QuoteQuoteQuote
how? by saying the wrong thing to some clown at a DZ with a gun?
Are you seriously that stupid or do you just like to play one here???
Aw c'mon--there's no sense at getting worked up.
Walt
are personal attacks allowed on here now?
________________________________________
drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police
drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
how? by saying the wrong thing to some clown at a DZ with a gun?
Are you seriously that stupid or do you just like to play one here???
Aw c'mon--there's no sense at getting worked up.
Walt
are personal attacks allowed on here now?
I'm sure they're not, but they may be cutting some slack in cases where it was provoked.
While I thought the, "...saying the wrong thing to some clown at a DZ with a gun?", comment was just kind of silly, I can really understand how it could provoke someone--especially an American who believes in gun rights.
In the US, gun owners (and I am a gun owner and NRA member), are constantly being attacked in the media and our right to own firearms is constantly under attack.
Any comment suggesting that a skydiver who believes in gun rights is a foaming-at-the-mouth hot-head who would murder someone for "saying the wrong thing" can really be abrasive to someone whose nerves are already raw from the attacks by media.
While the comment would not generate a personal attack from me, I'd have a hard time finding fault with anyone for having a much less laid back attitude about it.
Let me take it a bit further. No matter how the media portrays US gun owners, nearly all gun owners in this country are *very* law abiding citizens who are the polar opposite of criminals. I don't know if it is most, but certainly a significant portion of the gun violence in this country is committed by convicted felons, who cannot legally own a firearm under any circumstances. Putting a law abiding citizen who owns guns in the same category really is pretty insulting.
Imagine making the comment that Saddam, if found innocent and released, might be killed within a week if he said the wrong thing to a black guy.
While that might be true (depending on the black guy, I suppose), the comment implies that black men have inherently murderous attitudes. In any case, you could expect quite a barrage of nasty remarks for making the comment.
Make all the provoking comments you want--it doesn't bother me at all--but don't be surprised if you get some really strong reactions.
Walt
I heard that the problem with gun owners was not them challenging the gangs on the streets or in bank robberie, no one thinks that all NRA members are just gun freaks, but that must of the deaths or wounds from these guns owned by loyal and honnest citizens are acidental and in their own family ... almost never a bad boy killed by the good citizen defending his family.
Richard
QuoteI heard that the problem with gun owners was not them challenging the gangs on the streets or in bank robberie, no one thinks that all NRA members are just gun freaks, but that must of the deaths or wounds from these guns owned by loyal and honnest citizens are acidental and in their own family ... almost never a bad boy killed by the good citizen defending his family.
I don't know--I've never heard that one.
From one web page:
The National Safety Council analyzed the most recent death certificate data (1997), and found that there were 95,644 total unintentional-injury deaths of which 981 (1.0%) were due to unintentional firearms injuries. For children under 5 years old, there were 20 unintentional firearms deaths which accounted for 0.7% of all unintentional-injury deaths in that age group. Among those 5 to 9 years old, there were 28 unintentional firearms deaths; 1.8% of all unintentional-injury deaths. For 10 to 14 year olds, 94 unintentional firearms deaths were 5.1% of total unintentional-injury deaths. And for older teens, 15-19 years old, there were 164 unintentional firearms deaths; 2.5% of all unintentional-injury deaths.
By contrast, I find a statistic here that claims that:
More than 1500 children die in the United States each year from drowning.
I can't veryify the validity of these statistics, but let's say they are somewhere in the ballpark. Clearly, accidental drowning is a greater risk than accidental shooting for children. Why is there no outcry against swimming pools?
I think the reason is obvious. From a media standpoint, accidental drowning is just not as sensational as an accidental shooting.
One thing that is just as obvious to me is that the people who scream about accidental shootings of children don't give two shits about the dead children. If so, they would be focusing on swimming pools. The screaming about guns killing children is a smokescreen for their real agenda, which is the elimination of guns.
Walt
don't misunderstand me, I am not challenging a type of death vs another. I am sure that it's statistically far more dangerous to let the children swimm in the pool.
I just read that those weapons in the families almost never defends the family from an outer attack but are involved in accidental injuries in the family.
So lets rather put it that way: accident in the family vs real defending action. Is there any statistics from the police deps ?
I just read that those weapons in the families almost never defends the family from an outer attack but are involved in accidental injuries in the family.
So lets rather put it that way: accident in the family vs real defending action. Is there any statistics from the police deps ?
Richard
Quotedon't misunderstand me, I am not challenging a type of death vs another. I am sure that it's statistically far more dangerous to let the children swimm in the pool.
I just read that those weapons in the families almost never defends the family from an outer attack but are involved in accidental injuries in the family.
So lets rather put it that way: accident in the family vs real defending action. Is there any statistics from the police deps ?
I don't know, but if I can find 'em, I'll post 'em.
Walt
ltdiver 3
Well, he would not be considered a 'head of state' anymore, so EO 12333 would not longer apply. By law he would no longer be protected from assassination.
ltdiver
Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon
ltdiver
Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon
QuoteI heard that the problem with gun owners was not them challenging the gangs on the streets or in bank robberie, no one thinks that all NRA members are just gun freaks, but that must of the deaths or wounds from these guns owned by loyal and honnest citizens are acidental and in their own family ... almost never a bad boy killed by the good citizen defending his family.
This is a big thread drift. Richard, what you're talking about is the Kellerman 'study' concluding a gun owner is 43 times more likely to lose a loved one to that gun than a bad guy. It's propoganda material at best and you can find it debunked all over the net. (for starters, 39 of the 43 are suicides).
-----
Saddam won't be getting out of this one. Certainly he won't be given power back, or win some big settlement against the US. At best, and I don't think it's too unlikely, he will be exiled to another continent. Fair or not, losers don't win in court. Losers commit human rights violations. (in converse, winners of war never do).
billvon 2,396
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>One thing that is just as obvious to me is that the people who
>scream about accidental shootings of children don't give two shits
>about the dead children. If so, they would be focusing on swimming
>pools.
Well, not just swimming pools, but rivers, sewers, oceans etc. (Which in most areas of the US are still a lot more prevalent than swimming pools.)
I think most parents would have an equal response to a child who died because the next door neighbor had an open well with no cover on it vs. a child who died because the next door neighbor had a loaded .45 lying on the back deck. However, that parent is NOT going to have the same response to a child who discovers a river in the woods and dies while playing Tarzan over it. And the latter is a lot more common than the former.
>scream about accidental shootings of children don't give two shits
>about the dead children. If so, they would be focusing on swimming
>pools.
Well, not just swimming pools, but rivers, sewers, oceans etc. (Which in most areas of the US are still a lot more prevalent than swimming pools.)
I think most parents would have an equal response to a child who died because the next door neighbor had an open well with no cover on it vs. a child who died because the next door neighbor had a loaded .45 lying on the back deck. However, that parent is NOT going to have the same response to a child who discovers a river in the woods and dies while playing Tarzan over it. And the latter is a lot more common than the former.
Are you seriously that stupid or do you just like to play one here???
Aw c'mon--there's no sense at getting worked up.
Walt