 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / September 2006Received this from a friend today (gun deaths related)
FACTS TO PONDER: (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. (B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000. (C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services. Now think about this: Guns: (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million..) (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500. (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188. Statistics courtesy of FBI So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do." FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR. Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!! Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention > FACTS TO PONDER: > (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > before this gets completely out of hand!!!!! How many deaths were intentionally caused by Doctors? Cam <snip> > How many deaths were intentionally caused by Doctors? I'm pretty sure they don't keep those stats very closely. > How many deaths were intentionally caused by Doctors? You mean like Dr. Kavorkean? Lee > > How many deaths were intentionally caused by Doctors? > > You mean like Dr. Kavorkean? > > Lee What if someone stole Kavorkean and ran around a shopping mall or a high school re-enacting some video game or something? Cam >> > How many deaths were intentionally caused by Doctors? >> You mean like Dr. Kavorkean? > What if someone stole Kavorkean and ran around a shopping mall or a > high school re-enacting some video game or something? First, we'd criticize him for bringing a doctor to a gun fight. Then we'd shoot him. You asked the question, I answered it. Just because you didn't expect the answer doesn't make the point less valid. Lee > >> > How many deaths were intentionally caused by Doctors? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > First, we'd criticize him for bringing a doctor to a gun fight. Then we'd > shoot him. Classic mistake. I've watched enough Batman and Get Smart to know you should shoot first, then explain your plan. > You asked the question, I answered it. Just because you didn't expect the > answer doesn't make the point less valid. > > Lee >> > What if someone stole Kavorkean and ran around a shopping mall or a >> > high school re-enacting some video game or something? >> First, we'd criticize him for bringing a doctor to a gun fight. Then >> we'd >> shoot him. > Classic mistake. I've watched enough Batman and Get Smart to know you > should shoot first, then explain your plan. You only know that you "should" shoot first and explain later. It's obvious, from the fine informational films you mention, that should and do are very different concepts. Lee :-) Doctors vs Guns « Start of topic « Older Messages 1 - 10 of 37 Newer » End of topic » Fixed font - Proportional font 1 From: Lee Bell - view profile Date: Mon, Oct 7 2002 2:42 pm Email: "Lee Bell" <leeb...@ix.netcom.com> Groups: rec.scuba Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author I just got this from a friend. I have not attempted to confirm anything included below. I just found it interesting. > The number of physicians in the US is 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year is 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. > (United States Department of Health and Human Services) The number of gun > owners in the United States is 80,000,000. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500. The number of accidental > deaths per gun owner is .0000188. > Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than > gun owners. > FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR. > Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. As a public health measure I have withheld the statistics on > lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical > attention. Lee > You only know that you "should" shoot first and explain later. It's > obvious, from the fine informational films you mention, that should and do > are very different concepts. Exackly. It's a bitch to pull yer piece and shoot when the sucker's tangled in yer shorts. You could do a whole helluva lot of 'splainin' whilst you untangle the mighty weapon - the gun, I mean. JF > > You only know that you "should" shoot first and explain later. It's > > obvious, from the fine informational films you mention, that should and do [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tangled in yer shorts. You could do a whole helluva lot of 'splainin' > whilst you untangle the mighty weapon - the gun, I mean. I don't know anyone who carries a "piece" in their shorts, but then I don't hang much with average American or Canadian gunsel. People who actually know what they are doing, and why, go as far as dropping a carry piece through a nylon, and removing what catches until it glides through. Only an idiot, a gang-banger or a horny 10 year old get their piece hung up in their shorts. > Only an idiot, a gang-banger or a horny 10 year old get their piece hung > up > in their shorts. I dropped a cigarette down my shorts once while driving, back when I was a teenager. One of the scariest incidents in my life. > > Only an idiot, a gang-banger or a horny 10 year old get their piece hung > > up > > in their shorts. > > I dropped a cigarette down my shorts once while driving, back when I was a > teenager. One of the scariest incidents in my life. Dare we ask why you were driving in yer shorts? JF >> > Only an idiot, a gang-banger or a horny 10 year old get their piece >> > hung [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Dare we ask why you were driving in yer shorts? This is Southern California. We don't have snow here. > >> > Only an idiot, a gang-banger or a horny 10 year old get their piece > >> > hung [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > This is Southern California. We don't have snow here. Ah. I pictured you driving in yer boxers. JF >> This is Southern California. We don't have snow here. > > Ah. I pictured you driving in yer boxers. Is there something about you I should know about? I've never pictured you in your boxers and I don't want to. The sight of Lee in his Speedos has already given me nightmares. > The sight of Lee in his Speedos has already given me nightmares. The best defense is a good offense. >> The sight of Lee in his Speedos has already given me nightmares. > > The best defense is a good offense. I'm thinking you're far more likely to get shot when you walk around like that. Plus there's nowhere to hide your gun. I could feasibly hide a powerful gun in my baggy swim shorts (and the ladies tell me I do). >>> The sight of Lee in his Speedos has already given me nightmares. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that. Plus there's nowhere to hide your gun. I could feasibly hide a > powerful gun in my baggy swim shorts (and the ladies tell me I do). Any self respecting criminal would be too busy laughing at me to shoot me. It's the perfect non lethal defense. Lee > Any self respecting criminal would be too busy laughing at me to shoot me. > It's the perfect non lethal defense. Seems to me your Speedo might be more of an offense. JF >> Any self respecting criminal would be too busy laughing at me to shoot >> me. >> It's the perfect non lethal defense. > > Seems to me your Speedo might be more of an offense. Hence my comments that the best defense is a good offense. Lee > >> Any self respecting criminal would be too busy laughing at me to shoot > >> me. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hence my comments that the best defense is a good offense. While they are blinded and covering their eyes, you can leave, or pull your heater... > While they are blinded and covering their eyes.............. or pull your > heater... Something better done in the privacy of your own home. JF >>>>>>>>>>>> Still waiting for you to cite this lie: >>>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 265 lines] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoy the view of your own rectum. ;-) > > Only an idiot, a gang-banger or a horny 10 year old get their piece hung > > up > > in their shorts. > > I dropped a cigarette down my shorts once while driving, back when I was a > teenager. One of the scariest incidents in my life. Is that why you became a lawyer? So you could sue the tobacco industry for burning your pants... > I dropped a cigarette down my shorts once while driving, back when I was a > teenager. One of the scariest incidents in my life. Hmmm... Trying to perform a bris-b-que on yourself? >> Only an idiot, a gang-banger or a horny 10 year old get their piece hung >> up >> in their shorts. > >I dropped a cigarette down my shorts once while driving, back when I was a >teenager. One of the scariest incidents in my life. My brother fired a bottle rocket out the window of a moving car once. Only the rocket didn't actually make it out the window. I was driving and most of the excitment was going on in the back seat, although I did jump when the puppy went off. Amazingly, there were no burns that needed explaining. Unlike the wet seats.  Signaturedillon If you can't figure out how to unmunge my address, email me and I'll explain it. > My brother fired a bottle rocket out the window of a moving car once. > Only the rocket didn't actually make it out the window. I was driving > and most of the excitment was going on in the back seat, although I > did jump when the puppy went off. Amazingly, there were no burns that > needed explaining. Unlike the wet seats. That reminds me of a past New Year's Eve in Bonaire. One of the guys we had just gone fireworks shopping with couldn't wait to play with his new toys and asked to borrow my lighter while we were still driving through Kralendijk. As he's a cop, I had no choice but to comply. Shooting bottle rockets at tourists dining in quaint sidewalk cafes is loads of fun, and it was even more fun when he shot one off and almost hit the police station. Back at Captain Don's we spent much of the night trying to hit the boats moored offshore. It didn't seem a wise idea to me at the time, but the hotel staff didn't seem to mind much. Probably because they were as drunk as we were. > > Only an idiot, a gang-banger or a horny 10 year old get their piece hung > > up > > in their shorts. > > I dropped a cigarette down my shorts once while driving, back when I was a > teenager. One of the scariest incidents in my life. Clearly, we need cigarette control. Dennis > Classic mistake. I've watched enough Batman and Get Smart to know you > should shoot first, then explain your plan. Yeah right, to the heel of yer shoe. > > You asked the question, I answered it. Just because you didn't expect the > > answer doesn't make the point less valid. He's not used to dealing with you slick Second Amendment supporters. JF > > Classic mistake. I've watched enough Batman and Get Smart to know you > > should shoot first, then explain your plan. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > He's not used to dealing with you slick Second Amendment supporters. Obviously. > Classic mistake. I've watched enough Batman and Get Smart to know you > should shoot first, then explain your plan. I always figured that was where you Canucks learned about firearms. > > Classic mistake. I've watched enough Batman and Get Smart to know you > > should shoot first, then explain your plan. > > I always figured that was where you Canucks learned about firearms. How about you Scott? If someone waved a Kavorkean in your direction would you start blasting right away? Wouldn't you want to call him names first? Cam > How about you Scott? If someone waved a Kavorkean in your direction > would you start blasting right away? Wouldn't you want to call him > names first? Soon as that situation is something other than some wierd Canadian twist of fantasy, I'll let you know. >> FACTS TO PONDER: >> (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > >How many deaths were intentionally caused by Doctors? How many deaths were caused by lawful gun owners? That might be a better question. >Cam Signaturedillon If you can't figure out how to unmunge my address, email me and I'll explain it. - about doctors being statistically more dangerous than guns. I know he did it tongue in cheek but it points up one of the weaknesses common to much of the progun support. In this case it treats gun owners and doctors as staring on an equal footing when in fact gun owners have their guns in anticipation of the problem while folks go to the doctor with a problem already in the works. A more accurate comparison would be to use accidental shooting deaths arising out of armed confrontations and accidental deaths arising out of medical treatment. Are there any stats on that? And that being said the antigun arguments are proportionally useless for the same reasons. That's why I have trouble coming up with valid cites to support some of my contentions - it's hard to find objective evidence, and subjective evidence is misleading. JF > - about doctors being statistically more dangerous than guns. I know he > did it tongue in cheek but it points up one of the weaknesses common to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > JF Most people (in the US at least) have a "family doctor" - one they go to when something is wrong. They still 'have' that doctor that they can call on even when nothing is actually Wrong at that moment. Sounds just like a gun owner, eh? Your argument is BS. > Most people (in the US at least) have a "family doctor" - one they go to > when something is wrong. They still 'have' that doctor that they can > call on even when nothing is actually Wrong at that moment. > Sounds just like a gun owner, eh? > Your argument is BS. And I believe yours proves my point, but I'll go back and reread the post to be certain. JF > Most people (in the US at least) have a "family doctor" - one they go to > when something is wrong. They still 'have' that doctor that they can > call on even when nothing is actually Wrong at that moment. > Sounds just like a gun owner, eh? > > Your argument is BS. Okay. I reread it. Seems to me a more reasonable comparison would be to take the number of people who've visited a doctor for any reason, or who have a regular family doctor and use that as your baseline. JF > > Most people (in the US at least) have a "family doctor" - one they go to > > when something is wrong. They still 'have' that doctor that they can [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > take the number of people who've visited a doctor for any reason, or > who have a regular family doctor and use that as your baseline. I couldn't find the actual numbers referenced where they are said to have been found, but I did come across this. I've no idea how how dependable this is but if we're going to accept anything on the net as gospel that's fine with me. BTW, it looks like these are from 2002 so newer numbers might be different. http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html Look down to the "leading cause of accidental death" charts. At the bottom of that section there are two rows, one labelled Complications of Med/Surg Care and the last being Accidental Discharge of Firearms. These are broken down into age groupings. At ages 4 and under there are more lives proportionally lost to medical complications. Between 5 and 34 there are more lives taken by guns accidentally. Then it swings back as the age increases with the age groups 65 - 84 being the highest losses to medical complications. See the pattern? Now, if we compare the population of the States (approx 300,000,000 to the number of gunowners 80,000,000) one might put an even different perspective on those stats. Does this help to show what I'm saying? JF > I couldn't find the actual numbers referenced where they are said to > have been found, but I did come across this. I've no idea how how [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > JF It does not. More lives will be lost to 'accident' in the age group you give, simply because that age group will Have more accidents then the other two! Find the statistics for how many suffer a sports injury I bet you find a similar (only greater) spread. > > Does this help to show what I'm saying? > It does not. More lives will be lost to 'accident' in the age group you > give, simply because that age group will Have more accidents then the > other two! Find the statistics for how many suffer a sports injury I bet > you find a similar (only greater) spread. I gave a lot of age groups. We weren't talking about sports injuries, were we? I thought we were comparing accidental gun deaths and accidental deaths arising from medical attention. JF >>> Does this help to show what I'm saying? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > JF We ( or at least You) were talking about <some type of> accidents in a given age range. It doesn't matter if we compare sports injury's and car accidents or medical accidents and gun accidents. In the age range given pre 4 years, 5 -> 34, ( I noticed you didn't quote 35 - 64!), 65+. I'd bet ALL types are greatest for 5 - 34 year olds, They are the most prone to accident; with the exception of medical, as that almost always requires somebody else to screw up, not the victim themselves. You should find no statistical significance in the age groups for medical accident acroos age groups when compare by visit amounts and type of problems treated. Pre 5 year olds don't own guns so They can be expected to be a small percentage, most people over 65 who own guns, don't take them out very often,in other words Your Statistics Prove Nothing except that you can read but not correctly interpret statistics. > >>> Does this help to show what I'm saying? > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > often,in other words Your Statistics Prove Nothing except that you can > read but not correctly interpret statistics. Yer out of your league. Pay attention. JF > Yer out of your league. Pay attention. <rimshot> Hilarious from you in *any* conversation concerning firearms. > > Most people (in the US at least) have a "family doctor" - one they go to > > when something is wrong. They still 'have' that doctor that they can [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > JF If you're going to do that, you'd have to include all of the times that a gun was fired that didn't involve someone's death. With the apparent (based on media reporting) quality of police training in this country, you'd still be losing that battle. > > > Most people (in the US at least) have a "family doctor" - one they go to > > > when something is wrong. They still 'have' that doctor that they can [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > involve someone's death. With the apparent (based on media reporting) quality of police training in > this country, you'd still be losing that battle. Do you see though how all this discussion validates my contention that stats can be used, misused or abused? It's tough for the observer to know for sure which is the case, particularly if the comparability is really apples and oranges? JF > > > > Most people (in the US at least) have a "family doctor" - one they go to > > > > when something is wrong. They still 'have' that doctor that they can [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > JF There are three levels of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. > There are three levels of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. In order of credibility? JF > > There are three levels of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. > > In order of credibility? > > JF generally speaking >> There are three levels of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. >> In order of credibility? > generally speaking Statistically speaking. > >> There are three levels of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. > >> In order of credibility? > > > generally speaking > > Statistically speaking. 'at's what i thunk. JF >>>>Most people (in the US at least) have a "family doctor" - one they go to >>>>when something is wrong. They still 'have' that doctor that they can [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > JF I'll jut go back to the original premise - doctors kill more than guns > >>>>Most people (in the US at least) have a "family doctor" - one they go to > >>>>when something is wrong. They still 'have' that doctor that they can [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I'll jut go back to the original premise - doctors kill more than guns Conversely, doctors save many more people than guns do... >>>>>>Most people (in the US at least) have a "family doctor" - one they go > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Conversely, doctors save many more people than guns do... how do you know? > >>>>>>Most people (in the US at least) have a "family doctor" - one they go > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > > how do you know? Are you serious? The only way a gun could save someone is by discouraging/preventing another person from doing harm to someone else. Do you really believe that this event is more prevalent than a doctor successfully treating a patient? In that case, I take it you're prepared to conceed that you live in an incredibly, incredibly violent part of the world? I assume that given the choice, you'd buy a firearm over medical insurance, yes? Bearing in mind that you're asserting a gun is more likely to save your life than a doctor... >>>>>>>>Most people (in the US at least) have a "family doctor" - one they > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > that you're asserting a gun is more likely to save your life than a > doctor... there are violent areas, I have a gun for protection. If some crackhead idiot comes into my house I'd rather have the gun than my doctor I do have health insurance > there are violent areas, I have a gun for protection. If some crackhead > idiot comes into my house I'd rather have the gun than my doctor > > I do have health insurance Here's a trick question for you then - Suppose you found yourself marooned on a desert island with a beautiful girl and not one other living thing. Then you were offered a choice between having a doctor or a gun on the island as well. Which would you choose? Give this a lot of thought before you answer. It's not as obvious as one might assume at first glance. JF > > there are violent areas, I have a gun for protection. If some crackhead > > idiot comes into my house I'd rather have the gun than my doctor [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > choose? Give this a lot of thought before you answer. It's not as > obvious as one might assume at first glance. You're a sly devil, you are. > Here's a trick question for you then - > Suppose you found yourself marooned on a desert island with a beautiful > girl and not one other living thing. Then you were offered a choice > between having a doctor or a gun on the island as well. Which would you > choose? Give this a lot of thought before you answer. It's not as > obvious as one might assume at first glance. That ain't no trick. The doc can't do nuthin' without his tools, but he sure can tempt the chickie with his offers to play doctor. On the other hand, with a gun, you get the girlie doing whatever you like for as long as you can stay awake. Right before you close your eyes, you shoot her and eat her for breakfast when you wake up. Do I win? > > Here's a trick question for you then - > > Suppose you found yourself marooned on a desert island with a beautiful [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Do I win? Damn! JF >> there are violent areas, I have a gun for protection. If some crackhead >> idiot comes into my house I'd rather have the gun than my doctor [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > choose? Give this a lot of thought before you answer. It's not as > obvious as one might assume at first glance. The world according to Francis. SignaturePopeye Listen, strange woman lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Monty Python www.finalprotectivefire.com >> Here's a trick question for you then - >> Suppose you found yourself marooned on a desert island with a beautiful >> girl and not one other living thing. Then you were offered a choice >> between having a doctor or a gun on the island as well. Which would you >> choose? Give this a lot of thought before you answer. It's not as >> obvious as one might assume at first glance. Male doctor or female? Bigger or smaller than me? Gay or straight? > >> Here's a trick question for you then - > >> Suppose you found yourself marooned on a desert island with a beautiful [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Male doctor or female? Bigger or smaller than me? Gay or straight? The devil is in the details... > >> Here's a trick question for you then - > >> Suppose you found yourself marooned on a desert island with a beautiful [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Male doctor or female? How many women do you need? >Bigger or smaller than me? It's the size of the scalpel that counts. >Gay or straight? How many women do you need? JF >> Male doctor or female? > How many women do you need? Maybe two. One for food, one for pleasure as long as the food lasts. >>Bigger or smaller than me? > It's the size of the scalpel that counts. You presume the doctor has a scapel, but I don't have anything to defend myself with? >>Gay or straight? > How many women do you need? Asked and answered. Do you want to compete with a young male doctor for the affections of the only woman on the island? Would you prefer they serve you for dinner or you serve them? Lee > >> Male doctor or female? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Lee I would prefer that they serve dinner to me, but that isn't really very likely on a deserted island. > I would prefer that they serve dinner to me, but that isn't really very likely on a deserted island. Lobster and Grouper are even better when served by a topless wench who worships you. Of course that assumes you can provide the food. JF > >> Male doctor or female? > > > How many women do you need? > > Maybe two. One for food, one for pleasure as long as the food lasts. Wouldn't the doctor likely be more poundage? For the eating part I mean - if that's what you mean? > >>Bigger or smaller than me? > > > It's the size of the scalpel that counts. > > You presume the doctor has a scapel, but I don't have anything to defend > myself with? You assume he's gonna attack you rather than help you? > >>Gay or straight? > > > How many women do you need? > > Asked and answered. I guess if yer just gonna eat her it doesn't much matter, does it? > Do you want to compete with a young male doctor for the affections of the > only woman on the island? Would you prefer they serve you for dinner or you > serve them? Good point. And the other way I can get her attention easier. JF >>there are violent areas, I have a gun for protection. If some crackhead >>idiot comes into my house I'd rather have the gun than my doctor [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > JF A gun > The only way a gun could save someone is by discouraging/preventing > another > person from doing harm to someone else. Do you really believe that this > event is more prevalent than a doctor successfully treating a patient? The question that was asked is what makes you think otherwise. It was your statement. It's yours to support. In answer to your question, though, I think it's quite possible. How many shots were fired, for example, in order to ensure freedom for all Americans (Civil War)? How many shots have been fired by police officers for the apprehension of dangerous criminals or to prevent harm to innocent people? I have a sneaking suspicion that the number exceeds, by a substantial margin, the number of times doctors actually saved lives, meaning that, by their action, someone that would have died, lived. > In that case, I take it you're prepared to conceed that you live in an > incredibly, incredibly violent part of the world? I'm prepared to admit that I live in an incredibly violent world. Why do you think we have all the police and all the military, all over the world? Did you, by chance, miss the videos of people having their heads cut off with dull knives? > I assume that given the choice, you'd buy a firearm over medical > insurance, yes? If that were the only choice, it would be a hard one. Lucky for us, it's not. I have both. > Bearing in mind that you're asserting a gun is more likely to save your > life than a doctor... That's your conclusion and one that is not supported by any information you or anyone else has put forth. The issue is whether doctors kill more people than guns do. Since you tried to load your question, try mine. If someone is pointing a gun at you and your family and you think they're about to shoot, which would you pray for, a doctor or a police officer? Lee > Since you tried to load your question, try mine. > > If someone is pointing a gun at you and your family and you think they're > about to shoot, which would you pray for, a doctor or a police officer? A lawyer, obviously. The others aren't gonna talk anyone out of shooting. >> If someone is pointing a gun at you and your family and you think they're >> about to shoot, which would you pray for, a doctor or a police officer? > A lawyer, obviously. The others aren't gonna talk anyone out of shooting. The first thing criminals usually ask for is a lawyer. It's the last thing their victims want them to have. > If someone is pointing a gun at you and your family and you think they're > about to shoot, which would you pray for, a doctor or a police officer? Obviously the doctor. If the villain is about to shoot, the police are gonna be too late to stop him. I'll want medical help. A cop standing around waving his gun after the shooting isn't gonna close up the bullet holes in my family. JF >> If someone is pointing a gun at you and your family and you think they're >> about to shoot, which would you pray for, a doctor or a police officer? > > Obviously the doctor. If the villain is about to shoot, the police are > gonna be too late to stop him. I'll want medical help. Your choice. He might shoot first. He might shoot after the first shot, limiting the number of people killed (remember that how many people do guns save?). He might even represent sufficient threat that the villian surrenders or runs away. A doctor can do none of that. If he shoots, you and your family are dead . . . for sure. > A cop standing around waving his gun after the shooting isn't gonna close > up the > bullet holes in my family. Neither is a doctor with his own bullet holes to worry about. Lee > Neither is a doctor with his own bullet holes to worry about. I wasn't planning on him arriving till after I was shot and the bad guy had moved on. JF > > Neither is a doctor with his own bullet holes to worry about. > > I wasn't planning on him arriving till after I was shot and the bad guy > had moved on. My plan is to shoot the criminal before he shoots me. Take care of the problem, rather than leave it for someone else. :-) > JF Dennis > > > Neither is a doctor with his own bullet holes to worry about. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Take care of the problem, rather than leave it for someone else. > :-) Works for me, as long as there's been no misunderstanding. Hate to be responsible for killing some guy because I misinterpreted his motives. Not sure I wouldn't rather die myself. If I just beat on him a little bit with my hockey stick or golf club I'll have an easier time talking myself out of jail. Tough call, huh? JF JF "If someone is pointing a gun at you and your family and you think they're about to shoot, which would you pray for, a doctor or a police officer?" -Lee >> My plan is to shoot the criminal before he shoots me. >> Take care of the problem, rather than leave it for someone else. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > bit with my hockey stick or golf club I'll have an easier time talking > myself out of jail. Tough call, huh? Only for a moral coward such as yourself, John. Clearly stating here that you might rather die than defend your family, and that you're stupid enough to think you might "beat on the guy a little with your hockey stick" when he has a gun, and is about to shoot, is just another fine example of your logic and judgment. Maybe you could ask the guy a few psyche questions while he's laughing too hard to pull the trigger. SignaturePopeye You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. -Capone www.finalprotectivefire.com "JOF" wrote >> "If someone is pointing a gun at you and your family and you think >> they're >> about to shoot, which would you pray for, a doctor or a police officer? > Works for me, as long as there's been no misunderstanding. Hate to be > responsible for killing some guy because I misinterpreted his motives. > Not sure I wouldn't rather die myself. If I just beat on him a little > bit with my hockey stick or golf club I'll have an easier time talking > myself out of jail. Tough call, huh? Not a tough call at all. He's f.cking pointing a gun at you and your family. How f.cking much understanding does it f.cking well take for him to have earned the right to die? Lee > "JOF" wrote > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > family. How f.cking much understanding does it f.cking well take for him > to have earned the right to die? John can't really conceive this. His abject terror of firearms just causes scenarios like this to blank out in his mind. His eyes read it, but his mind hears something else, like a web page that won't fully load. He convinces himself that the attacker is just, like, a lost pizza delivery guy, and the gun is, you know, probably a replica cigarette lighter, and, hey, you wouldn't want to blast the guy for having a smoke, eh? How could he, in good conscience, murder an innocent Domino's driver? The question is glaringly simple to you and I, and in fact, to most people. But in order to rationalize his cowardice, his inability to make a stand -anywhere-, he obfuscates the point, to -himself-, so that it seems morally ambiguous. "If someone is pointing a gun at you and your family ..." -L "as long as there's been no misunderstanding..." -JOF What's Johns operative phrase? "Hate to be responsible". SignaturePopeye You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. -Capone www.finalprotectivefire.com > > "JOF" wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > lighter, and, hey, you wouldn't want to blast the guy for having a smoke, > eh? Well, its just non-governmental redistribution of wealth - no problem with that, is there? :-) > How could he, in good conscience, murder an innocent Domino's driver? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > "Hate to be responsible". Maybe the guy was filming a submission for "Jackass" or "America's Funniest Home Videos"? Maybe the crook's gun isn't loaded.....? Maybe..... Dennis >> "JOF" wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > "Hate to be responsible". and thus you win "The Laugh of the Day Award" !! it explains so much about jof. > > Works for me, as long as there's been no misunderstanding. Hate to be > > responsible for killing some guy because I misinterpreted his motives. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > family. How f.cking much understanding does it f.cking well take for him to > have earned the right to die? So if I say the word "f.ck" often enough the bad guys will be intimidated? JF >>>Works for me, as long as there's been no misunderstanding. Hate to be >>>responsible for killing some guy because I misinterpreted his motives. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > JF PRICELESS >>> Works for me, as long as there's been no misunderstanding. Hate to be >>> responsible for killing some guy because I misinterpreted his motives. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So if I say the word "f.ck" often enough the bad guys will be > intimidated? john, you ARE "The Laugh of the Day" !! > JF > john, you ARE "The Laugh of the Day" !! Nah. I'm just the straight man. I can't take credit for the buffoonery. JF >> john, you ARE "The Laugh of the Day" !! > > Nah. I'm just the straight man. I can't take credit for the buffoonery. but you can take the blame for the thoughtlessness, daily forgetting, lack of comprehension and lack of thought that make all your posts so distinctive. yours is the vast wasteland of thoughtless posts. sort of johns very own babbleland. > JF >>>> Works for me, as long as there's been no misunderstanding. Hate to be >>>> responsible for killing some guy because I misinterpreted his motives. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > john, you ARE "The Laugh of the Day" !! Wowwwww. SignaturePopeye You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. -Capone www.finalprotectivefire.com > Not a tough call at all. He's f.cking pointing a gun at you and your > family. How f.cking much understanding does it f.cking well take for him to > have earned the right to die? Un-f.cking-real. Thats that counting on the benevolence of your attacker thing we discussed at length before. All this crap is so old and done so long ago, it is just rediculous. He doesnt get, wont get it, cant get it. > > Works for me, as long as there's been no misunderstanding. Hate to be > > responsible for killing some guy because I misinterpreted his motives. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Maybe you could ask the guy a few psyche questions while he's laughing too > hard to pull the trigger. Are you ever going to get over this? JF >>>Works for me, as long as there's been no misunderstanding. Hate to be >>>responsible for killing some guy because I misinterpreted his motives. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > JF Get over what??? > Get over what??? His obsession. JF >> > Works for me, as long as there's been no misunderstanding. Hate to be >> > responsible for killing some guy because I misinterpreted his motives. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Are you ever going to get over this? Over what? SignaturePopeye You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. -Capone www.finalprotectivefire.com > > Are you ever going to get over this? > > Over what? Your obsession. JF > > > Are you ever going to get over this? > > > > Over what? > > Your obsession. The only obsession with guns in this NG is yours. >> > Are you ever going to get over this? >> >> Over what? > > Your obsession. Well, no, but, I'd hate to take a show of hands on which one of us is "obsessed". My views are what they are, and will never change. I can show a clear cut logic and application to my beliefs, and they don't affect anyone that doesn't bother me. You, in a nutshell, have prostituted yourself to mindless and unjustifiable fears primarily from ignorance, utterly destroyed your own credibility, put yourself in the gutter, become an extensively documented liar and hypocrite, and attacked the character and credibility of others blindly, out of nationalistic hate. You advocate the random suspension of civil liberties and encourage the violation of a variety of constitutional rights. You've accused, and slung your Canadian innuendo, and refused to cite, and scurry, scurry, scurried, till you're just a laughing stock here. You're a shadow of the person you once were here. It's rather pathetic (however predictable) that you think that -I'm- the one that's obsessed. SignaturePopeye You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. -Capone www.finalprotectivefire.com > You, in a nutshell, have prostituted yourself to mindless and > unjustifiable fears primarily from ignorance, utterly destroyed your own [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It's rather pathetic (however predictable) that you think that -I'm- the > one that's obsessed. Wait, he hasnt called you "son" or "child" yet. >> You, in a nutshell, have prostituted yourself to mindless and >> unjustifiable fears primarily from ignorance, utterly destroyed your own [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Wait, he hasnt called you "son" or "child" yet. Isn't it Kramer that does that? It's so hard to tell them apart... SignaturePopeye You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. -Capone www.finalprotectivefire.com > Isn't it Kramer that does that? Well, he liked to do it too, when he got pounded into a corner with his lies and fabrications... > It's so hard to tell them apart... I see your point. >> Isn't it Kramer that does that? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I see your point. Here's a -bueat-: 136 From: Popeye - view profile Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 12:48 am Email: "Popeye" <Pop...@Finalprotectivefire.com> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3evuu158335j973san0h8povhoff12h3uv@4ax.com... >>>> Some of us are more concerned with dignity and quality of life. >>> I'm sure we all appreciate the irony of your comment >> "We"? > I think so, but feel free to prove otherwise. It's not my job to prove your premises, but others have proved you wrong here anyhow. >> Check. >> Maybe you could explain the "irony" of the comment. > Gladly. Half of your posts here prove you to be the exception to your > own statement. Not even remotely. This whole response is crying and whining, but my references to dignity and quality of life were and are obviously directed to living my own life, and not the consideration of (some) others, despite your pathetic attempts to twist them. >You act like a misogynist towards some women. a) The sentence is self contradictory. You can't be a misogynist towards "some" women. b) What were you saying the other day about rec.scubans using dictionaries and thesauruses to be drama queens? c) There is no support or cite to validate your claim in any way. While Ms Mapleleaf Backchannel and the other Twat Sister are on my permanent sh.t list, there are -numerous- eyewitness cites of me keeping company (in a variety of ways) with a variety of women, some times in pairs. I've dated three women from Rec.scuba, and lived with one, arguably the hottest one here, for a year. So who knows what the f.ck you're talking about is beyond me. Apparently since I can't play nice with the Canadian Pivot Girl, I must be a woman hater. But what the bottom line is, is that I accord them true equality, and you won't... > You refuse to accord any degree of dignity to some of those unable to > defend themselves, This is also a lie. I arrived at Rec.scuba to defend a dead guy 8 years ago, and haven't stopped since. With the exception of drive-bys, I never attack first. My whole drama with both Fuckhead Kramer and Black and countless others, was started by sticking up for the little guys. > like the late Dr. Black. Instead of granting him a > modicum of dignity by at least ignoring him you'd rather use his > passing as joke fodder to mug for your audience for cheap laughs. Michael J Black made his bed here. He was the most hateful and vitriolic member of Rec.scuba ever to post. You were too spineless to confront him, for instance, when he attacked Sheryl, unlike Scott and I. I don't owe Black a modicum of dignity, or a scrap, or a scintilla, and he will be my doormat bitch (as will you) for all time to come. One bridge-burning and easily documentable lie that you've told, and really the only one liable to wind us up in a physical confrontation, is that I've said more about Black since he died, and couldn't defend himself. I'll make sure to hold you accountable for that particular despicable lie if we should ever meet again. I've said 1/1000 of the things about him, er, A.D.,than when he was here stenching up the place. And answer this a simple yes or no, because others will, do you think I've ever said anything about Black that I wouldn't have said to his face? In your selective memory, you may not remember the fact that we met in New York (Jersey?) at the conclusion of the bet, just in case his death was a ruse (which it still may be). I said before he died, I was looking forward to pissing on his grave, and he robbed me of the chance. But when you and I met up at my house, I was perfectly capable of standing over his corpse and pissing in his mouth, he worked hard to earn that, and he's got it. And I'm no different now. >You think that american Capitalize, please. I always capitalize Canada no matter how much of a whining, ungrateful, groveling, defenseless little unarmed third world shithole it is. It's important to be respectful. >is the only nationality that not only deserves but > is owed respect and dignity and treat other nationalities and people > accordingly, even when you know next to nothing about them. I know much more about other countries than I need to know, and I've been to more foreign countries than you have. I have documented the fact that you show bias towards my country at every turn, and I have given -scores- of examples of my country being attacked here. A most recent and glaring example would be you cheering on the Jew hating Pole (Another example of your moral dishonesty) as he blames the U.S. for something that several nations were involved in, and then cherry picked cites to prove it. In the middle of it all, you had the audacity to chastise -us- for taking -him- to task for his country's history, while had come here to do that very thing to us. You're quite an a.shole. Sorry that all your shabby weaving comes apart with a quick pull of the threads. >Your posting history simply does not bear out your protestation of concern > for dignity and quality of life. Your paragraph above doesn't even relate to that statement. >> There's a first time for everything... >>> and quality of life for most of us involves more than a baggy pair of >>> jeans. >>> Your mileage apparently varies. >> I'd be willing to bet that quality of life for most of us involves more >>than how much we pay for slacks. > Like having the biggest tool box in the world? I gave away a 50k tool inventory in a 14k box when I moved to Atlanta. Gave. Away. Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiffffffffffffffffffffffff. > For some of us it involves less tangible things, like being a good > parent and provider, $200 slacks, like actually treating deserving folks, > Benzes, or those > unable to defend themselves, while on vacation in Mexico, with respect and > dignity rather than just > talking the talk. That's not what you show here. The fact that you can insinuate that you treat Americans with respect and dignity after your several speech slurring bigotry posts is fuckin hysterical. You must be high on crack. >> Apparently, your mileage varies. > Most definitely. >> You've shown repeatedly that your self worth, and how you value others, >> is >>tied directly to bank balances, and I pity you for that. > That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You expect to be > treated with dignity Cite. > yet you go to extremes to trivialize and diminish > the character and standards of anyone who doesn't toe your line (or > kiss your a.s), Cite. I attack when attacked. If I sense meanness instead of stupidity, I escalate when I retaliate. I follow no rules, and the last thing I'm interested in is your sense of propriety, because you're a hypocrite. & |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message