DaVinci

Playing the player and not the ball I see. I believe that IS the point of this thread. It's precisely what you've done with ChrisD, yet, he's far more qualified than yourself since he at least has the courage to identify who he is rather than hide like a coward behind anonymity. Ah, more personal attacks from you... It seems it is how you operate. Might want to read this: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1580205;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

I can see that, and he seems to employ it with great vigor.

And he never said he wanted to carry them all. Hence you tried to answer a question that was not asked. And I see you keep trying to play the player.

Playing the player and not the ball I see. Is this your standard MO? But maybe we should ask to see your qualifications to give 'expert' advice on firearms?

Yes reading is fundamental. I have provided the quote were he asked about keeping the single firearm in his car. Please provide the quote that supports your position and your claim that he wants to carry all of them.

1. It is not evasion if I answer your questions. 2. You need to read up a bit on supply and demand. Maybe start with something about Ford and work up to Adam Smith. But what you will find is you can't use the invisible hand if it is in handcuffs. And the ACA does not work for many young people who will be forced to pay higher premiums so a 25 year old single male can have maternity care.

The bomb placed at the Boston Bombing finish line was not too difficult to figure out. As for the information being 'restricted', I very much doubt that engineers are not allowed to learn the mathematical formulas in school. I know plenty of construction guys that could point out the weak points in buildings even without doing the math.

Where have I given technical advice here?

He was presenting a false dilemma. There were more options that he gave and you will notice the options he gave were only beneficial to his point of view. And if we allowed competition (point one I made) and had a published billed rate for services (point number two), then people would be more likely to get care sooner instead of waiting for it to become an emergency.

Lower the cost to entry and you would see more people with insurance. Simply supply and demand in action. I answered his question. You don't like the answer and that is not my fault. He was using A false dilemma fallacy. You are now attacking me because... well, I can only guess because it is your style.

I read some of your posts. You gave bad advice about recurrent jumping. When that was pointed out with a reference to the actual SIM, you ignored it and continued acting like an expert. It also seems that one of the people you were disagreeing with was actually an instructor and one that was familiar with the student program that was being discussed. How do you figure a guy without a rating and was shown to be wrong in the SIM knows more than a guy that provided the SIM as proof and is an instructor in the very school being talked about?

According to some reports you have only a B and no instructional ratings at all. If you are giving a review of a movie, no. But if you are trying to give skydiving advice, then yes your experience matters. Bollocks. Most people are interested in making sure only those with real knowledge and experience give technical advice. Do you have a tandem rating (I know the answer). If not, then you might want to not comment on how difficult it can be. Chap, you do not have ANY ratings. So maybe you should not give skydiving advice and you should not be commenting on "the complexities of skydiving".

More lies, presented, as always, without any pretense of proof. Oh great arbitor of class Please tell us more You made the lying claim. You present a link, any link, to support your lie. And I stand by it And many here have posted agreement

Another sneaking into the house tragedy. If she had not tried to sneak in, nothing would of happened. If there was not a gun he might have bashed her head in with a bat.

Yes, because the ghost of Emmett Till implores it to be. That's the short version. As a society, we either get it or we don't. I've lost patience with repeating the long version. I fear the ghosts of our past prevent us from embracing the future. Those who fail to learn from the ghosts of the past are condemned to rot in the past. Those who focus on the ghosts of the past will see the ghosts everywhere they look.

And you can't make that claim based on anything else but speculation on fairy dust. Most muggers 'interview' a target before they approach. They then use a distraction technique to close the distance (maybe by asking if you have 'change for a 20?'). Your lack of criminals is only seconded by your lack of firearms knowledge and desire to make up data. Look in a mirror: You started it with "This does not mean that banning guns in the US is a logical conclusion from that, so you can unwad your panties." So yeah, you are making up conclusions and when you are called on it throwing insults.

Reading is fundamental: "But since I will keep the .40 in my car I wanted to know if any of you have experience with biometric or fingerprint trigger locks and if you have any recommendations, and also if you have any recommendations for a holster for fitting my pistol in my car" He asked about a single weapon. And the safest place to carry that single weapon. And the answer to that question is on your person.

And your opinion is based on nothing. You are avoiding at least 4 other topics that have an influence. "Twenty-nine per cent of Canadian homes possess an estimated total of nine million firearms. Other authorities insist that even this figure is too low, and that there is at least twenty million firearms in Canada. The UN reported that Canada ranks third among the developed western countries (behind the United States and Norway) in the civilian ownership of firearms. Canadians own nearly as many rifles as Americans." http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/tenmyths.html So your opinion does not really jive with the facts. And simple logic could also say that if you think I am armed you are less likely to try and rob me. So much for "simple logic" if it cuts both ways. Maybe you should quit talking out of your ass then?

Again, look at the statistics. You have to nit pick English and French as different. In the US we have both English and French ancestry as well, but it all falls under "white". And you agreed that pot is not a big deal in Canada. It was with him to you put yourself into it.

My family discussed it.... We all thought the ACA was crap. We covered gun control also. This was a bit more debated. Weaver or isosceles stance: Which gives more control?

FALSE. I could build a bomb with the stuff most people have in their homes faster than you could go buy a gun.... And you can thank the US Military for that, but the information is on the internet and any fool with the power of Google can find it.

Well it seems he might of been planning this for a while.... You know since he bought the weapon a week in advance and more ammo the night before.... So that is not exactly an *Impulse* shooting. Neither was VT, Columnine, Sandy Hook, the Navy Yard, Giffords shooter..... Well, you should get the point.

It is also the most effective defensive weapon. But you seemed to skip over how this criminal also brought fire bombs with him.

Your example is flawed. You present ONLY the options you want to be considered, and yet there are other options available. You are missing the: 1. Allow insurance companies to compete across State lines. This will increase competition and increased competition leads to lower prices. 2. Have a published billed rate for services. So the individual can shop around. You would not go to a car dealer and just walk in and buy a car without looking at a price... Why should your medical care be different? So your question was incomplete.... Might be why people didn't bother to answer it.

Some time back in this thread (post 117) I responded to Kennedy, and asked the following question. He never responded, which suggests he had perhaps not really thought through the implications of his position on the matter. Perhaps you can do better: "So, which do you find least offensive (given that there are no perfect options)? 1. Everybody gets medical care for injury or severe illness, and the bill run up by the uninsured largely gets shifted to those with insurance (i.e. the system in place up until the ACA, and apparently still preferred by the GOP). 2. Nobody gets treated, ever, no matter how dire their circumstances, until they prove adequate insurance coverage or they pay in advance. This will, of course, require hospitals to literally refuse treatment to people and send them home, sometimes to die, untreated. This will also necessitate that people with communicable diseases such as TB either be allowed to walk around in public, exposing us all to disease, or require the law to confine those people. But at least you (and I) won't have to pay a dime for those slackers! 3. Require everybody to be insured. I'd be OK with exempting people who could post a bond sufficient to pay for any care out of pocket, say $500,000 or so. Which one would be your preference?" Don Remarkable how a straightforward question causes all the right wing types to disappear. To tough a question for y'all? I hope everybody has a fun and safe Christmas, and that no-one ends up needing that health insurance they thought they didn't need. Best wishes to all! Don Some of us have lives to live, jobs, and holidays.