Reaction times are fixed, you can't actually change them.uziq wrote:
17 year old gen-z'ers with 2000 hours logged in fortnite have better hand-eye coordination and faster reflexes than dilbert. sad!
except that the drugs i talk about consistently in legalization or decriminalization debates have been shown, via scientific understanding and empirical data, to be less harmful than 'legal' substances, if not entirely harmless in all but 0.1% of outlier cases.Dilbert_X wrote:
Society has made drugs illegal - to prevent harm to others and yourself, yet you don't give a shit about the law or all the people who are harmed by drugs die as part of the drugs trade - which can't be far off the school shooting toll.uziq wrote:
society makes all sorts of hobbies and personal pursuits illegal. that's what a great portion of laws are about, war man: preventing harm to others and harm to yourself.
lol okay dilbert. picturing you in a knife duel is really, really funny.No, it was a knife fight, not an attack, not self-defence.
Last edited by uziq (2022-07-20 04:09:54)
what makes you think that i have a 'sedentary' lifestyle, or did have, because i played computer games? i had sporting hobbies when i was a teenager, too. i'm probably more physically active than you now. such a silly, silly argument. 'you played games so you ate doritos all day and never exercised'. because that's exactly what modern esports pros are like, aren't they? don't professional esports teams have in-house gyms and physical trainers?Dilbert_X wrote:
Whatever, someone who has some minimal experience of not being completely sedentary will have a better chance than a video-gamer.Reaction times are fixed, you can't actually change them.uziq wrote:
17 year old gen-z'ers with 2000 hours logged in fortnite have better hand-eye coordination and faster reflexes than dilbert. sad!
Hand-eye coordination from video-games? LMAO
of course hand-eye coordination is involved in video games? what do you think is the motor skill used when you point a mouse at something on a screen?Consistent with previous testing using in-person visual methods in both laboratory-based research (e.g. Cepeda et al., 2001; Fozard et al., 1994) and larger field studies (Der & Deary, 2006), we demonstrated cross-sectional age-related slowing across adulthood in choice reaction time on this auditory task using novel technology. In addition, age differences increased with task complexity involving central executive functions such as switching, although age differences for tasks involving inhibitory control were not significant after controlling for general slowing. These findings using telephone assessment (Lachman & Tun, 2008) are generally consistent with previous studies that have examined adult age differences in complex speeded tasks (Cepeda et al., 2001; Reimers and Maylor, 2005), and executive function (Plumet, Gil, & Gaonac’h, 2005).
Last edited by uziq (2022-07-20 04:13:04)
But society has determined they are harmful and made them illegal, shut up now. Isn't that what you told War Man?uziq wrote:
except that the drugs i talk about consistently in legalization or decriminalization debates have been shown, via scientific understanding and empirical data, to be less harmful than 'legal' substances, if not entirely harmless in all but 0.1% of outlier cases.
The question was who would have a better chance in a physical altercation with a weapon, an active and dextrous athlete or a sedentary geek.i'm sure 6 months of fencing training will be indispensable the next time you meet a greaser in an alleyway and challenge him to a bit of sticking action with your stiletto. retard.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2022-07-20 04:12:52)
Last edited by uziq (2022-07-20 04:14:39)
So banning drugs has 'failed' therefore obviously banning guns will work?uziq wrote:
you are right, though, in that they are in many ways similar: most of all in that the war on drugs, like the gun control issue, have both been calamitous failures dogged by irreason and emotionalism of all forms.
Er, yes it has, hence they're illegal.uziq wrote:
society hasn't 'determined' that they are harmful?
i find it consistently amazing how you, a grown adult who is supposedly intelligent, thinks in binaries all the time. 'engineering versus history'. 'parodic video-game nerd versus athletic chad'.The question was who would have a better chance in a physical altercation with a weapon, an active and dextrous athlete or a sedentary geek.
fun sort of 'determination'. not based on scientific or medical reasoning.Dilbert_X wrote:
Er, yes it has, hence they're illegal.uziq wrote:
society hasn't 'determined' that they are harmful?
But you tell everyone else that if the govt makes their hobby illegal they should get over it and 'find another hobby'.uziq wrote:
fun sort of 'determination'. not based on scientific or medical reasoning.Dilbert_X wrote:
Er, yes it has, hence they're illegal.uziq wrote:
society hasn't 'determined' that they are harmful?
in the same sense of the term, the christian right have 'determined' that aborting a first-term foetus is murdering a complete soul and a perfect creation of God.
and now it's being writ into law in many US states. so i guess it has the inarguable weight of tradition, history, consensus, etc, behind it, too.
amazing how the 'man of science' absconds from reason and evidence when it suits his personal prejudices. good job!
dilbert, neither fencers nor gamers are up there on the 'tough guy' stakes. i'm sorry that for some reason, in your cucked and cloistered, sexless little world, that this affronts your self-image as being somehow 'masculine'. neither fencing nor gaming involves athletic prowess, strength, or the exercising of actual physical violence.Dilbert_X wrote:
If your aero-brain can recall what happened five minutes ago the subject was fencing.
i haven't taken a drug in years and none of the drugs i did take involved 'mass death'. do you need more write-ups on the supply chain of drugs to western europe, again? MDMA is made in the netherlands using ingredients from south-east asia. european cocaine supply routes skip the cartels altogether.Dilbert_X wrote:
But you tell everyone else that if the govt makes their hobby illegal they should get over it and 'find another hobby'.uziq wrote:
fun sort of 'determination'. not based on scientific or medical reasoning.Dilbert_X wrote:
Er, yes it has, hence they're illegal.
in the same sense of the term, the christian right have 'determined' that aborting a first-term foetus is murdering a complete soul and a perfect creation of God.
and now it's being writ into law in many US states. so i guess it has the inarguable weight of tradition, history, consensus, etc, behind it, too.
amazing how the 'man of science' absconds from reason and evidence when it suits his personal prejudices. good job!
Practice what you preach.
Last edited by uziq (2022-07-20 04:45:53)
I mentioned self-defense with the not rape victim as an example.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I am impressed that Warman chose the worst argument in favor of having AR-15s. Self-defense? Protecting liberty against tyrannical government? Nope. "Muh hobbies". It sounds so incredibly selfish. Lives > my hobbies and personal identity.
Talking to Ken about how "it is part of my lifestyle" is also something that probably works with only a very specific type of liberal. It is 2022. Society is way past politely respecting silly lifestyle choices.
Not everyone likes the recoil of a shotgun. I will never understand "revolvers are best for females" BS. Trigger pull is generally going to be longer if firing double action which is more likely to happen. Also pistols that you can't get a good proper grip on, due to short grips like a pocket revolver, require more practice to shoot accurately and properly control the recoil. A shouldered weapon like ar-15 or even a pistol caliber carbine is a far better option, granted if it has a stock and barrel length is under 16 inches you have to register it as an SBR(fuck you ATF) of course you could always give it a pistol brace to shoulder to make it classify as a pistol/other as is common in ar-15 pistols. shorter barrel is ideal for more maneuverability while shouldering it is easier to master. A shouldered weapon allows you to shoot accurately with it why also providing better control for recoil. Also don't need to practice as much with a shouldered carbine as you would with a pistol or shotgun. If worried about rounds over penetrating then just use hollow points.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Semi-automatic rifles are frequently an afterthought or bottom of the list for home defense in both tactical and tacticool articles and "rankings." Typically, shotguns, semi-automatic pistols, and even revolvers are favored first. Between the advantages and disadvantages of the pistol and rifle respectively, a pistol is often deemed more of a practical and utilitarian choice.
Armed households I'm acquainted with keep their pistols closest at hand, while the rifles remain in the safe until it's time to go to the range.
Warman's hypothetical 120 lb rape victim would probably be better served by a pocket 442 than an AR clone in the safe somewhere in the garage.
Banning ar-15's won't fricken work. Criminals will find a way. Even if it hypothetically works and we ban AR-15's, you seriously think every single owner would comply with the government? More and more people in USA are becoming gun owners and alot of them are getting ar-15's. Trying to take away such weapons from paranoid people will make school shootings child's play in comparison to the amount of death that will happen with fascistic policies that violate the constitution "...Shall not be infringed."uziq wrote:
society makes all sorts of hobbies and personal pursuits illegal. that's what a great portion of laws are about, war man: preventing harm to others and harm to yourself. your hobby revolves around lethal firearms that are expressly designed to murder a whole lot of people. there are very few hobbies that are so expressly geared around violence and harming other people. the best 'practical use' argument you can make for keeping massively overpowered rifles is that you want to hunt big animals. it 'being fun' to let off rounds at the range seems like a pretty paltry and selfish reason for keeping around weapons that frequently murder schoolrooms of children. getting drunk and racing around the roads with your friends is a fun pursuit for young people, for instance: should we have no laws around DUIs or speeding because street racing is a 'lifestyle'?War Man wrote:
Oh you want me to fucking change my lifestyle? Maybe I should start demanding you change your ways if I don't like them. Fuck off.
I guess you don't give a shit if a 120 pound woman gets her place invaded by a 200+ lb rapist and unable to defend herself because laws prevent her from owning a gun. Oh wait I forgot leftist arguments, "It's ok if abortion is legal, because she can just get an abortion if rapist impregnated" Fucking liberals.
who is proposing any law that would stop a person owning a gun for personal protection? we are talking about AR-15s and weapons with a high capacity to cause mass death. i'm not making any arguments that america should outlaw guns completely; i know that's way beyond any debate in your country. personally, i prefer living in a country where guns are not part of the equation of day-to-day life, but i'm not making that criticism of american life here. we are talking about assault rifles, again.
Last edited by War Man (2022-07-20 22:24:34)
"X is best/bad for females" isn't actually a thing I pay much attention to. Women are women, not a different species. You should see them with all kinds of firearms at the range. Maybe you have to be the type to film "firing her first gun, lulz" videos to buy into the notion that a woman can't pull a stiff trigger. I actually despise these "her first gun" videos. Way too often these jerks are giving a newbie too much gun, and then upload the chortling results for youtube lulz.Warman wrote:
Not everyone likes the recoil of a shotgun. I will never understand "revolvers are best for females" BS. Trigger pull is generally going to be longer if firing double action which is more likely to happen. Also pistols that you can't get a good proper grip on, due to short grips like a pocket revolver, require more practice to shoot accurately and properly control the recoil. A shouldered weapon like ar-15 or even a pistol caliber carbine is a far better option, granted if it has a stock and barrel length is under 16 inches you have to register it as an SBR(fuck you ATF) of course you could always give it a pistol brace to shoulder to make it classify as a pistol/other as is common in ar-15 pistols. shorter barrel is ideal for more maneuverability while shouldering it is easier to master. A shouldered weapon allows you to shoot accurately with it why also providing better control for recoil. Also don't need to practice as much with a shouldered carbine as you would with a pistol or shotgun. If worried about rounds over penetrating then just use hollow points.
Some people make a point of keeping frangible and other low penetration ammunition on hand for home defense scenarios, for that reason. #4 buckshot is sometimes recommended online for that reason (there are arguments for and against, take low drywall penetration claims with a grain of salt), and #00. Also less-lethal ammunition and methods like pepper spray and stun guns. Must be nice to live where a lot of this stuff doesn't need to be learned.uziq wrote:
are you going to account for all those rounds you loose off in a densely packed urban or suburban environment?
Every gun is technically military style, so banning military style weapons is banning all weapons. Civilians able to have superior weaponry than their nation's military is not unusual if you do some research. You act like the military is all high tech with top end stuff for every soldier, when that is simply not the case and has been that way for hundreds of years. Hell there was a time in the 1800's when the military still used only muzzle loading guns while civilians could purchase and own high capacity magazine weapons. Hell it was never illegal to being able to own cannons and even have a privateer fleet of ships with said cannons.uziq wrote:
how is an assault rifle a great weapon for home defense? you keeping it under your pillow for that night-time rapist, war man? how quickly can you load and fire an AR-15 from storage compared to a simple revolver or handgun? are you going to account for all those rounds you loose off in a densely packed urban or suburban environment? a panicked person in a home invasion scenario is not going to double-tap a few well-aimed shots at the intruder.
'fascistic policies'. lol. there is nothing fascist about banning military-style weapons from civilian hands. you do know the constitution also makes it illegal to take up arms against the government for the sake of revolt, too, right? it is expressly unconstitutional to do what you are doing: threatening violence and insurrection against law enforcement or representatives of the state.
banning AR-15's already HAS worked. there is data on this.
I don't assign gender roles to weapons, when you brought up revolvers for home defense I remembered the stereotypical "Revolvers are best for women" BS.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
"X is best/bad for females" isn't actually a thing I pay much attention to. Women are women, not a different species. You should see them with all kinds of firearms at the range. Maybe you have to be the type to film "firing her first gun, lulz" videos to buy into the notion that a woman can't pull a stiff trigger. I actually despise these "her first gun" videos. Way too often these jerks are giving a newbie too much gun, and then upload the chortling results for youtube lulz.Warman wrote:
Not everyone likes the recoil of a shotgun. I will never understand "revolvers are best for females" BS. Trigger pull is generally going to be longer if firing double action which is more likely to happen. Also pistols that you can't get a good proper grip on, due to short grips like a pocket revolver, require more practice to shoot accurately and properly control the recoil. A shouldered weapon like ar-15 or even a pistol caliber carbine is a far better option, granted if it has a stock and barrel length is under 16 inches you have to register it as an SBR(fuck you ATF) of course you could always give it a pistol brace to shoulder to make it classify as a pistol/other as is common in ar-15 pistols. shorter barrel is ideal for more maneuverability while shouldering it is easier to master. A shouldered weapon allows you to shoot accurately with it why also providing better control for recoil. Also don't need to practice as much with a shouldered carbine as you would with a pistol or shotgun. If worried about rounds over penetrating then just use hollow points.
With misogyny so linked to gun violence, it really isn't surprising to me to see someone in the gun world making a decision about what's best for women based on a stereotype. People in the gun world making up stories about daintier and daintier women to support their argument. Not surprising that you also know what's best for their uteruses. Do you know another group of humans who have low bodyweight and are slight of frame? Gradeschoolers.
Wouldn't the best weapon for anyone be the one they feel most comfortable and confident with, and have the most training for?
I'm not sure why you wouldn't have to practice with a rifle, that doesn't make sense. At the very least you're still going to have to maintain it and keep familiarized with operation. I've never had a shotgun jam on me. I actually prefer its recoil over palm-pounding handguns. Revolvers are likewise straightforward. Hammerless revolvers are pretty handy actually, in that it won't snag on your clothing. Pistols in general are lauded for versatility in home defense, much easier to use one handed if you need your other for something like turning on a light or grabbing your kid. 30-50 wild hogs is a meme.
Semi-automatic rifles are frequently an afterthought or bottom of the list for home defense in both tactical and tacticool articles and "rankings." Typically, shotguns, semi-automatic pistols, and even revolvers are favored first. Between the advantages and disadvantages of the pistol and rifle respectively, a pistol is often deemed more of a practical and utilitarian choice.
Armed households I'm acquainted with keep their pistols closest at hand, while the rifles remain in the safe until it's time to go to the range.
Warman's hypothetical 120 lb rape victim would probably be better served by a pocket 442 than an AR clone in the safe somewhere in the garage.
Last edited by War Man (2022-07-21 00:49:30)
