| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So let me guess, you actually believe in global warming.
You don't get to believe or not believe in global warming. It is a fact that the planet's mean temperature is increasing, with particularly dramatic increases over the last 30 years. Global warming is happening. That's not in dispute. You can either accept that, or deny it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also note that scientists doing studies, generally the ones that get publicized, are politically driven, think back to global warming and all the studies and how the experts said we were causing global warming. Generally accepted as false now.
Nope. The dominant mechanisms for recent climate change are anthropogenic. That is generally accepted. You have no real understanding of what is and isn't generally accepted in the scientific community. In the future, you should probably choose to stay quiet on topics you know little about, other than asking questions of those more knowledgeable than you. That's the responsible thing to do.
You also have little or no understanding of how the scientific community functions. I'd be happy to explain how it generally works, but not until you've agreed to abandon your current beliefs.
You don't want some numpty rolling in with his Desert Eagle or some other wildly ridiculous gat.
Maybe you don't want it, but I'd love to see the look on Numpty's face when he learns how useless a Deagle is in a real fight.
Wow...wtf happened to this thread? AGW stuff? WTF is a Numpty?
A numpty is one who demonstrates a conspicuous lack of knowledge or a large number of misconceptions regarding a specific topic.
My DEAR TWIN BROTHER NUMPTY!!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A numpty is somebody who is likely to cause things to go to custard.
I've heard the same, IT. It sounds like an urban legend.
|
So let me guess, you actually believe in global warming.You don't get to believe or not believe in global warming. It is a fact that the planet's mean temperature is increasing, with particularly dramatic increases over the last 30 years. Global warming is happening. That's not in dispute. You can either accept that, or deny it.
It was an ill phrased comment, no one disputes global warming, what is questionable is humanities effect on the completely natural process of global warming, which I have already stated I need to look up the stats, as it wasn't intended to become a topic of it's own.
Edit: you can actually choose not to believe something regardless of the objective truth, particularly when the objective truth is never clear.
It was an ill phrased comment, no one disputes global warming, what is questionable is humanities effect on the completely natural process of global warming, which I have already stated I need to look up the stats, as it wasn't intended to become a topic of it's own.
Edit: you can actually choose not to believe something regardless of the objective truth, particularly when the objective truth is never clear.
Thats absurd, everyone knows what really causes global warming, and I don't think you can dispute that a lack of pirates is human caused.
Or you could trust the conclusions of hundreds of thousands of man hours of observation of reality by very smart people, but where is the fun in that when it all comes down to it?
I would guess it's the same thing with firearms that happens with martial arts training. It's one thing to spar, but as soon as something really threatens you, you lose about 90% of what you have learnt. And, not to forget, it's one thing to shoot at a target or a dummy, quite something else to shoot a person of flesh and blood. That is why you need to train a spectacular amount to actually manage to fight well and keep your head in a real conflict situation, and also the reason that short, three-day courses in "feminist self defense" doesn't really help much. Whatever weapon you choose to learn and use, learn to use it well, otherwise the risk increases for you.
I've heard the same, IT. It sounds like an urban legend.
Eh, the number of times I've seen news stories of police trading gun fire with suspects and no one getting hit, it doesn't seem that outrageous. Add that inside a car you might have struggles for guns, making it harder to aim, etc, it seems very plausible.
Teachers aren't professional soldiers or police officers. If professional soldiers and police officers can miss their targets in fire fight, I'm guessing teachers can too. Giving guns to teachers is no guarantee they'll be able to protect students.
Plus now you have a gun in a class room that a child could steal, or in places like high school where kids are close to adult size, if they become particularly violent, wrestle away from the teacher.
There are a fair number of ER doctors who don't let police officers bring guns into the room when they treat a patient. Because they've seen patients struggle with the officer to try and get the gun. Guns inherently make a situation more dangerous, not safer.
...so accuracy for actual gunfights would presumably be even lower.
Wouldn't this actually indicate that it would be better to engage an armed killer in a gun fight, it would reduce the accuracy of the gunman.
...so accuracy for actual gunfights would presumably be even lower.Wouldn't this actually indicate that it would be better to engage an armed killer in a gun fight, it would reduce the accuracy of the gunman.
Better for who? Every miss is a stray bullet. In a shooting in NYC earlier this year, several bystanders were hit by police bullets before the suspect was dropped.
There was also an incident in a town north of mine called Somers, NY where someone fired an AK-47 at police who had surrounded his home. Amazingly, no one was injured in the incident. (I've been trying to find a link because I'm not 100% on the details, but can't find anything.)
My accuracy in Modern Warfare 3 generally hovers between about 45% with semi automatics and shotguns, and often drops into the 20% with faster firing. So that is a fact that backs up some point somewhere...
Which is why I dont think we ought to banning magazines. It takes away the suppressing fire option.
And i think its telling that the NYPD is engaged in so many one sided fire fights. Why are they shooting, if the other side isnt? These are the guys we are supposed to rely on to protect us?
...so accuracy for actual gunfights would presumably be even lower.Wouldn't this actually indicate that it would be better to engage an armed killer in a gun fight, it would reduce the accuracy of the gunman.
While true, the gunman is presumably not being particularly selective or careful about his shots, as bystander casualties are less of a worry for him and more of a goal.
I do have one thing to point out, though. A common military tactic is to suppress the enemy with a high volume of fire to keep them pinned in one place, so military accuracy figures may, depending on the method of calculation, be including a large number of shots that were not actually aimed at hitting anyone, which can mess up the figures.
That is absolutely correct. I feel confident that the hit ratio would remain low once suppressive fire events are removed (though it's doubtful there is any way to reliably do that) since military engagement distances tend to be longer (though the effective ranges of military firearms tend to be longer as well) and tend to involve armed targets returning fire more often.
I do have one thing to point out, though. A common military tactic is to suppress the enemy with a high volume of fire to keep them pinned in one place, so military accuracy figures may, depending on the method of calculation, be including a large number of shots that were not actually aimed at hitting anyone, which can mess up the figures.That is absolutely correct. I feel confident that the hit ratio would remain low once suppressive fire events are removed (though it's doubtful there is any way to reliably do that) since military engagement distances tend to be longer (though the effective ranges of military firearms tend to be longer as well) and tend to involve armed targets returning fire more often.
I completely agree that there would still be a low hit percentage.
While true, the gunman is presumably not being particularly selective or careful about his shots, as bystander casualties are less of a worry for him and more of a goal....so accuracy for actual gunfights would presumably be even lower.Wouldn't this actually indicate that it would be better to engage an armed killer in a gun fight, it would reduce the accuracy of the gunman.
I'm sure he is wanting to target center of mass or heads. Even if he were to hit bystanders, since he was not able to aim accurately, he is unlikely to be able to inflict as many instantly fatal wounds as he would be able to if he didn't have someone distracting him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And i think its telling that the NYPD is engaged in so many one sided fire fights. Why are they shooting, if the other side isnt? These are the guys we are supposed to rely on to protect us?
It's not just the NYPD; their statistics are not particularly remarkable across metropolitan police forces. Often the shootings occur when the target is threatening but has not actually returned fire yet, and a significant number of firearms discharge events are dog shootings. While excessive police force is something to keep an eye out for, these statistics don't necessarily indicate a run-away problem.
I'm sure he is wanting to target center of mass or heads. Even if he were to hit bystanders, since he was able to aim accurately, he is unlikely to be able to inflict as many instantly fatal wounds as he would be able to if he didn't have someone distracting him.While true, the gunman is presumably not being particularly selective or careful about his shots, as bystander casualties are less of a worry for him and more of a goal....so accuracy for actual gunfights would presumably be even lower.Wouldn't this actually indicate that it would be better to engage an armed killer in a gun fight, it would reduce the accuracy of the gunman.
Yep, that's probably all true.
Didn't we already have this thread? I distinctly remember being told I was either anti-freedom or pro-suffering. Or misogynist. Or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't we already have this thread? I distinctly remember being told I was either anti-freedom or pro-suffering. Or misogynist. Or something.
As time increases, the number of differences between these threads and a spirited game of PARANOIA approaches zero.