C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
Cops will be allowed to wear kevlar. Bullet proof vests are part of their equipment.
My, you're the Statist aren't you? So it's OK for the agents of the State
to own and use equipment that can save their lives, but not for common
citizens to do so?
Cause they have a dangerous job. They put their lives on the line. And they don't even wear bullet proof vests all the time.
YOU do not. You're life is not dangerous. Having a bullet would not help your survivability in any measurable way.
So roughly 1% of bullet wounds are fatal? Why buy a gun in the first place?
So you can defend youself adequately against someone who's wigging
out on PCP....
And the last time that happened to you was ....
Seriously, what's the point? When was the last time you were involved with shots fired in a criminal situation ... when you weren't the criminal.
not all of us are 300 lb muscle bound behemoths like you,
Strowey.
You could be. It doesn't take much. It's not like I exercise 7 days a week. I take Saturday and Sunday off.
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
2.) Do you wear a life-jacket everywhere you go? Do you carry tick spray? NO YOU FUCKING DON'T! Cause it would be a waste of time, just like wearing a bullet proof vest. The only people who need bullet proof vests are cops and criminals. And when you buy a kevlar vest you only make matters worse.
You're afraid of self defense, aren't you strowey?
Besides, modern Kevlar vests, especially the Second Chance
Vests are no more uncomfortable than a tee shirt, yet
still stop .357 rounds
Last edited by MKSheppard on 2002-11-27 04:56am, edited 1 time in total.
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
Cops will be allowed to wear kevlar. Bullet proof vests are part of their equipment. God you're stupid.
Someone likes the ad hominem...
Some fucking moron doesn't know what an ad hominem is...
And that fucking moron is you.
Here's a hint, when you attack the man instead of the arguement it's an ad hominem. When you attack the man and the arguement, it's just rude.
In todays world with fast medevacs and trauma teams, wounds that
were not survivable 30 years ago are survivable today.
So roughly 1% of bullet wounds are fatal? Why buy a gun in the first place?
Because of the medical treatment we have. Do you not read, man? I fwe didn't have it, then many more bullet wounds would be fatal.
Actually, I've read the stats. Most gun fights take place at ranges less than 20 feet and, IIRC, the accuracy is less than 20%. It's not a good weapon without lot of training, and I mean combat training, not shooting range bullshit. Targets don't shoot back.
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
Actually, I've read the stats. Most gun fights take place at ranges less than 20 feet and, IIRC, the accuracy is less than 20%. It's not a good weapon without lot of training, and I mean combat training, not shooting range bullshit. Targets don't shoot back.
So your argument against guns is that we can't trust the people with them,
because it takes lots of training to get proficient with them? Shit, let's
take away the Police's guns, and the FBI's guns too....because all they
do is minimal qualifications each year on the firing range...
verilon wrote:CSS: Think about it this way: more than often are people killed in crossfire than need to be, especially kids. I think that if parents really gave two shits, they wouldn't mind spending the extra money to have their kids be safe.
And that extra money would go a long way in helping a criminal feel safe. And they thank you.
The odd of a child dying in the crossfire is absolutely miniscule. The odd of a bullet proof vest being stolen, if gun statistics is anything to go by, are hundreds of times higher.
Actually, I've read the stats. Most gun fights take place at ranges less than 20 feet and, IIRC, the accuracy is less than 20%. It's not a good weapon without lot of training, and I mean combat training, not shooting range bullshit. Targets don't shoot back.
People can be targets. Last time I checked, if they had guns, they could shoot back.
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Because you can drop sombody you could never fight hand to hand with. Just because the perp is not dead doesnt mean the gun was ineffective, if your firing in self defence. Many wounds will leave a person on the ground unable to do anything, but will not be fatel until they bleed out. The chances of that happening tend to be low because of the excellent medical care thats close at hand in the West.
One does not need to kill someone to disable him. And guns are easier to acquire than brute physical strength.
Besides, in hand to hand you're more likely to get hurt, no matter how good you are.
Yeah, that's the problem. Guns are too easy to acquire. The ability to use a gun effectively, is not.
verilon wrote:CSS: Think about it this way: more than often are people killed in crossfire than need to be, especially kids. I think that if parents really gave two shits, they wouldn't mind spending the extra money to have their kids be safe.
And that extra money would go a long way in helping a criminal feel safe. And they thank you.
The odd of a child dying in the crossfire is absolutely miniscule. The odd of a bullet proof vest being stolen, if gun statistics is anything to go by, are hundreds of times higher.
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
The odd of a child dying in the crossfire is absolutely miniscule. The odd of a bullet proof vest being stolen, if gun statistics is anything to go by, are hundreds of times higher.
So now you don't want bullet proof vests to be sold to the public
because they.....MIGHT BE STOLEN!!! OH MY GOD!
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
Yeah, that's the problem. Guns are too easy to acquire. The ability to use a gun effectively, is not.
Stop parroting the same crap thats been levied against guns ever since
they first appeared on the battlefield and gave the lowly peasant with
a week's training the capability of killing a Knight with years of training
easily=...
1.) Learn to snip.
2.) Do you wear a life-jacket everywhere you go? Do you carry tick spray? NO YOU FUCKING DON'T! Cause it would be a waste of time, just like wearing a bullet proof vest. The only people who need bullet proof vests are cops and criminals. And when you buy a kevlar vest you only make matters worse.
Think about it this way, you buy a gun to protect yourself from criminals. Statistically speaking, the first criminal that gun will encounter is the one that steals it from you. 300,000 guns are stolen every year. And if you don't think Kevlar vests are going to be a main target for theives you're fucking nuts.
But no, you're not thinking long-term, or at all. You want that Kevlar vest for the 0.00367% protection is offers.
1) That's SEP (Somebody Else's Problem)
2) Tick spray and a life vest are a hell of a lot more inconvenient to wear than Kevlar, which can be worn under normal clothes without it getting tin the way too much. If you value your life and you live in a danger zone you WILL wear Kevlar. That 0.00367% could be the difference between capping the fucker between the eyes and lying dead in the gutter.
And whether or not the gun belongs to you the Kevlar STILL protects against it.
0.00367%.
Read that number a few hundred times till it sinks in.
300,000 stolen guns.
Read that number a few hundred times till it sinks in.
If guns give us any indication, Kevlar vests would be a hundred times more likely to be stolen than to save your life. Then they are helping save the lives of criminals.
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
Lesson you should learn: When trying to prove something is a big threat you must compare it to other threats.
So does that mean people should not be able to protect them self against it? When don’t we pull medical treatment and vaccinations for all but the top five world killers then? Same logic, same stupdity.
Two points:
1.) Learn to snip.
2.) Do you wear a life-jacket everywhere you go? Do you carry tick spray? NO YOU FUCKING DON'T! Cause it would be a waste of time, just like wearing a bullet proof vest. The only people who need bullet proof vests are cops and criminals. And when you buy a kevlar vest you only make matters worse.
Think about it this way, you buy a gun to protect yourself from criminals. Statistically speaking, the first criminal that gun will encounter is the one that steals it from you. 300,000 guns are stolen every year. And if you don't think Kevlar vests are going to be a main target for theives you're fucking nuts.
But no, you're not thinking long-term, or at all. You want that Kevlar vest for the 0.00367% protection is offers.
How many are stolen from a person holding it? Hint, its significantly less then 300K. I personal don't want a vest, but then why shouldn't I be able to buy one if I want to? You've yet to address that. The claime that it wont offer much protection doesnt cover that.
How excatly am I making matters worse by using somthing can can do nothing but protect me?
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:0.00367%.
Read that number a few hundred times till it sinks in.
I suggest you do the same. 0.00367% > 0% last time I checked.
300,000 stolen guns.
Read that number a few hundred times till it sinks in.
As opposed to how many stolen Kevlar vests?
If guns give us any indication, Kevlar vests would be a hundred times more likely to be stolen than to save your life. Then they are helping save the lives of criminals.
Do you understand now?
Cite, please.
Last edited by haas mark on 2002-11-27 05:08am, edited 2 times in total.
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
2.) Do you wear a life-jacket everywhere you go? Do you carry tick spray? NO YOU FUCKING DON'T! Cause it would be a waste of time, just like wearing a bullet proof vest. The only people who need bullet proof vests are cops and criminals. And when you buy a kevlar vest you only make matters worse.
You're afraid of self defense, aren't you strowey?
Nope, never needed it. And niether do most people.
Besides, modern Kevlar vests, especially the Second Chance
Vests are no more uncomfortable than a tee shirt, yet
still stop .357 rounds
So fucking what? If you're never shot it doesn't matter. And that's the fucking point. How many times have you been shot? And you went to jail charged with a violent felony.
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
If guns give us any indication, Kevlar vests would be a hundred times more likely to be stolen than to save your life. Then they are helping save the lives of criminals.
There he goes again, claiming that everything is FOR the
criminals. Jesus strowbridge, stop pulling shit out of your
ass and provide CITES for BPV thefts.-
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
Nope, never needed it. And niether do most people.
Jesus, you live in La-La-La land. I live a few miles from
a very NASTY shopping center. anyone who knows
the area knows NOT to be there after dark.....
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
You could be. It doesn't take much. It's not like I exercise 7 days a week. I take Saturday and Sunday off.
Ah, so Strowbridge is one of the Elite Fitness Morons.
No, I exercise half an hour a day cause obsesity is like a billion times more likely to kill you than guns.
See, I look at what's the mostly likely cause of death, and figure how to limit that. I don't look for the least likely cause of death and worry about that. It's not worth my effort.
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
See, I look at what's the mostly likely cause of death, and figure how to limit that. I don't look for the least likely cause of death and worry about that. It's not worth my effort.
So, by your reasoning, If I had to work in a convience store, I would
be justified to own a Bullet Proof Vest to limit my cause of death by
Gunshot Wounds in a failed holdup?
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:Nope, never needed it. And niether do most people.
That's what most people say until they're confronted. Better safe than sorry, as the saying goes.
Besides, modern Kevlar vests, especially the Second Chance
Vests are no more uncomfortable than a tee shirt, yet
still stop .357 rounds
So fucking what? If you're never shot it doesn't matter. And that's the fucking point. How many times have you been shot? And you went to jail charged with a violent felony.[/quote]
If you're never shot it doesn't matter. But there will *always* be the possibility that you might be.
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
You could be. It doesn't take much. It's not like I exercise 7 days a week. I take Saturday and Sunday off.
Ah, so Strowbridge is one of the Elite Fitness Morons.
No, I exercise half an hour a day cause obsesity is like a billion times more likely to kill you than guns.
See, I look at what's the mostly likely cause of death, and figure how to limit that. I don't look for the least likely cause of death and worry about that. It's not worth my effort.
More people care about gun deaths than obesity. Besides, more people that shoot the guns are likely to not be obese, as they would not be able to run away, or do you not watch the news? Or are you just too worried about getting off your treadmill or bench to look? I get more news, it seems, than you do, and I hardly get out!
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
Actually, I've read the stats. Most gun fights take place at ranges less than 20 feet and, IIRC, the accuracy is less than 20%. It's not a good weapon without lot of training, and I mean combat training, not shooting range bullshit. Targets don't shoot back.
So your argument against guns is that we can't trust the people with them,
because it takes lots of training to get proficient with them? Shit, let's
take away the Police's guns, and the FBI's guns too....because all they
do is minimal qualifications each year on the firing range...
Oh yeah, the police do nothing but simple firing range testing. Bullshit.
They are trained in fire arm usage, safety, reaction time, friend or foe identification, threat analysis, etc. Yearly checks are just for accuracy, eyesight, reaction time, etc.
