http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ICY_RIVER_RESCUE?SITE=UTPRO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I eventually figured out that you left off the sarcasm tag.

This goes with my message above:

: :

We need to fight the seat belt ban on all fronts.

No matter how many instances that are posted showing the dangers of seat belts, they are still life saving devices.

Goobs and their guns...

He could've killed one of the kids.

I could never be considered "trigger happy" but I could see myself making the same choice in the same circumstance. I'm definitely too small to have any hope of smashing a car window under my own strength.

Underwater, your physical strength is approximately 1/4 what it is on land. Good luck banging on tempered auto glass with enough force with a rock or whatever, to break it.

He did the right thing, and he did it well.

I've never seen it done but I suppose so. No?

...notably the Glock 17, do fire underwater, yes.

I wouldn't do it unless I ABSOLUTELY had to. Barrel pressures could get dangerous.

Unless there was no other option - even then, make damn sure the barrel is full of water first

He was rude to even be toting it.

Better to let the kids drown than to allow this man to carry.

...better to just let them drown rather than use an evil gun...right?

Guns are only for killing people; there is no other purpose for their existence. Anyone who carries a gun is rude and probably trigger-happy.

That was supposed to be "sarcasm". It's just that it fell flat because of, well, forgive me for being blunt: dumbness.

To have to reach so far down in the barrel to find some straw at the bottom to be sarcastic about ... just not worth the effort, is it really?

Of course, I quite understand that it would still take tremendously more effort to address some more serious commentary from the firearms control advocacy side, let alone be sarcastic about it, so perhaps you should be forgiven for taking the easy road.

Up for a challenge? You could either seriously address or wax sarcastic about something like the following.

In order to seriously address and effectively reduce the risk of harm associated with access to firearms, what is needed is:

(a) mandatory licensing of persons, so that anyone who wishes to acquire / possess firearms is first screened for risk factors, to the extent possible and reasonable
- this will reduce the risk of inappropriate candidates for firearms possession acquiring firearms

(b) mandatory registration of firearms, so that the identity of anyone who acquires / possesses a firearm is known and associated with that firearm, which can then be traced to that person if it is sold or otherwise transferred, or lost or stolen
- this will reduce the risk of straw purchases and of firearms being otherwise transferred by lawful owners to ineligible persons

(c) mandatory safe/secure storage of firearms
- this will reduce the risk of firearms being accessed by children or thieves, or used for improper purposes by owners

(d) public information and education campaigns to encourage compliance with the above requirements, e.g. about the risks involved in transferring firearms to ineligible persons and in failing to secure firearms when not in use

(I have added the fourth item as a separate proposal since I have always had to point out this need in responding to objections to the efficacy of the other measures proposed, and since it is in fact necessary in order to reach the lawful firearms owners who are the source of many of the firearms used to commit crimes and cause harm.)

I don't know whether there's much meat for sarcasm in those proposals, but I'm sure there are just all kinds of reasoned, ethical arguments that can be made against them!


Oh, you will forgive me for not addressing what appeared to be the point of your posting of this news report: that it is wise always to carry a firearm in case one needs to shoot out the window of a sinking car. (Surely the poor children inside the car would have been the players in this scenario who should really have been equipped with that necessary tool, of course! To have to depend on a willing and able passerby appearing, that just isn't fair.)

It's just that I really couldn't think of anything to say about that one ...

Glad to hear it.

(a) mandatory licensing of persons, so that anyone who wishes to acquire / possess firearms is first screened for risk factors, to the extent possible and reasonable
- this will reduce the risk of inappropriate candidates for firearms possession acquiring firearms
Unconstitutional. Constitututional amendment unlikely.

(b) mandatory registration of firearms, so that the identity of anyone who acquires / possesses a firearm is known and associated with that firearm, which can then be traced to that person if it is sold or otherwise transferred, or lost or stolen
- this will reduce the risk of straw purchases and of firearms being otherwise transferred by lawful owners to ineligible persons
Currently illegal at the federal level, but possible. However, after a couple abortive attempts at doing this that turned into general confiscations, Americans are not very trusting of/highly averse to this option.

(c) mandatory safe/secure storage of firearms
- this will reduce the risk of firearms being accessed by children or thieves, or used for improper purposes by owners
Possible.

(d) public information and education campaigns to encourage compliance with the above requirements, e.g. about the risks involved in transferring firearms to ineligible persons and in failing to secure firearms when not in use
Useful, but if full registration is in play, not much to it.

We would all move to Canada!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

hammers is legal in all 50. Tool belts save lives.

Let me know how that works out for you.

I've seen them recommended to be kept in the car.


Spring loaded center puch:

However, they have the same problems underwater as brute strength.

In this case, the man did not have one of those with him, and had to rely on the tools he DID have. He made a wise choice.

... when I need it.

FYI, press it against any tempered glass and it will shatter in a million pieces. No brute strength needed. It's made for marking/chipping ceramic tile, steele etc. for drilling. Spring loaded.

there will be resistance against the springs.

There would be zero or undetectable resistance. You could break the glass with a flick of the wrist.

the resistance would not prevent it from working. It would probably fire ok, as long as the spring chamber didn't fill with water.

I don't even know if the head depresses a quarter inch. A couple pounds of pressure at most and the thing fires.

It takes suprisingly little to break tempered glass with a hard surface.

flipped over and the window was not under water.

If he had to break the front window, laminated, the window would not have shattered. It would have had a few holes in it.

If you are going to use this case as reason to carry, you might also use the many cases of accidental discharges that have caused injury or death. Yes a handgun is just a tool and any tool that might have worked would have worked too. It's a poor example. A hammer or a punch would have been less dangerous to those in the car if they were available, therefore it would be better to promote carrying a tool belt to save a life in an emergency. Using this as an example of why carrying a handgun might save a life is just as valid as using an accidental death and injury from a handgun for not carrying a handgun. You all would be better off using self defense as reason.

and you get about 882,000 items.

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:27 AM - Edit history (1)

And Casey Anthony was the biggest news story of 2011, right? I mean according to google...


edit:

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
For accidental non-fatal, the rate and number is the lowest in 10 years- 4.59 per 100,000 (compare to 6.21 in 2001).

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
For accidental fatal, the rate and number is also the lowest recorded- 0.19 per 100,000 (compare to 0.30 in 1999).

compare to 4 saved by shooting out windows.

Ready to admit that the google results for any particular phrase have jack shit to do with their actual incidence? (which is at a ten year low..)

to news items and google results. By looking at the results there are a lot of accidental firing of handguns that cause injury and death. I'd dare say many more than handguns used to break windows to save lives. While I am happy for the lives that were saved by this trained LEO and body guard's quick thinking, I don't think this is any more of a reason for everyone to carry a firearm than all of the accidental injuries and deaths should discourage others that are eligible to carry to get some training and get a CCW.

...there is a correlation, but there is not. Fact is, accidental deaths are very low - less than 1000 per year in fact.

low as incident where a window is shoot out with a handgun to save a life.

I think we are talking about different things. The correlation between googled events and their frequency. Not the correlation between the number of guns and the number of gun accidental deaths.

Next year there will be more google results for 'accidental shooting' than there are this year- regardless of whether or not the incidence of such items goes up or down. Google results are cumulative, and simple discussion of a topic- such as your mentions above, will increase them.

There is no correlation between google search results for a topic and the actual incidence.

Oh.. 882,003, since I mentioned 'accidental shooting'.

"donut marries movie star" and there were no results.

and still no results after it was googled one time.

Lets try not to be completely obtuse, shall we?

Do I need to explain how google spiders the web, indexes it, and caches large portions of it, too?

Fucking duh.*

*http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www/://duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=437620&mesg_id=438054

(From a search of google for 'fucking duh' + DU)

for my question with a lack of incidents in that category. Unless you can find an instance of a donut marrying a movie star, I say that shows a strong correlation between a lack of donuts marrying a movie star and google results.

Talk to me tomorrow or the next day, when google has picked up your post (and your previous mentions of 'accidental shooting'.)

Feel free to click on the link I pasted above- it's the same topic. 'Summer of the Shark' being the consummate example of news coverage (or google results) not actually correlating to frequency.

At this point, I have to assume your being intentionally dense and avoiding the point on purpose. It isn't working.

the news would be to use the "news" function at the top and get only news sources. Then read down and see what percentage of results are relevant to the question. That would reduce the results to more like one thousand.
That would get rid of comments about the subject.

That was news coverage of an increased frequency that did not correlate to an increase in shark attacks.

eta: here, read this.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_the_Shark

Flipped over and the window was NOT under water? I'm really trying to figure out how a car which is (according to the article) completely submerged and upside down does not have the windows under water.

Please, help me out here. Unless the car was designed by Escher, I really cannot see a way your statement can be true.

sitting in the river, right side up in about 2 or 3 feet of water.

The story itself indicates it was upside down and submerged.

others standing in the river and tipping the car right-side up. Would be pretty hard to do in deep water. From the photo in the article, the river did not look all that deep.

Sorry, I hate to ruin a good story.

The man made a good judgement call in this case and saved the lives of innocents. That you dislike the tool he used is irrelevant to the situation.

See post #35. Very sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I'm more interested in valid arguments than news being used as propaganda by ideologues.

You can't hurt my feelings. I don't care enough about your existence to be affected one way or the other.

about another human beings existence, you might not be a good candidate to carry a concealed weapon.

You might have understood the comment.

I said I don't care ENOUGH about YOUR existence to have my feelings affected.

Huge difference between what you implied I said and what I actually did say.

thank you for caring about my existence.

carry of firearms is legal in most states....You're right - tools DO save lives.