Youtube comments of GunFun ZS (@GunFunZS).

  1. 1400
  2. 867
  3. 807
  4. 474
  5. 471
  6. 464
  7. 299
  8. 231
  9. 221
  10. 209
  11. 178
  12. 170
  13. 145
  14. 139
  15. 135
  16. 130
  17. 120
  18. 116
  19. 104
  20. 96
  21. 92
  22. 85
  23. 82
  24. 82
  25. 81
  26. 78
  27. 78
  28. 73
  29. 71
  30. 71
  31. 69
  32. 68
  33. 61
  34. 59
  35. 56
  36. 55
  37. 53
  38. 52
  39. 51
  40. 51
  41. 50
  42. 47
  43. 46
  44. 45
  45. 45
  46. 44
  47. 42
  48. 42
  49. 42
  50. 42
  51. 42
  52. 41
  53. 39
  54. 38
  55. 37
  56. 37
  57. 37
  58. 35
  59. 35
  60. 34
  61. 34
  62. MrAgentd About other stuff yes, but not about that time very much any more. He's 90 now. He really only started talking about this kind of thing in the last 10 or so years, and then not very much. I'd get a lot more details about things when say a news story would criticize a modern soldier's judgment call. Oddly he was more likely to tell strangers about this stuff than family, so a lot more of the details came up when overhearing what he was telling other people. Now he seems to be more comfortable talking about things, but he is getting old enough that he gets events mixed up. So for about the last two years, I wouldn't consider a story to be very reliable unless it matched in detail something I have heard him talk about years ago too. There's a window in the day that is best for conversation, and it tends to coincide with working hours. You know how that is. To him combat and war were not "cool" so he didn't often talk about them directly. i.e. In a conversation about pastoring (his main profession), the civil rights movement might come up. That would lead to his disgust about how the navy failed to give as good training to the black people that were assigned as replacements for his deck guns, (.30 cal machine guns vs aircraft in this case, and some thing bigger too.) which lead to him having to do training on some people more or less in battle. From this, I can infer that he had gun crew people under him die, since they needed replacements, but he has never talked about that directly. I try not to ask him things he doesn't seem to want to talk about. I assume there's a good reason.
    33
  63. 33
  64. 32
  65. 32
  66. 32
  67. 31
  68. 30
  69. 30
  70. 29
  71. 29
  72. 28
  73. 28
  74. 28
  75. 28
  76. 27
  77. 27
  78. 27
  79. 27
  80. 26
  81. 26
  82. 26
  83. 26
  84. 26
  85. 26
  86. 25
  87. 25
  88. 25
  89. 24
  90. 24
  91. 23
  92. 23
  93. 23
  94. 23
  95. 22
  96. 22
  97. 22
  98. 21
  99. 21
  100. 21
  101. 20
  102. 20
  103. 20
  104. 19
  105. 19
  106. 19
  107. 19
  108. 19
  109. 18
  110. 18
  111. 18
  112. 18
  113. 18
  114. 18
  115. 18
  116. 17
  117. 17
  118. 17
  119. 16
  120. nowthisis2stupid 1, I don't just go off of my grandfather's stories. I knew a few other people who fought in WWII, and have worked with a lot of veterans of more recent conflicts. I have good friends and family, and coworkers in each branch. I read history, including military. I am not an expert, but I am informed. 2) who said we were talking about the beginning of the war? I think we both agree that most of our servicemen at the beginning of the war were thoroughly trained. (In the tactics of WWI) From every discussion I have had with military people, I have found a couple consistent themes. First, every branch and every unit has  screw-ups. Men that no one respects, who are sloppy, stupid and dangerous. BAR dragger might have been that guy. Who knows? Maybe the next day his Sgt. bawled him out and made him clean that gun flawlessly. We weren't there, but there is little reason to doubt the account. It was memorable because it was unusual, after all. Second, almost all of them find that they actually want to change their issued kit shortly after getting into their actual field role. (Which is often not the one they were trained for... For all we know, BAR dragger was trained to wrench on jeeps for the marines.) Once they are in their non-practice role, they tend to get more leeway and opportunity to swap stuff out. For instance, my combat medic friend from the army ended up leaving most of his med kit in the armored ambulance so that he could carry more "israelis" and more ammo. People could claim" army medics don't shoot, and they carry the following items...." but the real world isn't like that.
    16
  121. 16
  122. 16
  123. 16
  124. 16
  125. 16
  126. 16
  127. 16
  128. 16
  129. 16
  130. 16
  131. 16
  132. 15
  133. 15
  134. 15
  135. 15
  136. 15
  137. 15
  138. 15
  139. 14
  140. 14
  141. 14
  142. That one's more complicated. Basically with government emissions requirements getting up to be nearly impossible for the obligatory weight.... What you get is they are required to make a heavier card and meet a bunch of different safety standards. In the required to get increasingly efficient. Gas engines are approaching about as good as they can be. And the main gain left was in transmission technology. CVTs aren't inherently bad. But we were essentially dealing with first gen and 1.5 gen CVTs that were built to be as light as they could possibly be. Combine that with engines that were deliberately built a little bit loose to have less internal drag but essentially be pre worn out. That means the car hits emissions when it rolls off the lot and for about a month or so but The engine is then essentially equivalent to a late 90s engine that has 100,000 mi on it in terms of how much clearance is in there. And the transmission is built to last 10 years-ish. The CVT is an inherently wearing design that is expensive and complicated so it's not that you couldn't replace one it's that the cost of replacing one is about what the value of the car will be around the time you need to. Nissan got into trouble with their CVTs wearing out about 3 years earlier than they were intending them to. If they were dying at 10 years instead of 3 years and 7 years nobody would be yelling about Nissan being dirt bags. That definitely wasn't on purpose. Nissan doesn't want to be paying to replace your transmission They want you to be happy with your Nissan but ready to buy a new one when that thing finally dies. They don't want to have an unhappy customer who gets a second transmission on them and then buys a different brand as soon as they can.
    14
  143. 14
  144. 14
  145. 13
  146. 13
  147. 13
  148. 13
  149. 13
  150.  @alienwizard9765  Argh. Typed up a reply and it just glitched away. The AEK-971 isn't enough better to replace the inventory that Russia has. MK was mostly a mascot in his final years, but even if he were the brilliant leader that they needed..... Well no amount of brilliance and foresight in design can overcome the economic realities. KK had no shortage of innovative improvements, though which ones they offered for adoption is a bit of a head scratcher sometimes. Their company had IIRC 3 bankruptcies this century, as well as partial mergers and un mergers with MOLOT, with leadership coming and going constantly. Often with the petty cash while the floor workers were unpaid for months. The Izhevsk arsenal is immense and the maintenance costs alone must be crushing to profits. Probably they are letting most of it rot. But the real problem is market saturation. Russia has stockpiles of AK variants that are insane. I have seen and forgotten numbers, but it is possible that they have more AKs than people right now. Any gun offered as a replacement has to be enough better to be worth throwing all that stockpile on the scrap pile and replacing it. Instead, Russia, which is still fairly broke buys just enough of the new fancy toys for their elite troops, and keeps the rest using the guns they have. They order enough rifles to just barely keep KK in business, and they discourage major exports. The company is being kept on life support, but not really allowed to thrive. It's not about lack of brilliant designs.
    13
  151. 13
  152. 12
  153. 12
  154. 12
  155. 12
  156. 11
  157. 11
  158. 11
  159. 11
  160. 11
  161. 11
  162. 11
  163. 11
  164. 11
  165. 11
  166. 11
  167. 11
  168. 10
  169. 10
  170. 10
  171. 10
  172. 1) The thief or persons who held it as stolen property mistreated it. It is a 6" SS revolver. It was so thoroughly black with gunsmoke and ??? that it almost appeared to have worn blueing everywhere but under the grips. Bore was good though and lockwork in fine condition. The rear sight was half broken off. I soaked it for a week in a ziploc full of CLP mostly dissembled. Then scrubbed it all with very fine steel wool for a long time, until it looked like any other SS revolver with a normal life. I was able to find the correct sight parts after looking for a while. At the time the fine picture rear leaf was very hard to find, and generally very expensive. 2) Uncle. Background that is relevant. --- My uncle is not tactful, and that makes his life harder than it could be. He had a long standing property fight with his neighbor. The neighbor was in the wrong and made a situation that involved police. Police came and arrested my uncle for theft, and issued orders outside their authority. The law and facts were completely in my uncle's favor. (I'm an attorney, and know what I'm talking about here). The cop just went with a hunch and picked a side. He chose wrongly, and was badly embarrased and reprimanded by the judge. This lead to a grudge against my brusque uncle and the cop. Uncle a couple years later: Renter's on his rural property feed some strays intermittently. My uncle is a rough man, but with a soft spot for his cats and chickens. One of the strays sometimes fed by his renters was a large mean tom cat, which killed several of my uncle's cats, maimed the others, and killed all but two of the chickens. My uncle came up for lunch in time to see this cat stalking his favorite and last surviving cat, an older tom. He ran inside, grabbed a shotgun and shot the feral cat, and threw it's corpse off an embankment. Apparently the renter saw this, and called the cops. All this is completely legal, and reasonable. I'd have done the same. Uncle said something smartass to the renter, and similar to the cop, which was the same cop. The cop chose to charge him with cruelty to animals. Because my uncle is who he is, the prosecuting attorney was another person who had a grudge against him. I forget the reason for that one. (Life lesson. Don't be an ass.) Anyway, my uncle didn't take the thing seriously and used his business attorney short notice to mount a very crude defense to a felony charge, and came in to court looking scruffy. The jury were animal people, and my uncle looked like a jerk during the trial. The prosecutor made a big play about how many birdshot pellets were in the cat, and as though more pellets equaled more cruelty, rather than a quicker more humane death. That got him a conviction for felony cruelty to animals, and all the life hassles that go along with a felony conviction. -- and that is now off his record, and he can legally own firearms again. - Don't be an ass to people and life goes better for you.
    10
  173. 10
  174. 10
  175. 10
  176. 10
  177. 10
  178. 10
  179. 10
  180. 10
  181. Well that's one end of the spectrum. The other end is something like the M14. 15 years of development-ish. And the only basis of the job was 1 converting to a cartridge of identical mechanical energy 2 turning the dog leg operating rod into a straight operating rod for mechanical simplicity, 3 making it feed out of box magazines 4 adding a bonus happy switch which you can later disable. Obviously number four shouldn't have happened. And number two and three were reasonable and not that difficult solutions. See the Italian attempt at the same thing. I think the m17 and its predecessor programs also are informative of the other end. A good solution exists that meets all practical requirements. Actually many many well-proven and inexpensive solutions exist. but we are going to spend millions and millions and years and years to pick something. We're going to spend more studying it than it would have cost just to have bought them all. And then we're going to add some nicely requirement that doesn't add utility but does eliminate anything that is currently on the shelf. So we will get something that is basically identical to an on-the-shelf option with some very minor change but now it does not have the proof history behind it. So then we can either field it without the proof or spend a bunch more testing it. And I think the m17 is an excellent pistol. It obviously had some teething problems which would have shown up in rigorous testing. But they work those out and I think they did end up with a superior gun of the guns available. It's just they took something like 30 years of programs to end up with a gun that is basically what you could buy for $600 at any gun store.
    10
  182. 10
  183. 10
  184. 10
  185. 10
  186. 9
  187. 9
  188. 9
  189. 9
  190. 9
  191. 9
  192. 9
  193. 9
  194. 9
  195. 9
  196. 9
  197. 9
  198. 9
  199. 9
  200. 9
  201. 9
  202. 9
  203. 9
  204. 8
  205. 8
  206. 8
  207. 8
  208. 8
  209. 8
  210. 8
  211. 8
  212. 8
  213. 8
  214. 8
  215. 8
  216. 8
  217. 8
  218. 8
  219. 7
  220. 7
  221. 7
  222. 7
  223. 7
  224. 7
  225. 7
  226. 7
  227. 7
  228. 7
  229. 7
  230. 7
  231. 7
  232. 7
  233. 7
  234. 7
  235. 7
  236. 7
  237. 7
  238. 7
  239. 7
  240. 7
  241. 7
  242. 7
  243. 7
  244. 7
  245. That sounds like a story worth putting on YouTube. Like the substantiated details on all of that not just ranting. Please don't mistake my tone here. It's tricky to convey exactly what I'm trying to say without it sounding rude. I'm a business attorney and all the time I get clients who have a legitimate grievance but they add in a whole lot of things they suspect into the mental category of things they know and can prove. and when you've had a grievance long enough and you fight about it long enough you tend to become a little bit irrational, and also kind of conspiracy theory thinking in your behavior. Everything they do or don't do or you hear about them doing becomes categorized as evidence of them being bad. and so when I have a client with a legitimate grievance often the most difficult part is helping this very emotionally invested client separate their legitimate grievance from all the mental debris that got attracted to it. and if you can't do that you can't think rationally and you can't make an honest case. Unfortunately many if not most people are unwilling to admit that they have added to the story in their own mind. I would be interested in hearing your story and having it published but you would have to be absolutely ruthless with yourself to remove all of the little embellishments. to separate out the things you suspect about what Facebook did and why from the things you can prove... Am I making sense? Anyway if your story is true it really does deserve to be told and I suspect it probably is true. So please consider going to the large effort to that it takes to tell your story well.
    7
  246. 7
  247. 7
  248. 7
  249. 7
  250. 7
  251. 7
  252. 7
  253. 7
  254. 6
  255. 6
  256. 6
  257. 6
  258. 6
  259. 6
  260. 6
  261. 6
  262. 6
  263. 6
  264. 6
  265. 6
  266. 6
  267. 6
  268. 6
  269. 6
  270. 6
  271. 6
  272. 6
  273. 6
  274. 6
  275. 6
  276. 6
  277. 6
  278. 6
  279. 6
  280. 6
  281. 6
  282. 6
  283. 6
  284. 6
  285. 6
  286. 6
  287. 6
  288. 6
  289. 6
  290. 6
  291. 6
  292. 6
  293. 6
  294. 5
  295. 5
  296. 5
  297. 5
  298. 5
  299. 5
  300. 5
  301. 5
  302. 5
  303. 5
  304. 5
  305. 5
  306. 5
  307. 5
  308. 5
  309. 5
  310. 5
  311. 5
  312. 5
  313. 5
  314. 5
  315. 5
  316. 5
  317. 5
  318. 5
  319. 5
  320. 5
  321. 5
  322. 5
  323. 5
  324. 5
  325. 5
  326. 5
  327. 5
  328. 5
  329. 5
  330. 5
  331. 5
  332. 5
  333. 5
  334. 5
  335. 5
  336. 5
  337. 5
  338. 5
  339. 5
  340. "Psychopath" (& "high functioning sociopath")is a clinical derogatory term for people whose emotional make up suits them to function usefully for others under harsh conditions. IMO the definition tells you more about the values and personality types of the people that tend to make up the mental health professions than it does about the relative normalcy (or mental health) of those few who can defer or suppress emotions during extreme conditions. What it shows is that the mental health attitudes of the last century is very prescriptive. They made a value judgement about what the "right kind of person" is, then gave it a whitewash of science. It's applied philosophy, with some measurement to justify what are intrinsically subjective opinions. A lot of that developed in reaction to societal values of men who were emotionally durable, but not emotionally engaged. The mental health profession rejected this value and substituted its opposite. Obviously, the ability to suppress emotions and behave rationally is valuable, as is "vulnerability". It doesn't need to be an either/or choice. However, lack of ability to suppress emotions is a severe handicap for any job that deals with crisis or decisions which should run contrary to the default emotional drives. If you've read "On Killing" or similar works, you find that very small numbers of troops in any branch of military service are actually willing to kill without extreme circumstantial pressure. Those few who either lack such inhibitions or are able to set them aside more easily account for more kills than hundreds of their peers. Many of the critical military positions actively seek out those who have this attribute. i.e. special forces, fighter pilots, snipers, machine gunners. Basically, knowing that most people won't kill when they objectively should, the few who do are a very valuable resource and are carefully allocated.
    5
  341. 5
  342. 5
  343. 5
  344. 5
  345. 5
  346. 5
  347. 5
  348. 5
  349. 5
  350.  @seneca983  every tool is capable of being used or misused. That doesn't make it good or bad The question is how much range do you give it. or another way of asking the question is is it actually possible to limit that power? Perfect rules being applied by imperfect people tend to get ignored. Nullificationication and judicial discretion allow for choosing not to apply unjust rules or adjusting imperfect or incomplete rules. but every system that you could possibly conceive of ultimately has a person applying the rule. If you limit the power of that person you're only limiting that power by having another person with the ability to check them. So you haven't actually got humanity out of the loop. You've just redistributed the potential for human error or malice to do good or harm. In our present system the jury acts as a check on the judge and prosecutors and cops. And to a certain degree the judge also acts as a check on the jury. arduous Prudence has come to the conclusion that these sole valid purpose of the jury is to determine factual matters and to allow all legal reasoning to reside with the judge. I see nothing in the text of the Constitution that says that is what was intended. It could well be that they intended for the jury to interpret both law and facts. though for the most part I agree with the way we have distributed those responsibilities. In general I expect of the judges to do a much better job of applying law to the facts. This is also part of the difference between a bright line rule with factors and a rule with multiple considerations in some kind of a balancing test. Really those aren't rules so much is just saying let the judge use his opinion and discretion to decide and he can justify his decision retroactively.
    5
  351. 4
  352. 4
  353. 4
  354. 4
  355. 4
  356. 4
  357. 4
  358. 4
  359. 4
  360. 4
  361. 4
  362. 4
  363. 4
  364. 4
  365. 4
  366. 4
  367. 4
  368. 4
  369.  @electricgamez5415  but the blunt is fact is in most cases: The gun does not leave very unique markings on the cases or the bullets. Rather it's sort of like that scene from my cousin Vinny. It'll tell you the type of gun and the type of bullet more than it will tell you this gun. It's like saying the killer had this blood type versus the DNA identified it was this guy. Distinctive tool marks where and polish out of guns as they're used, and unless they get distinctive damage they are probably going to become more and more generic for their model. The other thing that people don't seem to understand is that in most cases most investigations are not using the full battery of forensics tools that are possible those take time and money and apartments have limited resources of both. it is very rare that police departments actually take fingerprints for anything way back in the 2000s when I was working in a prosecutor's office, I had seen internal memos the effect that we should request fingerprints only when it would make the difference for a case because it cost us $86 per sample that was sent to the state crime lab and for a case he usually need to send dozens of samples because you need elimination prints. It's kind of a similar deal for tracing firearms or bullet cases it takes one level of examination to go oh yeah this came from a Glock. it takes a lot more work to say this came from exactly this particular Glock. and in general you only need that If you have the particular clock in which case you probably already have more than enough other evidence to prove that this guy was the shooter. Whereas if you were trying to figure out who did the shooting and you don't have the suspect and you don't have the gun getting high detail on the The brass is a very expensive long shot. It will only pay off if you eventually get the guy and the gun. however if you get the wrong guy and he is a defendant he may say I want analysis on those cases to prove that it is not my gun- and that's an easier thing to prove.
    4
  370. 4
  371. 4
  372. 4
  373. 4
  374. 4
  375. 4
  376. 4
  377. 4
  378. 4
  379. 4
  380. 4
  381. 4
  382. 4
  383. 4
  384. 4
  385. 4
  386. 4
  387. 4
  388. 4
  389. 4
  390. 4
  391. 4
  392. 4
  393. 4
  394. 4
  395. 4
  396. 4
  397. 4
  398. 4
  399. 4
  400. 4
  401. 4
  402. 4
  403. 4
  404. 4
  405. 4
  406. 4
  407. 4
  408. 4
  409. 4
  410. 4
  411. 4
  412. 3
  413. 3
  414. 3
  415. 3
  416. 3
  417. 3
  418. 3
  419. 3
  420. 3
  421. 3
  422. 3
  423. 3
  424. 3
  425. 3
  426. 3
  427. 3
  428. 3
  429. 3
  430. 3
  431. 3
  432. 3
  433. 3
  434. 3
  435. 3
  436. 3
  437. 3
  438. 3
  439. 3
  440. 3
  441. 3
  442. 3
  443. 3
  444. 3
  445. 3
  446. 3
  447. 3
  448. 3
  449. 3
  450. 3
  451. 3
  452. 3
  453. 3
  454. 3
  455. 3
  456. 3
  457. 3
  458. 3
  459. 3
  460. 3
  461. 3
  462. 3
  463. 3
  464. 3
  465. 3
  466. 3
  467. I had a neighbor who was like 20% of this. He was a guy in his mid-forties who had a painting business and a bunch of mastiffs. The dogs were in a general fairly friendly. Property had assured easement access road with all of the neighbors in a line. I was about 3/4 the way down the road was several neighbors past me. I was early twenties, and had a car with really low ground clearance. This guy assumed because he was older than me He was my boss. I was always respectful but not submitted to that. The neighbors that were passed me had suburbans and similar vehicles and would drive up the road at frankly unsafe speeds of like 35 or 40 miles an hour. Unsafe because there were several kids in the house past me and bushes obscured the view so you would not have time to stop. I would drive down that road at about 15 miles an hour. But the problem neighbor insisted that nobody could drive on the road faster than five because he said so. Several times he confronted me quite angrily and I told him that I would drive it a reasonable speed and that he had no legal ability to dictate his opinion on me. one night at close to midnight when my brother was staying over for the night, The other neighbors as usual zoomed past my house at approximately 35 or 40 mph. A few minutes later the problem neighbor knocked on my door. I anticipated it was actually the elderly gentleman who lived in between us- a good neighbor. I was wrong it was the problem neighbor and he'd clearly been drinking a little bit although I did not realize that until later. He brought one of his Mastiffs with him. He was doing all the classic pre-fight body language, means on his neck flushed face, Right I had a right eye eye eye contact, raising volume of voice lean forward bladed stance, and he kept making half steps into my doorway, He also kept clenching and unclenching his hands into fists at his side and I doubt he was where he was doing that. The whole time I was far less concerned with him then with his dog which was trying to push past him into my apartment. my read on the situation was probably that he would throw one punch feel that he was the big man and go home and then I would call the cops, but that dog would not stop because it was keying off of his aggression. In my mind the entire time I was thinking through my plan of how I would feed the dog my left forearm while I got out my pocket knife which I can do one handed and take out its throat. I had a pistol in a drawer that was right next to that door and it isn't normally where I keep it, but in that situation a step and a half away was too far away. That was a learning experience. The good neighbor who lived between us would never believe anything bad about Mike. This is in about a month later on one of the several times he tried to block the driveway to keep me from coming past I steered around him and he screamed and obscenity and punched my rear window as I drove by. I'm sure he was trying to take out the glass. Me neighbor in between witness the whole event and would continually express his surprise. I told him I couldn't understand why he would be surprised since I had repeatedly told him beforehand about Mike's behavior. but you know Mike had done him some favors like helped him carry a dryer so he obviously couldn't be a bad guy... So the lessons learned? A gun in a drawer isn't much good. People have a hard time overcoming preconceptions, and I am unsure that that neighbor would have been a reliable witness, If it came to court. and it also pays to visualize what you would do in advance. I had visualized that if I ever had a problem I would not let them cross my doorway and where I would stand to be a barrier, That's what I did and I think if I had not done that the dog would have been in my house and would have attacked me.
    3
  468. 3
  469. 3
  470. 3
  471. 3
  472. 3
  473. 3
  474. 3
  475. 3
  476. 3
  477. 3
  478. 3
  479. 3
  480. 3
  481. 3
  482. 3
  483. 3
  484. 3
  485. 3
  486. 3
  487. 3
  488. I agree with all of that except for the avoiding dangerous areas thing. If all of the honest people avoid an area they have now made it an area that is inherently dangerous to anybody who does not have a choice to be there. They have yielded that territory to bad people. I will happily accept an insult and de-escalate and avoid confrontation. But I don't think it's right to let bad people take over an area of town. My presence and anybody else's who is not an aggressive thug in an area makes it an area that is socially unacceptable to be in aggressive thug. Normality sets the tone that creates a safe space. Like my carrying a gun doesn't make the world safer in itself. My presence in a place though can. And it's the mere presence that matters a whole lot more than whether I'm carrying or not. I became very aware of this fact when I was in law school and a lot of the areas that I wanted to jog or places that women I knew would not jog with me. It would have been a whole different issue if there were a half a dozen other guys there who weren't creepy. I think broken window theory got hijacked and distorted but it recognized an inherent truth. People adjust their behavior in general to be consistent with what is perceived to be appropriate in their surroundings. Every one of us is either adding two or detracting from the acceptable standards of behavior in a place. You can make a place a good neighborhood just by being there while being good. You can make it a bad neighborhood just by avoiding it. I choose not to make bad neighborhoods. I am not saying that you need to make the choices I make but I am suggesting that you should consider this thought.
    3
  489. 3
  490. 3
  491. 3
  492. 3
  493. 3
  494. 3
  495. 3
  496. 3
  497. 3
  498. 3
  499. 3
  500. 3
  501. 3
  502. 3
  503. 3
  504. 3
  505. 3
  506. 3
  507. 3
  508. 3
  509. 3
  510. 3
  511. 3
  512. 3
  513. 3
  514. 3
  515. 3
  516. 3
  517. 3
  518. 3
  519.  @DBCisco  I've got a doctorate in the subject matter. (And related work experience.) You have assumptions. I'm describing what is not what ought to be, and not what the text of the Constitution says. Simply what exists now. I have not stated that I am in favor of the present state of affairs. I am simply described how it currently works. We do have four branches of government and the fourth one has the powers of all the other three. Just at the federal level the federal register shows the new proposed changes to law every year in a bank of text that would be about 6 ft high and 40 ft long on a bookshelf. You will find similar things at state and county levels too. Law in America is primarily written by subject matter experts in a non-representative manner. You may not like it but this is reality. This can be a learning experience for you you just got somebody who actually practices in the business to tell you how it really is. In all seriousness, only a fool assumes he knows what the other person knows or doesn't know especially on the internet. You don't have to continue to be one. You can be humble when talking to strangers. That gives you a far better chance of them listening to you. Stating "get an education" or "go research it" is the lamest of lame 'arguments' and it never actually gets somebody to research it. Rather it just makes you feel like you know more than them whether or not you actually do. Similarly writing an all cap letters is like yelling at somebody, it just makes you louder not more authoritative.
    3
  520. 3
  521. 3
  522. 3
  523. 3
  524. 3
  525. 3
  526. 3
  527. 3
  528. 3
  529. 3
  530. 3
  531. 3
  532. 3
  533. 3
  534. 3
  535. 3
  536. 3
  537. 3
  538. 3
  539. 3
  540. 3
  541. 3
  542. 3
  543. 3
  544. 3
  545. 3
  546. 3
  547. 3
  548. 3
  549. 3
  550. 2
  551. 2
  552. 2
  553. 2
  554. 2
  555. 2
  556. 2
  557. 2
  558. 2
  559. 2
  560. 2
  561. 2
  562. 2
  563. 2
  564. 2
  565. 2
  566. 2
  567. 2
  568. 2
  569. 2
  570. 2
  571. 2
  572. 2
  573. 2
  574. 2
  575. 2
  576. 2
  577. 2
  578. 2
  579. 2
  580. 2
  581. 2
  582. 2
  583. 2
  584. 2
  585. 2
  586. 2
  587. 2
  588. 2
  589. 2
  590. 2
  591. 2
  592. 2
  593. 2
  594. 2
  595. 2
  596. 2
  597. 2
  598. 2
  599. 2
  600. 2
  601. 2
  602. 2
  603. 2
  604. 2
  605. 2
  606. 2
  607. 2
  608. 2
  609. 2
  610. 2
  611. 2
  612. 2
  613. 2
  614. 2
  615. 2
  616. 2
  617. 2
  618. 2
  619. 2
  620. 2
  621. 2
  622. 2
  623. 2
  624. 2
  625. 2
  626. 2
  627. 2
  628. 2
  629. 2
  630. 2
  631. 2
  632. 2
  633. 2
  634. 2
  635. 2
  636. 2
  637. 2
  638. 2
  639. 2
  640. 2
  641. 2
  642. 2
  643. 2
  644. 2
  645. 2
  646. 2
  647. 2
  648. 2
  649. 2
  650. 2
  651. 2
  652. 2
  653. 2
  654. 2
  655. 2
  656. 2
  657. 2
  658. 2
  659. 2
  660. 2
  661. 2
  662. 2
  663. 2
  664. 2
  665. 2
  666. 2
  667. 2
  668. 2
  669. 2
  670. 2
  671. 2
  672. 2
  673. 2
  674. 2
  675. 2
  676. 2
  677. 2
  678. 2
  679. 2
  680. 2
  681. 2
  682. 2
  683. 2
  684. 2
  685. 2
  686. 2
  687. 2
  688. 2
  689. 2
  690. 2
  691. 2
  692. 2
  693. 2
  694. 2
  695. 2
  696. 2
  697. 2
  698. 2
  699. 2
  700. 2
  701. 2
  702. 2
  703. 2
  704. 2
  705. 2
  706.  @granthoover9045  I got into 300 black because it is literally cheaper for me to train with than 556. I've had it quite a few years, and it always has been. It's a matter of how you buy ammo and when. I think it is perfectly reasonable to buy a lot of ammo when you can and it's cheap. Typically this enables me to share a lot of ammo. There's nothing I could do that could prevent people from hoarding when it is vscarce and from over paying. In general more consumption will equal more production and I think you are wrong to blame other people for buying what they want to buy. The other thing about people buying when ammo prices are low is it keeps the factories in business and producing. Or total ammo is made market prices stay lower because of economy of scale. This means there is more ammo to go around even during a crunch. So literally they are helping the situation you are complaining about from two sides One the people who buy up when market demand is low aren't buying when it's high so they aren't taking ammo out of the market, 2 they're keeping manufacturing capacity up, 3 They are often sharing. As for 300 black itself. I can't remember a time when 308 Winchester was cheaper than 300 blackout. A lot of the time it's similarly priced to other comparable calibers. But it's always cheaper for reloaders. If all you want is a cheap planker and you're not going to reload there are other calibers that make more sense such as for instance 762x39 or 22LR depending on what kind of thing you want to do. Or 9 mm for that matter. It's pretty irrational to get angry at somebody for wanting a different thing than you want. Training looks different for different people and for different purposes. 300 blackout does what I want to do. It's versatile low recoil and works really well out of a small package. Anything niche is necessarily more expensive than anything popular just because economy of scale is a thing. But I am not a millionaire. I'm on the tightest of budgets and your assumption that only rich people can afford 300 black without being irresponsible is just straight up wrong. I shoot 300 black because number one it does what I want to do and number two it does it very affordably. It's been 11 cents a shot for subsonics and 14 cents a shot for supers for the last several years for me. Both of those are currently about $0.03 more as I replace my materials. Those numbers are bigger for other calibers. This would be a dumb time for me to hoard commercial 300 black but that's also true for all the other calibers. The degree of how foolish it would be varies. Bottom line I feel like you are yelling about how gravity is unfair. Market pressures exist. They are unavoidable. It is pointless to resent people who have the opportunity to by what they want when it makes sense to buy. Resenting them in no way can change availability of what you want for the better. Every system has a knowledge gap. New people invariably overpay until they know what that system is. People who shoot a lot have specialized knowledge. And that knowledge allows them to understand that it makes sense to buy at sometimes rather than others. There are also people who prioritize things other than buying ammo all the time. That's fine too. I don't want government subsidized ammo. That is never made things cheaper for everybody long term or increased freedom.
    2
  707. 2
  708. 2
  709. 2
  710. 2
  711. 2
  712. 2
  713. 2
  714. 2
  715. 2
  716. 2
  717. 2
  718. 2
  719. 2
  720. 2
  721. 2
  722. 2
  723. 2
  724. 2
  725. 2
  726. 2
  727. 2
  728. 2
  729. 2
  730. 2
  731. 2
  732. 2
  733. 2
  734. 2
  735. 2
  736. 2
  737. 2
  738. 2
  739. 2
  740. 2
  741. 2
  742. 2
  743. @J O I think obvious truths are obvious regardless of whether you've been in the circumstance. Have I had guns pointed at me?Yes. Have I been threatened with deadly force Yes. Have I had all of those things happen at the same time ?no. Can I recognize that these officers did a poor to mediocre job and basically got lucky? Yes. Is that the same as saying I am better than them and would have performed better than they did in the situation? No it isn't. But I would sure want to. It is impossible to learn unless you can say this is better than that. The only way we can learn and train and become better is to recognize when something is done less than perfectly. This particular video shows things being done rather poorly but it worked out okay. If you happen to look on my channel you will see where I confronted two thieves and played out the game plan that I had rehearsed physically and mentally for a variety of circumstances. I got some things working out in my favor that I had not planned on and I know incorporate those into future plans. I also took a couple of risks that I would not take later. Were you in my circumstance?no. Does that mean you couldn't have some valid input about what I could do better? Of course not. You could have valid feedback. I will grant that something like 98% of the comments I get on that video are people talking about how they would have gone full Rambo and throat kicked everybody and then shot them or whatever. So the presence of stupid Monday morning quarterbacking is real but it does not invalidate legitimate criticism of poor choices.
    2
  744. 2
  745. 2
  746. 2
  747. 2
  748. 2
  749. 2
  750. 2
  751. 2
  752. 2
  753. 2
  754. 2
  755. 2
  756. 2
  757. 2
  758. 2
  759. 2
  760. 2
  761. 2
  762. 2
  763. 2
  764. 2
  765. 2
  766. 2
  767. I've never had a gripe against them I like them for work lights and I like some LEDs for that purpose. Both are less inclined to be damaged by shock than an incandescent. Generally speaking they put out more brightness per wattage and per heat which is nice. My perception and I'm not sure this is correct is the LEDs are safer around volatile fumes. But perhaps the little transformation pack that converts the electrical signal is a spark hazard... My complaint is actually the new formats of the double prong locking light fixtures which are used in many apartments. The design is to force you to not use incorrect bulbs. So far so good. The problem is they're based around this stupid wattage equivalence theory. Like each of these things is supposedly equivalent to a 60 watt incandescent. And they aren't. but worse they are forcing you to use something that isn't as good as the Volvo you didn't want to use because it wasn't good enough in the first place. I don't want to replace a 60 watt or 40 watt bulb to be the one of two light bulbs in my bedroom or living room. I want something that's approximately equivalent to 160 watt incandescent bulb in actual light output. So to make a standard based on forcing me to use a 14 watt CFL or a 14 watt LED to replace a 40 watt bulb that should have been 160 watt bulb is madness. They wanted me to use more efficient lighting, great. I want that too. I just happened to want brighter nice color temperature more efficient lighting. That is well within our technology. I don't want a 14 watt LED I want approximately a 40 watt LED.
    2
  768. 2
  769. 2
  770. 2
  771. 2
  772. 2
  773. 2
  774. 2
  775. 2
  776. 2
  777. 2
  778. 2
  779. 2
  780. 2
  781. 2
  782. 2
  783. 2
  784. 2
  785. 2
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. Side note. I wish I could put like a thousand likes on this. I'm into weird firearms. Also motorcycles cars etc. The "why u rune classic?" Mentality has really hit peak in the firearms culture right now. I think that's partially because the cost of entry into collecting particularly military antiques is substantially lower than cars. You can pick up interesting stuff between $300 and $4, 000. And you can fit like 30 of them in a normal apartment closet in some crappy city. That means pretty much everybody can do it at least in some level. That means everybody has an opinion. And they find the customs The equivalence of the chopper hot rod from the '50s and they lament the sum jerk sporterized a classic military rifle. By which they mean some person lovingly customized a rifle that would have gone to the scrap pile that he bought for $12 in 1955, and then used it. It exists because there was a market to do exactly what he did otherwise it would have been scrapped. Also in case of a lot of those they were like two to 10 million of them. Well I can appreciate the perfect original, and occasionally cringe at a really hacked up custom, I definitely appreciate a weird custom or a very skilled and nicely fitted custom. in my opinion it's very liberating to really own a thing and void the warranty and make it what you want it to be not what some engineer and some accountant and some marketing guy agreed that they could sell to an average person 200,000 times. void those warranties. Make unique things.
    1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020.  @bumbleWeaver  I don't think it's inevitable that Google maintains monopoly. The thing that reminds me of the most is Yahoo's near Monopoly circa year 2000.All the talk was about how Yahoo was dominating the search engine business and all the other engines were dying or being bought by Yahoo. And then within a year or so then being the top of the heap they stopped giving you the results you search for and started giving you the results they wanted you to get and it became frustrating and obvious. then basically sites like metacrawler and Google started to get prominence because they gave you basically what you searched for. Not perfectly but more than not. I think 20/20 Google basically equals 2,000 Yahoo. Sure there is a threshold that takes people to change their behavior. But I think Google is rapidly approaching that frustration threshold Right now I'm on the outlier end of the curve where I've crossed it for most purposes. I still use plenty of Google products cuz how can you not, but anything that I can get close to as good of results as I want to from another source I've set it in defaults from other sources. No I'm somebody who went out of my way to do that. It took intent and effort. When it becomes common knowledge and easy, but there is a clear just as good alternative or better alternative, each person who has a bad experience with Google will be more likely to switch. It's one of those things that seems like it'll never happen until it seems like it's happened already and it was inevitable. I will not be at all surprised if in 15 years we are watching documentaries what about what happened to Google...
    1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107.  @mindeloman  cost and complexity was a real thing for them. That said, military acceptance is decades behind civilian tech with rare exceptions. also a common aspect of military acceptance is that the general officers making the decision have extreme contempt for their enlisted men. More so historically. they assumed that every recruit was incompetent and had zero self-control and they always wanted to impose control via officers and themselves. If you follow the adoption of early repeating rifles, the major concern was that infantry would waste ammunition and fire pointlessly. They were far more concerned with adding unnecessary magazine cut-offs than they were with simplicity and reliability or fast follow-up shots or things like that. They didn't really think fast was a benefit. They thought fast blind firing and wastefulness not ability to track up running man. And not ability to quickly shoot several people in a group. Military doctor and really didn't catch up to that obvious concept until the end of world war I. And yet just about every individual in a firefight who'd had any access to faster firepower since the American civil war tended to be extremely beneficial. The other thing that they quickly learn to be a major benefit was lower recoil and a flatter trajectory. be light recoiling liver guns definitely wouldn't have a flat trajectory but they would have capacity speed and low recoil. I'm not saying they were perfect, but I do think if a major military had adopted one in an arsenal level they could have simplified and streamlined the hand fitting in production. They could have also lowered the quality standards for surface finish on cosmetic surfaces. It is true that the commercial sale Winchester's were expensive but there were plenty of things about them that could have been simplified and cheapened upon request. Plain round barrels for instance, and a lot more cast components, with only finish milling.
    1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. Ah. Dismissing an entire nation as a homogeneous block because you can't point to evidence. You can't answer your arguments so you just say that I don't count. A brilliant strategy. I'd suggest calling us all homosexuals as part of name calling to further bolster your argument, but you already did that, sir. Why not keep it stereotypical, and add that you'll have sex with my mother, or cut my face? On the other hand, if you are open to addressing points via logic and rhetoric, please read and respond to the following: You still haven't said which residents of the UK speak real English. Or what time period. I'll assume you can't, which is why you dodged that issue, since it is the biggest hole in your whole perspective. You say American's don't count, I'll one-up you then. People in the UK don't speak "proper English" anymore either. If we don't count, I don't think you can make a good case that Britons should count. U wot m8? Probably the only groups in the UK known for speaking clear English are immigrants. The Germans speak better English, your Pakistani and Indian residents speak intelligible English because they put effort into it. The truth is that English is the 'lingua franca' of the modern world, and most of the modern world is getting their colloquial English from the worst of American sitcoms: "friends", and from training related to American software. The youth in the UK are as likely to call thin fried pieces of potato "chips" as "crisps" and say "TV" rather than "telly". If you continue to think of this as culturally winning or losing, then your only conclusions can be denial or loss. On the other hand, you could realize that English like all languages is inherently mutable, and is homogenizing due to mass media, which mostly comes from the USA, but is also adapting to fit the linguistic habits of other languages. i.e. my own personal pet peeve of bad usage. "Show me how _ feels like." It should be either "how that feels" or "what __ feels like" but not a combination. However the language is changing and that appears to be the new dominant usage. I can grow up or spend my life being petty and bitter about trivialities. I choose to be interested, rather than bitter. I invite you to join me in that perspective.
    1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315.  @granthoover9045  you got it all wrong though. Paris is for lovers, and 300 blackout is for people who make their own. Most of what I shoot in 300 blackout is about 2/3 the cost of the cheapest 223. And I generally never get below about 800 rounds in inventory of both super and sub flavor. I can't make my own powder and primers but everything else I can and pretty efficiently too. You should like this and you shoot a whole lot more than people who are relying on whatever the local gun store has in stock. You are also getting a lot of gaines over the people who buy online. The buy it cheap stack a deep still applies though but then it's applying to powder and primers. Going to give an amount of budget and space you can fit a hell of a lot more powder and primers than you can commercially loaded ammo. And then there's the other end 300 blackout gives you a huge versatility in projectiles and types of loadings. You can make some really good performing stuff. If you look into the performance on things like MakerBullets, or even relatively common things like pushing the Hornady V-Max 110 or the Barnes tak-x, or nosler 110 black tip.... You'll see that inside a couple hundred yards they are just devastating for anything defensive. 300 blackout in a shorty isn't the gun for all roles. But it is a gun that's pretty good for LARPing around in the woods and amazing for home defense in an area where you have close neighbors, or for a gun that can legally ride with you in the passenger seat while loaded. That one's assuming it's a pistol and you are able to legally carry a loaded pistol with you as most of us are who choose to.
    1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. Alternate theory based on personal experience as an attorney. I get things like this from time to time, and it comes from not shutting the would be client down hard . -- Pla's attorney is new and hungry. Pla is family friend. Pla has this whole thing written out on 3 reams of paper. She says, "sure, I want to help you uncle Jed-Bob." Then she sees the huge mess, but doesn't have the nerve to shut him down. She says, " that's way too long to file, I would have to rewrite it from scratch." Pla says "Naw. You are just trying to run up the bill. It should be more affordable because I did all the work for you. All's I need is for you to make this all legal- like and put the end bits on there, and file it in the right place...." And then she knows she should say, "No." but she's too nice, and too broke. So she commits a rule 11 violation, and puts her name on the end of some ramblings written by her client.. People used to try to do that with me all the time, and now maybe only every 6 months or so. I tell them cash up front, and I am rewriting everything, to only include legally relevant statements which I can document as provable. I also explain that shorter documents are more persuasive. We just need enough good arguments, not everything that ever happened. They counter that it's all true. I say that I sympathize, but I have to prove things with documents made at the time of the event, and will have to leave out everything else. Also that if they pay me to start this, and we can't find provable evidence, then I will end the project and they won't get cash back. That either causes them to take me seriously and listen, or leave. Either works. If we work together, I write out the skeleton of the case, with what legally relevant facts I need to prove, then give the client a shopping list. i.e. Find me a receipt for when you had the well put in, or a bank statement.
    1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. For serious actually playing paintball does a lot for this. Firearms guys tend to be really arrogant about paintball. But there's nothing like having real-world two-way range and thinking opponents, and tactile feedback about how well you are using cover. Airsoft kind of but it doesn't really give the practical meaningful range or objective proof. A lot of stuff that would be concealment in the real world is cover for paintball, but when I watch firearms trained people attempt to use cover they leave so much more of themselves sticking out than paintball people do. And the difference is the experience of getting hit every time you leave something exposed. You will learn whether you can really shoot in the move. You can learn whether people really know where you are or you really know where other people are. And this sort of sense of rhythm about what the other person is doing that you just don't get until you've tried it. A little bit more advice that is unasked for.... Don't worry about whether the paintball is " realistic ". Just let it be its own thing. Shooting at steel targets isn't realistic. Shooting a paper isn't realistic. But they all let you learn something. Let the paintball be paintball, or the airsoft B airsoft. They teach you movement and situational awareness and tactics and how much your cardio sucks. They are also fun in their own sake. And they also teach you how many of your friends have so much ego in the way that they would rather cheat than admit a loss. Hopefully it doesn't teach you that you were the guy with all the ego and none of the honesty.
    1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. I could not agree more with the point at 1:03 about impostor syndrome. Malcom Gladwell points out in David and Goliath, that people tend to excel at a level where they are challenged but stand a bit ahead of their peers. A feeling of success builds momentum and a feeling of inadequacy or being overwhelmed does the same in the other direction. I went to Gonzaga School of Law, which is prestigious based on how people react to it. (Others may point out that it is easier to get into than some other schools.) The point was though, I was an "easy A", and am a generally bright guy. In a small pond it is easy to be a big fish. However, in a pond made of the biggest fish from several other ponds, one feels very small and overwhelmed most of the time. IIRC The law school population by academic standards were the top 3% of undergraduate students, many of whom were at the top of their high school classes. We had over achievers called "gunners" who had calculated out projections for class rankings and chose which classes they attend by spreadsheet analysis of which class would preserve their individual ranking. These guys all wanted the jobs that have a track record of burn out and ruined lives and divorce. Some of them were at the top of the class while working as interns, doing law review and moot court. I was not. Prior to law school, acing my undergrad while working 52 hours a week was natural for me. In law school, I was sick with stress just managing to keep "acceptably behind" on the coursework and reading. They knowingly assigned a reading list which required more hours than there are in a day. I think this was either unthinkingly on the part of the professors, or over some notion of stress inoculation. People who made it through basically learned to perform a triage on what stuff they could risk not reading, and looked several years older. It was a very stressful experience for me. I have no doubt that I rose to the level of professional competence, but I think the curve system forces many to fail who have crossed the threshold of adequacy, simply by saying that there are others who were a half percent more adequate, and an arbitrary number of passing grades. The bar exam is another redundant filter also set on a curve, which is made harder each successive year by intent. I think all of this creates a very high cost without an apparent benefit. -- And I can say that last point because both the LSAC and the various Bar Associations routinely brag about how they have studied performance in the entrance exams, law school performance, and Bar Exam performance, and each of these correlates negatively with professional success as attorneys. (Even more negatively with general life success indicators.) Only an insane system would study this, recognize the perverse incentive and decide to continue in the same direction more rigorously. If you read this far, thank you, and I welcome your thoughts.
    1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. The AR and SA80 have theoretically the same effective range, but the AR's handling characteristics and ease of mounting good optics make it easier to hit with. The weakest link in the system is the user. I haven't been in army or combat either, but the effective range is a pretty well known thing. I can say from a lot of paintball, that someone who doesn't want to be seen or shot at from 20 meters away is pretty hard to see or shoot, and it gets exponentially harder with distance. Particularly with uneven light, or when the target is small, moving, and colored similarly to the background. I used to do pest control out to about 350 meters having a target which was pretty close to the size of a human head. At that range, getting a hit on 1 out of 20 or so attempts was doing good, because you never have much time to notice the pest, drop what you are doing, grab a gun, and take a perfect shot. What people can do easily from a nice rest at a clear range on a clear day, with high contrast target, and lots of time tends to give an exaggerated expectation for what is doable under more practical conditions. That said, I've made more hits than I would believe if another guy were telling the story, so there's something for practice and familiarity for getting quick estimations of range and wind and a clean trigger break. After a while you can make shots that you don't deserve to make. Not all the time, but enough to motivate me to keep trying. The overwhelming data of combat indicates that people's effective range is ~3-400m, so having a gun that shoots well much further is kinda wasted.
    1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1