing some useful amateur radio antenna soldering in well below freezing weather.
Then I found that I needed a mid-range heat, between 135 and 260 Watts, and added a Weller D440 (145 or 210 Watts) to my gun collection.
When I found that 135 Watts was too much heat for a job I was doing, I added a Weller 8200 (100 Watts) to my becoming a proper citizen member of a well-regulated soldering militia.
Many years later, I took a college course in "American Government," and it dawned on me that soldering guns had not been invented at the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution, and therefore, I had badly misunderstood my right to bear arms. It was not about my right to have two arms, one right arm and one left arm, and it was not about soldering guns.
Psychologically crushed by the recognition of my autism-grounded misunderstanding of the Constitution, I began to search for a way to properly qualify as a U.S. citizen.
Somewhat before my wife's and my daughter was born to us in 1979, we had adopted a "special needs" older child, an eleven year old boy. The adoption agency told of our son's early childhood, one of noteworthy neglect and or abuse. Our son had a desperate need to find ways to protect himself from vivid thoughts of imminent danger. In that, alas, he was eventually fatally unsuccessful, though he made it to within a few days of his would-have-been twenty-eighth birthday.
He had left some of his childhood things in our home when, at 18, he set out as an adult to find his way in the world as best he could.
He abandoned a Healthways TopScore 175 airgun in our Illinois home attic, and it had become abandoned property well before he died, and he abandoned it to my wife and me.
When I finally recognized that my being a proper citizen demanded of me that I have a real gun that would shoot real projectiles, I located that TopScore 175, found that the safety did not work, repaired it, bought a package of 1500 .177 BBs (they work in the Healthways airgun), and test-fired the airgun several times to verify that it works properly.
As part of my being a responsible handgun owner, I keep the Healthways stored so it is locked in an inoperable way with a Project Childsafe (SM) gun lock.
When I test-fired the repaired Healthways airgun, it was capable of making a dent in a chunk of scrap flimsy polystyrene foam.
My hunch is, were a mouse to get into our house and were I to shoot the mouse with the Healthways airgun, there is some chance that the mouse would notice being shot. Whether that would bother the mouse in any way, I have no clue. I would expect any such mouse not to be injured or otherwise harmed.
Methinks that soldering guns are not the real problem.
Methinks guns and ammo are not the real problem.
Methinks that people are not the real problem.
Methinks that forms of (biologically psychotic?) belief in retaliation as justice are the real problems.
Riverwind (imported) wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:13 am
OK lets see if I understand this right, I live in a small town, about 15k people we have one theater but its a new one with 12 mini theaters, so they run 12 movies at a time from noon to midnight, 2 cops/retired gun per theater, a small command center, call it 50 retired guns per day, times every day of the year, Yes I can see this Moi, in every theater in the country every single day because we know your not safe out there and must be protected from all bad things at all times.
OH the cost? I am sure tax payers wont mind a SAFETY TAX.
River
Beats me "who" you presume to "understand this right" while addressing, Moi.
I said I favor an armed citizen being a more common occurrence.
Since very early in my life, I have had a niggling sense that people's ability to understand people may be confounded by what is sometimes, in the philosophy of science and/or in the science of philosophy, the fraught-with-potential-paradox conundrum of self-reference.
To illustrate self-reference:
The eye cannot see itself. A mirror (optical) is needed to reflect light from the eye back to the eye for the eye to see itself.
The I cannot see itself. A mirror (human) is needed to reflect personhood from the I back to the I for the I to see itself.
The Aye cannot see itself. A mirror (being affirmed by another person) is needed to reflect the Aye back to the Aye for the Aye to see itself.
There are optical mirrors that are optically flat and do not distort what they reflect. There are optical mirrors that are irregularly curvy and do distort what they reflect.
Psychological defenses distort reality, so that the I reflected by a person who has psychological defenses will be a distorted image of the I of the person whose I is so reflected.
Psychological defenses, in distorting reality, distort the Aye (the way people are affirmed and validated) so that even severely distorted reflection of self-misunderstanding becomes experientially-internalized as though accurate.
Therefore, the enigmatic predicament of human destructiveness?
janekane (imported) wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:27 pm
Since very early in my life, I have had a niggling sense that people's ability to understand people may be confounded by what is sometimes, in the philosophy of science and/or in the science of philosophy, the fraught-with-potential-paradox conundrum of self-reference.
To illustrate self-reference:
The eye cannot see itself. A mirror (optical) is needed to reflect light from the eye back to the eye for the eye to see itself.
The I cannot see itself. A mirror (human) is needed to reflect personhood from the I back to the I for the I to see itself.
The Aye cannot see itself. A mirror (being affirmed by another person) is needed to reflect the Aye back to the Aye for the Aye to see itself.
There are optical mirrors that are optically flat and do not distort what they reflect. There are optical mirrors that are irregularly curvy and do distort what they reflect.
Psychological defenses distort reality, so that the I reflected by a person who has psychological defenses will be a distorted image of the I of the person whose I is so reflected.
Psychological defenses, in distorting reality, distort the Aye (the way people are affirmed and validated) so that even severely distorted reflection of self-misunderstanding becomes experientially-internalized as though accurate.
Therefore, the enigmatic predicament of human destructiveness?
