tkhayes

I fail to understand why it is important at all - I hope americans aren't voting based on whether or not someone served in the military exclusively and/or whether that service was 'honorable' or whatever you want to argue it is or is not. I would hope americans are going to vote based on their judgement of the candidates and whether they can run the country.

Our Annual Screw Rantoul Party this weekend at Z-Hills. Since we usually have Wednesday Night cookouts, we decided to make it Saturday instead, everyone is away. Bring a dish if you can, we will toss some burgers and such on the BBQ and have a bit of our own fun Hope to see you there - supposed to be a great weekend for weather! TK

I had to 'reel it in' at Skydive City a few years back. Some staff started askign for tips, and I thought that was crude - they did not since scuba operations do it all the time. We met halfway. Posted around the dropzone, signs say something like: TIPPING: There is no set standard for tipping in skydiving. Instructors are paid for what they do, but like any service industry, if you feel you received great service, then you may tip. It is not expected, but it is appreciated. Since that time, we do see more tips, anywhere from $5 to $20 seems to be the norm, $50 once in a while. TK

http://www.nrdc.org/ only started to look into them, seems like they have a lot to say about those very issues.

correction - MOST of the GA airports are loose. It is sill yto say that we can even control it.

Please check the 'reality' of your story He was shot in the vestibule of his own apartment, not on the street. No such thing is said in any of the stories or court documents published regarding the case. No I cannot prove it. Can you prove that he did not? Can you prove that bullet holes in the bottom of his feet were "defensive shots?" If he was 'fetal' and in fear as you describe, then surely they were out of danger, if only for a moment, so they could reassess the 'threat' to themselves. No, they continued to shoot until the 'threat' as they saw it was removed. Sadly the law allows this. This only supports the argument of this entire thread - that excessive force is acceptable, as long as I think I am still threatened. And I still may not be held accountable for it. His family got $3M, the guy picking beetles has just as much right to compensation since we need to remind the police in those situations that there are other outcomes possible. A valid scenario. Would I shoot? If I was a trained cop in today's environment, believing what you appear to believe? - yes, probably But in a world of MY ideology, in MY perfect world with a culture that shares MY belief structures, I might not think that the guy has a gun, because guns are heavily restricted. and it would be odd for someone to be driving around with a gun in their back pocket. I might get shot, but I might not. There are too many possible outcomes other than shooting even in your scenario. Step back and draw; run and take cover and draw; put your gun in his ear before he gets to do anything; all the time issuing verbal commands as you would be trained to do; not really enough information to say one way or the other. TK

You make a statement and I provide numbers to defend my position, You nay-say that, then say you made a mistake. I again provide more numbers to to back my position and the answer to the question that you asked in the first place. Now you change the question - sounds like evasion of the issue to me. Dodge, change, deflect and change the issue - did you work for GWB sometime? (sorry had to get that in there.....) I have spent an incredible amount of time researching this and providing pretty accurate numbers to support my claims. I am tired, and made my case, if you want to change the question everytime I answer it, then I guess this could go forever. I will sleep tonight knowing that I made a good case here. At least Ron and I came to some common ground on the issue some 100 posts ago. Cannot please everyone I guess. TK

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap this is getting pretty funny, thanks for helping me make my point. murder rates: Canada has 0.01/1000 people, USA is 0.04/1000 people, i just showed the stats that show Canada has approxiamtely 1/4 of the guns per capita that the USA has. Can I rest my case now on that point? TK

I quoted 3 sources that back my definition, please quote some sources that back yours as to why guns were designed and developed in the first place. I never said any such thing I agree, and the fact that there are too many guns is at least part of that problem, hence the debate that we are having. I agree, but I also know that guns have been used unnecessarily in too many cases as well. While it may be the 'ultimate self defense weapon' and preferred for most people, innocent dead people have rights as well. Dead is dead, right or wrong, and unnecessary force is generally frowned upon by the same society that promotes gun ownership. But we do not appear to be doing anything about it insofar as guns go. Funny that someone mentioned the Eddie Eagle program from the NRA as a good solution. I have been in the USA for 9 years now and have never heard of this program, even though I am news-hungry, seek out what is going on and consider myself to be active in the community. When I see the NRA speaking on TV, I never see such programs brought to the forefront. So again, i wonder why the NRA, if they want to meet their goals, do not promote some sort of mandatory training for gun owners as an everyday part of American gun-ownership. Looked all over the NRA website for their burget - could not find it. I wonder if they spend more on lobbying rights than promoting safety programs. TK

The only thing done in all the scenarios by the 'victim' was 'fuck off and 'a shove'. I do not think that in 8-9-10 that I would be charged with ANYTHING. The assault started with a shove, then a punch, and nothing was done on my part beyond that to 'participate' The situation is valid. No, but if they take a swing at me..... Wait, do I really need to write down the 10 escalating scenarios for the 'traffic scenario with a baseball bat' to make my point? I can if you wish, but it is getting to be a waste of my time. In the scenarios I stated, it seems arguable that I 'participated' in the escalating scenario at all. TK

Back that up please.... I read that the USA has 250,000,000 firearms. almost one per capita. I read that Canada has between 7 and 11 million, about 1 to every 3-4 capita. http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/GunsinCanada.htm At least I try to put up my sources. TK

I already answered that. Fewer, means fewer. I highly doubt that the odds of being murdered would stay the same - do YOU really believe that it would? Can you support that with anything other than a gut feel? According to NSC, 11 people died in 2000 on 3 wheeled ATV's, whereas hundreds died in previous years when they were legal. So I do actually have some indication that removing the 'tool' will reduce the percentage. Not by six-fold, but certainly reduced. TK

There is no such contradiction. The stats are what they are. Sure more murder would happen with other objects if there were no guns, but I believe that 'fewer' means 'fewer' and 'none' means 'none'. The rates of firearm murder would undoubtedly drop. Are you advocating that the murder rate would stay the same in the USA with no guns? Murder rates are higher in the USA than other 'unarmed countries' That was stated earlier in the posts. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap We are #24, but none of the countries we like to compare ourselves to in the gun debate (like, the UK, Canada, Japan, etc) are anywhere near our murder rate) TK

No I would not, but I did state that I am 6 times more likely to be killed by a gun that other sharp object - NSC stats. TK

Puh-lease yourself..... it is a real-life example - let me expand. Here are several scenarios to someone cutting in line (anywhere): 1. He says fuck you and you say fuck you 2. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you 3. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you AND you shove back and he hits you in the face 4. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you AND you shove back and he hits you in the face AND you go down and he kicks you while you are down 5. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you AND you shove back and he hits you in the face AND you go down and he kicks you while you are down AND you now see that he has a gun in his waist 6. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you AND you shove back and he hits you in the face AND you go down and he kicks you while you are down AND you now see that he has a gun in his waist AND he pulls the gun holding it over his head. 7. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you AND you shove back and he hits you in the face AND you go down and he kicks you while you are down AND you now see that he has a gun in his waist AND he pulls the gun holding it over his head AND he turns to the crowd behind him, yells "get back!" and fires a round into the air. 8. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you AND you shove back and he hits you in the face AND you go down and he kicks you while you are down AND you now see that he has a gun in his waist AND he pulls the gun and points it at you. 9. He says fuck you and you say fuck you AND he shoves you AND you shove back and he hits you in the face AND you go down and he kicks you while you are down AND you now see that he has a gun in his waist AND he pulls the gun and points it at you and fires. 10. He shoots you in the back of the head after the first 'fuck you'. My point is that you and other gun-totin' citizens will react differently in each of those scenarios. Ask yourself in which scenario would you shoot. Now ask other people and watch the 'bell curve' take shape. Up to scenario #6 and even possibly scenario #7, your life may not have been in danger, the guy may himself been acting in 'self-defense' and been trying to diffuse the situation using his legally owned firearm to do so. Back to my other related comment about a normal man, legally carrying a gun that may have had a bad day. Sure in 8, 9 or 10, I would justify my OWN reasons to shoot if I had a gun. But some people would shoot at 3, 4 or 5. What would improve the number of people killed in such a scenario? Certainly the 'ideology' about no guns. But more likely the idea of mandatory training, along the lines of not just how to shoot, but when to use the gun and under what circumstances. same example for car accidents, bar fights, other social confrontations that we have every day. BUT, if he has a gun, and if you had one in that scenario, then both of you had it for one reason. To defend yourself and the possibility that you might have to kill someone with it. Supporting my reasoning that guns were designed to kill. TK PS. I did not appreciate the comments earlier about the NYPD being pigs. Sorry, I have not gotten back that far in the posts yet. I have a lot of appreciation for someone who is paid to take a bullet and stop crime for less money than I am making.

Ahem, I think I did advocate a change in the laws and I never said to ban guns. See previous statements about my 'ideology' i·de·ol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-l-j, d-) n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system. Completely valid as I have stated before: Someone called it a fantasy: fan·ta·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnt-s, -z) n. pl. fan·ta·sies The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy. See Synonyms at imagination. Something, such as an invention, that is a creation of the fancy. A capricious or fantastic idea; a conceit. Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements. An example of such fiction. An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need. An unrealistic or improbable supposition. Music. See fantasia. A coin issued especially by a questionable authority and not intended for use as currency. Obsolete. A hallucination. An example of a 'fantasy' might be expecting a large magnet to suck up all the guns in the country. The ideology is valid care to comment? Except that someone added the word 'trivial' which I did not use. I love it when people change my words, then try to use them against me. Please try to keep up yourself. The Constitution that you so staunchly defend also allows provisions for separation of powers and the ability for states, cities, and counties to make their own decisions on many matters. Hence the gun ban in DC may very well be totally Constitutional as a 'local need'. TK

I actually did not say that, nor do I advocate it, but it is still an ideology. Actually some dropzones do ban hook turns, and we most certainly have gone out of our way to CHANGE the sport with more training and knowledge and minimum requirements to do hook turns. Do we have a 'parachute problem' in skydiving? Yes, and I think people will agree, because we have so many fatalieis related to that. Do we have a 'gun problem' in the USA? Yes we do for the same reason. I am all for it - TK

I will re-state that the gun has a purpose of killing - I said it before and I will say it again - http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.silcom.com/%257Evikman/isles/scriptorium/firearm/handgonn.html where they refer to its usage in battle, and http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/tw_57x28system.htm where they discuss piercing body armor and soft tissue, and http://www.civil-defence.org/english/history/history.html where they discuss the history in terms of military and warfare, whith only half of one sentence mentioning 'sport'. The gun is used relatively little compared to the uses of the other products that you state, so the stats are skewed quite a bit. Not sure where you got those numbers, but they are 10 years old. More current data is at NSC's website http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm and if you search you can find 2000 and 1999 as well. I am more 6 times more likely to be assaulted and killed by a gun that other sharp object. That supports your need for a gun, sure, But it also supports an argument to try and ban all guns. Not that I am advocating that. But the well-respected survey that says Americans use guns 2.4 Million times a year to defend themselves has also been widely criticized http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm with many flaws in the way and manner in which the data was collected. Burglar breaks into my house, I confront them and they run - I defended myself. Burglar breaks into my house, I pick up my gun and they run, now I defended myself from a life-threatening situation using my gun - therfore I need to keep one. Logic is flawed to say that a gun was 'required' to defend myself in that situation. again, I bring up the taser, pepper spray and a dog - many other non-lethal forms of defending yourself. TK

I asked earlier, but did not receive the definition of 'violent crime'. I am sure that it varies from country to country, as do the way that the stats are collected and measured. So I doubt that we can accurately compare one country to another and blanket say that it does not work. One thing that we do know for sure is that more people die in the USA due to the use of firearms. We also know that we have more firearms than similar countries. Simple comparison, simple results Fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. No guns, no gun deaths Before you get all bent - I am not and have not advocated a gun ban in any of my posts. I have stated an ideology that "If there were no handguns, then no onecould be killed by a handgun" TK

And using your 'facts about Washington', other large cities that allow people to carry guns, should have drastically lower crime rates since the criminals all know that everyone out there could be carrying, right? But they do not in fact. Criminals, even if you are carrying, will simply target someone else. Few crimes are random I think - most are opportunity and are sought out. Professional burglars do not break into my house because I have dogs. They will take the neighbor's house because they do not (and for many other reasons as well) TK

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying - just like I would not expect a skydiver who had not jumped in 10 years to be able to properly react to an emergency. Nor would I expect a pilot do recover from or react to an in-air emergency after 10 years of no flight. The skydiver could jump yes, the pilot could fly, yes. The driver could drive, yes. But react properly in an emergency? I doubt it very much. Training has been my argument from the beginning of this thread - perhaps you missed that, so I will state it again. Could they shoot a gun? Yes, easily. Could they shoot it properly in a crisis sitation? I doubt - we are afterall talking about a dire, life threatening emergency right? Self defense is YOUR arguement, not mine. I am all for more training for police as well, and I NEVER suggested we take their guns away, nor that they do not need them. I am talking about average joe american who currently has the right to buy that gun, stick in their nightstand drawer and leave it there for 10 years. TK

Actually not apples and oranges at all. Not only did I talk about product safety recalls, I also mentioned NEW REGS, which seem to regularly go into place for other products, but not for guns. (seatbelt legislation, banned products, minimum standards for swimming pools and such) As I have stated earlier, the bucket has other uses - and it has never (OK maybe not never, but seldom, if ever) used as a murder weapon or a suicide. It does cause accidental deaths, but it is also used plenty more for it's intended use than a gun is for its intended use (self defense). More people die in car accidents, because more man-hours are spent in cars driving, than are spent with guns in self defense. Don't get me wrong, i am all for improvements with cars and driving as well. And buckets and swimming pools too. Actually I suggested twice that the NRA should be doing that if they are so adept at it. Is such legislation being lobbied by the NRA at this time? No. That is part of the hypocracy that I see with the organization. Their true intents are not what they would like us to believe they are. I do too - but my point was - if a better tool came along - one that does not cause death, would you be willing to trade in your gun for that? Would you be willing to amend the constitution to reflect such a change? Taser was just a suggestion.... I realize they are not perfect. Maybe if we all had tasers - more of the 'criminals' that we need to defend ourselves from would be wearing heavy leather coats in case they got hit. In Florida - that would make them easier to identify and therefore more information to 'assess' the risk to my life, my family and my property. TK

Were YOU not paying attention? - you can still get a gun in all those cities and places..... as stated earlier. It is just more difficult. Except DC, where it is banned - but it seems that it is being challenged (your rights under the laws that you so staunchly defend) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71750,00.html I expect that DC has a different reason for wanting that - ie. Nations' capital vs. just trying to reduce crime. Just like no-fly zones and such. Still paranoid I think but WHATEVER..... I tried to find some stats about 'accidental death' by firearms, but the NSC and other sites mostly use state-level numbers, so my work is not yet done. I expect that while the murder rate in DC may be high (as it is in other cities), I expect that the accidental shooting rate is very low compared to similar cities. TK

The Diallo debate is a whole other thread and I would hope that it would not expand here in this debate, but Kallend's point is very valid. The police said that reaching for his wallet, their lives were in danger. I wonder if they asked him for ID at his door when they knocked - probably why he went for his wallet. You and others have the right to 'remove the threat' when confronted with one. The officers threat was probably removed after the first couple rounds when he fell down. Shots fired after re-assessing the threat are arguably an 'execution'. 41 rounds, 19 hits, some of them in the bottom of his feet. You quote the legal definition of the word 'execution' when the context in which Kallend used it is a common use of the word everyday to describe an unnecessary death/murder (i.e a mob hit would be described as an execution, but does not fit your legal description either). The definition one way or the other does not actually change the arguement or the point that he is making. Murder would have been a better description. Sadly, they were acquitted. In your 'wallet, walllet, wallet' scenario, you still may very well have been shot, simply because they thought your wallet was something else. The point is still made and you have helped to make it. It appears that at least some part of society thinks that it is OK to shoot me with a knife, a wallet, a cell phone, or some other unidentified object in my hand, AS LONG AS they feel their life is in danger. When in fact their/your life is NOT IN FACT in any danger, and the fact that you do not know that at that time, simply makes you ignorant of that fact, but not justified in taking someone's life for it. (in my opinion) You suggested in the 'other' thread that perhaps we should change the laws - I am all for it - part of what I said time and time again - make people responsible for the action of shooting someone, even in self defense. If you shoot someone coming at you with a gun/knife, then fine. If you shoot someone coming at you with a cell phone (or reaching for a wallet), then you go to jail. Sounds pretty fair and accountable to me. I think I will write my congressman today. But in our current society, we do not see that happening, we mostly call them 'unfortunate accidents' TK

read my post #31, GWB lied and has caused the deaths of thousands of people. There is a difference. Some of the film is somewhat misleading - I am sure that some of it is not true. I am just as sure that a lot of it IS in fact, true. ALL of what GWB said about WMD's and the reasons to go to war is a complete lie.