Re: all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Carolyn Arnold
 

Not a gun enthusiast, but a gun has moving parts and is a
piece of equipment. It has maintenance requirements and
certainly safety requirements. Nevertheless, it is a piece
of equipment with moving parts.

Bye for now,

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 10:57 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I'm actually making a friendly request for the gun
enthusists on the list to help me understand what facet of
guns is technology related? This is a friendly request
though it may come off as a challenge. Again, I think I
might learn something I had not considered in the past.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:36 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Are guns not technology? As you say, just about anything
can be considered technology. Anything manufactured for use
as a tool qualifies as technology and while I agree that
there should be a reasonable common sense line in defining
how it relates to the list, it certainly doesn't only apply
to computers and electronics even taking that into account.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Ok, but just so I learn something, what makes the gun
topic tech related?

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Hell, can we keep the gun talk on this list for now? One
less list to
subscribe to, and I think Carlos has the right of it in
considering
guns as technology. Just my two cents.

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:26 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Generally electronic and accessible technology is what
most members
are interested in discussing, but I don't object to other
types of
technology being discussed within reason. It is a general
technology
discussion list, not exclusively for discussing computer
related
technology. However, I expect people to use a bit of
common sense.
Science provides technology, but it is not technology. We
will handle
unusual topics on an individual basis, but basically as
long as it
does not strain the credulity and patience of most
members, I am
willing to be flexible and open minded. Of course, if a
slightly
offbeat topic seems to be dragging on for too long or
irritating too
many members, I may request that we move on at some point.
Also, while the majority of members are blind and I will
not go out of
my way to promote the list in the sighted community, I
have no
objections to sighted individuals who might wish to
subscribe and
participate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want
to define
what is meant by technology as it relates to this list. I
don't think
most would consider guns technology in terms of the scope
of blind
members wanting to know about computer sciences and
general computing.
As is, it appears that just about anything can be
considered
technology is
one thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an
electronic
device is used to watch them at work? Would Woman's
make-up be on
topic on this list if someone twists him or herself in
pretzels to
box up a question using a technology slant? I think most
list members
consider computers and all they do for us as on topic,
but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant.
...Just
looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't
have a
problem with the discussion, but I believe some members
might not be
quite as understanding so we might want to close this
topic or move
it to the chat list as was suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about
guns and
the technology that could be implemted on them then it
would be on
topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and
blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and
most anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I
have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now
morphed
into some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today
and it is
still the safety way is to let the hammer set on an
empty chamber.
Now you could do the same for a double action as well
let it set on
the empty chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger
pull unless
modified is usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but
the safest way
is not to put your finger on the trigger till you are
ready to pull
it. they really have 4types of revolvers as I know. They
are single
shot, single action, double action only and DASA (Double
action plus
single
action) another words you can just pull the trigger or
you can cock
the hammer and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most
double action
only does not have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me
and learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But
you need to
get training on handling them and using them as well as
training on
the laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is
much more than
just going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I
not a big fan
of most regulation but some I am and some I have no
problem with
them at
all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off
topic and off
the the subject as well so this might need to be moved
to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action
revolver unless
the hammer is cocked back in to the firing position.
You never cock
the gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety
because the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the
necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be
almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to
shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the
safety is
not to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently
trigger it in
my pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried
with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but
you don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a
baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the
fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box!
Pepper
spray is one of them. But it should not be the only
thing. You
should have a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for
sure a good
old fashion hickory cane with a good hook to it that is
very pointed
at the end of the hook is good or asord cane is good.
But a water
gun is not much good unless you have something besides
water in it.



Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of
pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the
good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this
drivel. I
know one of these so-called "blind extremists" who
carries a gun and
he carries it for protection only. The times he has
shot it in
public was because he was being threatened by four
sighted extremist
thugs also known as criminals, who were threatening to
not only rob
him but cause him physical harm. He took out his gun
and shot
once, straight up into the air. Yes, the extremist
thugs quickly
ran away in fright and I hope they also needed to do
some laundry
quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't
been
legally carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my
time with
telling you that as you're not for the individual and
his rights but
for some other agenda instead. BTW there are more
deaths due to
automobile accidents than there are due to shootings so
this brings
it back around to your glass half full attitude aimed at
self-driving cars which have caused how many deaths so
far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@...> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some
blind extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their
constitutional
right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's
bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and
own firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed
up mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald
Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And
if the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any
technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of
technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the
lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous
technology out of
the hands of the blind, then why are there several blind
individuals
who are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100%
foolproof is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and
elsewhere won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving
vehicles be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider
enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate
them without
the accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the
realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage
these types of
cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a
difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned,
the other
issue here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow
the technology
should be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof.
That is just
nonsense and trying to predict the future of the
technology based on
one accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a
half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is
just not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald .
It is also
not just the US legislature but from state to state.
Just like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will
more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars.
I also think
they would require very special training even for the
sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see
the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be
here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The
bottom line
is that it will be a very long time, if ever, before
blind consumers
are allowed to operate one of these gizmos by
themselves. One fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These
vehicles must
be made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that
be in
Washington will let blind drivers behind the wheel
without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver in the passenger's
seat. Sorry to
throw water on your parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of
reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple
car
manufacturers are using different gPS databases and
supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined
reasons, so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who
are using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of
variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the
single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and
taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you
might consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one
of those
newfangled self-driving cars that may some day
revolutionize the
lives of us blind consumers, not so fast. The race to
develop a
safe and reliable self-driving vehicle suffered a major
setback
recently when a Tesla all-electric self-driving car was
involved in
a fatal accident that killed the driver while it was
operating in
self-driving mode. I guess it's back to the drawing
board:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesl
a-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players,
Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories
http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@...
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 -
Release Date:
07/01/16


































Join main@TechTalk.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.