The Spreading (And Potentially Deadly) Coronavirus Epidemic....

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

Just now, Tabonga said:

It showed that not only right wing (white protesters) get away with no repercussions.  (And if we go by the "one drop" rule (not that I really believe in it myself)  where does that put antifa?

It would if was an accurate poll (actually you would need two to get meaningful results)

Can a nightstick be as deadly as a firearm?

Yes

 

Can a nightstick be deadly?  yes.

Can it be "as deadly as a firearm"... not a chance.  What a ridiculous comparison to make, unless you're talking about only getting a single shot off before you get shot yourself...

("as deadly as" implies being able to achieve the same "rate" of violence-production -- not some kind of binary "can I kill somebody with it")

[Tabonga | 2,343]

15 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Can a nightstick be deadly?  yes.

Can it be "as deadly as a firearm"... not a chance.  What a ridiculous comparison to make, unless you're talking about only getting a single shot off before you get shot yourself...

("as deadly as" implies being able to achieve the same "rate" of violence-production -- not some kind of binary "can I kill somebody with it")

In a really tight melee situation a close quarter weapon such as a nightstick is going to be more of a threat than a long gun (in fact the long gun would be at a decided disadvantage).  (One of the reasons a bayonet was invented - which worked really well once they figured out they needed a blood run.)   (Bayonets also gave the British a handy piece of propaganda in WWI - so I guess they really were a double edged weapon.)

Circumstances dictate what level of threat something presents.  Which is more dangerous - a handgun, a long gun or a shotgun?  There is no set answer since I can envision scenarios where each would have the edge.

And do you know what albeit means????

Edited May 1, 2020 by Tabonga

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

16 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

In a really tight melee situation a close quarter weapon such as a nightstick is going to be more of a threat than a long gun (in fact the long gun would be at a decided disadvantage).  (One of the reasons a bayonet was invented - which worked really well once they figured out they needed a blood run.)   (Bayonets also gave the British a handy piece of propaganda in WWI - so I guess they really were a double edged weapon.)

Circumstances dictate what level of threat something presents.  Which is more dangerous - a handgun, a long gun or a shotgun?  There is no set answer since I can envision scenarios where each would have the edge.

And do you know what albeit means????

No, I've never heard that word before in my life.  /s  

Troll harder.

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by arch_8ngel

[Tabonga | 2,343]

1 minute ago, arch_8ngel said:

No, I've never heard that word before in my life.  /s

Troll harder.

Tsk! Tsk!

Not a troll at all - it was actually an emphasis (both times that I asked) on what you chose to ignore (just an oversight I imagine). I am (sorta) sorry that you felt insulted.  

But just sit back and pretend you are on a beach:

 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

11 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

Tsk! Tsk!

Not a troll at all - it was actually an emphasis (both times that I asked) on what you chose to ignore (just an oversight I imagine). I am (sorta) sorry that you felt insulted.  

But just sit back and pretend you are on a beach

 

You are pretty out of touch if you don't think asking whether someone knows the definition of a word (especially a fairly commonly used term) is going to be read as an insult or attempt at trolling.

(I'm not sure I could come up with any conversational situation between adults where asking that question wouldn't be perceived as obviously rude and likely a direct insult)

 

Doesn't mean I'm personally taking at as an insult beyond just blowing you off as a troll.

Just clarifying that you should know better about how that was going to be read.

Edited May 1, 2020 by arch_8ngel

[Tabonga | 2,343]

It is called a lampoon (actually one of the forms of lampoon if you wanna get picky) as opposed to insulting or trolling.  But if you are somewhat confused I find that eminently understandable.  And sometimes people see what they want to see to the exclusion of all else.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

4 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

It is called a lampoon (actually one of the forms of lampoon if you wanna get picky) as opposed to insulting or trolling.  But if you are somewhat confused I find that eminently understandable.  And sometimes people see what they want to see to the exclusion of all else.

You don't seem very good at "reading the room", in terms of how your choice of words is going to come across...

(and lampooning is more-or-less synonymous with "one of the forms" of trolling, if you want to get picky)

Edited May 1, 2020 by arch_8ngel

[MachineCode | 159]

Just to clarify, by palette swap, which changes an entity's color in a game, I in no way meant antifa or political association, but the color of the actors involved. Same scenario, same "cause", same actions, same guns, majority made up of people of color. I get that Michigan has open carry laws, but states with open carry laws also have laws against using that right in an attempt to intimidate or assert ones will over another. Furthermore, and this might just not be the law in Michigan so I am actually not sure the legal ramifications, but in many jurisdictions, it is currently illegal to intentionally attempt to spread, or threaten to spread the covid-19 infection. By getting right up in the officer's faces unmasked, and screaming at them, they absolutely risk spreading the infection if they currently have it. Certain jurisdictions would see that as 1 of the aforementioned offenses and a cause for arrest.

 

So, an armed mob storming a capitol building in an attempt to directly intimidate the Governor, let's repeat that part just to let it set in, the Governor, into lifting a statewide order, while acting in a manner that absolutely will put state officials and law enforcement at risk of infection during a pandemic should any one of them be an asymptomatic carrier is allowed to carry on without repercussion. My previous comment implied that were this same mob not white, the outcome would have been very different.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

9 minutes ago, MachineCode said:

Just to clarify, by palette swap, which changes an entity's color in a game, I in no way meant antifa or political association, but the color of the actors involved. Same scenario, same "cause", same actions, same guns, majority made up of people of color. I get that Michigan has open carry laws, but states with open carry laws also have laws against using that right in an attempt to intimidate or assert ones will over another. Furthermore, and this might just not be the law in Michigan so I am actually not sure the legal ramifications, but in many jurisdictions, it is currently illegal to intentionally attempt to spread, or threaten to spread the covid-19 infection. By getting right up in the officer's faces unmasked, and screaming at them, they absolutely risk spreading the infection if they currently have it. Certain jurisdictions would see that as 1 of the aforementioned offenses and a cause for arrest.

 

So, an armed mob storming a capitol building in an attempt to directly intimidate the Governor, let's repeat that part just to let it set in, the Governor, into lifting a statewide order, while acting in a manner that absolutely will put state officials and law enforcement at risk of infection during a pandemic should any one of them be an asymptomatic carrier is allowed to carry on without repercussion. My previous comment implied that were this same mob not white, the outcome would have been very different.

But a group of black guys with night sticks caused some kind of ruckus while Obama was in office and they were let off by the AG!!!

That's totally the same thing as causing the governor to barricade themselves in their office while carrying firearms, because those long guns are useless in close quarters!   Some guy on the internet told me so, while providing a helpful dictionary lesson!

 

 

EDIT: what is surprising to me about this is Michigan having state-level government offices that you can walk into while carrying firearms in the first place.  It is one thing for municipal governments to be low security, but I would have figured state offices would involve metal detectors and accompanying restrictions.

Edited May 1, 2020 by arch_8ngel

[MachineCode | 159]

1 minute ago, arch_8ngel said:

But a group of black guys with night sticks caused some kind of ruckus while Obama was in office and they were let off by the AG!!!

That's totally the same thing as causing the governor to barricade themselves in their office while carrying firearms, because those long guns are useless in close quarters!   Some guy on the internet told me so, while providing a helpful dictionary lesson!

Hahaha. Kinda ignores the fact that the gun, where the closer you are to the target the higher the force of impact and can still operate with the barrel end touching the target, just has to hit more or less any spot once to be super effective while a stick needs to hit the right spot with enough force, force that is proportional to the distance of the swing meaning close quarters kinda suck if you don't have room to swing the thing, in order to be effective at all.

[Tabonga | 2,343]

10 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

You don't seem very good at "reading the room", in terms of how your choice of words is going to come across...

(and lampooning is more-or-less synonymous with "one of the forms" of trolling, if you want to get picky)

Same might be said of you - beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Lampooning has existed long before the internet. (And I have long noticed you seem to have a penchant for creating/twisting definitions nilly willy - even sometime ignoring the more salient points whist citing real ones._IMHO of course.)

 

 

 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

2 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

Lampooning has existed long before the internet.

Does that somehow negate it being effectively synonymous with a more recent term?  (and does that somehow mean that the predominantly used definition isn't fairly negative in nature, in terms of it implying mockery?)

 

[Tabonga | 2,343]

4 minutes ago, MachineCode said:

Hahaha. Kinda ignores the fact that the gun, where the closer you are to the target the higher the force of impact and can still operate with the barrel end touching the target, just has to hit more or less any spot once to be super effective while a stick needs to hit the right spot with enough force, force that is proportional to the distance of the swing meaning close quarters kinda suck if you don't have room to swing the thing, in order to be effective at all.

Again in a melee situation the close quarters weapon is gonna have the edge over a long gun.  

In Colorado we have open carry and concealed carry (with a permit),  Collapsible batons (which are a form of nightstick) are not legal to carry (whether concealed or not) - why is this?

[MachineCode | 159]

IDK, maybe that arms, which is generally interpreted by supporters to mean guns, are mentioned as a right in the constitution and have a massive lobby as well as a fuckload of supporters whereas collapsable batons do not. But if you wanna believe your version, then by all means continue bringing a stick to a gunfight.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

 

Just now, Tabonga said:

Again in a melee situation the close quarters weapon is gonna have the edge over a long gun.  

In Colorado we have open carry and concealed carry (with a permit),  Collapsible batons (which are a form of nightstick) are not legal to carry (whether concealed or not) - why is this?

Why would you think a particular category of melee weapon being banned from public carry provides any meaningful information as to its relative lethality vs firearms?

 

[Tabonga | 2,343]

4 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Does that somehow negate it being effectively synonymous with a more recent term?  (and does that somehow mean that the predominantly used definition isn't fairly negative in nature, in terms of it implying mockery?)

 

 

But it does open the door that it is not of necessity synonymous since it can be (if used properly) more sophisticated in terms of implication rather than direct statement. In other works, implying is not the same as stating:  

For example:

I think that form of reasoning is something a colony of clams might think up.

As opposed to:

You are f**king stupid.

 

 

[Tabonga | 2,343]

1 minute ago, arch_8ngel said:

 

Why would you think a particular category of melee weapon being banned from public carry provides any meaningful information as to its relative lethality vs firearms?

 

Oh maybe, just maybe, because they can kill in one blow (even if wielded by a relatively small woman),  If you get killed by one of those is it much different than being killed with a zip gun (which are generally illegal in all states I believe).  Relative lethality is meaningless if any of the items being compared kills you.  

[MachineCode | 159]

 

Oh No!! It's almost as though a long rifle can be used as a melee weapon!! Whodathunkit?

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by MachineCode

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

12 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

But it does open the door that it is not of necessity synonymous since it can be (if used properly) more sophisticated in terms of implication rather than direct statement. In other works, implying is not the same as stating:  

For example:

I think that form of reasoning is something a colony of clams might think up.

As opposed to:

You are f**king stupid.

Look if you want to hide behind "implication" so that you can say you aren't being directly insulting, you are welcome to do so.

But you aren't really fooling anybody.

[Tabonga | 2,343]

1 minute ago, MachineCode said:

 

Oh No!! It's almost as though a long rifle can be used as a melee weapon!! Whodathunkit?

 

Uh - that is not a melee situation. 

It is a form of melee attack (which is much different than a melee.) (Not being picky here but there is a really big difference.)

And in the above scenario I would much rather have an iron tipped (blunt as opposed to pointed) quarterstaff.

[Tabonga | 2,343]

Just now, arch_8ngel said:

But you aren't really fooling anybody.

• Are you that naive? (Serious question - not an insult or taunt.  Not even a lampoon.)

[MachineCode | 159]

1 minute ago, Tabonga said:

Uh - that is not a melee situation. 

So sorry that the gif showing a technique that would be used in a melee situation didn't add in a bunch of extraneous people to obscure the view of the techniques the wish to demonstrate. What a bunch of morons, right?

[captmorgandrinker | 1,650]

38 minutes ago, MachineCode said:

Hahaha. Kinda ignores the fact that the gun, where the closer you are to the target the higher the force of impact and can still operate with the barrel end touching the target, just has to hit more or less any spot once to be super effective while a stick needs to hit the right spot with enough force, force that is proportional to the distance of the swing meaning close quarters kinda suck if you don't have room to swing the thing, in order to be effective at all.

A few fun facts-

A non-revolver handgun may not fire properly if you're jamming the barrel end into something or somebody.

When in really close proximity, a head butt is VERY effective.   Even more effective?   Six in a row.

I know the latter from seeing it first hand and the former from it happening in town and hearing about that from responding officers.   

[captmorgandrinker | 1,650]

Also, let's be nice, eh?

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

36 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

EDIT: what is surprising to me about this is Michigan having state-level government offices that you can walk into while carrying firearms in the first place.  It is one thing for municipal governments to be low security, but I would have figured state offices would involve metal detectors and accompanying restrictions.

Are their laws actually written on the books that way, so as to allow open carry even within local, state, or Federal government buildings?  Or is this commentary on a lack of staff at the entrance stopping people before they get farther than the doorway with a weapon?

This whole discussion has had me smirking quite a bit.  I believe some have forgotten the phrase "bringing a knife to a gunfight" and have gotten totally caught up in what ifs.