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 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?
No time to put a parachute on if the plane is in a maneuvering state. No access to independent oxygen. No safe way to exit the airplane. Stand by for the crash...
Yeah, if you are shooting at the range and a shell ejects and hits you square in the forehead, safety glasses will save your eyes. Or if the slide comes apart (Beretta M9 accidents) and whacks you in the face, they will save your eyes (maybe not your nose). Magic is no defense against accidents with equipment that operate under extreme forces. (And safety glasses are not parachutes.)