kallend 2,175 #1 March 26, 2005 www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2621477 I guess we just dismiss them as "idiots".... 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
craddock 0 #2 March 26, 2005 Very misleading title. Nowhere does this link refer to any Gun professionals and the incident does not even involve a gun? You know for someone who has claimed that they have no problem with others owning guns, you sure spend alot of time portraing them in a bad light by using lies and misleading comments. For someone who hads claimed to be an ex-cop you seem to be very uneducated about firearms in a pratical manner. You insist you can stay out of harm by using your brain even though you work in a "bad" part of town. You claim to have never felt threatened even in this known "bad" part of town. So then why are you so against guns? Oh thats right you said your not. So than why all the cocky one liners, lies or misleading information? Btw- I just bought my Son a 20 Ga. 1187. I will teach hin how to use it as soon as he is big enough to handle it. That will be several years though. He is due in July. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcarchangel 0 #3 March 26, 2005 When I was stationed in Hawaii in the early 90s an artillery unit accidentally shelled a farm and killed a bunch of cows because the unit commander ordered them to fire before they had properly sited their guns. Also in 1989 at Fort Sill a Basic Training platoon was blown up by an artillary unit that put too big a charge into a gun. Several soldiers in the unit were killed as I recall. Basically it comes down to the fact that these are really large and powerful weapons, and any mistakes made with them will have tremendous consequenses. But they are still run by people, and people still make those mistakes. Everybody is a "professional" at something, and we all manage to screw up at our professions on occasion.------------------------------------------------------- "These are the old days, the bad days, the all-or-nothing days. They're back! There's no choice left, and I'm ready for war." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #4 March 26, 2005 Psst....that's not a "gun". It's a cannon.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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #5 March 26, 2005 Did you used to be a cop? Geez...............what happend............ "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #6 March 26, 2005 Quote When I was stationed in Hawaii in the early 90s an artillery unit accidentally shelled a farm and killed a bunch of cows Let's put the seriousness aside for a moment - that's FUNNY! - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #7 March 26, 2005 QuoteI guess we just dismiss them as "idiots". QuoteA 20-pound artillery shell loaded with too much gunpowder overshot its Provo Canyon avalanche target ... Around 3 p.m., atop Arrowhead Peak, UDOT fired the 105 mm shell from a howitzer artillery cannon - leased from the U.S. military - toward the Lost Creek slide path area in Provo Canyon about two miles away. ... The military sends the shells to UDOT pre-loaded with seven packages of gunpowder. The operators were supposed to remove two. Instead, it was fired fully loaded, and rocketed into the residential neighborhood. Yeah, I'd say it's pretty goddamned stupid to go firing artillery without following your own guidelines. Particularly when your backstop is residential neighborhoods.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
kallend 2,175 #8 March 26, 2005 QuotePsst....that's not a "gun". It's a cannon. Merriam -Webster says: Cannon, n. 1 (plural usually cannon) a : a large heavy gun usually mounted on a carriage. It was a gun. It was operated by professionals (look up dictionary definition of professional if you wish to argue the point). They screwed up. Q. Why should we trust amateurs not to screw up with their guns? A. We shouldn't, because they kill several hundred people each year in "accidents".... 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
n23x 0 #9 March 26, 2005 Well, I bet since these guys screwed up, they weren't "professionals" or "experts". Ready guys, in unison!... .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #10 March 26, 2005 QuoteWell, I bet since these guys screwed up, they weren't "professionals" or "experts". Ready guys, in unison!... .jim No, we just dismiss them as idiots. We're not idiots, so there's no lesson to be learned here, move along please.... 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
n23x 0 #11 March 26, 2005 QuoteNo, we just dismiss them as idiots. That was the crux of my statement, John. We either dismiss them as idiots, or proclaim that they couldn't possible be an expert in the field. Look for the sarcasm, you'll find it in nearly every post. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #12 March 26, 2005 QuoteQ. Why should we trust amateurs not to screw up with their guns? A. We shouldn't, because they kill several hundred people each year in "accidents". Well, since even professionals can't be trusted, we should ban all guns because no one can be trusted, right? You go ahead and suggest the military and cops should give up all their guns. I'll be right behind you. Let's see, professor, weren't you the one talking about relative dangers? Let's say there are a thousand accidental guns deaths every year in the USA. There are over 80,000,000 gun owners in the USA. That translates into 0.0000125 deaths per gun owner. I'd say that's pretty damned safe. Am I wrong? Is that a very high number compared to other groups? Care to campare numbers with skydiviers, or car drivers? QuoteAccidental firearm deaths are at an all-time low, among the entire U.S. population and among children in particular. In 2000, there were 776 accidental firearm-related deaths, including 86 among children. (National Center for Health Statistics) I guess we're not that dangerous afterall, eh prof? eidt: I noticed you didn't reply to my post in the DEA thread, where this argument started. (reference post #128)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
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #13 March 26, 2005 QuoteReady guys, in unison!... This is my weapon, and this is my gun This one's for avalanche control, and this one's for fun ... Sounds like the DOT guys were so overly occupied with one tool they neglected to give proper attention to the other one. "Son, drop that magazine and get familar with your magazines." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #14 March 26, 2005 QuoteQ. Why should we trust amateurs not to screw up with their guns? A. We shouldn't, because they kill several hundred people each year in "accidents". Q. Why should we trust Engineers not to screw up with their designs? A. We shouldn't, because they kill several hundred people each year in "accidents". Maybe we should ban all engineers? Best you retire now, before your kind does any more harm to society. Humans screw up now and then. But by banning things because of a few mishaps, you can create a greater danger to society. From the news story: "In 2001, UDOT began using artillery shells as its primary method of avalanche control since bad weather often prevents helicopters from flying in and dropping 2-pound hand charges. "What the military weapon allows us to do is provide the greatest level of safety to the motorists," Braceras said" Without that 105 mm howitzer, people would die in avalanches, or helicopter pilots would die flying in bad weather. Life ain't perfect. You go with what does the greatest amount of good and least amount of bad. That applies to small arms too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #15 March 27, 2005 >Well, since even professionals can't be trusted, we should ban all >guns because no one can be trusted, right? Not at all. Skydiving is dangerous, and even very competent experts can be killed. But as long as you realize that it is dangerous, and take the proper precautions, it can be _relatively_ safe. The most dangerous skydiver (or gun owner) is one who believes there is no risk at all in what they are doing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #16 March 27, 2005 >You go with what does the greatest amount of good and least > amount of bad. I agree. And as long as you treat such weapons with the utmost respect, and accept that you can _still_ be killed (or accidentally kill someone else) then you're in pretty good shape - because you will go the extra mile to try to make sure that won't happen. Can it still happen? Of course. But as long as it happens very, very rarely, you're still in pretty good shape. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #17 March 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteReady guys, in unison!... This is my weapon, and this is my gun This one's for avalanche control, and this one's for fun ... Sounds like the DOT guys were so overly occupied with one tool they neglected to give proper attention to the other one. "Son, drop that magazine and get familar with your magazines." Quote YUP! Senator...I'd vote for you AGAIN! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #18 March 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteWell, I bet since these guys screwed up, they weren't "professionals" or "experts". Ready guys, in unison!... .jim No, we just dismiss them as idiots. We're not idiots, so there's no lesson to be learned here, move along please. Don't put an idiot in charge of a howitzer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #19 March 28, 2005 Man do you take liberties with titles. QuoteQ. Why should we trust amateurs not to screw up with their guns? A. We shouldn't, because they kill several hundred people each year in "accidents". Well what about the designer of the Ford Pinto....Or Explorer. Maybe we should ban engineers since they screw up as well? Like it or not...These guys were idiots."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #20 March 28, 2005 QuoteMan do you take liberties with titles. QuoteQ. Why should we trust amateurs not to screw up with their guns? A. We shouldn't, because they kill several hundred people each year in "accidents". Well what about the designer of the Ford Pinto....Or Explorer. Maybe we should ban engineers since they screw up as well? Like it or not...These guys were idiots. Ban engineers and you'll have no clean water supply, no sewage systems, no medical equipment, no pharamceuticals, no cars, trucks, bikes, airplanes, parachutes, guns, bridges, electricity supply, batteries, light bulbs, computers, window glass, railroads, roads, TV, radio, helicopters, newspapers, internet, tractors, harvesters, pesticides, fertilizers (except dung). No steel, aluminum, polymers, composites. No central heating or air conditioning. No oil or coal. Florida, Arizona and California would be essentially uninhabitable. Yes, I can see that would be preferable to a society with no guns.... 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
DrunkMonkey 0 #21 March 28, 2005 Dr. Kallend, I'm sure that Government thugs will see maybe a 40% survival rate when/if they try to collect the 200,000,000+ guns owned by law-abiding citizens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #22 March 28, 2005 QuoteBan engineers and you'll have no clean water supply, no sewage systems, no medical equipment, no pharamceuticals, no cars, trucks, bikes, airplanes, parachutes, guns, bridges, electricity supply, batteries, light bulbs, computers, window glass, railroads, roads, TV, radio, helicopters, newspapers, internet, tractors, harvesters, pesticides, fertilizers (except dung). No steel, aluminum, polymers, composites. No central heating or air conditioning. No oil or coal. Florida, Arizona and California would be essentially uninhabitable. Yes, I can see that would be preferable to a society with no guns. Ban guns and the murder rate will climb. I mean if even the police and the Army didn't have guns...wow what kaos would happen then huh?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #23 March 28, 2005 QuoteBan engineers and you'll have no clean water supply, no sewage systems, blah blah blah... Yes, I can see that would be preferable to a society with no guns. So it's okay if engineers make mistakes that kill people, but it's not okay if gun owners make mistakes that kill people. Your inconsistency destroys the credibility of your argument. And your argument is based upon an implied presumption that guns provide no positive influence on society. They do. Guns are used up to 2.5 million times per year in self defense, and deter an untold number of other crimes by their mere presence in society. There is also their use in sport and recreation, as well as the constitutional reason for gun ownership - preserving freedom. Remove the guns, and you would have a similar or greater chaos than that from removing engineers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #24 March 28, 2005 but Joh, does this mean you agree that guns are dangerous when not used properly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #25 March 28, 2005 Quoteoes this mean you agree that guns are dangerous when not used properly? When has he ever stated they weren't dangerous if misused? When has any of the rights advocates that post here such as John, Kennedy and myself stated anything other than weapons are to be treated with nothing but the upmost respect? You're assuming things now and not reading what we've written.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
