|
Post by coachdoc on Jan 9, 2016 10:48:55 GMT -5
From lifting and packing and assembling. Dermatitis from solvents used in production.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 9, 2016 11:06:55 GMT -5
Well I'm big and burly so I think I could make that look work in an outlaw biker sort of way. You on the other hand? More of a monocle guy I think. 'Sides, I always close one eye when I'm shooting anyway. I think I just read you describe us as Sargent Schultz and Colonel Klink?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 9, 2016 11:19:08 GMT -5
If Paul gets assigned to Leavenworth he will be a clink colonel.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 9, 2016 11:31:22 GMT -5
FP, the only error I made was leaving out deaths per gun and deaths per car. In that sense, there ARE way more deaths due to cars. And, regarding the legislation of cars, of nobody had one you'd be able to bike or walk those major roads you referenced. Sure, if everyone else still has "dumb cars" (fast, no ignition interlocks to prevent DWI, etc) then while you would hypothetically be less of a danger to yourself then you would still be in danger. Matter of fact, thanks for making one gun control point for me: if there are still 300 million guns in the US minus me having one, then I'd be less likely to shoot myself but I'd be in the same, or greater danger from criminals.We could argue statistics all night with neither of us making any ground on each other, statistics can be made to say anything the biased person wants, but the bottom line is we both think we're right but I have the Constitution backing me up. The 2nd Amendment is not about recreation, it's about people killing other people. No. The stats are facts from the real world. You are 99 times more likely to shoot yourself or somebody who shouldn’t have been shot, rather than using your gun in self defense. The stats are not from an imaginary world where there are no guns. And no, stats can’t be made to say anything a biased person wants them to say. Statistics are a collection of facts. They can be taken on a population as a whole or a sampling of the population in a way that is representative of the population as a whole. The stats may show significant and dramatic results, very little difference between different groups, or no difference at all. Stats are good at showing correlations and not always so good at showing causation. From there, stats can be misunderstood, where the wrong conclusion is drawn from the facts. And stats can seem to be contradictory where some support an argument and others reject the argument, which can result from drawing the wrong conclusion, correlation to a factor or factors unrelated to the cause, or intentionally cherry picking favorable statistics. But the statistics themselves are facts. They don’t change according to one’s biases. Statistics can be meaningful. Let’s say I have a drug that can prevent injury during a direct lightning strike. It’s not 100% effective, but if taken by intravenous injection one second before a direct lightning strike, it will protect you 85% of the time. Of the 500,000 people who have used the drug, 66% have accidentally or intentionally used the drug to kill themselves. Another 33% have accidentally or intentionally killed other people. But almost a full one percent have taken the drug as directed, one second before a direct lightning strike, and escaped unharmed. Would you like to buy my drug? It’s very popular among golfers.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 9, 2016 12:20:45 GMT -5
Repetive stress from a 22? Mike That threw me, too. Doc is referring to some of his patients, patients who worked in the Ruger gun factory in his home town, patients who were lifting, packing, and solventizing the product while assembling and shipping it. We each bring our own experiences to the family table. I see a binder and I think, hmm, something that holds papers. Jeff sees a binder and he thinks: good cigars, nice car and house, gallons of "Sam's Choice" cooking sherry, part of a boat, and a pleasant tingling in the loins. Well, that last one is more of an experience than a thought, but the two are one at some point.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Jan 9, 2016 13:32:56 GMT -5
...No. The stats are facts from the real world. You are 99 times more likely to shoot yourself or somebody who shouldn’t have been shot, rather than using your gun in self defense. The stats are not from an imaginary world where there are no guns. And no, stats can’t be made to say anything a biased person wants them to say. Statistics are a collection of facts. They can be taken on a population as a whole or a sampling of the population in a way that is representative of the population as a whole. The stats may show significant and dramatic results, very little difference between different groups, or no difference at all. Stats are good at showing correlations and not always so good at showing causation. From there, stats can be misunderstood, where the wrong conclusion is drawn from the facts. And stats can seem to be contradictory where some support an argument and others reject the argument, which can result from drawing the wrong conclusion, correlation to a factor or factors unrelated to the cause, or intentionally cherry picking favorable statistics. But the statistics themselves are facts. They don’t change according to one’s biases. Statistics can be meaningful. Let’s say I have a drug that can prevent injury during a direct lightning strike. It’s not 100% effective, but if taken by intravenous injection one second before a direct lightning strike, it will protect you 85% of the time. Of the 500,000 people who have used the drug, 66% have accidentally or intentionally used the drug to kill themselves. Another 33% have accidentally or intentionally killed other people. But almost a full one percent have taken the drug as directed, one second before a direct lightning strike, and escaped unharmed. Would you like to buy my drug? It’s very popular among golfers. So, now my gun is 99x as likely to be used improperly than to be used defensively? Where did you get that stat??? Let's go with the often purported "43x as likely" myth bandied about but they anti-Constitutionalists. SourceI'm tired of debating this with you and others that clearly have their heads in the sand, I know that what I believe is true and there is little point trying to persuade those of you who want to live as subjects rather than citizens.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Jan 9, 2016 14:03:49 GMT -5
I have attempted to treat a toddler shot by his friend playing cowboys and Indians. He died. I have yet to treat a terrorist victim. Small sample, but irrefutable. Trying to console those parents was a shattering experience.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 9, 2016 14:05:45 GMT -5
Hey, Marty, sorry 'bout the "Arrow" mistake but if you recall I have mentioned that one of the reasons I don't have a gun is lack of eyesight. Looked like an arrow to me but it I get right up to the screen, yup it's not an arrow.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 9, 2016 14:12:21 GMT -5
The Swedish version has two large red arrows engraved along both sides of the barrel. Versions with serial numbers between 0456-1074 have been issued a recall due to having the arrow pointing the wrong direction. If you have one of these Swedish Sluugers with a wrong way arrow, return it to the factory and they will bend the barrel for you.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Jan 9, 2016 20:07:48 GMT -5
The Ruger may be better but I think my Browning BuckMark is prettier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 21:22:13 GMT -5
Hey, Marty, sorry 'bout the "Arrow" mistake but if you recall I have mentioned that one of the reasons I don't have a gun is lack of eyesight. Looked like an arrow to me but it I get right up to the screen, yup it's not an arrow. It does look like a arrow Bruce, if you squint just a bit. Unlike most semi auto pistols that have a slide the Ruger has a bolt. Getting one apart is easy, getting it back together again takes practice and a lot of bad language. The design is superb though and while I clean mine regularly I've seen old Ruger's that function very well after lots of use and little if any cleaning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 21:24:22 GMT -5
The Ruger may be better but I think my Browning BuckMark is prettier. Another good .22 target pistol. The High Standard and Colt Woodsman are two more.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Jan 9, 2016 23:38:10 GMT -5
Hey, Marty, sorry 'bout the "Arrow" mistake but if you recall I have mentioned that one of the reasons I don't have a gun is lack of eyesight. Looked like an arrow to me but it I get right up to the screen, yup it's not an arrow. It does look like a arrow Bruce, if you squint just a bit. Unlike most semi auto pistols that have a slide the Ruger has a bolt. Getting one apart is easy, getting it back together again takes practice and a lot of bad language. The design is superb though and while I clean mine regularly I've seen old Ruger's that function very well after lots of use and little if any cleaning. One trick I use when reassembling my Mark II, is point the pistol straight up when slipping the bolt block/hammer spring assembly up into the receiver. This encourages the hammer pawl to seat into the hammer spring plunger instead of hanging up forward of that. Give it a try, makes reassembly slick!
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 10, 2016 0:05:04 GMT -5
It does look like a arrow Bruce, if you squint just a bit. Unlike most semi auto pistols that have a slide the Ruger has a bolt. Getting one apart is easy, getting it back together again takes practice and a lot of bad language. The design is superb though and while I clean mine regularly I've seen old Ruger's that function very well after lots of use and little if any cleaning. One trick I use when reassembling my Mark II, is point the pistol straight up when slipping the bolt block/hammer spring assembly up into the receiver. This encourages the hammer pawl to seat into the hammer spring plunger instead of hanging up forward of that. Give it a try, makes reassembly slick! Took me a while but I mastered the flip over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 13:03:56 GMT -5
It seems that the simple truth is that people are willing to take the risks involved with some things, accept the consequences and not demand (further)restrictions while with regard to other things, for mostly political reasons, are not willing to accept the same risks and consequences. As a Canadian, I see the negative results of gun availability as a consequence of the freedom to own them just as the negative results of car ownership are the consequence of the freedom that cars deliver. We could vastly reduce the latter by legislating that vehicles cannot exceed, say, 20 MPH. No one seriously wants to do that, however. Not even those who don't like or own one.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 10, 2016 13:20:14 GMT -5
It seems that the simple truth is that people are willing to take the risks involved with some things, accept the consequences and not demand (further)restrictions while with regard to other things, for mostly political reasons, are not willing to accept the same risks and consequences. As a Canadian, I see the negative results of gun availability as a consequence of the freedom to own them just as the negative results of car ownership are the consequence of the freedom that cars deliver. We could vastly reduce the latter by legislating that vehicles cannot exceed, say, 20 MPH. No one seriously wants to do that, however. Not even those who don't like or own one. Equating guns to cars is a bad analogy. As I pointed out on the previous page, cars are designed for transportation. The fact that they are dangerous is not intentional. And we’ve been passing laws since the 60s to make cars safer, with good results. Car fatalities are down significantly. Cars are not political and ideological symbols. You don’t hear too many people bitching about their rights to die in a car crash or their rights to kill others with their cars. We’re all more or less in agreement that we want to reduce car violence, and we’re making some headway. Like I said a page ago, guns are designed for killing. Or, as X put it: I like his honesty. No bullshit about his reverence for the constitution. No bullshit about “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” No bullshit about defending yourself against a tyrannical government. Just the truth: the 2nd Amendment is about people killing other people. I just wish we could get the NRA to be as forthright about their agenda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 13:39:03 GMT -5
It does look like a arrow Bruce, if you squint just a bit. Unlike most semi auto pistols that have a slide the Ruger has a bolt. Getting one apart is easy, getting it back together again takes practice and a lot of bad language. The design is superb though and while I clean mine regularly I've seen old Ruger's that function very well after lots of use and little if any cleaning. One trick I use when reassembling my Mark II, is point the pistol straight up when slipping the bolt block/hammer spring assembly up into the receiver. This encourages the hammer pawl to seat into the hammer spring plunger instead of hanging up forward of that. Give it a try, makes reassembly slick! Anyone that owns a Ruger Mark series learns that trick. With the Mark IIIs it also helps to have a empty clip in after installing the bolt and then pull the trigger while pointing up, pushing the retaining pin in, then the pin clamp goes easily into place. Since I clean my Ruger after every range trip I've had lots of practice putting it back together.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Jan 10, 2016 15:34:16 GMT -5
... Equating guns to cars is a bad analogy. As I pointed out on the previous page, cars are designed for transportation. The fact that they are dangerous is not intentional. And we’ve been passing laws since the 60s to make cars safer, with good results. Car fatalities are down significantly. Cars are not political and ideological symbols. You don’t hear too many people bitching about their rights to die in a car crash or their rights to kill others with their cars. We’re all more or less in agreement that we want to reduce car violence, and we’re making some headway. Like I said a page ago, guns are designed for killing. Or, as X put it: I like his honesty. No bullshit about his reverence for the constitution. No bullshit about “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” No bullshit about defending yourself against a tyrannical government. Just the truth: the 2nd Amendment is about people killing other people. I just wish we could get the NRA to be as forthright about their agenda. You've almost got right what I said. The 2nd Amendment is about people having the means to kill other people, but the reason the Founders included "arms" is that they (arms, firearms, guns) are the most portable and powerful way for one person doing so. If we had had lightsabers in the 18th century then those would be in the 2A. And, while we're taking about the Founders intent, notice that they stated "arms" and not specifically muskets, flintlocks or Derringers? That's because the Founders had the foresight to realize that technology evolves and to remain free people, the People are entitled to possess the same grade of arms as their Government. And, whether you think it's bullshit or not, guns DO NOT independently or sentiently kill people, people kill people. People will ALWAYS be killing other people for reasons of greed, malice, jealousy, to gain an advantage, to hide a secret or just out of deranged pleasure. Without guns, people would still find a way. As in the failed Prohibition of alcohol and the current War on Drugs. Organized crime surges, people still got drunk and get high, often on adulterated & dangerous concoctions, and law abiding people in the proximity of those activities are at increased risk of danger. I think the guns and cars analogy IS relevant: their quantities are similar, they are both involved in large numbers of accidents and deaths, and they both provide significant benefit when used properly. Oh, and you don't think there is ideological significance to cars? Ever heard any rock n roll from the last 65 years? No political significance? Looked at any energy/pollution legalisation of the last 100 years?
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 10, 2016 16:02:48 GMT -5
... Equating guns to cars is a bad analogy. As I pointed out on the previous page, cars are designed for transportation. The fact that they are dangerous is not intentional. And we’ve been passing laws since the 60s to make cars safer, with good results. Car fatalities are down significantly. Cars are not political and ideological symbols. You don’t hear too many people bitching about their rights to die in a car crash or their rights to kill others with their cars. We’re all more or less in agreement that we want to reduce car violence, and we’re making some headway. Like I said a page ago, guns are designed for killing. Or, as X put it: I like his honesty. No bullshit about his reverence for the constitution. No bullshit about “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” No bullshit about defending yourself against a tyrannical government. Just the truth: the 2nd Amendment is about people killing other people. I just wish we could get the NRA to be as forthright about their agenda. You've almost got right what I said. No. That’s not “almost” right. It’s a direct quote. It’s exactly what you said. So is this: I decided to honor your wishes, ignore the insults, and to let the matter drop. You can do the same. All you have to do is to shut your mouth.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,852
Member is Online
|
Post by Dub on Jan 10, 2016 16:09:24 GMT -5
…Let's go with the often purported "43x as likely" myth bandied about but they anti-Constitutionalists. Im thinking these people may just be anti-violentdeathists.
|
|