That’s because out of that list, the pistol is the superior weapon. We know that light sabers can block force lightning, but can they block a bullet?
‘Brethren and cistern’. (B. Kliban) 
Personally, I’d go for the sword. Anyway…
I would remove the magazine before working the slide. If there are rounds in the magazine but not one in the chamber, then working the slide could potentially put one in the chamber. Better to remove the mag first.
I have to say a good amount of people, now I’m less pissed off at Lucy, would go for the nunchucks. And then hit themselves in the head. I know this because I had this friend in high school that did it at least twice a month.
If that were true, and nobody has proven that it is, I still wouldn’t be in favor of it. There is no demonstrable evidence whatsoever that waiting periods save any lives at all. Even if they did, well, we could save a lot of lives by banning automobiles and making people walk everywhere they go, but hell, we tolerate more than 50,000 deaths a year for the convenience of driving.
The only ‘benefit’ is that those sales will take place in the parking lot.
Those aren’t truly analogous differences. Then again, if that were the case, I’d be able to walk around with all the concealed flintlock pistols I want, or any single shot pistol, and no license at all.
Thank you for that image. :scrubbing brain with Ajax and steel wool:
Let me check my tool box:
- Thre different sizes of slip-joint pliers, check
- Three different sizes of needle-nosed pliers, check
- two different sizes of channel-lock pliers, check
- 3 different sizes of vise-grip pliers, check
Lord knows why I need two different shotguns, four different rifles, and six different handguns. :rolleyes:
Buuullll-shit! Lightsaber? Working? Now that’s new and different! Lemme at it!
Well, since the U.S. Army insisted (being that it was my issue weapon, and all). There’s two safeties on the M-1911 model .45 ACP; the “grip safety,” placed conveniently right where the webbing between thumb and forefinger rests on the grip, and the slide lock, located conveneintly for the thumb to push up to engage, or down to ready for firing.
I don’t think that anyone in the “old west” headed into a situation that might call for a gun would hesitate to pick one up; barring the forebearance of reptiles, there were plenty of hazards in the “wild” west that a person could encounter to make firearms a common household tool, even if the householder didn’t necessarily wear it or hold it 24/7/365.
You’ll note that I have been perfectly civil to Max. You’ll note that in every thread I’ve participated in, I’ve extended courtesy to those who display it. I can civilly respond to honest questions, and civilly debate honest opinions, and my posting record shows it. What I cannot abide is an ignorant fool espousing uninformed opinions, and being fairly hostile about it to boot. Note that this doesn’t apply to you. Yet.
Three of my handguns were purchased with self defense in mind. Why three? My tastes in firearm type and caliber changed over the years, and I won’t sell to anyone I’m not 100% sure of. None are kept loaded; I’m not too terribly worried about “home invasions,” and I have a very sharp (and extremely well-balanced) cut-and-thrust broadsword hanging on my wall within easy reach. I put it there not with self-defense in mind, but because I thought it looked cool hanging on my wall. Of the others guns, they remain safely unloaded and locked up in my gun safe until I get the urge to go shoot targets.
Well, I do take down unfired pieces every now and then, and run a patch or two down the barrel (get rid of accumulated dust and old oil and residue), the same way I clean and oil my other tools after I’m done using them. Tools (guns included) are investments, and if you treat them right, they last forever.
Too true, in most respects.
Demystify them. Stop demonizing them. The worst thing you can tell an American is that he can’t have something. Put firearm safety classes in schools, and make guns so routine that nobody thinks twice about them.
Also, deglorify them in pop culture; when there are no more movies, videos and games in which the “hero” solves all problems with a gun, maybe people will no longer see guns as a soultion to almost every problem in their MTV/Hollywierd/Sega Genesis/X-Box-soaked brains.
Um, yeah, right.
You do have some unfinished business in the other thread, you know. Since you’re being civil and honest and all.
Your analogy is flawed. We allow driving, because it serves a useful social function. But there are zillions of restrictions on cars and driving, from seatbelt laws to restrictions on emissions, top speeds, etc. Similarly, we allow people to own guns, both because of the 2nd amendment and because they serve various useful functions, but we certainly could (and, in fact, do) regulate the guns themselves, the manner in which they are sold, etc. Do you think that all of the already-existing laws about firearms dealers, background checks, not-being-able-to-own-machine-guns, etc., are wrong because they restrict your right to freely and instantly purchase any gun you want, ever?
And there are some “guns” that are so weak and harmless that they are unrestricted, or only lightly restricted. BB guns, paintguns, waterguns, etc. Are you seriously disputing the basic concept that the more potentially harmful something is, the more societal interest there is in restricting it and ensuring the safety of those who use it and those around it?
I think we must just be talking past each other, as there was no jest in my post. OK, I’m stubborn, I’ll try again: One topic that’s even more hot button and horrifying than nukes is child porn. But the following exchange strikes me as perfectly reasonable, and neither a straw man nor a jest:
Bob: I believe this anti-obscenity law infringes my rights. The government should never have any business restricting what I read or look at in my own home.
Dave: But there clearly ARE cases where the government has that business, such as classified information with immediate national security information, or child pornography. Thus, your absolute is flawed, and we must discuss the merits of the situation at hand.
At that point, should Bob fly off the handle because Dave brought up child porn?
That response is all I was ever asking for.
Lots of people are dumb. Lots of laws are dumb. That doesn’t mean that any gun control law is automatically, systemically, flawed. Nor does it mean that all anti-gun folks are just rabid idiots.
(Heck, suppose you’re generally in favor of, say, ethanol subsidies. And a law is proposed that claims to increase ethanol subsidies. And your elected representatives of your party support that law. You’ll probably read a short blurb about it in the paper and think to yourself “huh, cool, a law in favor of ethanol subsidies”. If it turns out that the law was incredibly badly written and pointless, that doesn’t mean that either (a) your pro-ethanol-subsidy position is flawed, or (b) you’re some kind of dumb-ass rabid partisan hypocrite for being generally in favor of the law.)
You should meet my dad. He must have a good 20 pairs of pliers. Some are similar, some are very different. He also has a lawnmower, an edger and a weed-wacker. We also had a riding mower that became a go-cart. Until I wrecked it. Stupid brakes…
I have a bunch of swords. Hell, I don’t even need one sword, but I like collecting them. Why do people collect stamps? Or anything? Sheesh.
I have no problem with the NICS check. Most of the rest of the firearms laws should be done away with.
I’m seriously disputing that firearms laws have anything to do with anybody’s safety and everything to do with uneducated fools being afraid of what they don’t understand.
How thoughtless of me, posting like that without so much as a care for the relentlessly literal minded and irony-impaired. And while I’m grateful for instruction on the mechanics of the Colt .45, it is wasted, should such an object fall into my hands, my only concern would be how to dismantle it in such a way as to thwart its designed purpose, that is, punching holes in people.
Don’t like things that punch holes in people. I’m agin it.
Just trying to dispel a little ignorance, is all. 
After all, should such an object ever fall into your hands, we wouldn’t want you to inadvertantly shoot yourself or someone else by mishandling it.
Where’s the "pat-yourself-on-the-back smiley?
The Straight Dope: Fighting Ignorance and Saving Lives.
Don’t need a gun. Drop a man at twenty paces with ugly.
But, and we may have now reached a point of basic agreement, or at least understanding, I claim that there COULD exist firearms laws which are good, that is, whose benefits outweighed their restricitions of legitimate personal freedoms. I have no idea what they may be, as I don’t have anywhere near the encyclopedic knowledge of the topic that would be necessary, but I don’t blanket condemn the entire concept, which you seem, at times, very close to doing. Which is odd, because you also said you have no problem with the NICS check. I wonder, if it didn’t exist already, whether you would think it was a good idea or whether you would be very suspicious of it and view it as a potential infringement?
Well then, in the true libertarian spirit, “to each his own.”
I can’t speak for cat, of course, but to some degree I am suspicious of it, yes, even as I acknowledge its benefits.
Those aforementioned anti-gun legislators and politicians? They’d love nothing more to get their hands on the NICS database should they ever manage to ram through something like a handgun ban, or a new AWB.
Congress has granted the Justice Dept. limited access to the NICS databse for research purposes, but not law enforcement (criminal investigation) ones just yet. I have some misgivings about allowing access for law enforcement reasons, but overall, I think that it would do much more good than harm to allow them access.
I can see it now, movie of the week, Lt. Rockjaw, Super Special Police Agent, tries to get some gun sale info from Pencilneck Deskgeek, who says “No, can’t do it, civil rights issue involved…”
Lt. Rockjaw grimaces. “Curse those liberal activist judges!”
And here I thought it was the conservative activist judges.
Damn moving target.
Uhm… the label, ya know, not the judge.
We already have a lot of laws on the books, and some places have tougher laws than other places. As long as these laws are in place, they should be enforced. If not, they should be modified or repealed. There should also be more consistent. California has one law that is interesting - if you use a gun in committing a crime, the penalties are tougher (in theory at least). Unfortunately, some of the laws here only make it more difficult for peope who already obey the law - non criminals. Licensing, registration, restrictions have not been proven conclusively to work (?). They only affect people who will obey them. Likewise, if there are “alternate methods” to get guns, then the laws have been sidestepped. Can’t buy legally due to various felony convictions? Just buy a piece from another crook, steal one, or have a fellow crook in another state (with laxer laws) pick one up for you.
The assault weapon ban was a rushed through, “feel good” law. It had little to do with reality. It supposedly covered the “ugly” guns, was poorly defined, and had little to do with what really makes a gun attractive for a criminal - easy to obtain, relatively inexpensive, easy to carry and conceal.