Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 16:06:30 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote: On 7/26/2015 7:38 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 02:36:42 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: On 7/25/2015 1:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:41:21 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: On 7/25/2015 4:46 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:14:59 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: On 7/24/2015 6:32 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:36:17 -0500, RD Sandman rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote: Just Wondering wrote in : On 7/23/2015 2:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:34:29 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: On 7/23/2015 1:36 PM, Joe Cooper wrote: Rudy Canoza wrote in news:mor5dh$m26$1@dont- email.me: There's a reason these people are seen as gun *nuts*. What is a "gun nut"? To a hoplophobe, it's anyone who supports the Second Amendment. It's meant to be derisive but it's actually a compliment. You should define "hoplophobe" while you're at it. It's someone who has an irrational fear of Hopalong Cassidy. I didn't invent the word. I don't have to define it, it has a well understood definition. If you don't know, look it up. Ed was being sarcastic about how some hoplophobes feel. From other statements he has made, he does seem to hold them in a bit of disdain. I was being sarcastic about the inanity of gun nutz trying to apply a comically pseudo-clinical term to people who dislike guns. The pretentiousness is hilarious. It's not "dislike". There are liberal left wingnuts who actually fear the idea of guns in private hands. And every day, they get 27 murders committed with guns to prove that they're right about that -- because you never know which private hands those guns are in. So now you admit that hoplophobia is real, it's not just " a comically pseudo-clinical term." WTF are you talking about? "Hoplophobia" is a made-up joke of a term. You spelled homophobia wrong. 'Running short of slurs today? 'Reaching into the bottom of your bag of ****, are you? Phobias are irrational fears. There are people who actually have an irrational fear of guns. Virtually nobody has an irrational fear of people whose sexual preferences are tied to the private parts of other people of the same sex. Good grief. Where were you before 1970? People were afraid gays were going to abuse their kids, or try to convert them...it was the personification of irrational fear. Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. -- Ed Huntress |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about householdgun ownership numbers
On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. David |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. Ah, no. Guns are inherently very dangerous. Cars are inherently very dangerous. Explosives are inherently very dangerous. Strong acids are inherently very dangerous. Poinsonous gases are inherently very dangerous. Some inanimate objects are very dangerous indeed. One mistake, and you're dead. That's dangerous. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I have to question the argument of anyone who fears hammers. Most dangerous objects are dangerous when people interact with them. We've been talking about accidental injuries and death -- the danger associated with those events. In terms of accidents, hammers can be rough on your thumbs. Guns can be rough on your life. The danger that most people recognize in guns is their danger when someone interacts with them. That's true with most inherently dangerous things -- few of them are dangerous just sitting in a box. But I've been involved in this for many years -- I interviewed the incoming communications director of the Brady organization 24 years ago, and also the spokesmen for the FOP and the NACP, plus state lawmakers in NJ -- and I never heard anyone who fears guns locked in a box. There are some who fear guns in the hands of people, and the fact that guns sooner or later wind up in the hands of people. Which people? I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. And, of course, you've never once said "Oops!" -- Ed Huntress David |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about householdgun ownership numbers
On 7/27/2015 8:10 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. Ah, no. Guns are inherently very dangerous. Cars are inherently very dangerous. Explosives are inherently very dangerous. Strong acids are inherently very dangerous. Poinsonous gases are inherently very dangerous. Some inanimate objects are very dangerous indeed. One mistake, and you're dead. That's dangerous. As I said, I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. You list several inanimate objects that are dangerous, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I didn't say any of these wasn't dangerous. You say no and then reiterate what I said. You seem to be developing a tendency to not read very carefully what I write. This is recent. Are you OK? I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I have to question the argument of anyone who fears hammers. Most dangerous objects are dangerous when people interact with them. We've been talking about accidental injuries and death -- the danger associated with those events. In terms of accidents, hammers can be rough on your thumbs. Guns can be rough on your life. Again, you are reiterating what I said. The danger that most people recognize in guns is their danger when someone interacts with them. That's true with most inherently dangerous things -- few of them are dangerous just sitting in a box. But I've been involved in this for many years -- I interviewed the incoming communications director of the Brady organization 24 years ago, and also the spokesmen for the FOP and the NACP, plus state lawmakers in NJ -- and I never heard anyone who fears guns locked in a box. There are some who fear guns in the hands of people, and the fact that guns sooner or later wind up in the hands of people. Which people? I talked with a guy once who feared that a gun sitting on a table with no one near it would spontaneously fire. He didn't mean could, he expected it to. I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. And, of course, you've never once said "Oops!" I've had a couple of NDs, but I don't say "Oops!" A few years ago a Star Model S I'd just bought doubled on me the first time I shot it. That possibility is why I load an unfamiliar semi-auto with only two rounds. I didn't say oops then, either, probably something a bit saltier. Both bullets struck the target a few inches apart. I couldn't make it double again, trigger & sear looked OK, I detailed stripped and cleaned the slide again. Maybe I missed a bit of crud the first time. David |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. David SOME guns are designed to kill..others are not. However a claw hammer is designed to drive nails and remove nails...yet they kill very well..and quite often. Gunner |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about householdgun ownership numbers
On 7/27/2015 11:30 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. David SOME guns are designed to kill..others are not. However a claw hammer is designed to drive nails and remove nails...yet they kill very well..and quite often. Cite. In fact, it's a lie. A contributor at the right-wing Breitbart cites a few years of FBI crime statistics, in which the total number of people murdered with *all* blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) is a few hundred. 2005 - 605 2006 - 618 2011 - 496 http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...overnment%2529 You lied when you said that claw hammers kill "quite often." Maybe you'd like to tell us how many people you arrested for claw hammer murders when you "dabbled as a reserve Deputy for a couple years" http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...864f4b5ffce244 |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:30:51 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. David SOME guns are designed to kill..others are not. However a claw hammer is designed to drive nails and remove nails...yet they kill very well..and quite often. Gunner Designed to kill? http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armsl...match__640.jpg http://www.rbgc.org/InternationalPis...GSP22small.jpg http://www.matchguns.com/sites/defau...?itok=jxZebBkW Oooooh!! Evil Assult guns!! Oooooh! Evil Assault gun owners!!! http://www.usashooting.org/library/i...ch_Collage.jpg etc etc etc. A firearm is designed to project one or more projectiles with each pull of the trigger. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. Gunner |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:54:51 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:30:51 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. David SOME guns are designed to kill..others are not. However a claw hammer is designed to drive nails and remove nails...yet they kill very well..and quite often. Gunner Designed to kill? Yup. That was their original purpose, and still the purpose of the large majority of guns that are sold. Period. http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armsl...match__640.jpg http://www.rbgc.org/InternationalPis...GSP22small.jpg http://www.matchguns.com/sites/defau...?itok=jxZebBkW Oooooh!! Evil Assult guns!! Oooooh! Evil Assault gun owners!!! http://www.usashooting.org/library/i...ch_Collage.jpg etc etc etc. A firearm is designed to project one or more projectiles with each pull of the trigger. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. Gunner Yes, and the target guns wouldn't ever have existed without the guns designed for the original purpose. And the target guns exist in relatively small numbers. The people who buy Glock .40 cal handguns aren't buying them to shoot squirrels. When I pull out my Hi-Standard Supermatic on the range, people ask, "What the hell is that?" g -- Ed Huntress |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about householdgun ownership numbers
On 7/27/2015 12:47 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:54:51 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:30:51 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. David SOME guns are designed to kill..others are not. However a claw hammer is designed to drive nails and remove nails...yet they kill very well..and quite often. Gunner Designed to kill? Yup. That was their original purpose, and still the purpose of the large majority of guns that are sold. Period. http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armsl...match__640.jpg http://www.rbgc.org/InternationalPis...GSP22small.jpg http://www.matchguns.com/sites/defau...?itok=jxZebBkW Oooooh!! Evil Assult guns!! Oooooh! Evil Assault gun owners!!! http://www.usashooting.org/library/i...ch_Collage.jpg etc etc etc. A firearm is designed to project one or more projectiles with each pull of the trigger. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. Gunner Yes, and the target guns wouldn't ever have existed without the guns designed for the original purpose. And the target guns exist in relatively small numbers. The people who buy Glock .40 cal handguns aren't buying them to shoot squirrels. ....in the head at 200 meters. Don't forget the important details. When I pull out my Hi-Standard Supermatic on the range, people ask, "What the hell is that?" g |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:49:30 -0700, A less crunchy technique
wrote: On 7/27/2015 11:30 AM, Gunner Asch wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. David SOME guns are designed to kill..others are not. However a claw hammer is designed to drive nails and remove nails...yet they kill very well..and quite often. Cite. In fact, it's a lie. A contributor at the right-wing Breitbart cites a few years of FBI crime statistics, in which the total number of people murdered with *all* blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) is a few hundred. 2005 - 605 2006 - 618 2011 - 496 http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...overnment%2529 You lied when you said that claw hammers kill "quite often." Maybe you'd like to tell us how many people you arrested for claw hammer murders when you "dabbled as a reserve Deputy for a couple years" http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...864f4b5ffce244 Hardly a lie. Lefties claim that Machine Guns kill lots of people each year. "Quite often" is simply much of the same. http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...n-with-rifles/ In fact..you have a lot of things to answer for.... https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/of...rtable_08.html now lets say that half the 605 deaths were with claw hammers. THats nearly 1 a day..isnt it? Isnt that "quite often"? Which planet did you say you were posting from? as for my "couple a years"..indeed. Im 62 (or nearly so)...7 yrs..IS "only a couple a years". Got a problem with chatting dialog? Feel free to kiss my ass crack. Ill make sure not to wipe the whole day before you show up..just to give you a good taste. Gunner |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:01:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote: On 7/27/2015 12:47 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:54:51 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:30:51 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. David SOME guns are designed to kill..others are not. However a claw hammer is designed to drive nails and remove nails...yet they kill very well..and quite often. Gunner Designed to kill? Yup. That was their original purpose, and still the purpose of the large majority of guns that are sold. Period. http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armsl...match__640.jpg http://www.rbgc.org/InternationalPis...GSP22small.jpg http://www.matchguns.com/sites/defau...?itok=jxZebBkW Oooooh!! Evil Assult guns!! Oooooh! Evil Assault gun owners!!! http://www.usashooting.org/library/i...ch_Collage.jpg etc etc etc. A firearm is designed to project one or more projectiles with each pull of the trigger. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. Gunner Yes, and the target guns wouldn't ever have existed without the guns designed for the original purpose. And the target guns exist in relatively small numbers. The people who buy Glock .40 cal handguns aren't buying them to shoot squirrels. ...in the head at 200 meters. Don't forget the important details. When I pull out my Hi-Standard Supermatic on the range, people ask, "What the hell is that?" g Why Do You Own a Gun? (2013 -- Pew Research) (Among gun owners) Protection - 48% Hunting - 32 Target/sport shooting - 7 Constitutional right/ 2nd amendment - 2 Collect guns/Hobby - 2 Other - 7 Don't know - 1 ______ 100% http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/...ow-top-reason/ These numbers are up from 26% "protection" in 1999. There's not a lot of target shooting or collecting going on there, Gunner. People own them mostly for shooting and killing various kinds of animals -- mostly people. -- Ed Huntress |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about householdgun ownership numbers
On 7/27/2015 1:45 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:49:30 -0700, A less crunchy technique wrote: On 7/27/2015 11:30 AM, Gunner Asch wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. David SOME guns are designed to kill..others are not. However a claw hammer is designed to drive nails and remove nails...yet they kill very well..and quite often. Cite. In fact, it's a lie. A contributor at the right-wing Breitbart cites a few years of FBI crime statistics, in which the total number of people murdered with *all* blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) is a few hundred. 2005 - 605 2006 - 618 2011 - 496 http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...overnment%2529 You lied when you said that claw hammers kill "quite often." Maybe you'd like to tell us how many people you arrested for claw hammer murders when you "dabbled as a reserve Deputy for a couple years" http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...864f4b5ffce244 Hardly a lie. It was just a lie. In fact, claw hammers almost certainly account for a relatively small percentage of the 496-618 blunt object murders. In fact..you have a lot of things to answer for.... I have nothing to "answer for", you impotent clown. as for my "couple a years"..indeed. Im 62 (or nearly so)...7 yrs..IS "only a couple a years". You gave specific numbers, ass-clown: "a reserve Deputy at night (two years)" http://groups.google.com/group/misc....f6b3de8807600c "Worked for 5 yrs as a reserve Sheriff's Deputy" http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...b03648c38ec69b "8 yrs on the street as a cop" http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...8e16741f642645 Specific numbers that don't agree. You got kicked off the Fresno County Sheriff department for incompetence: deputies are expected to be precise with numbers. |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:11:23 -0700, A less crunchy technique
wrote: On 7/27/2015 1:45 PM, Gunner Asch wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:49:30 -0700, A less crunchy technique wrote: On 7/27/2015 11:30 AM, Gunner Asch wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. David SOME guns are designed to kill..others are not. However a claw hammer is designed to drive nails and remove nails...yet they kill very well..and quite often. Cite. In fact, it's a lie. A contributor at the right-wing Breitbart cites a few years of FBI crime statistics, in which the total number of people murdered with *all* blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) is a few hundred. 2005 - 605 2006 - 618 2011 - 496 http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...overnment%2529 You lied when you said that claw hammers kill "quite often." Maybe you'd like to tell us how many people you arrested for claw hammer murders when you "dabbled as a reserve Deputy for a couple years" http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...864f4b5ffce244 Hardly a lie. It was just a lie. In fact, claw hammers almost certainly account for a relatively small percentage of the 496-618 blunt object murders. How many? Be specific. Provide your cites. Ill be waiting. In fact..you have a lot of things to answer for.... I have nothing to "answer for", you impotent clown. Yes you do. as for my "couple a years"..indeed. Im 62 (or nearly so)...7 yrs..IS "only a couple a years". You gave specific numbers, ass-clown: "a reserve Deputy at night (two years)" http://groups.google.com/group/misc....f6b3de8807600c "Worked for 5 yrs as a reserve Sheriff's Deputy" http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...b03648c38ec69b "8 yrs on the street as a cop" http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...8e16741f642645 Specific numbers that don't agree. Ayup..and when asked how many nuts and bolts I bought Saturday..Im likely to say a handful, or a couple dozen, or....and? Hell..you wont even admit to anybody who you are..and you are giving me **** for off the cuff answers? ROFLMAO!!! You got kicked off the Fresno County Sheriff department for incompetence: deputies are expected to be precise with numbers. And yet we see another intentional lie from you. You arent very good at it though. Gunner |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about householdgun ownership numbers
On 7/27/2015 3:40 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:11:23 -0700, A less crunchy technique wrote: On 7/27/2015 1:45 PM, Gunner Asch wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:49:30 -0700, A less crunchy technique wrote: On 7/27/2015 11:30 AM, Gunner Asch wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. David SOME guns are designed to kill..others are not. However a claw hammer is designed to drive nails and remove nails...yet they kill very well..and quite often. Cite. In fact, it's a lie. A contributor at the right-wing Breitbart cites a few years of FBI crime statistics, in which the total number of people murdered with *all* blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) is a few hundred. 2005 - 605 2006 - 618 2011 - 496 http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...overnment%2529 You lied when you said that claw hammers kill "quite often." Maybe you'd like to tell us how many people you arrested for claw hammer murders when you "dabbled as a reserve Deputy for a couple years" http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...864f4b5ffce244 Hardly a lie. It was just a lie. In fact, claw hammers almost certainly account for a relatively small percentage of the 496-618 blunt object murders. How many? Don't know. But we both know it is a minority of blunt object murders. In fact..you have a lot of things to answer for.... I have nothing to "answer for", you impotent clown. Yes you do. Nothing. Anyway, it's certain neither you nor anyone you know will ever attempt to hold me to account for anything. as for my "couple a years"..indeed. Im 62 (or nearly so)...7 yrs..IS "only a couple a years". You gave specific numbers, ass-clown: "a reserve Deputy at night (two years)" http://groups.google.com/group/misc....f6b3de8807600c "Worked for 5 yrs as a reserve Sheriff's Deputy" http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...b03648c38ec69b "8 yrs on the street as a cop" http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...8e16741f642645 Specific numbers that don't agree. Ayup..and when asked how many nuts and bolts I bought Saturday Eight years is four times your first answer. People don't **** up their job tenure for a job they really held by a factor of four. You're just a ****ing liar, that's all. You got kicked off the Fresno County Sheriff department for incompetence: deputies are expected to be precise with numbers. And yet we see another intentional lie from you. No lie. |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:39:00 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote: On 7/27/2015 8:10 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. Ah, no. Guns are inherently very dangerous. Cars are inherently very dangerous. Explosives are inherently very dangerous. Strong acids are inherently very dangerous. Poinsonous gases are inherently very dangerous. Some inanimate objects are very dangerous indeed. One mistake, and you're dead. That's dangerous. As I said, I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. You list several inanimate objects that are dangerous, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I didn't say any of these wasn't dangerous. Right. Teddy bears, for example, are no more dangerous than a bucket full of weeping Dynamite. This is the silly narrative that has grown out of the gun nutz' narrative, based on a strawman argument, that people fear guns as objects. No person I've ever known, and I've known plenty of anti-gun people, fits that strawman suit. If they fear guns, they fear them because of what can happen when someone gets his hands on them. Whose hands? You say no and then reiterate what I said. Nonsense. I don't care who gets his hands on a loaf of bread. I do care who gets his hands on a gun. Again, you're building on a silly narrative, one that has been around for decades, which has no relation to reality. You seem to be developing a tendency to not read very carefully what I write. This is recent. Are you OK? I'm just fine. What you're saying is nonsense. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I have to question the argument of anyone who fears hammers. Most dangerous objects are dangerous when people interact with them. We've been talking about accidental injuries and death -- the danger associated with those events. In terms of accidents, hammers can be rough on your thumbs. Guns can be rough on your life. Again, you are reiterating what I said. No, you're packing what you say with absurd equivalences and strawmen. You're not alone. Give the gun nutz a cute narrative like that, and they're off and running. The danger that most people recognize in guns is their danger when someone interacts with them. That's true with most inherently dangerous things -- few of them are dangerous just sitting in a box. But I've been involved in this for many years -- I interviewed the incoming communications director of the Brady organization 24 years ago, and also the spokesmen for the FOP and the NACP, plus state lawmakers in NJ -- and I never heard anyone who fears guns locked in a box. There are some who fear guns in the hands of people, and the fact that guns sooner or later wind up in the hands of people. Which people? I talked with a guy once who feared that a gun sitting on a table with no one near it would spontaneously fire. He didn't mean could, he expected it to. That was some kind of nut. But let me ask you, assuming you've had solid gun-safety training: You're sitting at a table, and someone lays down a loaded handgun, with the barrel pointed straight at you. Then he sits in a chair away from the table. Do you sit there, in the line of fire? Or do you move? Or move the gun? If you move, or move the gun, why? The gun is just sitting there, right? It isn't going to spontaneously fire or anything, is it? I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. And, of course, you've never once said "Oops!" I've had a couple of NDs, but I don't say "Oops!" A few years ago a Star Model S I'd just bought doubled on me the first time I shot it. And I had a hang-fire for about three or four seconds (or it seemed that long) in a 20 ga. shotgun with a factory skeet load. Guns are just such a mature technology that nothing ever goes wrong, goes wrong, goes wrong... That possibility is why I load an unfamiliar semi-auto with only two rounds. I didn't say oops then, either, probably something a bit saltier. Both bullets struck the target a few inches apart. I couldn't make it double again, trigger & sear looked OK, I detailed stripped and cleaned the slide again. Maybe I missed a bit of crud the first time. David |
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:49:30 -0700, A less crunchy technique
wrote: On 7/27/2015 11:30 AM, Gunner Asch wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. David SOME guns are designed to kill..others are not. However a claw hammer is designed to drive nails and remove nails...yet they kill very well..and quite often. Cite. In fact, it's a lie. A contributor at the right-wing Breitbart cites a few years of FBI crime statistics, in which the total number of people murdered with *all* blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) is a few hundred. 2005 - 605 2006 - 618 2011 - 496 http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...overnment%2529 You lied when you said that claw hammers kill "quite often." Maybe Two people per day are killed with 'em. It falls into "quite often" in my book, too. -- My desire to be well-informed is currently at odds with my desire to remain sane. --Sipkess |
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about householdgun ownership numbers
On 7/27/2015 2:47 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
When I pull out my Hi-Standard Supermatic on the range, people ask, "What the hell is that?" g I get that with about half of what I shoot. I've lost count of how many times I've given my BM-59 talk. Or my FN49 talk. David |
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about householdgun ownership numbers
On 7/27/2015 6:07 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:39:00 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/27/2015 8:10 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. Ah, no. Guns are inherently very dangerous. Cars are inherently very dangerous. Explosives are inherently very dangerous. Strong acids are inherently very dangerous. Poinsonous gases are inherently very dangerous. Some inanimate objects are very dangerous indeed. One mistake, and you're dead. That's dangerous. As I said, I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. You list several inanimate objects that are dangerous, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I didn't say any of these wasn't dangerous. Right. Teddy bears, for example, are no more dangerous than a bucket full of weeping Dynamite. Are you trying to miss the point that its not the object, but how it is used? This is the silly narrative that has grown out of the gun nutz' narrative, based on a strawman argument, that people fear guns as objects. No person I've ever known, and I've known plenty of anti-gun people, fits that strawman suit. If they fear guns, they fear them because of what can happen when someone gets his hands on them. Whose hands? I have known people with an irrational fear of guns as objects. You say no and then reiterate what I said. Nonsense. I don't care who gets his hands on a loaf of bread. I do care who gets his hands on a gun. Again, you're building on a silly narrative, one that has been around for decades, which has no relation to reality. The reality is that a child was suspended from school because a teacher thought the bites from his sandwich made it look like something that resembled a gun. You seem to be developing a tendency to not read very carefully what I write. This is recent. Are you OK? I'm just fine. What you're saying is nonsense. Actually, no, it isn't. Interesting that you aren't seeing anything else, though. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I have to question the argument of anyone who fears hammers. Most dangerous objects are dangerous when people interact with them. We've been talking about accidental injuries and death -- the danger associated with those events. In terms of accidents, hammers can be rough on your thumbs. Guns can be rough on your life. Again, you are reiterating what I said. No, you're packing what you say with absurd equivalences and strawmen. You're not alone. Give the gun nutz a cute narrative like that, and they're off and running. I write "I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers" and you see "I fear hammers". The danger that most people recognize in guns is their danger when someone interacts with them. That's true with most inherently dangerous things -- few of them are dangerous just sitting in a box. But I've been involved in this for many years -- I interviewed the incoming communications director of the Brady organization 24 years ago, and also the spokesmen for the FOP and the NACP, plus state lawmakers in NJ -- and I never heard anyone who fears guns locked in a box. There are some who fear guns in the hands of people, and the fact that guns sooner or later wind up in the hands of people. Which people? I talked with a guy once who feared that a gun sitting on a table with no one near it would spontaneously fire. He didn't mean could, he expected it to. That was some kind of nut. Yes, but, in my experience, common among anti-gun folks. But let me ask you, assuming you've had solid gun-safety training: You're sitting at a table, and someone lays down a loaded handgun, with the barrel pointed straight at you. Then he sits in a chair away from the table. Do you sit there, in the line of fire? Or do you move? Or move the gun? If you move, or move the gun, why? The gun is just sitting there, right? It isn't going to spontaneously fire or anything, is it? I was taught at an early age to not point a gun at something I did not intend to shoot. I would object and tell him to move it if someone put the gun on the table pointing at me. I admit a gun pointing at me makes me uncomfortable, even if there is no one holding it. It seems a violation of what I consider basic gun safety. Would you object to the person who left the gun that way? I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. And, of course, you've never once said "Oops!" I've had a couple of NDs, but I don't say "Oops!" A few years ago a Star Model S I'd just bought doubled on me the first time I shot it. And I had a hang-fire for about three or four seconds (or it seemed that long) in a 20 ga. shotgun with a factory skeet load. Guns are just such a mature technology that nothing ever goes wrong, goes wrong, goes wrong... That's why, when I pull the trigger and the gun doesn't fire, I don't look down the barrel to see what's wrong. David |
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:04:25 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote: On 7/27/2015 6:07 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:39:00 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/27/2015 8:10 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:41:04 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/26/2015 5:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: Now, about "irrational" fear of guns. According to many sources, there are a little over 600 accidental shooting deaths per year, and WISQARS reports between 14,000 and 19,000 nonfatal, accidental injuries. How irrational do you think those fears really are? Guns are generally very dangerous devices. I was a certified rifle instructor and taught gun safety in several environments. For anyone who has little exposure to guns, fear looks like a rational reaction. Their original and still primary purpose, after all, is killing things -- mostly people. Odd. I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. Ah, no. Guns are inherently very dangerous. Cars are inherently very dangerous. Explosives are inherently very dangerous. Strong acids are inherently very dangerous. Poinsonous gases are inherently very dangerous. Some inanimate objects are very dangerous indeed. One mistake, and you're dead. That's dangerous. As I said, I respect what guns can do, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. You list several inanimate objects that are dangerous, but they are no more inherently dangerous than any other inanimate object. I didn't say any of these wasn't dangerous. Right. Teddy bears, for example, are no more dangerous than a bucket full of weeping Dynamite. Are you trying to miss the point that its not the object, but how it is used? I'm trying to point out that your point is fundamentally wrong. If you're unaware of what can happen with weeping (or "sweating") dynamite, inanimate or not, you should look it up. Beyond that, to pursue your line of reasoning, you have to ignore the fact that the greatest danger lies in the unknown answer to the question, "whose hands are we talking about"? You may have a gun. I don't know who you are. I don't know about the state of your mental health. I don't know what you stand for. I don't know what your behavior has been in the past. I don't know what drugs you've taken. Or you may be the same person without a gun. You tell me -- what is the INHERENT role of the gun in this circumstance? This is the silly narrative that has grown out of the gun nutz' narrative, based on a strawman argument, that people fear guns as objects. No person I've ever known, and I've known plenty of anti-gun people, fits that strawman suit. If they fear guns, they fear them because of what can happen when someone gets his hands on them. Whose hands? I have known people with an irrational fear of guns as objects. Then you know a nuttier bunch of people than I do. Why that is, I can't guess. You say no and then reiterate what I said. Nonsense. I don't care who gets his hands on a loaf of bread. I do care who gets his hands on a gun. Again, you're building on a silly narrative, one that has been around for decades, which has no relation to reality. The reality is that a child was suspended from school because a teacher thought the bites from his sandwich made it look like something that resembled a gun. The horror! Did they kill the kid? You seem to be developing a tendency to not read very carefully what I write. This is recent. Are you OK? I'm just fine. What you're saying is nonsense. Actually, no, it isn't. Interesting that you aren't seeing anything else, though. I see what is really there. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I have to question the argument of anyone who fears hammers. Most dangerous objects are dangerous when people interact with them. We've been talking about accidental injuries and death -- the danger associated with those events. In terms of accidents, hammers can be rough on your thumbs. Guns can be rough on your life. Again, you are reiterating what I said. No, you're packing what you say with absurd equivalences and strawmen. You're not alone. Give the gun nutz a cute narrative like that, and they're off and running. I write "I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers" and you see "I fear hammers". Because that's what you said, your qualifier notwithstanding. Look, David, this silly philosophical argument goes on all the time. Guns are dangerous objects. To deny that, or to go off on a tangent about nutty people who think they're going to spontaneously fire, is nothing more than an intellectually feeble attempt to deny the fundamental fact: Whether it's intentional or accidental, whatever the motivations of the person with whom they come in contact, guns, themselves, raise the level of danger in many circumstances. There is no sane argument against that. But that doesn't stop the gun nutz from making insane arguments. The danger that most people recognize in guns is their danger when someone interacts with them. That's true with most inherently dangerous things -- few of them are dangerous just sitting in a box. But I've been involved in this for many years -- I interviewed the incoming communications director of the Brady organization 24 years ago, and also the spokesmen for the FOP and the NACP, plus state lawmakers in NJ -- and I never heard anyone who fears guns locked in a box. There are some who fear guns in the hands of people, and the fact that guns sooner or later wind up in the hands of people. Which people? I talked with a guy once who feared that a gun sitting on a table with no one near it would spontaneously fire. He didn't mean could, he expected it to. That was some kind of nut. Yes, but, in my experience, common among anti-gun folks. I have to wonder why you encounter more nuts than I do. But let me ask you, assuming you've had solid gun-safety training: You're sitting at a table, and someone lays down a loaded handgun, with the barrel pointed straight at you. Then he sits in a chair away from the table. Do you sit there, in the line of fire? Or do you move? Or move the gun? If you move, or move the gun, why? The gun is just sitting there, right? It isn't going to spontaneously fire or anything, is it? I was taught at an early age to not point a gun at something I did not intend to shoot. I would object and tell him to move it if someone put the gun on the table pointing at me. I admit a gun pointing at me makes me uncomfortable, even if there is no one holding it. It seems a violation of what I consider basic gun safety. It is. I believe it's founded on the idea that there are many potentially dangerous situations that can occur with guns, and that, as a principle, we must avoid all of them that we can, no matter how remote they are, while still retaining the ability to use the gun for its purposes. A harmless situation can evolve into a dangerous one with alarming speed and can't always be anticipated. But your reaction (which is exactly like mine would be) has no relationship to the actual circumstances of the moment. It's part of a safety routine. It only makes sense if you think the gun will go off spontaneously. And yet, that's how you and I both react. In itself, it makes no sense. Would you object to the person who left the gun that way? I'd know the person did not have basic gun safety embedded in his behavior. If you do, you would never do such a thing. I agree that guns were and are designed for killing, yet mine have only done so to kill deer while I've had them. I respect their potential for destruction, but I don't irrationally fear it. And, of course, you've never once said "Oops!" I've had a couple of NDs, but I don't say "Oops!" A few years ago a Star Model S I'd just bought doubled on me the first time I shot it. And I had a hang-fire for about three or four seconds (or it seemed that long) in a 20 ga. shotgun with a factory skeet load. Guns are just such a mature technology that nothing ever goes wrong, goes wrong, goes wrong... That's why, when I pull the trigger and the gun doesn't fire, I don't look down the barrel to see what's wrong. The trick there, with my Flightmaster pump, was to avoid quickly chambering a new round after the first one was a dud. Without the training, I might have done so, just in time for the ejected shell to go off in my face. -- Ed Huntress David |
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about householdgun ownership numbers
On 7/31/2015 9:14 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:04:25 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: Are you trying to miss the point that its not the object, but how it is used? I'm trying to point out that your point is fundamentally wrong. If you're unaware of what can happen with weeping (or "sweating") dynamite, inanimate or not, you should look it up. Actually, I do know a bit about it from my dad. Before WWII, he used dynamite when he worked with a crew dredging Hamilton Harbor in Bermuda. He said the crates had to be turned regularly to keep the nitro from weeping. Not a job for the meek. He was about 19 at the time. Beyond that, to pursue your line of reasoning, you have to ignore the fact that the greatest danger lies in the unknown answer to the question, "whose hands are we talking about"? You may have a gun. I don't know who you are. I don't know about the state of your mental health. I don't know what you stand for. I don't know what your behavior has been in the past. I don't know what drugs you've taken. Or you may be the same person without a gun. You tell me -- what is the INHERENT role of the gun in this circumstance? Since I only may have a gun, the gun has no role. Anyone walking down the street may have a gun. This is the silly narrative that has grown out of the gun nutz' narrative, based on a strawman argument, that people fear guns as objects. No person I've ever known, and I've known plenty of anti-gun people, fits that strawman suit. If they fear guns, they fear them because of what can happen when someone gets his hands on them. Whose hands? I have known people with an irrational fear of guns as objects. Then you know a nuttier bunch of people than I do. Why that is, I can't guess. Most of my friends on the left are gun friendly or neutral, but most of my friends are Mensans who tend to ignore Establishment Left dogma. The nuts tend to be the ones who can't get around Left or Right dogma. BTW, Dogma is my favorite Kevin Smith movie. You say no and then reiterate what I said. Nonsense. I don't care who gets his hands on a loaf of bread. I do care who gets his hands on a gun. Again, you're building on a silly narrative, one that has been around for decades, which has no relation to reality. The reality is that a child was suspended from school because a teacher thought the bites from his sandwich made it look like something that resembled a gun. The horror! Did they kill the kid? Nope, just more zero tolerance garbage from those taught that policy overrules wisdom. You seem to be developing a tendency to not read very carefully what I write. This is recent. Are you OK? I'm just fine. What you're saying is nonsense. Actually, no, it isn't. Interesting that you aren't seeing anything else, though. I see what is really there. On the surface, yes, but usually you are more discerning. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I have to question the argument of anyone who fears hammers. Most dangerous objects are dangerous when people interact with them. We've been talking about accidental injuries and death -- the danger associated with those events. In terms of accidents, hammers can be rough on your thumbs. Guns can be rough on your life. Again, you are reiterating what I said. No, you're packing what you say with absurd equivalences and strawmen. You're not alone. Give the gun nutz a cute narrative like that, and they're off and running. I write "I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers" and you see "I fear hammers". Because that's what you said, your qualifier notwithstanding. The important part of the sentence is the qualifier. Look, David, this silly philosophical argument goes on all the time. Guns are dangerous objects. To deny that, or to go off on a tangent about nutty people who think they're going to spontaneously fire, is nothing more than an intellectually feeble attempt to deny the fundamental fact: Whether it's intentional or accidental, whatever the motivations of the person with whom they come in contact, guns, themselves, raise the level of danger in many circumstances. There is no sane argument against that. But that doesn't stop the gun nutz from making insane arguments. A gun in my safe is inherently dangerous? To whom? A gun in the hand of someone I don't know is potentially dangerous. Not inherently. The danger that most people recognize in guns is their danger when someone interacts with them. That's true with most inherently dangerous things -- few of them are dangerous just sitting in a box. But I've been involved in this for many years -- I interviewed the incoming communications director of the Brady organization 24 years ago, and also the spokesmen for the FOP and the NACP, plus state lawmakers in NJ -- and I never heard anyone who fears guns locked in a box. There are some who fear guns in the hands of people, and the fact that guns sooner or later wind up in the hands of people. Which people? I talked with a guy once who feared that a gun sitting on a table with no one near it would spontaneously fire. He didn't mean could, he expected it to. That was some kind of nut. Yes, but, in my experience, common among anti-gun folks. I have to wonder why you encounter more nuts than I do. I guess I just notice them more. I was taught at an early age to not point a gun at something I did not intend to shoot. I would object and tell him to move it if someone put the gun on the table pointing at me. I admit a gun pointing at me makes me uncomfortable, even if there is no one holding it. It seems a violation of what I consider basic gun safety. It is. I believe it's founded on the idea that there are many potentially dangerous situations that can occur with guns, and that, as a principle, we must avoid all of them that we can, no matter how remote they are, while still retaining the ability to use the gun for its purposes. A harmless situation can evolve into a dangerous one with alarming speed and can't always be anticipated. But your reaction (which is exactly like mine would be) has no relationship to the actual circumstances of the moment. It's part of a safety routine. It only makes sense if you think the gun will go off spontaneously. And yet, that's how you and I both react. In itself, it makes no sense. Would you object to the person who left the gun that way? I'd know the person did not have basic gun safety embedded in his behavior. If you do, you would never do such a thing. I'd know that, too, and in the right circumstances, try to make it a teaching moment. Would you do that? And I had a hang-fire for about three or four seconds (or it seemed that long) in a 20 ga. shotgun with a factory skeet load. Guns are just such a mature technology that nothing ever goes wrong, goes wrong, goes wrong... That's why, when I pull the trigger and the gun doesn't fire, I don't look down the barrel to see what's wrong. The trick there, with my Flightmaster pump, was to avoid quickly chambering a new round after the first one was a dud. Without the training, I might have done so, just in time for the ejected shell to go off in my face. I have some 7x57 ammo that has bad primers that cause hang fires about 10%. When I find a sale on round tuits, I'll pull the bullets, dump the powder in the peony bed and trash the rest. David |
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:44:00 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote: On 7/31/2015 9:14 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:04:25 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: Are you trying to miss the point that its not the object, but how it is used? I'm trying to point out that your point is fundamentally wrong. If you're unaware of what can happen with weeping (or "sweating") dynamite, inanimate or not, you should look it up. Actually, I do know a bit about it from my dad. Before WWII, he used dynamite when he worked with a crew dredging Hamilton Harbor in Bermuda. He said the crates had to be turned regularly to keep the nitro from weeping. Not a job for the meek. He was about 19 at the time. Then you should know that inanimate things are not necessarily, inherently safe. That whole gun-nutz argument is suspect. But more importantly, it's a silly semantic game. Beyond that, to pursue your line of reasoning, you have to ignore the fact that the greatest danger lies in the unknown answer to the question, "whose hands are we talking about"? You may have a gun. I don't know who you are. I don't know about the state of your mental health. I don't know what you stand for. I don't know what your behavior has been in the past. I don't know what drugs you've taken. Or you may be the same person without a gun. You tell me -- what is the INHERENT role of the gun in this circumstance? Since I only may have a gun, the gun has no role. Anyone walking down the street may have a gun. I've specified that one person has a gun, and the the other does not. You may or may not know which is which. The role of the gun is to elevate the risk you're exposed to in one situation. Inherently. The elevated danger does not exist without the presence of the gun. This is the silly narrative that has grown out of the gun nutz' narrative, based on a strawman argument, that people fear guns as objects. No person I've ever known, and I've known plenty of anti-gun people, fits that strawman suit. If they fear guns, they fear them because of what can happen when someone gets his hands on them. Whose hands? I have known people with an irrational fear of guns as objects. Then you know a nuttier bunch of people than I do. Why that is, I can't guess. Most of my friends on the left are gun friendly or neutral, but most of my friends are Mensans who tend to ignore Establishment Left dogma. The nuts tend to be the ones who can't get around Left or Right dogma. I don't know many dogmatic people, personally. BTW, Dogma is my favorite Kevin Smith movie. You say no and then reiterate what I said. Nonsense. I don't care who gets his hands on a loaf of bread. I do care who gets his hands on a gun. Again, you're building on a silly narrative, one that has been around for decades, which has no relation to reality. The reality is that a child was suspended from school because a teacher thought the bites from his sandwich made it look like something that resembled a gun. The horror! Did they kill the kid? Nope, just more zero tolerance garbage from those taught that policy overrules wisdom. I looked that one up. It wasn't a sandwich. It was a pop-tart. d8-) You seem to be developing a tendency to not read very carefully what I write. This is recent. Are you OK? I'm just fine. What you're saying is nonsense. Actually, no, it isn't. Interesting that you aren't seeing anything else, though. I see what is really there. On the surface, yes, but usually you are more discerning. You're playing a semantic game, David, and you're trying to get me to take you seriously about this old gun-nutz chestnut. I really can't, any more than I can take seriously the principal who suspended that kid for the pop-tart. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I have to question the argument of anyone who fears hammers. Most dangerous objects are dangerous when people interact with them. We've been talking about accidental injuries and death -- the danger associated with those events. In terms of accidents, hammers can be rough on your thumbs. Guns can be rough on your life. Again, you are reiterating what I said. No, you're packing what you say with absurd equivalences and strawmen. You're not alone. Give the gun nutz a cute narrative like that, and they're off and running. I write "I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers" and you see "I fear hammers". Because that's what you said, your qualifier notwithstanding. The important part of the sentence is the qualifier. Look, David, this silly philosophical argument goes on all the time. Guns are dangerous objects. To deny that, or to go off on a tangent about nutty people who think they're going to spontaneously fire, is nothing more than an intellectually feeble attempt to deny the fundamental fact: Whether it's intentional or accidental, whatever the motivations of the person with whom they come in contact, guns, themselves, raise the level of danger in many circumstances. There is no sane argument against that. But that doesn't stop the gun nutz from making insane arguments. A gun in my safe is inherently dangerous? To whom? I'll grant that a gun locked forever in your safe is a safe gun. Once it comes out, it is not. A gun in the hand of someone I don't know is potentially dangerous. Not inherently. If that same person does not have a gun in his hand, is he as potentially dangerous? Keep in mind that guns are used in 68% of murders in the US (in 2013). So what is it that makes him more dangerous? The danger that most people recognize in guns is their danger when someone interacts with them. That's true with most inherently dangerous things -- few of them are dangerous just sitting in a box. But I've been involved in this for many years -- I interviewed the incoming communications director of the Brady organization 24 years ago, and also the spokesmen for the FOP and the NACP, plus state lawmakers in NJ -- and I never heard anyone who fears guns locked in a box. There are some who fear guns in the hands of people, and the fact that guns sooner or later wind up in the hands of people. Which people? I talked with a guy once who feared that a gun sitting on a table with no one near it would spontaneously fire. He didn't mean could, he expected it to. That was some kind of nut. Yes, but, in my experience, common among anti-gun folks. I have to wonder why you encounter more nuts than I do. I guess I just notice them more. Too many Mensans. g I was taught at an early age to not point a gun at something I did not intend to shoot. I would object and tell him to move it if someone put the gun on the table pointing at me. I admit a gun pointing at me makes me uncomfortable, even if there is no one holding it. It seems a violation of what I consider basic gun safety. It is. I believe it's founded on the idea that there are many potentially dangerous situations that can occur with guns, and that, as a principle, we must avoid all of them that we can, no matter how remote they are, while still retaining the ability to use the gun for its purposes. A harmless situation can evolve into a dangerous one with alarming speed and can't always be anticipated. But your reaction (which is exactly like mine would be) has no relationship to the actual circumstances of the moment. It's part of a safety routine. It only makes sense if you think the gun will go off spontaneously. And yet, that's how you and I both react. In itself, it makes no sense. Would you object to the person who left the gun that way? I'd know the person did not have basic gun safety embedded in his behavior. If you do, you would never do such a thing. I'd know that, too, and in the right circumstances, try to make it a teaching moment. Would you do that? I have, although it was a .22 rifle. And I had a hang-fire for about three or four seconds (or it seemed that long) in a 20 ga. shotgun with a factory skeet load. Guns are just such a mature technology that nothing ever goes wrong, goes wrong, goes wrong... That's why, when I pull the trigger and the gun doesn't fire, I don't look down the barrel to see what's wrong. The trick there, with my Flightmaster pump, was to avoid quickly chambering a new round after the first one was a dud. Without the training, I might have done so, just in time for the ejected shell to go off in my face. I have some 7x57 ammo that has bad primers that cause hang fires about 10%. When I find a sale on round tuits, I'll pull the bullets, dump the powder in the peony bed and trash the rest. David |
#22
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:04:17 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote: On 7/27/2015 2:47 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: When I pull out my Hi-Standard Supermatic on the range, people ask, "What the hell is that?" g I get that with about half of what I shoot. I've lost count of how many times I've given my BM-59 talk. Or my FN49 talk. David Which FN49 do you have? Ive got an Egyptian |
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:44:00 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote: On 7/31/2015 9:14 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:04:25 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: Are you trying to miss the point that its not the object, but how it is used? I'm trying to point out that your point is fundamentally wrong. If you're unaware of what can happen with weeping (or "sweating") dynamite, inanimate or not, you should look it up. Actually, I do know a bit about it from my dad. Before WWII, he used dynamite when he worked with a crew dredging Hamilton Harbor in Bermuda. He said the crates had to be turned regularly to keep the nitro from weeping. Not a job for the meek. He was about 19 at the time. True indeed. 60% requires it most often. Beyond that, to pursue your line of reasoning, you have to ignore the fact that the greatest danger lies in the unknown answer to the question, "whose hands are we talking about"? You may have a gun. I don't know who you are. I don't know about the state of your mental health. I don't know what you stand for. I don't know what your behavior has been in the past. I don't know what drugs you've taken. Or you may be the same person without a gun. You tell me -- what is the INHERENT role of the gun in this circumstance? Since I only may have a gun, the gun has no role. Anyone walking down the street may have a gun. This is the silly narrative that has grown out of the gun nutz' narrative, based on a strawman argument, that people fear guns as objects. No person I've ever known, and I've known plenty of anti-gun people, fits that strawman suit. If they fear guns, they fear them because of what can happen when someone gets his hands on them. Whose hands? I have known people with an irrational fear of guns as objects. Then you know a nuttier bunch of people than I do. Why that is, I can't guess. Most of my friends on the left are gun friendly or neutral, but most of my friends are Mensans who tend to ignore Establishment Left dogma. The nuts tend to be the ones who can't get around Left or Right dogma. BTW, Dogma is my favorite Kevin Smith movie. You say no and then reiterate what I said. Nonsense. I don't care who gets his hands on a loaf of bread. I do care who gets his hands on a gun. Again, you're building on a silly narrative, one that has been around for decades, which has no relation to reality. The reality is that a child was suspended from school because a teacher thought the bites from his sandwich made it look like something that resembled a gun. The horror! Did they kill the kid? Nope, just more zero tolerance garbage from those taught that policy overrules wisdom. You seem to be developing a tendency to not read very carefully what I write. This is recent. Are you OK? I'm just fine. What you're saying is nonsense. Actually, no, it isn't. Interesting that you aren't seeing anything else, though. I see what is really there. On the surface, yes, but usually you are more discerning. I fear guns in the sense that some people can be dangerous with guns, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers, but that is not an irrational fear, quite the contrary. I have to question the argument of anyone who fears hammers. Most dangerous objects are dangerous when people interact with them. We've been talking about accidental injuries and death -- the danger associated with those events. In terms of accidents, hammers can be rough on your thumbs. Guns can be rough on your life. Again, you are reiterating what I said. No, you're packing what you say with absurd equivalences and strawmen. You're not alone. Give the gun nutz a cute narrative like that, and they're off and running. I write "I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers" and you see "I fear hammers". Because that's what you said, your qualifier notwithstanding. The important part of the sentence is the qualifier. Look, David, this silly philosophical argument goes on all the time. Guns are dangerous objects. To deny that, or to go off on a tangent about nutty people who think they're going to spontaneously fire, is nothing more than an intellectually feeble attempt to deny the fundamental fact: Whether it's intentional or accidental, whatever the motivations of the person with whom they come in contact, guns, themselves, raise the level of danger in many circumstances. There is no sane argument against that. But that doesn't stop the gun nutz from making insane arguments. A gun in my safe is inherently dangerous? To whom? A gun in the hand of someone I don't know is potentially dangerous. Not inherently. Well stated. The danger that most people recognize in guns is their danger when someone interacts with them. That's true with most inherently dangerous things -- few of them are dangerous just sitting in a box. But I've been involved in this for many years -- I interviewed the incoming communications director of the Brady organization 24 years ago, and also the spokesmen for the FOP and the NACP, plus state lawmakers in NJ -- and I never heard anyone who fears guns locked in a box. There are some who fear guns in the hands of people, and the fact that guns sooner or later wind up in the hands of people. Which people? I talked with a guy once who feared that a gun sitting on a table with no one near it would spontaneously fire. He didn't mean could, he expected it to. That was some kind of nut. Yes, but, in my experience, common among anti-gun folks. I have to wonder why you encounter more nuts than I do. I guess I just notice them more. I was taught at an early age to not point a gun at something I did not intend to shoot. I would object and tell him to move it if someone put the gun on the table pointing at me. I admit a gun pointing at me makes me uncomfortable, even if there is no one holding it. It seems a violation of what I consider basic gun safety. It is. I believe it's founded on the idea that there are many potentially dangerous situations that can occur with guns, and that, as a principle, we must avoid all of them that we can, no matter how remote they are, while still retaining the ability to use the gun for its purposes. A harmless situation can evolve into a dangerous one with alarming speed and can't always be anticipated. But your reaction (which is exactly like mine would be) has no relationship to the actual circumstances of the moment. It's part of a safety routine. It only makes sense if you think the gun will go off spontaneously. And yet, that's how you and I both react. In itself, it makes no sense. Would you object to the person who left the gun that way? I'd know the person did not have basic gun safety embedded in his behavior. If you do, you would never do such a thing. I'd know that, too, and in the right circumstances, try to make it a teaching moment. Would you do that? And I had a hang-fire for about three or four seconds (or it seemed that long) in a 20 ga. shotgun with a factory skeet load. Guns are just such a mature technology that nothing ever goes wrong, goes wrong, goes wrong... That's why, when I pull the trigger and the gun doesn't fire, I don't look down the barrel to see what's wrong. The trick there, with my Flightmaster pump, was to avoid quickly chambering a new round after the first one was a dud. Without the training, I might have done so, just in time for the ejected shell to go off in my face. I have some 7x57 ammo that has bad primers that cause hang fires about 10%. When I find a sale on round tuits, I'll pull the bullets, dump the powder in the peony bed and trash the rest. David |
#24
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about householdgun ownership numbers
On 7/31/2015 4:40 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:44:00 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: On 7/31/2015 9:14 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:04:25 -0500, "David R. Birch" wrote: Are you trying to miss the point that its not the object, but how it is used? I'm trying to point out that your point is fundamentally wrong. If you're unaware of what can happen with weeping (or "sweating") dynamite, inanimate or not, you should look it up. Actually, I do know a bit about it from my dad. Before WWII, he used dynamite when he worked with a crew dredging Hamilton Harbor in Bermuda. He said the crates had to be turned regularly to keep the nitro from weeping. Not a job for the meek. He was about 19 at the time. Then you should know that inanimate things are not necessarily, inherently safe. That whole gun-nutz argument is suspect. But more importantly, it's a silly semantic game. A game that I am not playing. I do know that inanimate things are not necessarily, inherently safe. I also know that inanimate things are not necessarily, inherently dangerous. Beyond that, to pursue your line of reasoning, you have to ignore the fact that the greatest danger lies in the unknown answer to the question, "whose hands are we talking about"? You may have a gun. I don't know who you are. I don't know about the state of your mental health. I don't know what you stand for. I don't know what your behavior has been in the past. I don't know what drugs you've taken. Or you may be the same person without a gun. You tell me -- what is the INHERENT role of the gun in this circumstance? Since I only may have a gun, the gun has no role. Anyone walking down the street may have a gun. I've specified that one person has a gun, and the the other does not. You may or may not know which is which. The role of the gun is to elevate the risk you're exposed to in one situation. Inherently. The elevated danger does not exist without the presence of the gun. Now you state it somewhat more clearly, 2 people, 1 has a gun, 1 not and I don't know which one. Still, I will treat them both the same and no different from both or none armed, so again the gun has no role. Safest to assume all are armed and deal accordingly. This is the silly narrative that has grown out of the gun nutz' narrative, based on a strawman argument, that people fear guns as objects. No person I've ever known, and I've known plenty of anti-gun people, fits that strawman suit. If they fear guns, they fear them because of what can happen when someone gets his hands on them. Whose hands? I have known people with an irrational fear of guns as objects. Then you know a nuttier bunch of people than I do. Why that is, I can't guess. Most of my friends on the left are gun friendly or neutral, but most of my friends are Mensans who tend to ignore Establishment Left dogma. The nuts tend to be the ones who can't get around Left or Right dogma. I don't know many dogmatic people, personally. I doubt that, unless you live in a bubble. The reality is that a child was suspended from school because a teacher thought the bites from his sandwich made it look like something that resembled a gun. The horror! Did they kill the kid? Nope, just more zero tolerance garbage from those taught that policy overrules wisdom. I looked that one up. It wasn't a sandwich. It was a pop-tart. d8-) When pop-tarts are outlawed, etc. You seem to be developing a tendency to not read very carefully what I write. This is recent. Are you OK? I'm just fine. What you're saying is nonsense. Actually, no, it isn't. Interesting that you aren't seeing anything else, though. I see what is really there. On the surface, yes, but usually you are more discerning. You're playing a semantic game, David, and you're trying to get me to take you seriously about this old gun-nutz chestnut. I really can't, any more than I can take seriously the principal who suspended that kid for the pop-tart. Defining this bit of reality as "this old gun-nutz chestnut" seems like an ad hominem attack. You have failed to demonstrate that guns are any more than inanimate objects, dangerous only in the context of their use, so you disparage those who disagree with you. I write "I fear hammers in the sense that some people can be dangerous with hammers" and you see "I fear hammers". Because that's what you said, your qualifier notwithstanding. The important part of the sentence is the qualifier. Not odd that you didn't have a response to this, as doing so undermines your doubtful argument. A gun in my safe is inherently dangerous? To whom? I'll grant that a gun locked forever in your safe is a safe gun. Once it comes out, it is not. Once it comes out of the safe, and in my hands, it continues to be only potentially dangerous, depending on how I use it. A gun in the hand of someone I don't know is potentially dangerous. Not inherently. If that same person does not have a gun in his hand, is he as potentially dangerous? I know that there are people who can kill with their bare hands. Should I assume that someone w/o a gun is not dangerous? Keep in mind that guns are used in 68% of murders in the US (in 2013). So what is it that makes him more dangerous? Nothing. Most use guns because they aren't trained to kill with their hands. In cultures with less access to guns, people still are killed, just not with guns. I talked with a guy once who feared that a gun sitting on a table with no one near it would spontaneously fire. He didn't mean could, he expected it to. That was some kind of nut. Yes, but, in my experience, common among anti-gun folks. I have to wonder why you encounter more nuts than I do. I guess I just notice them more. Too many Mensans. g As I once pointed out to my sister, Mensa is a big tent with room for gun controllers, creationists and rational people. I was taught at an early age to not point a gun at something I did not intend to shoot. I would object and tell him to move it if someone put the gun on the table pointing at me. I admit a gun pointing at me makes me uncomfortable, even if there is no one holding it. It seems a violation of what I consider basic gun safety. It is. I believe it's founded on the idea that there are many potentially dangerous situations that can occur with guns, and that, as a principle, we must avoid all of them that we can, no matter how remote they are, while still retaining the ability to use the gun for its purposes. A harmless situation can evolve into a dangerous one with alarming speed and can't always be anticipated. But your reaction (which is exactly like mine would be) has no relationship to the actual circumstances of the moment. It's part of a safety routine. It only makes sense if you think the gun will go off spontaneously. And yet, that's how you and I both react. In itself, it makes no sense. Would you object to the person who left the gun that way? I'd know the person did not have basic gun safety embedded in his behavior. If you do, you would never do such a thing. I'd know that, too, and in the right circumstances, try to make it a teaching moment. Would you do that? I have, although it was a .22 rifle. What does the caliber have to do with it? Do you object less to being shot with a .22? And I had a hang-fire for about three or four seconds (or it seemed that long) in a 20 ga. shotgun with a factory skeet load. Guns are just such a mature technology that nothing ever goes wrong, goes wrong, goes wrong... That's why, when I pull the trigger and the gun doesn't fire, I don't look down the barrel to see what's wrong. The trick there, with my Flightmaster pump, was to avoid quickly chambering a new round after the first one was a dud. Without the training, I might have done so, just in time for the ejected shell to go off in my face. Is 20 seconds too much to wait? Is a minute too little? Only one way to find out. Eventually, you have to open the breech. David |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Trumpet valve oil household substitute (will 3-in-1 household oil work)? | Home Repair | |||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers | Metalworking | |||
The bizarre and irrational beliefs of gun nuts about household gun ownership numbers | Metalworking | |||
Net Worth of Average Canadian Household Far Exceeds US Household Since2011 | Home Repair | |||
Net Worth of Average Canadian Household Far Exceeds US Household Since2011 | Home Ownership |