Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
xraytango wrote:Only those unfamiliar with firearms or misinformed by Hollywood are the only ones that I have ever seen handle them in an unsafe method.
Yeah, given the power-fantasy marketing campaigns of virtually every firearms manufacturer in the US, I'd say this is an apt description of many immature firearm owners.
xraytango wrote:I don't really care if you have a firearms license, it means very little here to the south of your border.
Cool story.
Since it seems to have eluded you: I'm just pointing out that I'm not against firearms; I'm just against idiots having unrestricted access to them.
xraytango wrote:You may not be familiar with the term "big toys for big boys" as you are Canadian and is a popular American colloquialism, it means that an item that is costly or dangerous is not for children, nor is it cavalier in it's tone as it merely denotes a demographic.
No, it's pretty cavalier anytime something is described as a 'toy'.
xraytango wrote:Why would I be wanting to shoot inside my house? And why on earth would I use a round that could pass through both of our houses? I would use a frangible or a low velocity, or any other home defense round appropriate for shotgun or pistol. You make it sound as though I am going to be firing a 30-06 willy nilly, and that simply isn't the case.
The fact that you don't understand how every 5.56 round from an AR-15 has the capacity to penetrate several walls is very telling of your actual understanding of the firearm, and really emphasizes my point. Additionally, I don't know why you would want to shoot in your house. But your motivation is not relevant; the fact that you actually might discharge a firearm is the point.
I don't think that kid "wanted" to discharge his firearm in his bedroom, either. But it still happened.
Whembly, I just want mandatory safety training for all gun owners as a requirement prior to ownership. That's all. I generally don't want to take the entire populace's guns away.
azazel the cat wrote: Whembly, I just want mandatory safety training for all gun owners as a requirement prior to ownership. That's all. I generally don't want to take the entire populace's guns away.
Should we make it as extensive as the safety training for the police department that the deputy sheriff mentioned in the other thread worked for?
xraytango wrote:Only those unfamiliar with firearms or misinformed by Hollywood are the only ones that I have ever seen handle them in an unsafe method.
Yeah, given the power-fantasy marketing campaigns of virtually every firearms manufacturer in the US, I'd say this is an apt description of many immature firearm owners.
xraytango wrote:I don't really care if you have a firearms license, it means very little here to the south of your border.
Cool story.
Since it seems to have eluded you: I'm just pointing out that I'm not against firearms; I'm just against idiots having unrestricted access to them.
xraytango wrote:You may not be familiar with the term "big toys for big boys" as you are Canadian and is a popular American colloquialism, it means that an item that is costly or dangerous is not for children, nor is it cavalier in it's tone as it merely denotes a demographic.
No, it's pretty cavalier anytime something is described as a 'toy'.
xraytango wrote:Why would I be wanting to shoot inside my house? And why on earth would I use a round that could pass through both of our houses? I would use a frangible or a low velocity, or any other home defense round appropriate for shotgun or pistol. You make it sound as though I am going to be firing a 30-06 willy nilly, and that simply isn't the case.
The fact that you don't understand how every 5.56 round from an AR-15 has the capacity to penetrate several walls is very telling of your actual understanding of the firearm, and really emphasizes my point. Additionally, I don't know why you would want to shoot in your house. But your motivation is not relevant; the fact that you actually might discharge a firearm is the point.
I don't think that kid "wanted" to discharge his firearm in his bedroom, either. But it still happened.
Whembly, I just want mandatory safety training for all gun owners as a requirement prior to ownership. That's all. I generally don't want to take the entire populace's guns away.
1. Advertising is advertising, they sell fantasy. Everything from soap to soda-pop is sold with overstatement and a strong sense of fantasy.. It is nothing to get uptight about.
2.. Sure there are a few idiots that have firearms, but we license far more idiots to drive cars and look how many people are killed in traffic accidents each year.. I admit, that's not a strong argument, but neither is yours. The fact that you have a license for a firearm does not mean that you have any more sense or that you are any safer or proficient than anybody else.
3. Yes, please go on and tell me all the things that I don't know about firearms.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/13 12:35:12
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
azazel the cat wrote: Whembly, I just want mandatory safety training for all gun owners as a requirement prior to ownership. That's all. I generally don't want to take the entire populace's guns away.
Should we make it as extensive as the safety training for the police department that the deputy sheriff mentioned in the other thread worked for?
Again with your nirvana fallacies. For the third time, in this thread I will repeat for you: it's not a perfect solution, but that doesn't make it a worthless solution.
xraytango wrote:1. Advertising is advertising, they sell fantasy. Everything from soap to soda-pop is sold with overstatement and a strong sense of fantasy.. It is nothing to get uptight about.
Yeah, it is when the advertising is selling deadly weapons and marketing them as toys (as you've even attested yourself). That kind of advertising diminishes the level of respect and caution that people will display when handling firearms and making decisions about them. See the video I posted earlier as an example.
xraytango wrote:2.. Sure there are a few idiots that have firearms, but we license far more idiots to drive cars and look how many people are killed in traffic accidents each year.. I admit, that's not a strong argument, but neither is yours. The fact that you have a license for a firearm does not mean that you have any more sense or that you are any safer or proficient than anybody else.
And I'm sure, to some degree, the driver's licensing program filters out some people who absolutely should never get behind the wheel. However, it's important to note that the average American commuter spends 65 minutes a day driving a car. I don't know what the amount of time they spend handling firearms is, but it's a safe bet it's nowhere near 65 minutes every single day. So if you want to compare accidents, let's take into account the amount of time spent on each activity, and then consider what the comparable rate is.
And yes, if you compare 10,000 people who have gone through safety training with their firearms with 10,000 people who have not, I guarantee you the trained group will have more sense, on average, than the untrained group. This idea really isn't that tough to figure out, and it applies to every skill, ever.
xraytango wrote:3. Yes, please go on and tell me all the things that I don't know about firearms.
You make it sound as if the Bushmaster ad is marketing to children in the middle of saturday morning cartoons. Gun ads are run in *surprise* gun magazines.
A Ferrari is also considered a "big-boy's toy" but no one is getting upset that it is a "toy" i.e something that is not essential for life but may be used as a diversion. So the colloquial use of the word 'toy' is not incorrect for a nonessential firearm. It is merely a turn of phrase.
Sometimes I refer to my hand tools as "toys" though they quite clearly are not toys, but when I purchase a new one I sometimes tell my co-workers that I bought a new "toy". These "toys" bring me satisfaction and enable my gainful employment, but can be very dangerous if used incorrectly. Am I barred from calling them "toys" because of that?
So in this 99% safe gun licensing program of yours, will it be retroactive, and where is the money going to come from for this program, and what about infrastructure, what level of personnel will it take to handle these training programs and all the attending paperwork. Who will operate and maintain the database? Seems a bit wishful at this point.
And what about criminals, will they get a license, or how about someone who inherits a firearm, how will that be tracked?
Do you know that 2/3 of all firearm related deaths are suicides? Will licensing curb that number? Did you know that last year more people were killed by stabbing, bludgeoning, strangulation, or being beaten with hand and fist than were killed by any "assault" rifle?
Does that mean we need to license hammers and rope, or that we could be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon if we put our hands in our pockets? Do I need a license for my kitchen knives?
And now you make an ad hominem attack. That is so classy, I have no witty riposte for this other than: Where did you learn your debate skills, the Piers Morgan Institute of Meaningful Dialogue?
It is an ancient truth that when someone makes an ad hominem attack, they really have nothing left to say. This I what I leave to you.
'Nuff said.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/13 22:43:08
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
And now you make an ad hominem attack
Errr. I'm not seeing any personal attacks in Azazel's post.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
[=xraytango]3. Yes, please go on and tell me all the things that I don't know about firearms.
I don't have the kind of time that would require.
This seems like he is saying that I don't know anything about firearms, in fact that I am stupid and I am taking it as an attack on my knowledge of the subject, therefore it is an attack on me. Herein he dismisses me as a person with experience, knowledge and cognitive ability.
In essence an ad hominem attack. No, not by dint of an attack on my physical person, or the like, but an attack on my personal validity to make my argument. The non-physical person of the internet.
I may be using the wrong concept paired with the wrong word, but my knowledge of firearms is unassailable, I know what I know and have had years of experience with the subject and do not need to enumerate upon it here to someone that refuses to engage in a reasonable and intelligent dialogue. In fact we are dealing with someone who wants to make an emotional argument, not one of fact as he has not addressed any of my actual points and keeps on with a "moral" outrage at what has got to be one of the dumbest gun ads in history. One that far too many people are putting too much stock in as being indicative of the reason why people buy a gun, namely an Armalite style semi-auto.
My opening point was that it is just an ad, nothing to get excited about, it's stupid and pointless, he countered that with ZOMGthatsterriblethinkofthechildrendontcallgunstoyspplethatcallgunstoyscantberesponsible!!!!
Far too emotional for my taste.
Are any of my points that I have made wrong? Please, show me where that is, but don't "cherry-pick" half a sentence out of a transitional paragraph and become morally over-righteous about it.
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
xraytango wrote:So in this 99% safe gun licensing program of yours, will it be retroactive, and where is the money going to come from for this program, and what about infrastructure, what level of personnel will it take to handle these training programs and all the attending paperwork. Who will operate and maintain the database? Seems a bit wishful at this point.
With this new turn, am I to assume that your argument has now changed from "we don't need change because there's no problem" to "the problem is too big to fix"?
xraytango wrote:And what about criminals, will they get a license, or how about someone who inherits a firearm, how will that be tracked?
xraytango wrote:Do you know that 2/3 of all firearm related deaths are suicides? Will licensing curb that number? Did you know that last year more people were killed by stabbing, bludgeoning, strangulation, or being beaten with hand and fist than were killed by any "assault" rifle?
I am well aware that more than 2/3 of death via firearm is suicide. Do you know why many bridges have those fences to prevent people from jumping? It's because studies have found that the vast majority of suicide attempts which are thwarted are not repeated. That is, if a suicidal person doesn't have a firearm readily available at he exact moment they're having a really, really bad day, then then generally won't go through with the extra effort.
And saying "well all those other problems are worse" in no way makes this problem better. I don't hear you crying about how we should stop trying to cure HIV because Cancers kill more people each year, after all.
xraytango wrote:Does that mean we need to license hammers and rope, or that we could be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon if we put our hands in our pockets? Do I need a license for my kitchen knives?
Well, first let's consider the level of deadliness between your bare hands and a firearm. And I believe you can be arrested already for carrying a concealed knife, but I can't say for certain as it may vary from state to state.
I don't consider this issue as black and white as you clearly do, and your all-or-nothing stance towards carrying weapons is very regrettable, as it will always prevent you from engaging in a rational, adult discourse.
xraytango wrote:And now you make an ad hominem attack. That is so classy, I have no witty riposte for this other than: Where did you learn your debate skills, the Piers Morgan Institute of Meaningful Dialogue?
I have yet to make an ad hominem attack. I merely gave your question the answer that it deserved. If you want to whine and cry in hopes of playing the martyr when someone calls you on your foolish statements, then you are welcome to do so. However, I think you will find little sympathy here.
Additionally, we aren't having a debate. If we were, your rampant use of logical fallacies would have caused you to lose long before the figurative curbstomping I've been delivering to you.
And you riposte was not witty; I suspect you are aware of that. Otherwise, you would have simply called it a repartee. I'm afraid your retort was merely juvenile and laden with desperation.
Anyway, I've engaged with your posts a handful of times now in this thread, and you have yet to contribute anything new, challenging or of interest to the debate. Instead, you have brought strawman arguments, assorted logical fallacies, pointless rhetoric, some ironic claims of being hard done by phantom ad hominem attacks, and finally an absolutely laughable appeal to your own authority.
EDIT: Since that has brought a smile to my face, I'm going to disengage on that high note. But you just keep shooting for the stars, xraytango!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/04/14 01:01:06
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
Squigsquasher, resident ban magnet, White Knight, and general fethwit.
buddha wrote: I've decided that these GW is dead/dying threads that pop up every-week must be followers and cultists of nurgle perpetuating the need for decay. I therefore declare that that such threads are heresy and subject to exterminatus. So says the Inquisition!
xraytango wrote: Here is a sobering thought to the "only LEO or veterans should have guns" group.
It is a fact that most citizens have more range-time than LEOs. More range time means more familiarity with their weapon, as well as accuracy.
It's almost like LEOs have ridiculously demanding schedules and little time to do what constitutes a "hobby" to citizens.
Let's just keep playing pretend that range time and accuracy alone constitutes what makes someone effective in a situation where they're having to shoot another human being and/or being shot at in the process.
whembly wrote:Az... check this out: http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation’s attention in recent weeks: gun control.
More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility.
Here are two striking results:
1) What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic
firearms, termed by some as "assault weapons," would have on reducing violent crime?
71% said None
2) . Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold
more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?
95.7% said NO
Check it out....
Of course it won't have any effect on "reducing violent crime". The people who regularly are committing violent crimes (notice: REGULARLY COMMITTING violent crimes, not just COMMITTING violent crimes) with firearms are likely not using legally obtained firearms.
But I guess we're just going to pretend that those tidbits aren't relevant when discussing measures primarily aimed at preventing instances like Aurora, where individuals who were able to legally obtain firearms did so.
Actually, the poll is deceptive for other reasons: an "assault weapon" ban would have basically no impact on violent crime because violent crime is almost never carried out with an "assault weapon", since those are rather more expensive, and much less concealable, than low-end handguns and the like.
There is also, as stated, much more than target shooting experience to determining someone's effectiveness in a gunfight. Statistically, the ability to determine what will provide the best cover is far more important than precision shooting abilities, and much of modern military training is rooted in removing the psychological blocks humans generally have against killing one another, to ensure they both aim at the enemy and pull the trigger without hesitation.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: There is also, as stated, much more than target shooting experience to determining someone's effectiveness in a gunfight. Statistically, the ability to determine what will provide the best cover is far more important than precision shooting abilities, and much of modern military training is rooted in removing the psychological blocks humans generally have against killing one another, to ensure they both aim at the enemy and pull the trigger without hesitation.
Could you point us towards those statistics sometime?
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Actually, the poll is deceptive for other reasons: an "assault weapon" ban would have basically no impact on violent crime because violent crime is almost never carried out with an "assault weapon", since those are rather more expensive, and much less concealable, than low-end handguns and the like.
There is also, as stated, much more than target shooting experience to determining someone's effectiveness in a gunfight. Statistically, the ability to determine what will provide the best cover is far more important than precision shooting abilities, and much of modern military training is rooted in removing the psychological blocks humans generally have against killing one another, to ensure they both aim at the enemy and pull the trigger without hesitation.
I hardly see how that makes the poll deceptive. Its actually spot on.
People are trying to ban the mythical "assault" weapon, yet thats not what is used to commit most crimes(nor is assault weapon clearly defined)
Thats why these LEOs are saying the ban, or indeed any ban, targeting assault weapons will do nothing. because "assault" weapons arn't used to commit all this gun related crime.
Which just shows that the majority of gun control proponents have zero idea what they are talking about when it comes to legislation, they arn't trying to solve the problem. They want to look like they are solving the problem so they simply choose the high profile way of appearing like they are doing something to help. They do this instead of focusing on the real causes of violence, like economic depression, poor mental health care, cultural issues, organized crime, etc...
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Bullockist wrote: I think the guy that did this needs to get a football scholarship. He manages to stab 15 people??? Not only is that great dexterity and speed, he also showed a great amount of focus to get to #15 victim.
I predict he will be #1 draft pick as a RB in the NFL draft in 2 years time or optionally gets an acting part as "roberto" in a futurama movie.
Well you do run faster with the knife out... so he had that going for him.
Bullockist wrote: I think the guy that did this needs to get a football scholarship. He manages to stab 15 people??? Not only is that great dexterity and speed, he also showed a great amount of focus to get to #15 victim.
I predict he will be #1 draft pick as a RB in the NFL draft in 2 years time or optionally gets an acting part as "roberto" in a futurama movie.
Well you do run faster with the knife out... so he had that going for him.
Eh what?
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Actually, the poll is deceptive for other reasons: an "assault weapon" ban would have basically no impact on violent crime because violent crime is almost never carried out with an "assault weapon", since those are rather more expensive, and much less concealable, than low-end handguns and the like.
There is also, as stated, much more than target shooting experience to determining someone's effectiveness in a gunfight. Statistically, the ability to determine what will provide the best cover is far more important than precision shooting abilities, and much of modern military training is rooted in removing the psychological blocks humans generally have against killing one another, to ensure they both aim at the enemy and pull the trigger without hesitation.
I hardly see how that makes the poll deceptive. Its actually spot on.
People are trying to ban the mythical "assault" weapon, yet thats not what is used to commit most crimes(nor is assault weapon clearly defined)
Thats why these LEOs are saying the ban, or indeed any ban, targeting assault weapons will do nothing. because "assault" weapons arn't used to commit all this gun related crime.
Which just shows that the majority of gun control proponents have zero idea what they are talking about when it comes to legislation, they arn't trying to solve the problem. They want to look like they are solving the problem so they simply choose the high profile way of appearing like they are doing something to help. They do this instead of focusing on the real causes of violence, like economic depression, poor mental health care, cultural issues, organized crime, etc...
Aren't they trying to reduce the chance of massacres caused not by criminals, but people who have more or less mentally cracked for whatever reason?
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
These massacres still haven't been caused by assault weapons.
An AR-15 is not an assault weapon, its a semi-auto rifle.
heck, we even call an AR-15 a different name from its full auto version because its a completely different weapon.
The way to stop a crazy person from going on a rampage is to get them the help they need, not restrict their access to weaponry(that helps but doesn't stop the issue) Certainly not when restricting their access also impedes the constitutional rights of others.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
I hardly see how that makes the poll deceptive. Its actually spot on.
Sorry, I meant the way it was presented, or seemed to be, was deceptive. The argument it got tossed into was over licensing, not "assault weapons".
People are trying to ban the mythical "assault" weapon, yet thats not what is used to commit most crimes(nor is assault weapon clearly defined)
Thats why these LEOs are saying the ban, or indeed any ban, targeting assault weapons will do nothing. because "assault" weapons arn't used to commit all this gun related crime.
Right, "assault weapons" are a silly thing to go after, since they're basically just toys for enthusiasts and collectors. People want some flashy, impractical weapon to fire at ranges, or feel cool for owning. No sane civilian is going to think "wow, this knockoff M16 will really come in handy for anything, ever!"
Which just shows that the majority of gun control proponents have zero idea what they are talking about when it comes to legislation, they arn't trying to solve the problem. They want to look like they are solving the problem so they simply choose the high profile way of appearing like they are doing something to help. They do this instead of focusing on the real causes of violence, like economic depression, poor mental health care, cultural issues, organized crime, etc...
To be fair, it's not like their opposition is real big about solving the root causes either.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
True, but at least they arn't being dishonest about trying to solve it and wasting taxpayer money by putting forth things that won't solve the issue.
I'd rather save tax money and not solve a problem then spend tax money and not solve the problem. Lesser of 2 evils.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Bullockist wrote: I think the guy that did this needs to get a football scholarship. He manages to stab 15 people??? Not only is that great dexterity and speed, he also showed a great amount of focus to get to #15 victim.
I predict he will be #1 draft pick as a RB in the NFL draft in 2 years time or optionally gets an acting part as "roberto" in a futurama movie.
Well you do run faster with the knife out... so he had that going for him.
Eh what?
In Counter Strike, you run faster with a knife out than with a gun. Though I recall the scout sniper rifle was even faster, though perhaps that was just in the gamemode I played.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: There is also, as stated, much more than target shooting experience to determining someone's effectiveness in a gunfight. Statistically, the ability to determine what will provide the best cover is far more important than precision shooting abilities, and much of modern military training is rooted in removing the psychological blocks humans generally have against killing one another, to ensure they both aim at the enemy and pull the trigger without hesitation.
Could you point us towards those statistics sometime?
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: There is also, as stated, much more than target shooting experience to determining someone's effectiveness in a gunfight. Statistically, the ability to determine what will provide the best cover is far more important than precision shooting abilities, and much of modern military training is rooted in removing the psychological blocks humans generally have against killing one another, to ensure they both aim at the enemy and pull the trigger without hesitation.
Could you point us towards those statistics sometime?
Seriously though.
Yeah, I gotta admit, I'm skeptical about that as well... if I had to come up with a ranked list of what I thought the most important skills to have in a gunfight would be, it'd look something like this:
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
And I would be fairly confidant that most people's innate instincts would be sufficient enough to be able to find decent cover. Maybe not make a judgement choice between good cover and better cover or have the skills to move from cover to cover, but something that advanced doesn't strike me as being super important during a shooting.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote:And I would be fairly confidant that most people's innate instincts would be sufficient enough to be able to find decent cover. Maybe not make a judgement choice between good cover and better cover or have the skills to move from cover to cover, but something that advanced doesn't strike me as being super important during a shooting.
I suspect it would matter more during a prolonged combat.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Exactly.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: There is also, as stated, much more than target shooting experience to determining someone's effectiveness in a gunfight. Statistically, the ability to determine what will provide the best cover is far more important than precision shooting abilities, and much of modern military training is rooted in removing the psychological blocks humans generally have against killing one another, to ensure they both aim at the enemy and pull the trigger without hesitation.
Could you point us towards those statistics sometime?
Seriously though.
Why don't you, who I'm presuming has a computer that's not so godawful that using google crashes your browser (as frequently happens with the phone I'm using), look it up? It was some police study that determined better/faster analysis and selection of cover was more important to officers in a gunfight than being good on a range, as I recall. I've read mentions of it, but never bothered to track it down myself.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Normally, its the person that claims study X shows Y who has to show the proof. Not that I'm the best example when it comes to this
I don't feel inclined to go looking for something that just seems fishy, its why I don't look up tons of conspiracy theories all the time(unless I'm bored)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/15 04:48:00
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
