Contrary to Popular Belief

[Dastardly]

(regarding guns)

I'm very pro-gun-rights, so please don't think I'm on the other side of this, but:

There is not a snowball's chance in hell that an armed citizen in the Aurora theater would have done a bit of good. And I'm prepared to back this statement up with sound logic.

1. The shooter was able to aim indiscriminately into the crowd. He wasn't tied to hitting a particular target. So, the smoke wasn't a problem for him.

2. The smoke would have been a major problem for a citizen shooter trying to hit a singular gunman in a dark, smoky theatre...

3. ...full of panicky people running for their lives...

4. ...while not being entirely sure where the shooter was at any given moment...

5. ...and firing on a target covered in body armor.

6. Who would a citizen shooter be looking for? Someone standing there with a gun. What would a citizen shooter look like to another citizen shooter? Someone standing there with a gun.

What's more, you display a somewhat unrefined belief on the accuracy of most shooters. There is no real correlation between the ability to hit a target in range conditions and the ability to accurately hit a live target in combat conditions. For one, the physical and mental stresses have an impact. For two, real targets move constantly and in unpredictable ways. Look into how often the police miss (hint: MOST of the time)... and it's not because they're bad shots, but rather because it's bloody hard to hit moving targets under duress.

There are many, many situations that we can rightly argue could have been resolved by an armed populace. There are plenty of good examples of it happening, even! This case, however, was not one of them. The last thing we want is to tie the discussion of gun rights to the Aurora shooting, because only bad things can result from such an association.

(Much like tying "Stand Your Ground" laws to the Trayvon Martin shooting. I believe in SYG... and I also believe it will come to light that Zimmerman was not standing his ground, but rather was pursuing.)

 

[Gameslayer_93]

Contrary to popular belief, knowing a lot doesn't make you any more intelligent than anyone else.
[small]but that's just my opinion[/small]

This is not a complete rebuttal, but considering the fact that all problem solving techniques constitute learned behaviour (i.e something you come to KNOW rather than inherently possess) I would argue that knowing a lot might make you more intelligent than other people, if you happen to know the right things and be in the right situation.


OT : Contrary to popular belief, the word 'loose' is not a verb which means 'to get defeated', but an adjective which means something else entirely.

actually i think that the point was that people who can spew out random facts with ease aren't necessarily intelligent, just that they have good memory.

OT: not entirely sure if this is true but the idea that all British people have cockney accents and horrible tooth decay

 

[Whateveralot]

Contrary to popular belief, people that are in a relationship don't always have to change.

I know, groundbreaking, eh?

 

[BenTheWolf]

Hannibal never used elephants.

Source: Stephen Fry.

Yes he did. Source Robin Lane Fox, Fellow of New College, Oxford University.

He just didn't use as many as people think and most died trying to cross the mountains :/

 

[Jon Shannow]

Hannibal never used elephants.

Source: Stephen Fry.

He did. They were just one of the many reason the battle of Zama went wrong for him.
I think you misunderstood Stephen Fry, he was probably saying that Hannibal never used Elephants in the Italy Campaign, but that was because they all died on the way over

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

What's more, you display a somewhat unrefined belief on the accuracy of most shooters. There is no real correlation between the ability to hit a target in range conditions and the ability to accurately hit a live target in combat conditions. For one, the physical and mental stresses have an impact. For two, real targets move constantly and in unpredictable ways. Look into how often the police miss (hint: MOST of the time)... and it's not because they're bad shots, but rather because it's bloody hard to hit moving targets under duress.

I somewhat agree with a large portion of your post, but you should also realize that I already stated that in a high-pressure scenario your range accuracy significantly drops, which is also why I emphasized the importance of getting in close to the target, both in order to identify him and to be able to hit him. To tell them apart, he was the only one wearing a helmet and a "bulletproof vest." (in quotations because I highly doubt the media's ability to differentiate an actual bulletproof vest from, say, and airsoft one.) Yes, this fictional citizen would have had a much harder time, but if he had gotten a successful hit on the gunman, there would be a whole lot less deaths. In regards to the police, oftentimes they aren't really trying to hit the target, but are trying to get that lucky shot or are trying to get close to him or keep the perpetrator's head down to allow another group of officers to flank him. At least, that's how the police in Orange County work.

 

[qeinar]

As anyone who has ever fired one can attest, most shotguns have an effective range of more than five feet. We wouldn't use them otherwise.

I hate it when games do depict shotguns with shit range.

Also, when people say money cant buy happiness, they are typically not all that worried about money. When you dont have money, than can money buy happiness (or to be specific, piece of mind, which leads to happiness.)

What I really hate is how they're ONLY ever buckshot.

Contrary to popular belief, shotguns have solid ammo as well, often referred to as "slugs." These are actually accurate and still lethal at medium range. Kudos to the old Doom games for actually having these. Goddamn modern gaming and "lolol all that exists in the world is scattershot, hahahahaha."

Ever played the newest battlefield? loads off different ammo options for the shotguns. ^^

 

[Substitute Troll]

The original Star Wars trilogy wasn't really all that great, and people who complain about the prequels are just looking at the originals through Nostalgia Goggles.

Right, because no one ever rewatched Star Wars -.-

 

[SckizoBoy]

OT: not entirely sure if this is true but the idea that all British people have cockney accents and horrible tooth decay

LOL... that's hardly a misconception in the UK!! Though one misconception in the States is that all Brits speak with RP (i.e. a la Stephen Fry). Just listen to fucking Russell Brand... -_-

He did. They were just one of the many reason the battle of Zama went wrong for him.
I think you misunderstood Stephen Fry, he was probably saying that Hannibal never used Elephants in the Italy Campaign, but that was because they all died on the way over

A couple things... Hannibal was known for not really liking using elephants because he considered them too unpredictable, and the Carthaginian Senate foisted the elephants on his army for the Zama campaign, insisting that a shit-load would be helpful. And contrary to your belief... they didn't really have that negative an effect on his conduct at Zama... 'charge' and off they went, and they did a number on Africanus' velites, but how that matches against them disrupting the Libyan cavalry on Hannibal's right is a matter of debate, but I don't think it was significant, given that Laelius and his opposite number both commanded approx. 3000 at the outset and the Romans didn't have a decisive numerical advantage (if a numerical advantage at all), so you can just put it down to the levy cavalry being shit and they legged it away from the battle-line before engagement anyway. And of the 80 elephants present, most died to the velites either before or after they filtered through the manipular line, while only a few ran amok on the Carthaginian left. If anything, it's arguable that without the elephants, Hannibal may have lost more quickly, as the Roman skirmishers would've been fairly unblooded prior to the main combat(s) and Africanus was known, far more so than the other Roman commanders, for using light infantry as a separate detachment of the army (cf. Ilipa follow-up and first march on Gades).

Anyway, diatribe aside, the QI question was 'what animal was Hannibal famous for using?' or words to that effect, the answer being 'snakes', during the precursor war between Syria and Pergamum. A naval battle against them he chucked vases full of snakes at the enemy fleet and they panicked, losing the battle... or something like that, but I question whether that's even true.

 

[Queen Michael]

The original Star Wars trilogy wasn't really all that great, and people who complain about the prequels are just looking at the originals through Nostalgia Goggles.

Right, because no one ever rewatched Star Wars -.-

Thank you.

 

[hoboman29]

Contrary to popular belief Jesus was never a white man. He was born in the Middle East so his skin would actually be really dark.

Aaaannnndddd I'm all out of these I guess its a bad day.

 

[Andre Rapp]

Gun-control laws produce increases, not decreases, in violent crime.

Violent crime is an issue largely unrelated to access to weapons. It usually occurs in countries with high poverty rates, social alienation and great discrepancies between the rich and the poor. Unless you are going to address the underlying problem of inequality, it makes sense to restrict the availability of firearms. While violent crime may not go down, it's harder to shank large numbers of people to death than shoot them, which would at least reduce the number of massacres which seem to be so popular in America.

then here is my bit for the thread
mass shootings are incredibly rare, and cause fewer deaths then smoking, traffic accidents, alcohol, or cancer.
in addition, it is a proven statistic that crime rates drop drastically when gun control laws are repealed, and go up when they get stricter. the reason is simple, criminals do crime, if you make owning a gun a crime, then the criminals will be the only ones armed. legal gun owners are, in fact, statistically the least dangerous people in America.

i also corrected a few of your spelling errors, credit to spellcheck.

 

[Andre Rapp]

The original Star Wars trilogy wasn't really all that great, and people who complain about the prequels are just looking at the originals through Nostalgia Goggles.

Right, because no one ever rewatched Star Wars -.-

Right, because rewatching totally nulls Nostalgia Goggles.

last time i watched the original trilogy i was tempted to just throw the rest away.
George Lucas can not write scripts, this should be self evident in the new movies.

 

[LobsterFeng]

Mormons aren't polygamists.

Yes, yes... I know you saw that episode of Family Guy too, but trust me. We aren't.

Those crazy fundamentalists though, *whew*... feel free to go to town on them.

Woot, I finally found another Mormon on here. Wait you're saying you're Mormon right?

OT: I have no idea what to add and chances are if I were to add something nobody would care because they're too busy arguing over opinions.

 

[Andre Rapp]

...

opinions are an illusion. all that exists is facts, either true or false. opinions are what we call facts that only apply to one person, or unknown facts that we cannot agree on how to test. for example, "i like ice cream" is a fact, while "vanilla is the best" is, instead of an opinion, simply a falsehood because it attempts to assume a fact over a large number of variables (the tastes of everyone). in a similar way, all political positions, religious positions, social policies, and economic strategies are either true or false, with one being true, and all others false. we do not know what is true, and the correct response to any situation can change depending on numerous variables that we cannot currently quantify, predict, record, or account for, thus causing an appearance of randomness. thus, this thread has no opinions, only statements that are either true or false.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Gun-control laws produce increases, not decreases, in violent crime.

Source?

I'm from Canada, more specifically from Quebec, and our rate of homicides can't be conclusively be tied to our ownership - or lack thereof - of firearms.

 

[manic_depressive13]

then here is my bit for the thread
mass shootings are incredibly rare, and cause fewer deaths then smoking, traffic accidents, alcohol, or cancer.
in addition, it is a proven statistic that crime rates drop drastically when gun control laws are repealed, and go up when they get stricter. the reason is simple, criminals do crime, if you make owning a gun a crime, then the criminals will be the only ones armed. legal gun owners are, in fact, statistically the least dangerous people in America.

i also corrected a few of your spelling errors, credit to spellcheck.

It's a shame spellcheck doesn't teach you to capitalise your letters.

 

[Andre Rapp]

It's a shame spellcheck doesn't teach you to capitalise your letters.

oh, your argument is flawless!
"capitalize"