 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/01/2011 8:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> They say Love is blind but it has nothing on Avarice.
>
> "Gold. It makes the world go around."
> "I thought it was love that makes the world go around."
> "Yes, that too. Love of gold."
>
:-D
All that glisters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:
Gilded tombs do worms enfold.
Had you been as wise as bold,
Young in limbs, in judgement old
Your answer had not been inscroll'd
Fare you well, your suit is cold.
I could not resist it.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 29/01/2011 8:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> They say Love is blind but it has nothing on Avarice.
>>
>> "Gold. It makes the world go around."
>> "I thought it was love that makes the world go around."
>> "Yes, that too. Love of gold."
>>
>
> :-D
>
> All that glisters is not gold;
Mine was from a movie with Gene Hackman and Danny DeVito.
The other great line is in the shoot-out at the end, Hackman winds up with
DeVito on the ground disarmed. Hackman walks around and points the gun at
DeVito, who says "Wait! Don't you want to hear my last words?" Hackman says
"I just did." Blam. :-)
--
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 29/01/2011 8:52 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Mine was from a movie with Gene Hackman and Danny DeVito.
>
I don’t need to say where mine was from. ;-)
> The other great line is in the shoot-out at the end, Hackman winds up
> with DeVito on the ground disarmed. Hackman walks around and points the
> gun at DeVito, who says "Wait! Don't you want to hear my last words?"
> Hackman says "I just did." Blam. :-)
Good line, good line. :-)
Hackman, wasn't he in "Dream of Jeannie"?
OK it was Hagman I keep getting them mixed up.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-1-2011 21:02, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 28-1-2011 23:04, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
>>>> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
>>>> produce them.
>>>
>>> And yet, when each gun needed to be lovingly crafted by hand a hundred
>>> or more years ago, lots of people still got shot.
>>
>> I was afraid someone would say something like that, but I can hardly
>> believe you missed the 'cheaply' in that sentence.
>
> I know you meant cheaply. I'm saying it doesn't matter how cheap they
> are, because even when they're expensive lots of people got killed.
You might say that, but you would be wrong. At least for the people I
was talking about.
>> Get over it, your second amendment is getting people killed outside
>> the US. But don't worry they are mostly foreigners.
>
> Yep. And the EU's stance on non-GMO food is getting a lot of people
> killed outside the EU.
Interesting counterargument. Or is it? Anyway never heard this theory
before, care to explain?
> You enforce your laws, we'll enforce ours. :-) We
> don't blame the netherlands for the US locking up pot users either.
OTOH we blame the US for locking up Dutch citizens for pot related 'crimes'.
Talking about drugs, having strict drug laws *and* freely available guns
is a recipe for disaster. ;)
> http://www.glock.com/english/index_contact.htm
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-1-2011 21:08, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> BTW for completeness sake we also need to factor in those saved here
>> by the guns made in and for the US market...
>
> Does that count stuff like weapons for soldiers?
No, that is another market
> Because I think we're
> still ahead on that one, barely. ;-)
In total killed more enemy soldiers than civilians and allies?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> You might say that, but you would be wrong. At least for the people I
> was talking about.
I don't know who you're talking about. I'm saying that the expense of guns
doesn't seem to have an obvious and direct correlation on the number of
people who get shot, given that lots of people were shot in countries where
guns were very expensive.
>>> Get over it, your second amendment is getting people killed outside
>>> the US. But don't worry they are mostly foreigners.
>>
>> Yep. And the EU's stance on non-GMO food is getting a lot of people
>> killed outside the EU.
>
> Interesting counterargument. Or is it?
I'm not arguing. I'm just pointing out that there are good and bad things
going on everywhere. Blaming the US for people getting shot in the UK or
wherever you are is like blaming the EU for people starving in Africa.
> Anyway never heard this theory before, care to explain?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2233839.stm
We had enough grain to outweigh a couple of battleships ready to go
(hundreds of thousands of tons), and some African countries wouldn't accept
it until it was milled, because they didn't want to lose their EU market for
their produce. Instead, millions of people starved in Africa because the EU
wouldn't import grain from them in the future if they took this grain now.
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Bettertostarve.shtml
>> You enforce your laws, we'll enforce ours. :-) We
>> don't blame the netherlands for the US locking up pot users either.
>
> OTOH we blame the US for locking up Dutch citizens for pot related
> 'crimes'.
Sure. That whole thing is screwed up here. We don't like it either.
> Talking about drugs, having strict drug laws *and* freely available guns
> is a recipe for disaster. ;)
Honestly, Mexico is worse. They have just as many guns, if not more.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 29-1-2011 21:08, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> BTW for completeness sake we also need to factor in those saved here
>>> by the guns made in and for the US market...
>>
>> Does that count stuff like weapons for soldiers?
>
> No, that is another market
Why? If you're talking about manufacturing costs coming down because of
bulk, why does a glock for a citizen count more than a glock for a policeman
or soldier?
>> Because I think we're
>> still ahead on that one, barely. ;-)
>
> In total killed more enemy soldiers than civilians and allies?
Saved more civilians than killed, I'm thinking. :-)
--
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 29-1-2011 23:36, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> You might say that, but you would be wrong. At least for the people I
>> was talking about.
>
> I don't know who you're talking about. I'm saying that the expense of
> guns doesn't seem to have an obvious and direct correlation on the
> number of people who get shot, given that lots of people were shot in
> countries where guns were very expensive.
And I am saying they would be even more expensive if there wasn't such a
large market in the US. BTW from what I have heard guns (if you know
where to get them) are not outside the budget of a 15 YO.
>>>> Get over it, your second amendment is getting people killed outside
>>>> the US. But don't worry they are mostly foreigners.
>>>
>>> Yep. And the EU's stance on non-GMO food is getting a lot of people
>>> killed outside the EU.
>>
>> Interesting counterargument. Or is it?
>
> I'm not arguing. I'm just pointing out that there are good and bad
> things going on everywhere. Blaming the US for people getting shot in
> the UK or wherever you are is like blaming the EU for people starving in
> Africa.
BTW I was not blaming anyone. I was just pointing out that also people
abroad may die as a result of a US policy on guns. In the Netherlands
they are mainly foreigners involved in drugs who get shot here, but still.
>> Anyway never heard this theory before, care to explain?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2233839.stm
>
> We had enough grain to outweigh a couple of battleships ready to go
> (hundreds of thousands of tons), and some African countries wouldn't
> accept it until it was milled, because they didn't want to lose their EU
> market for their produce. Instead, millions of people starved in Africa
> because the EU wouldn't import grain from them in the future if they
> took this grain now.
Ok, you are blaming the EU for a decision in Africa by leaders that are
more concerned about themselves than their people? Ok the EU is involved
somewhere in this line of reasoning and I admit the reasons for that EU
policy are mixed. Both large groups of EU citizens not wanting to
consume GM food, as well as not wanting to be dependent on a US
monopoly. Though both are probably not independent.
> http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Bettertostarve.shtml
That sounds not so objective.
>>> You enforce your laws, we'll enforce ours. :-) We
>>> don't blame the netherlands for the US locking up pot users either.
>>
>> OTOH we blame the US for locking up Dutch citizens for pot related
>> 'crimes'.
>
> Sure. That whole thing is screwed up here. We don't like it either.
>
>> Talking about drugs, having strict drug laws *and* freely available
>> guns is a recipe for disaster. ;)
>
> Honestly, Mexico is worse. They have just as many guns, if not more.
Yes for exactly that reason.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> BTW from what I have heard guns (if you know
> where to get them) are not outside the budget of a 15 YO.
A 15YO drug dealer, maybe. It's not hard to see what the price of a gun is.
The price *you* pay for them over there? Not so much.
I.e., I doubt there's much traffic of inexpensive stolen firearms between
the USA and the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#Economic_class
Then, if you can't actually import them, you can do this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_gun
> BTW I was not blaming anyone. I was just pointing out that also people
> abroad may die as a result of a US policy on guns. In the Netherlands
> they are mainly foreigners involved in drugs who get shot here, but still.
While I understand your concern, blaming firearm deaths on other countries
having a big market for firearms is like blaming automobile deaths on other
countries having a big market for automobiles. It basically doesn't really
make much sense. The link between "americans are allowed to have guns" to
"fred shot sam in the UK" is tremendously tenuous, methinks.
> Ok, you are blaming the EU for a decision in Africa by leaders that are
> more concerned about themselves than their people?
The same as you're blaming America for a decision made by criminals in your
country.
>> http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Bettertostarve.shtml
> That sounds not so objective.
I gave you the link to the newspaper, too. Of course it's not objective -
it's a blog.
>> Honestly, Mexico is worse. They have just as many guns, if not more.
> Yes for exactly that reason.
Mexico has many guns for exactly *what* reason? Because Americans can own
guns? They're not especially regulated in Mexico either, you know.
--
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 1/29/2011 12:58 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2011 10:54 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
>>>> the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
>>>
>>> Or, to put it another way, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
>>>
>> And the rebuttal of a plausible theory is to present an alternate
>> theory, not just claim that it can't be right.
>
> I'm not saying it *can't* be right. I'm saying that there are too many
> variables to likely know with precision that you *are* right, especially
> given other studies that show the opposite.
>
Well, that is kind of the whole problem with this sort of thing. Its not
like a nice clean experiment, where you can control *every* variable.
Even the studies are not based on adequate data, since they can't
control for variables either. All you can do is take aggregate results,
check your predictions against what you see going on, and, more to the
point, actually recognize that those other variables are there. I would
argue that a lot of the studies, possibly on both sides, happily ignore
the existence of variables (like, for example, a ready stock pile of
weapons from some place that makes them in large numbers), in favor of
only looking at the ones that support the conclusion they want, which in
the case of gun advocates is.. pretty much not going to allow for, "What
if they where not available to the criminals either, because we keep
selling them?" Its not even on the radar.
Heck, the idea that their may be like 50 times as many people out there
who *never* got gun training, safety training, or any kind of anything,
before buying one, only even ever comes up when either a) defending
their own possession of one, or b) talking about how things *should* be.
Should isn't the same as *is*. You need to work for the former, the
later happens all on its own, and doesn't give a damn what you *want* to
be true. Yet, the arguments are often hedged with, "Well, if we made
sure more people where properly trained!" 1) it won't bloody matter, in
the case of the nuts, if you don't bother, notice, or recognize, the
ones that are nuts (certain thing with a coupla airplanes proved that
one..) and 2) until/unless you actually implement it, you might as well
wish the sky was green and pigs flew, because you liked green, and liked
bacon so much you wished it could be hunted like ducks.
We know we could reduce, or remove, the number of guns out there. We
*don't* know if training will do any good. You get a lot of idiots, for
example, after all, teaching "martial arts" to people for "defense",
which includes actually killing/injuring the attacker, even after you
have disarmed them, and rendered them a non threat. This is assault
and/or murder, even if you started out by defending yourself. Training
may... lets just say, vary in its effect. :p
We do not know if everyone having one is a good thing, though that was
*precisely* the way things where in the old west, and you could, often,
only tell the bad guys from the good guys by whether or not the
locals/courts decided you belonged on the end of, or rigging, the rope,
hardly a prime example of the "good" that every idiot in sight being
armed would produce.
And so on. And, the claims that "studies" say you are better off armed
take as little, or less, of *any* of the stuff into account that studies
saying guns are not a good thing do.
Pick what can predictably work (even if its not practical to go all the
way and just stop making guns), or what is pure guess work, in the hope
the other studies are more correct? Well.. Oddly enough, when ever
something serious enough comes along, even the advocates for gun
ownership go, "Ah, well.. Maybe we can limit things, just this one time,
again..." Doesn't imply a real big certainty about all those "other"
studies saying its a good thing to have them around imo.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
