DEA agent shoots himself in foot while giving a gun safety talk in school

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Why don't you write to my university president and tell him to rescind my tenure and take back my four "Excellence in Teaching" awards instead of complaining on DZ.com

Huh...that's actually a fun idea. I'll have to think about this one for a bit.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Why don't you write to my university president and tell him to rescind my tenure and take back my four "Excellence in Teaching" awards instead of complaining on DZ.com

[Homer voice] I don't want to look at a bunch of certificates on the wall, I want to see some CREDENTIALS

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,217]

Quote

Quote

Why don't you write to my university president and tell him to rescind my tenure and take back my four "Excellence in Teaching" awards instead of complaining on DZ.com

[Homer voice] I don't want to look at a bunch of certificates on the wall, I want to see some CREDENTIALS

I don't have a bullet hole in my foot.

...

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why don't you write to my university president and tell him to rescind my tenure and take back my four "Excellence in Teaching" awards instead of complaining on DZ.com

[Homer voice] I don't want to look at a bunch of certificates on the wall, I want to see some CREDENTIALS

I don't have a bullet hole in my foot.

I didn't get that, but it struck me funny anyway. Is that wrong?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

ps - until you actually answer some of the difficult questions I ask you, I'm going to leave your silly repetative questions to be fielded by others.

My views have indeed changed, thanks to you, John R., Dave and others. I used to be quite neutral on guns, thinking that those who wanted to use them for hunting were OK and those that used defense as the rationale were self-deluding. I have come to realise, thanks to you folks, that the average gun enthusiast is both deluded and dangerous by the way you dismiss all the negative aspects of guns as irrelevant. The comparison of gun deaths with engineering and medical accidents is plain ludicrous. The web sites that you frequently quote to justify your hobby are, for the most part, absurd distortions. You twist statistics according to need, sometimes arguing that rates of change are important and absolute values are not. Then when a contra-indication is pointed out, you reverse your arguments. You quote "definitive" studies from gun lobby shill John Lott, then go quiet when his data are debunked.

Whoa, that's a lot of stinkbait there. Kennedy, he doesn't to let you go, obviously.

I've always found these statements about Lott's data being debunked to be amusing.

When Kellerman or Bellisiles writes some horseshit, the gun side has no problem saying that 43 of the 44 to 1 ratio were suicides, or that he was claiming citations of historical documents that burned in San Francisco's 1906 earthquake/fire.

But when HCI wants to attack Lott, they just say his data or methodology was flawed. No specific details are ever provided, nor counter proof. That statement could be true - the kind of statistical analysis he was doing is very difficult to do without having uncertainty in the results - but given the sort of lying HCI does, it's not very convicing.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

[Homer voice] I don't want to look at a bunch of certificates on the wall, I want to see some CREDENTIALS

Hahahaha!

NICE!


Certificates do not make the man, the man makes the man.

I'm amazed at how worked up some folks get on the internet, this is great entertainment. SC is my entertainment, its better then watching trash TV. Toss out some bait, then slowly pull it in and BAM you'll get someone and they'll be pissed. Atleast no one has taken my last post seriously, I would seriously wonder about them if they did.


Anyways, I don't have a hole in my foot or any other hole on my body that God didn't give me, so I'm going to get back to the garage and finish fabricating. Maybe I should get an engineer to come inspect my welds...naw, that would probably doom my projects to fail if I got an engineer involved.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kallend 2,217]

Quote

Quote

Quote

ps - until you actually answer some of the difficult questions I ask you, I'm going to leave your silly repetative questions to be fielded by others.

My views have indeed changed, thanks to you, John R., Dave and others. I used to be quite neutral on guns, thinking that those who wanted to use them for hunting were OK and those that used defense as the rationale were self-deluding. I have come to realise, thanks to you folks, that the average gun enthusiast is both deluded and dangerous by the way you dismiss all the negative aspects of guns as irrelevant. The comparison of gun deaths with engineering and medical accidents is plain ludicrous. The web sites that you frequently quote to justify your hobby are, for the most part, absurd distortions. You twist statistics according to need, sometimes arguing that rates of change are important and absolute values are not. Then when a contra-indication is pointed out, you reverse your arguments. You quote "definitive" studies from gun lobby shill John Lott, then go quiet when his data are debunked.

Whoa, that's a lot of stinkbait there. Kennedy, he doesn't to let you go, obviously.

I've always found these statements about Lott's data being debunked to be amusing.

When Kellerman or Bellisiles writes some horseshit, the gun side has no problem saying that 43 of the 44 to 1 ratio were suicides, or that he was claiming citations of historical documents that burned in San Francisco's 1906 earthquake/fire.

But when HCI wants to attack Lott, they just say his data or methodology was flawed. No specific details are ever provided, nor counter proof. That statement could be true - the kind of statistical analysis he was doing is very difficult to do without having uncertainty in the results - but given the sort of lying HCI does, it's not very convicing.

I have posted links to specific studies from the criminology literature. Lott was guilty of cherrypicking his data. Not from HCI, who are just as nutty as the NRA in their own way.

...

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

[kallend 2,217]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why don't you write to my university president and tell him to rescind my tenure and take back my four "Excellence in Teaching" awards instead of complaining on DZ.com

[Homer voice] I don't want to look at a bunch of certificates on the wall, I want to see some CREDENTIALS

I don't have a bullet hole in my foot.

I didn't get that, but it struck me funny anyway. Is that wrong?

Let me explain:

See title of thread. Hole in foot disqualifies you from being an expert, we are told. Moves you into "idiot" category.

...

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

See title of thread. Hole in foot disqualifies you from being an expert, we are told. Moves you into "idiot" category.

I you change the word "you" to "the DEA agent" (which you meant above) I won't intentionally misread your response and cry about personal attacks

I wouldn't anyway, it's a crappy tactic and only used by congressmen attempting to be defensive about their patriotism.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Kennedy 0]

OK, so when you fail to provide useful input and are called on it, you say you just want to kill a stupid thread.

You then repeatedly attack gun owners while claiming not to have anything against gun ownership.

You post the same tripe from slightly different angles and get shot down over and over.

You fail to disprove or effective argue a single logical point, so you decide you are now king of the thread and will reframe to debate, to completely remove all clarity and chance of progress.

Boy, you're lots of fun to debate, kallend.
(like Dave, I hope you read papers a lot more closely than you read posts)

and yet for some reason it's so much fun to prove you wrong

Quote

I have posted links to specific studies from the criminology literature. Lott was guilty of cherrypicking his data. Not from HCI, who are just as nutty as the NRA in their own way.

You've posted links to shrill little websites bent on ad hominem attacks because they couldn't attack his work.

Maybe you've forgotten, but Lott's work included every county of every state in the country for several years. All prior work included a few counties, or only one, and for different blocks on time, not concurrent time frames.

Somehow a man who includes all the data from all the source is cherry picking, while "researchers" who choose one or two sources from particular times, but come to anti-gun conclusions, are to be considered reliable?

You've also come out against Kleck and Gertz (their joint studies and solo work), but you haven't provided anything to discredit them personally or scientifically.

Quote

Gary Kleck is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University (see curriculum vita and this overview). His research centers on violence and crime control with special focus on gun control and crime deterrence. Dr. Kleck is the author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), and Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Aldine de Gruyter, 1997). He is also a contributor to the major sociology journals, and in 1993 Dr. Kleck was the winner of the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology, for the book which made "the most outstanding contribution to criminology" in the preceding three years (for Point Blank).

I don't know about everyone else here, but I take the word of a professor who won the Hindelang Award over a physicist who won an excellence-in-teaching award when we're discussing firearms and crime.

edit: if the firearms debate ever goes from gun control to which powder will affect which bullet differently, then I'll take your word over Kleck's. Until then, well, I'm having fun.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[321seeya 0]

I Like Peanut Butter....
PM Sent

BASE 3:16 - Even if you are about to land on a cop - DONT FORGET TO FLARE!
Free the soul -- DJ

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I don't have a bullet hole in my foot.

And I'm sure that in your entire engineering and teaching career, you've never, ever made a mistake. Nary a single one! Right?

Because if you had, then you would be disqualified from being an "expert", and you would move into the "idiot" category.

Google "Engineering Disasters": Here

Gosh, look at all the people so-called professional engineers have killed! What idiots!

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

I don't know about everyone else here, but I take the word of a professor who won the Hindelang Award over a physicist who won an excellence-in-teaching award when we're discussing firearms and crime.

Concur. Just as a Metallurgy Professor is not who I'd consult on a legal question, A PhD in Physics does not make one an authority on Firearms law.

It's not like comparing apples & oranges--It's more like comparing trout and strawberry ice cream.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It's more like comparing trout and strawberry ice cream.

Both are stored cold and good to eat both simple and in a fried version. But if left out at room temperature for a few days they'll attract cats and eventually smell bad. Trout is not good in a milkshake though.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DrunkMonkey 0]

SMARTASS!

[wmw999 2,641]

ROFLOLPIMP

I'll even bet I could make a sauce for trout that included strawberries

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Kennedy 0]

You eat fried strawberry ice cream?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Trout is not good in a milkshake though.

Actually, it can be quite tasty.

You're obviously not a fan of Iron Chef!

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[billvon 3,172]

>I have come to realise, thanks to you folks, that the average gun
> enthusiast is both deluded and dangerous by the way you dismiss all the
> negative aspects of guns as irrelevant.

I wouldn't put it like that. Many new jumpers defend the safety of the sport they love quite strenuously. I have heard the old "skydiving is safer than driving!" stat used a great deal. Most of them are nonetheless fairly safe skydivers, with some exceptions. I have no reason to believe that pro-gun people are much different.

One thing that happens on this forum is people take sides almost immediately. So a gun owner finds himself choosing to be on the pro-gun side of the argument, which means he must defend guns from attacks by gun control types. He wins that argument by 'proving' that guns are safe. I suspect that most of the people here who say things like that nonetheless have a great deal of respect for how dangerous guns really are; heck, they're still posting here, so they can't be completely unaware of the danger that a gun can pose. Sometimes I think it's just hard to admit that on a forum like this, especially when admitting that gives the other side ammunition.

[Kennedy 0]

Bill, skydekker finally asked the right question in another thread.

He asked

Quote

does this mean you agree that guns are dangerous when not used properly?

My answer is absolutely. The key issue is how they are used.

Just like cars, buckets, and all the other comparisons you love so much.

However, a Glock 17 is very safe. It is not radioactive. If it is dropped it will not go off. It can't load itself. It can't fire without a finger pulling the trigger. It does not do anything on it's own. It does not do anything not directly caused by its handler. A gun can't hurt anyone unless the person holding it makes it happen.

Used properly, guns are one of the safest recreational items around, as shown by the user to accident ratio. Ask kallend about things being relatively safe.

Quote

they can't be completely unaware of the danger that a gun can pose

It doesn't pose any danger unless it is, to quote skydekker, "not used properly."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Zenister 0]

Quote

making assumptions and trying to make arguments off of his assumptions. That makes a bad teacher, a bad engineer, hell a bad anything.

unfortunately that also includes bad leadership... no matter how much his supporters love him.....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Newbie 0]

Shooting a gun is like skydiving - it's as safe as can be until something goes wrong and then you can have a brush with death in a blink of an eye, perhaps before you can do anything about it.

To admit that you are either:

a) a skydiver who will never be in an accident, or have anything bad happen to them, and that driving to the dropzone is more dangerous that falling towards it at 125mph with only some air for support

or

b) someone who carries a gun/shoots regularly and are well trained, therefore an accident will never happen while that weapon is in your hands

is pretty scary and (potentially) dangerous to your health IMO.

PS This was not directed to anyone in particular, just my ramblings on this cold tuesday afternoon.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Trout is not good in a milkshake though.

Actually, it can be quite tasty.

You're obviously not a fan of Iron Chef!

_Am

That's a great search - I am a great fan of Iron Chef

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Kennedy 0]

This view is completely incorrect.

Skydiving is inherently dangerous. You are falling through the air, miles abouve the ground, relying on nylon and string to save your life. Things can go wrong even if you do everything right and no one else is involved.

This just isn't the case with shooting. If I go the range and there is no one else there, and I follow the four rules of basic gun handling, I will leave the range safely. I can take my time, and I can call a time out anytime I please. (not so at 13,500)

I can participate in shooting and know for certain that I will not cause an accident (in part because I know what improper handling can do).

Skydiving on the other, offers no such guarantees. Like people, say you can do everything right and still not go home. How many times have you heard deploying referred to as "saving your own life?"

Participating in skydiving is more dangerous than shooting.

Yes, guns have more potential to cause harm in the wrong hands than a skydiving rig, but using guns is significantly safer.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

but still...fried strawberry ice cream?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*