Gun Control discussion

[Mother Cocanuts]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Look, you have to be ready for spawns coming in at any direction, be prepared to move out of the fire and keep your DPS up at all times. I'm sure that curling or whatever other sport you played was just as effective in being able to deal with armed assailants. 

Hey, you're the expert. I may have not have understood all of that Warcraft jargon, but you sound sharp and well informed.

Quote

I would have taken you for a red pill kind of guy.

Have you confused red pills for blue pills? Silly, the blue pills are the ones that make you go up. Tell your blow-up doll that he's welcome.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Have you confused red pills for blue pills? Silly, the blue pills are the ones that may you go up. Tell your blow-up doll that he's welcome.

You ask the pills for permission? That's an interesting way to do it. When they said 'take the pills orally', they didn't mean talk to them. 

This is really starting to sound like that conversation in 40 year old virgin where he talks about how much sex he has and how great boobs feel. No, I'm sure that you've experienced lots of stress that is akin to a firefight, and despite apparently needing viagra in high school you definitely have the life experiences necessary to deal with armed combat. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, I'm sure that you've experienced lots of stress that is akin to a firefight, and despite apparently needing viagra in high school you definitely have the life experiences necessary to deal with armed combat. 

/Know the difference. It's pretty important.

[Mother Cocanuts]

Just now, Kalbear said:

You ask the pills for permission? That's an interesting way to do it. When they said 'take the pills orally', they didn't mean talk to them.

Spelling error. Already had been fixed.

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

This is really starting to sound like that conversation in 40 year old virgin where he talks about how much sex he has and how great boobs feel.

You should know. I bet that movie really resonated with you. Those red pills you've been confusing for the blue ones would make you averse to sex and boobs.

 

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, I'm sure that you've experienced lots of stress that is akin to a firefight, and despite apparently needing viagra in high school you definitely have the life experiences necessary to deal with armed combat. 

Hey, with viagra, I'm always armed.

[Week]

Is anyone here surprised by this child?

[Mother Cocanuts]

2 minutes ago, Week said:

Is anyone here surprised by this child?

...who are you?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Mother Cocanuts said:

You should know. I bet that movie really resonated with you. Those red pills you've been confusing for the blue ones would make you averse to sex and boobs.

Ooh, the awesome "I know you are but what am I" comeback! Maybe I was wrong, and high school was a bit too advanced. 

I wonder if MC here knows the average age of people on the board, because the idea that slinging around slams about virginity would hit hard makes sense if your only experience on the internet consists of xbox live chat channels after CoD rounds. 

(though missing the red pill thing continues to be pretty funny)

Just now, Mother Cocanuts said:

Hey, with viagra, I'm always armed.

I mean seriously, there are so many jokes here. Do I go with the low-caliber one? The sawed-off one? Maybe joke about how he's fortunate that it's legal to carry something under 3 inches? Maybe the single-shot derringer there? 

Or do I just comment that it's kind of sad to be young and really familiar with using viagra constantly?

[Mother Cocanuts]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Ooh, the awesome "I know you are but what am I" comeback! Maybe I was wrong, and high school was a bit too advanced. 

Oh, you've figured that out? It must be that high school education you keep touting. I'm sure your parents must be proud.

Quote

I wonder if MC here knows the average age of people on the board, because the idea that slinging around slams about virginity would hit hard makes sense if your only experience on the internet consists of xbox live chat channels after CoD rounds. 

Wait, let me write this down--I still don't fully understand your World of Warcraft jargon.

Quote

(though missing the red pill thing continues to be pretty funny)

I got the point. And, I turned it around on you.

Quote

I mean seriously, there are so many jokes here. Do I go with the low-caliber one? The sawed-off one? Maybe joke about how he's fortunate that it's legal to carry something under 3 inches? Maybe the single-shot derringer there? 

Hey you're the one with the high school education here. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

Quote

Or do I just comment that it's kind of sad to be young and really familiar with using viagra constantly?

As long as I have a bat when I step up to the plate, I don't care where I get my equipment.

[TrueMetis]

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

You're seeing only what you want to see. I don't care if you believe me. (And by the way, I said that I've never been provoked into pointing my gun at someone and shooting them, not that I haven't been in highly stressful situations.)

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.

Quote

No it wasn't his first fight. But that doesn't matter because the issue was whether he was trained in mix martial arts. So no, being in a lot of fights is not training--it's experience.

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?

Quote

I have reason to believe it because I've been in highly stressful situations. I know myself. Contrary to your dogma, I do know how I'd react. (I have decades of experience with myself.) I've never been burned, but you best believe I'd know how to react. Just because I've never been burned doesn't mean that I haven't experienced similar stimuli, like other forms of pain. You're still projecting your psychology on to me. I don't care if you take me at my word. (Your judgement on how I think and respond is useless to me.) And as it concerns my reasons for owning a gun, the psychology of the masses has never been relevant. I am the only authority on my psychology and if you want to liken me to others because of a study of which i was no part, then be my guest. It doesn't make you any less false.

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.

Quote

Yes. Because the reflexes necessary in a "gunfight" are unique to just those situations.

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.

[Mother Cocanuts]

21 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

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.

And I wouldn't expect you to. But if you were to tell me that you'd remain calm in a situation like that, I'd believe you just as i believe you when you speak of your experience in the military. Only you know yourself the way that you do.

Quote

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 training you need depends on your opponent. Now if it's your run-of-the-mill joe shmoe, I have no issue inferring that I can handle myself regardless of how "trained" I am. But if it's Jon Jones, then I'm in trouble. And that was my point toward baxus: I don't expect highly trained martial officers to rob or invade my home. And if they do, and my knowledge and composure or lack thereof are insufficient, then I'll take that risk.

Quote

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.

If we were speaking of psychiatry, that would be true. But psychology still remains a soft science.

Quote

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.

How do we measure what's enough? How do we know when they'll kick in? And is training a guarantee that all of these reflexes will be refined enough to appropriately deal with the exact circumstances of an immediate threat? I recommend reading SerHaHa's post:

 

[Darth Richard II]

Oh dear.

[Guy Kilmore]

1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said:

Oh dear.

Did someone brag about getting laid on the internet, like that means something?

This must be serious.

[Darth Richard II]

2 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

Did someone brag about getting laid on the internet, like that means something?

This must be serious.

He sure showed us nerds.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Serious as a 4 hour priapism I'm afraid.

[King Ned Stark]

This is 11 pages in, if you guys were fair, you’d acknowledge that Mother Cocanuts, to me at least, started this debate evenly and fairly.  It wasn’t until people insulted him/her, and called him/her a liar, that MC responded with an emotionally.

 If anyone cares to go back and read through the thread there are poster/s saying unequivocally that if a person backs the 2nd Amendment (a right given by the same guys who through great sacrifice allows us to question the 2nd Amendment) that they are essentially evil.  No one has called that to attention.  That’s  largely because most (not all) of you live in a bubble, this forum is an echo chamber.  And because so, you’ve become bullies on this forum.  I’ve always tried to be polite and understanding on this forum, whether I agree or not, but that sentiment doesn’t seem to be shared.  Maybe you guys are the extreme left, the opposite of the alt-right, because there doesn’t seem to be any willingness for compromise.  The left (progressives/liberals) are 100% right, and anyone who opposes that needs to be put down.  And no, the nazis aren’t gonna take over.

As to the topic, Mother Cocanuts is right, guns are very simple devices, and while some or even most people panic given any situation, some people do not. I don’t panic, and I’m proficient with firearms.  

[TrueMetis]

3 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

And I wouldn't expect you to. But if you were to tell me that you'd remain calm in a situation like that, I'd believe you just as i believe you when you speak of your experience in the military. Only you know yourself the way that you do.

 

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.

Quote

The training you need depends on your opponent. Now if it's your run-of-the-mill joe shmoe, I have no issue inferring that I can handle myself regardless of how "trained" I am. But if it's Jon Jones, then I'm in trouble. And that was my point toward baxus: I don't expect highly trained martial officers to rob or invade my home. And if they do, and my knowledge and composure or lack thereof are insufficient, then I'll take that risk.

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.

Quote

If we were speaking of psychiatry, that would be true. But psychology still remains a soft science.

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.

Quote

How do we measure what's enough? How do we know when they'll kick in? And is training a guarantee that all of these reflexes will be refined enough to appropriately deal with the exact circumstances of an immediate threat? I recommend reading SerHaHa's post:

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.

[IamMe90]

24 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

This is 11 pages in, if you guys were fair, you’d acknowledge that Mother Cocanuts, to me at least, started this debate evenly and fairly.  It wasn’t until people insulted him/her, and called him/her a liar, that MC responded with an emotionally.

 If anyone cares to go back and read through the thread there are poster/s saying unequivocally that if a person backs the 2nd Amendment (a right given by the same guys who through great sacrifice allows us to question the 2nd Amendment) that they are essentially evil.  No one has called that to attention.  That’s  largely because most (not all) of you live in a bubble, this forum is an echo chamber.  And because so, you’ve become bullies on this forum.  I’ve always tried to be polite and understanding on this forum, whether I agree or not, but that sentiment doesn’t seem to be shared.  Maybe you guys are the extreme left, the opposite of the alt-right, because there doesn’t seem to be any willingness for compromise.  The left (progressives/liberals) are 100% right, and anyone who opposes that needs to be put down.  And no, the nazis aren’t gonna take over.

As to the topic, Mother Cocanuts is right, guns are very simple devices, and while some or even most people panic given any situation, some people do not. I don’t panic, and I’m proficient with firearms.  

You're right that some people haven't  called it to attention because they exist in a bubble. Some of us, however, haven't called it to attention because we are used to reading it and have tried to call for cooler rhetoric in the past, and in the case of a few users, it is an utterly futile endeavor. 

 

Now, moving in from the meta shit, I think you're missing the point? You said:

Quote

some or even most people panic  given any situation, some do not.

 

Well, yes, that's the whole point. Mother Cocanuts has not been in that situation, is accordingly not in a position to know which of these two groups in which he/she falls, and therefor his/her justification for wanting a firearm is irrational. 

[Darth Richard II]

Guns aren't simple devices. That's just plain incorrect. I'll refrain from commenting on the rest because I can't remember this conversation ever being remotely civil, but I kind of jumped in at the middle.

[Darth Richard II]

Oh, and the Nazis already took over. Turn on your tv.

[Seli]

9 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

...

The issue is not basic. The issue is abstract. Because there's no set standard as to how well an individual would respond with or without training. All I can speak to is my temperament; and my knowledge of guns and shooting is sufficient enough for me to keep one at my home. There seems to be this misconception that my reasons for owning a gun are subject to this thread's vote. They are not. I already own a gun--several of them in fact. My responses are a courtesy not recompense. As TerraPrime mentioned, the only justification for a gun owner is "because I can." I don't mind giving my reasons, but when it becomes an issue of whether others can "take me at my word," there's an illusion that their preferences must be met. Their preferences need not be met; only mine because it's my guns and my home. You don't have confidence in my competence? Don't visit.

There is no vote on your right to own arms. But there is a sub-discussion on why some people own arms, what they think they need it for, and why they are wrong. And you volunteered the case study this time around.