DEA agent shoots himself in foot while giving a gun safety talk in school

[Kennedy 0]

If you think that was anything other than a sarcastic bit of humor, you obviously don't understand me!!

to sum up why I think it's a bunch of BS...

Guns can only make the situation worse!
If that's true, why do police and bodyguards carry guns?
(other possible answer: Did Joel Myrick make the situation worse?)

There'll be blood in the streets!
I love these wild west worries, and how the fortune tellers never admit they were wrong when the prediction never come true, time after time.

Oh, won't someone please think of the children
Ah, the ultimate "I have no argument but won't conceed defeat" line.

(other possible answer: Joel Myrick was thinking of the children)

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

[christelsabine 1]

Kennedy, I love your way to reply. Just let me confirm:

There are guns in the street.
There is blood in the street.
There are women screaming "take care of the children"..

But that's in the US, not here, Kennedy.
Thx God.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Kennedy 0]

If you listened to anti-gun people, then yes, you'd think all those things are the case here in the US. However, thank God, they are not true here, either.

Crimes are decreasing, even our terribly high murder rate is dropping (faster in many pro-gun states than anti-gun states), there aren't any wild west shoot-outs, and things are generally improving.
(except for government interfering in more aspects of life)

Unfortunately, you do hear shrill voices every now and then with the "think of the children" line of BS.

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

[Botellines 0]

Just to sum up our previous posts and show my logic, let me inform you of some misconceptions you pro-gun guys have.

1) It is easy to get a gun in the blackmarket.
Sorry, but it is not. In Europe guns are restricted to common citizens and criminals do have it, so there is a blckmarket. The average Joe, does not have the contacts to get a gun easily. Hell, even the average criminal will take a while before they get one. Plus it is a chance to get the criminal before they commit a crime by seizing him when trying to buy the gun.

2) If guns were banned only criminals would have a gun
No, it is not true. Cops, army, security forces would still have guns. Those are the ones whose tasks is to protect you, and eventually be judge, jury, and executer if they have to use it to protect someone.

3) Guns don´t kill. People kill
Yes, but the only think you can be sure is human stupidity. Accidents happen, and some people are not able to follow the four basic rules of gun handling. That is of course not taking into account those that go nuts.

4) CCW holders are law abiding citizen
Everybody is a law abiding citizen until they stop being one. Or to put in other words, just before squeezing the trigger, that citizen was a law abiding citizen.

5)Pro-gun people are not gun freaks
some are, some aren´t. But most important, not all gun owners are trained in their use sufficiently to be safe. Some of them are not even responsible to have their guns away from their kids.

6)if i don´t have a gun i am defenseless against a criminal
This is the biggest lie pro-gun people tell. First of all, there is only two things a criminal may want from you: your life or your belongings.
If they are after your life, you are as good as dead. No weapon will save you from a knife in your back.
If they are after your belongings, it is a always a better idea to comply than possibly getting into a gun fight and risk your life. It is that simple.
The only exception i can find is regarding women. To comply when facing rape is not a good option, but there is other alternatives that do not involve guns.


The way i see it is that in an utopic society, guns would be just a tool as a hammer and would create no more accidents than a hammer. But your society is not utopic, you have gun freaks, people that go nuts, troubled kids stealing the guns from home, etc.
You guys mix the constitution, freedom and the second amendment with the right to wear a gun, but the truth is that you just like the power a gun in your side brings.
IMO guns do more bad than good.

Regarding what you said about you not talking about spain´s domestic policy if i do the same with the U.S. Well, by all means if you have any suggestion, voice it, we are always open to ideas that can improve our life style. But if you don´t mind i will keep giving my opinion about other countries. There is not very many spaniards around here to discuss politics with.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

1) It is easy to get a gun in the blackmarket.
Sorry, but it is not. In Europe guns are restricted to common citizens and criminals do have it, so there is a blckmarket. The average Joe, does not have the contacts to get a gun easily. Hell, even the average criminal will take a while before they get one. Plus it is a chance to get the criminal before they commit a crime by seizing him when trying to buy the gun.

Right now there are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of guns in the USA. No question about it: If guns were banned starting tomorrow, there would still be plenty around for criminals to get their hands on.


And passing a gun ban would not work in America. The (previously) law-abiding gun owners would simply refuse to comply with such a law.

The government would be forced into the position of raiding thousands of homes of US citizens. Our government, even if it agreed that guns should be banned, would never want to be put into such a position.

I don't know for sure, but the relationship between a citizen and the government seems to be a bit different here in the US compared tothe way it is in Europe.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[justinb138 0]

Quote

1) It is easy to get a gun in the blackmarket.
Sorry, but it is not. In Europe guns are restricted to common citizens and criminals do have it, so there is a blckmarket. The average Joe, does not have the contacts to get a gun easily. Hell, even the average criminal will take a while before they get one. Plus it is a chance to get the criminal before they commit a crime by seizing him when trying to buy the gun.

It is not overly easy to get a gun here. If you have a criminal background, it won't happen legally. If you do, you can probably get one illegally. Making guns illegal will not stop criminals from getting them.

Quote

2) If guns were banned only criminals would have a gun
No, it is not true. Cops, army, security forces would still have guns. Those are the ones whose tasks is to protect you, and eventually be judge, jury, and executer if they have to use it to protect someone.

There are 600 million people in the US (I'm estimating here, so please, no need to correct this one). There are no where near that many cops. I would prefer to have a means to protect myself in the event that a police officer is unable to at the time.

Quote

3) Guns don´t kill. People kill
Yes, but the only think you can be sure is human stupidity. Accidents happen, and some people are not able to follow the four basic rules of gun handling. That is of course not taking into account those that go nuts.

Gun's don't kill people, criminals do. Stopping law-abiding citizens from having guns won't stop them. Accidents do happen with guns, and it is unfortunate. However, people electrocute themselves, fall off of ladders, and do various other untentional things to injure or kill themselves. No one is trying to outlaw any of them.

Quote

4) CCW holders are law abiding citizen
Everybody is a law abiding citizen until they stop being one. Or to put in other words, just before squeezing the trigger, that citizen was a law abiding citizen.

CCW folks are law abiding citizens. These people take the time and effort to get a permit to carry legally. If their intent was to commit a crime, it would be far easier to carry a gun illegally.

Quote

5)Pro-gun people are not gun freaks
some are, some aren´t. But most important, not all gun owners are trained in their use sufficiently to be safe. Some of them are not even responsible to have their guns away from their kids.

MOST pro-gun people are not gun freaks. Some gun owners are not trained sufficiently. Many more people aren't capable of operating a motor vehicle safely, but no one is trying to ban cars. Some aren't responsible enough to keep guns away from their kids. Some parents aren't responsible enough to keep their kids away from knives, hot stoves, etc... No one is trying to ban those.

Quote

6)if i don´t have a gun i am defenseless against a criminal
This is the biggest lie pro-gun people tell.

Not defenseless, but at a considerable disadvantage.

Quote

First of all, there is only two things a criminal may want from you: your life or your belongings.
If they are after your life, you are as good as dead.

I'd rather try to stop them than just accept the fact that they are going to kill me.

Quote

No weapon will save you from a knife in your back.
If they are after your belongings, it is a always a better idea to comply than possibly getting into a gun fight and risk your life. It is that simple.

It is not that simple.

Quote

But your society is not utopic, you have gun freaks, people that go nuts, troubled kids stealing the guns from home, etc.

No society is utopic. There are gun freaks, there are many kinds of freaks. People go nuts, but they go nuts with knives, baseball bats, and many other weapons as well.

Quote

You guys mix the constitution, freedom and the second amendment with the right to wear a gun, but the truth is that you just like the power a gun in your side brings.

I think you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Quote

IMO guns do more bad than good.

For you, probably.

[Kennedy 0]

Mr. Brann, Mr. Barnett, well put, and thanks for saving me the trouble of typing it myself.

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

[SpeedRacer 1]

the thing I would like to mention here is this:


I TOTALLY understand where Bottelines is coming from.

I do not own a gun & have never fired one. I once believed as he does. I am not a gun nut & understand what he is saying & believe that he has the best intentions.

When I delved into the actual statistics I found that on this ONE ISSUE my lefty friends were exhibiting a trait I so despised in right-wingers: Relying on "notions" and vague attitudes rather than digging down & looking at the facts.

Look at our current administration who actually fired people who didn't tell them what they wanted to hear regarding Iraq.

but there was one issue where my lefty friends were actually behaving like Republicans: the issue of whether to ban guns. When you actually dig into the facts, it turns out that a law banning guns (overturing the 2nd ammendment) would not cause a real world reduction in deaths of innocent people!! But when you present these statistics to those who want to ban guns, they suddenly become like those people who advocate American imperialism. The imperialists BLATANTLY IGNORE all the lies that got us into Iraq & try to divert attention, saying "Why do you hate America so much??? You must be a terrorist sympathiser!!"

Similarly, the ones who want a law banning guns, when presented with actual, statistical facts, will sweep them aside and say, "Don't you care about the children??"

In fact, if we cared about actual numbers of Americans killed, we should ban the private ownership of swimming pools. We could enforce that ban quite effectively (pools are much harder to hide) and save much more lives & get rid of much fewer pools (there are WAY more households that have guns than pools in America).

(A clue for the clueless: I'm not actually advocating this. I'm simply pointing out that we routinely tolerate a much greater risk of having a privately-owned swimming pool than having a privately-owned firearm. So then, what is the REAL WORLD criteria of the people who want to ban guns??)

of course, the REAL WORLD agenda should also ban skydiving, but I'm sure that's already obvious to everyone here.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kallend 2,106]

It's really really difficult to steal a swimming pool and then use it during the commission of a crime.

Generally speaking, stupid skydivers do not kill or injure other people on account of their stupidity.

...

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

[SpeedRacer 1]

bottom line is the numbers: more people die per privately owned swimming pool than die per privately owned firearm.

yet we accept the risk.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It's really really difficult to steal a swimming pool and then use it during the commission of a crime.

I see; it's okay if a lot of children die, as long as it is caused by something that can't be stolen and used in crime.

Brilliant.

And all along I thought the goal was to save children's lives...

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

It's really really difficult to steal a swimming pool and then use it during the commission of a crime.

Weren't we talking about accidents before you began actively trying to kill this thread?

What's the matter? Can't handle a logical discussion, so you get quiet for a few days and then try similarly useless posts from another tack?

(go ahead, tell me again how you don't oppose gun ownership)

Quote

Generally speaking, stupid skydivers do not kill or injure other people on account of their stupidity.

Generally speaking, they do it far more often than gun owners when you consider injuries per participant. Same with drivers. And pool owners. And bath tub users.

(nice touch mixing intentional crimes with accidents; good way to muddle the debate further)

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

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

It's really really difficult to steal a swimming pool and then use it during the commission of a crime.

Weren't we talking about accidents before you began actively trying to kill this thread?

What's the matter? Can't handle a logical discussion, so you get quiet for a few days and then try similarly useless posts from another tack?

(go ahead, tell me again how you don't oppose gun ownership)

Quote

Generally speaking, stupid skydivers do not kill or injure other people on account of their stupidity.

Generally speaking, they do it far more often than gun owners when you consider injuries per participant. Same with drivers. And pool owners. And bath tub users.

(nice touch mixing intentional crimes with accidents; good way to muddle the debate further)

Tell, me, how many crimes ARE committed with swimming pools? Or, since John Rich picked on engineers, how many crimes are committed with suspension bridges or sewage systems?

...

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

[jeiber 0]

Quote

The fact is that there is a problem in your country with people and guns. There is no easy fix, but what i think is that since you cannot remove the people, remove the guns, or at least increase the requirements to own them (gun control), you seem to think that the problem will be fixed with more guns.

While we're at it, let's take away alcohol and fast food, since we're a leader in drunk driving and obesity.

Quote

Please, don´t go into the criminals vs law abidind citizen. The kid that killed 9 people in minesotta was as law abiding citizen as you are before he pulled the trigger

'Kids' are not law abiding citizens if they steal, especially firearms, which you must be 18 to own/carry. In most (if not all) states, it's illegal to bring a firearm even remotely close to school property - law enforcement/military excluded.

Sorry, but this kid wasn't law abiding.

You may want to read the rest of that link you posted. From the link you referenced:

In any country that has banned handguns/gun ownership, like Oz, UK, etc, you will see rising levels of crime. UK now leads the western europe for muggings, and gun deaths.

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Tell, me, how many crimes ARE committed with swimming pools? Or, since John Rich picked on engineers, how many crimes are committed with suspension bridges or sewage systems?

OK, as I recall, this thread is about accidents involving firearms, not crimes. In that view, using your happy little relativity, swimming pools are a great deal more dangerous than firearms. I could also opint out that firearms accidents are declining, while other types of accidents are not.

Your views have changed so many times that I really see no reason to argue with you any further, since even if I did somehow manage to change your mind, you'd change it again in a few mintes anyway. Why bother?

(yeah, I could've mentioned bridges for suicides and sewers for ditching evidence, and the value of the god done with firearms as compared to the bad, but like I said, why bother?)

ps - until you actually answer some of the difficult questions I ask you, I'm going to leave your silly repetative questions to be fielded by others.

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

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Tell, me, how many crimes ARE committed with swimming pools? Or, since John Rich picked on engineers, how many crimes are committed with suspension bridges or sewage systems?

OK, as I recall, this thread is about accidents involving firearms, not crimes. In that view, using your happy little relativity, swimming pools are a great deal more dangerous than firearms. I could also opint out that firearms accidents are declining, while other types of accidents are not.

Your views have changed so many times that I really see no reason to argue with you any further, since even if I did somehow manage to change your mind, you'd change it again in a few mintes anyway. Why bother?

(yeah, I could've mentioned bridges for suicides and sewers for ditching evidence, and the value of the god done with firearms as compared to the bad, but like I said, why bother?)

ps - until you actually answer some of the difficult questions I ask you, I'm going to leave your silly repetative questions to be fielded by others.

My views have indeed changed, thanks to you, John R., Dave and others. I used to be quite neutral on guns, thinking that those who wanted to use them for hunting were OK and those that used defense as the rationale were self-deluding. I have come to realise, thanks to you folks, that the average gun enthusiast is both deluded and dangerous by the way you dismiss all the negative aspects of guns as irrelevant. The comparison of gun deaths with engineering and medical accidents is plain ludicrous. The web sites that you frequently quote to justify your hobby are, for the most part, absurd distortions. You twist statistics according to need, sometimes arguing that rates of change are important and absolute values are not. Then when a contra-indication is pointed out, you reverse your arguments. You quote "definitive" studies from gun lobby shill John Lott, then go quiet when his data are debunked.

...

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

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I have come to realise, thanks to you folks, that the average gun enthusiast is both deluded and dangerous by the way you dismiss all the negative aspects of guns as irrelevant.

You really don't pay attention to what you read do you?

How in the hell do you grade papers without actually reading what's put down?

I'm glad real engineers are out there in the field and someone who doesn't read whats put down and distorts what he reads is only a teacher.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You really don't pay attention to what you read do you?

How in the hell do you grade papers without actually reading what's put down?

I'm glad real engineers are out there in the field and someone who doesn't read whats put down and distorts what he reads is only a teacher.

lol, that tone of superiority is kind of funny to read, specially when one thinks of comparions.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

lol, that tone of superiority is kind of funny to read, specially when one thinks of comparions.

There's that "lol" of yours again - your master argument of persuasion.

Isn't responding to someone's serious point with a "laugh", also displaying a tone of superiority?

And what the heck is a "comparion"?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Tell, me, how many crimes ARE committed with swimming pools? Or, since John Rich picked on engineers, how many crimes are committed with suspension bridges or sewage systems?

Do try and stay focused on the topic, professor - the topic here is accidents.

In that regard:
"about 350 children under age 5 drown in swimming pools each year."
Source: CPSC

That's about five times the number of children of that same age group killed by guns each year.

Maybe you engineers should quit focusing so much hatred on guns, and start channeling your energies toward making pools more safe.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Tell, me, how many crimes ARE committed with swimming pools? Or, since John Rich picked on engineers, how many crimes are committed with suspension bridges or sewage systems?

Do try and stay focused on the topic, professor - the topic here is accidents.

.

Who made you Master of the Forum? I declare the topic to be guns.

...

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

[Botellines 0]

Quote

Isn't responding to someone's serious point with a "laugh", also displaying a tone of superiority?

Sorry, but putting down a whole profession like teaching because you disagree with one member of them, cannot be serious.
Besides, an engineer is an engineer. A teacher in engineering is an engineer and a teacher, much more than just an engineer. I assure you that bad engineers seldom are allowed to give tuition.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

add an "s" and see if you can figure it out.

I get tired (or maybe i am just lazy) of adding in smily figures to indicate amusement. So, when something makes me laugh, I'll type lol. Many of the posts on here do make me laugh.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Sorry, but putting down a whole profession like teaching because you disagree with one member of them, cannot be serious.

You think I have something against teaching? I went to school for History, if I had something against teaching then I definately wouldn't have been a History major.

My point was that he is not reading what is written then making assumptions and trying to make arguments off of his assumptions. That makes a bad teacher, a bad engineer, hell a bad anything.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Sorry, but putting down a whole profession like teaching because you disagree with one member of them, cannot be serious.

You think I have something against teaching? I went to school for History, if I had something against teaching then I definately wouldn't have been a History major.

My point was that he is not reading what is written then making assumptions and trying to make arguments off of his assumptions. That makes a bad teacher, a bad engineer, hell a bad anything.

Why don't you write to my university president and tell him to rescind my tenure and take back my four "Excellence in Teaching" awards instead of complaining on DZ.com

...

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