|
TV or Sig Sauer? Who cares?
On 8/14/12 1:24 PM, JustWait wrote:
That's what gets me about progressives. They can't see anybody having needs or ever rights that stretch beyond what they find necessary for their own personal existence... I know a person in DC that's always espousing the bad points of owning an automobile. As if they don't understand that I don't live where everything I need in life is within walking distance. Oh yeah, almost forgot... When they do need a car, they just put the plastic in a machine and drive off with a rental called a zip-car... LOL! I guess it's ok to use a car that is used almost 24 7, as long as you don't own it:) A. You have no idea what a "progressive" is. It's just a phrase you've been spoon-fed to mean someone or something "evil." Virtually everything in society that provides you and your family with a better life is a result of what "progressives" have done for you. B. Individuals who are progressives have widely varying viewpoints and your view of how they view the needs and rights of others is just your usual mound of befuddled dog****. C. Zip Cars are popular among those whose need for a car is minimal or infrequent. Almost every post of yours reveals your ignorance and stupidity. -- I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country. |
TV or Sig Sauer? Who cares?
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:15:53 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:01:36 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 8/14/12 11:59 AM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:19:35 -0700, jps wrote: On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:50:02 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:55:31 -0700, jps wrote: Had a gun, Earl. Decided I didn't want it around in the same house as my children. I hope you also filled in your pool. (the leading cause of child death in the US) Greg, a pool in the Pacific NW doesn't make much sense. My kids play soccer, I have the medical bills to prove it. I hope you don't take them there in your car. Child death in motor vehicle accidents are 30-50 times as likely as a firearm accident. (according to CDC) Oh, please...you are making no sense at all anymore on this issue. JP is the one who said her got rid of his gun because it was a perceived hazard to his kids. I am simply pointing out where the real accident hazards are. (and the leading cause of deaths are accidents) From 1-4 the biggest hazard is drowning. From 5-24 it is motor vehicle accidents in every 5 year cohort by a long shot. 25-34 it is "poisoning" which I assume is CDC speak for drug overdose. Yikes. We use a car every single day. In fact, several times a day. We don't use it to blast holes in things, we use it to get from one location to another. A gun would be locked away someplace safe and rarely, if ever brought out. The hazard is in someone getting a hold of the combination or the safe itself. You might have noticed that kids can be clever, ingenious and incredibly stupid. Thieves don't care if a gun is dangerous, they're going to steal it if available. How you can equate the two is beyond foolish - a tool of the simple minded who do not understand corollation doesn't equal causation. I don't think that's you but you're willing to use this lazy simplemindedness in lieu of an actual argument. |
TV or Sig Sauer? Who cares?
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:42:44 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:05:47 -0700, jps wrote: On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:15:53 -0400, wrote: JP is the one who said her got rid of his gun because it was a perceived hazard to his kids. I am simply pointing out where the real accident hazards are. (and the leading cause of deaths are accidents) From 1-4 the biggest hazard is drowning. From 5-24 it is motor vehicle accidents in every 5 year cohort by a long shot. 25-34 it is "poisoning" which I assume is CDC speak for drug overdose. Yikes. We use a car every single day. In fact, several times a day. We don't use it to blast holes in things, we use it to get from one location to another. You are confusing relative danger with frequency of use. In fact if your gun really was locked up it would be far less dangerous than a car you use every day. If you got rid of your gun because you knew you would never use it, that is the perfect reason, just don't start waving the safety flag. A gun would be locked away someplace safe and rarely, if ever brought out. The hazard is in someone getting a hold of the combination or the safe itself. You might have noticed that kids can be clever, ingenious and incredibly stupid. Thieves don't care if a gun is dangerous, they're going to steal it if available. How you can equate the two is beyond foolish - a tool of the simple minded who do not understand corollation doesn't equal causation. I don't think that's you but you're willing to use this lazy simplemindedness in lieu of an actual argument. I am simply looking at what kills kids (according to CDC) and that seemed to be what you were arguing. If you don't want a pool, don't build one. If you don't want gun, don't own one. For that matter there are plenty of big city people who choose not to own a car. I am not making you do any of them but some of us do want these things and we take the responsibility to own them safely, as the vast majority of gun owners do. There are plenty of people driving who shouldn't and plenty of people owning guns who shouldn't. Guns are designed to kill things, cars are designed to transport people and dogs (sometimes on the rooftop). |
TV or Sig Sauer? Who cares?
In article ,
says... On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:42:44 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:05:47 -0700, jps wrote: On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:15:53 -0400, wrote: JP is the one who said her got rid of his gun because it was a perceived hazard to his kids. I am simply pointing out where the real accident hazards are. (and the leading cause of deaths are accidents) From 1-4 the biggest hazard is drowning. From 5-24 it is motor vehicle accidents in every 5 year cohort by a long shot. 25-34 it is "poisoning" which I assume is CDC speak for drug overdose. Yikes. We use a car every single day. In fact, several times a day. We don't use it to blast holes in things, we use it to get from one location to another. You are confusing relative danger with frequency of use. In fact if your gun really was locked up it would be far less dangerous than a car you use every day. If you got rid of your gun because you knew you would never use it, that is the perfect reason, just don't start waving the safety flag. A gun would be locked away someplace safe and rarely, if ever brought out. The hazard is in someone getting a hold of the combination or the safe itself. You might have noticed that kids can be clever, ingenious and incredibly stupid. Thieves don't care if a gun is dangerous, they're going to steal it if available. How you can equate the two is beyond foolish - a tool of the simple minded who do not understand corollation doesn't equal causation. I don't think that's you but you're willing to use this lazy simplemindedness in lieu of an actual argument. I am simply looking at what kills kids (according to CDC) and that seemed to be what you were arguing. If you don't want a pool, don't build one. If you don't want gun, don't own one. For that matter there are plenty of big city people who choose not to own a car. I am not making you do any of them but some of us do want these things and we take the responsibility to own them safely, as the vast majority of gun owners do. There are plenty of people driving who shouldn't and plenty of people owning guns who shouldn't. Guns are designed to kill things, cars are designed to transport people and dogs (sometimes on the rooftop). You trust strangers not to kill you every day. Each time you drive on an undivided roadway. |
TV or Sig Sauer? Who cares?
|
TV or Sig Sauer? Who cares?
On Aug 14, 5:30*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:55:00 -0700, jps wrote: I am simply looking at what kills kids (according to CDC) and that seemed to be what you were arguing. If you don't want a pool, don't build one. If you don't want gun, don't own one. For that matter there are plenty of big city people who choose not to own a car. I am not making you do any of them but some of us do want these things and we take the responsibility to own them safely, as the vast majority of gun owners do. There are plenty of people driving who shouldn't and plenty of people owning guns who shouldn't. Guns are designed to kill things, cars are designed to transport people and dogs (sometimes on the rooftop). So this is just about hating guns, it is not really about what kills the most people. OK. I have a skeet gun that was designed to break clay targets and 3 target guns that are specifically designed to poke holes in paper. I guess you are OK with them? I will assume killing animals is as bad as killing people in your mind so I won't talk about the ones I have that were designed for hunting. At this point my guns are mostly an investment. The more they restrict sales the better it is for me. The open question is whether you really want to drive the sale of a couple hundred million guns into the black market by making them "illegal" *to sell openly Hey Greg. Speaking of rifles designed to poke holes through a paper target. my cousin has our great-grandfathers Belgium made "Flaubert" (Flobert) .22 rifle. It takes a single .22 'CB cap' round. - a .22 short only shorter by about half. So short there's hardly a grain of powder in them. I actually think that the rim-fired priming is actually the propellant for the bullet. While the British were throwing darts in their pubs. The other Europeans had shooting galleries in their taverns. The cartridge is so weak a pump .177 pellet rifle would just about put it to shame. They used to use these in carnival galleries as well. (after they bent the sights, of course!) |
TV or Sig Sauer? Who cares?
In article ,
says... In article , says... On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:42:44 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:05:47 -0700, jps wrote: On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:15:53 -0400, wrote: JP is the one who said her got rid of his gun because it was a perceived hazard to his kids. I am simply pointing out where the real accident hazards are. (and the leading cause of deaths are accidents) From 1-4 the biggest hazard is drowning. From 5-24 it is motor vehicle accidents in every 5 year cohort by a long shot. 25-34 it is "poisoning" which I assume is CDC speak for drug overdose. Yikes. We use a car every single day. In fact, several times a day. We don't use it to blast holes in things, we use it to get from one location to another. You are confusing relative danger with frequency of use. In fact if your gun really was locked up it would be far less dangerous than a car you use every day. If you got rid of your gun because you knew you would never use it, that is the perfect reason, just don't start waving the safety flag. A gun would be locked away someplace safe and rarely, if ever brought out. The hazard is in someone getting a hold of the combination or the safe itself. You might have noticed that kids can be clever, ingenious and incredibly stupid. Thieves don't care if a gun is dangerous, they're going to steal it if available. How you can equate the two is beyond foolish - a tool of the simple minded who do not understand corollation doesn't equal causation. I don't think that's you but you're willing to use this lazy simplemindedness in lieu of an actual argument. I am simply looking at what kills kids (according to CDC) and that seemed to be what you were arguing. If you don't want a pool, don't build one. If you don't want gun, don't own one. For that matter there are plenty of big city people who choose not to own a car. I am not making you do any of them but some of us do want these things and we take the responsibility to own them safely, as the vast majority of gun owners do. There are plenty of people driving who shouldn't and plenty of people owning guns who shouldn't. Guns are designed to kill things, cars are designed to transport people and dogs (sometimes on the rooftop). You trust strangers not to kill you every day. Each time you drive on an undivided roadway. The point you don't understand or comprehend is that guns are made to KILL. Cars are not. As a matter of fact there are a lot of safety devices in a car that are there just to protect you from being killed. |
TV or Sig Sauer? Who cares?
On 8/15/2012 8:44 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... In article , says... On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:42:44 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:05:47 -0700, jps wrote: On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:15:53 -0400, wrote: JP is the one who said her got rid of his gun because it was a perceived hazard to his kids. I am simply pointing out where the real accident hazards are. (and the leading cause of deaths are accidents) From 1-4 the biggest hazard is drowning. From 5-24 it is motor vehicle accidents in every 5 year cohort by a long shot. 25-34 it is "poisoning" which I assume is CDC speak for drug overdose. Yikes. We use a car every single day. In fact, several times a day. We don't use it to blast holes in things, we use it to get from one location to another. You are confusing relative danger with frequency of use. In fact if your gun really was locked up it would be far less dangerous than a car you use every day. If you got rid of your gun because you knew you would never use it, that is the perfect reason, just don't start waving the safety flag. A gun would be locked away someplace safe and rarely, if ever brought out. The hazard is in someone getting a hold of the combination or the safe itself. You might have noticed that kids can be clever, ingenious and incredibly stupid. Thieves don't care if a gun is dangerous, they're going to steal it if available. How you can equate the two is beyond foolish - a tool of the simple minded who do not understand corollation doesn't equal causation. I don't think that's you but you're willing to use this lazy simplemindedness in lieu of an actual argument. I am simply looking at what kills kids (according to CDC) and that seemed to be what you were arguing. If you don't want a pool, don't build one. If you don't want gun, don't own one. For that matter there are plenty of big city people who choose not to own a car. I am not making you do any of them but some of us do want these things and we take the responsibility to own them safely, as the vast majority of gun owners do. There are plenty of people driving who shouldn't and plenty of people owning guns who shouldn't. Guns are designed to kill things, cars are designed to transport people and dogs (sometimes on the rooftop). You trust strangers not to kill you every day. Each time you drive on an undivided roadway. The point you don't understand or comprehend is that guns are made to KILL. Cars are not. As a matter of fact there are a lot of safety devices in a car that are there just to protect you from being killed. Harry has shot off thousands of bullets From umpteen guns. AFAIK he hasn't managed to kill anything. Are his guns all defective? |
TV or Sig Sauer? Who cares?
In article m,
says... On 8/15/2012 8:44 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:42:44 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:05:47 -0700, jps wrote: On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:15:53 -0400, wrote: JP is the one who said her got rid of his gun because it was a perceived hazard to his kids. I am simply pointing out where the real accident hazards are. (and the leading cause of deaths are accidents) From 1-4 the biggest hazard is drowning. From 5-24 it is motor vehicle accidents in every 5 year cohort by a long shot. 25-34 it is "poisoning" which I assume is CDC speak for drug overdose. Yikes. We use a car every single day. In fact, several times a day. We don't use it to blast holes in things, we use it to get from one location to another. You are confusing relative danger with frequency of use. In fact if your gun really was locked up it would be far less dangerous than a car you use every day. If you got rid of your gun because you knew you would never use it, that is the perfect reason, just don't start waving the safety flag. A gun would be locked away someplace safe and rarely, if ever brought out. The hazard is in someone getting a hold of the combination or the safe itself. You might have noticed that kids can be clever, ingenious and incredibly stupid. Thieves don't care if a gun is dangerous, they're going to steal it if available. How you can equate the two is beyond foolish - a tool of the simple minded who do not understand corollation doesn't equal causation. I don't think that's you but you're willing to use this lazy simplemindedness in lieu of an actual argument. I am simply looking at what kills kids (according to CDC) and that seemed to be what you were arguing. If you don't want a pool, don't build one. If you don't want gun, don't own one. For that matter there are plenty of big city people who choose not to own a car. I am not making you do any of them but some of us do want these things and we take the responsibility to own them safely, as the vast majority of gun owners do. There are plenty of people driving who shouldn't and plenty of people owning guns who shouldn't. Guns are designed to kill things, cars are designed to transport people and dogs (sometimes on the rooftop). You trust strangers not to kill you every day. Each time you drive on an undivided roadway. The point you don't understand or comprehend is that guns are made to KILL. Cars are not. As a matter of fact there are a lot of safety devices in a car that are there just to protect you from being killed. Harry has shot off thousands of bullets From umpteen guns. AFAIK he hasn't managed to kill anything. Are his guns all defective? WHOOOOSH....... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com