peacefuljeffrey 0 #51 February 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteGun owners respect that - we feel that everyone should have the freedom to make that choice for themselves. We don't want to force people to own a gun if they don't want one. KENNESAW! MORTON GROVE (For those who don't know, Morton Grove, IL banned handgun ownership. I just thought this'd be a good counterpoint to Kallend mentioning Kennesaw, which passed a largely symbolic resolution to require all households to have a gun.) --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #52 February 16, 2004 Quote>Does the modifier "large" affect what you're saying? Yep. The tiny little things they sell in the stores are not worth having if you are serious about rockets. The stores usually only have engines going to D's and if you are really lucky they might have E's. You can no longer purchase the engines like P's O's and other similar rockets. The TSA has made it illegal to transport rocket engines above a few grams and were trying to eliminate them completely in all sizes. I've built rockets holding things up to G's and if I had'nt got into jumping I probally would have got into rocketery. I always wanted to build something that was in the N range... 0-5000 feet in a few seconds. Trying to calculate exactly where it will land with the wind forcast, designing alternitive recovery systems... The way I'm getting this logic from Kallend and others is, "Wahh, it's anti-freedom to ban these model rocket engines, so because I'm so mad about that I'll support even more erosions of freedom, like the freedom to own various types of guns." Great logic there. How do you all like it when the anti-gun "logic" is turned on you and YOUR hobby?: "Why would anyone need such a powerful assault rocket engine? Surely there is nothing wrong with being limited to smaller engines, you can still have your little space-man fantasies with smaller engines, meanwhile the public will be protected from all the harm we fantasize you would do with the larger ones." In truth, I fail to see how model rockets capable of reaching 5,000 feet -- let alone in "seconds" -- is at all safe. What means is employed to assure that no air traffic might be jeopardized by your launch of a rocket that travels in the HUNDREDS of miles per hour, to an altitude higher than most GA pilots bother to fly? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vmsfreaky1 0 #53 February 16, 2004 QuoteEspecially Montana. Don't EVER go there I promise never to go to Montana. Your gun culture is freaking scary, your gun deaths are scarier, why do you insist on carrying weapons everywhere with you, we dont, and ppl dont die why dont you try it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #54 February 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteEspecially Montana. Don't EVER go there I promise never to go to Montana. Your gun culture is freaking scary, your gun deaths are scarier, why do you insist on carrying weapons everywhere with you, we dont, and ppl dont die why dont you try it. Wow!!! You don't carry guns, and so you have NO DEATH over there?! Where is this magical place?! Give me a break. Over half the gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides -- and studies of suicide have found that those inclined to it substitute the means if one type is made unavailable to them. Of the remaining deaths, very very few are accidents (the accidental death rate due to firearms has declined in every year since statistics began to be kept, and continues to decline) and many of the rest are bad-guy-on-bad-guy violence (i.e. gang-bangers capping each other). I love the anti-gun logic that says that as long as someone isn't killed with a GUN, it's okay to be killed in some other way. But you're saying that no one dies there, because you have no guns. Amazing! You MUST share your secret with the rest of the uncivilized world! --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Peej 0 #55 February 16, 2004 Reading the replies from various side of the debate is very interesting, i neither own a gun/desire to own one (this after two muggings at gun point, one of which involved me getting shot in the leg) yet i believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and must respect your right to bear arms. . Was just wondering how many of you guys saw Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine"? Advertisio Rodriguez / Sky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #56 February 16, 2004 QuoteWas just wondering how many of you guys saw Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine"? Many saw it, as well as we did Friday the 13th. I have yet to be scared of hockey"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Peej 0 #57 February 16, 2004 Ha ha ha ha ha. ROFL!! Nice answer. Advertisio Rodriguez / Sky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #58 February 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteGun owners respect that - we feel that everyone should have the freedom to make that choice for themselves. We don't want to force people to own a gun if they don't want one. KENNESAW! MORTON GROVE (For those who don't know, Morton Grove, IL banned handgun ownership. I just thought this'd be a good counterpoint to Kallend mentioning Kennesaw, which passed a largely symbolic resolution to require all households to have a gun.) - Maybe, but totally irrelevant to the point, which was to refute John's untrue assertion. Which assertion of mine are you refuting?... 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
Kennedy 0 #59 February 16, 2004 You're from Australia? Go take a look at you violent crime rates. Yours are soaring, whilst our have been on a steady decline for years. You know what class of crime is growing the fastest in Australia right now? A new one called "home invasion." This is when thugs break into your house while you're there, but they don't care because they're not afraid of you. They're physically bigger than you, and sometimes they have a gun. And they know you don't "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." ps - care to post some sources to your claim for "lowest gun deaths going?" And what do you mean by lowest gun deaths? Lowest in terms of latitiude? Get specific.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #60 February 16, 2004 According to the published stats, Australia's violent crime rate actually is getting worse, particularly after they confiscated and destroyed the vast majority of personal firearms. Meanwhile America's crime rate is falling, and has been for decades.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #61 February 16, 2004 QuoteWas just wondering how many of you guys saw Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine"? THere are a few threads on the movie. I think the basic conclusion was "yeah, it's fake, he used 'creative editing.'" People who supported his claims said this was ok because he got his message out. People who oppose his claims [myself included] said this (A) made it not a documentary and (B) made him a liar for portraying it as such.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #62 February 16, 2004 QuoteMORTON GROVE (For those who don't know, Morton Grove, IL banned handgun ownership. I just thought this'd be a good counterpoint to Kallend mentioning Kennesaw, which passed a largely symbolic resolution to require all households to have a gun.) QuoteMaybe, but totally irrelevant to the point, which was to refute John's untrue assertion. Which assertion of mine are you refuting? The point remains that the Kennesaw law was nothing more than posturing. Anyone who chooses is exempt from the requirement. You let me know when the anti-gun side starts considering the feelings and desires of people who agree with me.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #63 February 16, 2004 Wow... I've got a nice little collection of rifles that I actually use every year to go hunting with. I've blasted more holes into targets then I care to count. I've killed my share of animals and actually ate the animal that I killed with my tool. Note I say tool, its not a weapon... I'm not anti-gun, nice assumption there. QuoteIn truth, I fail to see how model rockets capable of reaching 5,000 feet -- let alone in "seconds" -- is at all safe. What means is employed to assure that no air traffic might be jeopardized by your launch of a rocket that travels in the HUNDREDS of miles per hour, to an altitude higher than most GA pilots bother to fly? More things that are done to ensure that a jumper won't cause a conflict with other GA traffic. File notams, do radio clearence checks, things like that. Rocket flyers in general tend to be much more concerened about airplanes and safety then skydivers are.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #64 February 16, 2004 QuoteWow... I've got a nice little collection of rifles that I actually use every year to go hunting with. I've blasted more holes into targets then I care to count. I've killed my share of animals and actually ate the animal that I killed with my tool. Note I say tool, its not a weapon... I'm not anti-gun, nice assumption there. QuoteIn truth, I fail to see how model rockets capable of reaching 5,000 feet -- let alone in "seconds" -- is at all safe. What means is employed to assure that no air traffic might be jeopardized by your launch of a rocket that travels in the HUNDREDS of miles per hour, to an altitude higher than most GA pilots bother to fly? More things that are done to ensure that a jumper won't cause a conflict with other GA traffic. File notams, do radio clearence checks, things like that. Rocket flyers in general tend to be much more concerened about airplanes and safety then skydivers are. The restrictions are ridiculous. (Just like most gun laws, they're just make people feel good). If the problem is accidental incidents involving aircraft, then why the BATFE license requirements that say absolutely nothing about range safety. If the problem is deliberate terrorist style attacks, just how much damage is a cardboard rocket going to do? If a terrorist weapon can be made so easily from model rocket parts for a few $$$, why does the military spend $Millions developing ground to air missiles, and $More Millions buying them each year. Is it just welfare for defense contractors? If a terrorist organization has the expertise to make a missile that will actually hit an airliner in flight (which is VERY difficult to do), it wouldn't need to buy model rocket motors to power it. The whole thing is just plain idiocy from an out-of-control bureaucracy.... 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
turtlespeed 226 #65 February 16, 2004 Hmm - What am i doing about safety - Trying to show everyone what NOT to do.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #66 February 16, 2004 Quote The way I'm getting this logic from Kallend and others is, "Wahh, it's anti-freedom to ban these model rocket engines, so because I'm so mad about that I'll support even more erosions of freedom, like the freedom to own various types of guns." Great logic there. - I admit that I do not swallow whole the garbage rhetoric of the extreme pro-gun lobby that is sometimes posted on DZ.COM However, since you mention me, please show me where I wrote anything about eroding the freedom to own guns. I think the most extreme thing I've said is that there needs to be a more effective filter to prevent inappropriate individuals (felons and the mentally incompetent) from obtaining them. I also wrote previously that I think this filter should be developed by those who want to own guns, and not imposed upon them.... 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
vmsfreaky1 0 #67 February 16, 2004 QuoteWow!!! You don't carry guns, and so you have NO DEATH over there?! Most ppl dont get shot, coz we dont have guns to shoot with, and our government hasnt oppressed us as much as some(*cough* patriot act) thats my point. This is about guns, i was speaking about guns, what are you speaking about magical places for? QuoteOver half the gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides Prove it. No NRA sources please QuoteI love the anti-gun logic that says that as long as someone isn't killed with a GUN, it's okay to be killed in some other way. Did you read my post, i think not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #68 February 19, 2004 >>The way I'm getting this logic from Kallend and others is, "Wahh, it's anti-freedom to ban these model rocket engines, so because I'm so mad about that I'll support even more erosions of freedom, like the freedom to own various types of guns." Great logic there. << To be frank, Kallend just tends to argue with the logic of people on both sides of the debate who use poor logic in forming their arguments. I think it would be hard to accuse him of being anti. Kallend is like lots of people, including me - a little bit of a lefty, a little bit of a righty, and a lot of a libertarian. Just because someone disagrees with a policy of the RNC does not make them a lefty. If so, then I would be a lefty. But I promise you, the DNC wouldn't have me. Brent ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #69 February 19, 2004 Quote>>The way I'm getting this logic from Kallend and others is, "Wahh, it's anti-freedom to ban these model rocket engines, so because I'm so mad about that I'll support even more erosions of freedom, like the freedom to own various types of guns." Great logic there. << To be frank, Kallend just tends to argue with the logic of people on both sides of the debate who use poor logic in forming their arguments. I think it would be hard to accuse him of being anti. Kallend is like lots of people, including me - a little bit of a lefty, a little bit of a righty, and a lot of a libertarian. Just because someone disagrees with a policy of the RNC does not make them a lefty. If so, then I would be a lefty. But I promise you, the DNC wouldn't have me. Brent Well, he's had three days to find an anti-gun quote from me, but he's pretty silent.... 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
Designer 0 #70 February 19, 2004 Personal choice.I do not own a gun.Never want to own a gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #71 February 19, 2004 QuoteMost ppl dont get shot, coz we dont have guns to shoot with, and our government hasnt oppressed us as much as some(*cough* patriot act) thats my point. This is about guns, i was speaking about guns, what are you speaking about magical places for? Really, no guns and no gun problems, huh? Well then what are these guys doing? http://www.guncontrol.org.au/witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #72 February 19, 2004 some local headlines; not exactly NRA sources. Quote"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws. --Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997. "Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75." --"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998. "Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%." --"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998. "Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started." --"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998. "Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever." --Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999. "The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago." --South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #73 February 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteOver half the gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides Prove it. No NRA sources please FBI Uniform Crime Report http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl2-10.xls Murder by Firearms 2001: 8,890 National Institute of Mental Health http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/suifact.cfm info for 2001: The total number of suicide deaths was 30,622. Suicide by firearms was the most common method for both men and women, accounting for 55% of all suicides. fyi - Suicides outnumbered homicides (20,308) by 3 to 2. So let's do the math. I get 16,842.1 suicides by firearms. That looks like more than half to me. Want to tell me the FBI or the NIMH is lying to support a pro-gun agenda? Still making faces at people who know what they are talking about?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paige 0 #74 April 7, 2004 QuoteQuote It's all about freedom of choice! Could not agree more. I think it also comes down to "where do u draw the line if its not at guns?!?!"Tunnel Pink Mafia Delegate www.TunnelPinkMafia.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
