TrueMetis

Members
  • Content count

    7,275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TrueMetis

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

10,165 profile views
  1. It semantically irrelevant that your example that shows the founding fathers would be able to predict the importance of automatic weapons isn't an automatic weapon. Fuck it I'm done don't know why I bother.
  2. Then there is nothing in all of the area of history that isn't speculation. Governments seek to acquire all sorts of stupid shit. That they sought to acquire it doesn't at all mean they understood the value of something. If they truly understood the value of an automatic weapon they would have acquired it and damn the cost. Hell they probably just would have taken it. Not that it matter because the Belton Flintlock wasn't in any way automatic. No, that's a repeater. A semi-automatic handgun can fire plenty faster than that. People who are good with revolvers can fire them faster than that. Neither are automatics. Automatic means you hold down the trigger and it keeps firing. The fact the it fires somewhat fast (if we go by the faster possible stated time) does not actually matter unless you only have to pull the trigger once. And nothing I can find says it could do that.
  3. Well when he talks about the specific definition of something it's important, when we point out his definition is wrong it's irrelevant. See how that works?
  4. IIRC repeating here just means it can fire more than one shot without reloading. I'll accept semantic, because this debate very much has to do with language and logic. But it's not irrelevant. After all we know no one really saw the rise of the automatic coming, we have millions of dead during WW1 to prove it. If the founding fathers had actually seen and understood the importance of the automatic weapon they wouldn't have seen your "automatic" flintlock as too expensive to be worth purchasing. Founding fathers who understood the use of the automatic weapon would have taken the entirety of the North American continent at a minimum. Except they didn't acquire it, which says they didn't actually think all that much of it. Nobody did, that's why there aren't any surviving examples. And sure if you look at the history of the machine gun the Belton Flintlock is mentioned, along side the arquebus, but neither are automatic let alone machine guns. If you look up the history of the space shuttle they would rightfully mention the first jet engine and rocket engine aircraft, but those aren't space ships. Any more than the Belton flintlock is an automatic firearm or certainly a machine gun. Automatic means you hold down the trigger and as long as there is ammo in the chamber it will fire. If your definition is that there is a predetermined repeated discharge than all modern firearms are automatic. Are you seriously going to tell me a revolver is an automatic weapon?
  5. Nothing I can find suggests that the Belton Flintlock was an automatic weapon. It was certainly a repeating one though. Not that it would remotely prepare people for what a true modern automatic weapon is capable of (or really even some of the first ones) between the differences in firing speed and reload time there's an order of magnitude of difference. Like claiming because someone had a radio in 1903 he would have been able to predict the internet.
  6. Voldemort only looked like a snake, how many do you think Cheney made to look like that? And how many more do you think where needed to get to Trump level?
  7. Who here's saying only the police should have guns? I'd venture that a lot of the people on this board would say police shouldn't have guns either.
  8. Not unless we're thinking of different meanings of stipulation. Stipulation: a condition or requirement that is specified or demanded as part of an agreement. So guns for example, even in the absence of specific government regulation, have the stipulation that they be purchased legally. Unless your referring to "An agreement between attorneys that concerns business before a court and is designed to simplify or shorten litigation and save costs." but I can't see how that applies here. Makes perfect sense to me, because I'm saying that even without it being done by the government that natural stipulations will form around rights. Like what I pointed out for guns where a transaction needs to happen.
  9. I always thought it was Republicans anyway. You know the kind of asshole who believes in American exceptionalism and that UHC couldn't work in the US because "America is different".
  10. Of course, all rights have stipulations on them. Even if it's not the government that is applying those stipulations. Many rights have inherent stipulations that are a necessity of reality. Guns cost money. If you don't have the money to afford a gun your right to bear arms means jack shit. So either you can have a right with stipulations on it, or rights just straight up don't exist. Unless your arguing that everyone should be supplied with a gun or that people shoulnd't have to pay for them.
  11. No I don't. That's the point of most of the training I'm receiving. Until you are in the situation you have no idea how you will react. So they want my training to take over and not however the fuck I might act naturally in that situation. It does, but to think that because your opponent is untrained that you can be untrained is false. Not in the least because in a self defence situation the intruder will have both the advantage of being the instigator and likely having at least some experience in the situation. Okay 1) without psychology there basically is no psychiatry. 2) I don't see what psychology being a soft science has to do with anything. I did read it. It imo supports my point. In his experience with trained people we have two outliers, people who can't manage even with training, and people who switch on and improve under stress. Then we have the average which according to him pauses and then their training takes over. So what happens to all these people when there is no training to take over? Maybe some of the people who switch on are able to switch on enough that they don't need the training. With training the majority of people appear to be able to handle the situation. But without it? All those people who paused and let their training take over are fucked. Those without the mental state regardless are fucked. And I would be money that most of those who improve under stress aren't going to improve enough to make up for the lack of training and are fucked. So without training most people are fucked, with it most people seem to do alright. So while training isn't a guarantee you will be able to deal with the threat, no training is almost a guarantee you won't. It is far safer and more practical to assume someone won't handle stress perfectly and get them training than take the stupid risk of assuming they will handle stress perfectly and not train them. And that's true of everything dangerous not just guns.
  12. Not all stressful situations are created equal right? I've been in highly stressful situations, I'm not going to pretend like I know what an actual firefight will be like. Ah yes, you did say mixed martial arts specifically. My mistake I glossed over that. No one doesn't need to be trained in mix martial arts specifically to know how to fight. One does need training. And experience is a form of training. Or have you never trained practically before? The individual is never an authority on their psychology. In fact they are very much the worst person possible to make judgement on their psychology. Doesn't matter. The great majority of the use of reflexes is to make sure you respond to a stimuli. If your reflexes aren't connected to that stimuli it doesn't matter if you have reflexes for some of the required actions. And even if they could be used for a different stimuli having only some of the required reflexes is isn't enough, it might even be detrimental depending on the reflexes.
  13. Thank you, and that's very cool.
  14. Yeah sure I get it, you're a natural super-soldier who isn't effected by stress and adrenaline at all. I don't need to see you as an individual, you've already admitted to having no training or experience. So I'm not going to take your word that your some type of outlier. Especially since not having been in a situation like this you don't know any better than anyone else how you will react. The first time they go into a fight? Cause I fucking doubt it. And if you're talking about people who have been in a lot of fights. Well that's a guy with training. I don't care if the training if formal or informal. You consider yourself the latter. You've never, by your own admission, been in such a situation but you're perfectly willing to put yourself and potentially other people lives at risk because you think for no reason you can handle it and remain "perfectly calm", sure. You have no reason at all to believe this because no one really knows exactly how they will react until they are put in such a situation, but yeah I'll take your word. And because you say so I'll ignore all the evidence that shows the vast majority of people react very poorly in stressful situations. Right, I'm sure your reflexes for doing something you barely ever do and haven't been extensively trained in are honed to perfection. The instinctive reactions necessary for a gunfight aren't something people just have. Except some very basic ones reflexes need to be practiced or you lose them. This being pretty much anything more difficult than "move away from thing hurting me". Well the start of proper training, between everything it'll be like 5 years before they allow me in a combat situation at a minimum.
  15. Story time. 4 or so months ago I was doing a field ex. Lots of fun except the rain, we were loaded up with rifles and blanks, doing section attacks and recce's and such. That night we were sleeping, except a few of us on guard duty myself included, and as I'm sitting there in the dark I hear something land a little ways away and the psh of a smoke grenade. Then the staff yell "Gas gas gas" while myself and the others on guard duty managed to get our gas masks on pretty quick. Those asleep not so much. It took 10 or so minutes for everyone to get their shit on. That's most of our flight dead. It's not hard to get a gas mask on, it should take seconds. But when humans get stressed we get stupid. And simple tasks become difficult. And despite being in a better position than pretty much everyone else, I wasn't immune to this. I was 2IC for this exercise, staff comes up to the IC acting as command on the radio. Calls for us to bug out to a safe point. IC freezes, no idea what to do. He takes too long and it falls to me. I'm not in a good position either, it's dark and I can't wear my glasses in the gas mask. I can see jack shit. Now in retrospect what to do is obvious. Get everyone out of our camp and away from the gas and grab someone to nav us to the safe point. But at the time? My inaction would have gotten everyone who survived the gas attack killed if the enemy had decided to attack. And this was just training, all the stress I felt then would be nothing compared to the real thing.