VP Biden: Gun Expert

Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
VP Biden: Gun Expert

 Our illustrious Vice President has waded into an ongoing feud in the gun nut community. What weapon is best for home defense? Biden says the double barreled shotgun. 

 

Now as you may or may not know, this is an argument that has be raging back and forth among gunpowder enthusiasts for quite some time. Now don't get me wrong, a 12 gauge shotgun is a perfectly fine home defense weapon in most situations, although ironically the two features that Biden chooses to point out are actually arguments for the use of an AR-15 or similar style carbine. He claims that using an AR-15 is "harder to aim" and "its harder to use". This is absolutely false.

For those who have never fired a 12 gauge shotgun, they can kick like a mule, especially an old fashioned double barrel (a semi-auto will substantially reduce recoil) and especially if the gun is too big or too small for you- such as if your wife is attempting to use your shotgun. Plus, it is a big fucking gun in the first place which makes it harder to use, especially in the close confines of your home for someone who is smaller. Things like pistol grips can make a shotgun more appropriate for tight spaces but unfortunately, that is another of the items on the list that qualifies it as an "assault weapon" under the ban.

Harder to aim an AR-15? Give me a fucking break. They are much easier to aim and far more accurate than a double barrel shotgun, especially if you are using grandpas old one with the bead sight which consists of a single bead at the end of the barrel. You see, shotguns are traditionally intended to shoot at fast moving objects using shot that spreads out into a large pattern so accuracy isn't so important, you just have to be close enough. The problem is that to stop a human, bird shot isn't doing the trick, you need to have buck shot which has larger shot but a much smaller spread. Across a regular house room you only have a spread about the size of a soft ball. Not like when you shoot a bird 20-30 yards out and your shot spreads a pattern of 2-3 feet. So accuracy is just as important with a shotgun, shotguns are more cumbersome to shoulder and aim quickly and generally have inferior sights (I say generally because I have seen tactical shotguns pimped out with top of the line sights, those types of shotguns also tend to have a few other features that classify them as "assault weapons" under the proposed ban) So the AR-15 clearly wins on easiness of aiming.

Carbines like the AR-15 are easier to use, easier to aim and easier to handle in confined spaces, especially for people who are smaller like your average female. Other advantages that they have over a shotgun is they are much faster to load. All you have to do is take a preloaded magazine and slam it home which allows you to store your gun in a way it is unloaded without sacrificing significant time should you ever need to use it. Shotguns on the other hand are much slower to load, especially if you are not someone who uses them daily (detachable magazines on shotguns are another feature that is rare and will be made illegal under the proposed assault weapons law). The result is that most people with a shotgun for home defense make the decision to store their gun loaded. And are two shots enough? Maybe. You won't know until after you fire them, I would prefer to have more shots ready just in case. 

Now to be fair I think I should point out some of the advantages of a shotgun. At close range, a shotgun loaded with buckshot is more lethal and likely to cause more significant damage to the bad guy with fewer shots. If I am only going to get one shot off, I would rather it be some buckshot rather than a single carbine round. The other advantage is that buckshot is less likely to penetrate walls and even if it does it is unlikely to be lethal. A round of .223 on the other hand is going to have more penetration. Modern self defense rounds can alleviate that danger because they are designed to break apart which causes more damage in a human body and also reduces penetration through walls. If you live in a house, you don't need to worry about it so much, if you live in an apartment with cheap walls even a 55 grain .223 might make it through to your neighbors apartment and with extraordinary bad luck cause significant injury. 

So which would I choose for self defense? Well if I could have any weapon in the world, I would go for something with the Kriss Super-V 

You get all the benefits of being very easy to handle, aim and fire quickly with the very powerful .45 cal round. Most amazing gun for close quarters I have ever fired, and probably the best out there right now. Also rather expensive and a long wait period right now. 

A good AR-15 based carbine would be a great choice and they are affordable on the used market. For home defense I think the shorter the better. 

If you are used to using a shotgun, they make perfectly acceptable home defense weapons and the most important thing for any weapon you intend to use for defense is that you are very familiar with using the weapon and you practice regularly. Whichever gun feels better and shoots better for you. I think for most people, handling an AR-15 or AK-47 would be an enlightening experience because they are much easier to handle than most shotguns. And I think from Biden's comments it is clear he has no fucking clue what he is talking about.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i would favor a shotgun

i would favor a shotgun myself, though i think a 12-gauge would be overdoing it.  more than likely i'd reach for my single-shot 20-gauge or four-ten.  my dad has a beautiful old winchester model 12 pump-action 12-gauge, and it doesn't kick bad at all unless you put magnum shells in it.  the 20-gauge kicks much worse.  usually, the heavier the gun, the lighter the recoil.

i disagree about needing buckshot to stop a human.  maybe if you want a guaranteed dead human, yes, but i think just about any kind of shot will stop a human for a considerable amount of time, unless said human is on PCP or something, in which case maybe even buckshot would be no guarantee.  if mase and bean bag bullets will stop a human, a blast of birdshot at close range damn sure will.  hell, even getting hit with the wadding would probably crack a couple ribs and knock the wind out of a person.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  I keep reading stats from

 

 

I keep reading stats from pro gun-control web-sites that say having a gun in the home means that something terrible, awful might happen so now I just keep a chainsaw for home defense.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15725
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Still does not change the

Still does not change the fact that you are HIGHLY MORE likely to inure or kill either yourself or someone you know than defend yourself from a stranger. AND also it still does not change every 24 hours on average 32 people a DAY die from gun death.

Biden=wrong so do nothing about gun death. Ok.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i would favor a

iwbiek wrote:

i would favor a shotgun myself, though i think a 12-gauge would be overdoing it.  more than likely i'd reach for my single-shot 20-gauge or four-ten.  my dad has a beautiful old winchester model 12 pump-action 12-gauge, and it doesn't kick bad at all unless you put magnum shells in it.  the 20-gauge kicks much worse.  usually, the heavier the gun, the lighter the recoil.

i disagree about needing buckshot to stop a human.  maybe if you want a guaranteed dead human, yes, but i think just about any kind of shot will stop a human for a considerable amount of time, unless said human is on PCP or something, in which case maybe even buckshot would be no guarantee.  if mase and bean bag bullets will stop a human, a blast of birdshot at close range damn sure will.  hell, even getting hit with the wadding would probably crack a couple ribs and knock the wind out of a person.

I favor a cap and ball myself. If the ball doesn't do the damage, the coughing or the lack of vision from the smoke filled room will assist in defeating the intruder.

Smiling

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i would favor a

iwbiek wrote:

i would favor a shotgun myself, though i think a 12-gauge would be overdoing it.  more than likely i'd reach for my single-shot 20-gauge or four-ten.  my dad has a beautiful old winchester model 12 pump-action 12-gauge, and it doesn't kick bad at all unless you put magnum shells in it.  the 20-gauge kicks much worse.  usually, the heavier the gun, the lighter the recoil.

i disagree about needing buckshot to stop a human.  maybe if you want a guaranteed dead human, yes, but i think just about any kind of shot will stop a human for a considerable amount of time, unless said human is on PCP or something, in which case maybe even buckshot would be no guarantee.  if mase and bean bag bullets will stop a human, a blast of birdshot at close range damn sure will.  hell, even getting hit with the wadding would probably crack a couple ribs and knock the wind out of a person.

If I am pulling the trigger on someone they are going to be armed, otherwise I don't need to shoot. So by "stop" I mean instantaneously incapacitate them to the point that they are incapable of shooting back at you. Numerous ballistics tests and real life scenarios of people being shot by bird shot have demonstrated that it is not effective for incapacitating humans. More than one hunter has been shot by bird shot and walked to their car. Birdshot is going to hurt, but it isn't going to stop them from shooting back at you. Even with number 4 (a very heavy birdshot) you are only going to get a few inches of penetration and very little shock. Birdshot will leave a very ugly wound, but it is not going to put a human down unless you get really lucky. I can provide numerous stories of people hit with birdshot and ballistics tests if you want me to. Basically the only thing you have going for you is the fear factor, which if fear is enough to scare them away great, you don't even need to shoot. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Still does not

Brian37 wrote:

Still does not change the fact that you are HIGHLY MORE likely to inure or kill either yourself or someone you know than defend yourself from a stranger. AND also it still does not change every 24 hours on average 32 people a DAY die from gun death.

Biden=wrong so do nothing about gun death. Ok.

 

Do you have any evidence to support that absurd claim? Or are we just making shit up now?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

I keep reading stats from pro gun-control web-sites that say having a gun in the home means that something terrible, awful might happen so now I just keep a chainsaw for home defense.

You are more likely to hurt or kill yourself with a chainsaw than defend yourself from someone else!!! BAN CHAINSAWS! 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/power-tools/4286772

(for those interested in reality, chainsaws account for over 30,000 accidents every year, for those who don't remember firearms accidents are slightly under 15,000 so you are twice as likely to go for the hospital due to a chainsaw accident than a firearm accident, despite the fact that there are far fewer chainsaws than guns) 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

I keep reading stats from pro gun-control web-sites that say having a gun in the home means that something terrible, awful might happen so now I just keep a chainsaw for home defense.

You are more likely to hurt or kill yourself with a chainsaw than defend yourself from someone else!!! BAN CHAINSAWS! 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/power-tools/4286772

(for those interested in reality, chainsaws account for over 30,000 accidents every year, for those who don't remember firearms accidents are slightly under 15,000 so you are twice as likely to go for the hospital due to a chainsaw accident than a firearm accident, despite the fact that there are far fewer chainsaws than guns) 

Chainsaws should be banned for certain people... like the ones on Lumberjacks (on Discovery).

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15725
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Still does not change the fact that you are HIGHLY MORE likely to inure or kill either yourself or someone you know than defend yourself from a stranger. AND also it still does not change every 24 hours on average 32 people a DAY die from gun death.

Biden=wrong so do nothing about gun death. Ok.

 

Do you have any evidence to support that absurd claim? Or are we just making shit up now?

You have access to the internet like I do. Just like a selfish boss, get everyone to do your work for you.

 

Nope. Do your own homework. But probably pointless to suggest that to you. You already have your mind made up that life is one big orgy of guns and money. Oh and I will forgo voting in the next election because well, Me dumb you smart.

 

Guns good, got it. Sorry I doubted you Dirty Harry.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You have

Brian37 wrote:

You have access to the internet like I do. Just like a selfish boss, get everyone to do your work for you.

 

Nope. Do your own homework. But probably pointless to suggest that to you. You already have your mind made up that life is one big orgy of guns and money. Oh and I will forgo voting in the next election because well, Me dumb you smart.

 

Guns good, got it. Sorry I doubted you Dirty Harry.

 

 

Give me a fucking break, I have provided you with pages of evidence pointing to accidental gun injuries being far less than the crime rate pretty much anywhere. So no, you are not more likely to shoot yourself or someone you don't intend to shoot. Your statement is simply false. So show me where you are getting your information from? Are my stats incorrect? Is the CDC in the pocket of the NRA in a vast conspiracy to cover up all those accidental gun injuries?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33771

 

As you probably don't remember, the odds of you having an accident with a gun in a given year are 4.78/100,000 (that would be 0.00478%) That means there is a 99.99522% chance that you won't have an accident. The odds of you being a victim of a violent crime in the US is 403.6/100,000 (That would be 0.4036%)

0.4036>0.00478 

So on what basis are you making this absurd claim? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Probably severity. The vast

Probably severity. The vast majority of violent crime does not involve severe injury or death, while the vast majority of gun crime and/or accidents does involve severe injury or death.
Gun nutters would rather kill someone than get a black eye. Your priorities are fucked.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Gun nutters

Vastet wrote:
Gun nutters would rather kill someone than get a black eye.

  Vastet, I'm not in junior high school anymore, I'm a grown man and out in the real world if someone attacks me or my girl friend it's not a f**king game anymore.  I don't want to kill anyone...ever.  

How serious my response is depends upon the seriousness of the threat.    I ignore blowhards and loud mouths but physical confrontations will be met with what ever violence is needed, up to lethal force if needed. 

Long story short, if you don't want to get shot or stabbed then keep your hands off of me and my date.  If you die it's your own fault for attacking.

   Just leave me the f**k alone and everything will be alright.  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
He who lives by the sword

He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:He who lives by

Vastet wrote:
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

 

  I'm an atheist, you're an atheist ...so why in the world are you quoting the words of Jesus to make your point ?   ( Matthew 26:52 ) 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Vastet

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Vastet wrote:
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

 

  I'm an atheist, you're an atheist ...so why in the world are you quoting the words of Jesus to make your point ?   ( Matthew 26:52 ) 

 

 

                 Since Jesus is fictional I'm not sure who is being quoted.  Likely it is a pearl of wisdom from pre-literite cultures.   Call it a veriation on the very wise "He who plays with fire gets burned" ,  "Don't pet a hungry Lion" , "Don't eat where you deficate" , "don't coitus your sister" ;  These simple and acurate pearls of wisdom likely pre-date homo-sapiens (before 220,000 BCE) from hunter/gatherer clans.  We still benefit from this ancient-ancient (realy ancient) wisdom.

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

                 Since Jesus is fictional I'm not sure who is being quoted.  Likely it is a pearl of wisdom from pre-literite cultures.   Call it a veriation on the very wise "He who plays with fire gets burned" ,  "Don't pet a hungry Lion" , "Don't eat where you deficate" , "don't coitus your sister" ;  These simple and acurate pearls of wisdom likely pre-date homo-sapiens (before 220,000 BCE) from hunter/gatherer clans.  We still benefit from this ancient-ancient (realy ancient) wisdom.

 

 

 

      I'm not a pacifist regarding my personal safety and self defense could hardly be considered a form of war mongering. 

The adage "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" does not seem to be a pearl of wisdom that accurately describes my situation unless one views even defensive violence as some sort of ethical violation, which I do not.

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

      I'm not a pacifist regarding my personal safety and self defense could hardly be considered a form of war mongering. 

The adage "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" does not seem to be a pearl of wisdom that accurately describes my situation unless one views even defensive violence as some sort of ethical violation, which I do not.

 

yeah, and it does say lives by the sword, not uses a sword for any reason ever.  i'm pretty sure this saying, wherever it originated, is talking about a person who habitually seeks out violent conflict.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
regardless of where i stand

regardless of where i stand ideologically on this issue (and i'm not quite where i stand--both sides have their reasonable claims and hysterical nonsense), i do know this: personally, if guns were ever banned for civilians and i suddenly found myself trapped in an arby's with a gun-wielding maniac popping everybody off one by one, i would wish to christ that i, or somebody else in that mess, had decided to break the law and procure a gun anyway.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Vastet

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Vastet wrote:
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

 

  I'm an atheist, you're an atheist ...so why in the world are you quoting the words of Jesus to make your point ?   ( Matthew 26:52 ) 

Jesus didn't exist. Eye-wink
Wise words remain wise no matter who speaks them.

Your claim to be unaffected by the quote is countered by your willingness to kill just to avoid minor physical injury. I hope anyone so intolerant of life gets their own weapon shoved in their face before the trigger is pulled. Safer for the rest of us.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Probably

Vastet wrote:
Probably severity. The vast majority of violent crime does not involve severe injury or death, while the vast majority of gun crime and/or accidents does involve severe injury or death. Gun nutters would rather kill someone than get a black eye. Your priorities are fucked.

The vast majority of cases where a civilian uses a gun for self defense do not involve firing the weapon and do not result in even minor injuries to either party (unless the criminal trips and scrapes their knee while running away). Fortunately, many criminals are cowards and their first reaction is to run away when confronted with armed resistance. When you carry a firearm or have one in your home for personal defense it is important to know the laws in your state because you can be and people are charged if they shoot a criminal who does not pose an immediate threat. Some states you have a duty to retreat if possible, while some give the armed civilian more leeway depending on location.

For example, Biden's advice that his wife should "go out on the balcony" and fire both barrels would cause his wife to be charged with reckless endangering and if she hit the burglar, perhaps assault or manslaughter charges because in Delaware you have a duty to retreat. You cannot shoot someone on your property unless they have already gotten inside, you have nowhere to run and they are an immediate threat to your physical safety or the safety of another person. His other recent advice to Field & Stream magazine that "you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door." is also illegal in most (all?) states, not to mention incredibly dangerous, stupid and ineffective. That kind of stupidity is how accidents happen- you should NEVER fire a gun if you cannot see your target and you do not know what is behind your target- just because you are in a high adrenaline dangerous situation does not mean that you can ignore basic firearm safety and start indiscriminately shooting. All I can say is that it is probably a good thing that Biden does not actually own a double barrel shotgun.

For myself, I like to keep my defense weapons outfitted with laser sights for two reasons. First, it makes aiming easier in the likely low lighting situation and second, it makes it obvious to the asshole that he has a gun pointed at him and that I am not going to miss which I hope will discourage any stupid ideas the thug might have like being aggressive. If you are staring down the barrel of a gun and have a laser dot dancing on your heart yet still decide to be aggressive you have proven yourself more violent than the average criminal.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The vast majority of

Quote:
The vast majority of cases where a civilian uses a gun for self defense do not involve firing the weapon and do not result in even minor injuries to either party

Says you. Too bad we don't live in 1984, or we might be able to test that.

Your comment of criminals being cowards shows how faulty your reasoning is. Any rational person facing a gun will seek escape. Only an irrational person will face down certain death with a smile on his or her face.

I'm not going to try and argue for or against what Biden said. He's a politician, not a firearms expert. He's probably dead wrong on most of what he said. But as I'm not a firearms expert I'm in no position to take a stance. Last time I fired a gun, the safety hadn't been invented yet. Or at least hadn't become mainstream. If I wanted gun advice I'd ask you and PDW long before I spoke to a politician. Hell you guys probably know more about guns than anyone else I could easily request info from.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:..... your

Vastet wrote:
..... your willingness to kill just to avoid minor physical injury.

  C,mon Vastet you're straw manning me with such hyped up descriptions suggesting unjustified use of force and you know it, plus you seem locked into this alternate reality where the worst that could happen in a violent attack is that I could get a "black eye".  You make me laugh sometimes, bro.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:.... If I

Vastet wrote:
.... If I wanted gun advice I'd ask you and PDW long before I spoke to a politician. Hell you guys probably know more about guns than anyone else I could easily request info from.

   Wow, thanks Vastet I take that as a compliment and I'm being completely sincere...

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.