On 28-1-2011 23:12, 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. Get over it, your
> second amendment is getting people killed outside the US. But don't
> worry they are mostly foreigners.

feel free to insert a few  ;) 's at appropriate places.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:15:18 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 28-1-2011 23:12, 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. Get over it, your
>> second amendment is getting people killed outside the US. But don't
>> worry they are mostly foreigners.
> 
> feel free to insert a few  ;) 's at appropriate places.

That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US, 
but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would be 
"foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?). ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 28-1-2011 23:16, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:15:18 +0100, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 28-1-2011 23:12, 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. Get over it, your
>>> second amendment is getting people killed outside the US. But don't
>>> worry they are mostly foreigners.
>>
>> feel free to insert a few  ;) 's at appropriate places.
>
> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US,
> but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would be
> "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?). ;-)

I have fellow countrymen and -women living in the US that I prefer not 
to be shot, as well as friends among the US citizens. But other than 
those, I don't care. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 28-1-2011 22:01, andrel wrote:
> On 28-1-2011 15:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 1/27/2011 3:07 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>
>> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
>> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
>> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
>
> 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.

BTW for completeness sake we also need to factor in those saved here by 
the guns made in and for the US market...
Anyone else can think of a likely scenario, cause I can't?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:21:40 +0100, andrel wrote:

> I have fellow countrymen and -women living in the US that I prefer not
> to be shot, as well as friends among the US citizens. But other than
> those, I don't care. ;)

Ah, but doesn't their well-being depend on the well being of others in 
the country? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 28/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US,
> but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would be
> "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?).;-)

Aren't a lot of them "foreigners" to you too, being Spics and Chicos

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:36:24 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 28/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US,
>> but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would
>> be "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?).;-)
> 
> Aren't a lot of them "foreigners" to you too, 

Unless they're illegal immigrants, no, not really.

BTW, you might not be aware, but the first of the terms you used is 
considered quite offensive here in the US amongst Latinos.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 28/01/2011 11:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:36:24 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 28/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US,
>>> but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would
>>> be "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?).;-)
>>
>> Aren't a lot of them "foreigners" to you too,
>
> Unless they're illegal immigrants, no, not really.
>

But you're quite liberal.

> BTW, you might not be aware, but the first of the terms you used is
> considered quite offensive here in the US amongst Latinos.
>

It is considered quite offensive here too but that doesn't stop me from 
reading it in American books and hearing it from some Americans.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:57:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 28/01/2011 11:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:36:24 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the
>>>> US, but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess
>>>> would be "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?).;-)
>>>
>>> Aren't a lot of them "foreigners" to you too,
>>
>> Unless they're illegal immigrants, no, not really.
>>
>>
> But you're quite liberal.

Well, true, socially, I am fairly liberal.

>> BTW, you might not be aware, but the first of the terms you used is
>> considered quite offensive here in the US amongst Latinos.
>>
>>
> It is considered quite offensive here too but that doesn't stop me from
> reading it in American books and hearing it from some Americans.

True, just wanted to make sure you were aware, since I wasn't aware if 
that carried over to UK culture. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1/28/2011 9:50 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
>> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
>> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
>
> I think you need to do more controlled studies. Some places, the crime
> rate goes way up. Some places it goes down. If you take two similar
> areas next to each other and compare, the place with less gun control
> has lower crime rates, but one might argue that's because there's easy
> pickin's close by. Gun crime is very low in some countries with lots of
> guns simply because there aren't many laws against shooting other people
> that get enforced or because most of the violence is the government
> against the peasants. Gun crime is very low in some countries that
> traditionally even the police don't carry guns, simply because the
> culture isn't as violent and is much more uniform, and the crime rate
> would be equally low if everyone had guns.
>
You can't do controlled studies. Its one of them etheekal things, or 
what nots... ;) Seriously though, all you have is statistics to go off 
of. In the case of NY, the statistics say two things, based on a long 
history of issues:

1. Enforcing even the smaller crimes tends to result in fewer crimes in 
general. Based off an earlier case of them doing that, and them not 
going back up a lot later, or the like.

2. It seems that enforcing gun laws effectively drops violent crime 
(specifically with guns), more than its dropping in other places 
already. The interesting thing with that being, a large city, with lots 
of people in it, is usually *slower* at reducing such things than rural 
areas, in the general scheme.

Not proof of correlation, but either it has to do with enforcement, or 
magic, because its not too clear what else *could* be causing the 
result, or why it would be higher one place than another, sans the obvious.

-- 
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 1/28/2011 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.

-- 
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 1/28/2011 2:01 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 28-1-2011 15:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 1/27/2011 3:07 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>
>> Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased,
>> and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other
>> part of the country? Like that sort of thing?
>
> 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.
Bingo! Was what I was saying before. I misread what you wrote. 
Dissecting it, Should have been "chance of", not "change", and well.. 
maybe, "committed by those using cheap guns, manufactured with looser 
laws", or the like. Not to be too picky, but it didn't parse well, and I 
was probably a) half a asleep, or b) in a hurry, when I replied (maybe 
both.. I might have posted it on the way out the door to go to work).

-- 
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 1/28/2011 3:04 PM, 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.
>
That's because a hundred or more years ago they a) fought duels in 
public, b) didn't have a lot of rules about when it was and wasn't 
justified to shoot someone, and c) you didn't have whole organizations 
dedicated to BS like, "Guns don't kill people, people do!", which, imho, 
makes about as much sense as saying, "cars without working brakes don't 
kill people, the people that drive them do.", oh.. and the crazy idea 
that guns represent someone *other* than a very clear, specific, and 
intentional, way to kill things.

-- 
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 1/28/2011 4:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:36:24 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 28/01/2011 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> That's OK, our second amendment also gets people killed inside the US,
>>> but don't worry they are mostly people in the US (which I guess would
>>> be "foreigners" to you, wouldn't it?).;-)
>>
>> Aren't a lot of them "foreigners" to you too,
>
> Unless they're illegal immigrants, no, not really.
>
Yeah, its purely the illegals, who show up to work as farm hands, and 
ditch diggers, and the like, that home invade, rob banks, etc., not drug 
dealers, drug buyers, people who refuse to work low paying jobs, 
thinking they should just get rich quick, and the like, the vast 
majority of them, Americans. Drug dealers are a possible exception, but 
most of the growers, etc., never set foot in the US, they find mules to 
bring them in, and that is like, conservatively, about 50:50 US citizens 
looking to make a buck, and actual illegals, trying to pay off the 
person that snuck them into the country.

Shit, given some of the "legals" I deal with on a daily basis at work, I 
would prefer some of the illegals. They would work harder, and probably 
be significantly less stupid...

-- 
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 1/28/2011 9:53 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Course.. The number "saved" is fairly arbitrary. You have to assume
>> that everyone "saved" couldn't have been without the gun,
>
> No. You go to, for example, the FBI violent crime reports, and see how
> many times people were mugged who had a knife got hurt. Then how many
> times people were mugged who had a gun and got hurt. Then how many times
> people who were mugged and had no weapon got hurt. Etc.
>
> It turns out, at least for the years I looked up way back in college,
> that it was something like 82% of the people who cooperated were
> unharmed, 86% of the people who had a gun (whether they drew it or fired
> it or not) were unharmed, and the next higher number was mid-70s. So,
> basically, having a gun is the only way when being a victim of a violent
> crime that's likely to get you less hurt than just handing over your
> wallet.
>
Interestingly, this statistic doesn't *necessarily* say anything about 
how many get shot *first* because the mugger also had a gun, and decided 
it was worth robbing you, possibly just for the gun, anyway. This is 
likely to be a bit less clear, since, well.. You obviously are not going 
to have the gun on you anymore, if they shoot, then rob you, and it 
might be years before someone else gets caught using it to commit 
another crime. Without those numbers, its hardly clear how effective it 
really is. Even less so when, like someplace like Arizona, the laws 
pretty much allow any damn person that wants one, to have one, *any 
place they want*, unless the building/business owner says flat out, "No 
way in hell on my premises."

-- 
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 1/28/2011 10:39 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> This is what they think will "save the country"...
>>
>
> I'm still no wiser.
>
Then, I guess I don't get precisely what your point/question is.

Mine is that we are bankrupting the middle and lower class, nah, erasing 
the middle class (hell, I made less than 13k last year on my own job), 
while lining the pockets of people that, if they keep it up, will have 
to sell shit they make in China to people in Mexico, because the people 
in the US won't be able to afford to buy it. And, half the idiots in 
congress right now think jobs, pay rates, deficits, budget short falls, 
costs in general, and the inability of anyone to buy anything, is all 
going to be fixed by good old Reagan Voodoo Economics (i.e., trickle 
down economics), so the solution is more outsourcing, removing minimum 
wage laws, stripping away safety nets, repealing anything the government 
does for people, oh.. and giving more tax breaks to "US companies". The 
same companies shipping more than 49.9% of their jobs to some other country.

This isn't just a difference of opinion at this point. Even the damned 
experts responsible for determining what the effect of government 
policies has all say its madness. Many of the people in the party 
driving this have said "parts" of it are mad, even if they won't say all 
of it is. Its, to use a literary analogy, like watching the Wizards from 
the Unseen University, of Discworld fame, try to balance the budget, 
while Star Trek Ferengi give them advice on the rules of acquisition. 
The "experts" they use are in it purely for the money, and by 'the 
money', I mean *their money*, not to help anyone, unless it makes them 
more money doing it, and the people they are advising are back stabbing 
idiots, who say things like, "Sputnik caused Russia to go bankrupt!" 
Thereby simultaneously missing *why* the satellite was even mentioned 
*and* proving they probably couldn't correctly tell someone what they 
had for lunch five minutes ago, and get it right, never mind quote 
plausible facts from world history.

-- 
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 1/28/2011 10:56 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:49:33 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Only if everyone that does so wins the lotto.
>
> Well, I was being very simplistic - it probably wouldn't be stated as
> "you will win the lotto" but something more generic - "you will come into
> some cash".  That's how that sort of thing actually is done.
>
> So someone who wins the lotto will see it as predicting their winning the
> lotto.  Someone who finds $20 on the street will see that as being
> confirmation that it was "predicted".
>
Interestingly, those that don't either ignore all the times it was 
wrong, or are never heard from again.

>> Otherwise, not so much.
>> Its also rather fiddly. Some morons will take nearly anything as an
>> example of "success".
>
> So, are you saying that being optimistic is moronic?  Because after all,
> optimists tend to take what they see that's positive as a sign of success.
>
> Jim
There is optimism and "blind optimism". The later works on a combination 
of personal, and selective bias. Personal bias means they won't remember 
a damn thing about when it didn't work. Selective bias means that the 
con artist will **never** admit to all the ones that never came back, 
called them a liar outright, or where otherwise annoyed, angered by, 
harmed by, or failed by, the scammer.

Being optimistic when you have a good reason to is not moronic. Most 
people have a whole hell of a lot fewer "good" reasons for the things 
they do than they have mediocre, or even really bad, ones. Using those 
makes you human, which, unfortunately, way more often than I desperately 
wish was true, and amounts to the same thing as "moron".

-- 
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 1/28/2011 10:51 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:58:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Again, depends on the point of discussion. An argument is only rational
>> if it is *possible* to change someone's mind. If the reason they can't
>> is religion, then QED, they are not rational about that subject.
>
> It's entirely possible to be logical using the internal logic (which in
> many religions has some degree of consistency) and have a rational
> discussion.
>
Hmm. And here we where recently arguing over whether or not "string 
theory", which has "some degree of internal consistency", constituted a 
valid description of *anything* at all...

Mind, show me a religion that has *as much* consistency as string theory 
does to itself, and we can talk about the plausibility of it. It should 
also be noted that, imho, you just excluded pretty much every western 
religion in existence, since the only way to make most of them self 
consistent is by throwing out most, if not all, of the stuff the purport 
to base themselves on, and/or ignore the evidence (or total lack of it) 
supporting any of what they keep.

Sort of becomes an argument in line of, "Well, Tolkien's world is self 
consistent, as long as you ignore a) reality, b) all the stuff the ideas 
in it where stolen from, and c) the scattered notes he used to construct 
it, which show he changes bits in various places. But, you know, as long 
as you ignore it being fiction, and the old stuff it came from, and the 
stuff he edited, its all completely reasonable... 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 Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:16:45 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> So someone who wins the lotto will see it as predicting their winning
>> the lotto.  Someone who finds $20 on the street will see that as being
>> confirmation that it was "predicted".
>>
> Interestingly, those that don't either ignore all the times it was
> wrong, or are never heard from again.

Sure, people tend to focus on what works when it works, not when it 
doesn't.

>>> Otherwise, not so much.
>>> Its also rather fiddly. Some morons will take nearly anything as an
>>> example of "success".
>>
>> So, are you saying that being optimistic is moronic?  Because after
>> all, optimists tend to take what they see that's positive as a sign of
>> success.
>>
> There is optimism and "blind optimism". The later works on a combination
> of personal, and selective bias. Personal bias means they won't remember
> a damn thing about when it didn't work. Selective bias means that the
> con artist will **never** admit to all the ones that never came back,
> called them a liar outright, or where otherwise annoyed, angered by,
> harmed by, or failed by, the scammer.

Everyone has personal biases.  Even you. :-)

> Being optimistic when you have a good reason to is not moronic. Most
> people have a whole hell of a lot fewer "good" reasons for the things
> they do than they have mediocre, or even really bad, ones. Using those
> makes you human, which, unfortunately, way more often than I desperately
> wish was true, and amounts to the same thing as "moron".

I can't even begin to tell you the number of times something has happened 
to me that has looked bad (and in fact probably been bad when it 
happened), but in the end, things have worked out for the best.  Even 
when I lost my job and spent 4 months unemployed without unemployment 
benefits - but with a mortgage.

I think that even though I was depressed, I was optimistic that things 
would work out.  And they did.  Does that make me a moron for being 
optimistic?  I don't think so.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:33:46 -0700, 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.

Alternate theory, then:  Those who had committed violent crimes were 
either dead or in jail, and thus unable to commit more crimes.

Or they got past that "phase" of their lives and have gone on to become 
productive members of society.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:48:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> Unless they're illegal immigrants, no, not really.
>>
> Yeah, its purely the illegals, who show up to work as farm hands, and
> ditch diggers, and the like, that home invade, rob banks, etc.,

Don't you *dare* put words in my mouth, Patrick.  I didn't say that, nor 
did I imply that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:23:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> It's entirely possible to be logical using the internal logic (which in
>> many religions has some degree of consistency) and have a rational
>> discussion.
>>
> Hmm. And here we where recently arguing over whether or not "string
> theory", which has "some degree of internal consistency", constituted a
> valid description of *anything* at all...

I don't believe I was involved in that discussion.  I certainly don't 
know a lot about string theory, and not nearly enough to compare a 
religion to it.

That is just a ludicrous statement/challenge.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 29/01/2011 12:00 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> >  But you're quite liberal.
> Well, true, socially, I am fairly liberal.
>

Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the pond.

>> >  It is considered quite offensive here too but that doesn't stop me from
>> >  reading it in American books and hearing it from some Americans.
> True, just wanted to make sure you were aware, since I wasn't aware if
> that carried over to UK culture.:-)
>

It is not a word in common usage here. But I suppose most of us could 
guess its meaning.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 29-1-2011 2:39, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 2:01 PM, 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.
> Bingo! Was what I was saying before. I misread what you wrote.
> Dissecting it, Should have been "chance of", not "change", and well..
> maybe, "committed by those using cheap guns, manufactured with looser
> laws", or the like. Not to be too picky, but it didn't parse well, and I
> was probably a) half a asleep, or b) in a hurry, when I replied (maybe
> both.. I might have posted it on the way out the door to go to work).

Sorry for the typo. The spell-checker didn't get it because I changed on 
a chance that was an existing word.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/01/2011 2:09 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 10:39 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>> This is what they think will "save the country"...
>>>
>>
>> I'm still no wiser.
>>
> Then, I guess I don't get precisely what your point/question is.
>
> Mine is that we are bankrupting the middle and lower class, nah, erasing
> the middle class

[Snip]

Now I understand and sympathise.
We have had similar situations since the Blessed Mrs T </irony> came to 
power.

> This isn't just a difference of opinion at this point.

[Snip]

They say Love is blind but it has nothing on Avarice.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:04:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 29/01/2011 12:00 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >  But you're quite liberal.
>> Well, true, socially, I am fairly liberal.
>>
>>
> Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the
> pond.

Well, not really a change, but there are nuances (in terms of political 
usage of the word) that perhaps aren't common over there.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 29/01/2011 6:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:04:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>

>> Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the
>> pond.
>
> Well, not really a change, but there are nuances (in terms of political
> usage of the word) that perhaps aren't common over there.
>

Yes, nuances is a better word. "Liberal" changes its meaning here 
depending on whether it is spelt with a capital "L" or not.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:14:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 29/01/2011 6:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:04:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the
>>> pond.
>>
>> Well, not really a change, but there are nuances (in terms of political
>> usage of the word) that perhaps aren't common over there.
>>
>>
> Yes, nuances is a better word. "Liberal" changes its meaning here
> depending on whether it is spelt with a capital "L" or not.

Interesting - so which meaning were you using?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 29/01/2011 7:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>> Yes, nuances is a better word. "Liberal" changes its meaning here
>> depending on whether it is spelt with a capital "L" or not.
>
> Interesting - so which meaning were you using?
>

With a small "l", Liberal is a political party. They used to be called 
Whigs now they are just little "c"s


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
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 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.

> 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. You enforce your laws, we'll enforce ours. :-)  We don't 
blame the netherlands for the US locking up pot users either.

http://www.glock.com/english/index_contact.htm



-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> That's because a hundred or more years ago they a) fought duels in 
> public, 

I think the number of deaths by duel where both sides agree to shoot at each 
other is nominal, unless you have some evidence that it was common.

> b) didn't have a lot of rules about when it was and wasn't 
> justified to shoot someone, 

Of course they did.

> and c) you didn't have whole organizations 
> dedicated to BS like, "Guns don't kill people, people do!", 

Because nobody was stupid enough to think otherwise. Guns were tools just 
like knives were.

> makes about as much sense as saying, "cars without working brakes don't 
> kill people, the people that drive them do.", oh.. and the crazy idea 
> that guns represent someone *other* than a very clear, specific, and 
> intentional, way to kill things.

Guns are not likened to cars without brakes. How many policemen carry guns? 
How many policemen would drive a car without brakes?

-- 
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:
> 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? Because I think we're still 
ahead on that one, barely. ;-)

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Interestingly, this statistic doesn't *necessarily* say anything about 
> how many get shot *first* because the mugger also had a gun, and decided 
> it was worth robbing you, possibly just for the gun, anyway. 

So the number of armed people who get shot and die and have their gun taken 
away counts as unarmed people who died? Alright. It also doesn't count the 
number of people who got shot and died and had their knife taken away. So 
I'm not sure how it washes out.

> Without those numbers, its hardly clear how effective it 
> really is. 

Unless the percentage of deadly crimes compared to overall violent crimes is 
fairly low, which I'd think it would be back in the 1980s.

-- 
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

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."

-- 
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 8:12 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

On 1/29/2011 12:14 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 29/01/2011 6:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:04:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>
>>> Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the
>>> pond.
>>
>> Well, not really a change, but there are nuances (in terms of political
>> usage of the word) that perhaps aren't common over there.
>>
>
> Yes, nuances is a better word. "Liberal" changes its meaning here
> depending on whether it is spelt with a capital "L" or not.
>
And, even more so when it happens to be attached to another word, with a 
D on it, and depending on who exactly is using it.

-- 
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 1/29/2011 1:06 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> That's because a hundred or more years ago they a) fought duels in
>> public,
>
> I think the number of deaths by duel where both sides agree to shoot at
> each other is nominal, unless you have some evidence that it was common.
>
I would argue that the mere fact that it took a long time to load the 
damn things tended to either result in you being real clear you wanted 
to shoot someone, or having lots more time to change your mind. Sure, 
they where used a lot to kill people for various reasons, other than 
duels, but there was usually an "accepted" justification for it, or some 
sort.

>> b) didn't have a lot of rules about when it was and wasn't justified
>> to shoot someone,
>
> Of course they did.
>
Depends on what you define as rules. I would, again, argue that rules 
which operated on a) societal justifications, i.e., the person shot was 
*obviously* deserving of it, due to race, religion, nationality, etc., 
b) talking fast enough to convince people you had a reason, especially 
since it might not be possible to prove otherwise, and c) legal means to 
handily do away with any possibility of being arrested for shooting 
someone, all constitute a lack of effective rules. You literally just 
needed to find the right loopholes/claims and you could shoot damn near 
anyone.

>> and c) you didn't have whole organizations dedicated to BS like, "Guns
>> don't kill people, people do!",
>
> Because nobody was stupid enough to think otherwise. Guns were tools
> just like knives were.
>
Knives tend to have the trait that, unless you throw them, and even, in 
many cases *if* you throw them, they don't tend to kill people that 
where not involved in the altercation in the first place. Guns.. if you 
don't hit the intended target, and even, in some rare cases, if you do, 
you have no certainty they won't hit someone else instead. Kind of a 
damn stupid "tool". Its like complaining that people would like you to 
stop dropping matches every place, and saying, "But I never intended for 
all those buildings to catch fire!" The matches have a place and 
purpose, which doesn't involve improperly using them, and no one much 
cares if you have a pack in your pocket, since they don't tend to 
randomly light things one fire. Someone that carries them around for the 
*sole* purpose of, "I might need to light a fire.", tend to justifiably 
be presumed to be possible arsonists, especially if they tend to never 
*be* any place where they plausibly could *ever* need to do that, not 
law abiding citizens. Say that you, "may need to shoot someone.", even 
if you add in, "in self defense"... Well, lets just say its not what I 
would call a "compelling" argument either. lol

>> makes about as much sense as saying, "cars without working brakes
>> don't kill people, the people that drive them do.", oh.. and the crazy
>> idea that guns represent someone *other* than a very clear, specific,
>> and intentional, way to kill things.
>
> Guns are not likened to cars without brakes. How many policemen carry
> guns? How many policemen would drive a car without brakes?
>
Cars without breaks = guns in places most reasonable people wouldn't 
bring them, with more ammo than reasonable, semi-auto, when this is 
overkill just by itself, and a whole host of other issues, not the least 
being that we are ***not*** talking about a police officer, or anyone 
else that one might presume actually has the training, at least in 
principle, if not actuality, to know when, and how, to use one properly. 
So, no, a cop wouldn't drive a car without brakes. Half the people I 
know wouldn't even notice they didn't have any, until they tried to 
stop. They simply wouldn't bother to notice that a problem existed (and, 
by the same token, they wouldn't see anything odd with having an 
overdone gun, in the hands of a badly/untrained person, shooting 
inaccurately, at someone that might not even be an appropriate target). 
And that is just the non-criminals. The criminals, I would have some 
presumption, might have fired the thing often enough to know who they 
where shooting at, ironically.

-- 
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 1/29/2011 3:37 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> 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. :-)
>
Which war, and in *whose* hands? Just saying..

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> "What if they where not available to the criminals either

That's completely unrealistic, tho. It's almost trivial to make a simple 
firearm. Even when you're in a country under martial law being invaded by an 
attacking country, it's not all that hard to get guns.

Now, if you *also* disarmed the police and military, maybe that would happen.

Or, you can look at countries where *everyone* has guns and knows how to use 
them, and see a tremendously low violent crime rate, and consider that maybe 
the guns aren't the biggest problem to address, even if reducing them would 
help.

> We know we could reduce, or remove, the number of guns out there.

Yeah, because that worked *so* well with drugs.  And with alcohol before that.

> We *don't* know if training will do any good. You get a lot of idiots,

Sure. Because only the brightest people go into the military, and people 
accidentally shoot each other every day there.

> 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.

Sure. But that was also at a time when the only police force was the general 
population. Disarm them, and watch what the bad guys do.

> 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.

No it doesn't. It's a simple statistic: People with guns got hurt in violent 
crimes less than people without guns.  Admittedly it didn't look at things 
like accidental shootings, but then this was the FBI unified crime 
statistics, not the FBI unified accident statistics.

Saying you can't tell whether it works is like saying you can't tell whether 
changing the speed limit state-wide reduces accidents.

> Pick what can predictably work 

Does it work? How do you know?

> Doesn't imply a real big certainty about all those "other" 
> studies saying its a good thing to have them around imo.

Understand that the reason the guns are around in the USA are for when the 
shit hits the fan. We haven't had a whole lot of revolutions in this 
country, in part because of the second amendment. Before you disarm 
everyone, take into account the effect that has on how corrupt the 
government can get, before you loudly proclaim the benefits of being just as 
disarmed as the general population of, say, China. :-)

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/29/2011 1:06 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> That's because a hundred or more years ago they a) fought duels in
>>> public,
>>
>> I think the number of deaths by duel where both sides agree to shoot at
>> each other is nominal, unless you have some evidence that it was common.
>>
> I would argue that the mere fact that it took a long time to load the 

I have no idea what that has to do with duels. And nobody that carried a gun 
carried it unloaded when it takes a minute or more to load.

>>> b) didn't have a lot of rules about when it was and wasn't justified
>>> to shoot someone,
>>
>> Of course they did.
>>
> Depends on what you define as rules.

Laws. Same as we have now. Nobody went around saying "He's italian, so I get 
to shoot him."

> I would, again, argue that rules 
> which operated on a) societal justifications, i.e., the person shot was 
> *obviously* deserving of it, due to race, religion, nationality, etc., 
> b) talking fast enough to convince people you had a reason, especially 
> since it might not be possible to prove otherwise, and c) legal means to 
> handily do away with any possibility of being arrested for shooting 
> someone, all constitute a lack of effective rules. You literally just 
> needed to find the right loopholes/claims and you could shoot damn near 
> anyone.

Do you have any evidence at all for this?

>>> and c) you didn't have whole organizations dedicated to BS like, "Guns
>>> don't kill people, people do!",
>>
>> Because nobody was stupid enough to think otherwise. Guns were tools
>> just like knives were.
>>
> Knives tend to have the trait that, unless you throw them, and even, in 
> many cases *if* you throw them, they don't tend to kill people that 
> where not involved in the altercation in the first place. Guns.. if you 
> don't hit the intended target, and even, in some rare cases, if you do, 
> you have no certainty they won't hit someone else instead. 

Gun control means hitting your target. :-)

Note that automobiles are much more dangerous than firearms in that respect. 
Heck, last I looked, swimming pools were more dangerous than firearms in tht 
respect.

 > The matches have a place and purpose, which doesn't involve improperly 
using them, and no one much
> cares if you have a pack in your pocket, since they don't tend to 
> randomly light things one fire. 

And a gun in your pocket doesn't tend to randomly shoot people.

> Someone that carries them around for the 
> *sole* purpose of, "I might need to light a fire.", tend to justifiably 
> be presumed to be possible arsonists, 

Wow, really? And I guess anyone who carried a pocket knife on the grounds 
it's useful for opening packages ought be arrested for assault if they 
didn't get any fedex deliveries that day?

>> Guns are not likened to cars without brakes. How many policemen carry
>> guns? How many policemen would drive a car without brakes?
>>
> Cars without breaks = guns in places most reasonable people wouldn't 
> bring them,

I don't follow. What normal places would reasonable people not bring guns?

Nevermind. Your analogy is just too tortured to communicate anything.

Indeed, I think your entire screed is too tortured to communicate anything 
worth responding to, since you're not actually making any points except "I 
don't think people should have guns because they're all stupid, even tho I 
have no actual evidence for this."

-- 
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