If there is a nationwide outbreak of zombism, I will wholeheartedly endorse universal gun ownship. That seems sensible.
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
It then dawned on him that because of the gun and the feeling of power it gave him, he had very quickly gone from avoiding confrontation with these kids to intentionally placing himself in situations where a confrontation might occur, one which was likely to end in violence. He said he got rid of the handgun and never bought another.
[/QUOTE]
See, that’s the problem right there. I agree with you, Vinyl. The problem lies not with the stars, but with ourselves. Guns are tools. People are tools of a different kind. You have to recognize that in others, and in yourself.
Elucidator: Hell, my family’s been on the northeastern seaboard since the early 1700s. That-there’s yankee wisdom.
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Some may say his scenario and attitude are atypical of gun owners, but I really believe that progression (being armed leading to a personal feeling of power, perhaps leading to more risky behavior or a diminished desire to avoid conflict, if not actively seek it out) is dangerously common— and that’s why, although I don’t support “outlawing” guns or overturning the Second Amendment, I think the fantasy that if everyone were armed we’d all be safer is completely ludicrous.
[/QUOTE]
Not me or my husband. We both believe owning a gun infers greater responsibility to avoid situations that might be inherently dangerous. And that when presented with a dangerous situation, you should try your best to do whatever you would’ve done if you hadn’t had a gun on you (run away and call the police, for example) before resorting to the weapon.
[QUOTE=Boggette]
Well, “troop” used to mean more than one person. They can make over any word they choose!
[/QUOTE]
Always assumed that that usage was an abbreviation of “trooper”. No?
[QUOTE=brownie55]
It’s simple: a round of bullets is like a round of golf, both involve 18 holes.
I don’t see how you missed the connection.
[/QUOTE]
I think it’s more like a round of drinks: one for every guy and gal in the joint.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
If there is a nationwide outbreak of zombism, I will wholeheartedly endorse universal gun ownship. That seems sensible.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. You aren’t seriously advocating arming the zombies, are you? 
[QUOTE=CynicalGabe]
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. You aren’t seriously advocating arming the zombies, are you?
[/QUOTE]
Does using a firearm have a minimum intelligence requirement in GURPS? Because I’m pretty sure a zombie’s intelligence score would be close to zero.
[QUOTE=asterion]
Does using a firearm have a minimum intelligence requirement in GURPS? Because I’m pretty sure a zombie’s intelligence score would be close to zero.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, when it comes to zombies I don’t take chances.
[QUOTE=CynicalGabe]
Sorry, when it comes to zombies I don’t take chances.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t shoot anything you don’t plan to kill. Except the undead.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
…Elucidator: Hell, my family’s been on the northeastern seaboard since the early 1700s. That-there’s yankee wisdom.
[/QUOTE]
Sure took long enough in going about it.
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Don’t shoot anything you don’t plan to kill. Except the undead.
[/QUOTE]
This reminds me of a Russian class I had some years back. We were first learning about how declension will vary sometimes based on animate vs. inanimate objects.
Professor: “Humans and animals, for instance, are animate.”
Class: “What about dead people.”
Professor: “Basically, anything alive is animate.”
Class: “What about plants.”
Professor: “Sigh. Ok. Anything with a respiratory system.”
Class: “What about zombies?”
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Always assumed that that usage was an abbreviation of “trooper”. No?
[/QUOTE]
No, troop came first. A member of a troop is a trooper.
The worst mass murder to take place at a school in US history was the Bath School Disaster in 1927. 45 people were killed, mostly elementary school children, by a maniac who was angry about his taxes. Not a single victim was shot. Cite.
I’m no fan of guns, but suggesting that gun control would stop these kinds of killings is naive at best. There is other technology available to the common man that could be substituted (I’ll refrain from speculating.) The only real way to stop or reduce these situations is to find a cure for depression.
Re: ignorance about guns -
A few years ago, after a drive-by shooting in a bad neighborhood near here, the newspaper quoted a witness who said she heard “… several shots from a 9mm …”
I was astonished that this woman was so gun-savvy that she could identify the weapon based solely on the sound of the shots! I don’t think even my dad, a lifelong gun enthusiast, could do that!
[QUOTE=CynicalGabe]
“Round” has different meanings in different contexts, obviously. If I tell my bartender I will buy a round of drinks, and then insist on paying for only 1 drink, he will hurt me. The fact that the reporter meant something else does not excuse their ignorance or butchery of the language.
[/QUOTE]
While I’m more than willing to give you “ignorance”, I’m not convinced that it constitutes “butchery of the language”, at least in all cases. “Discharged a full round” is silly; you can’t have partial rounds (as in single discharges) and rounds (as in volleys) are still rounds (volleys) of gunfire until you get down to a single shot, but I simply can’t see the butchery in “the second round (volley) of fire”. I’ll throw in some cites later in the post, but at least from where I’m standing, it seems a little bit more likely that this argument is a little spurious than that the FBI doesn’t know even the first thing about firearms.
[QUOTE=Ferd Burfel]
I interpreted their usage of “round” to refer to a “round of shots” similar to a volley or salvo. That usage would be wrong, since “round” is normally interpreted to mean
in this context.
[/QUOTE]
The American Heritage Dictionary says that a round can be a single shot or volley (see Definition 10). Dictionary.com uses “a round of fire given as a salute” as one definition of “salvo”, even. One shot doesn’t seem like much of a salvo, does it?
I thought about that, but I think then it’d still be several people firing one shot each.
[QUOTE=CynicalGabe]
According to your own quote, they are using “round” to mean something that it does not. Concerning firearms, a “round” means a single cartridge.
[/QUOTE]
So it’s not possible to refer to “a round of rounds”?
Simply because a thing is possible…I mean, lets not confuse liberty with license.
[QUOTE=enigm4tic]
I thought about that, but I think then it’d still be several people firing one shot each.
[/QUOTE]
That’s reasonable, except that a volley is a burst or outpouring of many things at once or in quick succession, so I think one person could indeed fire off a volley of insults/bullets/what-have-you. By extension (which is, admittedly, not always legal in English) I think you could make a pretty decent case that “another round of bullets” is not necessarily incorrect.
Latest CNN fear mongering statement:
“You can literally buy ammunition online, without a background check. I know, I’ve done it.”