http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/hobbit-reaction-video-gets-its-own-reaction-video-from-hobbi ...

@Chairman_woo -- I'm not hostile towards shiny. I don't use "ignore" in a hostile way. I just don't want to see it. It's too much. As I said above, we rarely see HIM. Years back, I attempted to engage with him as a person, told him I needed to hear something else from him, asked him some non-offensive personal questions (what are your hobbies, that sort of thing).

Just to get past the wall of words and lecture and see the person.

Nothing. He gave me back nothing.

I'm not hostile. I'm indifferent.

If you put someone on ignore, the wall of text collapses to a single line that you don't have to scroll through endlessly.

And @chingalera -- curiosity got the better of me, and I did read your response to my post. And yes, you are still on ignore. Again, not from hostility. It is about the same thing as shiny -- I just don't see YOU enough. It is all attitude and attempting to pick a fight. Why would I bother with that?

@BoneRemake, who is now gone, now banned, was pretty much roundly disliked here on the Sift. Difficult, argumentative, loved to rile people up and get them mad. Him I adored. Because he wasn't just that. When he wasn't being a pain, he was sweet, creative, generous, funny. He loves to cook. He loves to make things. He loves music.

Bone is a person. I miss him. But ching -- for me, I just see a wall of attitude. Shiny for me is a wall of preaching.

There is "no one home" for me with you guys. And if you are not home for me, then I am not home for you.

No hostility. Choice.

I do in fact grow my own tomatoes, its a fun hobby on the porch I have 10 tomato bushes on my porch, I grow them in bushes, since they can take a bit of abuse and still produce a ton of tomatoes, I get around 10-15 tomatoes per bush and as long as I keep them up they last forever, I bring them indoors to storage room in winter and they still produce about a 1/4th of their normal spring/summer batch. Anyhow main reason I started growing tomatoes is at the grocery store where I live we have only 1 store in a 50 mile radius so there is no competition and we get price gouged 4 tomatoes at store is 5.99. 1 gallon of milk is 5.49 which is funny 1 gallon of milk is 50 cents cheaper than 4 tomatoes... it's pathetic though. So a lot of people in town have started "porch" gardens. It saves a lot of money on herbs, spices, and some vegetables.

It's nice to have a hobby.

*promote

I'm going to say it's no one's fault.

You can have rules of etiquette and debate minutiae all day but the bottom line is, if you're flying around other people, shit's going to happen despite everyone's best intention.

Here's why the differing values of the aircraft is meaningless also; my $500 may be just as large an investment for me, as your $2000 is for you, relatively speaking. I only bring this up because I personally have learned a valuable lesson concerning hobbies that seems to be relevant to this incdient:

Never invest more than you can comfortably afford to lose.

But....that's his hobby-thingy?!

No way man, that RC Chopper chump needs to fork-out for retired air-force over there-Your $30 off-the-shelf whirlybird in the $1200, 25-scale fighter plane's air space.

Obviously the "dangerous dog Act" wasn't read by the pack that killed the girl.So Vets, farmers and police are never "lunatics"? Does a firearm make someone into a lunatic? please tell me how that happens....I hope mine don't try to convert me to a lunatic.

I fully support your stamp collecting hobby. If you do something in a safe, legal way there should be no issue with any hobby.

We have the Dangerous Dogs Act in England and it's working quite well for us. Introducing guns to deal with dogs is a completely lunatic notion. We leave that to vets, farmers or police units.

Yes bad things do happen. Introducing projectile weapons into the general population is not a sane answer.

If I want a hobby I'll collect stamps.

And just to re-iterate for those that don't know me, I live in Canada. We are not allowed to use guns in self defense. Neither was the 14 year old girl in england who was killed by a pack of dogs...happen often? nope. But s*it does happen.

My interest in guns is a hobby, I'm safe and legal and resent people equating my sport with crazy lunatics who go on sprees like the guy who ran over 4 people killing 2...crazy.

Not silly at all, if you've never been involved. Electric planes like this one tend to be extremely light...most of them under a couple of pounds, and some as little as a couple of ounces. At those weights, they don't have to move very fast to generate plenty of lift. [edit: looks like they're even lighter now, some are less than 1.25 oz]

The guy that got me into the hobby had an electric Cessna that couldn't be flown in winds faster than 6-7 mph, because the plane would have had a negative groundspeed when flying into the wind (that makes it awful hard to get back to the airfield).

@EMPIRE @mxxcon

It is a sport, very much like hockey or basketball,shuffleboard,drag racing competitive dance....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sport#3-Gun

Sad I have to rely on a Wikipedia link, but it explains it better than I. You do not like firearms, that is a different discussion, as far as why that sort of skill set is needed ? answer your question with a question- Why does someone train to throw a ball to another person at 99 mph.. or dunk a ball, or slap a puck into a net ( in the top right corner) etc. etc. It is a sport, there is no practical use for the skill. Your hobbies are things you like to do and are generally proficient in them, or you practice so you get better.

Don't be wearing your orange ball sweater out in public anymore after watching this video.

So, you don't like the video because Chris Rock is in it? Wow, I would encourage you to get a different hobby, Because I'm thinking your gun collection might be making you a tad angry...

That's your point. I'm not addressing that or arguing against it (since it is self-evident).

I'm addressing "but..but....LIBERALS WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!!", something you wrote.

To answer your questions I'll firstly point out that what I wrote in addition to reading the proposed firearms ban list, answers them sufficiently already. No, the legislation does not propose to take the particular type of firearm in her example. No you are not incorrect.

Does anyone out there believe I am correct or incorrect in what I wrote in regards to the misleading comments about taking guns?

I don't live in America and I'm not American. It happens to be a hobby of mine following changes in American legislation.

Maybe you can actually play a constructive role in the formation of the new legislation. Assuming you live in America, are American, and lobby your politicians.

Welcome to Ameriguns!
Puns set aside..
You all seem to miss (If my short memory recalls correct) that the old man was a vietnam vet. So he's probably not dera.. oh wait no war can quite fuck you up, and make you paranoid. And he was old, oh.. probably not a suitable gun owner. And he used to shoot foreigners like them in his youth so perhaps it was a "flashback" moment he had and just pulled the trigger.
Blahblah, I would more like to reply to dirk.
1. Emergencies requires speed. (That inclued both ambulance & private)
2: I think the discussion to regulate torque/horsepower has come up somewhere before. But if you think long about it.. it ends up quite uneccesary (if you follow the next points) to limit this
2.1 Just see to the whole history and scale of motor vehicles. There's probably alot of engineering, problem of controlling, bad fuel consumtion (low gear vs high gears etc) that makes implementation of limits a bad idea. Cars are, much more than guns, an actual symbol of mans (modern) freedom. Freedom to travel, move, explore and work, transport and evolve. It's also a passion for so many people. Racing and amateur racing.
2.2 So no chance people would obey or accept somthing limiting their horsepowers.
2.3 Not really a big problem. Yes, some people speed and some die as a result. Atleast to be qualified for a license you HAVE to learn, pass an exam and have a license.
2.4 The US state does alot to "nanny" the traffic and highways already.
-----Reply to your second segment----
First I think comparing guns to any other item of possesion is just going down a route of stupid argumentation. I'd rather see 99% of all arguments and discussion stay on-topic instead oft taking the try-to-win-a--point-with-farfetched-comparisons turn.
But. Already said, vehicles and cars most often requires licenses, are monitored, regulated, taxed and enforced etc. Also, could I turn this steak over 180? As cars are taxed, registries are of them and police can force you to show license/revoke/stop you when drunk etc. Shouldn't all the same things they do here also apply to guns?
--Third segment--
A. Removing all guns would be great, but not possible as that just is not the world we live in (Or as for USA, the country they live in). So the question is rather: Who shall be allowed to buy them? B (to answer the actual and sole question I could read): They Kill people, alot easier than cars (and what dangerous hobbies are you thinking of?), so we are less inclined to ban fast cars. But sure, we could ban fast cars as well, which leads to
C: Invalid argument. Let's just say the actual sequence of events would be: "Yes, now we are banning guns, and you are right about fast cars as well. They are to be forbidden next month. Oh, I see some argue that if no fast cars, then why sharp knives - they kill as well. That's correct, next month they will be banned as well." And then it just rolls on.. down to forks and metal cutlery. See the fallacy?
--Final part--
I'm not going into what I believe a state should, or should not do. And how ignorant and missing the point of the point of having a state in the first place, there is to ... saying that it should either completely be THIS - or completely do THAT. It's not a do-or-don't; black-and-white way, that state, laws and regulations work (or is meant to work).
I will go on your "OR we have to accept" since that's more sensible way to have a society. Then I have
To be clear: My opinion is that I see no point in civilian ownership of HIGHLY lethal weaponry. Guns are not comparable to anything else (almost) that exists. Everything else that is as potentially lethal is already forbidden or reduced. A gun can so ridiculously easy destroy so much, so fast. I simply see no point in any-one and everyone able to own one. Yes, hunters (limited to rifles) and hobby marksmen (limited to X mm gun/rifle - controlled and licensed and trackable etc) I believe should be able to use or practice their livelyhood or passion. But as easily as it is now, no way.

---
I think alot of this problem is simply the fact that it's written clearn in your constitution - the right to bear arms. Was written very long ago, or more so: so much has gone so fast and evolved since then. It's not a necessity now; as it was then, they were sure not as effective then as now, and several other things that has evolved and made the reasons for bearing arms (lacking a huge law enforcement agencies as no#1) seem good then: just be stupid theese days.

Why do any cars go above 90mph? ever? when is it ever safe and necessary to drive in excess of this speed? Why is there no government control over the torque or horsepower in vehicles? Wouldn't it be easier to catch criminals and racers if only cops could drive over 90mph? Why aren't peoples licenses permanently revoked after 1 or 2 DUIs? Why are we obligated to keep giving DUI offenders 3rd and 4th and 5th chances just so their lives arent adversely affected?

The same response to these questions could be applied to gun ownership. Because one, those situations where people suffer because of this kind of behavior are the exception and not the rule, and two the government has decided that it is not justification enough to infringe on peoples rights to own a fast and powerful vehicle anymore than it is to prevent people from going hunting or shooting for hobby.

If peoples guns must be removed for the good of us all, despite there being reasons to want to own one ABOVE and beyond recreation, then why not stuff like fast cars and dangerous hobbies?

To be clear: my point is a nanny state can't and should not stop short of any one persons bias on what is good or bad. Either the state should do everything in its power to safeguard people against themselves OR we have to accept that the government will allow things that may be unsafe/harmful for people in certain situations. If you accept that 2nd part then give thought to the fact that just because guns are pointless to u, it does not mean they are pointless to everyone.