nbsp

I was an active poster about 10 years ago, when I was taking an EMT B class.

I got an email about DustDevil dying a couple years ago. Sorry to hear him go.

I came back to see how things are going here and it looks like a ghost town. Did something happen? Did the board just slowly drop in popularity over time? Looks like my history from 10 years ago is wiped? New management?

Ok, so earlier today I went to the university gym to see what the Judo program's all about, and I ended up needed EMS. Yeah. [s:c744136a0c]They have a tournament this weekend, I ate a lot just beforehand, and they worked us really hard, and[/s:c744136a0c] ok I'll just admit it, I'm really physically unfit. But I had a strange case of something, and I was wondering if you guys have an opinion.

So because I had a late class I ate dinner basically 30 minutes before the Judo session. (bad idea). The "Sensei" guy told us to drink lots of water, but I just ate and biked really far and so my stomach wasn't completely settled and so I passed on the water. (bad idea). I'm going to put the exact workout I went through in spoilers because nobody cares.

[spoil:c744136a0c]Running (forwards, backwards, sideways) for about sideways, then we picked up the nearest guy fireman-carry style and started running like that. The guy who picked me up was not only heavier than me, while he was carrying me, his shoulder was in my stomach and I couldn't really breath. Then we did various stuffs, situps, leg lifts, jumpy thingies, pushups, wheelbarrows, some kind of judo thing, etc. At that point I felt the urge to vomit, so I left for the bathroom. [/spoil:c744136a0c]

I'm also putting the description of what happened in spoiler because it's long and tedious. Long story short: Ate dinner right before exercising, didn't drink water, did a workout I wasn't prepared for. Resulted in the need to vomit. I was dehydrated and overheated, but didn't drink because of the whole need-to-vomit thing. Afterwards, I hyperventilated, and my extremities started tingling and clenching up. spread to arms, legs, face, including eyes and tongue. Arms and legs became immobile, breathing became difficult. What helped: water, recovery position, O2.

[spoil:c744136a0c]So anyways, I had to leave for the bathroom because I really felt the need to vomit. I went to the bathroom and leaned over the sink for ~10 minutes, then walked outside and lied on the ground, and that's when my fingers started tingling. I thought it was because they weren't getting enough oxygen so I started breathing harder. (bad idea). I lied on the ground for 5 minutes, then got up and walked back to the martial arts room. The tingling spread to my legs. I sat there for 5 minutes, and the tingling was getting worse and worse, and spread to my face and eyes. My hands started to flex or clench, like when you have your arm in a weird position and the muscles on one side start flexing by themselves. I was still trying to take in more air, because I was convinced the tingling was because I didn't have enough oxygen. (that was pretty retarded, gotta admit.) I had to get on the ground (spread eagle supine), which still didn't help. The tingling was getting stronger and had spread to my tongue, and at that point I was having serious concerns about passing out or brain damage. The sensei noticed and came over to help me. He poured some water on my head, and told me that I felt very hot and was probably dehydrated. I told him that I didn't feel either, and he said "nobody every does". I felt a little better, but not much. At that point my arms were completely flexed and immobile, and my legs were starting to do the same. I was also hyperventilating. The sensei called an ambulance at this point. They had seen this happen to people before but never with clenching muscles. They knew I was most likely dehydrated and overheated, so they gave me some water to drink, but they were holding me up in a sitting position. I tried to get back down into the recovery position, but they wouldn't let me down. I finally convinced them to let me down, and immediately felt much better in that position. EMS came and asked me some questions, gave me O2, which helped a lot for some reason. They asked me some questions and I asked for an AMA, which they gave me.[/spoil:c744136a0c]

What do you guys think it was?

[spoil:c744136a0c]My initial reaction was to suspect some kind of shock, because of the whole tingling extremities thing. The paramedic told me something about hyperventilation removing CO2 from the blood doing something to the calcium in muscles and causing them to clench up. I looked it up and Tetany came up.

Low levels of carbon dioxide causes tetany by altering the albumin binding of calcium such that the ionised (physiologically influencing) fraction of calcium is reduced; the most common reason for low carbon dioxide levels is hyperventilation.

[/spoil:c744136a0c]

But to sue someone for selling a gun, there would first have to be gun control laws in place, wouldn't there? The seller of guns are just selling the guns, not pulling the triggers.

Of course without gun control laws there could be a case for pain and suffering or something, but I'm not a lawyer. Can anybody with a legal background comment on this?

Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was "involuntarily committed" or ruled mentally "incapacitated."

"It's clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition," Bonnie said. The commission he leads was created by the state last year to examine the state's mental health laws.

This may be where the snafu happened, since "mentally defective" does not fit perfectly into either category, although this is the only article that mentions it so I can't vouch for its accuracy.

We must be some kind of long-lost opposite twins, because nothing I've read said he was involuntarily committed. In fact, I've read many times that he was NOT involuntarily committed. He was not declared outright mentally defective, but as I've said, he was declared "an immediate danger to himself", which falls into the range of “adjudicated as a mental defective.”

Credit companies are more thorough with history because there is a greater incentive. One, they want to be absolutely certain that they get their money and two they want to find more ways to charge you money. Giving you a credit card is a long term deal while selling a gun is a one time transaction. The only incentive is gun control laws.

He was eligible to buy a weapon if he meets all the requirements. This extends beyond having committed a felony. In Virginia, and in other states as well, you aren't eligible to buy one if you've been involuntarily committed for psychiatric reasons. This guy was involuntarily committed.

I don't know and am not familiar with the process required on behalf of licensed arms dealers in order for them to sell a weapon to someone. But the shooter in this case was not allowed, under VA law, to buy a handgun.

Funny how the media leaves out vital pieces of information.

-be safe

hmmm.... half right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/us/20cnd...nyt&emc=rss

He was not involunatrily commited, but declared "an immediate danger to himself", which falls into the range of “adjudicated as a mental defective,” which means he shouln't have been able to buy a gun. The background check should have caught it, but apparently there's a problem with the reporting methods and the court ruling didn't show up.

Thanks for bringing that up. I had no idea.

The point still is, you cannot and do not call him a "resident alien" and try to pretend that this is some kind of problem caused by foreigners, which is what the media have been doing all this time. Some even go as far as to re-name his green card a "resident alien card". Cho Sueng Hui lived 15 of his 23 years in america and it's rather odd to deny that he's american too.

I haven't read this thread at all, so apologize if this has already been brought up, but I find how poorly the poll was made humorously entertaining.

He was not a citizen of the United States. He held the status of resident alien. Big difference.

He was a permanent legal resident, don't pass him off as a foreign problem. In virginia, there IS no difference between legal permanent resident and citizen in terms of buying a gun.

One law enforcement official said Cho's backpack contained a receipt for a March purchase of a Glock 9 mm pistol. Cho held a green card, meaning he was a legal, permanent resident. That meant he was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony.

Roanoke Firearms owner John Markell said his shop sold the Glock and a box of practice ammo to Cho 36 days ago for $571.

"He was a nice, clean-cut college kid. We won't sell a gun if we have any idea at all that a purchase is suspicious," Markell said.

Well, okay, thanks. But isn't that what everyone in those jurisdictions necessarily does?

I guess the original statement was to contrast the idea that you should definitely buy a gun because you'll be automatically safer.

This concept (though not you as its messenger) offends my ideals.

Well, while I'm at it, is bicycling a privilege? What about skateboarding? Speed-walking? Wrestling with your kids? Pro-Wrestling? Tennis? Carrying a sign on the street? Posting an angry message? Grrrr!

When I was in drivers ed class, and in the California Drivers Handbook it is made explicitly clear to us that driving is a privilege. Well, in the CDH it's not explicitly stated, but if you read it, the phrase "driving privilege" is commonplace, while the phrase "driving right" is non-existant. This is probably because some people told them to write it that way.

The best official explaination I can find on why it has been decided this way is here:

Driving is a privilege not a right. When the safety of persons using the highways is

jeopardized by unsafe driving, it becomes the duty of the State to take away such

privilege. You will protect your driving privilege by complying with the traffic laws

and by following safe driving practices.

I think it's also important to note this:

http://forums.realpolice.net/showthread.php?t=34904]You have the right to drive anywhere you want. It is a privelige, however, to bring your motor vehicle onto public roads.

Since I personally have that choice only in jurisdictions in which I am not forbidden to use a gun, I don't understand what you are suggesting except that I should have that choice, ie, that I should not be prohibited from using a gun.

Well, I guess I over-zealously assumed that you were in a juristiction that didn't ban guns. However it appears that the original purpose was lost over the various responses.

I am not for gun prohibition, but for strict gun control. As I said before, the necessity of a gun is situational (largely by region), so, (I guess I should add "If guns are legal in your area" at this point), then figure out if your situation warrants a gun.

But unlike with guns, the default position everywhere is that everyone gets to drive until/unless their unsafe driving forfeits the confidence of the community represented by a government agency. We assume people drive reasonably until they show otherwise; we don't make them prove a special need for a car. Unlike with guns, the burden of proof is on the government to show that a motorist is untrustworthy.

Yes, the default position is that everyone gets to drive just as the default position in many places is everyone gets to own a gun. But in both scenarios the PRIVILEGE is very conditional. Whether you decide to interpret the conditions as a burden of proof on either side is up to you.

And by the way, the burden of proof is on the motorist to prove he has enough driving proficiency to deserve the privilege of driving. I don't know about you, but I took a driving class, driving permit test, and driving license road test before I was granted a provisional license.

Can't disagree with the rest of your post.

Asysin2leads, I must say I'm disappointed in you. Using a "what-if" scenario is just about the lamest and most unaccepted rhetorical strategies out there.

I've got a scenario for you. What if you had just entered a Home Depot and a small volcano spontaneously erupted in the center of the store? Do you chose to leave through the entrance you just came in from?

OH SNAP I'm sorry while your attention was focused on the volcano someone dropped a bear trap behind you. As you turn to leave the trap closes on your leg and you are trapped. You sit there helpless, nursing your broken leg. You'll have a limp on that side for the rest of your life.

Oh, did I say volcano? I meant baking soda and vinegar volcano. If you hadn't turned around you would never have sustained permanent damage to your leg.

nbsp, it seems to me that Dust elegantly captured the condition your suggestion requires. In order for your suggestion to work as an advisory statement, individuals must first have a choice to exercise.

Right. And by saying that to you I was assuming you personally had that choice.

I don't see how it assumes all people are reasonable. Rather, it seems to me that if all people were assumed to be reasonable, there would be no concern about preventing crime, because no crime would occur.

I was using the word "reasonable" to mean people that are able to accurately assess risk and make an educated decision on whether or not it is a good idea to own a gun. The point was that, you can't just have "decide for yourself" as a rule (or, law,) for who should and shouldn't have a gun, because not everybody is reasonable enough to make a correct decision. This is why we have gun control.

Just like the statement "assess your risk and decide for yourself whether it is a good idea to be driving at the moment". This would never pass into law, because if people were really that reasonable, we wouldn't have kids killing themselves by drunk driving or people driving too fast in bad weather. So, we have traffic laws.

Concerning your questions about other emergency equipment, I would be very happy to be around safety-minded people and resources, so long as they don't intrude on my liberty. I carry a fire-extinguisher in my car and keep one in my home. Seatbelts, smoke-detectors, CO-detectors, fire-escapes, airport AEDs, and stand-by ambulances at large gatherings all seem to me like good ideas, as do healthy eating and exercising. I'm not quite sure what the downside is if someone thinks it prudent to carry an epi-pen, a parachute, or wear suspenders in addition to his belt. I know someone who was able to escape a burning building and rescue his girlfriend in the process only because, as a competitive martial artist, he was outstandingly physically fit. In another instance, I saw the swiftness of a seasoned sprinter summoning a police officer probably save the life of a man about to be lynched. Another friend carries the Bill of Rights in his pocket, perhaps in case he is ever arrested. The reason I (probably) don't know many people who are well equipped for emergencies is, I think, habit and custom, as well as prioritizing. I don't see how the fact that most people prefer to spend time doing other things than preparing for emergencies means there's something wrong with the others. But I may have missed your point.

And the point was, while there are so many things for which there are concievable situations where these emergency items would become necessary, it would be rather strange to forgo all of the others, and then state that the reason you carry a gun is for emergency situations.

The problem is, that sentence only works as an advisory statement and will never be workable as legal code, because

1. It assumes that all people are reasonable. (Whereas I used it in addressing Michael and I'm relatively certain that he's a reasonable person.)

2. It does not address when and where you are allowed to use your gun, which is the subject on which this thread was started and on which legislation was recently passed.

Well Michael, I've got a question for you. Can you imagine a situation in which you wish you carried an AED around? or an epi-pen? or a pocket mask?

Now, how many people do you know that DO carry around medical equipment?

As I said before, in my opinion, the necessity of a gun is very situational. Me, I should never carry a gun because I'm extremely implusive, have no self control, and live in an area where the likelyhood of needing a gun is something like 1/n as n approaches infinity. (Both when I'm at my college dorm and when I drive back home.) I would feel safer without a weapon that could cause instant death than with one.

So in summary, yes, I can imagine a situation where I wish a gun would be available to me or someone I know. However, the likelyhood of such an event in my life is extremely unlikely. Likewise, I can imagine a situation where I wish a gas mask, an defibrillator, a stick of dynamite, a fire-extinguisher, or a parachute would be available to someone I know.

Although, the number of people who live in a situation such as mine is not the highest, to say the least. I didn't realize that there was 1 violent crime per 13 people every year in california.

So assess the amount of risk there is in your life and decide for yourself whether it would be a good idea to have a gun.

To say that a higher or lower crime rate between locations is only because guns weren't banned or guns were banned is a bad way to interpret statistics, since there are an INCREDIBLY large number of confounding variables.

But if you really want to,

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

Index is supposedly the sum of violent crime, property crime, murders, forcible rapes, robberies, aggrevated assaults, burglaries, larcenies, and vehicle thefts.

Since the Index doesn't really add up, I added my own category (Sum), which is the sum of all columns besides year, Population, and Index. Coincidentally, it equals the Index*2, counting rounding error. Looks like someone accidentally inputed the average-of-two-values formula instead of the sum formula.

Data for 2005

TX

Population: 22,859,968

Index: 1,111,384

Index/Population: 0.048617041

Sum: 2,222,768

Sum/Pop: 0.097234082

NY

Population: 19,254,630

Index: 491,829

Index/Population: 0.025543415

Sum: 983,658

Sum/Pop: 0.05108683

CA

Population: 36,132,147

Index: 1,390,710

Index/Population: 0.038489548

Sum: 2,781,419

Sum/Pop: 0.076979068

KY

Population: 4,173,405

Index: 128,114

Index/Population: 0.030697716

Sum: 233,118

SumRatio: 0.055857986

Of course, none of this actually means anything besides the number of crimes and the population. It tells nothing of the reasons, conditions of living, economic status, percentage of people under poverty line, etc.

Edit: I just realized the Sum value for Kentucky does not equal twice the Index value and for the life of me I cannot figure out why.

In the case of the Columbine shooting, it seems that ALL of the weapons involved were purchased legally, but with the sole intent of being provided (illegally) to the perpetrators. I believe the purchaser went to prison for that.

In the West Paducah, Kentucky school shooting (prior to Columbine), ALL of the guns used were stolen- including shotguns that were taken from a locked case.

And the point is, although it IS a minor side-note, that guns and children don't mix. Here's all of the cases of school shootings by high school students at schools high school and below on wikipedia.

• : Gun taken from home of foster mother.

[*]Frontier Junior High: Don't know.

[*]Heath High School: Guns taken from parents as well as friend's father's garage.

[*]Parker Middle School: Gun taken from father.

[*]Pine Middle School: Gun taken from parent's house, bullets gift from father.

[*]Red Lake High School: 2 Guns from grandfather, 1 gun from unknown source.

[*]Red Lion Area Junior High School: Guns taken from stepfather's gun locker.

[*]Richland High School: Don't know

[*]Rocori High School: Don't know

[*]Santana High School: Guns taken from father's gun cabinet.

[*]Theo J. Buell Elementary School: Guns taken from uncle's house.

[*]Thurston High School: I'm having trouble piecing together all of the info, but he had many guns in his life including rifles from his father and a gun stolen from a friend's father by that friend.

[*]Westside Middle School: Guns taken from grandfather's house.

[*]Weston High School: Guns taken from parents.

And of course, Columbine. This is the only one, as far as I can see, where the guns were purchased illegally, through a straw purchaser.

There is a ray of hope though, in a couple instances guns were used to stop school shootings.

• : Principal subdues shooter with gun.

[*]Appalachian School of Law: Two former police officers subdued the shooter with gun. However, this wasn't high school or below.

In summary, if you're going to have children and guns at the same time, you'd better make sure the guns are secured like a nuclear silo. And I don't mean the Russian ones.

Isn't the objection to wankers that they display rather than conceal their equipment?

I was under the impression that there was more than just that. E.g., even if the lights on the cars were hidden and not visible unless turned on, the people were still ridiculed.

my bad, hfdff422. By the way, this is not purely a philosophical debate and I believe the pro-gun side has used statistics very effectively. I don't think they were the most accurate statistic, after seeing this, but gj to you guys.

So in addition to Dwayne's question,

How exactly is carrying a gun around for those "just-in-case" moments where it might save a life different from those "wankers" everyone ridicules here putting lights on their cars and carrying way too much medical equipment around on and off duty for those "just-in-case" moments where it might save a life?

I'm sure some of you have had a time when you were off duty and wish you had some piece of medical equipment on you, do you carry it around or in your car?

First of all, any American who has taken history knows that the constitution was written intentionally vague, and the 2nd amendment is no exception.

Since gun advocates commonly ignore the first half, (such as the NRA,) here's the full text:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This can be interpreted in any number of ways, including but not limited to,

1. Guns for everybody.

2. Guns for members of a militia.

3. Guns if and only if a militia has been created and is necessary for the security of a free state.

That being said, I continue onto my crazy rantings.

The problem is that some people are arguing Guns-for-everybody-everywhere and some people are arguing Guns-for-nobody-anywhere, while in reality it is situational.

Take my situation. I grew up in a suburb. The people who lived there were a good people, nearly 100% college graduates; Doctors, Engineers, Businessmen, and Lawyers. I know of nobody who has ever been a victim of a gun-related crime, and nobody who has had any reason to defend himself with a gun. The swat team has an 8-minute response time. (hearsay back in high school from someone who rode along with the cops because he wants to become a career cop.) If someone there bought a gun for "defense" purposes, I would consider him an idiot. There was one time I heard a noise outside my house when I was home alone for a week, but I felt perfectly safe knowing exactly where my little-league baseball bat was.

Also, consider this: In all of the school shootings you've heard about, where did the shooters obtain their guns from? Did the people who owned these guns obtain them illegally? (I was going to research this, but then I realized why it would be a bad idea to search "school shootings guns" on a university network.)

In rural and high-crime urban areas, keeping a gun at home is perfectly understandable, if children have no access to them. (In a majority of cases, I believe "no access" would require not having guns if you have children.) I would frown upon carrying a gun around in public.

And you guys need to learn the concept of validity of evidence. Videos of some gang members shooting each other are not good evidence. Anecdotes of some woman saving the day with a gun are not good evidence. "What if you got robbed and the guy decided to attack you instead of simply leaving quickly and you had no gun" is not good evidence.

"USA: 9.10

Germany: 1.65

Spain: 1.49

Australia: 1.88

New Zealand: 1.35

USA: 39.5%

Germany: 28.57%

Spain: 16.41%

Australia: 16.34%

New Zealand: 13.46%" is not good evidence.

Since y'all don't seem to know your stuff, these people might be able to give you a hand.

First of all there are two issues that I immediately noticed and would like to note, which are,

1. Gays are flamboyantly sexual.

2. Marriage is a religious event. (Me being an atheist, this is the first time I've ever heard this or even thought about it. Heh.)

1. People focus on the leather-wearing dildo-juggling gays because that's what shocks people and therefore that's what people remember. It's ridiculous to say that a majority of gays go around being flamboyantly sexual and looking like this.

2a. You must admit that marriage carries many legal ramifications, such as spousal rights, etc. This is one of the reasons that there is a same-sex marriage issue.

2b. Do atheists not get married?

That being said, we will continue onto my occasional rantings that nobody gives a crap about.

First, what I think and feel about homosexuals. What I feel about homosexuals is the same as most college-age males. Let me be the first to say that I am extremely homophobic. In regards to homosexual males only, though. The way it works out in my head, homosexual males = ew. Homosexual females = HAWT. That pretty much sums it up right there.

And what do I think about homosexuals as people? They're just people, with a different sexual orientation. It's like right-handedness and left-handedness. Most people are right handed, some people are left handed. (Yes I do realize the distributions are different.) It's not like we persecute left-handed people and strip away their rights. Why should we make homosexuals have less rights?

Do I think same-sex marriage should be legalized? Well, why the hell not? It's not like they're harming anyone, they're just getting married. It may be discomforting to some people, but hey, not too long ago interracial marriages were discomforting to a lot of people.

I mean, it's a free country, or that's the way the expression goes. There's no fine print that says "Unless you're gay". So, why the hell not have same-sex marriages?

And that's a recurring question that I'd like to bring up: "Why the hell not?"

Then woops, my bad.

On a side note, if you round to the nearest even number, how many significant figures would it have? Would 120 have 3 significant figures or 2 or 2.5?

I think this whole discussion might have been avoided if someone had said this:

The use of even numbers is not necessarily more accurate, but is rather user convention.

It's like spelling. Lots of words are spelled funny, especially in the english language (e.g., "weight"), but regardless, the standard is stuck to.

Ever since I was first told that BPs should be reported in even numbers, I've been scratching my head as to why, but the fact remains that this user convention exists, and it's not going away any time soon. If you record a BP in odd numbers, even if you have a really good reason, you'll most likely be unfairly judged.

So, even though it doesn't make sense, it's just the way it is.

You forgot the one that applies to me:

DEFAULT BACKGROUND-You're extremely lazy. Start working, slacker, you're 3 weeks behind in class and that post-lab report is due tomorrow. You will fail at life in 2 years. 3 if you're lucky. People around you catch your lazy attidude, begin slacking excessively and then they fail at life too. Good job asshole.

Wow, none of those have happened to me since the good ol' days of Windows 3.1.

If you wait an hour for a file to save like that, you've got to be some kind of retarded.

And if you're that worried about viruses, maybe it's time to stop surfing for porn without virus protection.

The only positive points that macs have for someone who uses a computer casually like I do, (gamer/student), is that they spent a crapload of time changing them to be windows compatible, and then got a deal with intel. I would only use a mac if I were an artist.

You left out the facts that the first and last letters must be in place, and the word should have the correct number of each letter, (which is not the case for a lot of posts), and the fact that it mostly only works on people who have been reading english for pretty much their whole lives, (since for this to work, the words must be read as a whole and not as strings of letters).