vpozzoli

I would like to get a high res version featuring the chopper blade noise and all, then Coppola could sue. Just FYI, I was talking about plagiarism, not copyright violation. You seem to be unaware of the difference between the two. And in case it was not clear from my original post I was merely joking, not need for anybody to get their panties (if worn at all) in a wad. Cheers, Vale

Well, she did put in "SEX". What else is there? Vale

yes..it was pretty dramatic. Coppola should so be suing you, you plagiarist you Vale

Please state your particular definition of "best" Vale

You might want to change the title from "fun" to "advertisement". That way it'll get removed faster by the mods Vale

In this context I think "AL" actually means "Accuracy Landing" and has nothing to do with the Fussball-Liga

For the Military, anything above 1000ft is "high altitude". I guess it makes sense in a context where you actually have people trying to shoot you out of the sky Cheers, Vale

I believe what you're describing is commonly referred to as "the scientific process"? Cheers, Vale

On airport grounds: taxiing signs planes gliders helicopters hangars trees antennas multiple weather stations fence Around the airport: fast running river highway trash dump sewage treatment plant high tension wires 12000 foot high mountains Cheers, Vale

Careful with that reasoning lest he digs up some stats that show that more cops have been shot somewhere or other since some gun law or other has been enacted thus irrefutably "proving" that fewer guns actually "cause" more cops to be shot. Vale

Source: Force Science News To download the entire FBI report in pdf files, see this web page: http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-480.html This is just in! A recent FBI study shows that criminals actually break the law! Yawn... Vale

1 word. SPELLCHECKER!

Tell me he's not the fat clumsy guy in the yellow suit Vale

You mean like it's highly illegal and besides that the video quality is crappy? Like low res, low data rate 15 fps crappy? Cheers, Vale

This is about as productive as talking to a rock. You either really don't get it or you're too biased to admit that your arguments are all either strawmen or utter nonsense. I officially give up. You all have a nice day. Vale

Well, apart from the fact that I never put forth any anti-gun theory, much less supported it, your post actually proves my statement that raw numbers mean nothing and can actually be easily misused to "prove" anything and its exact opposite, often both at the same time Let's take your little graph for example, what it shows is simply the rate of accidental gun deaths by population in Australia and how it changed over time. What does it tell us if we correlate it with the fact that certain types of guns have become illegal at a certain point in time and have presumably been either confiscated or otherwise rendered unserviceable? Nothing at all! Or at least not what you are trying to claim. Let's see why. Let's say that as a result of the ban 2 million hand guns have been confiscated. Does this mean that Australia is now a gun-free country? Of course not! There are still plenty of them around, among them: - illegal firearms that are still circulating since (gasp!) criminals have inexplicably failed to turn them in - I'm not 100% sure but I think law enforcement officers still carry and sometimes even fire weapons in the course of their actions - I don't think hunting has been made illegal, unless hunters have been forced to use only bow and arrows hunting rifles should still be legal and available in a non trivial number So how do I explain the upward trend in accidental gun deaths since the ban? Well, since confiscated weapons cannot possibly reappear and accidentaly kill people, we can only assume that more people get accidentally killed by guns that are still legal and hence still being used, or by guns that were illegal even before the ban and are therefore unaffected by it. Your claim that "this should not have happened" is utterly without merit as it assumes a causal relationship between the confiscation of a certain number of weapons and the number of accidental deaths caused by weapons that have not been subjected to confiscation. There is no such relationship and to try and prove it through raw numbers is utter nonsense. For example, if you were able to break down the totals by type of gun or circumstance you might see that the number of deaths due to msihandling of guns used for domestic defence has gone down to zero (assuming this type gun has been banned) but the number of deaths attributable to hunting accidents has more than doubled. Does this mean the ban has failed? Of course not, if hunting is still legal how could the ban have prevented those hunting-related deaths? Can you actualy break down those stats? I suspect that in order to do so you'll have to look somewhere other than the pro-gun website you nicked that graph from.

Actually, data available elsewhere shows that this did not happen. Fatal firearms accidents actually increased after the gun ban. Therefore, if you think the ban is responsible for changes, then it accomplished a negative result. Source? Freedom demands more proof than "maybe". And since murders continued to decline at the same rate as before, you can't claim that the gun ban provided any benefit in this regard. Please re-read my sentence. "Maybe" clearly means "maybe with the intention to prevent..." and not "with the intention to prevent guns from maybe ending up...". They were declining at that same rate prior to the ban. That contradicts your belief that this is wishful thinking. Government statistics already prove it to be true, and that you are wrong. Which obviously does not prove causation or lack thereof in any way. Trends are just trends, regardless of whose point of view they suit.

Try and stick to the right lane! Vale

I cannot help but wonder why pro-gun activists always feel the urge to point out what is already obvious, at least to anybody with an at least half functional brain. Of course criminals are not going to hand in their guns voluntarily, it's as obvious as the fact that this is not what gun bans are meant to address. Banning legal gun ownership seeks to reduce the number of (legally owned) gun related deaths due to handling accidents or "red rage" type shootings, and maybe to prevent legally purchased firearms ending up on the black market thus resulting in illegal gun ownership. Pointing out the fact that criminals are not going to hand in their illegal firearms as a result of a ban is nothing but a diversionary tactic, and a rather weak one at that. As for the claim that murder rates would have kept declining at the same rate even without a ban, all I can say is that without any supporting evidence this is wishful thinking at best (or bad science at the very least). Cheers, Vale

Yeah right. I'm sure the BBC (a.k.a. the British Broadcasting Company) never heard of a gadget called "video recorder" much less owned one (I hear they're very expensive). We all know everyting you see on TV must be happening live. Vale

SBDD Same bullshit, different day.

Of course they do. Wouldn't you feel threatened too if somebody was firing an automatic weapon (or indeed any kind of weapon) at you? Ciao. Vale

Whenever that happens, I always ask myself: Why the hell aren't they off yachting in the Bahamas all the time? ... Right, got it! Cheers, Vale

Could you please explain how you went from "at one time that night" to "shortly before hitting the kid"? 'Cause it really looks like you are following your own version of the facts. Cheers, Vale

Are the doctors in Italy are paid top salaries (by this I mean they belong to one of the best paid occupation)? Would it be possible to get average of all the doctors, not top neirologists from private sector? Well, of course not ALL doctors are paid top salaries, that would be too much of a generalization. A GP surely does not earn as much as a top heart surgeon, even though they are both employed by the national health service (thus excluding any form of private practice). I don't have the exact figures, but I can assure you that none of the doctors I am aquainted with lead a modest life style, and only one of them is actually a heart surgeon