CYCLINGFORUM.COM - Where Cyclists Talk Tech --- Return To Home

 

    Register FAQ'sSearchProfileLog In / Log Out

 

****

cyclingforum.com ****

HOMECLUBS | SPONSORS | FEATURESPHOTO GALLERYTTF DONORS | SHOP FOR GEAR

Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
          View posts since last visit

PDX Mall Shooting, Fook!
 Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

Author Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Paul Datars
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 1229
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

3/15/13 6:11 AM

Drive fast cars???

Yep you bet, but ONLY for my personal protection, to get away from bad guys because I'd not allowed to carry a gun so I can't shoot the motherfuckers dead. You see I take my personal safety seriously and don't count on anyone else to save me so I take proactive measures regardless of the fact that I've never had to use the excessive HP to save myself and will most likely never have occasion to use it in the future to save myself or my family from danger, but the same can be said of seatbelts which I always use myself and ensure my family uses.

Also I'm sure that IF I were ever to come upon a bad guy out on the highway, he wouldn't bother with me because it's obvious just how FAST my cars are, so he knows it would be a waste of his time to 'try me'...thus I'm sure he'll move on to someone else who hasn't been responsible enough to take their own personal safety seriously. And if indeed I'm wrong about this and a high speed event takes place in which innocent people are killed or maimed, well that's just too bad because it's my right to protect myself and I don't give a shit about any collateral damage.

Now anyone who thinks the real reason I have high HP cars is because I'm fascinated with mechanical things, that they're a hoot of fun to drive, and that they help make up for a lack of penis size, well you all are just completely wrong about that and I'll spend at least another 400 posts arguing with you about just how wrong you are.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

ErikS
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 8310
Location: Slowing boiling over in the steamy south, Global Warming is real

3/15/13 6:41 AM

In the US there are more people killed in and by cars than guns of any sort. I guess we should outlaw cars. Especially those crazy fast ones. They scare me so you should not be allowed to own one.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Paul Datars
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 1229
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

3/15/13 7:43 AM

If and when a crazy fast car goes to an elementary school and kills a class room full of 1st graders I'll expect my 'hobby' to come under attack...and when I attempt to defend my 'hobby' by telling everyone in the world that it's a legitmate way to provide personal protection to myself and my family I will at least expect some scepticism from those who don't embrace similar sentiments as my own.

Of course you do realise that IF you were to outlaw cars nobody would be able to get anywhere, whereas IF you were to outlaw guns the only fall out would be, let me think for a moment, yeah that's right, fewer people killed by guns...you'd still be able to get to work in the morning and transport your bicycle to a remote start ride in the afternoon. Try doing that with you gun.

The cars kill more people than guns argument so they need to be outlawed to is so freakin lame, it demonstrates an inability to put together a logical, coherent and reasonable argument, and that's not a reflection upon you Eric, it's result of your position defending guns.

You know if the pro-gun side would just come out and admit the real reason to have a gun is because they are interesting, fun, and a great way to compensate for a small penis, I'd be in total agreement and understand the dismay at potentially loosing such a great 'toy'. It's the sanctimonious BS about how they are needed to protect oneself and family that I don't buy, reason being is I haven't fallen for all the scare tactics which do such a good job of promoting gun sales.

Of course the personal protection idea IS self-perpetuating in that now that I know Eric and every other guy on the street have guns around the house I need to fear that they or one of their kids might flip out, or a guy who already is 'bad' decides he needs a gun and comes to my house with his friends to get it. So keep up the good work perpetuating the personal safety idea, it's really working well at making for a safer place to live...NOT!

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4472
Location: Nashua, NH

3/17/13 1:54 PM

Follow the money? Are you serious...

...or just terminally naive?

So...the largest organization in the US that promotes hunting, firearms competition and responsible gun ownership is supported by an industry that stands to gain from it's activities. How is that even remotely noteworthy?

I have a newsflash for you, Paul:
Car companies support NASCAR in order to sell more cars!!! <gasp>

Getting your panties in a wad over the relationship between the NRA and the firearms industry is a really ridiculous. OF COURSE they have a mutually beneficial relationship. Honestly, what else would you expect?

As for the motivation of the rabid anti-gunners, who knows? I have yet to see a single intelligent argument from any of them, nor any real understanding of either firearms or crime, either. The only thing that seems quite obvious is that they typically have a completely irrational fear of firearms ("hoplophobia", yes, there is a name for it), that is generally driven by ignorance. When pushed, they end up getting flustered and declaring that they "just hate guns", though they can't say why.

Over the years, I've taken several people who had a fear of firearms and taught them to shoot. In every case, once they understood the mechanics of handling a firearm and the necessary safety procedures, they actually enjoyed themselves and left with a completely different perspective. That doesn't mean that they became gun owners or "pro-gun", but they no longer feared them and they understood why people would want to own guns. It's amazing what a difference actual knowledge can make.

 Reply to topic    

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3289
Location: Springfield

3/17/13 2:34 PM

Okay, I'm in for this round.

This thread has taken a darker turn since the hiatus.

NASCAR / NRA equivalency:
NASCAR probably does lobby Congress but the percentage of it's budget geared toward influencing legislation vs broadcast appeal to lovers of the sport must be less than NRA's. Then again there is no Constitutional defense about the driving privilege like the scope of second amendment protection.

NASCAR doesn't promote a product invented to kill. As fulfilling as target and skeet sport are, the purpose of firearms was originally to kill, be it game or enemies. Target and skeet is a way to stay sharp. I like to shoot, and it's been too long.

Cars are becoming safer. Link: Death rates from automobiles and guns are converging. An article from 1-9-2013 USA Today.

"...have yet to see an intelligent argument..." Is intelligence in the eye of the beholder? Apparently you join me in the preference not to read freshman length essays too! There have been some good arguments backed up with citations on both sides. I hate to see your credibility undermined with that kind of blanket statement.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

ErikS
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 8310
Location: Slowing boiling over in the steamy south, Global Warming is real

3/17/13 6:00 PM

Oh btw Paul. Why do you fail to ever spell my name correctly? Just asking'.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4472
Location: Nashua, NH

3/18/13 5:41 AM

The point is...

...that relationships between industries and enthusiast's organizations are perfectly normal. The NRA was primarily a pro-hunting, pro-shooting, pro-safety organization until the 2nd amendment came under constant attack in the late 60's. I'm sure they'd much rather be promoting the sports than filing court cases and would revert to that that if the attacks on our rights ever stopped.

Death rates in cars may be coming down due to various active and passive safety features, but I'll bet accident rates haven't dropped. If anything, drivers are worse than ever now that their cars all but eliminate their need to think when behind the wheel.

 Reply to topic    

Paul Datars
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 1229
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

3/18/13 8:33 AM

"Oh btw Paul. Why do you fail to ever spell my name correctly? Just asking'."

Because I'm a dick and for some reason never really noticed. My only brother's only son is Eric so I guess using a "c" just comes naturally, I never intended any disrespect by my misspelling of your name and hope you, Erik will accept my apology...I'll try not to do it again.

Talking about being terminally naive, does anyone actually think hunting and target shooting is a market remotely close to that of "personal safety"??? And really, most of the NRA's emphasis for way too many years has been promoting "personal safety" which by it's very definition means the gun is intended solely to shot another human being. Does anyone actually go hunting with a "personal safety" gun, yes I can see target shooting with one of them, BUT I ask you, what IS the shape of the target being shot :-0

AGAIN, to be clear, I personally do NOT fear guns (unless one is pointed at me and even then I'd rather have that situation than being close to a large sharp knife), I just think guns are a stupid, lame, ineffective and potentially very dangerous way of providing the masses with "personal Protection", just imagine how strongly I'd feel about this IF I could get rich promoting other forms of "personal protection".

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

ErikS
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 8310
Location: Slowing boiling over in the steamy south, Global Warming is real

3/18/13 6:27 PM

Absolutely hunt with what would be considered a personal protection guns.

I stated this very early on, or thought I did, won't dig back through a googleplex of posts to find it.

I hunt deer with a Remington R25, coyotes with an AR15 that I built from the stripped lower on up (like building bike wheels I guess) and my bolt action deer rifle I have as a long range, bean field rifle is a venerable Winchester Model 70, which has also seen combat during Vietnam as a sniper rifle. My son hunts deer with a Remington Model 700 which happens to still be the action of choice by many of our snipers.

My point, many weapons have military and personal protection roots and get used for both. There is no real distinction.

The NRA has promoted safe and responsible gun handling and ownership practices well before the current "tacticool" fad came about. They have also always promoted firearms for protection. Their magazines for 30+ years have always included shorts about people who have protected themselves using firearms. The shorts are found toward the front of every one of their magazines I have ever picked up, from my childhood to today.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 17413
Location: Portland, OR

3/18/13 6:32 PM

My friends that hunt bring a side arm with them. I would if I hunted and it was legal to do so.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

ErikS
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 8310
Location: Slowing boiling over in the steamy south, Global Warming is real

3/18/13 6:37 PM

As do I but I don't hunt with the sidearm. The top round is snake shot for obvious reasons.

I have used it twice to finish deer when customers have had problems with shot placement etc.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Paul Datars
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 1229
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

3/19/13 6:38 AM

Sorry, I guess my mind just doesn't comprehend an AR15 type weapon as something one would need/use for personal protection, when I was referring to "persoanl protection" I was mostly thinking of hand guns, which is why I couldn't imagine hunting with one...I stand corrected :-0

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

ErikS
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 8310
Location: Slowing boiling over in the steamy south, Global Warming is real

3/19/13 3:51 PM

Of course an AR can be used for protection. I see no need to or desire to carry one on my bike. They are a little big for that.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3289
Location: Springfield

3/19/13 7:41 PM

Accurate and lethal, sounds like what anyone wants a hunting rifle. The prey shouldn't suffer, truly.

30 round clips? Are they necessary? That borders on video game mindset. I'll bet it's a gas to play with one equipped like that, like a toy but more exciting. Sure, most everyone understands the safety and the danger. Most everyone understands that is.

However, the Senate understands that 30 round clips are necessary to pass gun safety legislation.

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

I was in the emergency waiting room this afternoon listening to Wolf Blitzer cover a mass-murder / suicide story. I asked the staff to turn it off since my son was waiting there because the voices were telling him to jump off the balcony. They agreed that turning it off was a good idea. Actually I used the term "psychotic breakdown" and left out the details.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Paul Datars
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 1229
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

3/20/13 8:37 AM

"Of course an AR can be used for protection."

Once again I have a comprehension problem because I just can't imagine subjecting my family and loved ones to a life in a place so potentially violent that an AR15 is required for personal protection...what a shit hole of a life it must be to live in what must essentially amount to a war zone when a killing machine like an AR15 is necessary to protect yourself and your family. Wow, I'd think that a truly loving father/provider would get their loved ones out of such a place and into a place were such violence was so far from possible that an AR15 would be completely unnecessary for personal protection...but then that's just me :-)

Of course if you're convinced that a place which requires an AR15 for personal protection isn't a "shit hole" then you must be completely out of touch with the fact that there are places where such protection is completely unnecessary, OR in fact, you don't actually NEED an AR15 for personal protection.

Like I've said before, personally I think there's nothing wrong with having an AR15 because it's a fun and cool mechanism which also helps compensate for a small penis, but then, claiming such a weapon is necessary for personal protection becomes bullshit which you can't expect intelligent people to believe or accept. It's like me expecting people to believe the reason I need 850hp in my Cadillac because I drive it around in the Catskills and there's some really steep mountains down there.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 17413
Location: Portland, OR

3/20/13 10:02 AM

"in the Catskills and there's some really steep mountains down there."


Steep grades maybe, but them is mole hills. ;)

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Paul Datars
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 1229
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

3/20/13 11:44 AM

Sparky, I hear yu, it's all in your perspective...where I come from thems is mountains, but with peaks of no greater than 4500' some might view them as mere bumps.

In all honesty I stole the 'need the hp to get up the hills' thing from Jay Leno.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Rickk
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 526
Location: Montreal

3/21/13 5:55 PM

Ok,

disclaimer:

1) I'm from Canada and obviously this is a biased opinion.(although from Quebec - a somewhat different mentality than the rest of Canucks)
2) I've never met Paul Datars

Still, no matter how you slice it, one has to give Paul kudos for providing entertainment, tongue in cheek arguments, while simultaneously providing logical, factual posts... and for his tenacity.

Then again Paul, it's like religion and politics. Keep on arguing logically (or illogically) all you want. Fat chance you'll convince believers otherwise, by simply presenting "facts".

Still, must say I enjoy checking back to this thread every few days - if only for the entertainment factor

;-)

 Reply to topic    

ErikS
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 8310
Location: Slowing boiling over in the steamy south, Global Warming is real

3/21/13 6:44 PM

I will state this.

I have never broken a single law with my firearms but I suspect and have to assume most if not all people with 600hp cars break a few laws quite often.

I do break laws with my approximate: 200hp car and 300hp SUV very often.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Paul Datars
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 1229
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

3/22/13 5:54 AM

Neither Adam Lanza nor his mother ever broke a single firearm law either. They were both law abiding citizens, neither with any legally diagnosed mental disorder, both were proficient in firearms use and safety and up until that fateful day last December simply used guns exactly as millions and millions of other law abiding American gun owners. So while I'm happy to hear Erik's claim, I'm sure many people might well have heard exactly the same from the Lanzas.

I said a long time ago in this thread, yeah everybody is a law abiding citizen, right up until they aren't. The question for the rest of the citizens of America is whether you trust that none of those law abiding citizens with the firepower to kill in significant magnitude will all remain law abiding...history show us that there's no way in bloody hell at least a few aren't gunna go rouge sooner or later. The question is, "do you feel lucky today"...lucky enough that you or someone you love wont be in the line of fire when the shooting starts, or do you really think if you're there, and happen to have your little sidearm with you, you're gunna save the day and be THE hero?

Hey Rickk, great analysis. While I may not convince the likes of Erik and Brian of anything I appreciate that they continue to provide input simply because I believe we all (or at least I) can learn from the dialog.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

mag7
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 888
Location: Lake James, NC

3/22/13 10:08 AM


quote:
history show us that there's no way in bloody hell at least a few aren't gunna go rouge sooner or later.


Now those are some true words and frankly, being close to both Rev and Civil War reenactment groups, there are more than a few within those groups who are already rattling their sabres....some along the lines of the Duck Dynasty types for those who may know of that reality show.

I am not one of the gung-ho (or is it gun-ho) types but I am keenly aware of the role that civilians and guns played in the framing of our nation and think it is a mistake to underestimate the resolve of these Americans who are deeply rooted in the origins of this nation.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4472
Location: Nashua, NH

3/23/13 9:35 AM

Adam Lanza had a serious mental problem...

...and his mother knew it. Other people around him knew it. It was not like he just suddenly went insane. Mental health professionals will tell you that people don't just "snap" as you see in the movies. Mass shooters invariably have mental health problems that other people know about. If there was better reporting and better treatment available, fewer of them would have access to firearms and fewer would end up killing. Sadly, there is no 100% solution.

Lanza's mother should have known enough to secure her firearms so that he could not access them. We may never know what steps she did or didn't take, but it was her responsibility to make sure that her firearms were secured from her disturbed son. She apparently failed to do that and the result was a mass shooting. She didn't pull the trigger and it's not her fault that her son did, but her actions - or inaction - facilitated his crimes.

To Mag7, yeah, I know a few "saber-rattlers", but they're sane people who are just trying to express their frustration, albeit in an ineffective manner that I'm not comfortable with. I don't like the bluster, but I'm not worried about any of them going out and hurting anyone.

As for measures to deal with gun violence, so far, the only proposals from Congress that make ANY sense and that would have ANY possible effect on crime are those to increase penalties for "straw purchasers" and illegal gun trafficking. I'm all for doing that; lock the bastards up and throw away the key. Everything else that's been proposed would do nothing to reduce crime, but a lot to infringe on the rights of 100 million law-abiding gun owners in this country. In many cases, they would turn millions of people into instant felons, simply because they own something that they purchased 100% legally.

Fortunately, the so called "assault weapons ban" is effectively DOA. It wouldn't have done a damned thing to reduce crime, anyway, as we know from a decade of experience. "Universal background checks" has little chance of passing either and since less than one tenth of one percent of people caught by background checks are even prosecuted, it's hard to see how adding to that number would make any difference at all.

What we need is for Congress to appropriate funds for enforcement of existing gun laws. I doubt they'll ever do it, because it's more difficult than passing a bunch of new, useless, cosmetic laws that they can grandstand about and make themselves look like they're actually doing something. The cynic in me says that the other reason is that if they succeeded in reducing crime through enforcement, they would never be able to pass the draconian gun laws that many of them want. Sadly, that's not as crazy it may sound when you consider facts such as that Chicago, which has a very high gun crime rate has the lowest rate of gun-law prosecutions in the nation. How can that be if the idea of gun laws is to deter gun crimes?

Enforce existing laws strenuously and make the penalties severe. If that doesn't work, then we can have a discussion about new laws.

 Reply to topic    

Paul Datars
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 1229
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

3/25/13 9:31 AM

While Lanza's mother and neighbours may have known he wasn't mentally stable, clearly none imagined what he was capable of or they would surely have done something about it, so in fact there must have been a "snap". Maybe what needs to happen is the people who possess the tools which can enable such a sick person, need to be watched far more closely and if they don't like the scrutiny, they simply need to get rid of what's causing it. This is no different than me not liking the way the cops watch me very closely in my high HP cars, if it really bothers me I drive something else.

"Enforce existing laws strenuously and make the penalties severe. If that doesn't work, then we can have a discussion about new laws."

Can't disagree with that.

"...cosmetic laws that they can grandstand about and make themselves look like they're actually doing something."

The irony here is I don't believe any new cosmetic laws will be passed either, but I believe it's because most politicians don't want to be seen as having anything to do with any law which might diminish gun sales :-0

Personally, since nobody asked, I think the solution is simply, albeit difficult to achieve. I believe IF Americans realised just how unlikely a gun was to save them from anything and how is was much more likely to actually cause them more grief then any reasonable person would ever be willing to voluntarily take on, they would not want to be anywhere near a gun (sport and hunting notwithstanding). Unfortunately this sort of realization would cut significantly into gun sales so it's very unlikely to ever be allowed to happen.

The gun companies by convincing gullible Americans (predisposed by the 2nd amendment) that a gun is necessary for personal protection, have brilliantly created a self-perpetuating problem. The more guns out there the more insecure one will feel if they don't happen to have one. It's a damn good thing RPGs, tanks and the like are illegal because otherwise Erik and Brian wouldn't have any disposal income left to buy bicycles :-)

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 17413
Location: Portland, OR

3/25/13 9:59 AM

I noticed while buying some Binos yesterday [for Whale watching trip today] that the Remington 870 shotgun has not really increased in price that much since I bought mine 35 year ago. I think I paid $249.00, saw some for $319-29.00. Although they look like they are not blued metal, but a flat black ano or paint?? Or did this place not stock blued ones due to price or something?

Are they doing different finishes these days ??

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4472
Location: Nashua, NH

3/26/13 5:29 AM

Modern finishes are more weatherproof...

...than traditional bluing. They're plating or coating that doesn't have to be constantly maintained to prevent rust. They also eliminate telltale glare when hunting. For field or carry guns, they make a lot of sense. Stainless is common, too, and it can be coated or blackened.

 Reply to topic    


Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
           View New Threads Since My Last Visit VIEW THREADS SINCE MY LAST VISIT
           Start a New Thread

 Display posts from previous:   


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19, 20  Next  
Last Thread | Next Thread  >  

  
  

 


If you enjoy this site, please consider pledging your support

cyclingforum.com - where cyclists talk tech
Cycling TTF Rides Throughout The World

Cyclingforum is powered by SYNCRONICITY.NET in Denver, Colorado -

Powered by phpBB: Copyright 2006 phpBB Group | Custom phpCF Template by Syncronicity