SCOTUS issues order to drop mag bans, assault weapons bans, and carry bans!
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (171)
sorted by:
It's not just rare though. It's extremely rare. Fair enough if you are using surplus ammunition and an unreliable firearm. Even then it's still extremely rare. I know a guy that's mate shot a target pin and it ricocheted into his shoulder. Freak accidents happen. Do you wear big ballistic shoulder pads for shooting? No. You wear ear defenders as it is likely to damage your hearing as it is past the safe decibel range. I don't wear safety specs. At the end of the day, it's personal choice. That's why it's called, "PPE". PERSONAL protective equipment"...
It is interesting to me that you can make a distinction between "rare" and "extremely rare," without any metric to tell the difference, any basis for there being a difference, and any data to support the metric. Likewise, there is no way to predict a firearm will have a disassembly accident (i.e., you don't know a firearm is "unreliable" unless it demonstrates unreliability). Safety practice is a concentration on precluding adverse effects. What you are doing is indulging in the magical thinking of "it won't happen to me." For your sake, I hope not.
Well. I'd be asking for a parachute the next time you take flight instead of a life jacket if that's your logic
There's no way a parachute would be of aid. And the design requirement on civil aircraft is only one chance in 10 million that a flight would be fatal. You don't have any logic, just magical thinking. I worked with high-pressure systems and munitions, and have an informed appreciation of the dimensions of something going wrong.
Hold up. So, if something wrong happens with the plane. A parachute would not be of aid? For real? So I shouldn't have a parachute because it's of no aid from heights... But safety specs when shooting is going to save my eyes?