RE: Why is it?

RE: Why is it? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 7:40:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening. Simply producing a gun has the ability to ensure that the crime is successful and the criminal makes his/her escape. I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful. My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over. That may be true, but it definitely helps to counters Lucy's claim that "guns have only one use". I've personally used them for 4 things. Turning little clay disks into dust. Poking thousands of holes in paper and assorted cans. Putting food on the table. Saving my ass without anyone being injured. You forgot, hanging on a wall looking pretty, or filling up a gun safe, or making people feeel safe rightly or wrongly, oh and as a toy they are great fun. three of your four items are about putting holes into things,living or inanimate...which was my point. the fear of having a hole put in one is the reason for the 4th. my obtuseness is there for a reason IM well aware off, nobody else seems to be aware of it... Its been fun, but ill leave the thread with a chuckle.

BitYakin -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 7:46:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic you obviously didnt read my post Your original question was about terrorist vs gun deaths, now you change it to cars..... I think the term I would for your change in goalposts is against TOS... I just backtracked threw you and his exchange, TWICE, and I didn't see ANY QUESTION by him let alone one about TERORISTS! quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Why is it that when there is a terrorist attack by a Muslim group, the liberals scream that we should not judge a group by a small number of fanatics. I do it, and there are a lot of liberal users on this board that also do it. Now, when some angry or mentally unstable individual uses a gun, all gun owners are judged as irrational, immoral and they should not be allowed to own guns. There are over 8 million gun owners in this country. And everyone one of us are judged on the actions of an individual. We are told that our right to own firearms should be eliminated. That we are barbaric and dangerous. A stance that I consider hypocritical at best. If we are not to judge all Muslims on the actions of a few, then by god give gun owners the same respect, or shut the fuck up. Try the OP, yanno post number 1 your lack of comprehension is not my problem, its yours... you are correct, I didn't go far enough back, and didn't check to see if it was him how started this thread... still no reason to be insulting now is it? just to be clear, my LACK was not comprehension, it was logistical, I didn't check FAR ENOUGH back in the thread your smug condesendance isn't winning you any points! as for my comprehension, consider this, his question was NOT comparing terrorist vs gun deaths , he was questioning the REACTION of people to those issues! for the record I think I was the one who first brought up auto deaths, as I thought it was a FAIRER comparison!

Lucylastic -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 8:04:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic you obviously didnt read my post Your original question was about terrorist vs gun deaths, now you change it to cars..... I think the term I would for your change in goalposts is against TOS... I just backtracked threw you and his exchange, TWICE, and I didn't see ANY QUESTION by him let alone one about TERORISTS! quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Why is it that when there is a terrorist attack by a Muslim group, the liberals scream that we should not judge a group by a small number of fanatics. I do it, and there are a lot of liberal users on this board that also do it. Now, when some angry or mentally unstable individual uses a gun, all gun owners are judged as irrational, immoral and they should not be allowed to own guns. There are over 8 million gun owners in this country. And everyone one of us are judged on the actions of an individual. We are told that our right to own firearms should be eliminated. That we are barbaric and dangerous. A stance that I consider hypocritical at best. If we are not to judge all Muslims on the actions of a few, then by god give gun owners the same respect, or shut the fuck up. Try the OP, yanno post number 1 your lack of comprehension is not my problem, its yours... you are correct, I didn't go far enough back, and didn't check to see if it was him how started this thread... still no reason to be insulting now is it? just to be clear, my LACK was not comprehension, it was logistical, I didn't check FAR ENOUGH back in the thread your smug condesendance isn't winning you any points! as for my comprehension, consider this, his question was NOT comparing terrorist vs gun deaths , he was questioning the REACTION of people to those issues! for the record I think I was the one who first brought up auto deaths, as I thought it was a FAIRER comparison! As I said, your lack of comprehension and incapability is your issue not mine....pointing out your error ???thats insulting? condescending??? condescending, yes I admit it, but not nearly insulting, im not responsible for what you do an do not understand, you are. your issue, your inability to comprehend, should be treated kindly??? LOL you have the wrong person to deal with so I remove myself from this topic(again) before im accused of breaking TOS and mocking you even more by laughing at you. snicker

DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 8:15:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You could misunderstand good morning. Never did I say all the time I said three times Two at night, you know that is when you can't see so clearly. My gun would be under my shirt when they first approached a sight movement changes this. I was pointing out to you that here showing a gun is not assault it is not a crime it is not a problem. If your gun was under your shirt then it wasn't open carry. Please do try and keep your claims straight.

DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 8:20:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin The only thing unsafe I've seen hunters do is drink beer though I know second hand of a few dumb ass things they've done over the years among disrespecting property (dont freakin be seen littering in Canada, even a gum wrapper) and I've seen a whole lot of signs shot up including "No Trespassing". Then why do you think the blaze orange laws were passed? Do you really think it wasn't a problem? Do you not see the news stories every hunting season about a person, who was wearing orange, getting shot? http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Western-Washington-hunter-killed-by-gunfire-in-Okanogan-County-222194261.html And since when is handling a firearm while intoxicated not a safety issue? I didn't say drinking wasn't a safety issue. I was just honestly relating my experiences. However I've hunted from the time I was 12 up until about age 35. I don't hunt much these days but I've never seen near the numbers of safety violations that you seem to think there are. I'm not sayin that shit never happens at all. Again, if gun hunters are so safe and careful why did the blaze orange laws come about? In reality they were passed because dumbass hunters kept shooting at movement without clearly identifying what they were shooting at. orange vests were required for the same reason as hundreds if not thousands of other SAFTEY REGULATIONS, its no indication that people were being UNSAFE, just that they would be SAFER with them water heaters require T & P valves, and now thermal expansion tanks, its no indication that water heaters are being operated unsafely autos require headlights, turn signals, wipers, stop lights, but again its just a COMMON SENSE thing, not an indication that people were operating them unsafely... Wrong. Blaze orange is required because people were getting shot at by hunters who didn't obey the first and most basic rule of shooting a gun. You can look up the history of those laws yourself. Water heaters and cars have had mandatory safety features added because accidents occurred that showed the need. certainly brake lights and turn signals are mandated by law as are seat belts and air bags. Anyone who has ever watched mythbusters has seen the issues with water heaters when those safety features are compromised.

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 8:20:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You could misunderstand good morning. Never did I say all the time I said three times Two at night, you know that is when you can't see so clearly. My gun would be under my shirt when they first approached a sight movement changes this. I was pointing out to you that here showing a gun is not assault it is not a crime it is not a problem. If your gun was under your shirt then it wasn't open carry. Please do try and keep your claims straight. Alabama is a state were it is legal to carry open I pointed that out to correct your delusion that merely showing a gun is assault. If you could read you would know that I never claimed to carry open, gives the bad guys to much of an even chance. Anything else you want to misunderstand?

DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 10:10:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You could misunderstand good morning. Never did I say all the time I said three times Two at night, you know that is when you can't see so clearly. My gun would be under my shirt when they first approached a sight movement changes this. I was pointing out to you that here showing a gun is not assault it is not a crime it is not a problem. If your gun was under your shirt then it wasn't open carry. Please do try and keep your claims straight. Alabama is a state were it is legal to carry open I pointed that out to correct your delusion that merely showing a gun is assault. If you could read you would know that I never claimed to carry open, gives the bad guys to much of an even chance. Anything else you want to misunderstand? So you're back to saying you should not obey the law. k.

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 10:29:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You could misunderstand good morning. Never did I say all the time I said three times Two at night, you know that is when you can't see so clearly. My gun would be under my shirt when they first approached a sight movement changes this. I was pointing out to you that here showing a gun is not assault it is not a crime it is not a problem. If your gun was under your shirt then it wasn't open carry. Please do try and keep your claims straight. Alabama is a state were it is legal to carry open I pointed that out to correct your delusion that merely showing a gun is assault. If you could read you would know that I never claimed to carry open, gives the bad guys to much of an even chance. Anything else you want to misunderstand? So you're back to saying you should not obey the law. k. Can't go back to what I never said, I have a concealed carry permit

jlf1961 -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 10:37:20 PM)
In Texas, blaze orange is only required when hunting on public lands, not required hunting on private land, which makes sense, since there is usually only one hunter per 500 acres.

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 11:38:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 In Texas, blaze orange is only required when hunting on public lands, not required hunting on private land, which makes sense, since there is usually only one hunter per 500 acres. I am told that the first year hunter orange was used in Alabama hunting accidents went up, some say because hunter orange and Auburn orange are the same shade.

BitYakin -> RE: Why is it? (9/10/2013 11:54:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin The only thing unsafe I've seen hunters do is drink beer though I know second hand of a few dumb ass things they've done over the years among disrespecting property (dont freakin be seen littering in Canada, even a gum wrapper) and I've seen a whole lot of signs shot up including "No Trespassing". Then why do you think the blaze orange laws were passed? Do you really think it wasn't a problem? Do you not see the news stories every hunting season about a person, who was wearing orange, getting shot? http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Western-Washington-hunter-killed-by-gunfire-in-Okanogan-County-222194261.html And since when is handling a firearm while intoxicated not a safety issue? I didn't say drinking wasn't a safety issue. I was just honestly relating my experiences. However I've hunted from the time I was 12 up until about age 35. I don't hunt much these days but I've never seen near the numbers of safety violations that you seem to think there are. I'm not sayin that shit never happens at all. Again, if gun hunters are so safe and careful why did the blaze orange laws come about? In reality they were passed because dumbass hunters kept shooting at movement without clearly identifying what they were shooting at. orange vests were required for the same reason as hundreds if not thousands of other SAFTEY REGULATIONS, its no indication that people were being UNSAFE, just that they would be SAFER with them water heaters require T & P valves, and now thermal expansion tanks, its no indication that water heaters are being operated unsafely autos require headlights, turn signals, wipers, stop lights, but again its just a COMMON SENSE thing, not an indication that people were operating them unsafely... Wrong. Blaze orange is required because people were getting shot at by hunters who didn't obey the first and most basic rule of shooting a gun. You can look up the history of those laws yourself. Water heaters and cars have had mandatory safety features added because accidents occurred that showed the need. certainly brake lights and turn signals are mandated by law as are seat belts and air bags. Anyone who has ever watched mythbusters has seen the issues with water heaters when those safety features are compromised. WRONG? as I think I have seen you say MANY MANY TIMES NOW, care to show a citaction, or link, some evidence that supports your stance? you always make it incumbant on the person making a claim to PROVE THIER POINT, maybe you could do what you demand of others? see it would be hard for me to show a citation for something I don't think exists... and your examples concerning cars and water heaters still does not show they were being OPERATED UNSAFELY, they are INHERIT ISSUES concerning those products, and BTW the mythbusters, water heater thing, they CREATED a situation that is not present in homes. water heaters can rupture from thermal exapansion, but what most people do not realize is that the pressure needed to cause a violent rupture exceeds the water pressure of the city/county supply, so over pressurization would be releived by the pressure just flowing out of the house into the main and being absorbed by the city/county system only is a CLOSED system can that even happen, such as a faulty pressure reducing valve installed in the system you said. "Water heaters and cars have had mandatory safety features added because accidents occurred that showed the need. certainly brake lights and turn signals are mandated by law as are seat belts and air bags. Anyone who has ever watched mythbusters has seen the issues with water heaters when those safety features are compromised." YUUUUPP EXACT SAME REASON orange vests are now required, cause it was just the SENSIBLE THING! because ACCIDENTS OCCURRED, not nessicarily because anyone was being UNSAFE!

DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 2:33:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 In Texas, blaze orange is only required when hunting on public lands, not required hunting on private land, which makes sense, since there is usually only one hunter per 500 acres. I am told that the first year hunter orange was used in Alabama hunting accidents went up, some say because hunter orange and Auburn orange are the same shade. I can understand that temptation. Some of my family are auburn fans and it is a hard burden to bear.

DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 2:47:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin WRONG? as I think I have seen you say MANY MANY TIMES NOW, care to show a citaction, or link, some evidence that supports your stance? you always make it incumbant on the person making a claim to PROVE THIER POINT, maybe you could do what you demand of others? It's always funny to set you off. I keep thinking you will learn but ... http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/safety/docs/Hunter_Orange_Commission_Report_W_Options.pdf http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/safety/instructors/firearms/history.html http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/9186.html

DaddySatyr -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 3:12:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I am told that the first year hunter orange was used in Alabama hunting accidents went up, some say because hunter orange and Auburn orange are the same shade. Roll, Tide! [image]local://upfiles/1271250/9F6499437DD64E8099313B4527FB80F2.jpg[/image]

Hillwilliam -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 4:32:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/safety/docs/Hunter_Orange_Commission_Report_W_Options.pdf Weird thing about this link. Bowling has 10 times the injury rate as hunting and fishing 40 times.. Who'd a thunk it? Hunters safer than bowlers.

BitYakin -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 1:21:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin WRONG? as I think I have seen you say MANY MANY TIMES NOW, care to show a citaction, or link, some evidence that supports your stance? you always make it incumbant on the person making a claim to PROVE THIER POINT, maybe you could do what you demand of others? It's always funny to set you off. I keep thinking you will learn but ... http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/safety/docs/Hunter_Orange_Commission_Report_W_Options.pdf http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/safety/instructors/firearms/history.html http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/9186.html well first of all you didn't "set me off" second none of those links show that the reason they were required was because HUNTERS were OPERATING FIREARMS IN AN UNSAFE MANOR the first link shows alot of grapgs abd stats, but a tNO POINT ever calls hunter irresponisble or negligent in ANY WAY WHAT SO EVER... fact is it SUPPORTS exactly what I said, just a COMMON SENSE RULE, and in NO WAY does it state or IMPLY hunter were being UNSAFE all it said was ACCIDENTS HAPPEN, and this is how we can prevent some of them! the second link only mention orange vests to the fact that there is such a law.. not HISTORY or even a mention of anyone being UNSAFE the third only mentions that you are safer with than without them, not a word about the HISTORY of why they are required EPIC FAIL!

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 1:23:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/safety/docs/Hunter_Orange_Commission_Report_W_Options.pdf Weird thing about this link. Bowling has 10 times the injury rate as hunting and fishing 40 times.. Who'd a thunk it? Hunters safer than bowlers. Maybe bowlers should have to wear blaze orange, too? [8D]

DaddySatyr -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 1:26:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Maybe bowlers should have to wear blaze orange, too? [8D] Or be armed?

BitYakin -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 1:32:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/safety/docs/Hunter_Orange_Commission_Report_W_Options.pdf Weird thing about this link. Bowling has 10 times the injury rate as hunting and fishing 40 times.. Who'd a thunk it? Hunters safer than bowlers. yeah I found that kinda interesting too, that of ALL the sports listed it stated HUNTING was the SAFEST... doesn't really lend much credence to DK's claim that people were being all UNSAFE and shooting people right an left so they HAD TO REQUIRE ORANGE VESTS In December 2009, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission requested the department review the issue of whether or not the wearing of hunter orange should be made mandatory while hunting in Oregon. The department already strongly encourages hunters to wear hunter orange during big game rifle seasons and upland game bird seasons, however doing so is voluntary. According to a 2009 Industry Intelligence Report released by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), hunting is one of the safest forms of recreation in the United States with an estimated 5 injuries per 100,000 participants. This is very low, especially when compared to other common forms of recreation. For example, bicycle riding can expect 1,351 injuries per 100,000 participants; soccer can expect 1,440 injuries per 100,000 participants; and Football can expect 2,557 injuries per 100,000 participants. notice the fact that at the time of the report wearing those vests was NOT MADATORY... here is ANOTHER lil ODDITY he uses this link as supportive PROOF that the history of being UNSAFE caused the REQUIREMENT to wear said vests except based on the REPORT a year later when the link was published, that state DID NOT REQUIRE ORANGE VESTS! OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Hunter Orange Report to the Commission June 4, 2010 EPIC FAIL! he claimed I could LOOK UP this history for myself, apparently he is having trouble finding this HISTORY he claims is so readily available!

Hillwilliam -> RE: Why is it? (9/11/2013 1:40:08 PM)
The bottom line is that you're a lot safer hunting than you are driving to and from your site.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625