Gun sales are at all-time highs. People are helpless, unemployed, and desperate.
Nothing to see here....
Nothing to see here....
Let’s just hope that people are buying them to protect their lives and not to try to take things from others in desperation.Gun sales are at all-time highs. People are helpless, unemployed, and desperate.
Nothing to see here....
Let’s just hope that people are buying them to protect their lives and not to try to take things from others in desperation.Gun sales are at all-time highs. People are helpless, unemployed, and desperate.
Nothing to see here....
Yeah. So I know very little about guns but have read things here and there. I am in MA and the shotgun is nice for home defense in this state because if someone breaks into your house and you end up shooting them, you have to be able to prove that you alerted them to the fact you were armed before you shot, and also that you were in fear of your life. The racking of a shotgun is unmistakable and pretty much clears you of the "alert" requirement.I’ve read a lot that shotguns and pistol-caliber carbines are solid options for home defense, as they can both limit over-penetration. Shotguns are solid options because of their ability to stop a threat quickly, and their affordability and reliability, while PCCs are solid due to their low recoil, ease of use (for people who a pump-action shotgun may be difficult), sufficient magazine capacity (where legally allowed), and better accuracy than a handgun, as well as better velocity too, due to a longer barrel.
People knock Hi-Point, but their 9mm carbine is actually quite reliable and accurate IME, and from some reliable and in-depth reviews I’ve read. Disassembly is a PITA, to the point I don’t think it’s even recommended to do on your own besides barrel cleaning lol (and I think it has a lifetime warranty?), so maybe not the best for long-term use if you think it’ll be a SHTF scenario, but a solid cheap option for what has been normal life. The Ruger PC carbine 9mm is a bit more expensive, but still under $500, can use Ruger mags or Glock mags with an adapter, and breaks apart into two pieces to make storage/traveling (legally, of course) with it much easier. Having a handgun and a carbine that share mags is a really nice thing to have too.
A shotgun is a solid choice for sure. Affordable, reliable, powerful, etc. Concealed/public carry is almost always going to be a handgun, so if you plan on getting a concealed carry permit, or even if open carry is allowed (I'm not a fan of open carry; I feel like it draws a lot of unnecessary attention and can worry people for no good reason. If you open carry in your business, that's a different story though), then a handgun is a solid option, as it can fill two roles (home defense and concealed carry), but a shotgun is a very solid option if your primary/only concern is home defense. But I do see the utility in PCCs, especially for people who a pump-action shotgun may be a bit difficult to manage, or the recoil may be a bit rough (reduced recoil shells make this much more manageable, but a 9mm PCC has next to no recoil).Yeah. So I know very little about guns but have read things here and there. I am in MA and the shotgun is nice for home defense in this state because if someone breaks into your house and you end up shooting them, you have to be able to prove that you alerted them to the fact you were armed before you shot, and also that you were in fear of your life. The racking of a shotgun is unmistakable and pretty much clears you of the "alert" requirement.
But I also figure if I want to carry in public, a pistol obviously can be used for public carry and home defense. And all the shotguns that were left were pretty long.
Yeah, I have a concealed carry permit. MA is concealed carry only. We even have a list of "approved guns" and gun manufacturers have to meet certain criteria and send the specific gun in for testing before it can be sold in MA. Many manufacturers either just don't sell models in MA or they have to modify the gun they sell everywhere else and have an MA compliant version. You can't even have more than a 10 round clip unless you can prove the clip was made before 1996.A shotgun is a solid choice for sure. Affordable, reliable, powerful, etc. Concealed/public carry is almost always going to be a handgun, so if you plan on getting a concealed carry permit, or even if open carry is allowed (I'm not a fan of open carry; I feel like it draws a lot of unnecessary attention and can worry people for no good reason. If you open carry in your business, that's a different story though), then a handgun is a solid option, as it can fill two roles (home defense and concealed carry), but a shotgun is a very solid option if your primary/only concern is home defense. But I do see the utility in PCCs, especially for people who a pump-action shotgun may be a bit difficult to manage, or the recoil may be a bit rough (reduced recoil shells make this much more manageable, but a 9mm PCC has next to no recoil).
Lol, nice try. There was no law specifically targeting places of worship; he violated orders limiting ALL gatherings/assemblies to no more than 50 people or whatever the limit was during this pandemic. So any law that limits the number of people that can gather in a single room/building/etc violate the first amendment? So all fire/building codes that establish building occupancy limits also violate the first amendment. Got it...We the citizens of the USA willingly gave up their rights and freedom to the government officials who were offering “protection” to it’s citizens for the fear the media and health “experts” created in with media hype and false projection models of casualties that are constantly having to be revised. One day I bet the government will also persuade the people to willingly surrender their guns and 2nd amendment rights as well without the government having to file a single shot under the “guise” of government protection of it’s citizens from “gun violence”. They already took away a church’s first amendment Right of free exercise of religion and not inhibiting the exercise thereof in Florida by arresting a pastor for having service at his mega church. NOT defending the pastor for making such a poor decision, nor his parishioners for choosing to go to service and put people at risk, but this should be THEIR free choice, not mandated closed via government edict.
Lol, nice try. There was no law specifically targeting places of worship; he violated orders limiting ALL gatherings/assemblies to no more than 50 people or whatever the limit was during this pandemic. So any law that limits the number of people that can gather in a single room/building/etc violate the first amendment? So all fire/building codes that establish building occupancy limits also violate the first amendment. Got it...We the citizens of the USA willingly gave up their rights and freedom to the government officials who were offering “protection” to it’s citizens for the fear the media and health “experts” created in with media hype and false projection models of casualties that are constantly having to be revised. One day I bet the government will also persuade the people to willingly surrender their guns and 2nd amendment rights as well without the government having to file a single shot under the “guise” of government protection of it’s citizens from “gun violence”. They already took away a church’s first amendment Right of free exercise of religion and not inhibiting the exercise thereof in Florida by arresting a pastor for having service at his mega church. NOT defending the pastor for making such a poor decision, nor his parishioners for choosing to go to service and put people at risk, but this should be THEIR free choice, not mandated closed via government edict.
I have a question for you @Ricky10 (or anybody else if you know). I’ve heard that surgical masks don’t prevent it’s used from being infected by COVID19. However I see many COVID19 unit health givers using these masks rather than N95/FFP2 ones. What’s your thought on that? Do you think the surgical masks protect their users adequately? To some extend?
Yes, I agree with most of this, as that is a good answer. So much of this has been wishy/washy which makes things all that more difficult for us in healthcare and the general population. Droplet vs airborne has been another gray area. It’s mostly droplet, but has the potential to become “airborne“ given its extended life on a variety of surfaces that people then move around and/or from air currents. This is the best answer I can give, as nobody really seems to know. There are studies, but each one seems to always yield a different result, or is done under different conditions. It’s definitely more contagious than the flu, so I think an airborne element is certainly there to some degree. My hospital calls it droplet but treats it as airborne-sometimes.I am not the person you asked, and not in the medical field, but here are my thoughts - they would be wearing N95 masks if they had them. But they don't so they are using the best they have and even a rag would be better than nothing.
My ultimate opinion is a mask of any sort has a few functions - not so much protecting you from inhaling particles if it is not N95 - but it does help prevent YOU, if you become infected, from dispersing particles. Obviously if I am a contact point with a sick patient I don't want to become a contact point for all other medical staff and patients.
Also, it will still protect the user from putting their hands near their nose and mouth, which should reduce infection to a degree. Is it great? No...but even a 20% reduction could be critical if that is the best you can do.
N95 is far better...if you have them.
So if I build a tiny little Church building and try to cram 500 people into it, and the fire/building code tells me I can only have 50 people in the building/room, are they violating my right to assemble as I see fit to worship?Firstly, the pastor was stupid for having services and I don’t support his decision, but that is not the issue, the issue is how does a law that prohibits gatherings of 100 people (or whatever the amount was) not UNCONSTITUTIONAL to as it would prohibit the free exercise of religion for any church from gathering that has over 100 members since they wouldn’t be able to actually choose to have “church” to begin with, after all a church service by definition according to the Bible is a “ASSEMBLING”, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is...” (Hebrews 10:25).
Also, isn’t it also interesting some states have deemed gun shops “non essential businesses”, how does that not inhibit the constitutional right to “bear arms” if the means to acquire the arms (the stores) are forced to close?
Both laws are unconstitutional and would be shot down by the Supreme Court.
So if I build a tiny little Church building and try to cram 500 people into it, and the fire/building code tells me I can only have 50 people in the building/room, are they violating my right to assemble as I see fit to worship?View attachment 192744Firstly, the pastor was stupid for having services and I don’t support his decision, but that is not the issue, the issue is how does a law that prohibits gatherings of 100 people (or whatever the amount was) not UNCONSTITUTIONAL to as it would prohibit the free exercise of religion for any church from gathering that has over 100 members since they wouldn’t be able to actually choose to have “church” to begin with, after all a church service by definition according to the Bible is a “ASSEMBLING”, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is...” (Hebrews 10:25).
Also, isn’t it also interesting some states have deemed gun shops “non essential businesses”, how does that not inhibit the constitutional right to “bear arms” if the means to acquire the arms (the stores) are forced to close?
Both laws are unconstitutional and would be shot down by the Supreme Court.
Is your gym still charging you? I saw it go through last month and I’m sure it’ll go through again this month. Damn, 24 Hour Fitness.I feel like at this rate, gyms are never going to re-open again lol I was hoping for May 1st but now I'm thinking July 1st might be the best case scenario. I just think, especially here in the Northeast, you can't expect people to stay caged up for that long with the nicer weather right around the corner.
I got this in an email from 24 yesterday:Is your gym still charging you? I saw it go through last month and I’m sure it’ll go through again this month. Damn, 24 Hour Fitness.
Based on current public health projections, it appears our clubs may need to be closed for an extended period of time. As such, we will suspend all membership billings, including billings for any additional services and fees, effective April 16, if we are unable to reopen clubs by that time in your area. For the membership billings that were charged from March 17 through April 15, members will receive additional days of access equal to the number of days paid for while the clubs were closed in your area. That extension will apply at the end of the membership. If you have a pre-paid membership, your end date will be extended to cover the amount of time the clubs are closed in your area.
You kind of DO support his decision and actions, when you justify them by claiming the First Amendment sees him free to commit them, no? Or how do you reconcile the two (1, you dont support him...2, the 1st Amend apparently does support him)?Firstly, the pastor was stupid for having services and I don’t support his decision
Ok, I understand that you’re arguing on principle here. I get the argument. However... you mention the cost of telling people to stay home. You realize there’s a cost- in deaths- by doing nothing in this situation, right? It’s easy to criticize what’s being done, but do you have an actual suggestion for a better idea?Answer my question from my post. How does a law that prohibits gatherings of 100 people (or whatever the amount was) not UNCONSTITUTIONAL to as it would prohibit the free exercise of religion for any church from gathering that has over 100 members since they wouldn’t be able to actually choose to have “church” to begin with, after all a church service by definition according to the Bible is a “ASSEMBLING”, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner some” (Hebrews 10:25).
Also, answer me this as well are the laws that deem the gun shops “nonessential businesses” that therefore force them to close constitutional? In a free society those at highest risk, the elderly and those with preexisting conditions should be told to quarantine and it should be up to the rest of the members in society to CHOOSE if they want to quarantine. The economy should not be mandated by government edict to shut down, businesses closed many of which will never open again, millions of people be unemployed, and everyone forced to stay at home! Total government overreach in so many areas at a cost to many millions.
Thanks for sharing. I think I unsubscribed so I didn’t get it. It’s stupid about adding to the end of the membership. They should have just frozen everyone’s account.I got this in an email from 24 yesterday:
It doesn’t prohibit the practice of religion or gatherings; it limits the size of a single gathering, and isn’t specifically targeted towards places of worship.Answer my question from my post. How does a law that prohibits gatherings of 100 people (or whatever the amount was) not UNCONSTITUTIONAL to as it would prohibit the free exercise of religion for any church from gathering that has over 100 members since they wouldn’t be able to actually choose to have “church” to begin with, after all a church service by definition according to the Bible is a “ASSEMBLING”, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner some” (Hebrews 10:25).
Also, answer me this as well are the laws that deem the gun shops “nonessential businesses” that therefore force them to close constitutional? In a free society those at highest risk, the elderly and those with preexisting conditions should be told to quarantine and it should be up to the rest of the members in society to CHOOSE if they want to quarantine. The economy should not be mandated by government edict to shut down, businesses closed many of which will never open again, millions of people be unemployed, and everyone forced to stay at home! Total government overreach in so many areas at a cost to many millions.
Yeah, that’d make way too much sense, so of course they didn’t do it haha.Thanks for sharing. I think I unsubscribed so I didn’t get it. It’s stupid about adding to the end of the membership. They should have just frozen everyone’s account.
Yes, my suggestion instead is advise those at high risk such as those that elderly or with preexisting conditions to quarantine and not force the vast majority at low risk to do so closing the economy down, leaving millions unemployed with record high unemployment, knocking companies out of business, destroying one of the best economies on record, taking away people’s rights and freedoms etc with no concrete answer on when the “shutdown” will end.Ok, I unext stand that you’re arguing on principle here. I get the argument. However... you mention the cost of telling people to stay home. You realize there’s a cost- in deaths- by doing nothing in this situation, right? It’s easy to criticize what’s being done, but do you have an actual suggestion for a better idea?
yeah, but that won’t actually stop the disease from spreading. Your theory doesn’t work at all. It’s not just old people getting this. Your idea literally just doesn’t solve the problem. I don’t understand what you don’t get about this.Yes, my suggestion instead is advise those at high risk such as those that elderly or with preexisting conditions to quarantine and not force the rest at low risk to do so closing the economy down, leaving millions unemployed with record high unemployment, knocking companies out of business, destroying one of the best economies on record, taking away people’s rights and freedoms etc with no concrete answer on when the “shutdown” will end.
Yes, thats fair, I guess like jrock I was fishing for a practical solution from you as to how you would effectively stop this crap from occuring again.Pastor was stupid, reckless, and put his parishioners at risk is not the same as supporting his freedom of choice to do so. If someone believes abortion is morally wrong, but believes a woman should have a right to do so are they then supporting whatever she chooses? Illogical. Supporting that a choice should be present for someone to make a decision is in no way an affirmative support of a decision either way.
Isn’t obesity a risk-factor for this? So most of America would have to stay inside anyway.yeah, but that won’t actually stop the disease from spreading. Your theory doesn’t work at all. It’s not just old people getting this. Your idea literally just doesn’t solve the problem. I don’t understand what you don’t get about this.
well, I think my whole point is there isn’t a real cut and dry criteria of “just isolate x,y,z people, and let everyone else work.” We literally have nowhere near that kind of information to accurately define that. So trying to suggest any type of solution like that relies on a lot of ifs and buts. As they say, if ifs and buts we’re candies and nuts we’d all have a nice Christmas.Isn’t obesity a risk-factor for this? So most of America would have to stay inside anyway.
If the computer modelling (and real world results) are anything to go by, the very things he is trying to prevent (record unemployment etc) will potentially occur if we were to adopt his idea anyway.yeah, but that won’t actually stop the disease from spreading. Your theory doesn’t work at all. It’s not just old people getting this. Your idea literally just doesn’t solve the problem. I don’t understand what you don’t get about this.
yep. The truth is, our best bet was to straight lock everything down from The get go. If we’d done that, this could’ve been over in maybe two weeks, no more than 4. It’s gonna take a lot longer and cost a lot more- both in dollars and in lives- at this point. The longer we keep screwing around and being stubborn about it, the higher the price will get.If the computer modelling (and real world results) are anything to go by, the very things he is trying to prevent (record unemployment etc) will potentially occur if we were to adopt his idea anyway.
When would you stop the shutdown, at what point? No more deaths, if not at a rate of how many per day?Also, there we’re over 40, 000 people that died in 2018 in car accidents in the USA so by your logic why not make it illegal to drive? After all you support a shut down of the entire economy over a disease that has killed 5,648 people so far so why let people drive because people die from that so we need to stop it completely, right ? Also, by what “model” are you basing your decision on, the one that says Corona would kill 1.2 to 1.5 million Americans o the one they revised that predicts only 100,000 to 200,000 will die? Also, is any weight put on the lives of those that will not die, but have their life’s destroyed by this? If so, how much weight do you put on that for your decision? Should we do a cost/benefit analysis or is that unwarranted and we should just continue with a shut down indefinitely even if people start committing suicide because they can’t afford to feed or house their families like in the Great Depression?Yes, thats fair, I guess like jrock I was fishing for a practical solution from you as to how you would effectively stop this crap from occuring again.
You absolute dolt... we can’t make driving illegal. Even doing so for a week would lead to innumerable deaths. No doctors driving to hospitals? Genius!When would you stop the shutdown, at what point? No more deaths, if not at a rate of how many per day?Also, there we’re over 40, 000 people that died in 2018 in car accidents in the USA so by your logic why not make it illegal to drive? After all you support a shut down of the entire economy over a disease that has killed 5,648 people so far so why let people drive because people die from that so we need to stop it completely, right ? Also, by what “model” are you basing your decision on, the one that says Corona would kill 1.2 to 1.5 million Americans o the one they revised that predicts only 100,000 to 200,000 will die? Also, is any weight put on the lives of those that will not die, but have their life’s destroyed by this? If so, how much weight do you put on that for your decision? Should we do a cost/benefit analysis or is that unwarranted and we should just continue with a shut down indefinitely even if people start committing suicide because they can’t afford to feed or house their families like in the Great Depression?
I cant answer all your questions satisfactorily, there are going to be people unhappy with any approach to this and there will innevitably be more casualties.When would you stop the shutdown, at what point? No more deaths, if not at a rate of how many per day?Also, there we’re over 40, 000 people that died in 2018 in car accidents in the USA so by your logic why not make it illegal to drive? After all you support a shut down of the entire economy over a disease that has killed 5,648 people so far so why let people drive because people die from that so we need to stop it completely, right ? Also, by what “model” are you basing your decision on, the one that says Corona would kill 1.2 to 1.5 million Americans o the one they revised that predicts only 100,000 to 200,000 will die? Also, is any weight put on the lives of those that will not die, but have their life’s destroyed by this? If so, how much weight do you put on that for your decision? Should we do a cost/benefit analysis or is that unwarranted and we should just continue with a shut down indefinitely even if people start committing suicide because they can’t afford to feed or house their families like in the Great Depression?
Well, I now have 5 positive COVID pt’s, and the 2 things they all have in common is obesity (by medical standards- they aren’t huge) and diabetes. 4 of them are vented as of today, one of which is my first female who I think was around 50 years old. My non-vented patient just arrived at change of shift, and was a 78 year old man.Isn’t obesity a risk-factor for this? So most of America would have to stay inside anyway.
"One thing all the data have in common is a reliance on continuing social distancing practices to limit the chance of spreading the virus, Acton said"Problem with basing decisions on corona virus models is they all contradict each other so you might as well be basing your decision on nothing or whatever model you like or fits your agenda. See https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/why-are-different-coronavirus-models-predicting-a-wide-range-of-outcomes-in-ohio/ar-BB121lhG
I actually agree with your point that this pandemic isn’t exactly analogous to car accidents in that eventually they will figure out a cure in the form of vaccines, however it is similar to car accidents in a way as new pandemics and viruses will keep reoccurring so do we keep shutting off the economy every time? For example Swine Flu, “It is estimated that in the 2009 flu pandemic11–21% of the then global population (of about 6.8 billion), or around 700 million to 1.4 billion people, contracted the illness—more in absolute terms than the Spanish flu pandemic. Actual fatalities ranged between 12,000 to 18,000. However, 9 members of the CDC estimated 150,000–575,000 possible fatalities worldwide.” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine_influenza )You absolute dolt... we can’t make driving illegal. Even doing so for a week would lead to innumerable deaths. No doctors driving to hospitals? Genius!
It is irrefutably a “necessary evil” with no possible alternative. And no end. Driving, that is.
This virus will EVENTUALLY fade out, treatments will eventually be more figured out and available, vaccines will be made, etc. Then of course we return to normal. Car accidents are not the same thing, at all. It’s not like we’re a few months out from eradicating car accidents, or making them so much less deadly and we just need to try to wait it out until we’re prepared. It’s apples to oranges man. No, that’s not showing how entirely unalike the two things you’re comparing are; it’s apples and battleships.
This.I actually agree with your point that this pandemic isn’t exactly analogous to car accidents in that eventually they will figure out a cure in the form of vaccines, however it is similar to car accidents in a way as new pandemics and viruses will keep reoccurring so do we keep shutting off the economy every time? For example Swine Flu, “It is estimated that in the 2009 flu pandemic11–21% of the then global population (of about 6.8 billion), or around 700 million to 1.4 billion people, contracted the illness—more in absolute terms than the Spanish flu pandemic. Actual fatalities ranged between 12,000 to 18,000. However, 9 members of the CDC estimated 150,000–575,000 possible fatalities worldwide.” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine_influenza )
9 members of the CDC estimated 150,000 to 575,000 possible fatalities from Swine Flu, but we didn’t stop everything back then.
The mortality rate of the swine flu is depending on what source you ask as I cited 9 members of the CDC estimated 150,000 to 575,000 possible fatalities from Swine Flu, but most put it at 12,000 to 18, 000.This.
The mortality rate in H1N1 (Swine Flu) was .02%
The mortality rate in SARS2 or Covid-19 is far more. 2.5% in the US.
Video Comparison of (Spanish Flu v. Swin Flu v. Covid-19)
Swine flu vs. coronavirus: COVID-19 death rate is the difference
“The challenge with COVID-19 is we are all eligible to get sick and spread the disease all at the same time.”www.wwltv.com
H1N1 flu vs. COVID-19: Comparing pandemics and the response
The year was 2009, and the pandemic was caused by a strain of influenza known as swine flu, then H1N1. But similarities to the current virus outbreak end there.medicalxpress.com
How does the COVID-19 pandemic compare to the last pandemic?
There are some key differences between the 2009 swine flu and COVID-19, and the response to each of them.www.livescience.com
And we know if we allow it to run rampant and uncontrolled, it will overwhelm hospitals, we won’t have sufficient capacity, and mortality rates will skyrocket. That’s the whole point of flattening the curve. Making it so we don’t have as many cases at one time, and that we buy more time to get the proper equipment, and better knowledge of how to treat the virus.The mortality rate of the swine flu is depending on what source you ask as I cited 9 members of the CDC estimated 150,000 to 575,000 possible fatalities from Swine Flu, but most put it at 12,000 to 18, 000.
The mortality rate of Corona will be coming down drastically in the US as more and more people are tested. The initial mortality rates were artificially inflated as actual testing was very low and limited.. Finally, many may have Corona and never have symptoms and therefore never be tested, thus this would bring down the mortality rate of Corona even further if we tested everyone. The truth is nobody actually knows with certainty an actual mortality rate of Corona. We do know however initial mortality rates for Corona have been being revised downward as testing has expanded.