Chicago: 12 hours, 1 neighborhood, 7 murders

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-02-2017, 05:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: How could you have thought the anecdote was grave at all when he said...



As to the danger of guns...everyone I know who owns one knows you never point it at anything unless you intend to fire it.  Been around many people practicing and cleaning their guns and it's rule number one.

Still, accidents happen.  You can never let your guard down when you have a weapon in your hand.  Even if you are trained and a professional.

And none of that means they should be taken away.

Out of context statements, something you complain about but frequently engage in.  Yes, the fact that basic safety had broken down bothered me.  It should.  As I said, which you failed to quote (I wonder why?) familiarity breeds complacency even in the most heavily trained people.  If range safety wasn't so paramount to me then such an incident would not have bothered me to the degree it did.  In such situations 100% is the only acceptable standard.  A person with that mindset will get 99% and still be monstrously displeased.  

Now please return to mischaracterization and blatant misrepresentation.  It's about all you're good for.

[GMDino]

Semantics.  You said it gave you chills.  XXLT originally asked why people thinks guns are dangerous when even a trained professional "who never made that mistake again" could be chilled by something.  You took offense (surprise) and downplayed what you said originally.

I'm merely pointing out that XXLT did nothing more than take what you wrote and ask a question and for that he gets called "smarmy".

(04-02-2017, 05:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: Still, accidents happen.  You can never let your guard down when you have a weapon in your hand.  Even if you are trained and a professional.

And none of that means they should be taken away.

(04-02-2017, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Out of context statements, something you complain about but frequently engage in.  Yes, the fact that basic safety had broken down bothered me.  It should.  As I said, which you failed to quote (I wonder why?) familiarity breeds complacency even in the most heavily trained people.  If range safety wasn't so paramount to me then such an incident would not have bothered me to the degree it did.  In such situations 100% is the only acceptable standard.  A person with that mindset will get 99% and still be monstrously displeased.  

Now please return to mischaracterization and blatant misrepresentation.  It's about all you're good for.

To the bolded:  So we agree.  Glad we could find common ground and end the discussion on a high note.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-02-2017, 09:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: Semantics.  You said it gave you chills.  XXLT originally asked why people thinks guns are dangerous when even a trained professional "who never made that mistake again" could be chilled by something.  You took offense (surprise) and downplayed what you said originally.

Nope.  Keep spinning, you're not winning.

Quote:I'm merely pointing out that XXLT did nothing more than take what you wrote and ask a question and for that he gets called "smarmy".

Please, miss me with the bullshit.  Your fake offense is as genuine as your assertion that he asked an innocent question.  You'd be more entertaining if you were even marginally good at this.

Quote:To the bolded:  So we agree.  Glad we could find common ground and end the discussion on a high note.  

Glad you were able to take a quote in context for a change.  You've learned at your master feet well, I'm sure Fred is proud.