 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2011 4:29 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
>>> already happened.
>>
>> Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation
>> of guns in the US. "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death
>> is involved.
>
> The problem is that it works both ways. You're just arguing that
> defenders should die instead of attackers. If there's tight regulation
> on gun control, you're letting those who ignore those regulations kill
> those who obey them, without that same "undo" you're trying to control.
>
There is a lot of circular logic going on here yes. The defenders are
dying anyway, along with the victims. There was someone else at the
Arizona incident **with** a gun, who managed to be rational enough to
not pull on, and shoot, one of the defenders, after he got the gun away
from the shooter. Some hot head, with less brain, would have. You don't
get rid of attackers by lax gun control, all you do is put them in the
hands of **both** attackers *and* idiots, both of which end up shooting
innocent people. Yet, the argument always goes, "Obviously, if everyone
has a gun, only the people shooting victims will get shot!" How the hell
does a room full of 50 people pulling guns *tell* how the damn attacker
is, when half of them where not even looking that direction when the
first shot rang out? The argument is pure madness, no different, in
principle, for the MAD doctrine of making sure you have as many nukes as
someone else, so both of you are too scared to fire one. Its not the two
mutually scared shitless fools with a closet full of guns, dressed like
someone from the damn Mad Max film that is the problem, its the other
nut that walks in with *one* gun, intent on hurting someone, who sets
off the whole hornets nest.
I find it amazing that the government can see the *obvious* idiocy of
letting someone like Iran get nukes, and figuring out that the best way
to stop it is to not give *anyone* a reason to have them, including
themselves (or at least most of them figured this out), but when its
some bozo with a hand gun... More = better, unless they are someone that
shouldn't have them, which they can't **prevent** as long as you can
find someone willing to sell the damn things out of the back of a van,
or someplace similar, for $20, in any city in the country, no questions
asked, because the van owner *is* doing it illegally, and just hasn't
been caught and jailed yet. Very similar to the "lets keep such and such
country from getting nukes, or nuke materials, including the thousands
we can't find, track, detect, or have a clue where they went to, when
Russia feel.. Keep crazy people from getting guns **how** exactly?
Enforce laws that already exist, but don't work, better *how* exactly?
But don't dare make new laws, to try to close loopholes, because we
gotta have those personal nukes, uh... guns, sorry..
Tell me, what would happen if the US wasn't a source of guns *for*
crooks in the UK? After all, that is one of the arguments, "They get
them here too, but the cops don't, so we are not safe!" Gee.. Where
from? The gun nut capitol of the world, that is where. A place where
anything short of something you can blow up a building with is A-OK to
own, set up in your house, pointed at the front door, or carry on your
person, as long as its not concealed in places where you can't conceal
it, or you have a permit in places you need one, or you have the right
to have one even without those, and it doesn't make you list was you
walk, do to being designed to take out military tanks. And, I am sure
that will be the next thing some idiot decides to make legal in Arizona,
just as soon as a few years have passed, and they forget about some
government official or other being shot in Arizona, or fudge the history
of the event, to claim it was caused by not enough guns, and liberals...
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2011 6:49 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/01/2011 1:36 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> And you know the really insane thing about it? Most of this crap is made
>> and shipped from places like China, Taiwan, and everyone *but* the US.
>> So you have con artists, or just nuts, selling this stuff, basically
>> untouchable, as long as they put the proper legerdemain on it, and its
>> not even benefiting anyone *here*, but some bozo in another country, who
>> is laughing their asses off at both the buyer, and the seller.
>
> Another way of looking at it is, someone at home is shipping it from
> China, Taiwan etc. to make a profit. But that is the free market for you.
>
My personal feeling is, if a company has more than 50% of its damn
resources, product *or* employees in some other country, and its not
*specifically* claiming to be a resaler (which would not have the same
"rights" as the rest, including being able to muck with politics *at
all*), it can't claim to be an "American company", no matter where their
"head office" is located. If we used that logic on something like
diplomats, foreign dignitaries could claim to be members of bloody
congress, on the grounds that their embassy is on US land, and they do
all their work from the embassy office, without ever going back to their
own country for visits.
But, heh, that's just me...
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2011 3:37 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:30:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>> Sure, but there are also plenty of reasonable people who are religious
>>> as well.
>>>
>> There is nothing "reasonable" about religion.
>
> That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But I'll note that
> you're conflating "reasonable people" with "reasonable about religion"
> and the two are different.
>
>> than my own *personal* choice of wardrobe. Thankfully, sports fans get
>> no where *near* as unreasonable as "reasonable" religious people about
>> that sort of thing...
>
> Maybe you don't hang out with a crowd that does that. Try hanging out
> with die-hard Utah Jazz fans and tell me there's a difference. I find
> many of those hard-core sports fans to be much more obnoxious than people
> who practice a religion, or who claim to.
>
> You think I'm wrong, try wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey near the Energy
> Solutions Arena here in SLC on game day. Or, for a real treat, try
> wearing a Mets jersey in Boston (or for that matter, to a Yankees game).
>
> Jim
Yes, well.. Those would be the sports "nuts". My point was, when push
comes to shove, among religions, everyone has something they are *nuts*
about. I would argue that, if your claim was consistent, you would be
arguing that the "rational religious" have nothing at all in common with
rabid sports fans, and that *I* am the one trying to equate the
equivalent of evangelical (or some hardline type) sports fanatics with
moderates in religion. Instead, you seem to be making the argument that,
yes, Patrick is right, religious people do have some things they get
seriously wacko about, so are exactly the same as the most rabid, and
extreme sports fan.
My argument is, unlike the religious, you have sports fans that *won't*
get offended by some specific thing you bring up, do, wear, etc., where
the religious almost all have some *specific* thing that can and will
set them off.
Note, I do not consider people that go to church for community reasons,
but are skeptical of, agnostic about, or even atheist about, god, and
religion, as "religious". That seems to represent a larger number than
full blown agnostics/atheists in the US, of the people who claim to be
religious, and is growing in number. In other countries, its just about
everyone, except for a small minority, who bother to set foot in a
church (excluding the ones that do so because it has been converted to a
bed and breakfast).
In short, if you are claiming that rabid sports fans = "rational
religious", I couldn't agree more. I, however, doubt it is what you
meant. ;) lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2011 1:59 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> My personal feeling is, if a company has more than 50% of its damn
> resources, product *or* employees in some other country, and its not
> *specifically* claiming to be a resaler (which would not have the same
> "rights" as the rest, including being able to muck with politics *at
> all*), it can't claim to be an "American company", no matter where their
> "head office" is located. If we used that logic on something like
> diplomats, foreign dignitaries could claim to be members of bloody
> congress, on the grounds that their embassy is on US land, and they do
> all their work from the embassy office, without ever going back to their
> own country for visits.
>
What is the big deal about being American?
> But, heh, that's just me...
It is indeed.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:11:06 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yes, well.. Those would be the sports "nuts". My point was, when push
> comes to shove, among religions, everyone has something they are *nuts*
> about.
The vast majority of religious people (or people who self-identify as
such) just go to church on Sunday and get on with their lives. Of course
you never hear about them, you only hear about the lunatics, because the
normal people aren't interesting news.
It's been my experience that *most* people who are religious also won't
get offended by something you say about their religion if you frame it in
a way that isn't offensive.
If you walk into an LDS wardhouse and start screaming "you're all nuts,
Jesus never came to the US and you're all LOOZERZ!@!!@!@!@", you'll get a
strong reaction.
But at the same time, if you sit down with individuals and have a
rational discussion with them, you may not change their minds, but you'll
get a respectful discussion.
I know. I've done it. (The latter, not the former).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:29:44 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
>>> already happened.
>>
>> Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation of
>> guns in the US. "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death is
>> involved.
>
> The problem is that it works both ways. You're just arguing that
> defenders should die instead of attackers. If there's tight regulation
> on gun control, you're letting those who ignore those regulations kill
> those who obey them, without that same "undo" you're trying to control.
Well, yes.
But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the US.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> We do this on a regular basis for "companies" that are even as small as
> a mom and pop outfit, where they have to be actually *selling* what they
> claim, and it has to work as advertised.
And if someone uses something like Tarot and gets an outcome that matches
what they were aiming for, then it could be said to be "working as
advertised". Yes, you and I both know that correlation is not causation,
but the fact of the matter is that someone calling in to Miss Cleo gets
their fortune told that they're going to (say) win the lottery, and they
win the lottery, hey, it worked as advertised.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the US.
That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved by
guns in there somewhere.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>> US.
>
> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
> by guns in there somewhere.
Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
relevant statistics to include.
So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should be
included.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-1-2011 20:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>> US.
>>
>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
>> by guns in there somewhere.
>
> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
> relevant statistics to include.
Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter
gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?
> So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should be
> included.
>
> Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
