Movie: "The Brave One"

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Does buying a fire extinguisher for the home make you more careless with kitchen fires? No. Does wearing a seat belt while driving make you more careless while driving? No. Does wearing a gun make you more reckless in avoiding trouble? No.

Does having an AAD make you a more careless skydiver? No. (just wanted to tack that on there.)

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

Quote

Does having an AAD make you a more careless skydiver? No. (just wanted to tack that on there.)

Actually, in some cases . . . yes.

I know of at least one skydiver that waited for the Cypres to fire for her when she was capable of pulling the reserve for herself after finding herself too low. She admitted it. I'd call that being far more careless.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Is Jodie a hypocrite for making millions of dollars off of a movie featuring a gun being used to in self defense, while at the same time saying publicly that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns?

No more so than Schwartzenegger is a hypocrite for pushing law and order while playing a lawless killer robot in the movies.

LOL

More hyperbole, bill?

It would be a tendon popping stretch to say Schwartzenegger is a hypocrite for pushing law and order ten years after while playing a lawless killer robot.

On the other hand, Foster is politicising the issue as she's cashing her vigilante film paycheck.

What next?... you gonna tell us about shipping stuff through northern Canada?

So hyperbole is a bad thing now? Pelosi wants her jet back.

As for the film (and It's not often I'll say this) you should listen to JohnRich - it's just Hollywood fiction, not a political campaign. Should pretending to be a character in a piece of entertainment preclude someone from holding a particular political view?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Does having an AAD make you a more careless skydiver? No. (just wanted to tack that on there.)

Actually, in some cases . . . yes.

I know of at least one skydiver that waited for the Cypres to fire for her when she was capable of pulling the reserve for herself after finding herself too low. She admitted it. I'd call that being far more careless.

well, I think that's an exception rather than the rule. I don't believe most people would be that stupid. I'd be willing to bet this woman didn't stay in skydiving too long.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

Quote

I'd be willing to bet this woman didn't stay in skydiving too long.

You'd be surprised then.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Does buying a fire extinguisher for the home make you more careless with kitchen fires?

Now that I have a fire extinguisher, I go around lighting fires in public so I can feel like a big man when I put them out. A couple guys started a fire right in front of me because they felt cornered when I showed off the Fire Extinguisher (I named her Belle). Otherwise, they just would have taken Sven's wallet and girlfriend and left peaceably.

Frankly, I don't even know why fire fighters need extinguishers. I mean, they should be trained in fire prevention, not just putting them out after the fact. Any fireman that has actually had to put-out-a-fire is a failure and should find other work.

(sorry, that last paragraph is just plain retardant)

...
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

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

Does buying a fire extinguisher for the home make you more careless with kitchen fires?

Now that I have a fire extinguisher, I go around lighting fires in public so I can feel like a big man when I put them out. A couple guys started a fire right in front of me because they felt cornered when I showed off the Fire Extinguisher (I named her Belle). Otherwise, they just would have taken Sven's wallet and girlfriend and left peaceably.

Frankly, I don't even know why fire fighters need extinguishers. I mean, they should be trained in fire prevention, not just putting them out after the fact. Any fireman that has actually had to put-out-a-fire is a failure and should find other work.

(sorry, that last paragraph is just plain retardant)

And I thought i was the only one to give my fire extinguisher a name.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Does buying a fire extinguisher for the home make you more careless with kitchen fires? No. Does wearing a seat belt while driving make you more careless while driving? No. Does wearing a gun make you more reckless in avoiding trouble? No.

Aside from the first one, there is a lot of reason to believe that these are true. Airbags, ABS, and seat belts certainly appear to lead to more aggressive driving with a reduced fear of the consequences. I'm sure some fools have acted stupidly because of their gun.

And I know I set a nice fire in a parking lot with my extinguisher on hand for any trouble (didn't work worth a damn against 5 gallons of fuel).

[billvon 3,080]

>Does buying a fire extinguisher for the home make you more careless
>with kitchen fires?

Sometimes.

Does buying an AAD for your rig make you more careless in freefall, or more likely to jump when you shouldn't? Yes, sometimes. I can think of two cases (one for sure, one likely) where people's reliance on their AAD contributed to their deaths.

Does buying a gun make you more careless? Sometimes. I recall a story told by a poster here who was accosted by a shady character at an ATM while in his car. Now, a car is about the best defensive weapon there is; it allows a quick getaway and a pedestrian will always lose when facing one. Yet this poster chose to show his gun to "scare off" the assailant instead of simply leaving the dangerous area.

It worked out well for him in that instance. Had that guy had his own gun, there might be one (or two) dead people as a result.

Some people have a "I refuse to be a victim, and will bring justice to any bad situation!" thing going. These are the people whose guns make them more likely to be killed. Other people (the majority, fortunately) see their weapons as something to be used when their lives are at risk and there is no other alternative. These people are, in general, safer with their weapons than without.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Does buying a gun make you more careless? Sometimes. I recall a story told by a poster here who was accosted by a shady character at an ATM while in his car. Now, a car is about the best defensive weapon there is; it allows a quick getaway and a pedestrian will always lose when facing one. Yet this poster chose to show his gun to "scare off" the assailant instead of simply leaving the dangerous area.

It worked out well for him in that instance. Had that guy had his own gun, there might be one (or two) dead people as a result.

alternatively, if the other guy had a gun, he might have shot our DZ person for attempting to drive away. Unless the engine is on and the car is pointed at a long straightaway, it takes time to get going. Your claim that the pedestrian will always lose is obviously false.

It's less logical to presume the bad guy would choose to engage in a shootout when he has the option of retreating to find an easier victim.

[billvon 3,080]

>he might have shot our DZ person for attempting to drive away.

He might have. If he can draw and hit a guy through glass and a seat while the car is accelerating away, then perhaps the DZ person might be dead.

But why would he, unless he was out looking to murder random people? If he's after the ATM cash, then it's sitting right there; the guy just drove away.

And if he IS out to murder random people, and is capable of doing so, then drawing a gun on him will result in a gun battle - and I'd bet if you were in a gun battle you'd rather be standing facing your opponent than trying to fire across your chest out a window from a seated position. Indeed, if presented with that option, you might prefer to be accelerating away with at least a window and a seat between you and the resulting gunfire.

In the end it's all about how you see the situation. If it is a dangerous situation to be avoided, then you're ahead of the game. If it's an issue of dispensing justice, then you're going to put yourself at a lot more risk.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>he might have shot our DZ person for attempting to drive away.

He might have. If he can draw and hit a guy through glass and a seat while the car is accelerating away, then perhaps the DZ person might be dead.

But why would he, unless he was out looking to murder random people? If he's after the ATM cash, then it's sitting right there; the guy just drove away.

For the same reason that when you try to pass a slow poke on the freeway, they tend to speed up. People are pricks. 'I said give me your money, how dare you try to drive off!' The penalties for armed robbery are high enough that only moral fiber prevents the person from shooting as well, and that's a crappy gamble.

It's like waiting for the RSL or the Cypres to activate. Better to be sure. Draw your weapon keep an eye, and withdrawl from the location, if you want the safer route than trying to apprehend the person.

[billvon 3,080]

>It's like waiting for the RSL or the Cypres to activate.

Depending on a gun is like depending on your cypres or RSL. Better to skydive so you don't need them than put yourself in situations (or stay in situations) where they may be needed to save your life,

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>It's like waiting for the RSL or the Cypres to activate.

Depending on a gun is like depending on your cypres or RSL. Better to skydive so you don't need them than put yourself in situations (or stay in situations) where they may be needed to save your life,

you're missing (deliberately, I'm sure) the difference between passive and active action to save your life. Leaving a gun in your belt puts your life in the hands of the bad guy, and if he chooses something bad for you, that gun is now the equilivent of a reserve at 300ft.

You skydive to avoid a malfunction (robbery), but you can't be 100% successful. Once it is happening, your choice is to cut away and pull your reserve (gun), or to do less than that and hope the rsl/AAD take care of you for you.

We can mudwrestle over slippery analogies all week, but it's time to head home for tonight.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

As for the film (and It's not often I'll say this) you should listen to JohnRich - it's just Hollywood fiction, not a political campaign. Should pretending to be a character in a piece of entertainment preclude someone from holding a particular political view?

And you give me grief for missing the obvious point.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Does buying a fire extinguisher for the home make you more careless
>with kitchen fires?

Sometimes.

Other than the hypothetical "well, it could happen ", is there any evidence of people being more careless with kitchen fires?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Just don't presume that multitudes of gun owners morph into the Jodie Foster character from this movie, that go out looking for trouble just so they can shoot bad guys.

And again, this is where I kind of have to step in and say SEE THE MOVIE before you make statements like this.

The character doesn't do this in any conscious way, at least not to begin with. It's actually quite compelling and without SEEING it you're missing a good portion of what I'm talking about in this thread.

I HAVE seen it. I don't know why you're presuming that I haven't.

Her decisions were very conscious. In the scene with the subway punks, she chose not to escape with the other passengers, and instead remained behind, gun ready, for when the punks came for her next.

And later, she chose to hunt down the bad guy and kill him as a favor for the cop, who was helpless to arrest him, because of the restrictions under the law.

Those weren't subconscious acts - she deliberately chose to do those things. And that is Hollywood fiction that does not reflect the kind of behavior that would be followed by the large majority of law-abiding gun owners.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Does wearing a gun make you more reckless in avoiding trouble? No.

I'm sure some fools have acted stupidly because of their gun.

The key words in your reply are "some" and "fools". That does not represent average gun owners.

Just because some fools misuse guns, does not mean that everyone else who is responsible should be denied the benefits of gun ownership for liberty, self-defense and sport.

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Does wearing a gun make you more reckless in avoiding trouble? No.

I'm sure some fools have acted stupidly because of their gun.

The key words in your reply are "some" and "fools". That does not represent average gun owners.

Just because some fools misuse guns, does not mean that everyone else who is responsible should be denied the benefits of gun ownership for liberty, self-defense and sport.

Trouble is, John that guns in the hands of fools are rather more dangerous to all of us than, say, bananas in the hands of fools. In fact it's rather hard to think of anything much more dangerous in the hands of a fool than a gun.

Now, if you law abiding gun owners could come up with a guaranteed way of keeping guns out of the hands of knaves and fools, the anti-gun movement would just fade away.

...

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

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just don't presume that multitudes of gun owners morph into the Jodie Foster character from this movie, that go out looking for trouble just so they can shoot bad guys.

And again, this is where I kind of have to step in and say SEE THE MOVIE before you make statements like this.

The character doesn't do this in any conscious way, at least not to begin with. It's actually quite compelling and without SEEING it you're missing a good portion of what I'm talking about in this thread.

I HAVE seen it. I don't know why you're presuming that I haven't.

Her decisions were very conscious. In the scene with the subway punks, she chose not to escape with the other passengers, and instead remained behind, gun ready, for when the punks came for her next.

The reason I thought you had not seen the movie was you had not commented in such a way that lead me to believe you had. For instance, even in the above example, you've choosen the SECOND time she uses a gun to kill somebody, not the first. The FIRST time she kills somebody she is in a situation she absolutely did not consciously choose to be in, but is simply "reacting" with her newly gotten weapon.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Now, if you law abiding gun owners could come up with a guaranteed way of keeping guns out of the hands of knaves and fools, the anti-gun movement would just fade away.

Do you believe that? I don't. It's reached a point of religious zeal, any practicality in the movement is gone.

Have you read these threads?

...
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

Now, if you law abiding gun owners could come up with a guaranteed way of keeping guns out of the hands of knaves and fools, the anti-gun movement would just fade away.

Only a fool would buy this line of bullshit you're selling, John.

The vast majority of gun misuse and killings come from people who are criminals, not careless fools. And there's no guaranteed way of keeping them disarmed, as shown in England.

And as a personal opinion, I question how many of the accidental shootings (I just pointed it at my friend and pulled the trigger! Who could have thought it might lead to death?) are really accidents.

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Quote

Now, if you law abiding gun owners could come up with a guaranteed way of keeping guns out of the hands of knaves and fools, the anti-gun movement would just fade away.

Only a fool would buy this line of bullshit you're selling, John.

The vast majority of gun misuse and killings come from people who are criminals, not careless fools.

Please notice that I wrote "knaves and fools".

Gun manufacturers don't sell guns to criminals. "Law Abiding Citizens" are the route by which guns reach criminals. Either by carelessness, or by being not so law abiding as they like to claim. Knaves and fools.

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Please notice that I wrote "knaves and fools".

Gun manufacturers don't sell guns to criminals. "Law Abiding Citizens" are the route by which guns reach criminals. Either by carelessness, or by being not so law abiding as they like to claim. Knaves and fools.

yes, and I have you the benefit of the doubt that this wasn't a classist/racist remark about the poor simple folk. (a primary definition of knave)

Your saying that they get it from 'law abiding citizens' repeatedly doesn't make it true. We covered the subject.

Tons of drugs enter the country, as well as millions of illegal aliens. Guns can come just as easily.

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Quote

Please notice that I wrote "knaves and fools".

Gun manufacturers don't sell guns to criminals. "Law Abiding Citizens" are the route by which guns reach criminals. Either by carelessness, or by being not so law abiding as they like to claim. Knaves and fools.

yes, and I have you the benefit of the doubt that this wasn't a classist/racist remark about the poor simple folk. (an archaic (according to Webster) definition of knave)

Your saying that they get it from 'law abiding citizens' repeatedly doesn't make it true. We covered the subject.

Tons of drugs enter the country, as well as millions of illegal aliens. Guns can come just as easily.

Fixed your definition, using Webster.

Do you have ANY idea how many guns are reported stolen in the USA every year?

...

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