On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:21:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

This is rec.boats...rationality among the righties here in firearms
does not exist. Go play with your toy airplanes.

===

Funny stuff, Harry the self proclaimed gun nut arguing against gun
ownership. If he were really into statistics he'd analyze the
demographics of where these gun murders were occurring, and how many
of them were drug gang related.

He can't do that. It would be bordering on racism.


My comment was on the absurdity and inanity of trying to make some sort
of meaningful comparison between the number of car deaths and gun deaths.

===

Why is it absurd? They both kill a fair number of people. I'd
concede that the vast majority of car deaths are accidental but there
are quite a few gun accidents also. Someone pointed out that half of
gun deaths are suicides. So what? I think people should have the
right to terminate their lives. Subtract out the suicides and
subtract out the gang banger violence and what do you have left?
Certainly the mass murders which cause all of the media and political
hysteria are relatively small numbers.

On 2/19/15 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:37:11 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 2/19/15 1:56 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:30:42 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 2/18/15 5:52 PM, wrote:

How many people are killed by those guns sitting around doing nothing?

What I said only refers to the fact that most people killed in both
cases involve someone not following basic safety rules.

For the purposes of these discussions you really have to take suicide
out of the mix anyway. (more than half of firearm deaths) That is an
intentional act and people will find a way to do it. The Japanese
manage to have much higher rates and virtually none of them involve
firearms.


Murder with a firearm is not an intentional act?

Yup about 11,000 a year.
There are plenty of judges who will tell you that EVERY accident
involves someone breaking a traffic law and that is an intentional act
too. 43,000 times a year.

I suppose you could toss out the fraction of a percent that are bona
fide equipment failures but there are plenty of lawyers saying that
was an intentional act too.
How much is GM paying for the ignition switches?


The comparisons with car deaths is an absurdity anyone who has taken
college level stats and logic courses will see.

Only if you started with something else as your conclusion and tuned
your stats to prove it.


It's the premise that is absurd...and so anything built upon that
premise is also absurd.

Are you trying to say every firearm death is a crime and every car
death is an innocent accident that could not be avoided?

If not, why is it an absurd comparison?

Virtually every death in a car is a result of an illegal act.
(excessive speed, passing traffic control devices, inattention or
failure to yield right of way).


I am not saying anything more than what I posited, that the comparison
of firearms and auto deaths, other than the coincidental fact that the
same number of people die during the use of either, is absurd.

I am not talking "crime" or "innocent accident" or "illegal act." *You* are.

I don't know what the average "use period" of the "average car driver"
is on the "average day," but I'd guess there are tens of millions of car
drivers, perhaps a hundred million, who use their cars several hours
every day.

Most civilian gun owners, I would further posit, rarely use their guns,
and if they do for any period of time, it is for hunting. Most of the
time those guns are sitting unused in holsters, in drawers, in safes,
under the bed, et cetera. When they are used, it is for a very brief
period. And in that brief period, about as many people die from gunshot
wounds as people in car accidents who are in cars for at least an hour
and probably longer most days of the year.

The statistical comparisons that constantly get regurgitated by the gun
nuts in this instance are absurd.


--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On 2/19/15 1:31 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:49:33 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 2/19/15 6:44 AM, Stick Left-Steer Left wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:37:11 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 2/19/15 1:56 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:30:42 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 2/18/15 5:52 PM, wrote:

How many people are killed by those guns sitting around doing nothing?

What I said only refers to the fact that most people killed in both
cases involve someone not following basic safety rules.

For the purposes of these discussions you really have to take suicide
out of the mix anyway. (more than half of firearm deaths) That is an
intentional act and people will find a way to do it. The Japanese
manage to have much higher rates and virtually none of them involve
firearms.


Murder with a firearm is not an intentional act?

Yup about 11,000 a year.
There are plenty of judges who will tell you that EVERY accident
involves someone breaking a traffic law and that is an intentional act
too. 43,000 times a year.

I suppose you could toss out the fraction of a percent that are bona
fide equipment failures but there are plenty of lawyers saying that
was an intentional act too.
How much is GM paying for the ignition switches?


The comparisons with car deaths is an absurdity anyone who has taken
college level stats and logic courses will see.

Only if you started with something else as your conclusion and tuned
your stats to prove it.


It's the premise that is absurd...and so anything built upon that
premise is also absurd.

yawn...


You lost again, Krause.


This is rec.boats...rationality among the righties here in firearms
does not exist. Go play with your toy airplanes.

Yell us again about your gun harry. It seems to be your only interest
beyond working.


I don't discuss my work or most of my non-work interests here in
rec.boats. What's the point?

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On 2/19/15 1:38 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:48:29 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:


Why is it absurd? They both kill a fair number of people. I'd
concede that the vast majority of car deaths are accidental ...

If you ever spent much time in traffic court you would hear the judge
say every "accident" was the result of an illegal act.


So, you spend a lot of time in traffic court? Why is that?

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:02:52 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:28:54 -0800, jps wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:09:24 -0500, wrote:


There is a common thread in all of these things. Basic safety rules
were ignored.

Human beings cannot remain vigilant when an item they're in contact
with on a daily basis becomes just another thing in their lives. Any
complacency or familiarity comes with a high price.

I guess that is why cars kill so many people.

True, but cars serve many purposes and return immense value in doing
so. Not so with a gun.

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:34:07 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:47:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 2/19/15 1:31 PM, wrote:

Yell us again about your gun harry. It seems to be your only interest
beyond working.


I don't discuss my work or most of my non-work interests here in
rec.boats. What's the point?

Then why all of the gun stories? It is ironic that you seem to be the
most committed gun nut here and you are arguing how dangerous they
are. Considering the one you brag about the most was designed as an
implement of war to kill as many people as possible in the shortest
amount of time, your rage against the gun seems disingenuous at best.

You have to admit, Krause, he makes a damn good point there!
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:02:39 -0800, jps wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:02:52 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:28:54 -0800, jps wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:09:24 -0500, wrote:


There is a common thread in all of these things. Basic safety rules
were ignored.

Human beings cannot remain vigilant when an item they're in contact
with on a daily basis becomes just another thing in their lives. Any
complacency or familiarity comes with a high price.

I guess that is why cars kill so many people.

True, but cars serve many purposes and return immense value in doing
so. Not so with a gun.

Your opinion. How many people will global warming kill, and what part do automobiles
play in same?
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

On 2/19/15 2:34 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:47:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 2/19/15 1:31 PM, wrote:

Yell us again about your gun harry. It seems to be your only interest
beyond working.


I don't discuss my work or most of my non-work interests here in
rec.boats. What's the point?

Then why all of the gun stories? It is ironic that you seem to be the
most committed gun nut here and you are arguing how dangerous they
are. Considering the one you brag about the most was designed as an
implement of war to kill as many people as possible in the shortest
amount of time, your rage against the gun seems disingenuous at best.


My recognition and appreciation of the fact that firearms are inherently
dangerous qualifies me as a gun owner and hobbyist, n'est-ce pas?

I'm hardly a gun nut. I believe the current interpretation of the 2nd
Amendment grossly and incorrectly states the position of the founders on
firearms. I think all firearms should be registered, that all sales
should have a paper trail, that all gun owners be qualified by mandatory
training, that all firearms should be kept away from minors. I suggest
that those who believe otherwise are the gun nuts. You, Herring, and
Wayne are the gun nuts.

I do own an AR-15 and aside from the fact it doesn't have an autofire
mode, it is pretty much the same as many that have been issued to
military personnel. I have disassembled the rifle down to the smallest
pin and spring, replaced some parts and reassembled it properly. I do
not strap it on and walk down the streets with it, nor would I wear it
into Target or a fast food restaurant. When I am not using it, it lives
in a safe. When I take it out of the safe, it is either to modify
something or to take it to the range. Hardly the behavior of a gun nut.

Oh, and if a kid takes a parent's gun to school and shoots people, I
think the kid's parents should face criminal penalties.

Hardly the position of a gun nut.

So, once again, you are wrong.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On 2/19/15 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:07:55 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 2/19/15 2:34 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:47:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 2/19/15 1:31 PM, wrote:

Yell us again about your gun harry. It seems to be your only interest
beyond working.


I don't discuss my work or most of my non-work interests here in
rec.boats. What's the point?

Then why all of the gun stories? It is ironic that you seem to be the
most committed gun nut here and you are arguing how dangerous they
are. Considering the one you brag about the most was designed as an
implement of war to kill as many people as possible in the shortest
amount of time, your rage against the gun seems disingenuous at best.


My recognition and appreciation of the fact that firearms are inherently
dangerous qualifies me as a gun owner and hobbyist, n'est-ce pas?

I'm hardly a gun nut. I believe the current interpretation of the 2nd
Amendment grossly and incorrectly states the position of the founders on
firearms. I think all firearms should be registered, that all sales
should have a paper trail, that all gun owners be qualified by mandatory
training, that all firearms should be kept away from minors. I suggest
that those who believe otherwise are the gun nuts. You, Herring, and
Wayne are the gun nuts.

I do own an AR-15 and aside from the fact it doesn't have an autofire
mode, it is pretty much the same as many that have been issued to
military personnel. I have disassembled the rifle down to the smallest
pin and spring, replaced some parts and reassembled it properly. I do
not strap it on and walk down the streets with it, nor would I wear it
into Target or a fast food restaurant. When I am not using it, it lives
in a safe. When I take it out of the safe, it is either to modify
something or to take it to the range. Hardly the behavior of a gun nut.

Oh, and if a kid takes a parent's gun to school and shoots people, I
think the kid's parents should face criminal penalties.

Hardly the position of a gun nut.

So, once again, you are wrong.

Un Huh.

You are certainly working overtime to rationalize your obsession with
your guns. Other than ad hominem attacks on other posters, it is the
only thing you talk about.


Well, this isn't a venue where I'd discuss anything of real significance
to me. Too many snarky assholes.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:23:28 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 2/19/15 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:07:55 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 2/19/15 2:34 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:47:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 2/19/15 1:31 PM, wrote:

Yell us again about your gun harry. It seems to be your only interest
beyond working.


I don't discuss my work or most of my non-work interests here in
rec.boats. What's the point?

Then why all of the gun stories? It is ironic that you seem to be the
most committed gun nut here and you are arguing how dangerous they
are. Considering the one you brag about the most was designed as an
implement of war to kill as many people as possible in the shortest
amount of time, your rage against the gun seems disingenuous at best.


My recognition and appreciation of the fact that firearms are inherently
dangerous qualifies me as a gun owner and hobbyist, n'est-ce pas?

I'm hardly a gun nut. I believe the current interpretation of the 2nd
Amendment grossly and incorrectly states the position of the founders on
firearms. I think all firearms should be registered, that all sales
should have a paper trail, that all gun owners be qualified by mandatory
training, that all firearms should be kept away from minors. I suggest
that those who believe otherwise are the gun nuts. You, Herring, and
Wayne are the gun nuts.

I do own an AR-15 and aside from the fact it doesn't have an autofire
mode, it is pretty much the same as many that have been issued to
military personnel. I have disassembled the rifle down to the smallest
pin and spring, replaced some parts and reassembled it properly. I do
not strap it on and walk down the streets with it, nor would I wear it
into Target or a fast food restaurant. When I am not using it, it lives
in a safe. When I take it out of the safe, it is either to modify
something or to take it to the range. Hardly the behavior of a gun nut.

Oh, and if a kid takes a parent's gun to school and shoots people, I
think the kid's parents should face criminal penalties.

Hardly the position of a gun nut.

So, once again, you are wrong.

Un Huh.

You are certainly working overtime to rationalize your obsession with
your guns. Other than ad hominem attacks on other posters, it is the
only thing you talk about.


Well, this isn't a venue where I'd discuss anything of real significance
to me. Too many snarky assholes.

There's a bozo with a bin called 'Bozo's Bin' into which the snarky folks could be
dumped. Then you'd just hear from those who love you, need you, and want you.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.