He has my vote..... YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[billvon 3,107]

>This is "exchange 'guns' for 'canopies'" and then tell me how
>ludicrous your argument is.

Except that the danger of small canopies is that they will kill their user; the danger of guns is that they will kill someone else. It's like comparing drunk mountain biking to drunk driving.

[lawrocket 3]

I didn't say, "small canopies." I said "canopies."

What did Roger Nelson do wrong? How about Indian Bob? They went in on canopy collisions. Yes, canopies cann kill someone else. Even accidental deployments on the step bring down planes.

Under the anti-gun logic, canopies should be banned because they can be used irresponsibly to kill others. Thus, they should be stripped from the hands of a conscientious majority who can handle them safely and responsibly and without danger to others.

My logic is secure on this one, bill. If that logic is used to ban guns, so too should it be used to ban sport canopies.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,107]

>What did Roger Nelson do wrong? How about Indian Bob? They went
> in on canopy collisions. Yes, canopies cann kill someone else. Even
> accidental deployments on the step bring down planes.

Of course. But 99% of the time, a mistake under canopy kills the user, not someone else. Similarly, a gun can be mishandled and kill the user - but most of the time it kills someone else. Claiming they are similar is absurd. The law recognizes that risking your own life is acceptable but risking someone else's is not.

>If that logic is used to ban guns, so too should it be used to ban sport canopies.

I don't think you should ban either one. But guns are NOT toys, and they are NOT like canopies. They are deadly weapons that put others at great risk if not handled responsibly and with a lot of respect. Treating them like any other piece of sports equipment is a good way to get someone killed.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

They are deadly weapons that put others at great risk if not handled responsibly and with a lot of respect. Treating them like any other piece of sports equipment is a good way to get someone killed.

This is a great description of a modern sport canopy. I could not have put it any better.

But, like me, you agree that just because some assholes use them improperly doesn't mean that they should be taken out of society, if I am understanding you correctly.

Such is the argument against guns. And the argument about a mitake under canopy is the same as, "Children find them and accidentally shoot themselves or their friend, so we should ban them."

The slight few cases of citizens misusing guns is enough for people to call for a ban. So should the slight misuse of canopies be enough to call for a ban, right?

I'm just applying consistent logic here.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,107]

>The slight few cases of citizens misusing guns is enough for people
> to call for a ban.

I think it's enough to make an effort to prevent ignorant people from misusing them, not to ban them.

>So should the slight misuse of canopies be enough to call for a ban, right?

I think it's enough to make an effort to prevent untrained and incompetent people from jumping with them, rather than ban them. Fortunately, DZ's do that.

[lawrocket 3]

We are in agreement, mr von!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jfields 0]

Quote

This is NOT apples and oranges. I am not talking about training or any of the other side issues here. I am talking about clear examples of the benefits of an armed society. I am speaking of the benefits of actually allowing the innocent, good and upright citizens to defend themselves, instead of having other citizens call 911 for them, and wait for 12 minutes for a response.

You are not talking about training or any "side issues"? This entire issue is clouded with tangents that are critical to understanding the problem. Who are the "innocent, good and upright citizens"? Does a gun shop or gun show seller know the difference? Does an 8 year old with access to a parent's gun count? What about the fact that firearm murders greatly outnumber justifiable homicides in self defense.

Quote

I am talking about clear examples of the benefits of an armed society.

Like an astronomical homicide rate? If you want to focus on that one thing, you'll find that it isn't a good arguing point.

Quote

For society is filled with AggieDaves, who have their weapons and can handle them responsibly.

Society is also filled with people who accidently shoot strangers because they don't understand gun safety, people that kill their friends when fooling around drunk with firearms and people that let their guns into the hands of children. We have a culture of carelessness.

If you could even just make sure that legal firearm owners were responsible and competant, you would find less backlash against gun ownership. Or just make sure kids didn't get their hands on guns. Pick one aspect of gun safety and show me how it is really effective and under control.

Quote

I take great issue with your intimation that society is irresponsible. I would suggest that you state outright to Aggie that he is irresponsible and that he will kill innocent people with his gun.

The facts support my assertion. About 9000 people per year get murdered with firearms. That is "responsible"?

From 1997 to 2001, number of firearm murders: 45,846
From 1997 to 2001, number of firearm murders during robbery: 5,929
From 1997 to 2001, number of justified firearm homicides: 880

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-10.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-17.xls

The lethal "self defense" uses of firearms are trivial compared to their criminal uses. I often hear defense cited as a reason for ownership, along with exhortations about how the "perps" wouldn't stand a chance, and would end up dead on the floor. That isn't generally the case.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

From 1997 to 2001, number of firearm murders: 45,846
From 1997 to 2001, number of firearm murders during robbery: 5,929
From 1997 to 2001, number of justified firearm homicides: 880

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-10.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-17.xls

The lethal "self defense" uses of firearms are trivial compared to their criminal uses. I often hear defense cited as a reason for ownership, along with exhortations about how the "perps" wouldn't stand a chance, and would end up dead on the floor. That isn't generally the case.

Well, consider how many incidents there were on the justified homicides. The gun factor may have prevented the crime in the first place, thus preventing the justified homicide in the first place. That's a statistic that is not easily measured I imagine.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

firearm murders greatly outnumber justifiable homicides in self defense.

But how do firearm murders compare to murders prevented by wounding attacker with a firearm, or an attacker fleeing after seeing a firearm, or an attacker's knowledge that someone may be armed. How many rapes and other assaults are prevented? Just because a firearm is used to prevent a crime, doesn't mean the offender was killed.

Traffic deaths greatly outnumber firearm murders. And to drive you need to be licensed and registered.

[jfields 0]

You and Gawain both make good points. There are plenty of places where good numbers don't exist.

Sure, firearms could be used non-lethally to prevent a crime. We don't know how many times. But equally as true is the fact that some of the murder victims ended up that way because they forced a confrontation with their own firearm and lost. We don't know how many of them there were either.

But numbers aside, can you honestly tell me that firearm regulations and firearm owners are both doing the best they can to keep weapons out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them? I think our attempts are pitiful. If only "legal, honest and responsible citizens" could get guns, and they stayed that way, I'd have no problem with firearm ownership. But that is far from the case, there there seems to be a complete unwillingness to work on the problem from the ownership-advocate side. Not talking about banning anything, but steps that would clean up the laws, make them more effective, and include compromises that would make effective differences.

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

Under the anti-gun logic, canopies should be banned because they can be used irresponsibly to kill others. Thus, they should be stripped from the hands of a conscientious majority who can handle them safely and responsibly and without danger to others.

Is a canopy manufactured with the express purpose of killing?

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

But numbers aside, can you honestly tell me that firearm regulations and firearm owners are both doing the best they can to keep weapons out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them?

Not at all.

Quote

there seems to be a complete unwillingness to work on the problem from the ownership-advocate side.

That's not true at all. We are unwilling to allow useless laws that have virtually no effect other than making otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.

There are a multitude of groups and manufacturers who spend lots of time and money on education and training of both firearms owners, and the general public. The NRA sponsors educational programs that go into grade schools to teach kids what to do if they find a gun (don't touch it and find an adult).

Quote

Not talking about banning anything, but steps that would clean up the laws, make them more effective, and include compromises that would make effective differences.

Well, there you've hit on the first problem I have with enacting new legislation. The existing laws are not being enforced. Violent criminals who use guns are released from prison unsupervised because of overcrowding due to incarceration of non-violent drug offenders.

Start enforcing the existing laws and keeping violent criminals off the streets, then we can see what else needs to be done.

There have been a multitude of gun laws and restrictions enacted over the past hundred years. I challenge you to find any statistics that show they have made a difference. What's the point of passing more?

[freakydiver 0]

Phuk Bush. and his dad too!

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[lawrocket 3]

Okay. Assuming a population of 290 million, we see a homicide rate of about 1 in 32,000 per year (9162 average per year between those years). Now let's assume that some of those who kill kill more than one of these people. My guess is it would be a fairly good guess to say that 5,000 people in America murder with firearms every year.

This leaves roughly 290 million people who don't kill with firearms every year. Why not just say it:

"Hey. All 290 million of you out there who don't murder with firearms, there are 5,000 of your fellow residents who do every year. Therefore, your society is fucked up. You are irresponsible. And you should not carry firearms."

Now, let's compare it with skydivers. We have over 34,000 members of the USPA. Let's add on another 30,000 people, just to be on the safe side, giving us roughly 65,000 skydivers. Now, we'll compare deaths. Let's call it a "responsibility rate."

Assuming the populations, to equal the handgun death rate in the firearm-irresponsible US, a whopping two skydivers each year would die assuming a 65,000 skydiver population. USPA's website reflects 13 deaths this year (and it ain't over).

Thus, the "astronomical" firearm homicide rate of 1:32,000 per year is dwarfed by the 1:5,000 per year(extremely conservative based on 65,000 skydivers) death rate. Therefore, start ranting about the "culture of carelessness" in our sport. Why not follow my suggestion and ban canopies.

Is the death rate in skydiving astromonical? No. But it ain't no joke. It sure as hell dwarves the gun killing rate in the US. 9,000 per year get killed out of 290 million. Over 15 per year out of 65000 get killed every year.

Responsibility. Yeah. Where should I be taking my chances.

Note about side issues: It's easy to make arguments more dense with side issues and tangents. Nevertheless, my point was that "guns can benefit the safety of society." That's why cops wear them. It's parsimony. The simpler the argument, the more likely it is to be true. I'll keep all the loopholes out, thank you.

Goodness knows, in my profession, I know the hazards of loopholing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jfields 0]

Quote

It's parsimony. The simpler the argument, the more likely it is to be true. I'll keep all the loopholes out, thank you.

If you want to simplify to the point of absurdity, okay. If nobody had guns, nobody would die from them. That is irrefutable logic. It is also completely out of touch with the real world. Next.

That that we have gotten the stupid generalizations out of the way, the only method to actually dealing with the problem is to delve into the side issues you are loath to discuss.

As to the firearm murder to skydiving comparison, it is totally bogus.

First, nobody is forced to skydive. Second, how many skydiving fatalities in the last ten years were directly caused by one jumper killing another. While non-zero, it is a tiny fraction of the total number of skydiving deaths. Most jumpers only injure or kill themselves. It is like comparing suicide stats to homicide stats. They aren't at all the same thing.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Is a canopy manufactured with the express purpose of killing?

Nope. They are intended to save lives.

But that's a side issue. The point I'm making is that the argument seems to be that if something can be used to kill others, it should be banned. This would be especially true of something with little or no social utility, like a sport parachute.

Nice comment, though. But another discussion.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[bmcd308 0]

No. Like a gun, it is manufactured for stopping something bad from happening.

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[lawrocket 3]

Yes, I like to simplify reductio ad absurdum. It actually makes good points. Thus, I have demonstrated that it is absurd by applying your logic to the simplest demoninations.

True: If we didn't have guns nobody would be killed. Accepted, but so what. We have them. Next argument.

True: Most skydivers kill or injure themselves. Yes. But some kill others. If we didn't have sport canopies, that would never happen. We have them. Next argument.

You say most jumpers who die or get hurt never hurt anyone else. True. I can also say that the vast majority of handgun owners never kill anyone, either.

So, let's find ways of dealing with the others that don't implicate the vast majority. Unfortunately, your arguments seem to take on a tone that the vast majority needs to pay for the sins of the small one.

That is just plain wrong, in my opinion, to make the good suffer.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Do you believe that the current assault weapons ban has reduced or prevented crime? If so, by how much?

Well, America does seem to have more gun related death and injury than any country with strict gun control laws. Just my $0.02

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

I'm glad your gun made you feel confident enough to remain in a potentially dangerous situation, but I think you'd be safer if you had the gun, kept it concealed - AND avoided dangerous situations. A gun is a great tool; it's not an impregnable defense against crazies.

Once again, you weren't fucking there! I gave the quick run down of what happened.

Its always the liberals that arm-chair quarterback stuff they don't have any clue about. "I wasn't there, I don't have the full story, but this is what you should have done."

Bill, you're a very smart man, you should know better then that.

You believe that your gun saved you from a nasty situation, but that's only because you want to believe that. You don't know what would have happened otherwise and you weren't prepared to find out - you don't know that the guy hadn't really run out of gas. You may well have threatened a perfectly law abiding person with your gun.

As I have said many times before, I work on the south side of Chicago in a "tough" neighborhood, and I lived there for three years. I don't see the need for packing a gun, and if I'd threatened with a gun everyone who panhandled me, I think I'd deserve to be thrown in jail.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,107]

>Like a gun, it is manufactured for stopping something bad from
>happening.

Handguns are made to kill. The threat of that is what stops things bad from happening, but it is designed to do something very bad (i.e. kill.) A handgun that had a safety system that prevented it from being fired at another human being, thus preventing their death, would be perceived as useless.

Parachutes are made to decelerate you. The end result of that is that you survive a skydive. That's a different intent. A parachute that had a safety system that helped prevent high speed collisions with the ground or with other people would be percieved as a better parachute.

There are many valid arguments for keeping gun ownership legal. That they are just like parachutes is not one of those valid arguments.

[lawrocket 3]

I do not agree that guns are just like parachutes. I simply attempted to demonstrate the flawed logic by applying the arguments to parachutes. I simply recommended changing "gun" or "firearm" to "canopy" and see how the arguments look.

Example, changing "gun" to "parachute":

Quote

If parachutes take innocent lives

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


I didn't directly say that. Civilians with parachutes take innocent lives, in alarming numbers.

I've used parachutes, in the military. I'm not in the "any parachute is a bad thing" camp. Parachutes in untrained and/or irresponsible hands are the problem.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And the only force that can neutralize their will is an equal force.

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


Untrue. Common sense and using your brain is probably more effective in most circumstances.


...


Is the average parachute owner as trained in the use of parachutes, safety of parachutes and threat assessment as the members of a SWAT team? Nope. Have they been screened as carefully at a SWAT member before having a parachutes placed in their hands? Nope. Have they been forced to demonstrate any level of responsibility or ethics? Nope. You are comparing apples and oranges, and you know it.

You find a lot of the same arguments re: canopy safety, training, etc. The point is, canopies kill people when used improperly and without "responsibility or ethics." Yet nobody seeks to ban them.

Am I wrong?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,107]

>I simply attempted to demonstrate the flawed logic by applying the
> arguments to parachutes. I simply recommended changing "gun"
> or "firearm" to "canopy" and see how the arguments look.

It's a horrible comparison. It's like someone comparing guns to narcotics. Both can kill, both can be used for good. Doctors decide who can take narcotics because they can be abused, and you can be arrested if you don't have their permission. Therefore the government/police should decide who can use guns because they can be abused, and arrest people who use them without permission

Is that any more or less valid than the parachutes are like guns comparison? That's the danger of using bad comparisons; other people can do it too.

[lawrocket 3]

You bring up a good point. But I am not comparing guns to parachutes. I am comparing the arguments.

I'll state that both arguments are filled with fallacy. I deliberately used a poor comparison to demonstrate the fallacy of arguments about deaths caused by guns, etc.

The arguments are ridiculous. That was my point, to apply the arguments by inserting something else.

Geez. I'm hoping people don't think that I believe parachutes should be banned.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Switzerland has similar crime rates to Japan and Great Britain. In Switzerland, the purchase of semi automatic rifles and shotguns requires no permit, and adults are free to carry them. Handguns can be bought with firearm purchase permits, which are issued to all adults without a criminal record or a history of mental illness. About 40% of Switzerland's cantons (states) do not require a permit to carry a handgun.
That pretty much debunks the notion that relaxed gun laws is a direct correlation to crime.

I do not want to get involved in your domestic gun debate. It is really up to Americans. But be careful when looking abroad not to trust "lobby" group arguments. As a general rule, gun control is strict in the "western" world outside the US and crimes involving guns per capita is lower then in the US, in some cases much lower. Now I am not saying that this means your crime rates will fall if you regulate guns, but the stats are a fact. There are some exceptions "to the rule" like Switzerland, but they have more complex circumstances. The following is an articel from the BBC web site explaining it:

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

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.

Few restrictions

In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not.

The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced.

Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions.

But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.

Mark Eisenecker, a sociologist from the University of Zurich told BBC News Online that guns are "anchored" in Swiss society and that gun control is simply not an issue.

Some pro-gun groups argue that Switzerland proves their contention that there is not necessarily a link between the availability of guns and violent crime in society.

Low crime

But other commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated.

Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.

It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.

Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.

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

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.