OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 May, 2010 10:54 pm
@maporsche,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Interesting that as the driver, you had your window closed but the other open for ventilation.
This is the opposite of what most people would do in the car.
maporsche wrote:
That may be the opposite of what most people would do. But it is also something that I do. I don't like the sound of wind passing by my ears while driving. I'll frequently drive around with the back and passenger windows open and the drivers window's closed. Or with just the back windows open. Or with just the passenger window open. The drivers window is the last window I open in my car, and usually I'll turn on the AC rather than open that window.

I specifically traded in my last car for one with automatic windows, specifically for this reason.


Sorry for taking this off topic; I just found it interesting that you posted this and it was something I thought about very recently.
Over the years, I 've had particulate dirt hit me in the eye from the left, if that window is open.
I don 't wanna get hit in the face with the wind.





David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 10:57 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
I once found the statistic for how much more danger you're in from just having a gun around the house, let alone carrying one around with you.

A member of your household is many times more likely to get shot by the gun (by accident or by it being used in a domestic dispute), than for it to be successfully used in stopping a crime.


That is because domestic violence is more common than breaking and entering (with or without a gun).

It does not mean that guns increase the chances of a homicide. It is just presented by the freedom haters in a manner that makes it appear that way.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 10:58 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Maybe, but the anti-self defense crowd is well known for fraudulently misleading statistics.
There was even a scandal in a prominent MEDICAL journal, that published a junk science article.
(I 'm not going to track it down; too much trouble.)


Yes. The freedom haters are quite adept at making stats appear to say things that are untrue.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 11:00 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Let's say you are jogging in the park. Thirty or so Ninjas come out of the nearest stand of trees, brandishing swords, nun chucks and letter openers. Do you want A. David's howitzer with you, or B. a hippy flower. Remember, this is sure to happen sooner or later. You must decide.


A. Howitzer.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 11:02 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
One more thought... my intent in this post was not to question your driving story, but to suggest that in a heavily armed population, there would be significantly more cases of rage type gun violence. While some people are capable of using guns safely and appropriately, there are many who will not be able to achieve that and I can easily back that up just with a simple Internet search. How will giving random otherwise law abiding citizens on the street the means to go postal at any moment make us more safe? That plus distorting our view of what is safe and what isn't doesn't seem like a benefit to me.


In the 40 or so states that have decided to let people carry guns in public if they choose, there has not been any spike in such rage shootings.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 11:04 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
You miss the point (perhaps intentionally). While you can easily posit cases of people being injured or dying because of the lack of an overpowering means of self defense, I can point to plenty of real cases where people were injured or died because a gun was present. Do you take great satisfaction that a young woman was killed because her cousin did not like her choice of Easter attire? You wave this off saying that the perpetrator was a nut case and should be shipped out of the country, but the reality is that without the casual presence of a gun this death would not have occurred. Without a gun near to hand, that engineer would not have shot that cell phone using lady. You can correctly blame the engineer and hold him accountable for his actions, but you also have to recognize that if his gun had not been right at hand, he'd have likely just driven by, maybe flipping her off. My statement is that the overall health of the entire population is improved by less guns, not more.


I don't see how the presence of the gun resulted in the deaths. Enraged people are often able to kill people without guns.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 11:30 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
You have a chance of struggling if your attacker has a knife. You have a chance of running. None of these are options if your opponent has a gun.


Running and struggling are most certainly options if facing a gun.

And if facing a knife, both running and struggling have the potential to result in an unhappy ending.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 11:31 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
Do you take great satisfaction that a young woman was killed because her cousin did not like her choice of Easter attire?


Your link said it was because of the misdirected attentions of a husband. It was a fight.


It was a fight when the victim was leaving the house and had already got in her car? Do you not believe that no gun -> no death?


It still could have resulted in a death without a gun. What if the had smashed the windshield with a baseball bat, rendering the car undrivable. And then proceeded to bludgeon the victim to death with that same baseball bat.



engineer wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
You wave this off saying that the perpetrator was a nut case and should be shipped out of the country, but the reality is that without the casual presence of a gun this death would not have occurred.


As an engineer, u must understand the error of making overbroad assumptions; u mean to tell us that before guns were invented, fighting people did not kill one another??


No, I'm saying that the ability to resort to very cheap, lethal force very easily means that fighting people have a much greater chance of killing people.


I don't see how guns increase the chances all that much.

Last I looked at the stats, there didn't seem to be much correlation between gun availability and homicide rates.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 11:32 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
One more comment: From the tone of my posts, someone might think I advocate complete gun control. That's not the case. I respect the Constitutional right to bear arms, but I also support common sense restrictions. I think licenses with mandatory training in firearms use should be required. I think concealed carry should be very restricted; if someone in the room has the means to kill me and those around me very quickly, I should be able to see the threat. I support tracking gun sales so that weapons used in crimes can be tracked back to their points of origin and so conduits of weapons going to criminals can be identified.


If concealed carry were to be restricted, open carry would have to be allowed.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 11:32 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Guns are safe. Yep.

Police academy instructor shoots self during gun demonstration

Quote:
LIBERTY TWP. " A police academy instructor accidentally shot himself Friday night, April 9, during a gun demonstration in front of police recruits.

Robert J. Stewart, 55, was demonstrating the use of a 9mm Smith & Wesson semiautomatic pistol at about 7:51 p.m. at the firing range when he shot himself in the upper right thigh in front of 24 recruits and several instructors at Butler Tech’s Public Safety Education Center, said Butler County Sheriff’s Sgt. Chuck Laymon.

Stewart, of Bethel, was transported by a Liberty Twp. life squad to Atrium Medical Center in Middletown, where he was treated and released late Friday night.

“He seems to be in good spirits, but he’s just a little embarrassed,” Laymon said. “People ask how these things happen, but this goes to show you that if you get complacent or get in a hurry accidents can happen.”

...


Reminds me of the way the people in charge of nuclear safety procedures managed to get themselves killed after WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 11:34 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
OmSigDavid wrote:
I cannot see licensing people's right to self defense from predatory violence, an inalienable right.


Do you approve of banning gun sales to violent criminals and psychotics? If so, how would you implement the ban without licenses?


Instant background checks on gun sales?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 12:08 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Most people aren't accurate beyond a few feet with a handgun.


That statement has bullshit for logic. Most people killed by handguns are within that range. You cant outrun a bullet though I would like to see you try.


No need to outrun a bullet that misses you.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 12:09 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/129130078330247893.jpg


A good argument for having a holstered .44 magnum on your person at all times.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 12:09 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
I am responding to your month old post, the second on this thread, in which you refer to the fact that a gun may create more danger.

I heartily agree.


You are wrong.



plainoldme wrote:
My daughter-in-law is tiny: five feet tall and weighing in at 90 pounds. She says what happens if someone breaks into your house when you are sleeping or in the basement doing the laundry? Do you say, "Excuse me. I need to go get my gun."


I don't see why the gun is not on her when she is doing laundry.



plainoldme wrote:
She's right.

Guns are pointless.


Nope. Even if there are some situations were a gun wouldn't help, that does not in any way nullify all those situations where the gun does help.



plainoldme wrote:
Sane, well-balanced individuals do not fear the bogeyman.


Nonsense. Refusing to be a helpless prey animal does not mean you are not sane or well- balanced.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 04:54 am
I think orally is a sock puppet.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 04:57 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
I think orally is a sock puppet.
It is ODD that u advocate that predatory violence shoud be met with docile helplessness, Plain.





David
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 05:10 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
I think orally is a sock puppet.


Do you even know what the term means?

Anyway, nope. I'm just a freedom-loving American.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 07:24 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Another non sequitur
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 07:24 am
@oralloy,
Freedom lovers detest guns
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 12:06 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
Freedom lovers detest guns


Nope. It is the freedom haters who don't like guns.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
CO gun-grabbers go down in flames in recall - Discussion by gungasnake
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/25/2022 at 04:48:38