| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
On Fire for the Lord!
Law enforcement officials in Michigan said that they learned this week
that an elected Republican official who had recently shot herself to death had been adjusting her bra holster when the accident occurred. Earlier this year, St. Joseph Public Safety officers reported that 55-year-old Christina Bond had died on New Years Day from what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound to her eye. Although the full autopsy had not been completed, officials released new details on Wednesday. “She was having trouble adjusting her bra holster, couldn’t get it to fit the way she wanted it to. She was looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon,” St. Joseph Public Safety Director Mark Clapp said. According to an obituary published by Florin Funeral Service, Bond joined the U.S. Navy out of high school, and served two terms as an active Military Police. She was an administrator for the Road to Life Church, and an “active member of the Christian Motorcycle Association.” The obituary described Bond as being “on FIRE for the LORD.” Fired herself from life. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On 2/18/15 1:20 PM, jps wrote:
Law enforcement officials in Michigan said that they learned this week that an elected Republican official who had recently shot herself to death had been adjusting her bra holster when the accident occurred. Earlier this year, St. Joseph Public Safety officers reported that 55-year-old Christina Bond had died on New Years Day from what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound to her eye. Although the full autopsy had not been completed, officials released new details on Wednesday. “She was having trouble adjusting her bra holster, couldn’t get it to fit the way she wanted it to. She was looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon,” St. Joseph Public Safety Director Mark Clapp said. According to an obituary published by Florin Funeral Service, Bond joined the U.S. Navy out of high school, and served two terms as an active Military Police. She was an administrator for the Road to Life Church, and an “active member of the Christian Motorcycle Association.” The obituary described Bond as being “on FIRE for the LORD.” Fired herself from life. She was "looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon." If she could fire a gun simply by looking at it, she didn't really need a gun to defend herself. :) -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:34:06 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 2/18/15 1:20 PM, jps wrote: Law enforcement officials in Michigan said that they learned this week that an elected Republican official who had recently shot herself to death had been adjusting her bra holster when the accident occurred. Earlier this year, St. Joseph Public Safety officers reported that 55-year-old Christina Bond had died on New Years Day from what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound to her eye. Although the full autopsy had not been completed, officials released new details on Wednesday. “She was having trouble adjusting her bra holster, couldn’t get it to fit the way she wanted it to. She was looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon,” St. Joseph Public Safety Director Mark Clapp said. According to an obituary published by Florin Funeral Service, Bond joined the U.S. Navy out of high school, and served two terms as an active Military Police. She was an administrator for the Road to Life Church, and an “active member of the Christian Motorcycle Association.” The obituary described Bond as being “on FIRE for the LORD.” Fired herself from life. She was "looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon." If she could fire a gun simply by looking at it, she didn't really need a gun to defend herself. :) She was clearly a very capable person. But it's clear that the more time you spend with a weapon and the more you handle it, the more likely you'll be bitten by the odds of a mishap. The woman in Idaho is another example. Shot dead by her 3 year old. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:19:51 -0800, jps wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:34:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/18/15 1:20 PM, jps wrote: Law enforcement officials in Michigan said that they learned this week that an elected Republican official who had recently shot herself to death had been adjusting her bra holster when the accident occurred. Earlier this year, St. Joseph Public Safety officers reported that 55-year-old Christina Bond had died on New Years Day from what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound to her eye. Although the full autopsy had not been completed, officials released new details on Wednesday. “She was having trouble adjusting her bra holster, couldn’t get it to fit the way she wanted it to. She was looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon,” St. Joseph Public Safety Director Mark Clapp said. According to an obituary published by Florin Funeral Service, Bond joined the U.S. Navy out of high school, and served two terms as an active Military Police. She was an administrator for the Road to Life Church, and an “active member of the Christian Motorcycle Association.” The obituary described Bond as being “on FIRE for the LORD.” Fired herself from life. She was "looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon." If she could fire a gun simply by looking at it, she didn't really need a gun to defend herself. :) She was clearly a very capable person. But it's clear that the more time you spend with a weapon and the more you handle it, the more likely you'll be bitten by the odds of a mishap. Very astute observation. Reckon that's true of driving a car, flying, skiing, boating, and on and on. Life is a dangerous occupation, and we all lose. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:30:08 -0500, Stick Left-Steer Left
wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:19:51 -0800, jps wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:34:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/18/15 1:20 PM, jps wrote: Law enforcement officials in Michigan said that they learned this week that an elected Republican official who had recently shot herself to death had been adjusting her bra holster when the accident occurred. Earlier this year, St. Joseph Public Safety officers reported that 55-year-old Christina Bond had died on New Years Day from what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound to her eye. Although the full autopsy had not been completed, officials released new details on Wednesday. “She was having trouble adjusting her bra holster, couldn’t get it to fit the way she wanted it to. She was looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon,” St. Joseph Public Safety Director Mark Clapp said. According to an obituary published by Florin Funeral Service, Bond joined the U.S. Navy out of high school, and served two terms as an active Military Police. She was an administrator for the Road to Life Church, and an “active member of the Christian Motorcycle Association.” The obituary described Bond as being “on FIRE for the LORD.” Fired herself from life. She was "looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon." If she could fire a gun simply by looking at it, she didn't really need a gun to defend herself. :) She was clearly a very capable person. But it's clear that the more time you spend with a weapon and the more you handle it, the more likely you'll be bitten by the odds of a mishap. Very astute observation. Reckon that's true of driving a car, flying, skiing, boating, and on and on. Life is a dangerous occupation, and we all lose. Fortunately, all those other items provide something other than a quick death in their use. And please don't start with all the crimes thwarted. They've long been debunked as frighteningly overblown false positives. Plus, the variety of mishaps that occur with those other items are far less likely to be deadly than those that occur with a gun. |
On Fire for the Lord!
|
On Fire for the Lord!
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:27:29 -0800, jps wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:30:08 -0500, Stick Left-Steer Left wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:19:51 -0800, jps wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:34:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/18/15 1:20 PM, jps wrote: Law enforcement officials in Michigan said that they learned this week that an elected Republican official who had recently shot herself to death had been adjusting her bra holster when the accident occurred. Earlier this year, St. Joseph Public Safety officers reported that 55-year-old Christina Bond had died on New Years Day from what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound to her eye. Although the full autopsy had not been completed, officials released new details on Wednesday. “She was having trouble adjusting her bra holster, couldn’t get it to fit the way she wanted it to. She was looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon,” St. Joseph Public Safety Director Mark Clapp said. According to an obituary published by Florin Funeral Service, Bond joined the U.S. Navy out of high school, and served two terms as an active Military Police. She was an administrator for the Road to Life Church, and an “active member of the Christian Motorcycle Association.” The obituary described Bond as being “on FIRE for the LORD.” Fired herself from life. She was "looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon." If she could fire a gun simply by looking at it, she didn't really need a gun to defend herself. :) She was clearly a very capable person. But it's clear that the more time you spend with a weapon and the more you handle it, the more likely you'll be bitten by the odds of a mishap. Very astute observation. Reckon that's true of driving a car, flying, skiing, boating, and on and on. Life is a dangerous occupation, and we all lose. Fortunately, all those other items provide something other than a quick death in their use. As do firearms. And please don't start with all the crimes thwarted. They've long been debunked as frighteningly overblown false positives. I didn't, you did. Plus, the variety of mishaps that occur with those other items are far less likely to be deadly than those that occur with a gun. Tell that to the 33,000 folks who died in auto deaths in 2012. Here's some more from 2013 Motor vehicle traffic deaths Number of deaths: 33,804 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7 All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 33,363 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6 Looks like guns are safer. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On 2/18/15 4:39 PM, Stick Left-Steer Left wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:27:29 -0800, jps wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:30:08 -0500, Stick Left-Steer Left wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:19:51 -0800, jps wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:34:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/18/15 1:20 PM, jps wrote: Law enforcement officials in Michigan said that they learned this week that an elected Republican official who had recently shot herself to death had been adjusting her bra holster when the accident occurred. Earlier this year, St. Joseph Public Safety officers reported that 55-year-old Christina Bond had died on New Years Day from what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound to her eye. Although the full autopsy had not been completed, officials released new details on Wednesday. “She was having trouble adjusting her bra holster, couldn’t get it to fit the way she wanted it to. She was looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon,” St. Joseph Public Safety Director Mark Clapp said. According to an obituary published by Florin Funeral Service, Bond joined the U.S. Navy out of high school, and served two terms as an active Military Police. She was an administrator for the Road to Life Church, and an “active member of the Christian Motorcycle Association.” The obituary described Bond as being “on FIRE for the LORD.” Fired herself from life. She was "looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon." If she could fire a gun simply by looking at it, she didn't really need a gun to defend herself. :) She was clearly a very capable person. But it's clear that the more time you spend with a weapon and the more you handle it, the more likely you'll be bitten by the odds of a mishap. Very astute observation. Reckon that's true of driving a car, flying, skiing, boating, and on and on. Life is a dangerous occupation, and we all lose. Fortunately, all those other items provide something other than a quick death in their use. As do firearms. And please don't start with all the crimes thwarted. They've long been debunked as frighteningly overblown false positives. I didn't, you did. Plus, the variety of mishaps that occur with those other items are far less likely to be deadly than those that occur with a gun. Tell that to the 33,000 folks who died in auto deaths in 2012. Here's some more from 2013 Motor vehicle traffic deaths Number of deaths: 33,804 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7 All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 33,363 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6 Looks like guns are safer. Completely specious argument. Cars are used x hours a day on average by y number of drivers. Guns "sit around" doing nothing at all most of the time. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:27:29 -0800, jps wrote:
Plus, the variety of mishaps that occur with those other items are far less likely to be deadly than those that occur with a gun. === If you don't like guns then you should exercise your constitutional right not to own one. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:35:46 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/18/15 4:39 PM, Stick Left-Steer Left wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:27:29 -0800, jps wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:30:08 -0500, Stick Left-Steer Left wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:19:51 -0800, jps wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:34:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/18/15 1:20 PM, jps wrote: Law enforcement officials in Michigan said that they learned this week that an elected Republican official who had recently shot herself to death had been adjusting her bra holster when the accident occurred. Earlier this year, St. Joseph Public Safety officers reported that 55-year-old Christina Bond had died on New Years Day from what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound to her eye. Although the full autopsy had not been completed, officials released new details on Wednesday. “She was having trouble adjusting her bra holster, couldn’t get it to fit the way she wanted it to. She was looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon,” St. Joseph Public Safety Director Mark Clapp said. According to an obituary published by Florin Funeral Service, Bond joined the U.S. Navy out of high school, and served two terms as an active Military Police. She was an administrator for the Road to Life Church, and an “active member of the Christian Motorcycle Association.” The obituary described Bond as being “on FIRE for the LORD.” Fired herself from life. She was "looking down at it and accidentally discharged the weapon." If she could fire a gun simply by looking at it, she didn't really need a gun to defend herself. :) She was clearly a very capable person. But it's clear that the more time you spend with a weapon and the more you handle it, the more likely you'll be bitten by the odds of a mishap. Very astute observation. Reckon that's true of driving a car, flying, skiing, boating, and on and on. Life is a dangerous occupation, and we all lose. Fortunately, all those other items provide something other than a quick death in their use. As do firearms. And please don't start with all the crimes thwarted. They've long been debunked as frighteningly overblown false positives. I didn't, you did. Plus, the variety of mishaps that occur with those other items are far less likely to be deadly than those that occur with a gun. Tell that to the 33,000 folks who died in auto deaths in 2012. Here's some more from 2013 Motor vehicle traffic deaths Number of deaths: 33,804 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7 All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 33,363 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6 Looks like guns are safer. Completely specious argument. Cars are used x hours a day on average by y number of drivers. Guns "sit around" doing nothing at all most of the time. Most cars sit around most of the time. Now hush. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
On Fire for the Lord!
|
On Fire for the Lord!
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. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
On Fire for the Lord!
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. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
On Fire for the Lord!
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. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
On Fire for the Lord!
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. === 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. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 5:42:24 AM UTC-8, Wayne. B 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. === 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. True, but as he's proclaimed. Rationale is reserved for righties. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:42:12 -0500, Wayne.B 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. === 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. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On 2/19/15 8:59 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:42:12 -0500, Wayne.B 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. === 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. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:21:52 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/19/15 8:59 AM, John H. wrote: On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:42:12 -0500, Wayne.B 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. === 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. Your comment was absurd. Here - do it: "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." Show us how friggin' smart you really are. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
On Fire for the Lord!
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 Fire for the Lord!
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 Fire for the Lord!
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 Fire for the Lord!
|
On Fire for the Lord!
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 Fire for the Lord!
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 Fire for the Lord!
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 Fire for the Lord!
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 Fire for the Lord!
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 Fire for the Lord!
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. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:31:31 -0500, John H.
wrote: 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. === I'm thinking that the alleged Bozo's Bin must be rapidly approaching a critical mass where we could think about getting together and throwing a party. We could throw darts and play pin the tail on the donkey. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On 2/19/15 4:31 PM, John H. wrote:
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. Is that bozo you, perchance? I have a bozo bin, not a "Bozo's Bin." It is for the posts from morons and snarks, and the bozo bin filter sends them there before I see them. Pretty nifty. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
On Fire for the Lord!
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. This isn't the place to discuss my involvement with the free trade movement in Cuba or my interest in an NGO that helps those in third world countries build sustainable communities and provide for potable water. I'm not going to discuss my marketing accounts here. That leaves an innocuous hobby or two to discuss. That's all you get. Oh, I'm also involved in an internet chess league and a Scrabble tourney that's been going on for about 23 years. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:49:54 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:31:31 -0500, John H. wrote: 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. === I'm thinking that the alleged Bozo's Bin must be rapidly approaching a critical mass where we could think about getting together and throwing a party. We could throw darts and play pin the tail on the donkey. Bozo the donkey? Sounds fun. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:11:28 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/19/15 4:31 PM, John H. wrote: 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. Is that bozo you, perchance? I have a bozo bin, not a "Bozo's Bin." It is for the posts from morons and snarks, and the bozo bin filter sends them there before I see them. Pretty nifty. You own 'Bozo's Bin'. Quit trying to deny it. You've just learned the proper punctuation. Now use it. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:20:28 -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. This isn't the place to discuss my involvement with the free trade movement in Cuba or my interest in an NGO that helps those in third world countries build sustainable communities and provide for potable water. I'm not going to discuss my marketing accounts here. That leaves an innocuous hobby or two to discuss. That's all you get. Oh, I'm also involved in an internet chess league and a Scrabble tourney that's been going on for about 23 years. Does your back ever get sore? -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On 2/19/15 5:26 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:11:28 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/19/15 4:31 PM, John H. wrote: 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. Is that bozo you, perchance? I have a bozo bin, not a "Bozo's Bin." It is for the posts from morons and snarks, and the bozo bin filter sends them there before I see them. Pretty nifty. You own 'Bozo's Bin'. Quit trying to deny it. You've just learned the proper punctuation. Now use it. You were forced out of the army a long time ago. It's time you stopped barking out moronic orders. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:20:28 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: This isn't the place to discuss my involvement with the free trade movement in Cuba or my interest in an NGO that helps those in third world countries build sustainable communities and provide for potable water. === What a great humanatarian you are! (in your own mind) When I get to Cuba I'll ask if anyone knows you. Smuggling a few cigars does not really qualify as a "free trade movement". |
On Fire for the Lord!
On 2/19/15 5:27 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:20:28 -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. This isn't the place to discuss my involvement with the free trade movement in Cuba or my interest in an NGO that helps those in third world countries build sustainable communities and provide for potable water. I'm not going to discuss my marketing accounts here. That leaves an innocuous hobby or two to discuss. That's all you get. Oh, I'm also involved in an internet chess league and a Scrabble tourney that's been going on for about 23 years. Does your back ever get sore? Sorry, John, but I require my brain to stay engaged and working. Flying toy planes doesn't do that for me. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
On Fire for the Lord!
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:50:46 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/19/15 5:27 PM, John H. wrote: On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:20:28 -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. This isn't the place to discuss my involvement with the free trade movement in Cuba or my interest in an NGO that helps those in third world countries build sustainable communities and provide for potable water. I'm not going to discuss my marketing accounts here. That leaves an innocuous hobby or two to discuss. That's all you get. Oh, I'm also involved in an internet chess league and a Scrabble tourney that's been going on for about 23 years. Does your back ever get sore? Sorry, John, but I require my brain to stay engaged and working. Flying toy planes doesn't do that for me. You failed to answer the question. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com