Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it?

Old 8th Nov 2014, 16:15
  #1301 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,394
Well my clever ploy worked for quite some time, but alas I see we are back on guns now.

I certainly had fun and I want to thank the unwitting help from the usual suspects for helping me keep this thread off of guns for so long.

Now back to eating popcorn.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 16:15
  #1302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 617
Any thoughts on how to reduce that number?
Which number?
obgraham is online now  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 16:21
  #1303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Originally Posted by con-pilot View Post
unwitting
You're sure about that?
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 16:23
  #1304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 76
Posts: 452
Galaxy Flyer I think it is a bit sad that the phrase Liberty loving is used in the context of the deaths of children in large numbers. Your liberty to play with your toys costs the deaths of thousands and you say it is a price you are willing to pay - it is others who pay,not you.How many of your own relatives have been sacrificed on the altar of the gun? In the last few days how many young children have been shot dead? We in the UK value our liberty and have fought for it over hundreds of years but it seems we value the lives of children a little higher than the likes of you. It has cost you nothing, It costs the lives of thousands each year,you have sacrificed nothing so do not flatter yourself regarding the price of freedom etc.
bcgallacher is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 16:28
  #1305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
Seldom

Any thoughts on how to reduce that number?
Which, Seldom, is exactly the question I asked you several times a zillion posts ago, which you pretty much ignored. I even gave you the position of US Congressman so you could use your influence. You came up with no practical ideas apart from the training suggestion and then you just reverted to repeating the old mantras.

Do you wish to make another attempt? Your one suggestion on training was promising. Any ideas on background checks before purchasing or periodic re-qualification? We already have a list of qualified people, how would you strengthen the application of that list?

.

.
BOING is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 16:44
  #1306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Boing,

Post #951

Add to that list a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for anyone who allows their weapons to used in a crime. No questions, no excuses, no mitigation just a MANDATORY 10 year prison term.

That might concentrate the mind a little when leaving your gun laying about........
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 16:51
  #1307 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,394
You're sure about that?
Well, you were certainly not unwilling, as you fell for my clever ploy, hook, line and sinker.

You didnít have a clue as to what I was doing and fell for it.

Thank you for your help, even though you didn't know it.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 16:52
  #1308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Originally Posted by con-pilot View Post
Well, you were certainly not unwilling, as you fell for my clever ploy, hook, line and sinker.

You didnít have a clue as to what I was doing and fell for it.

Thank you for your help, even though you didn't know it.
You're sure about that?
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 16:52
  #1309 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
MANDATORY...

Consider this scenario:

Home invasion.
Perps hold a gun to the head of your beloved one. Or a knife.
Demand you open your gun safe so they can use the guns in the upcoming bank robbery.

You comply. You "allowed".

MANDATORY???
 
Old 8th Nov 2014, 16:57
  #1310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
BCG

Here is a statistic taken from an anti gun publication.
Firearm injuries are the cause of death of 18 children and young adults (24 years of age and under) each day in the U.S.
Note the statistics include ages up to 24 years. It used to be a child was under 16, then it became under 18 and apparently, for gun statistics, it is 24 years. This allows the antis to inflate the number of "child" deaths because these numbers are misused, at least this publication had the honesty to break down the figures - others don't.

Here is the problem with increasing the victim age to 24 - but nobody reports the actual background information.

People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims.[15] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[42] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[15][43] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[44]




.
BOING is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 17:27
  #1311 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,394
You're sure about that?
One hundred percent, I lead you and a few other usual suspects right down the primrose path and guns were not mention for quite a few pages.

My goal was accomplished.

Thank you again.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 17:48
  #1312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
But you're sure we didn't have a clue?
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 18:57
  #1313 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,394
But you're sure we didn't have a clue?
Can't stand it can you.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 19:04
  #1314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Can't stand what?
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 19:32
  #1315 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,394
Aw, you are so cute when you are frustrated.

I win, you lose.

Thank you for playing.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 19:36
  #1316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
I did say "practical" ideas.

You came up with no practical ideas apart from the training suggestion and then you just reverted to repeating the old mantras.
Here is the list of your suggestions, I've numbered them for reference.

I have offered up on several occasions, in this and other threads the following ideas

1. Mandatory training on each weapon purchased at time of purchase.

2. Mandatory secure gun storage where the weapon is to be housed, the installation to be checked fit for purpose before guns can be taken home.

3. No notice checks for correct gun storage correct useage.

4. Unless the weapon is being carried it by it's legal owner it should be mandatory for it to be unloaded and stored securely to avoid accidental injury.

5. Periodic refresher training.

6. Annual medical check to ensure an individual is fit for weapon ownership.
#1 we considered. You apparently did not realize that "time of purchase" training was impractical because of lack of facilities and trained personnel. I did offer alternatives which were not responded to.

#2 As I pointed out a measure of this security is already in place but "fit for purpose" needs to be defined. What would it be, a commercial safe, a locked draw? How would you reconcile this with the idea that folks need the gun at short notice in event of an emergency? Should this be a Federal or State requirement?

#3 How will you arrange this? A qualified police officer knocks on your door and says "Sorry, you are not going to work today, we are going to the range. I will come with you to see how your firearm is secured and then at the range we will check your correct usage". So, the officer signs off on the test and a week later the gun owner shoots his wife, is the police department liable? If not what was the check worth, what was its point?

#4 Seems like a repeat of #2.

#5 If we have #5 and #2 why do we need #3?

#6 What criteria would you use? Who decides and who test? Once again, what about professional liability?

Your new suggestion I tend to agree with strongly but I do not see that a blanket punishment would work, the punishment should fit the crime. I mean, could you blame a parent who normally keeps a gun securely locked in a safe if the child set up a hidden camera to observe the combination being entered? The little perishers are perfectly capable of doing this.


.
BOING is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 19:56
  #1317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 218
The reasons there are no rivers in a desert is because there is no rain, in Oregon we have the massive Columbia River because it rains a lot in the Northwest. Dohh !!! We do not have to pay a bunch of researchers to understand this and make the connection.
The presence of the Columbia river in Oregon has essentially nothing to do with the fact that it rains a lot in the Northwest. It starts in a big valley in the Rockies, is fed almost exclusively by snowmelt, and actually spends most of its length running through something that used to be a desert (until the river was dammed and it was used for irrigation)
421dog is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 20:13
  #1318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Originally Posted by con-pilot View Post
I win, you lose.
Win what...?
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 20:18
  #1319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
The presence of the Columbia river in Oregon has essentially nothing to do with the fact that it rains a lot in the Northwest. It starts in a big valley in the Rockies, is fed almost exclusively by snowmelt, and actually spends most of its length running through something that used to be a desert (until the river was dammed and it was used for irrigation)
What a load of twaddle. The Columbia River starts in Canada and then by a somewhat circuitous route joins the Pacific Ocean near Astoria, Oregon. The Columbia River basin is primarily in British Columbia, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and a smallish piece of Montana. All of these States are most definitely in the Northwestern group. In its topography the BC area is similar to the US Northwest but regardless, the BC length of the Columbia, because it is the "headwaters" of the river adds relatively little to its flow. The fact that part of the river flows through a desert region has nothing to do with the matter and the last time I checked there was a close connection between snow and rain dependent on temperature and hence somewhat on altitude. Most aviators have noticed this connection.

.
BOING is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 20:21
  #1320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 617
Columbia river
Well, Columbia River is rolling on by in view of my window. No significant rain in this "shrub-steppe-desert" here in months.
Of course it does rain/snow up in BC where the source is. Very little water added to the Columbia as it passes through WA and OR, except here at the confluence, Snake and Yakima.
obgraham is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.