Shooting at Virginia Tech

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Oh god, more stats. I don't know what's worse, all the stats being thrown about or the ignorance.

Stats are a fine bullet with which to kill ignorance -- begging any question of ulterior motives.

Anyone who's seen genocide wants it to stop happening. There's one known way, and it's never been refuted.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Yep, if you'd quit staring at my tits and jacking off, you might hear something from time to time.

Actually, if we kept staring at your tits and stopped the jacking off, we could better help you feel good from time to time.

So, speaking of tits: sensitive nipples, or not very? The wife can about put me on the ceiling going for mine. ... more yummy yummy than fruit salad, I'm tellin' ya.

[Since having heard The Wiggles sing "Fruit Salad" in four-part male close harmony, I've been imagining an entire battalion of big tough Australian infantrymen singing this on being presented with fruit salad in the mess tent and reducing the crusty old mess sergeant to agonies of embarrassment.]

[Shawnee123]

Anyone with a decent education knows you can make stats say anything you want.

4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend this toothpaste. They don't tell you the dentists polled have no teeth, or are dead, or if it's just that they recommend ANY toothpaste, and the toothpaste being touted is, of course, A toothpaste.

I'm just not bowled by spouting stats. It's like a goddam Spout Circus.

[freshnesschronic]

I think this thread is too closely resembling the other thread specifically debating guns. This should be about Cho and the incident, I think. Yes, I did my share of making it go off topic, but we should post VT developments here.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

How are they going to "protect themselves"? Seriously, follow it out to it's logical conclusion - ultimately, you have to kill someone to "protect yourself". Anything short of that leaves you unprotected. Got it?

What I've got is your number, Spexx: ninety-seven percent of all defensive gun uses end satisfactorily without a shot fired. Of the remaining three percent, less than half have a lethal outcome.

You never did know shit about self defense, Spexx, so your opinion shouldn't even count with yourself. The conclusion you've drawn is resolutely at variance with the reality.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Actually, if we kept staring at your tits and stopped the jacking off, we could better help you feel good from time to time.

Puh, I doubt it. 90% of your purported skillz were actually considered ineffective in providing good by 5 out of 19 women surveyed in Upper Bulgaria in 2004.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

And if you're not "protecting" yourself or a loved one, is it worth killing for?

What it always comes down to, Spexx, in all these threads, is that you wouldn't kill someone who is just trying to steal your stuff. You value the criminal's life slightly less than yours or your family's, but always more than everything else.*

You need to accept that lots of people don't have that particular hangup.


*I can't recall if you've weighed in on whether your wife getting raped would count as life-threatening or something not worth killing over.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by SadistSecret

No you don't. You can shoot someone in the arm or the leg. That generally disables a potential attacker, and if nothing else, makes them think twice about coming after you. Your enemy cannot fire his gun if you disable his firing hand/arm.

But don't try it this way unless you want to do all the dying. Center of mass ONLY, front sight -- press trigger. Those are the fundamentals. Hitting someone in a limb is strictly a matter of chance, and verily I say unto you you don't want to gamble with your life doing that. Limb hits do not necessarily disable; what you must do is disrupt something immediately important, like the central nervous system. You cut his spine or blow out his brains, he's done, and that problem's over. But there are a couple of useful secondary target areas: the heart is in the center of mass and it's lethal about all the time (there have been a couple-three miracles, but they took place on the operating table and not the field of battle) though it may take some seconds for the perp to collapse rather than the instant switch-off of a brain hit; and also there is the pelvis. Bust that with a bullet and the perp's on the ground without hope of movement and in immediate danger of dying of shock. If you've double-tapped him there and hit him in the balls too, he's in even worse danger. To hit him in the pelvis you aim at his nuts. Aiming low generally works in close firearms combat anyway, particularly with pistols: most people get excited and take too much front sight, which points the pistol considerably higher than what the shooter thinks is his aim point. A nut-shot can end up being a central nervous system hit right between the eyebrows.

By now some readers will have gone all squeamish. While that is proof you have the full measure of human feeling, try this for a human feeling: "He's dead, I'm alive, and that's the way I wanted it."

[Urbane Guerrilla]

The mischief is compounded by the unfortunate fact that I don't know any women from Upper Bulgaria.

[Quel fromage.] {to rhyme with dommage}

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Her point, O Spexx The Irrational, Tedious And Purblind, who refuseth ever to see, in saecula saeculorum...

When your side of the argument is weak, resort to name-calling and insults.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

-- I could go on but I dislike boring myself -- ....

And yet you continue to bore everyone else.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by SadistSecret

No you don't. You can shoot someone in the arm or the leg. That generally disables a potential attacker, and if nothing else, makes them think twice about coming after you. Your enemy cannot fire his gun if you disable his firing hand/arm.

Sure he can. A truly committed criminal will keep trying to kill you until you kill him. Ultimately, this will happen.

[Shawnee123]

.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

What it always comes down to, Spexx, in all these threads, is that you wouldn't kill someone who is just trying to steal your stuff. You value the criminal's life slightly less than yours or your family's, but always more than everything else.*

You need to accept that lots of people don't have that particular hangup.


*I can't recall if you've weighed in on whether your wife getting raped would count as life-threatening or something not worth killing over.

So what posession is worth killing for? A TV? A pack of gum? Certainly there's a continuum - where do you killers draw the line?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Watched and read his bullshit.
Religion.

If it were not for handguns I would be dead and/or injured many times over.

Really? Tell us all the stories when you failed to avoid conflict or failed to resolve conflict in a peaceful manner.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

The argument against them is lost on those like me...

There's a term for this: Closed Minded.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I'm just not bowled by spouting stats. It's like a goddam Spout Circus.