SCOTUS issues order to drop mag bans, assault weapons bans, and carry bans!
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (171)
sorted by:
They still give you life jackets? How likely is that to save your life from an aircraft? I'd rather have a parachute than a lifejacket. I wear a seatbelt as 1. car accidents are common and 2. the law requires me to. I don't wear a life jacket on a boat unless something warrants me to wear one. Do you wear a one on a cruise? No. Because the chances of something happening that endangers your life is rare. I don't have a fire extinguisher at home. I'm not saying "Nothing bad has happened to me yet. And never will." You're assuming that's what I'm saying without actually reading my fucking point. People are responsible for their own safety. I don't want to be stuck paranoid about extremely rare circumstances on the basis that it might happen. If it does, so be it. I live in a country where health and safety is shoved down people's throats, and yet they need to put a sticker to warn people of the dangers of folk drinking battery fluid. I know a health and safety guy who changed all the plugs in his house to a plastic case rather than a rubber case because of a plug accident he had observed. Was still a pretty rare occurrence. I seen injuries of people slipping in a bathroom and impaling their head on their door handle. I'm not unscrewing my door handles because of it. There's signs here to tell about a hole in the ground when people could just look where their walking. So this idea that you need to be safe against all possibilities is making more idiots and spreading paranoia
Life jackets don't save your life from an aircraft; they save your life from drowning. Since there is no practical way to get off an airplane in flight---the process would probably kill you if it were possible---your allusion to parachutes is simply foolish.
"Rare" circumstances happen more often than the victims would like, and it is only prudence to preclude them. Going on about freak accidents that no one is worried about is not even an argument. Deciding not to be safe is inconsistent with saying that people are responsible for their own safety. What does "responsibility" mean if it means nothing? Just say "I'm choosing to be unsafe...just because."
I have poor vision, rated at 10/400 (what others can make out at 400 feet, I can make out at 10 feet). Myopic. I have had to wear glasses since before I went to school, to this day. Sight is one of the most precious gifts given me by God. (My hearing is next, but it is compromised by tinnitus since I was a young man.) My normal spectacles qualify as safety glasses, so it is no big deal for me. But I use hearing protection all the time. I have been aware of close shaves in industry that make me realize that the utterly trivial inconvenience of safety glasses is far outweighed by the avoidance of a sight injury or blindness. I also know of an extremely competent and careful laboratory technician who was killed by a "rare" circumstance in the lab (shorting out a massive capacitor). Powerful forces have no respect for bravado, and that is all you are displaying. You can lose an eye and then walk around wearing a button saying "I decided for myself to risk losing an eye; it was my choice" and see if that brings you any satisfaction when you try to sleep at night.
Hold up. First off, life jackets are provided to you in an aircraft. But it's going to save you from drowning, but a parachute won't save you from falling? Nah... The only reason is cost and if the pilot is able to get low enough to allow a crash in the water. I believe I said "extremely rare" and you should specify who you quote when you are making allegations. Glasses count as safety specs? Are you fucking kidding me? The only reason firearms instructor allow glasses is for getting a better shot. Because god forbid the slide coming back, you now have glass shards tearing the inside of your eye. But, it's extremely unlikely and doesn't warrant safety specs unless you like to throw your firearm everywhere and neglect the fuck out of it. You walk into an industrial site with safety specs required and say "My normal spectacles qualify as safety glasses". You'd have the piss ripped out of you for years and told to get the appropriate PPE or fuck off! You can lose an eye any day of your life and that doesn't warrant the need for safety specs. Only when the circumstances seem reactively possible. I'm not going to be wearing sunglasses every time it's sunny in case I get damage. I'm not going to put eyedrops everyday in case I might of had it contaminated. I'm certainly not going to wear some for shooting unless a range asks me to do so. It's like saying I should have a vaccine on the off chance that covid could kill me as other people have died from it. It doesn't make sense. Let's look at the statistics. 492 people unintentionally die by gun in an average year in the US. Over 70% die by accidental discharge from children. And looking by some of the stupid shit I have seen from adults in America, I think it's safe to assume that the rest would be 30%. Leaving a total of nobody dying a in the last year from a slide going through their head because 1. Slides are designed to be disassembled by moving them forward. 2. Slides will not gain enough power to lodge itself in someone's head (it would hurt). A slide/bolt's only job is to expend the casing and to load a new round in the chamber. You could squeeze the slide and it would do nothing 3. There is no evidence that you have provided to suggest an injury like the one you have described has happened to anyone.
Look. You don't understand aircraft. You have a greater chance of death by attempting to use a parachute than to survive a crash. In the first place, there is no provision made to open the exterior doors while in flight. In the second place, there is no way to evacuate the passengers rapidly (it is hard enough when the airplane comes to ground). In the third place, there is no protection against being torn apart by the airflow when expelled from the airplane. In the fourth place, there is no protection against collision with the aerodynamic surface. In the fifth place, if this occurs at high altitude, there is no protection against the lack of oxygen and the cold. In the sixth place, surviving all of that, there is an inherent danger of injurious landing, particularly if you have no training. I am an aeronautical engineer and have worked for 40 years at a major airliner manufacturer. You are engaging in an ignorant fantasy.
In a major problem, there is no difficulty in the pilot getting "low enough." That, in fact, IS the problem. And you don't really want to "crash" at all; it takes a lot of skill and luck to come to rest intact.
My glasses qualify as safety glasses because the lenses are case hardened. But in shooting ranges, they require industrial safety glasses to be worn over them, which I do. This was also the requirement at work. Plenty of opportunity for the unplanned serious event (rare, but not impossible).
I will disregard the nonsense about throwing firearms around. When you can't make a good point, you resort to absurd points. And your absurd points have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with gambling. If you think life is a gamble, it can be, but gambling involves the house taking its cut---from you. Safety involves keeping the house out of the picture.
Aeronautical engineer? Explains the big fuss over eye protection. Pilots bring the aircraft to a low altitude and slowly depressurise the cabin to allow the doors to open in an emergency. Which is what they do over the sea and is why people are given life jackets. They would give parachutes, but it's not cost efficient. You're engaging in an arrogant stick up your arse mentality. And fucking hell, now you're glasses came from super ballistic glasses to needing another pair of safety glasses to be worn over them. The points I raised you refused to address because you have magical glasses and don't need safety glasses, oh wait.. they don't work. And not wearing what many people don't wear when shooting is now me gambling with my life? I just gave you several examples that you didn't even address. How many accidents can you list of the slide retracting off the frame and into the face? The only thing it will protect from is debris and ricochets. Which is more common than a freak malfunction. Most malfunctions are to do with the ammunition, which I would of agreed with you. But you resorted to petty insults and acted like a child so I thought I'd entertain this by making my hypothetical points and arguments of personal safety. They aren't needed. Are they safer? Yes. But they are not required and will likely not save your life unless you're being irresponsible to begin with