warpedskydiver 0 #76 January 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteWell then, if someone were to steal a plane and use it for some nefarious purpose we should also charge the owner of the plane for not having it guarded and locked up in an underground hardened shelter. Many jurisdictions are now requiring double locking and hold airplane owners responsible if they don't do it. If you can't be responsible for the security of your guns, you shouldn't have them. After all - you DO claim you need a gun for security. I never made the claim I have to have a gun for security. I have several security measures in place. Oh and good luck proving you had your plane double locked, and if it is stolen, you obviously did not have it secured at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #77 January 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell then, if someone were to steal a plane and use it for some nefarious purpose we should also charge the owner of the plane for not having it guarded and locked up in an underground hardened shelter. Many jurisdictions are now requiring double locking and hold airplane owners responsible if they don't do it. If you can't be responsible for the security of your guns, you shouldn't have them. After all - you DO claim you need a gun for security. I never made the claim I have to have a gun for security. I have several security measures in place. Oh and good luck proving you had your plane double locked, and if it is stolen, you obviously did not have it secured at all. Obviously. And when it is stolen I will accept responsibility. However, I can prove that I keep it triple locked (3 separate keys needed).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #78 January 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Many jurisdictions are now requiring double locking and hold airplane owners responsible if they don't do it. If you can't be responsible for the security of your guns, you shouldn't have them. After all - you DO claim you need a gun for security. Obviously. And when it is stolen I will accept responsibility. However, I can prove that I keep it triple locked (3 separate keys needed). Can't they just hotwire it? So this is why Daley destroyed the runways at Meigs. It was for the safety of the people of Chicago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #79 January 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Many jurisdictions are now requiring double locking and hold airplane owners responsible if they don't do it. If you can't be responsible for the security of your guns, you shouldn't have them. After all - you DO claim you need a gun for security. Obviously. And when it is stolen I will accept responsibility. However, I can prove that I keep it triple locked (3 separate keys needed). Can't they just hotwire it? I suspect that would be rather difficult. It's not like a car.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #80 January 2, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Well then, if someone were to steal a plane and use it for some nefarious purpose we should also charge the owner of the plane for not having it guarded and locked up in an underground hardened shelter. Many jurisdictions are now requiring double locking and hold airplane owners responsible if they don't do it. If you can't be responsible for the security of your guns, you shouldn't have them. After all - you DO claim you need a gun for security. I never made the claim I have to have a gun for security. I have several security measures in place. Oh and good luck proving you had your plane double locked, and if it is stolen, you obviously did not have it secured at all. Obviously. And when it is stolen I will accept responsibility. However, I can prove that I keep it triple locked (3 separate keys needed). What the good is it if you're sleeping and somebody breaks in and it takes you A HALF HR. to get it ready to fire. I sleep w/ my 357 locked and loaded. Keeps me warm and fuzzy.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #81 January 2, 2008 QuoteA gun is made to safe lives. Prove to me that guns were invented to save lives, and not take them.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #82 January 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote RIIGGHHT - I bet some Chinese military dude a millenium ago thought "lets invent something to propel stuff at high velocity". And just incidentally, as a by-product, they used it to kill their enemies. They also used it to make firecrackers, which are used in all sorts of celebrations. Guns are used to make firecrackers? I was thinking the exact same thing when I read that.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #83 January 2, 2008 QuoteIT IS THE *USER* OF A TOOL THAT DECIDES THE *USE* OF THAT TOOL. AND ILL SAY IT AGAIN...ANYTHING CAN BE USED TO KILL....HOWEVER NOT EVERY TOOL WAS DESIGNED WITH THE INTENTION OF KILLING WHEN USED (A car was designed to dive you from A to B, but it also has a secondary purpose, which is racing it. At first cars were made to move people around faster, but soon cars were also being designed for sport. A gun is used to kill, but much like a car, it also has a secondary purpose, which is target practice or hunting)7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #84 January 2, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Well then, if someone were to steal a plane and use it for some nefarious purpose we should also charge the owner of the plane for not having it guarded and locked up in an underground hardened shelter. Many jurisdictions are now requiring double locking and hold airplane owners responsible if they don't do it. If you can't be responsible for the security of your guns, you shouldn't have them. After all - you DO claim you need a gun for security. I never made the claim I have to have a gun for security. I have several security measures in place. Oh and good luck proving you had your plane double locked, and if it is stolen, you obviously did not have it secured at all. Obviously. And when it is stolen I will accept responsibility. However, I can prove that I keep it triple locked (3 separate keys needed). What the good is it if you're sleeping and somebody breaks in and it takes you A HALF HR. to get it ready to fire. I sleep w/ my 357 locked and loaded. Keeps me warm and fuzzy. What good is it when it becomes one of the 300,000 guns stolen this year?7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #85 January 2, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Well then, if someone were to steal a plane and use it for some nefarious purpose we should also charge the owner of the plane for not having it guarded and locked up in an underground hardened shelter. Many jurisdictions are now requiring double locking and hold airplane owners responsible if they don't do it. If you can't be responsible for the security of your guns, you shouldn't have them. After all - you DO claim you need a gun for security. I never made the claim I have to have a gun for security. I have several security measures in place. Oh and good luck proving you had your plane double locked, and if it is stolen, you obviously did not have it secured at all. Obviously. And when it is stolen I will accept responsibility. However, I can prove that I keep it triple locked (3 separate keys needed). What the good is it if you're sleeping and somebody breaks in and it takes you A HALF HR. to get it ready to fire. I sleep w/ my 357 locked and loaded. Keeps me warm and fuzzy. I thought, at warped's suggestion, we had digressed to discussing my plane. Maybe it would be easier for you if you moved to a nicer neighborhood.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #86 January 2, 2008 Quote Quote Quote What the good is it if you're sleeping and somebody breaks in and it takes you A HALF HR. to get it ready to fire. I sleep w/ my 357 locked and loaded. Keeps me warm and fuzzy. What good is it when it becomes one of the 300,000 guns stolen this year? Maybe the gun is the reason he fears someone will break in. Guns are, according to the Dept. of Justice, among the favorite targets of thieves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 563 #87 January 2, 2008 It is wrong to equate guns solely with killing humans, as it is as dishonest as those who say that guns do not pose a problem. On a finer point aren't most military munitions designed to maim and injure rather than kill as it is supposed to be more of a problem for the enemy? I am no gun expert but I am sure that someone like JR could list a few sport rifles that have been designed from the ground up for specific types of target practice. Outside of the military most guns are probably used for target shooting, a lesser percent for hunting and a tiny percent for criminal activity. I don't believe many people who own guns for self defence could or would actually use them -but rather hope that producing a gun will de-escalate the situation thereby saving lives. As others have said it is the user that determines the outcome. What bothers me is not the presence or absence of guns but the greater lack of civil society that is causes people to disregard the life of other humans - and how that can be addressed.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #88 January 2, 2008 QuoteIt is wrong to equate guns solely with killing humans, as it is as dishonest as those who say that guns do not pose a problem. On a finer point aren't most military munitions designed to maim and injure rather than kill as it is supposed to be more of a problem for the enemy? Here's a SC poll on shooting to maim vs shooting to kill: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2104511;poll=results... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #89 January 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteA gun is made to safe lives. Prove to me that guns were invented to save lives, and not take them. If YOU can prove the null to that question you will have done it yourself."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 563 #90 January 2, 2008 QuoteHere's a SC poll on shooting to maim vs shooting to kill: http://www.dropzone.com/...2104511;poll=results I am way out of my depth here and repeating something from the dim and distant past. But don't the military use for example 7.62mm rounds which are relatively small that tend to "tumble" on impact causing lots of damage, whereas there are rounds that fragment on impact instantly killing you? Also a larger calibre would tend to be "more" lethal. The point being that in a military operation you can overwhelm the enemy system with caring for their wounded? Regardless I don't want to come across as nitpicking of guns being designed for killing - as a general rule it is a safe generalisation. People having guns in a safe don't benefit from self-defence and I recall hearing that often people who have guns intended for self-defence end up being victim to their own weapon.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #91 January 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteHere's a SC poll on shooting to maim vs shooting to kill: http://www.dropzone.com/...2104511;poll=results I am way out of my depth here and repeating something from the dim and distant past. But don't the military use for example 7.62mm rounds which are relatively small that tend to "tumble" on impact causing lots of damage, whereas there are rounds that fragment on impact instantly killing you? Also a larger calibre would tend to be "more" lethal. The point being that in a military operation you can overwhelm the enemy system with caring for their wounded? Regardless I don't want to come across as nitpicking of guns being designed for killing - as a general rule it is a safe generalisation. People having guns in a safe don't benefit from self-defence and I recall hearing that often people who have guns intended for self-defence end up being victim to their own weapon. That assertition is completely false. The bullet is larger than the 5.56mm, so therefore at range it has more fragmenting mass. The bullet was not designed to fragment either, that is a result of hyrdostatic shock. The bullet merely rips itself apart by entering the fluid filled tissues at such a high velocity. At much longer ranges it merely makes a hole, much like an arrow. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 563 #92 January 2, 2008 ok thanks for clearing that up.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #93 January 2, 2008 There is cavitation, but that is not tumbling and is only a few inches deep. Look at a few gelatin tests and you will see what I am talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #94 January 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteA gun is made to safe lives. Prove to me that guns were invented to save lives, and not take them. If YOU can prove the null to that question you will have done it yourself. I'll take that rezsponse as an "I cant prove it".7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #95 January 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA gun is made to safe lives. Prove to me that guns were invented to save lives, and not take them. If YOU can prove the null to that question you will have done it yourself. I'll take that rezsponse as an "I cant prove it". Hunting and killing people. So...killing. I don't see why there's even any reason to dispute that. Seriously, what is there to hide? It's not as if the first gun was actually a hammer gun. The only question is whether the gun was was developed for hunting or warfare. All indications were that it was used in warfare. The bow didn't lose to the gun for hunting until the gun became accurate enough...by being devoloped for warfare. rushmc, why is this even debatable and why would you think otherwise?"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #96 January 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote RIIGGHHT - I bet some Chinese military dude a millenium ago thought "lets invent something to propel stuff at high velocity". And just incidentally, as a by-product, they used it to kill their enemies. They also used it to make firecrackers, which are used in all sorts of celebrations. Guns are used to make firecrackers? I was thinking the exact same thing when I read that. when you realize that the word we're looking for is gunpowder, not guns, it might make more sense to you. Guns don't propel anything, not now, and not 1000 years ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #97 January 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA gun is made to safe lives. Prove to me that guns were invented to save lives, and not take them. If YOU can prove the null to that question you will have done it yourself. I'll take that rezsponse as an "I cant prove it". Neither can you prove your assertion - it is an emotional response, nothing more.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #98 January 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA gun is made to safe lives. Prove to me that guns were invented to save lives, and not take them. If YOU can prove the null to that question you will have done it yourself. I'll take that rezsponse as an "I cant prove it". Neither can you prove your assertion - it is an emotional response, nothing more. I'll take taht as "I dont have proof either"7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #99 January 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote RIIGGHHT - I bet some Chinese military dude a millenium ago thought "lets invent something to propel stuff at high velocity". And just incidentally, as a by-product, they used it to kill their enemies. They also used it to make firecrackers, which are used in all sorts of celebrations. Guns are used to make firecrackers? I was thinking the exact same thing when I read that. when you realize that the word we're looking for is gunpowder, not guns, it might make more sense to you. Guns don't propel anything, not now, and not 1000 years ago. When you realize we are talking about guns, and not gunpowder you will catch up to the rest of us.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #100 January 2, 2008 QuoteI'll take taht as "I dont have proof either" No, it's called "you can't disprove an emotional response".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
