Douva

Owning a firearm isn't about being safe. Safety is a relative term, and the truth is that nobody is ever absolutely safe. What owning a firearm does, besides offer the opportunity for recreation, is improve the owner's odds of survival in a number of scenarios. And THAT is why it's a constitutionally protected right. In some, but not in all scenarios, and taking a look at homicide rates, Americans are FAR more likely to be homicide victims or gun accident victims than residents of any western country where there are strict controls on guns. So overall, the risk is higher here. Because Americans will continue to own and drive cars, there will continue to be automotive accidents, but most Americans agree that the high number of automotive related deaths each year is an acceptable price to pay for the right to legally purchase and drive an automobile. If gun ownership came without cost, there would be no debate. The benefit of legalized gun ownership is not negated by that cost. Because people can legally purchase and own guns in America, there are going to be more accidental and criminal shootings each year than in the countries where citizens aren't allowed to legally purchase and own guns. Only those people shortsighted enough to see guns as nothing more than the vehicle by which those accidental and criminal shootings are actuated will see this as a reason to band the purchase and ownership of guns in America. I haven't argued for a ban, have I? I don't believe in banning cars or airplanes either, that is a silly strawman. I believe in the exercise of rights. I don't believe in people deluding themselves that owning guns makes the country safer - the data show very clearly that it doesn't. Did I say you argued for a ban on guns or cars? My previous post simply explained why the benefits of legalized gun ownership outweigh the costs, and it did a damn good job of it. By the way, you're not using the term "straw man" correctly. If my argument suggested you actually supported a ban on both guns and cars, and then I went on to defend automobile ownership, instead of gun ownership, THAT would be a straw man argument. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Owning a firearm isn't about being safe. Safety is a relative term, and the truth is that nobody is ever absolutely safe. What owning a firearm does, besides offer the opportunity for recreation, is improve the owner's odds of survival in a number of scenarios. And THAT is why it's a constitutionally protected right. In some, but not in all scenarios, and taking a look at homicide rates, Americans are FAR more likely to be homicide victims or gun accident victims than residents of any western country where there are strict controls on guns. So overall, the risk is higher here. Because Americans will continue to own and drive cars, there will continue to be automotive accidents, but most Americans agree that the high number of automotive related deaths each year is an acceptable price to pay for the right to legally purchase and drive an automobile. If gun ownership came without cost, there would be no debate. The benefit of legalized gun ownership is not negated by that cost. Because people can legally purchase and own guns in America, there are going to be more accidental and criminal shootings each year than in the countries where citizens aren't allowed to legally purchase and own guns. Only those people shortsighted enough to see guns as nothing more than the vehicle by which those accidental and criminal shootings are actuated will see this as a reason to band the purchase and ownership of guns in America. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Owning a firearm isn't about being safe. Safety is a relative term, and the truth is that nobody is ever absolutely safe. What owning a firearm does, besides offer the opportunity for recreation, is improve the owner's odds of survival in a number of scenarios. And THAT is why it's a constitutionally protected right. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

That's not a fair comment. It's an old rhetorical trick to "rebut" a position either labeling the position-holders, or resorting to ad-campaign type slogans. But that doesn't advance the discussion any. You know fully well that the US is a big country with many different sub-cultures often influenced, at least in part, by geography. To people who live in areas where gun ownership is not the norm, and who've never served in the military, and have never had firearms as part of their lives, gun ownership simply does not strike them as something all that necessary. They don't hunt or target-shoot either out of necessity or for recreation, and they may very well live and work in fairly low crime rate areas, so they don't perceive a need to have a weapon for self-protection. All they know is they turn on the TV news and hear about one inner-city gangbanger popping a cap into another one, in a bombed-out ghetto section of the city they'd never go into in a million years; and as far as they're concerned, the only people that have guns are street criminals and the police. To these folks, who have good intentions, lawful civilian gun ownership is rare and counter-intuitive. Another group that must be considered are people who live in poor, urban areas that are like war zones where children get shot in the crossfire every day by gangbangers. The only non-human wildlife where these people live are birds and rodents. These people will never hunt for food or recreationally in a million years. All they know is that they're sick of living where the bullets are always flying, and teenagers are always dying. These folks, who have good intentions, absolutely despise guns. They don't fear them; they despise them. There's a difference. The converse to this is people from areas of the country where civilian gun ownership, and hunting, etc. are a common and fiercely-protected part of the subculture. To these folks, who have good intentions, lawful civilian gun ownership is as normal, common and part of their culture as ownership of a car or TV. There are also, believe it or not, a lot of people who have very mixed feelings on the issue. The Great Middle is often so un-acknowledged in any debate. Whether one side or the other is right or wrong is aside from the particular point I'm making right now. I find that a lot of the debate over gun ownership in the US is driven by culture, with "the issues" being more a smokescreen – used by both sides to mask the cultural debate. Wow, Andy, you and I just made posts offering the exact same position on the issue. We should start a movement. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I agree with you but I will also counter that point by saying that the pro-gun lobby is also driven by fear. The conspiracy theories that pro-gun types spew out reek of paranoia. I am not bashing gun owners as I fully support the right of individuals to own firearms but both sides of the debate tend to be run by extremists. I believe the difference between both sides is primarily a cultural difference. The anti-gun lobby is driven by people who grew up only knowing guns as weapons of violence. Most of the supporters of the pro-gun lobby grew up knowing guns simply as tools present in their day-to-day lives. The anti-gun lobby sees the pro-gun lobby as promoting weapons of violence, and the pro-gun lobby sees the anti-gun lobby as trying to take away one of the tools on which they rely. Both sides are driven by fear; though, the pro-gun lobby's fear may be more founded in fact. Like many other misguided, liberty threatening movements throughout history, the anti-gun lobby is driven primarily by people who fear what they do not understand. Compared to other causes of death, both natural and unnatural, the number of gun deaths in America is relatively low. It's even lower when you count only homicides and accidental deaths, discounting suicides, which account for about 50% of all gun related deaths in America. Contrary to what much of the world, including many Americans, seem to believe, American streets are not plagued by constant shootouts. We don't see movements--at least not of this magnitude--to ban things like cigarettes and cars because those things are understood by most people and/or considered important tools. The problem is that the supporters of the anti-gun lobby don't understand guns and gun owners and don't see guns as important tools. Most people who support strict gun control have never needed or owned a gun and don't understand why anyone, outside of law enforcement and military personnel, would or should need or own a gun. They see gun ownership as a frivolous luxury that costs lives. They see guns as weapons of violence with absolutely no redeeming value. They believe that the banning of guns to save a handful of lives each year is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, they fail to see the big picture because, as stated in my previous post, they are basing this decision on the known and not the unknown. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I started writing this as a response to a few comments in the air rifle thread, but it eventually got long enough that I decided to start a new thread with it. In my mind, the question of gun ownership is much larger than defending oneself against common criminals or having the ability engage in recreational hunting. Firearms are a survival tool, and to remove that tool from the hands of citizens is to handicap those citizens and impair their ability to handle situations that both they and the government may not currently envision. We could go back and forth all day, debating who needs guns and who doesn't, but the fact of the matter is that we'd be discussing it in the context of the known, not the unknown. There is a huge difference between being paranoid and being prepared, and preparing oneself for the unknown should never be casually dismissed as paranoia. By telling its citizens that they do not need and cannot own guns, a government is promising that it will always be ready, willing, and able to defend their lives, liberty, and property. I don't have enough confidence in any government to accept that promise. If tomorrow there is an earthquake or a hurricane or if, God forbid, the nuclear bombs start falling, is the government going to protect each survivor? Is it going to defend each person's food supply? Is it going to protect each citizen from looters? Is it going to defend each woman from the predators and rapists seeking to take advantage of the situation? Is it going to hunt wild game for starving families when supply lines are cut off? Is it ALWAYS going to be there when it is needed? Anyone who believes unquestioningly that their government will always be there for them, in every situation, needs to take a long, hard look at history, particularly recent history, and then they need to wake up to reality. More than likely, I'll go through my entire life without ever pointing a gun at another human being and without ever hunting game for survival, but until my government can indisputably guarantee me that outcome, I'll be hanging onto my firearms. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I've been skeptical of this film since I first heard about it, but that trailer actually has me intrigued. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Really? Name three risks that exist now that didn't exist when you were a kid. I wasn't saying there are (I thought the italics and emoticon would indicate my sarcasm in the last post.) My point with that is many parents these days worry about their kid getting hurt on a playground. So physical activities are reduced, lest there be a chance of the kids getting an owwy. Case in point is the recent school ban of "tag" in many schools, because kids may get hurt. When I first read about this in the local paper, the next page had an article on how kids need more physical exercise, such as *gasp* more running around! My mistake. I didn't catch the sarcasm. I've heard several people make comments in these forums lately about how much more dangerous it is for kids these days and how it's no longer safe for kids to roam free outside, the way they once could. Such statements are completely unsupported by the facts. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

the bottom line is that you have two theories; one is the official story that planes+fire brought down the towers, the other is it was controlled demolition. forget about the implications for a while (which is what makes most conspiracy nuts latch onto the idea of controlled demolition) and just see which theory better fits the data. The conspiracy theory: -Requires us to believe that many people are capable of keeping a very big secret. -Requires us to discount the evidence of the highjackings, such as passenger phone calls, little black boxes, reports from airport personnel, etc. -Requires us to believe that the media is covering up the truth about the highjackers still being alive. -Requires us to believe that countless experts and officials could be duped into giving false testimony. -Requires us to believe that our government is secretly much more competent than they've ever let on. and then theres the official story which is corroborated by everyone except a handful of "flat earthers." I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

This is the kind of half-truths on which conspiracy theories thrive. According to the Wikipedia article posted by idrankwhat, in 2001 Marvin Bush wasn't even a share holder in the company that provided security for the World Trade Center. But in the mind of a conspiracy theorist, the fact that he was once a director for that company is as good as a home movie of a second gunman on the grassy knoll. By simply playing six degrees of separation, you can tie pretty much anyone to any incident. It's really not hard. Just keep singing to yourself, "It's a small world after all." I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

People believe conspiracy theories because they don't want to believe life is as fragile and random as it is. They want to believe that western societies have evolved beyond the uncertainty that has plagued all life on this planet since the beginning of time. They think that our modern, enlightened, tech savvy, first world countries should be impervious to things like presidential assassinations and terrorist attacks. They think we would be impervious to those things if it weren't for conspiracies by corrupt governments. On September 10, 2001, many citizens of the free world were in denial of the fragility and uncertainty of life. The people spouting this 9/11 conspiracy theory rhetoric are the ones who refuse to let go of that erroneous belief. Every time there is a terrorist attack or a hurricane or anything like that, you hear the same baseless cries of outrage: "This only happened because someone at the top let it happen." The truth is, shit happens, and a lot of people simply refuse to accept that. Sometimes in life, a little rain must fall. Anyone who thinks he or she is going to get through life without ever getting wet is a fool. Anyone who doesn't keep an umbrella nearby is a bigger fool. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Is anybody else amused that somebody still bought the photos? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Really? Name three risks that exist now that didn't exist when you were a kid. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

It's funny how this doesn't seem to be a major problem here in the states, where both firearms and air rifles are everywhere. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the age limit has been raised, I know that when I was younger, you only had to be 16 to walk into a Wal-Mart and buy an air rifle. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Yeah, rich people can't have real relationships. Who do they think they're kidding? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I forgot about the flat lead weights. Those are a good option also. If your kids aren't interested in winning, as you said, they will have more room to get creative with their designs. I was in a church based clone of Scouts, so I don't know the exact BSA rules, but I know we were allowed to put men in our cars if we wanted to. One guy even had a troll doll nailed to the top of his. I don't think he won any races, but he did win a prize for the most creative design. Depending on the designs your kids choose, you might want to pick up a miter box for making some of the initial cuts. Does anybody know where we could get our hands on a pinewood derby track? That would be an awesome gimmick for a boogie--Everybody builds and brings their own cars for a pinewood derby. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Also, your answers have to be typed exactly the same way you typed them originally. I always find myself wondering, "Did I spell out 'Junior High' or abbreviate it as 'Jr. High?'" I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Here are a couple of tips from my own experience: 1. Simple, aerodynamic designs usually work best. Getting fancy won't accomplish anything, so you don't need a scroll saw or anything like that. You can cut a nice aerodynamic wedge shape with a hand saw, but you'll need a vice or clamps to hold the wood stable while you cut it. 2. Instead of hollowing out the car and pour in molten lead like most people do, you can get closer to the maximum weight, without going over, by drilling holes in the car and hammering in small, lead fishing weights. You'll need to use a small scale, such as you might use for weight food items or chemicals, to continually check the car's weight until you have it exactly right. 3. The success of the car will hinge on the wheels. You want them to spin very smoothly but not have any play in them. You should be able to give them one quick spin with a finger and watch them continue spinning for a couple of seconds without any further input. When you look at the wheels, they should spin smoothly on their axis without any wobbling. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I don't know what elementary physical education classes are like on your side of the pond or if they even exist, but when I was in elementary school here in the U.S., the classes didn't really teach much about physical fitness. We learned about various sports, practiced square dancing, and took the annual President's Physical Fitness Test. I think one smart idea for both U.S. and U.K. schools would be to teach kids WHY they should exercise and HOW they should exercise. In two weeks, my gym will be packed with people whose New Years resolution is to get in shape. In six weeks, my gym will be back to its normal pace--Most of the New Years resolution crowd will have given up. They'll give up because they haven't built a lifestyle of exercising regularly, and they don't know how to exercise properly. To them, that two or three weeks of gym visits will feel like pure torture. This wouldn't be the case if they'd built a lifestyle of working out, when they were young, and learned years ago how to exercise properly. We need to educate kids that the point of exercise isn't to look like you belong on a magazine cover; the point is to maintain one's health. Keeping body fat at a healthy level is one aspect of maintaining one's health through exercise, and not looking like a fat tub of lard is simply one of the benefits of that. Many people of all ages look at exercises as something you do to get skinny. They never worry about exercising until they're already fat; then they start into it with one foot in a hole. It's a lot easier to stay in shape than it is to get back into shape. For most people, if they don't feel any skinnier after a few weeks of exercise, they quit. They give little or no thought to the other physical benefits they may have gained from exercising. To them it's all about the fat. The other key element is diet, but I really think that issue is being tackled head-on by Western society. I know schools here in America are starting to remove soda and candy machines from the lunch rooms and to revamp lunch menus to provide healthier meals. Beyond that, diet is really the parents' responsibility--Kids do most of their eating outside of school. Moms and dads need to start watching those after school snacks and dinner entrees a little more closely. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Your whole point about trying to look cool was utter nonsense. Somewhere in your seventy jumps, you had somebody make a crack to you that they were disregarding recommended safety procedures because they wanted to "look cool." What does that have to do with this discussion of these climbers? It certainly doesn't indicate any kind of prevailing or even common attitude among skydivers or extreme/technical athletes as a whole. I've known skydivers who jumped unsafe, outdated gear, but I'm not going to conclude from that that there's a good chance these climbers might have been using unsafe, outdated gear, because the vast majority of climbers DON'T use unsafe, outdated gear. Throwing out silly, improbable "what ifs" is pointless and borderline childish. Your assertion that I criticized you to try to look cool was well over the borderline. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Are you fucking kidding me? What kind of immature, halfwit morons are you jumping out of airplanes with? I suppose if you looked hard enough you might find some guy who thinks reserve chutes are for pussies, but just because you found him wouldn't mean you should start speaking of such behavior as if it's commonplace. You're honestly suggesting there are many skydivers who walk to the plane with their chest straps undone, refuse to put on their helmets in the plane, and don't jump with cypresses because they think those things aren't cool? Give me a break. Jumpers walk to the plane with undone chest straps for a variety of reasons, ranging from being in too big a hurry to wanting to route the chest strap through their camera helmet chin cup before takeoff. Jumpers who don't put on their helmets for takeoff usually do so because wearing a helmet in the plane is uncomfortable. And people who jump without cypresses usually can't afford one or have some sort of issue with the possibility of taking some of the control of the skydive out of their own hands. To attribute this behavior to wanting to "look cool" is silly and naive. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I'm Gonzo, because I'm weird. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

From reading Wikipedia, I've learned that there is also a colossal squid, which is larger than the giant squid. There are some very cool pictures on THIS page. Apparently it's the colossal squid which has hooks in its suction cups, not the giant squid. Peter Benchley got it wrong in his book Beast. Tell me those hook covered tentacles won't give you nightmares. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I don't consider myself a Christian, but I will defend the Left Behind series of books by saying that although they're the most poorly written novels I've ever read, they have nothing to do with eradicating atheists or killing people for being non-believers. And from what I understand, neither does the video game. Both are about the struggle between the Christians and the army of the Antichrist that many Christians believe will occur in the "last days." I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Boris Berezovsky is a lot more than Putin's rival. Paul Klebnikov, the Russian journalist who was assassinated a couple of years ago, wrote an interesting book about him titled Godfather of the Kremlin. It's a must read if you're interested in understanding what happened to Russian politics and the Russian economy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. On an interesting side note, I once had a Russian teacher who said Berezovsky was a friend of her family and that he even attended one of her birthday parties when she was a child. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.