Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

They're explosive enough at atmospheric.

I thought that the mouth had to be closed to build up pressure.

Let me get this right, gangstas get their "Molls"(?) to carry for them.

Now picture the scenario, Gangsta A sees rival Gangsta B on the other side of the street in his hood and feels the need to shoot him on general principals.
Gangsta B experiences a similar impulse which is what brought him into this rival hood in the first place unless it was because his moll wnated to shoe shop here and where his piece goes he has to go.

So on opposite sides of the road we have two unarmed antagonistic gangstas each impatiently trying to get his chick to find his gun in her handbag.... this doesn't say a lot for gangsta intelligence.

We all know this isn't going to be a quick draw OK coral sort of shoot out, its going to be more like waiting in the supermarket queue for the woman in front to find her purse in the voluminous bag she carries and if lipstick appears first, then there will be an even longer delay.

In a long drawn out affair tensions will rise and sooner or later one or other gansta is going to say the wrong thing in the wrong tone of voice and get into an argument with his b***h/moll or whatever gangsta SOs are called.

The options are:

• he gets into an argument with his b***c/Moll which does nothing to speed up the bag search and the other gangsta shoots him before he can get his piece
• he gets into an argument with his ditto and she shoots him with his own piece
• he finally gets his piece and wastes the first shot on his woman when he should have shot at the other gangsta first and the other gangsta shoots him.

Somehow, the way for the gangsta to survive is either to carry his own piece or take anger management classes and this last doesn't seem to me to be a characteristic of gangstas.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

If you ever lived around DC, it's all the bystanders that get shot. Never go to the National Zoo on Mother's Day.

where his piece goes he has to go.
...and by "piece," surely you mean the gun.
 

The guns don't even have to be illegal.  My nephew likes both guns and women of doubtful stability.  In the last couple of his "relationships" the sweetie du jour took off and placed a phone call to every law enforcement agency in the phone book.  

In one notorious incident, the reaction of law enforcement was sufficient to bring in the local television news crew who filmed the police hauling out a large number of legal weapons while breathlessly reporting on the "arsenal" which consisted of a number of antique and classic shotguns and rifles, hardly the stuff a criminal would be hoarding.

They didn't report a week later when an embarrassed sheriff's department had to RETURN all the weapons because he'd don't nothing illegal.

A second trailer park princess did a similar stunt a few years later.  This time it didn't make the news, and the local sheriff already knew his name and legal status, but you have to give the little darling points for trying.

old field guy

guns of doubtful stability are always a risky proposition.
 

JMW, very good!

(Ignoring the principals/principles thing)

- Steve

Expousing on MintJuleps comment on needing the mouth to be closed to build up pressure - not a worry, then.  Reminds me of an old 'Bringing Up Father' cartoon. The old guy is walking around with his friend who matter of factly states that he hasn't talked to his wife in more than 10 years.  Father said, basically, "stay patient, your turn will come!"

   Hang on.  This is London England!

   Gun control.  If the bad guys are packing, they get arrested for packing, not for shooting.  If the authorities can get the girlfriends to help out by not packing, or by shooting their boyfriends, the streets become safer.  Meanwhile, if the gangsta has an impulse to shoot someone, he has to track down his "ho", and presumably, he has to be nice to her.   

               JHG

The more I think about it the more I realise the police haven't thought this through.

If the police want to reduce gun crime then they should decriminalise  guns being carried by the "Ho", or make it a misdemeanour, if the Ho can show there was no intent to use the gun herself.

This absolutely ensures the gangstas will not be carrying.

Next, send junk mail to the Ho's addresses containing lots of discount vouchers for shoe shops or invitations to special sales in out of town shopping malls e.g. Whitewater (my niece will travel there from Oxford).

It will be a brave Gangsata that will get between his "Ho" and a shoe shop sale.

OK, final touch, vouchers only valid if the Ho can produce the gun at the checkout.... we don't want them leaving the gun at home while they shop.

 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Are many of those guns still modified starters pistols with the barrel/chamber drilled out and BB ammo?

Problem is a gun is about as dangerous as a crash helmet or a HIV needle.  If used by someone who knows how to use it, it can be pretty dangerous, otherwise it is quite harmless.

In the Far East, they use crash helmets as weapons: one whack on your head and you're out, possibly with permanent brain damage.

You also get threatened with hyperdermics.  No idea what is in them but you won't take the risk.  More dangerous than a pistol - you can recover from a gunshot wound but I've never heard of anyone recovering from a dirty needle.

Oh, so we are back in this groove again?

I have owned several crash helmets in my time.  None has accidentally gone off when I've been too pissed to handle it properly.

- Steve

"If used by someone who knows how to use it, it can be pretty dangerous, otherwise it is quite harmless."

Really, seriously, that's what you think about guns?  

A gun can be used to intentionally cause harm by someone who vaguely knows what they are doing, it can also cause plenty of harm in that hands of someone who has no idea what they're doing.

Also, despite what the A team may have you believe, there are plenty of gunshot wounds that aren't recoverable, just ask any of the folks that died in Hungerford, Dunblane, Columbine...

I'm a moderate believer in the old 'guns don't kill, people kill' line of thought but that xwb is ridiculous.

Now you are just putting ideas into people's heads.  I can see the headlines now... "Gang war escalates as 5 bystanders wounded in drive by crash helmet tossing"

a gun is as dangerous as a crash helmet...  tell you what, I'll give my 3 year old a crash helmet to play with every day for a week, and you give yours a loaded gun on the same schedule.  report back next weds and we can compare results...  

 

xwb,

   You are talking about squirt pistols, right?

   At least I now understand why helmet users are required to strap them on.  

               JHG

Guns aren't any more dangerous than any other blunt instrument. It's the bullets you have to watch out for.

What if it has a bayonet huh?

Or you might get your finger caught in the action or something.

Ever see a movie where the hero knocks the back of the gun over the bad guys head so at not to rouse the other bad guys....I don't think he's doing it to save those dangerous bullets.

drawn to design, designed to draw

   I am just now reading The Devil's Tickets.  This is all about people playing bridge in the twenties and thirties, and about Jack and Myrtle Bennett.  Jack opened one spade.  Myrtle jumped to four spades.  The opposition doubled, and Jack went down two.  When Myrtle called him a "bum" bridge player, he slapped her.  They argued a bit and he decided to leave, ordering her to retrieve his .32 Colt.  She did so, and then she shot him and killed him.

   I have not got to the trial part, so I do not know yet how she got acquitted.  

   It does illustrate the importance of politely asking your SO to retreive your piece.   

               JHG

No, they're not doing it to save bullets, they're doing it because they forgot to wear their crash helmets. If they would have read ahead in the script, they would have known better.

It's an inaminate object, just like a woman compressor.  It is the one who is in control of the object that determines its usage.  I'm so tired of the PC wanks who faint every time the word gun is mentioned.

By the way, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.  A great, and true, bumper sticker seen at the local gunshow.

re: PC wanks - I don't recall having seen any such people in here...

 a few posts back someone suggested that in the hands of the ignorant, projectile weapons are roughly as dangerous as common pieces of safety equipment.  That's obviously false, but makes a good lead-in to the following-

I'm so tired of paranoid idealogues who are so attached to their precious sense of persecution that they can't tell the difference between bullshit and beef even as it passes between their own lips.
 

ornerynorsk, you honestly think that in the hands of someone that doesn't know how to use it a gun is "quite harmless"?

Funny, I always thought most responsible gun owners thought the opposite.

Please quit saying 'wank', you'll upset the Brits and possibly other colonials.

I've seen otherwise intelligent people do dangerous things with ammonia and bleach. I still don't think cleaning products require further regulation.

"Stupid" is not regulated, and is dangerous with any kind of weapon.

 

Quote (ornerynorsk):

...
By the way, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.  A great, and true, bumper sticker seen at the local gunshow.

   Would you have been in favour of Ted Kennedy handling firearms while he was in whatever state^* he was in at the time of his accident?

^* tired and emotional, Massachusetts, etc.
 

               JHG

If the firearm worked under water, that could be a bad thing. No one has mentioned spear guns.

I think this says a lot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

Does anyone have a source for numbers on Crash Helmet related death rates?

Does anyone know how many fatalities are reported through the Darwin Awards? How many fatalities have occurred immediately after the victim yells "Lookit!"?

 

mechgunner, nice one.  Shame some of the data is a bit old.  I'd guess NI's rate is nowhere near that anymore.  Also says something that a country with active terrorist movement had lower rate than the US.

Hmmm...woman compressor.  I thought this thread was about girdles, but rather it is about guns and helmets.  No comment then.

Kenat, I'll stand by my original coment.  Objects in and of themselves pose little, if any threat without the involvement of a person.  It is government fear-mongering that is trying to turn the tide against these "dangerous" and "evil" objects.  What a sad and pathetic state when we become such sheep, or wanks, as I like to call them.

Simply put, cars kill more people each year than do guns.  And by the way, why hasn't cancer and heart disease been outlawed yet?  I stubbed my toe on a stairs one day, perhaps we should go exclusively to ramps and propel ADA mis-guidelines into a more all-encompassing monster than it is.  Can't be too safe now, can we?

Sorry folks, you can't argue me on this point.  Liberty isn't given by measure or degree.  You either have it, or you don't.  Government is simply legislating "cures" upon all of us, regardless of our worthy character.   

Quote (xwb 28 Oct 09 14:25):

If used by someone who knows how to use it, it can be pretty dangerous, otherwise it is quite harmless.

Ornerynorsk this is the point that the second half of this thread is mostly questioning.  You appeared to be supporting this statement.

I don't think ivy, me or anyone else here was proposing gun control or any infringement of the more liberal interpretation of the 2nd ammendment.

We were questioning if a gun was 'quite harmless' when used by someone who doesn't know how to use it.

I'd have thought this was a case where not knowing how to use it could make it pretty dangerous.  Looking down the barrel of a loaded gun after turning the safety off and pulling the trigger to see what happens for instance.

As to not being able to argue you on a point, what a ridiculous statement.  One can choose to argue a point even if taking a completely illogical stance.  Trust me, I've had plenty of experience of it, just ask any married man.

you can't argue _with_ someone who is immune to logic.  you can only argue "at" them in hopes that the sane ones around them will see the light.

Quote:

Liberty isn't given by measure or degree.  You either have it, or you don't.

oh totally, fascism and anarchy are the only existing options. You can't possibly have some rule of law AND some liberty. nope.  since the US has had laws for its entire existence, I suppose we've never had liberty - so what are you whining about now?
 

are you the sofa king?

Ornerynorsk,
I have to disagree with whatever your point is so I am not associated with the silliness of your argument.
"Why hasn't cancer and heart disease been outlawed yet?" – Two points;
1.    That is a ridiculous statement and a poor metaphor for many reasons that I think we can all identify so I don't have to go into here.
2.    This statement refutes your point (which I presume is advocating no gun control) because millions if not billions of dollars have been poured into research to eliminate and cure these diseases.  If it was possible to make a law against them and make them go away (or even reduce them) it would have been done decades ago.
"I stubbed my toe on the stairs, perhaps we should go exclusively to ramps" – Also a ridiculous metaphor.  If the majority of stubbed toes ended in death instead of a boo-boo, I think that there would be stair control.  And at the minimum, there would be huge liability for people who left sets of stairs lying around that people could stub their toes and die on.
"Liberty isn't given by measure or degree" – Yes it is!  That is the definition of any law – a reasonable restriction of liberty agreed upon and accepted by society for the benefit of all society – like the restriction of your liberty to kill someone.  Look at raising children; it is just a series of increasing their liberties by degrees as they get older and more mature.
As far as car accidents (and confining the discussion to North America), there is car control.  You have to be 16 to drive, you have to be licensed, you have to do a written and practical test to obtain that licence, you have to be able to produce that licence while operating the car and the car has to be registered.  There are also regulations on where you can take a car.
Nothing is black and white and you have to draw the line somewhere.  The government should prohibit the public from owning nuclear weapons (which are also one of those objects that pose little if any threat without the involvement of a person), but not a rifle.  I do, however, think that guns are dangerous enough to warrant the requirement of a licence to ensure that people respect their power, understand how to safely use them and the dangers of miss-use.  After all we don't want someone owning a gun who thinks it is no more dangerous than a crash helmet.  
 

Oops - forget woman compressor, I think a need a post compressor.  That was a long one.

a post will never look as good in a corset or girdle, though.

I don't know, have you seen the film Norbit.

Thank-you gents.  The ridiculousness of it is my point exactly.  My case would rest, except I do tend to rant.

By definition, liberty does not infringe upon the liberty of others.  In a perfect world, guns and nuclear devices would be unnecessary, but we all know that there are too many people who have no respect of themselves or others.

My point - Do not take away my liberty because of some other misguided troglodite, let society punish the one deserving, not the citizenry as a whole.

And now I shall relax and have a nice frosty cool one, a Guinness or a Shock Top, haven't decided which yet.  I encourage you all to do the same and not become so rabid at poor Ornery for expressing his desire for a little liberty!

Surely, Liberty is the right to disagree with views you find wrong, my Liberty, your Liberty, means "Sorry folks, you can't argue me on this point." is wrong

Just a point of view
 

Since this degenerated into a guns Vs crash helmets debate I though this nugget might amuse:

Number of physicians in the U.S. :    700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year :    120,000  
Accidental deaths per physician :      0.171

Number of gun owners in the U.S. : 80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) :    1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner :  0.0000188

Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Source: http://www.c4cg.org/guns.htm

Of course, we will note the qualifier "accidental".
When it comes to deliberate deaths and if Dr Shipman in the UK is in any way representative of US medical care then the data might be equally interesting.

A further thought, the US medical system is capable of killing people simply by refusing, or making difficult/expensive, access to treatment.. as is the case anywhere... I wonder what numbers that would factor in?

 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

Thanks JMW, good stats.  Nobody, including myself, refutes the dangers of guns, or scalpels for that matter!

Now, back to the woman compressor forum that has been sorely neglected.  Does the explosive potential of said woman increase with the degree of compression until the oxygen level has been sufficiently depleted by, er, let's say for example, talking?

Quote (jmw):

...

A further thought, the US medical system is capable of killing people simply by refusing, or making difficult/expensive, access to treatment.. as is the case anywhere... I wonder what numbers that would factor in?

Quote (???):

I refuse to shoot that rampage killer.  Your characterisation of him as a fanatical, Islamic towel head is racist and disgusting, you have insufficient respect for human life, and I am on my lunch break.  Also, I forgot to bring ammo.  Do you have some I can borrow?

   The police at Columbine took their time entering the building, as per the then current protocols.  The police at Dawson College (Montreal) and at Fort Hood followed current protocols, which is to go in and put the shooter out of action as quickly as possible.  

               JHG

Q
Number of physicians in the U.S. :    700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year :    120,000  
Accidental deaths per physician :      0.171

Number of gun owners in the U.S. : 80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) :    1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner :  0.0000188

Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.   Q




The rest of that joke I heard something like:
Statistics for lawyers are not given, for fear it would cause shock and the victimn to seek medical attention.....


Gun deaths indicates a crime problem, not a gun problem.....I think there are pretty big issues in our culture underneath those statistics. and not encouraging or easily solved issues either.

k


 

I heard recently that tea cosys were a threat.

- Steve