Shooting in Finnish school

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

True. But I would bet it would if you put it into a sealed steel pipe (which you can get at any hardware store).

Wheat explodes in an enclosed space too.

So does coal.

And gasoline is used to make Molotov Cocktails.

Propane does a good job as an explosive too.

However, loonies seems to have a distinct preference for guns when going on a homicidal rampage.

Or gasoline.

Gee, I thought your line of arguing was that the things that have been used for homicide are the ones that need to be regulated, with mental health records involved in clearing a purchase.

So, NICS for gasoline purchases?

No one I have ever heard of ever shot 87 people to death in anger.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Maybe it's because guns are used in tens of THOUSANDS of homicides and hundreds of THOUSANDS of other crimes every year, and there's no instance of anyone ever using APCP in a crime anywhre.

No one's used a .50 BMG firearm in a crime, either. But there are states that BAN them, outright.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's the difference. Your country kills young adults.

Thats almost commical. Not to split hairs or anything but history tells us that YOUR country......nevermind.

I can understand you. Your pain.

Difference is:
3rd Reich killed under false premises which is more than 60 years ago.

Your country does it still nowadays. And calls it legal.

Are you actually likening the disputed practice of executing those who are not yet 18 with herding women and children into death camps and gassing them? Really??

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Our societies are too different. For us it's absolutely not normal, to let a kid grow up with (handling of) weapons. An exception might be a family of hunters, where grandpa, dad and kid go together, so the young one is going to learn from the beginning (what is not a bad thing!) to treat a weapon for what it is: No toy, it's deadly. But that's quite rare.

Um, you just described the way most American gun-owning families introduce their young ones to guns. Did you really think that we just stick a large-caliber rifle into their hands and shove 'em out the door to do whatever appeals to them?

The pro-gun argument goes something like this:
SHOW the kids the guns; LET them use the guns; TAKE AWAY the "mystique" of the guns and let them know how they work and what they can do. Instill in them a respect for the guns and their power, and they will be far less likely to misuse or abuse them.

Quote

We have no need to be armed in private life.

I said it a hundred times and will repeat again: I (we are) am leaving home at any time - day and night - w/o carrying any weapon (on me). My city with about 1 million inhabitants is not that small, we have our crime rate. But do not need to be armed.

You can argue that you "do not need to be armed," But anyone who is the victim of one of those crimes that comprise "your crime rate" might benefit from being armed. Unfortunately, they don't have the right to be, so we'll never know if they might have prevented being victimized.

When I read your comments about there being crime in your city, but no need to be armed, it makes me think of a person having her neighbor's home burn down and standing outside saying that no one in her city needs to have a smoke alarm, or a sprinkler system or fire extinguisher. Why, because not every home in the city burned down?

Quote

If our kids would have access to weapons as easy as yours have, I'd blame government and lousy laws. Not the person itself.

When kids drive drunk because they are able to get alcohol (usually illegally) and automobiles, and they kill people, do you blame the government then, too? Because we have laws in place that address how and when kids are to have access to guns, and still those who want them illegally get them illegally. When kids have guns and no supervision, it's already illegal. Still, it's the government's fault, not the kid for making the choice to use the gun to commit crime?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

That may be true, but it's feasible.

Not really. Aircraft today require a metric crapload more training and the armed forces generally require a college degree and officers training before a person can really even begin to think of sitting in the left seat. Not really certain what the youngest pilot in Iraq is but my guess is he's at least 24.

Quote

And weren't there 19- and 20-year-olds flying serious hardware in the Second World War?

Different times . . . people used to marry when they were 14 too. That doesn't normally happen in the US any more either.

Well, did human beings undergo a biological change so that now 18-year-olds are no longer fit for being "adults"? Or is it about how we raise our young?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Different times . . . people used to marry when they were 14 too. That doesn't normally happen in the US any more either.

Well, did human beings undergo a biological change so that now 18-year-olds are no longer fit for being "adults"? Or is it about how we raise our young?

Well, that's an interesting point.

Many, MANY things in our society have changed in just the last 100 years. For the most part we, as a society, accept it. There are some things that "kids" could do 100 years ago that are completely unacceptable today and would probably get the parents thrown in jail if they were allowed to happen.

For instance, there is a great story that Lindbergh tells in his autobiography about how at the age of -5- his mother dropped him off something like 5 miles away from his house and she told him to find his own way home. This was a learning exercise in self reliance. They'd lock you away today if you did that.

I just think you used the wrong example when you picked jet pilots.

If you had said, for instance, a 15-year-old glider pilot, you would have been correct, but much like the author's usage of the phrase "22mm calibre handgun," you just didn't know what you were talking about when it came to that very specific subject.

Anyway, point is, times do change. Hey, I'm ALL for a responsible 18-year-old being able to own a handgun in the US. Read that again carefully because I think a lot of people don't get that. I'm actually FOR people being able to own guns for self defense.

That said, I also believe that just like most other very dangerous items, they should be registered and kept out of the hands of the insane and, here's where I get into trouble with most Pro-gun people, I feel that there should be some sort of training (and recurrent training at that) -required- to buy and own them. Yeah, I know, that sounds like I'm against the Second Amendment to some people, ok, I get it. But there is simply no other device that is as dangerous that we allow to be bought and sold through loopholes and without the level of unregulated ownership and usage as a gun.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhys 0]

Quote

Please show us that 22 millimeter pistol, Christel.

I wasn't aware the Walther made a pistol with a bore of almost an inch.

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


On the topic of "bore", your entire debate over an obvious typo fits the bill perfectly.

Just when I thought this thread was getting 'boring'.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Loonies and guns don't mix.

Quote:

"The Finnish news agency STT said the school building was on fire and the gunman reportedly had explosives on him."

Loonies and explosives toy rocket engines don't mix.

Fixed it.

Well, you are (inadvertantly, I'm sure) CORRECT FOR ONCE.

There are no known instances of a loony going on a homicidal rampage with a rocket engine. Loonies with guns, on the other hand, have killed a whole lot of people.

...

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

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Aircraft today require a metric crapload more training

Whats that in Imperial?

BTW I agree with your post 18 year old fighter bomber pilots is the stuff of comics.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[MegaGoliath11 0]

exactly right!

[MegaGoliath11 0]

Quote

In the US: At what age are you allowed to join the army and go and shoot at iraqies, and at what age are you allowed to buy a beer?

/Martin

17 and 21 but you already knew that.

We don't shoot at Iraqis. In fact most of the time we get shot at, its by foreign extremists from other countries who came there specifically to fight us. Now I'm not sure about hospitably where you come from but we like to honor our guests by giving them what they came for.

[MegaGoliath11 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's the difference. Your country kills young adults.

Thats almost commical. Not to split hairs or anything but history tells us that YOUR country......nevermind.

I can understand you. Your pain.

Difference is:
3rd Reich killed under false premises which is more than 60 years ago.

Your country does it still nowadays. And calls it legal.

wow, comparing the U.S. death penalty laws with the 3rd Reich? you can't seriously believe that?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's the difference. Your country kills young adults.

Thats almost commical. Not to split hairs or anything but history tells us that YOUR country......nevermind.

I can understand you. Your pain.

Difference is:
3rd Reich killed under false premises which is more than 60 years ago.

Your country does it still nowadays. And calls it legal.

wow, comparing the U.S. death penalty laws with the 3rd Reich? you can't seriously believe that?

Are you somehow less dead in the USA, then?

...

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

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

And yet if that 18-year-old went to join the military and was trained to fly jets faster than the speed of sound, and drop 1000 lb. bombs on human beings and buildings, you'd say "OK," right? Or do you have an objection 18-year-old adults joining the military?

Just to be fair on the entire nomenclature issue . . .

Much like there isn't a "22-millimeter caliber handgun," I seriously doubt you'll find many 18-year-old jet pilots on bombing missions.

Certainly not in the US forces and I doubt anywhere else as well.

The US Army has a warrant officer program for pilots. The minimum age is 18. During Vietnam, many went got into gunships during flight school and went straight to combat after graduation. Of course they were just flying helicopters and not on bombing missions.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

guns are used in tens of THOUSANDS of homicides and hundreds of THOUSANDS of other crimes every year, and there's no instance of anyone ever using APCP in a crime anywhre.

As of Sept. 10th, 2001, there was no instance of anyone ever hijacking airplanes and using them as weapons. But on the next day, Sept. 11th, that all changed.

So I suppose you were entirely in favor of the former lax airport security, even in the face of terrorist threats.

And also in favor of ignoring regulation of potential dangerous substances until after someone commits a horrendous crime with it, even in the face of terrorist threats.

Right?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

guns are used in tens of THOUSANDS of homicides and hundreds of THOUSANDS of other crimes every year, and there's no instance of anyone ever using APCP in a crime anywhre.

As of Sept. 10th, 2001, there was no instance of anyone ever hijacking airplanes and using them as weapons. But on the next day, Sept. 11th, that all changed.

So I suppose you were entirely in favor of the former lax airport security, even in the face of terrorist threats.

And also in favor of ignoring regulation of potential dangerous substances until after someone commits a horrendous crime with it.

Right?

Lame.

Aircraft hijackings have been going on for decades.

...

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

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
wow, comparing the U.S. death penalty laws with the 3rd Reich? you can't seriously believe that?

We could go on and on with it - it seems you forgot other dirty events at US side, f. e. such as the killings in Iraq ...

But that would be an endless debate.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[birdlike 0]

Quote

That said, I also believe that just like most other very dangerous items, they should be registered and kept out of the hands of the insane and, here's where I get into trouble with most Pro-gun people, I feel that there should be some sort of training (and recurrent training at that) -required- to buy and own them. Yeah, I know, that sounds like I'm against the Second Amendment to some people, ok, I get it. But there is simply no other device that is as dangerous that we allow to be bought and sold through loopholes and without the level of unregulated ownership and usage as a gun.

Most gun owners are not interested in having guns but not being able to competently use them. So I don't think that mandatory training is necessary. Most of the people who are incompetent at handling guns are the ones who buy them out of fear, instead of out of a sense of self-reliance, or interest in them as a hobby.

We would not need all of the control you want on guns if we were adequately dealing with our criminal element. What we need is a harshness that would make most leftists blanch -- they simply don't have the stomach to do to criminals what needs to be done to provide deterrence, and protection from those who will not be deterred.

Registration lists cannot, and will not, prevent crimes. They serve ONLY to tell the government where to go when it decides to ban guns.

And whether you think it would help the firearms accidental death rate or whatever, mandatory training is anathema to the exercise of a constitutional right. Why would you desire it for guns, but not something similar before people can vote, or publish?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's the difference. Your country kills young adults.

Thats almost commical. Not to split hairs or anything but history tells us that YOUR country......nevermind.

I can understand you. Your pain.

Difference is:
3rd Reich killed under false premises which is more than 60 years ago.

Your country does it still nowadays. And calls it legal.

wow, comparing the U.S. death penalty laws with the 3rd Reich? you can't seriously believe that?

Are you somehow less dead in the USA, then?

Between the two, there are millions fewer dead, yes.

I take it you agree that the U.S. death penalty and the 3rd Reich make for an apt comparison? Un-freakin'-believable.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
You don't know much about reading what was written, do you.
....

Correct. Reading all the posts here would devour too much of my precious free time. Especially your mental creations which you spread around so generously.

I followed my wrong path - et voilà: Outcries were crackling down like autumn hail. That was more than just a small storm in a teacup!

It's funny to see how happy my answers made you and JR. Suddenly, one felt so superiour, right? How were you feeling before, then? Guys?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

In the US: At what age are you allowed to join the army and go and shoot at iraqies, and at what age are you allowed to buy a beer?

/Martin

17 and 21 but you already knew that.

We don't shoot at Iraqis. In fact most of the time we get shot at, its by foreign extremists from other countries who came there specifically to fight us. Now I'm not sure about hospitably where you come from but we like to honor our guests by giving them what they came for.

Donno about that. I went in in the late 70s. 17 year olds were allowed to drink. ON BASE. But then the legal age off base was 18 at the time. This was Florida. But that was then and this is now.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[MegaGoliath11 0]

yeah things changed, I came in in 96 and the ages for drinking were similiar to what you described. but now its all 21 almost everywhere.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

....
You don't know much about reading what was written, do you.
....

Correct. Reading all the posts here would devour too much of my precious free time. Especially your mental creations which you spread around so generously.

I created nothing. I simply copied-and-pasted the ignorant spew from the article I saw online.

BTW, you seem to be implying that you've been posting in spite of not reading the posts to which you're responding. Not exactly a "best practices" kind of thing to do, no?

Quote

It's funny to see how happy my answers made you and JR. Suddenly, one felt so superiour, right? How were you feeling before, then? Guys?

It's not that it made us feel superior; it's that your posts (on a continual basis) showed us to be superior -- at least in our knowledge and grasp of the subject at hand.

How kind of you to sacrifice your own dignity, and make yourself appear to not have the slightest clue what you were talking about, in order to make us feel better. Thank you so much.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And yet if that 18-year-old went to join the military and was trained to fly jets faster than the speed of sound, and drop 1000 lb. bombs on human beings and buildings, you'd say "OK," right? Or do you have an objection 18-year-old adults joining the military?

Just to be fair on the entire nomenclature issue . . .

Much like there isn't a "22-millimeter caliber handgun," I seriously doubt you'll find many 18-year-old jet pilots on bombing missions.

Certainly not in the US forces and I doubt anywhere else as well.

The US Army has a warrant officer program for pilots. The minimum age is 18. During Vietnam, many went got into gunships during flight school and went straight to combat after graduation. Of course they were just flying helicopters and not on bombing missions.

I think if you do a search on the "High School to Flight School" program and it's results, you'll be extraordinarily hard pressed to find any 18-year-old pilots. The very youngest I found was a 20-year-old.

The title "High School to Flight School" is essentially a bait and switch tactic to get kids to come in to be recruited. Very few people that walk in the door trying to get in the program actually do. That's not to say it's not possible for an 18-year-old to be accepted into it, but he's still probably not going to be flying a mission of any sort at 18.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[birdlike 0]

Quote

I think if you do a search on the "High School to Flight School" program and it's results, you'll be extraordinarily hard pressed to find any 18-year-old pilots. The very youngest I found was a 20-year-old.

My dad had a "kid" in his Civil Air Patrol squadron back in the '90s who had his private pilot's license at 17 and had his commercial license by 19. I believe that about that age, he began working for a regional airline. So although he was not dropping bombs, he was entrusted to deliver the lives of paying passengers safely over distances of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of miles in an aircraft weighing numerous tons -- numerous tons of which consisted of jet fuel.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire