I wonder how many people are injured testing chainsaw-proof pants.
This are a real product for forestry workers. A chainsaw will easily cut right through them, by design. As opposed to jeans, which will wrap around the chainsaw blade and yank it deeper into a leg.
rstrong wrote:I wonder how many people are injured testing chainsaw-proof pants.
This are a real product for forestry workers. A chainsaw will easily cut right through them, by design. As opposed to jeans, which will wrap around the chainsaw blade and yank it deeper into a leg.
Not that I know - I've always just worn jeans and have never cut myself - but this disagrees with you: Chainsaw safety clothing: Trousers
A co-worker put some chainsaw-proof pants to the test. Being brighter than most, he put them over a saw-horse to test them.
The blade went right through, with the lightest tap, and at low speed.
We called the supplier, and that was the explanation we were given.
Vrede wrote:Roland Deschain, in this forum you are welcome to dispute anything you choose with any language you choose, and with honesty and competence or lies and stupidity, but DO NOT change my post or anyone else's. That is a childish fight for you to pick and it's one that you will lose every time (see italics above).
It's a HuffPo headline. Write them a stern note, don't whine at me or claim you fixed anything I did.
True....it is a huff po headline. An intentionally deceptive and sensationalistic one. Doesn't change the fact that you were all to willing to copy it right up.
Whatever the crazy, woman-hating, sexually inadequate gunhugger did, it was also a mass shooting so the headline is correct.
It's now thought that the first three victims were killed with a machete and hammer, not your "stabbed".
Just using the term that has been bandied about in ALL the major media outlets. Write them a stern note, don't whine at me for their choice of words. It apparently doesn't bother you when the words suit your fancy
Four others, including Elliot Rodger, were killed by gunfire so not "just as many" died by other means as were shot.
You are correct....more were KILLED by means other than being shot than those who were. Three by "stabbing/cutting/bludgeoning, four by vehicle (that makes seven) and only four killed by gunfire. Thanks for verifying my statement.
Of the 20 total injured and killed, 3 were by machete and hammer, 4 were by his vehicle and one, according to the source I'm using, is "undetermined". That means 12 or 13 were shot. On this planet, including in every 1st grade classroom, 7 or 8 is not "just as many" as 12 or 13.
Will you run away from your flubs as you always have in the past or have you grown a pair since you were last here?
Nah, I'll grow tired of your usual twist and spin (that has already started, see above) and just leave letting you think you accomplished something other than proving yourself an idiot as always.
Damn good piece. Reasoned and clearly articulated. The dead opposite of the emotional, buzzword-laden screeching we hear from the frightened, paranoid ammosexuals these days.
I went on my last hunting trip in Jan '74, where we were shot at by some redneck deer hunter with a rifle more powerful than his brain, blasting away at some vague noise we made, tramping thru the swamp with unloaded guns over our shoulders. I still keep three rifles and a shotgun in my closet, unused. Cleaned every now and again, but unused. I will not go in the woods with what passes for hunters these days.
People are crazy and times are strange. I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range.
I used to care, but, things have changed.
I was the NRA
I used to hunt and I enjoyed it. I enjoyed the hell out of it. But I wouldn’t consider attempting it now, in an age where gun-owners lump AR-15′s in with sporting guns. Where a lousy shooter can disguise his inability to shoot with an extended clip that allows him to keep shooting until he finally hits something, anything.
Apparently we handle that a bit differently in Canada. There was a story in the local papers just this morning:
Both men had guns that fired four shells instead of the maximum three under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA).
Bittinger's gun had been modified to allow it, Judge Tim Preston was told.
The reason for the cap on rounds is to prevent hunters from shooting willy-nilly into the sky.
"It forces the hunters to aim... to focus and it doesn't allow them to have that broad Nintendo approach to hunting birds, which results in unnecessary suffering,"
Absolutely; this is the very reason the Angry Birds was invented. Funny how things work....as for the shooter / slasher, I figure he wouldn't feel so invincible without his two or three guns and reportedly 400 rounds prior to beginning his drive. The first killings were just a sort of prelude to the main event.
neoplacebo wrote:Absolutely; this is the very reason the Angry Birds was invented. Funny how things work....as for the shooter / slasher, I figure he wouldn't feel so invincible without his two or three guns and reportedly 400 rounds prior to beginning his drive. The first killings were just a sort of prelude to the main event.
I'd agree. The gun in the hand adds a mighty sense of power for a lot of weak people. But sure, if you want to kill someone bad enough, you might use a baseball bat, a machete, rat poison, or just choke them. But none of those is as easy, as quick, and as impersonal as shooting. So the question the NRA doesn't want you to ask isn't "could you kill someone without a gun," but is "would you be as likely to?"
neoplacebo wrote:Absolutely; this is the very reason the Angry Birds was invented. Funny how things work....as for the shooter / slasher, I figure he wouldn't feel so invincible without his two or three guns and reportedly 400 rounds prior to beginning his drive. The first killings were just a sort of prelude to the main event.
In the case of this shooter, I think Angry Birds is a metaphor for how many in his situation - unable to get a date - handle the problem. Go to a bar, and throw yourself at a pig.
Vrede wrote:You would think that someone driving a BMW and able to afford multiple guns would have shelled out for a hooker rather than remain a virgin.
Yeah, and I guarantee that if BMW made guns, he would have had one of them. I find it curious also that this kid evidently did not realize that the US Navy exists; to my knowledge, no current, former, or ex sailor is a virgin. He could have had an adventure instead of a headline.
"As part of its petition to win the liquor license, the Range Cafe at Wilshire Gun Range promised that once a customer buys any alcoholic beverage, the sales register will bar him or her from the gun range itself."
I think among other things, "Roland" was frustrated by having to deal with someone who owned firearms, was trained in the use of firearms, and still hated the NRA and supported restrictive legislation. He probably ought to get used to it - there are actually a lot of us out there who just get shouted down by idiots like the pic in the article above.
The brave student in Seattle pretty much disproved the nuts contention that "it doesn't matter how many rounds the magazine holds...since shooters can change them so quickly." Apparently it does matter. If this guy had had an AR-15 with a 35-round magazine, for example, it's my guess there wouldn't have been anybody tackling him.
