DaVinci

Hey Lucky...He said WORLD, not the US. So maybe you should write.... I bet the WORLDS rate of medical coverage is worse. Much as you hate the US, this was about the WORLD.

Maybe but it would have been in England....So if I need help on how to say, "Stop, or I'll yell stop again"...I'll look him up.

Like it or not, this guy with a gun maybe did save a life. And he DID save a woman from more harm. The gun was a good thing. And they can be.

I like it better the way he had it. The violence is stopped, no one dies. Taking a shot always has risks. Bullet and skull fragments can hurt innocent bystanders. Over penatration can kill...plus a head shot is messy with the calibers most people carry. One big benefit of a gun is that it can stop violence without harm. In this story the sight of a man holding a gun was enough to stop the violence. If it was a baseball bat, or tire iron it would have required hitting the bad guy....While I think he would of deserved it, I think it is better to stop the violence with the least amount of danger and damage.

Funny. But lets ask the good Dr. and GQ a few questions shall we? GQ and Kallend: 1. Do you now, or have you ever had a job that required the use of a firearm? 2. Do you now, or have you ever received training in the use of a firearm? When was the last session? How much training do you think you have had? 3. Does your current job or any former job require you to perform functions such as arresting people? Now carmenc, you may think that I am "appealing to authority"...But one is an SF soldier trained in weapons and, when I was in, trained to act as a police officer in some situations. The other teaches physics. So if I have a physics question, I would take Kallend's answer over GQ's. But in this case I think GQ has the edge. YOU are free to get your information for any where you like. I tend to listen to those that have the training and experience. As for "ad hominem"...I am only returning fire:

Maybe thats not bad

Ever actually done it? Thinking you will and doing it are way different. Not trying to make any slam at you. But thinking you will and doing it are *very* different. I'll give you an example. I was in a King Air one day and a guy did a solo Freefly exit. I had always thought that if a guy got knocked out I would be able to swoop in and save him. I saw, heard, and felt this guy hit the tail. I sat there looking stupid. My best laid plans went to shit when it actually happend to me. The point is that a good number of folks like to think they will do the right thing, but very few can actually have the presence of mind to actually do it. Again ever actually done it? I have taken martial arts of various types for years and taught one form for years.....My Sister was attacked once. I did not think twice about hitting the guy....People often fight for the ones they love. But once a guy walked up and hit me in the face. To this day I have no idea why. I was so shocked that I laughed at him. Now in my mind I was laughing because I had no idea why he hit me. Luckily for me he must have thought I was crazy and was about to kill him. He looked shocked that I didn't fall and when I laughed he got really afraid and ran, I saw the fear in his eyes. I am betting that at least ONE person in that group of bystanders thought the exact same thing....Yet did nothing. Unless you have been in that situation you have no idea how you will react...You only have the dream of what you think you would do. The guy that had the gun might not have done anything either if he did not have the gun. The gun allowed him to stop a violent act. He was prepared and did the right thing. He did not even shoot the guy. So, this is a text book example of why I support the right to carry. A violent act was stopped, and no one died. If he was not there, or not armed, the outcome could have been very different.

You are correct. I think it is a bit much, but I also agree he has the right. It is a private school and they are on the team. They have the right to quit the team.

He can do as he pleases. They can leave if they don't like it. PRIVATE parties are allowed to make rules like this. And I support their right. I am not allowed to carry a gun at work and my company has the right to prevent me.

Well, GQ is an SF guy. And anyone with the discovery channel can watch a special. Several prisons have exibits (such as Alcatraz). Do you have information that contradicts his statement?

Have proof of that?

It is not that unusual for stabbing victims to survive multiple stabbings. Most of the stab wounds will be on the arms. Slashing wounds to the chest and back do very little real damage.

Only an idiot would go against a man with a weapon bare handed. And very few people have enough training to disarm an opponent without getting stabbed themselves. I was always told that if I found myself in a knife fight....Expect to get cut, just accept it and work through it. 1. Don't go into a knife fight without a long weapon. 2. Don't take a knife to a gun fight. 3. Don't go to gun fights. Here is a neat little exercise. Go put on an old white tshirt and hand your buddy a black sharpie. Try to disarm him.

Yep, but the tool helped here don't ya think? I mean someone *could* have taken a tire iron to the guy, or be an expert at jujitsu at rolled him up...But that didn't happen. We saw a tool that some think as evil being used for good by a common man. But you are right...Guns don't save people, people save people. Guns are just a tool.

One is that you never admit you are wrong. You are the first to state when you have a background that makes you the expert, but the last to bow down to someone else when they are the expert. All I did there was keep pointing out your hypocrisy. Well, what do you know....Oh never mind. You fiqure it out.

But you still still not make sudden moves or act in a threatening manner. Cops like to be able to see a persons hands when they are responding to a call. It never hurts to do it. That does not mean hands up, but hands in clear view.

Can we add people who don't take any ACTIVE steps to remain healthy but expect Dr.'s to make them healthy? Ya know like not smoking, getting some exercise?

I could almost support national healthcare...With one major provision. People would have to take some steps in preventive care. Stop smoking, lose weight. But we will never make rules like that and I hate to see money get wasted on "Disease's" that are due to eating Ho-ho's and watching TV.

I am OK with spending more as long as we tried to reduce the costs first. I would really like to see tort reform that actually does something. I would like to see company's given tax breaks for every dollar they spend providing health care to workers.

Define "superior" As in free, quality, or availability? I can not think of a country that has all three. Can you think of one? So given a choice of only one of those three, which would you choose and why?

OK but since we already spend more than other countries...What is the solution? Spend even more, or fix the system?

I see you are wearing your tin foil hat again.

I am bad at math...Kallend, 697 is more than 505 right? Those facts have to sting some. True again.....Damn, that was the knock out punch. Remind me not to argue with you. Anyone FOR public health care wanna go for round 2 against LR?

Ya know, just a thought...Maybe the fact that one guy was driving drunk and speeding on his own time in a POV. And the other was a guy that was going only 5 MPH over the limit and while on duty? The investigation said he was doing 5MPH over when the accident happend. So he was doing 50, not 95.

No. He broke a law and should not get a pass. If he really was "made" to do it...Let him turn Cheney in for a smaller sentance just like other criminals do.