DUMBEST F*&@king thing you've ever heard NOT ON THE ZS FORUM

[thesupremeking]

Apparently the sound of an AK being charged is so distinctive that burglars will dive out your windows to escape it.

Funny you mention that. Not too long ago, I was told that, almost verbatim. Then, they followed up with "and because the M16 is a cheap piece of Mattell plastic, its sound will make you a bigger target"

I'm still not sure how I kept myself from punching him in the face

Oh God don't resurrect the mattel thing!

[MaconCJ7]

"On the Sig P210, the slide merely acts as a charging handle. It doesn't actually reciprocate when you fire a shot. Instead, the barrel assembly moves back within the slide to eject the spent casing and pickup the fresh one."
Me:"Then why does the slide lock back on an empty mag?"
"There's a lever that, when there is no round, does not engage, and the barrel continues back until it slams into the slide."
Me:"Then how does slide bite occur?"
"I've never heard of someone getting slide bit with a P210"

Scary thing is, it's said in a way that was almost believable.

Beyond the basic structure of a pistol not allowing this... Nevermind, I can't even wrap my head around the confused logic to even form a decent question.

[WY_Not]

They also make decent improvised pillows.

They are also good to stand on when you need to reach something on a high shelf.

Yeah, too bad it was called out in the work instructions.

My daddy says T.O.s are for pussies.

[Raindog]

Today at work a couple of techs were at the computer across from me raving about this "new" 17HMR round. It's super quiet one said "you don't even need a silencer and it's deadly, look at this" one said as he brought up a youtube video.

They are quite loud I said without getting up but heard the slight pop, pop, pop as they were watching the video. "Told you it was quiet" said one of the idiots as the clip played. I got up, walked over and hit the mute button on his keyboard. "They are adjustable and besides that guy is only like three inches tall" I said. They just stood there and looked at me like I was insane.

[squinty]

The "intended purpose" fallacy. Read it expressed by some on this forum, heard it in conversation the other day.
Goes something like this:

Someone opines that guns are too dangerous to keep in the house/carry concealed/do (whatever) with. Might bring up anecdotes about firearms accidents to bolster their claim, and state that because of the risk firearms ownership is somehow irresponsible.

Someone else responds that many other tools are also dangerous - perhaps they'll point out that swimming pool deaths or automobile related deaths vastly outnumber gun related deaths. Then they'll ask why it's irresponsible to own guns, but not these other items that pose arguably greater danger.

To which the first person will reply "but killing people isn't the (car's, pool's, whatever) intended purpose, it was designed to do something other than kill people.

The person making the "intended purpose" argument really isn't arguing a safety/responsibility issue. He's really making an ethical argument that there's no good reason to own a gun, because guns "only" kill and killing's too wrong a thing to even contemplate - and buying a gun must mean you want to use it for it's "intended purpose" - ie you're contemplating nurder. Whereas cars may kill more people, but they have a non-fatal use as well - you can get around in them, which practical use makes 'em worth the risk.

The "intended purpose" arguer will sometimes acknowledge that there is a right to self defense with hands and feet or improvised/expedient weapons, but he either equates owning gun for the express purpose of self defense to be tantamount to premeditating murder, or he tries to claim that guns aren't useful for self defense ("Someone will just take it from you" etc.) He'll also dismiss all the non-defensive applications of firearms (skeet, IDPA, hunting, bowling pin shooting) as somehow not worthwhile, in order to bolster his argument.

[KnightoftheRoc]

The "intended purpose" fallacy. Read it expressed by some on this forum, heard it in conversation the other day.
Goes something like this:

Someone opines that guns are too dangerous to keep in the house/carry concealed/do (whatever) with. Might bring up anecdotes about firearms accidents to bolster their claim, and state that because of the risk firearms ownership is somehow irresponsible.

Someone else responds that many other tools are also dangerous - perhaps they'll point out that swimming pool deaths or automobile related deaths vastly outnumber gun related deaths. Then they'll ask why it's irresponsible to own guns, but not these other items that pose arguably greater danger.

To which the first person will reply "but killing people isn't the (car's, pool's, whatever) intended purpose, it was designed to do something other than kill people.

The person making the "intended purpose" argument really isn't arguing a safety/responsibility issue. He's really making an ethical argument that there's no good reason to own a gun, because guns "only" kill and killing's too wrong a thing to even contemplate - and buying a gun must mean you want to use it for it's "intended purpose" - ie you're contemplating nurder. Whereas cars may kill more people, but they have a non-fatal use as well - you can get around in them, which practical use makes 'em worth the risk.

The "intended purpose" arguer will sometimes acknowledge that there is a right to self defense with hands and feet or improvised/expedient weapons, but he either equates owning gun for the express purpose of self defense to be tantamount to premeditating murder, or he tries to claim that guns aren't useful for self defense ("Someone will just take it from you" etc.) He'll also dismiss all the non-defensive applications of firearms (skeet, IDPA, hunting, bowling pin shooting) as somehow not worthwhile, in order to bolster his argument.

My favorite argument against the hunting one, is to show them a video of beef cattle being slaughtered, because most of them making that argument have NO idea where, or how, their food really arrives on the shelf. Funny, how so many of them like veal- well, BEFORE I show them the video... NSFW, and maybe NSF home, either: http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_ ... 9qgZls0sx4

[thesupremeking]

The "intended purpose" fallacy. Read it expressed by some on this forum, heard it in conversation the other day.
Goes something like this:

Someone opines that guns are too dangerous to keep in the house/carry concealed/do (whatever) with. Might bring up anecdotes about firearms accidents to bolster their claim, and state that because of the risk firearms ownership is somehow irresponsible.

Someone else responds that many other tools are also dangerous - perhaps they'll point out that swimming pool deaths or automobile related deaths vastly outnumber gun related deaths. Then they'll ask why it's irresponsible to own guns, but not these other items that pose arguably greater danger.

To which the first person will reply "but killing people isn't the (car's, pool's, whatever) intended purpose, it was designed to do something other than kill people.

The person making the "intended purpose" argument really isn't arguing a safety/responsibility issue. He's really making an ethical argument that there's no good reason to own a gun, because guns "only" kill and killing's too wrong a thing to even contemplate - and buying a gun must mean you want to use it for it's "intended purpose" - ie you're contemplating nurder. Whereas cars may kill more people, but they have a non-fatal use as well - you can get around in them, which practical use makes 'em worth the risk.

The "intended purpose" arguer will sometimes acknowledge that there is a right to self defense with hands and feet or improvised/expedient weapons, but he either equates owning gun for the express purpose of self defense to be tantamount to premeditating murder, or he tries to claim that guns aren't useful for self defense ("Someone will just take it from you" etc.) He'll also dismiss all the non-defensive applications of firearms (skeet, IDPA, hunting, bowling pin shooting) as somehow not worthwhile, in order to bolster his argument.

I talked about this in another thread yesterday. I have learned to just let these people go without even conversing about it.

There are 2 types of people in this world:
type 1 uses logic, facts, figures and life experience to form thoughts or a basis for opinions.
type 2 uses feelings, emotions and stories to form thoughts or a basis for opinions.

Type 1 will never be able to explain their point of view based on anything they understand as being logical, and type 2 will never be able to the same. Their brains are simply too different in the way thoughts and opinions are conceived. The thing I have learned is that it is ok to be type 1 or 2. The world functions needing both. I'm ok with using facts and logic, and I'm glad there are more emotional types. It's what makes the world go round, and I have quit getting frustrated or trying to explain logic to people, understanding that some people simply don't use logic.

Once type 2 has been saved by a gun the argument of guns being good BECOMES emotional because their butt was saved by one, only then will guns have a positive outlook to them.

[squinty]

The "intended purpose" fallacy. Read it expressed by some on this forum, heard it in conversation the other day.
Goes something like this:

Someone opines that guns are too dangerous to keep in the house/carry concealed/do (whatever) with. Might bring up anecdotes about firearms accidents to bolster their claim, and state that because of the risk firearms ownership is somehow irresponsible.

Someone else responds that many other tools are also dangerous - perhaps they'll point out that swimming pool deaths or automobile related deaths vastly outnumber gun related deaths. Then they'll ask why it's irresponsible to own guns, but not these other items that pose arguably greater danger.

To which the first person will reply "but killing people isn't the (car's, pool's, whatever) intended purpose, it was designed to do something other than kill people.

The person making the "intended purpose" argument really isn't arguing a safety/responsibility issue. He's really making an ethical argument that there's no good reason to own a gun, because guns "only" kill and killing's too wrong a thing to even contemplate - and buying a gun must mean you want to use it for it's "intended purpose" - ie you're contemplating nurder. Whereas cars may kill more people, but they have a non-fatal use as well - you can get around in them, which practical use makes 'em worth the risk.

The "intended purpose" arguer will sometimes acknowledge that there is a right to self defense with hands and feet or improvised/expedient weapons, but he either equates owning gun for the express purpose of self defense to be tantamount to premeditating murder, or he tries to claim that guns aren't useful for self defense ("Someone will just take it from you" etc.) He'll also dismiss all the non-defensive applications of firearms (skeet, IDPA, hunting, bowling pin shooting) as somehow not worthwhile, in order to bolster his argument.

I talked about this in another thread yesterday. I have learned to just let these people go without even conversing about it.

There are 2 types of people in this world:
type 1 uses logic, facts, figures and life experience to form thoughts or a basis for opinions.
type 2 uses feelings, emotions and stories to form thoughts or a basis for opinions.

Type 1 will never be able to explain their point of view based on anything they understand as being logical, and type 2 will never be able to the same. Their brains are simply too different in the way thoughts and opinions are conceived. The thing I have learned is that it is ok to be type 1 or 2. The world functions needing both. I'm ok with using facts and logic, and I'm glad there are more emotional types. It's what makes the world go round, and I have quit getting frustrated or trying to explain logic to people, understanding that some people simply don't use logic.

Once type 2 has been saved by a gun the argument of guns being good BECOMES emotional because their butt was saved by one, only then will guns have a positive outlook to them.

Well, I'm not even going to condemn the intended purpose crowd for being illogical/emotional. What they're really doing is making an ethical argument that challenges the legitimacy of using lethal force in self defense, and conflates "preparing" to resist violence with "premeditation."
I don't share that ethical bias, and I believe that there are better ways to guess at a person's "intent" than their choice of SD tool. The guy I was arguing with eventually conceded that I was right, but then he claimed he just meant that juries would look at the "intended purpose" of whatever object I used for self defense. He may be right.

[Czechnology]

he claimed he just meant that juries would look at the "intended purpose" of whatever object I used for self defense. He may be right.

That's my problem with a Jury system. Unless you live in a seriously heterogeneous area, it is decidedly unlikely that those 12 people will be anything approaching your peers. Japan is the only place in which I've lived that I could see it working as intended, where the 12 people who decide your fate are at least SOMEWHAT likely to have the same general value system and cultural beliefs, if not social and economic parity. Maybe rural Montana too.

ETA: maybe I take it too literally, I dunno. That's just how I feel @ 0930 with 4hrs sleep.

[SeerSavant]

The argument of intended purpose is a seemingly strong one... After all, if you buy a weapon, get training, carry it every day, for the sole purpose of self defense, then whether or not you actually use it becomes beside the point...
It's intended purpose actually is to do harm, perhaps fatally so, to someone...

But the argument goes both ways... If my gun says that I at least recognize the potential of having to shoot someone some day in self defense... And since we both recognize the fact that the world is in fact dangerous...

Then a refusal to arm ones self (setting aside self defense lessons, etc... After all, with a bad back, and age, and a host of other lessons, someone is always gonna be bigger than you, and this is all with just one attacker... Suppose there are two or more???) Then refusing to carry a gun means that he/she has already decided to be a victim an forfeit their money, they're safety, and possibly their life...

I know a guy at work who is like that... Hates guns with a passion, they are the root of all evil, etc. etc... So we've had this argument, and while I totally understand the rational of intended purpose... My defense weapon, is to protect me, and since they decide to go the passive route, I simply end the conversation with, "Oh.. I understand now... Your a victim..."
"no, I'm not."

I explain the reasoning for it, I'f I intend to one day cause harm to another person in defense of my life, so be it... But if he refuses, to defend himself or his loved ones to the fullest ability, then he is a victim."

He refuses the logic, so I mugged him....

Okay, no I didn't... But I don't understand the idea that principal is a loftier goal than survival... I would do anything to survive, and to keep my family safe, hell, a lot more than anything to keep my family safe... But to willingly accept becoming a victim instead of doing everything I could to prevent that from happening?

I just don't get it...

The two of us are friendly at all times, but we just don't agree on this...

I guess ethics, or perhaps morality at the core of his beliefs is his to manage as he sees fit... But I told him that if he did anything to try and restrict me from my choice, that I would in fact mug him... (I keed, I keed).... He's a live and let live type, like I am...



People are free to believe what they wish... It's when people decide to mandate that kind of victimhood that I get pissed off.

[squinty]

He's a live and let live type, like I am... People are free to believe what they wish... It's when people decide to mandate that kind of victimhood that I get pissed off.

Hear, hear! (applauds)

[HMPlatinum]

The argument of intended purpose is a seemingly strong one... After all, if you buy a weapon, get training, carry it every day, for the sole purpose of self defense, then whether or not you actually use it becomes beside the point...
It's intended purpose actually is to do harm, perhaps fatally so, to someone...

It's "intended purpose" is not to do harm, it's to keep harm from being visited upon my person.
I train not just the sole purpose being self-defense. My training helps make sure that should I be called upon to prevent harm to myself or loved ones, I am able to do so without putting those BEHIND the threat in danger, themselves, due to my ineptitude.

edited: to fix stupid sounding sentence...

[Hoppy]

he claimed he just meant that juries would look at the "intended purpose" of whatever object I used for self defense. He may be right.

That's my problem with a Jury system. Unless you live in a seriously heterogeneous area, it is decidedly unlikely that those 12 people will be anything approaching your peers. Japan is the only place in which I've lived that I could see it working as intended, where the 12 people who decide your fate are at least SOMEWHAT likely to have the same general value system and cultural beliefs, if not social and economic parity. Maybe rural Montana too.

ETA: maybe I take it too literally, I dunno. That's just how I feel @ 0930 with 4hrs sleep.

the quake then tsunami hit Japan. and ABSOLUTELY DESTROYED a significant population area... what did they do. Riot? Loot? Shoot at the army choppers?

nope. they stood patiently in lines they themselves established, took only what they needed from store owners who openly gave with out charge what little they had....

Holy crap. No comparison. that kinda societal commitment is with out comparison

[KnightoftheRoc]

he claimed he just meant that juries would look at the "intended purpose" of whatever object I used for self defense. He may be right.

That's my problem with a Jury system. Unless you live in a seriously heterogeneous area, it is decidedly unlikely that those 12 people will be anything approaching your peers. Japan is the only place in which I've lived that I could see it working as intended, where the 12 people who decide your fate are at least SOMEWHAT likely to have the same general value system and cultural beliefs, if not social and economic parity. Maybe rural Montana too.

ETA: maybe I take it too literally, I dunno. That's just how I feel @ 0930 with 4hrs sleep.

the quake then tsunami hit Japan. and ABSOLUTELY DESTROYED a significant population area... what did they do. Riot? Loot? Shoot at the army choppers?

nope. they stood patiently in lines they themselves established, took only what they needed from store owners who openly gave with out charge what little they had....

Holy crap. No comparison. that kinda societal commitment is with out comparison

That's a shame, isn't it, that something like that- the reactions, not the disaster- stands out so much because of it's rarity.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

Man, I wish the military judged you by your peers. I could get away with ANYTHING as long as it was 12 other Infantry Lance Corporals deciding my fate.

But, back to the topic at hand.

"Dude, you can't use motor oil in that M240, it won't cycle when it's all greasy."

[Greg Focker]

Man, I wish the military judged you by your peers. I could get away with ANYTHING as long as it was 12 other Infantry Lance Corporals deciding my fate.

But, back to the topic at hand.

"Dude, you can't use motor oil in that M240, it won't cycle when it's all greasy."

He's part right, it's gotta be "white-glove-inspection clean" or you're fucked!


You know, "fucked" in terms of the inspection. Because when you're inspecting equipment that might will be used in combat, which is more important, making sure it's in operating condition, or making sure your CSM isn't going to get his precious little white glove dirty? Priorities, ya boot!

[AK49er]

I'm sorry you're butthurt, but perhaps you should keep the crying to a minimum, both here and in chat.

(Full disclosure: I'm a liar, I'm not sorry.)

YOU ARE SO SIGGED!!

[jamoni]

I'm sorry you're butthurt, but perhaps you should keep the crying to a minimum, both here and in chat.

(Full disclosure: I'm a liar, I'm not sorry.)

YOU ARE SO SIGGED!!

Uh, wrong thread?

[silentpoet]

9mm is hard to find unless you are near a military base. Same thing was said about .223.

[Silent Kube]

I'm not an expert on guns so I could be the dumbass here but I just started reading fight club the novel and on the first page it says all you have to do to silence a gun is drill a bunch of holes in the barrel which slows the bullet down to subsonic speeds. Again, I'm no expert but this had my bullshit detector singing.

[Greg Focker]

I'm not an expert on guns so I could be the dumbass here but I just started reading fight club the novel and on the first page it says all you have to do to silence a gun is drill a bunch of holes in the barrel which slows the bullet down to subsonic speeds. Again, I'm no expert but this had my bullshit detector singing.

Did this statement get followed by another character saying either "it's a game changer!" or "we're opening a whole new market"?

[TDW586]

Your bullshit detector is calibrated correctly, Kube.

Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk

[thesupremeking]

I'm not an expert on guns so I could be the dumbass here but I just started reading fight club the novel and on the first page it says all you have to do to silence a gun is drill a bunch of holes in the barrel which slows the bullet down to subsonic speeds. Again, I'm no expert but this had my bullshit detector singing.

oh shit, what have I been wasting my money on then!?

[squinty]

I'm not an expert on guns so I could be the dumbass here but I just started reading fight club the novel and on the first page it says all you have to do to silence a gun is drill a bunch of holes in the barrel which slows the bullet down to subsonic speeds. Again, I'm no expert but this had my bullshit detector singing.

oh shit, what have I been wasting my money on then!?

Most of the Fight Club weapons info (how to make napalm out of orange juice and gasoline iirc, how to silence a weapon by drilling holes in it, etc) came straight from the Anarchist's Cookbook AKA how to foolishly blow yourself up.