Gun Accidents

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

If you never handle either a gun or a parachute, then you are correct. If you handle both, a gun is more likely to kill you than a parachute...

Only one out of every 128,000 gun owners dies from accidental gunshot wounds each year.

About one out of every 1,000 experienced skydivers die each year from a parachuting accident.

I think by handle, Bill was referring to holding the given item, not using them as intended.

But even in that case, I think it's a wash. Guns are inherently unloaded, but can be dropped on one's foot. They also tend to have a lead based solvent residue which in the long term is very bad for one's health. A ZP parachute poses a small suffocation risk.

But all that said, I still don't think anyone should be proud of 700. It exceeds the intentional death counts in many nations, and it was the death of 4 times that that lead us to invade two countries in retaliation.

if people followed the few basic rules, namely not aiming a gun, unloaded or not, at someone else and pulling the trigger, few of these should happen. (And sometimes I wonder if they all were really "accidents")

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

But all that said, I still don't think anyone should be proud of 700.

OK, try to follow this line of reasoning. Please.

I am not proud that 700 people died from firearm related accidents. I wouldn't be proud if 1 person ded in a firearm related accident.

No one is proud of the number of people who died, no matter how small.

I am proud that we have succeeded in reducing the nubmer of fatal accidents by 54%. I am proud that more than 700 people who might have died did not, and are safely enjoying my other favorite sport.

I wouldn't be proud of any number of jumpers dying, but I would be proud of a successful push to reduce the number of jumpers dying accidentally.

the sixth time seeing it
Does it make sense now?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh, and one of Ben Franklin's sellling points for electricity was to use it for clean executions of death row prisoners.

Maybe, but he didn't invent electricity nor was he the first to use it.

Why are you arguing against something that I didn't even say? I didn't claim that he invented it, nor that he was the first to use it. (I hope you use better logic than this when grading student papers.)

I suppose it depends on how you interpret "original", as in your initial statement:

"He's really hung-up on that original intent idea, and can't get his mind beyond it.

"Using that same philosophy, we could say that all nuclear power plants should be shut down, because the original invention of nuclear reactions was for purposes of bombs made to kill."

etc.

Your Ben Franklin comment becomes a non-sequitur if it's not intended to reflect an "original" intent.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[uncaged 0]

Hey Dorkness,
Wake up and smell the Monkey Dung, we have more "unregistered firearms" in this country than all of NATO combined....

Stick that in yer pipe and take another toke...

When the going gets weird, The weird turn pro...

[Kennedy 0]

Lay off.

Specifically, lay off the personal attacks. I disagree with kallend more than most anyone else on the site, but name calling just undermines anyone who agrees with you. Start calling names and anyone who disagrees with him is on shakier ground.

Why make my argument look weak just so you can get five seconds of puerile levity out of a post?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I'm having trouble following your logic... Let me see if I've got this straight:

1) You think that the only purpose of guns is to kill.
2) Yet you don't want to make them illegal.

You are almosty correct.

1. I think that the original purpose of a gun is to kill. They were invented to kill. I don't understand why you have such a hard time agreeing to that.

2. I could give a rats ass what you do with guns in the US. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that it is not all about you, not all about the US and that there are more countries on this planet and that we don't all want to be like you,or your country?

Quote

Do you believe in the right to use deadly force in lawful self defense?

If that same force is applied against you, yes I do.

Quote

Well, you're quite the humanitarian to take such a firm stand against these murder machines!

Never considered myself to be one, nor do I care to be one.

Quote

Oh, and one more thing: quit using that cop-out about you being a Canadian and not caring what happens in the U.S. Tell us what you would like to see done with guns in *your* country. I'm looking for your true feelings here. Using that cop-out excuse doesn't reveal your true feelings.

I have stated many times before that I am happy I live in a country where we don't feel the need to arm ourselves just so we can feel safe. Our gun registry, eventhough I somewhat agree with the idea, is a clusterfuck. I am happy guns are restricted in Canada. Still doesn't mean I could give a rats ass what you guys do. Unlike many, I don't feel the need to convince the rest of the world that their society should be like mine.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Unlike many, I don't feel the need to convince the rest of the world that their society should be like mine.[

I am on board for that.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Do you believe in the right to use deadly force in lawful self defense?

If that same force is applied against you, yes I do.

So if a woman is being raped, you don't believe she has the right to shoot her attacker. After all, rape isn't deadly.

Oh, and one more thing: if someone is in your home where they don't belong, how are we to know whether or not they intend to try and kill us? Should we wait until a knife is in our chest to find out?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

So if a woman is being raped, you don't believe she has the right to shoot her attacker. After all, rape isn't deadly.

Oh, and one more thing: if someone is in your home where they don't belong, how are we to know whether or not they intend to try and kill us? Should we wait until a knife is in our chest to find out?

Force plus one is what I operate under.

[Nightingale 0]

Rape can be deadly. What if the rapist has an STD?

My opinion: if they're in my home without permission, they obviously intend harm. If I owned a gun, I would not have a problem using it, because I feel I would be in legitimate fear for my life. The only reason I don't own a gun is that my roommate has asked me not to because they frighten her, and I won't bring a weapon into my home where someone else who lives here is uncomfortable with it. Last thing I want is her getting scared and getting a hold of it, and then doing something dumb.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

Rape can be deadly. What if the rapist has an STD?

A single bee sting can be deadly if the person is allergic too it.

Forty-two

[JohnRich 4]

Me: Do you believe in the right to use deadly force in lawful self defense?

You: If that same force is applied against you, yes I do.

Me: So if a woman is being raped, you don't believe she has the right to shoot her attacker. After all, rape isn't deadly.

You: Force plus one is what I operate under.

--------------

Well now, that was interesting. In the space of four posts you managed to change your definition. First you said that deadly force should only be used in response to deadly force against yourself. Then you softened up a bit and came up with this "force plus one" philosophy.

So now you've got to define for us the table of force applications, so that we can figure out what "plus one" means.

Oh, and while you're doing that, you should also be worrying about another chink in your scheme. You seem to be assuming that the two adversaries, criminal and victim, are somewhat equally physically matched. But what about my 78-year-old Mom? If some intruder is beating her, do you expect her to only be allowed to fight back with her own fists, or maybe a knife? She doesn't have the physical capability for that. But she can sure grab a gun out of the nightstand and let an intruder have a few shots to keep him from getting to her.

So what about this wrinkle? "Force plus one", even for little old ladies? Would you charge my Mom with murder if she shot an intruder in her own home?

Just one more thing: since you want guns to be highly restricted, and even deny ownership... If an attacker comes at me in my home with a knife, then I don't have the "plus one" response available to me that I need. What then? My tough luck?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Rape can be deadly. What if the rapist has an STD?

I guess that Skydek would require you to prove that via a lab test prior to you being authorized to shoot the rapist. "Um, pardon me Mister Rapist, but would you mind going to the doctor first before raping me? I need to know if you have AIDS so I can determine how I should respond. Thank you."

Quote

My opinion: if they're in my home without permission, they obviously intend harm. If I owned a gun, I would not have a problem using it, because I feel I would be in legitimate fear for my life.

Ding ding ding! Correct-o-mundi!

If only some people cared about victims, as much as they do about criminals.

[billvon 3,068]

>if someone is in your home where they don't belong, how are we to
>know whether or not they intend to try and kill us?

You don't! Clearly the answer is to draw and fire. And if it's a drunk college kid who's inside because he went to the wrong house and your door was open - it's not your fault! After all, he might have raped you.

Of course, if he has a gun, then he will draw and fire as well, to stop the armed invader that he presumes is in his house. But still, all will be well - you'll both be right.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

if it's a drunk college kid who's inside because he went to the wrong house and your door was open - it's not your fault!

Let's talk about proportionality.

How often do drunks break into the wrong house (we're not talking about leaving doors open), compared with criminals breaking into houses?

Let's say the ratio is 1:100. Should 100 people be forced to become helpless victims of attack from intruders, in order to save the one lost drunk?

[billvon 3,068]

>Let's talk about proportionality.

Proportionality? Don't go all wobbly on me now, John!

>Should 100 people be forced to become helpless victims of
>attack from intruders, in order to save the one lost drunk?

Even if it's 100:1 the other way (which I suspect it is; dumb drunks far outnumber criminals with assault on their minds) it doesn't matter! Blow em all away. Far easier to bury someone than deal with them. And if they have a gun? Even easier to bury two people, especially if both are right.

[kelpdiver 2]

This is the most absurd hypothetical yet, you two.

[billvon 3,068]

> This is the most absurd hypothetical yet, you two.

Oh, come on. I'm sure we could find a much more absurd one with just a little searching through the archives. The gay-scoutmaster thread had a long list of incredibly unlikely hypothetical situations as I recall.

[kelpdiver 2]

The thread is about gun accidents. Shooting an intruder, ill intentioned or drunk, is not an accident.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

But what about my 78-year-old Mom?

I feel sad that your mom at that age has to worry about an intruder. Maybe she should try living in a country where we don't need guns to be or feel safe.

Since crime is such a huge problem in the US, to the point where everybody needs to be armed to protect himself or herself, maybe some of those trillions spent on "liberating" otehr around the world should be spent in your home country, fixing something that is so obviously broken.

I wonder why you guys want the rest of the world to be like you if you don't even feel safe without a gun in your own country.

[craddock 0]

Quote

I feel sad that your mom at that age has to worry about an intruder. Maybe she should try living in a country where we don't need guns to be or feel safe.

A very small portion of this country feels that we "need guns to be or feel safe"

Quote

I wonder why you guys want the rest of the world to be like you if you don't even feel safe without a gun in your own country.

Are you speaking to US residents in general or to specific people on this board??

I hope it's the latter.

Almost every houshold I know owns some sort of gun, from a Pellet gun or .22 to a handgun to a highpower rifle. Some people like myself own all of the above plus a few shotguns. I love bird hunting (grouse,pheasant, woodcock) with my dog.
Of all the people I know who own guns, which includes all of my grandparents on both sides of the family, I don't think any of them own one for the purpose of self protection. NOBODY I know personaly, aside from some skydivers, carry's a weapon for self protection. Most weapons are owned strictly for target shooting(there are many, many different types of target shooting) or hunting. You could spend a month or mabey a year over here and not actually meet as many people who carry conceled weapons as there are on DZ.com.(Mabey not in Texes though) Much in the same way that I find a very disproportionate amount of vegetarians within the skydiving community.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Are you speaking to US residents in general or to specific people on this board??

I hope it's the latter.

Almost every houshold I know owns some sort of gun, from a Pellet gun or .22 to a handgun to a highpower rifle. Some people like myself own all of the above plus a few shotguns. I love bird hunting (grouse,pheasant, woodcock) with my dog.
Of all the people I know who own guns, which includes all of my grandparents on both sides of the family, I don't think any of them own one for the purpose of self protection. NOBODY I know personaly, aside from some skydivers, carry's a weapon for self protection. Most weapons are owned strictly for target shooting(there are many, many different types of target shooting) or hunting. You could spend a month or mabey a year over here and not actually meet as many people who carry conceled weapons as there are on DZ.com.(Mabey not in Texes though) Much in the same way that I find a very disproportionate amount of vegetarians within the skydiving community.

It is and I agree with you. Just refering back to the constant argument of the pro-gun people on this forum who claim they need their guns for safety.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Are you speaking to US residents in general or to specific people on this board??

I hope it's the latter.

Almost every houshold I know owns some sort of gun, from a Pellet gun or .22 to a handgun to a highpower rifle. Some people like myself own all of the above plus a few shotguns. I love bird hunting (grouse,pheasant, woodcock) with my dog.
Of all the people I know who own guns, which includes all of my grandparents on both sides of the family, I don't think any of them own one for the purpose of self protection. NOBODY I know personaly, aside from some skydivers, carry's a weapon for self protection. Most weapons are owned strictly for target shooting(there are many, many different types of target shooting) or hunting. You could spend a month or mabey a year over here and not actually meet as many people who carry conceled weapons as there are on DZ.com.(Mabey not in Texes though) Much in the same way that I find a very disproportionate amount of vegetarians within the skydiving community.

It is and I agree with you. Just refering back to the constant argument of the pro-gun people on this forum who claim they need their guns for safety.

I have worked in Chicago (near south side) for 27 years. I do not own a gun, nor do I feel the slightest need for one. To keep out of trouble I use my BRAIN instead.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

To keep out of trouble I use my BRAIN instead.

You can do everything right and still die.

Sound familiar?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I feel sad that your mom at that age has to worry about an intruder. Maybe she should try living in a country where we don't need guns to be or feel safe.

left blank because this still doesn't deserve a response

Quote

Since crime is such a huge problem in the US, to the point where everybody needs to be armed to protect himself or herself, maybe some of those trillions spent on "liberating" otehr around the world should be spent in your home country, fixing something that is so obviously broken.

Do I need to re-paste the stats where the UK recently surpassed the US in violent crime rate?

ps - I do support keeping more US dollars at home. However, I tend to get called uncaring or greedy when I say that any other time.

Quote

I wonder why you guys want the rest of the world to be like you if you don't even feel safe without a gun in your own country.

Or maybe we just know that criminals will always be able to get guns in any country, so we want normal citizens to have access to the same tools criminals get their paws on.

I'm not shaking in my shoes right now while I'm home with my folks (in NJ, where I can't own a handgun even though I can carry in some thirty or so other states).

It's not that I personally need the firearm every second. It's about the choice. It's about knowing the people can decide for themselves how best to keep themselves safe.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*