 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(while trying to answer this my power supply broke down :( had to go and
buy a new one).
On 30-1-2011 2:18, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
IIRC from a newspaper article it was in the order of €150-€200. Within
reach of any paper-boy. Availability is mainly via Belgium, with its
broader fire arm laws. I don't know who made them.
> I.e., I doubt there's much traffic of inexpensive stolen firearms
> between the USA and the UK.
I don't think they need to be stolen.
> 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.
Proving it in a particular case is rather useless. And I am not blaming
anyone. There was a discussion on whether the net effect of the US gun
laws is more or less victims. My point was that you might need to look
further than your own country. What I proposed was to compare two
situations 1) the current one where the NRA is the main direct and
indirect factor in gun control and 2) the fictitious USA where gun
control is comparable with e.g. the Netherlands (which is where I live
BTW). In the latter situation not only would the market be smaller,
there would be less choice and not being legal would have an additional
effect on the price. All these factors would mean that the number of
guns in other countries would also be smaller. At least that is what I
think. That is not a moral judgement however.
Probably the gun manufacturers and dealers would move to Canada or
Mexico, still reducing the legal market would have an effect.
>> 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.
Again, I am not blaming anyone.
>>> 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.
Sorry, that was meant for the sentence before. Mexico is worse because
of it's own mixture of drugs and availability of fire arms.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:58:01 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> 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
Ah, I see. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
>> I.e., I doubt there's much traffic of inexpensive stolen firearms
>> between the USA and the UK.
>
> I don't think they need to be stolen.
Why are you blaming the USA if you can pass import restriction laws to solve
your problem, then? I assumed you were talking about *illegal* firearms,
because otherwise all you have to do is pass a law making the legal firearms
illegal to solve *that* problem.
> Proving it in a particular case is rather useless. And I am not blaming
> anyone. There was a discussion on whether the net effect of the US gun
> laws is more or less victims. My point was that you might need to look
> further than your own country.
That's fair, certainly.
> What I proposed was to compare two
> situations 1) the current one where the NRA is the main direct and
> indirect factor in gun control
I think a lot of people in this country are in favor of being able to have
their own guns. It's not like the NRA has taken over or something. There are
a whole bunch of states where getting a gun legally is extremely difficult,
and a whole bunch where it's really trivially easy, because people like it
that way. And it's mainly historical situations that dictate that.
>>> 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.
>
> Again, I am not blaming anyone.
OK. Read "blame" as metaphorical, then. :-)
> Sorry, that was meant for the sentence before. Mexico is worse because
> of it's own mixture of drugs and availability of fire arms.
Yep. But it's mainly worse because the organized crime has taken over from
the "legitimate" government. Government, really, is just the biggest
protection racket. If you lose control to local criminals, all the laws in
the world won't keep them from making their own firearms pretty easily.
--
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 30/01/2011 6:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> With a small "l", Liberal is a political party. They used to be called
>> > Whigs now they are just little "c"s
> Ah, I see.:-)
You "c", is that conservative with a large or small "c"?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:36:47 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 30/01/2011 6:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> With a small "l", Liberal is a political party. They used to be called
>>> > Whigs now they are just little "c"s
>> Ah, I see.:-)
>
> You "c", is that conservative with a large or small "c"?
LOL, I'm no Tory. ;-) That'd be about as crazy as me joining the BNP and
still wanting to live in the UK. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/01/2011 8:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> LOL, I'm no Tory.;-) That'd be about as crazy as me joining the BNP and
> still wanting to live in the UK.;-)
:-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-1-2011 20:32, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>> I.e., I doubt there's much traffic of inexpensive stolen firearms
>>> between the USA and the UK.
>>
>> I don't think they need to be stolen.
>
> Why are you blaming the USA if you can pass import restriction laws to
> solve your problem, then?
I am *NOT* blam... sorry you got that by now.
> I assumed you were talking about *illegal*
> firearms, because otherwise all you have to do is pass a law making the
> legal firearms illegal to solve *that* problem.
firearms are illegal here (minus a few exceptions). I was talking about
legally obtained guns entering illegal into this country. But you
already got that too.
>> What I proposed was to compare two situations 1) the current one where
>> the NRA is the main direct and indirect factor in gun control
>
> I think a lot of people in this country are in favor of being able to
> have their own guns. It's not like the NRA has taken over or something.
No, they just will make any politician or any journalist saying gun
control may be a good idea lose his job. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/29/2011 10:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>
Not seeing a lot of those. Most places, everyone having one isn't a good
thing. It certainly wasn't in the US past.
>> 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. :-)
>
Imho, the second amendment doesn't have **jack** to do with it. If we
had the government try to do something, the populace *had* risen up, and
the result wasn't a lot of dead people, and the government winning, you
would have a point. Otherwise, this is bloody idiocy, founded on a fairy
tale. Everyone having a gun wouldn't help us fight the government
successfully today, nor would it have done so at any time in the last
century. Assuming you could get the military to act against the people
it protects, the general citizenry would be out gunned, by so massive a
level, it wouldn't be like freedom fighters doing sneak attacks, armed
with a few guns, it would be more like a primitive tribe attempting to
stop a tank, using sticks.
What keeps the government in line is a) so far we haven't had anyone
sufficiently crazy as to believe they need to *fix* things by
overthrowing the constitution (even if we do have a few stupid enough to
not have a damn clue what it says), and b) the people who would have to
enforce any such overthrow wouldn't allow it, regardless of who was
pushing them. The general populous being able to wave a hand gun around,
when facing a Mach-2 aircraft with frakking cluster bombs, is
meaningless. It gets more and more meaningless as things progress.
Its also imho, a dangerous and stupid way of solving problems. The nuts
we have right now, who *could* very easily cross that line, if not for
the fact that less than 10% of the population would even pretend at
following them, babble about using guns, force, and the second amendment
to overthrow people the other 90+% of the country elected. The sane
people are going to use every method possible to solve the problem
without violence. The crazy people will do anything at all they must, to
win, and shooting at things is like item 3 on every damn one of their lists.
Overthrowing governments by guns a) doesn't work, b) gets a lot of
people dead, and c) makes no guarantee that the ones that shoot last are
going to be the ones *defending* democratic ideals. On the contrary, the
ones most likely to do it don't really believe in them (even if they
play lip service to all of them, while cherry picking only the ones that
they find helpful). The reason it doesn't work is that its the law, and
the constitution, and the ideals, that define whether or not the damn
thing is fair, just and/or free, not how many people got shot getting
there. If you can't curtail the nuts, and stop violence with words, you
have **already bloody lost**.
That is the reason why so much of the idiot rhetoric you see now is so
disheartening. We have stopped fighting with facts, evidence and sense,
and have instead seen one side drift more and more to the other, while
the other side keeps getting more and more absurd. And, **they** are the
ones suggesting that more guns is a good thing, and that we erase
virtually every progressive law, rights, constitutional amendment, or
principle we have, which doesn't *fit* their world view. Their answer on
how to do this? Get a gun, in case terrorism (i.e., fear and lies)
doesn't work, and we can't just legislate our view on everyone!
What is standing in their way is the military, not the general
population. That is why **part** of the BS they have been pulling is to
try to evangelize the military, to make them side with them, instead of
the rest of the country, who are not evangelicals, literalists, etc. If
the military is not on their side, they can't violently overthrow the
"liberal atheist communist government". If they where, they know, quite
well, that the general populace would be no more able to defend
themselves against the resulting, "corrupt government", than anyone else
has been, in countries where everyone has bloody guns, but the result is
genocide, by whom ever has the bigger set/number of guns.
The second amendment, if directed at "preventing government corruption",
is a fantasy. If you fail, or even if you manage to shoot the "corrupt
official(s)", you are a terrorist, or a traitor, or a madman. You can't
win. And no one claiming you can is talking about the next bloody Hitler
taking over the country, they are talking about someone, "letting gays
marry", or, "using spy satellites to read their location via their tooth
fillings". In short, they are talking about overthrowing the country
over something only a fraction agree with, or they are completely insane.
The fall of this country, if it comes from within, isn't going to be
undone/prevented by a handful of people with guns. Given the kinds of
people that tend to be most obsessed with the damn things, most of them
are going to be *welcoming* the new order, not fighting against 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 1/30/2011 8:59 AM, andrel wrote:
> (while trying to answer this my power supply broke down :( had to go and
> buy a new one).
>
> On 30-1-2011 2:18, Darren New wrote:
>> 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.
>
> IIRC from a newspaper article it was in the order of €150-€200. Within
> reach of any paper-boy. Availability is mainly via Belgium, with its
> broader fire arm laws. I don't know who made them.
>
>> I.e., I doubt there's much traffic of inexpensive stolen firearms
>> between the USA and the UK.
>
> I don't think they need to be stolen.
>
>> 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.
>
> Proving it in a particular case is rather useless. And I am not blaming
> anyone. There was a discussion on whether the net effect of the US gun
> laws is more or less victims. My point was that you might need to look
> further than your own country. What I proposed was to compare two
> situations 1) the current one where the NRA is the main direct and
> indirect factor in gun control and 2) the fictitious USA where gun
> control is comparable with e.g. the Netherlands (which is where I live
> BTW). In the latter situation not only would the market be smaller,
> there would be less choice and not being legal would have an additional
> effect on the price. All these factors would mean that the number of
> guns in other countries would also be smaller. At least that is what I
> think. That is not a moral judgement however.
> Probably the gun manufacturers and dealers would move to Canada or
> Mexico, still reducing the legal market would have an effect.
>
Not going to happen. For a large segment of the people in the US,
especially politicians, even *suggesting* that someone else's situation
is pertinent to the US situation is damn close to some form of
blasphemy. Unless, of course, the one making the comparison is a right
wing wacko, and then they ignore the actual facts, in favor of making up
shit that they know most people won't have a clue is completely false.
If you tried to compare to, say, the UK, their "invented" facts would
either be to claim that their gun laws cause 500 times as many deaths,
especially among cops, as the US, or they would lie and claim that their
laws allowed everyone over the age of 8 to own one. Its more likely to
be the former though, since Britain isn't "foreign" enough, and its just
possible a large number of people would know that claiming everyone
slept with one under their pillow would be seen through, even by total
idiots.
But, its not uncommon for claims to be made about just about
*everything* from prostitution to drugs, which try to make every country
with even moderately different laws as a cell pool of hell, worse than
anything we have here, and therefor, as bad as it is in the US, it would
be worse if we even suggested adopting someone else's solutions, never
mind actually did so.
We even get the same BS "internally". Like the bozo protesting the
health care bill, on the basis it would bankrupt the whole country, less
than a year after passing a near identical *state* bill, in his own
state. I swear, sometimes living here is like wandering into some old
village, where like one person in the whole thing ever went any place,
and that was to the next bigger village, to sell a pig, so *everything*
outside must be foreign, and wrong, and dangerous. Been at least twice
this past week someone from either Canada, or even one of the eastern
states, who has come in to the store I worked at and said, "Do you
accept a Safeway card from out of state?" About ready to tell the next
one, "Dah, Soviet Arizona accept all card, even from capitalist nation,
like Nebraska!" I mean WTF?
--
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:
> On 1/29/2011 10:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Not seeing a lot of those.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
>> 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. :-)
>>
> Imho, the second amendment doesn't have **jack** to do with it.
Sure it does. Combined with soldiers (for example) taking an oath to the
constitution instead of the leaders, it helps. But I'm not going to argue
that with you.
> Assuming you could get the military to act against the people
> it protects, the general citizenry would be out gunned,
Yes, because, you know, Afghanistan hasn't had any success in such a situation.
> The general populous being able to wave a hand gun around,
> when facing a Mach-2 aircraft with frakking cluster bombs, is
> meaningless. It gets more and more meaningless as things progress.
Funny. Tell them that in Iraq.
--
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 10:30 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>
Sure, and buying fuel oil and fertilizer doesn't mean you *plan* to make
a bomb. Its still considered sufficiently suspicious to require a lot
bloody more strict rules that for a gun. Hell, you can buy a box of
bullets, one of those extra big clips, and the gun, with less trouble
than you could ***Cold medicine***. Why? Because you have a "right" to
the gun, and the presumption is, "They don't plan to shoot at other
people." The automatic presumption of anyone buying more than one
package of something with Amphedamine in it -> drug manufacturing.
That is the thing I find so stupid about this. By all rights, in any
sane world, buying cold medicine should be "normal". Everyone feeling
they need to carry around something that can kill you dead, they might
keep firing, even if they hit their target, and where ***no one*** can
predict that being trained to a) hit, or b) properly use, the damn thing
will actually result in either... That's insane. I don't know if, in a
situation like that, I would a) actually hit what I intended, b) not
panic and shoot myself in the foot instead, etc. Anyone that does is
either lying, delusional, or has experience *in* those situations in the
first place. And, last I checked, the minimum gun training that people
need to own one **does not include that kind of experience**.
Hell, if you get right down to it, half the people I see driving I can't
imagine how they passed the damn driving test (its like a frakking
disease here, no one knows how to use turn signals in the entire damn
city (well, 90% anyway), and that is just the first thing off the top of
my head I find mad about how they drive). You think I should trust the
same people with learning proper gun handling, especially when the moron
that nearly runs me over having failed to use a turn signal gets out and
had a side arm on is belt, and brags about his "carry permit"? He can't
operate a car while following the rules, why the hell would I trust him
to shoot the guy trying to rob me, instead of accidentally shooting me?
Just saying...
>> 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?
>
Yeah, ignore the rest of my explanation of what I meant by that, and
just pick on the one detail you could reject..
And, yeah, I would think, "Most people are not as smart as they imagine
they are, including me, which is why I wouldn't trust them to get it
right.", is a perfectly valid bloody argument.
--
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 1/30/2011 3:27 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 1/29/2011 10:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Not seeing a lot of those.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
>
>>> 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. :-)
>>>
>> Imho, the second amendment doesn't have **jack** to do with it.
>
> Sure it does. Combined with soldiers (for example) taking an oath to the
> constitution instead of the leaders, it helps. But I'm not going to
> argue that with you.
>
The oath has a lot to do with it. The average person having a weapon.. I
am highly skeptical of.
>> Assuming you could get the military to act against the people it
>> protects, the general citizenry would be out gunned,
>
> Yes, because, you know, Afghanistan hasn't had any success in such a
> situation.
>
Oh, yes, because the average Afghani government official has access to
entire arms manufacturing plants, giant armies, dozens of airports, and
whole military bases... Try using an example where there is a tangible
disparity between what the people fighting the government and the people
in the government have to fight with, and there are *no* outside sources
either a) providing them with support, or b) trying to avoid casualties.
If the government had the means, and was willing, or *we* as the outside
help, didn't care about casualties, a few main cities could be kept, and
the rest of the country smashed to pieces, and the result would kind of
leave a) no one willing to keep fighting back in the places left, and b)
no one left outside of those places to fight. Its like the Nam argument.
If you where willing to win by *any means*, you could have just killed
everyone that got in the way, indiscriminately. As a rule, dictators,
fascists, etc., tend to take that tactic *especially* when resistance is
actually possible, since they don't give a damn about the people they
are going to rule, only about their own vision. Places like Afghanistan
they are successful because those that help from outside *want* an
intact country, for one reason or another, and the ones in the
government being fought both want something left *after*, and often,
without outside help, are no better armed than the rebels.
Hardly a useful example... Try every other point in history, where both
sides where armed, but one of them had **no problem** just simply wiping
out everyone that didn't accept their rule. You can't win against a
superior force, if the superior force wants to keep most of the people
fighting them alive. The problem with fascists and the like is, they
generally don't give a shit if anyone they define as, "dangerous to the
new order", survive at all.
--
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:
> Try using an example where there is a tangible
> disparity between what the people fighting the government and the people
> in the government have to fight with,
You mean, like, Afghanistan when the Russians or Americans invaded? You
seemed to completely miss my point.
--
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:
> Hell, you can buy a box of
> bullets, one of those extra big clips, and the gun, with less trouble
> than you could ***Cold medicine***.
Depends where you live. In NJ, you have to have your fingerprints run thru
the FBI to buy a box of bullets. You don't get a gun at all, unless you can
prove you need one for work. Oh, and "I carry around tens of thousands of
dollars of cash as part of my job" doesn't count as a good reason.
Yet, I don't see anyone talking about how much safer New Jersey is than,
say, Texas.
> Yeah, ignore the rest of my explanation of what I meant by that, and
> just pick on the one detail you could reject..
Honestly, you write such long rambling posts full of unsupported assertions
that I couldn't possibly actually answer your entire post, even if I wanted to.
--
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 1/30/2011 5:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Try using an example where there is a tangible disparity between what
>> the people fighting the government and the people in the government
>> have to fight with,
>
> You mean, like, Afghanistan when the Russians or Americans invaded? You
> seemed to completely miss my point.
>
And you are missing mine. Russia didn't want to wipe out everything and
start over, neither did the US. When you enemy is unwilling to kill
everyone they come across to win, and/or are intent of making allies,
you have some means, even if limited, to resist. When this isn't the
case... you get things like WWII, where being a "freedom fighter" isn't
going to get you any place.
And, even if you are in that sort of position.. the point of fighting a
war against an aggressor is to eventually win. If it takes you 20, 30,
50, etc. years to do that, there may not be enough of your own
principles left to restore anything you where fighting to protect in the
first place. If you want to defend yourself from corruption, you need to
do it in a *short* time, not over decades. Otherwise, you are not
fighting to protect/restore anything, you are fighting to replace what
ever you had with something else, and it will never be the same thing
you started with (it might not even be what you where fighting to
defend/protect, by the time you are done).
--
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 1/30/2011 5:49 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Hell, you can buy a box of bullets, one of those extra big clips, and
>> the gun, with less trouble than you could ***Cold medicine***.
>
> Depends where you live. In NJ, you have to have your fingerprints run
> thru the FBI to buy a box of bullets. You don't get a gun at all, unless
> you can prove you need one for work. Oh, and "I carry around tens of
> thousands of dollars of cash as part of my job" doesn't count as a good
> reason.
>
> Yet, I don't see anyone talking about how much safer New Jersey is than,
> say, Texas.
>
Course, the problem there is, NJ is hardly isolated from any place else,
any more than Texas is. And, frankly, I wouldn't trust Texas to give
valid statistics. One thing I have noticed is a tendency of places,
cities, states, etc., to deflate, via careful fudging of numbers, or
failure to accurately report things in the first place, any statistic
that might actually represent the opposite of what they wish to be true.
Its only when an outside audit can show the real numbers that you get
any clear picture, and crime rate reports are *never* audited in that
fashion (kind of hard to, when the one doing the original reporting is
the people being audited in the first place). Given all the other stupid
shit I see Texas doing, it would hardly surprise me is whole subsets of
"violent crime", where being categorized as lesser offenses, and not
thus included.
There is nothing like people that want to be seen as the nations elites,
but are quite obviously not, misrepresenting the facts, to make
themselves look less screwed up than they actually are. Evidence.. No,
just suspicions, and a few half remembered cases of this actually
happening, in places that later got caught out on it, but only after
someone *important*, (i.e. movie star, or government official, or the
like), became the victim of the things the locals where sweeping under a
rug and calling, "Just normal stuff, so we didn't put it in the report."
--
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 1/31/2011 10:05 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/30/2011 5:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Try using an example where there is a tangible disparity between what
>>> the people fighting the government and the people in the government
>>> have to fight with,
>>
>> You mean, like, Afghanistan when the Russians or Americans invaded? You
>> seemed to completely miss my point.
>>
> And you are missing mine. Russia didn't want to wipe out everything and
> start over, neither did the US. When you enemy is unwilling to kill
> everyone they come across to win, and/or are intent of making allies,
> you have some means, even if limited, to resist. When this isn't the
> case... you get things like WWII, where being a "freedom fighter" isn't
> going to get you any place.
>
Mind, not any place if someone else doesn't help out, to be clear.
--
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:
> And you are missing mine. Russia didn't want to wipe out everything and
> start over, neither did the US.
And if there's a revolution in the USA, you think the US government will
want to wipe out every US citizen and city and start over?
--
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:
> Course, the problem there is, NJ is hardly isolated from any place else,
Yep, that's certainly part of the problem, yes.
BTW, it would be easy to enforce whatever gun control you want in the USA.
Amend the constitution to overrule the second amendment. We have a legal
process to do this. The problem with the people favoring gun control is that
they *are* in enough of a minority that they can't get this to happen. Not
unlike abortion, where no legislator is actually going to *vote* to outlaw
it, but everyone wants the courts to decide their way. The only reason
people argue about the meaning of the second amendment and to whom it
applies is because enough voters like it how it is that the legislature
can't get rid of it.
> rug and calling, "Just normal stuff, so we didn't put it in the report."
You can go on speculating all you like. None of it actually means much until
you show the extent to which anything like that actually happens. You can
speculate that if the US changed our gun laws, Norway would have less
violent crime, and you can speculate that if the US bought fewer violent
video games, then Norway would have less violent crime, and you'd have about
equal amounts of support for either stance.
--
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 1/31/2011 11:58 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> And you are missing mine. Russia didn't want to wipe out everything
>> and start over, neither did the US.
>
> And if there's a revolution in the USA, you think the US government will
> want to wipe out every US citizen and city and start over?
>
I think, if such a thing where to happen its going to be a stupidly
small number starting it, and they will get their asses kicked so damn
fast all the people with guns won't even have a chance to find
ammunition for them. Which means, any *real* threat, where having lots
of people armed, isn't going to be something that internal.
I am also pretty sure of two other things 1) If there is need of a
revolution, it will be because things changed slowly, without people
paying attention, and 2) the sort of people that, right now, actually
keep talking about one are the ones that we would have to revolt
against, if they ever successfully pushed a revolution. And, even people
stupid enough to allow someone to erase their freedoms over a few
hundred years are probably **not** stupid enough to follow the wackos
that keep yapping about one right now.
In short, it will either be too late, by the time someone decides we
need one, or it will be entirely the sort of people the government would
be justified in doing something about, in neither case is it going to be
either in my life time, nor anyone I would give a shit about being armed
enough to fight the government. And, purely from the practical
standpoint, despite our willingness to give crazies a voice, the US has,
in general, rarely backslid into a state any worse than we previously
found our way out of. Even some of the recent infringements (like some
of the wire tap laws) are neither as bad as those already implemented in
the past 200 years, nor have, when those things have existed, they ever
*lasted* past the next period of relative peace, when people started
asking, "Why are we still doing this?"
I might not trust many of the fools in government, but I do trust the
system, in as much as it lends itself to progressing, far more than
regressing. With revolutions... you don't have a damn clue what you will
end up with. And, that should scare rational people.
--
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 1/31/2011 12:03 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Course, the problem there is, NJ is hardly isolated from any place else,
>
> Yep, that's certainly part of the problem, yes.
>
> BTW, it would be easy to enforce whatever gun control you want in the
> USA. Amend the constitution to overrule the second amendment. We have a
> legal process to do this. The problem with the people favoring gun
> control is that they *are* in enough of a minority that they can't get
> this to happen. Not unlike abortion, where no legislator is actually
> going to *vote* to outlaw it, but everyone wants the courts to decide
> their way. The only reason people argue about the meaning of the second
> amendment and to whom it applies is because enough voters like it how it
> is that the legislature can't get rid of it.
>
Yeah, the truly sad thing being, it doesn't even have to be changed to
erase guns, just make the rules clearer. But, the invariable response is
always, no matter what happens, or to whom, either claiming its a "state
issue", or that its infringing on the right to ban/limit/control any
guns at all.
>> rug and calling, "Just normal stuff, so we didn't put it in the report."
>
> You can go on speculating all you like. None of it actually means much
> until you show the extent to which anything like that actually happens.
> You can speculate that if the US changed our gun laws, Norway would have
> less violent crime, and you can speculate that if the US bought fewer
> violent video games, then Norway would have less violent crime, and
> you'd have about equal amounts of support for either stance.
>
Actually, no you wouldn't. The irony is, even though the issue of gun
control may be fuzzy in the US, we are the #1 buyer of violent video
games, and just about everything else similar, yet the violent crime
rate actually dropped drastically about the time that such games hit the
market, and its been in steady decline since. While correlation isn't
causation, neither is it plausible to claim that the absence of
something makes for the results in one place, while ignoring the fact
that a similar decline/absence is happening where it is available all
over the place. Same goes for all the claims about selling to kids. We
have a few shootings and the like just about every decade, and someone
manages to publish studies, and lay blame on what ever is popular at the
time, while lacking "long term" evidence for any of it, yet..
restricting, or even banning, the thing in question never actually seems
to *ever* result in the problem disappearing.
But, then, the real problem is abuse, mental health issues, and the
like, and our refusal to deal with *those* problems, both as a nation,
and as parents (the parents invariably always want it to be
someone/thing else's responsibility/effect, never their own, or that of
the child, just look at the whole MSR/Autism idiocy). But, banning shit,
because some short term study implies that kids *maybe* get a bit more
pushy after seeing stuff that is pushy, and concluding that this, in
contradiction to all evidence otherwise is responsible for turning a
measurable number of kids violent in the long term, while **nothing
else** in their lives, apparently, have any impact, including the
declining ability to schools to control/teach/punish for anything...
So, yeah, I personally find people that claim violence in games is a
significant factor *at all* to be about as sound in their evidence, at
this point, as climate change denialists. I tend to suspect, the real
result will be something like, "If a kid already has serious issues,
this may amplify them.", but, so can reading Catcher in the Rye, for
some people. That doesn't mean you go around denying everyone under a
certain age *ever* reading any books on the, "these might be dangerous",
list. Well.. Unless you are one of the people that argues that even
dictionaries should be abridged, lest someone under 18 look up the
meaning of words like penis, and it have a picture of one, or something!
The solution is to deal with the problems, not stick everyone in plastic
hamster globes, and only show them "safe" things, and never let their
parents touch or discipline them, etc., all in some crazy attempt to
prevent problems, by never exposing anyone to something that *might*
increase an already existing problem. You go down that road and you get
stupid shit, like giant hamster balls, and kids being sent to schools
dedicate to, "protecting them", until they go out into the real world,
and find that they have no damn clue how to deal with it. Which already
happens, in some cases, in some of the more out of touch with reality
religious schools.
--
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:
> Yeah, the truly sad thing being, it doesn't even have to be changed to
> erase guns, just make the rules clearer.
The rules are actually quite clear, methinks. The only reason anyone thinks
the rules are fuzzy is because they don't like the rules. I don't think
anyone would argue, for example, that it's illegal for a member of the
militia to own a firearm appropriate for use in the militia. Yet that's
exactly the kinds of firearms that people try to outlaw. And "milita member"
has a very clear definition in current law as well.
Sort of like how "evil" only has a fuzzy definition when God is doing it.
>>> rug and calling, "Just normal stuff, so we didn't put it in the report."
>>
>> You can go on speculating all you like. None of it actually means much
>> until you show the extent to which anything like that actually happens.
>> You can speculate that if the US changed our gun laws, Norway would have
>> less violent crime, and you can speculate that if the US bought fewer
>> violent video games, then Norway would have less violent crime, and
>> you'd have about equal amounts of support for either stance.
>>
> Actually, no you wouldn't. The irony is, even though the issue of gun
> control may be fuzzy in the US, we are the #1 buyer of violent video
> games, and just about everything else similar, yet the violent crime
> rate actually dropped drastically about the time that such games hit the
> market, and its been in steady decline since.
That's actually rather my point.
> But, then, the real problem is abuse, mental health issues, and the
> like, and our refusal to deal with *those* problems, both as a nation,
> and as parents
Yep. That's basically what I said early on. Except in relation to firearms
instead of video games.
> The solution is to deal with the problems, not stick everyone in plastic
> hamster globes, and only show them "safe" things,
Don't forget not letting them have anything dangerous, like a firearm. Gotta
protect everyone, after all.
--
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 1/31/2011 8:05 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Yeah, the truly sad thing being, it doesn't even have to be changed to
>> erase guns, just make the rules clearer.
>
> The rules are actually quite clear, methinks. The only reason anyone
> thinks the rules are fuzzy is because they don't like the rules. I don't
> think anyone would argue, for example, that it's illegal for a member of
> the militia to own a firearm appropriate for use in the militia. Yet
> that's exactly the kinds of firearms that people try to outlaw. And
> "milita member" has a very clear definition in current law as well.
>
> Sort of like how "evil" only has a fuzzy definition when God is doing it.
>
The problem being, most of them are not talking about a "militia". They
are talking about everyone being armed, just to be armed. The fuzziness
comes from the fact that, while that may have even been intended, in
some vague sense, it probably was seen as, "the need to have one to hunt
too", not, "the need to protect myself from some random person on the
street", which is neither "militia", nor "hunting for food". Its hardly
clear, had we had supermarkets all over the place back then, if the
argument would be going on about whether the militia part is someone
*independent* of the armed part.
>>>> rug and calling, "Just normal stuff, so we didn't put it in the
>>>> report."
>>>
>>> You can go on speculating all you like. None of it actually means much
>>> until you show the extent to which anything like that actually happens.
>>> You can speculate that if the US changed our gun laws, Norway would have
>>> less violent crime, and you can speculate that if the US bought fewer
>>> violent video games, then Norway would have less violent crime, and
>>> you'd have about equal amounts of support for either stance.
>>>
>> Actually, no you wouldn't. The irony is, even though the issue of gun
>> control may be fuzzy in the US, we are the #1 buyer of violent video
>> games, and just about everything else similar, yet the violent crime
>> rate actually dropped drastically about the time that such games hit
>> the market, and its been in steady decline since.
>
> That's actually rather my point.
>
The one is making the argument, "removing these will make things
better", the other, "adding them will". The evidence for the former, in
terms of games, is negative. It seems to have no correlation at all,
even though a lot of people would like it. For gun availability to be a
positive, you need to show that a) possession of them *does* produce a
decline, which can't be attributed to anything else, which I don't think
is arguable, and b) it never produces a decline in safety and
non-violence, which I *really* don't think is at all supportable.
So, no, my point and yours are *not* the same.
>> But, then, the real problem is abuse, mental health issues, and the
>> like, and our refusal to deal with *those* problems, both as a nation,
>> and as parents
>
> Yep. That's basically what I said early on. Except in relation to
> firearms instead of video games.
>
And, if everyone only used drugs in safe places, and recreationally...
And other various arguments in the same vein... We know guns are used to
kill people, sometimes by people that, laughably, end up being declared
"temporarily insane", we don't know that games do *jack*. Not the same
thing at all.
>> The solution is to deal with the problems, not stick everyone in
>> plastic hamster globes, and only show them "safe" things,
>
> Don't forget not letting them have anything dangerous, like a firearm.
> Gotta protect everyone, after all.
>
Yeah.. We should just do away with all the laws that keep people from
owning/doing things that are deemed dangerous on the books, because
*all* of them are a bad idea, and lead to people in plastic bubbles.
--
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:
> The problem being, most of them are not talking about a "militia". They
> are talking about everyone being armed, just to be armed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29
Every male between 18 and 45 is the militia. If you can get drafted, you're
allowed to carry a gun as a militiaman.
> The one is making the argument, "removing these will make things
> better", the other, "adding them will".
No, my point is that you can't really tell until you try it, because it's
not logical.
> For gun availability to be a
> positive, you need to show that a) possession of them *does* produce a
> decline, which can't be attributed to anything else, which I don't think
> is arguable, and b) it never produces a decline in safety and
> non-violence, which I *really* don't think is at all supportable.
For availability to be a positive, you have to merely show that it doesn't
reduce the safety of people. You're requiring people in favor of maintaining
the status quo that has been part of the constitution for 200 years prove
that there's *never* any harm from doing so.
My point is that you can't show that outlawing guns would make things safer
any more than those against video games can show that outlawing video games
would make things safer.
> end up being declared
> "temporarily insane", we don't know that games do *jack*.
You don't know that games *don't* do jack.
> Yeah.. We should just do away with all the laws that keep people from
> owning/doing things that are deemed dangerous on the books, because
> *all* of them are a bad idea, and lead to people in plastic bubbles.
Except it's already on the books. If you're going to argue to change the
constitution, you really need to cite more references than just "well, *you*
know it's bad, and you can't prove it isn't!"
--
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 1/31/2011 11:54 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The problem being, most of them are not talking about a "militia".
>> They are talking about everyone being armed, just to be armed.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29
>
> Every male between 18 and 45 is the militia. If you can get drafted,
> you're allowed to carry a gun as a militiaman.
>
And, if you can't be drafted, you know, like after they removed the
draft? I am also pretty sure that no one expects you to bring your own,
basically random, weapons any more... lol
>> The one is making the argument, "removing these will make things
>> better", the other, "adding them will".
>
> No, my point is that you can't really tell until you try it, because
> it's not logical.
>
Chaos social engineering then.. Yeah, that always works *so* well...
What matters is, "Is it true", not, "I would like it to be", or, "I hope
it is". There are consequences to being wrong, and just because you are
not going to pay them is not justification that you can make others pay
them instead. It *is* true that even rational people can go over the
edge, and arming them makes that more dangerous. But *is it true* that
arming everyone counters that? If you don't actually know, its not
exactly ethical to just shrug and go, "Ah, well.. lets try it anyway."
>> For gun availability to be a positive, you need to show that a)
>> possession of them *does* produce a decline, which can't be attributed
>> to anything else, which I don't think is arguable, and b) it never
>> produces a decline in safety and non-violence, which I *really* don't
>> think is at all supportable.
>
> For availability to be a positive, you have to merely show that it
> doesn't reduce the safety of people. You're requiring people in favor of
> maintaining the status quo that has been part of the constitution for
> 200 years prove that there's *never* any harm from doing so.
>
> My point is that you can't show that outlawing guns would make things
> safer any more than those against video games can show that outlawing
> video games would make things safer.
>
>> end up being declared "temporarily insane", we don't know that games
>> do *jack*.
>
> You don't know that games *don't* do jack.
>
I certainly have enough evidence of a correlation, if not necessarily
causation, than they do for guns. Causation is the whole problem, and
even there the "studies" are a bit... questionable, and do not support
the overall trends, even if they imply bad results.
>> Yeah.. We should just do away with all the laws that keep people from
>> owning/doing things that are deemed dangerous on the books, because
>> *all* of them are a bad idea, and lead to people in plastic bubbles.
>
> Except it's already on the books. If you're going to argue to change the
> constitution, you really need to cite more references than just "well,
> *you* know it's bad, and you can't prove it isn't!"
>
You know, to some extent I have been playing devils advocate here. I see
no damn reason why, technically, you need to change the constitution to
set limits and rules of use, on weapons. You are not telling someone,
"You can't have a gun", by telling them you can't just carry it around
with you, anyplace you like, etc. You need justification for it, and "I
am scared and think I need one", is imho, a damn stupid one, especially
since the last person I want running around with a gun is someone scared
enough they would actually use the damn thing, because something spooked
them. Such a person isn't thinking rationally to begin with. But, again,
you shouldn't need to change the damn constitution to say, "This isn't
an appropriate place for that, or reasonable argument for having one on
you." You certainly don't need such to prevent criminals from getting
easy access, though, there are so many damn loopholes in the system that
you could be a known serial killer, walk into a gun show, and someone
would manage to find a loophole that would let you walk out with a gun.
Guess who are responsible for those loopholes? I'll give you a hint, the
NRA is partly responsible for them, and the rest are **manufacturers**,
and while we are currently talking about adjusting the law to ban extra
large magazines, no one seems to be talking about fixing the loopholes,
or properly enforcing the existing laws.
As devil's advocate, I have to ask the question, "At what point do you
conclude that this is unmanageable, and something more extreme has to be
done to stop 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> And, if you can't be drafted, you know, like after they removed the
> draft?
Selective Service is still in force.
> I am also pretty sure that no one expects you to bring your own,
> basically random, weapons any more... lol
But that's not the point. The federal law says who is in the militia, right
there. So even the argument that the weapons are only for the militia falls
down, even if you ignore all the arguments that it meant or should mean the
general populace.
>>> The one is making the argument, "removing these will make things
>>> better", the other, "adding them will".
>>
>> No, my point is that you can't really tell until you try it, because
>> it's not logical.
>>
> Chaos social engineering then.. Yeah, that always works *so* well...
> What matters is, "Is it true", not, "I would like it to be", or, "I hope
> it is".
Right. So why are you arguing with me?
> There are consequences to being wrong, and just because you are
> not going to pay them is not justification that you can make others pay
> them instead. It *is* true that even rational people can go over the
> edge, and arming them makes that more dangerous. But *is it true* that
> arming everyone counters that? If you don't actually know, its not
> exactly ethical to just shrug and go, "Ah, well.. lets try it anyway."
On the other hand, you're the one arguing to *change* things, so it's really
your responsibility to argue that your solution would be *better* than what
we have now. You're basically begging the question.
>>> end up being declared "temporarily insane", we don't know that games
>>> do *jack*.
>>
>> You don't know that games *don't* do jack.
>>
> I certainly have enough evidence of a correlation, if not necessarily
> causation, than they do for guns.
This whole sentence doesn't make sense, unless you're agreeing with me.
> You know, to some extent I have been playing devils advocate here. I see
> no damn reason why, technically, you need to change the constitution to
> set limits and rules of use, on weapons. You are not telling someone,
> "You can't have a gun", by telling them you can't just carry it around
> with you, anyplace you like, etc.
Except you go to someplace like new jersey, and even though the law says
"you will get a permit to buy a gun in 30 days unless we can come up with a
reason for you not to", it still doesn't happen.
The problem with this argument is that if you allow everyone to buy guns
only to keep them locked up at home (which would certainly be enough to
satisfy the "in case of revolution" need), you're still creating a market
for guns and access by criminals to those guns. You haven't really cut down
gun crime at all. Crazy people will still have access to guns, and if
shooting people being illegal isn't enough to stop them, taking it out of
their home isn't enough to stop them.
> and while we are currently talking about adjusting the law to ban extra
> large magazines, no one seems to be talking about fixing the loopholes,
> or properly enforcing the existing laws.
Yep. Nobody really wants to close the loopholes. They only want to do stuff
that *looks* like it's helpful to folks who think laws that far back in the
causality chain will affect criminals.
> As devil's advocate, I have to ask the question, "At what point do you
> conclude that this is unmanageable, and something more extreme has to be
> done to stop it?"
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html
Seems like firearm deaths, including shooting people in self defense and
police shooting people, counts as a bit over 1% of all deaths. Automobiles
kill more people than guns, but nobody talks about outlawing them.
Now, down at the bottom of
http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics
you see that about 60% of the firearm deaths are suicide, while 40% are
homicide (including self defense and police), and 2% are accidents.
Which rate are you trying to reduce, given that homicide is already (mostly)
illegal, so making carrying a gun around illegal wouldn't prevent that?
--
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 2/1/2011 12:41 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> As devil's advocate, I have to ask the question, "At what point do you
>> conclude that this is unmanageable, and something more extreme has to
>> be done to stop it?"
>
> http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html
>
> Seems like firearm deaths, including shooting people in self defense and
> police shooting people, counts as a bit over 1% of all deaths.
> Automobiles kill more people than guns, but nobody talks about outlawing
> them.
>
I am sure that logging did, at one time, and seamanship, etc. I find the
use of that argument seriously flawed, since the average person needs a
way to get to and from work, and even if that wasn't the case, its often
the most effective way to get things from one place to another for
resale. Unless you are going to try to argue that the vast majority of
people need guns to hunt for food, or count nail guns and staplers, its
not a reasonable comparison, any more than saying, "X number of people
fall out of windows every year, so we should ban windows". Most deaths
are, invariably, either a) health related, b) accident related, or c) a
result of dangerous things that we **need** to do something else, which
in no way involves the intent to hurt/kill someone.
Compare deaths from poisoning, knives (of the sort carried for
"defense"), and what ever other *avoidable* causes there may be, which
are not a secondary consequence of misuse of something whose purpose was
*not* to cause injury/harm/death, then make an argument. And, no, guns
***have no other use*** other than to kill, injure and/or threaten the
death/injury someone/something. Its a tool whole primary use is the one
it is used for, when it ends up killing someone, not a misuse, or accident.
I really hate such attempts to ignore the original use of things, in an
attempt to claim equivalency. Its illogical, and ridiculous. You can
kill people with water too, it doesn't make places that bottle water the
equivalent of those that make armor piercing rounds.
--
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:
> guns ***have no other use*** other than to kill, injure and/or threaten the
> death/injury someone/something.
Nah. There are plenty of people who go target shooting, for example.
And you know, if you said "outlaw all guns", I might even be with you on
that one. But nobody ever proposes that. They propose "outlaw all guns
except those belonging to government employees."
--
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 2/3/2011 12:29 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> guns ***have no other use*** other than to kill, injure and/or
>> threaten the death/injury someone/something.
>
> Nah. There are plenty of people who go target shooting, for example.
>
Interestingly, this doesn't require that the weapon used even have ammo
that is deadly, just that *generally* behaves like it would if it was,
in principle. So... But, in most cases "target shooting" is practice for
something else. Some of my family might even joke that it was to make
sure they hit the other guy wearing an orange vest in the woods, instead
of accidentally shooting an innocent deer, given the number of morons
that manage to do that every year. lol My brother stopped going on
hunting trips with friends a while back, because of that. They either
wanted to get drunk first, or drive to places no sane person would take
a vehicle, etc. He figured either he would come back one day, tied to
the hood, or he would have to leave his jeep wedged between two
boulders, half way up a cliff, and walk out.
> And you know, if you said "outlaw all guns", I might even be with you on
> that one. But nobody ever proposes that. They propose "outlaw all guns
> except those belonging to government employees."
>
Yeah. Sort of a drawback to the whole mess. You kind of can't do that,
without leaving them vulnerable to *outside* dangers, which would still
have them. But, I have always found it a bit silly that "bare arms" only
means guns, with the result that martial arts weapons **are** banned.
Heck, even if you carried a billy club, you would probably get arrested
faster for having a "deadly weapon" in some places, than you would
totting a machine gun (as long as you had the proper permit, or it
wasn't concealed... lol).
But, seriously, if you limit what people can get hold of, you can also
limit what the government officials need. If you take the position that
you can't limit anything much, all you get is a constant escalation from
**both** sides. How long before someone figures out how to make a
nuclear battery, and a "fast charge" capacitor, and we start seeing
people carrying around railguns, leading to the police deciding they
need some too, to offset that? So far, they are bulky, hard to power,
one shot, jobs, which only a few goofballs have built in their basement
(in both cases I know of personally, by people that badly underestimated
what the hell the muzzle velocity would be, and thus, how much shit it
goes through before the projective stops).
At what point do you stop? Or, more to the point, at what point do you
bloody stop and think, "Heh, you know.. it might just be a good idea of
this *never* hits the market for the average person." Somehow, these
things never get thought of until *after* something happens.
--
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:
> But, I have always found it a bit silly that "bare arms" only
> means guns, with the result that martial arts weapons **are** banned.
It doesn't, really. That's just how it gets read, because folks who think
it's the weapons that are bad instead of the criminals manage to ban the
ones that most people don't care about.
In Switzerland, they generally have their military gear, including tanks and
cannons and such, available all the time. Or at least so I have heard.
> But, seriously, if you limit what people can get hold of, you can also
> limit what the government officials need.
Part of the problem is that "making it illegal to have X" doesn't really
limit what you can get ahold of. It's already illegal to have a large
container of explosives in a rented van, but we saw how well that worked out.
> At what point do you stop? Or, more to the point, at what point do you
> bloody stop and think, "Heh, you know.. it might just be a good idea of
> this *never* hits the market for the average person." Somehow, these
> things never get thought of until *after* something happens.
OK. Consider Mexico. It's not like their aren't criminal gangs running
around with tanks and planes of their own.
I'm not saying everyone needs nuclear railguns. We already have a bunch of
things that never hit the market for the average person. Hand guns, however,
are not them. Indeed, it's that whole "never hit the market for the average
person" that a few posts ago you were arguing were the reason that guns
would be useless in a revolution to start with.
--
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 2/3/2011 11:17 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> At what point do you stop? Or, more to the point, at what point do you
>> bloody stop and think, "Heh, you know.. it might just be a good idea
>> of this *never* hits the market for the average person." Somehow,
>> these things never get thought of until *after* something happens.
>
> OK. Consider Mexico. It's not like their aren't criminal gangs running
> around with tanks and planes of their own.
>
> I'm not saying everyone needs nuclear railguns. We already have a bunch
> of things that never hit the market for the average person. Hand guns,
> however, are not them. Indeed, it's that whole "never hit the market for
> the average person" that a few posts ago you were arguing were the
> reason that guns would be useless in a revolution to start with.
>
Not sure that Mexico is exactly a good example to use. Half the
"government officials" are either bribed, owned, or working for, the
criminal gangs that run around with tanks and planes of their own. And
yeah, I am sure, right now, with badly ineffective power systems, a
railgun would be "so" helpful, at least until it occurred to the
oppressors to simply shut off the power grid before showing up... Not to
mention, one bomb, precision or otherwise, and you don't have to worry
about the railgun the guy built in his basement any more.
If "successful defense" relies on, "It will be successful in 50-100
years, when we are finally on equal footing!", its not very successful.
Right now, they wouldn't be, in the past, they could be, since the
disparity was never as much as it is now. In places like Mexico, you
can't tell apart the supposed "legit" and "non-legit" agencies, so its
fairly meaningless to talk about citizen resistance. They won't be the
ones resisting, it will be which ever gang happens to be in the area.
And, invariably, if the disparity grows smaller, its still going to be
government, or corporations, or someone else with money to burn, who
will have the armies, private or otherwise.
What makes a successful revolution isn't what you are armed with, its
that a large enough number refuse to acquiesce to the demands of the
lunatics, even if they don't even have one weapon, and the would be
dictator finds themselves in a position where a) they lose more than
they gain, or b) more people will side with the defenders, if they act
to end them, meaning they lose even more in the process of suppressing
the revolt. An idiot tries to control people with guns. The smart ones
try to do it with words. The really stupid ones try to do with with
lies, then with guns, and find a hornets nest.
--
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:
> Not sure that Mexico is exactly a good example to use. Half the
> "government officials" are either bribed, owned, or working for, the
> criminal gangs that run around with tanks and planes of their own.
That's sort of my point.
> In places like Mexico, you
> can't tell apart the supposed "legit" and "non-legit" agencies, so its
> fairly meaningless to talk about citizen resistance.
Again, that's my point.
--
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 2/4/2011 10:37 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Not sure that Mexico is exactly a good example to use. Half the
>> "government officials" are either bribed, owned, or working for, the
>> criminal gangs that run around with tanks and planes of their own.
>
> That's sort of my point.
>
>> In places like Mexico, you can't tell apart the supposed "legit" and
>> "non-legit" agencies, so its fairly meaningless to talk about citizen
>> resistance.
>
> Again, that's my point.
>
Then I must be missing it, because its not much different than big city
gang wars. Some people want to stay out of it, and that means *not*
resisting, and the rest spend all their time resisting "each other", and
occasionally getting those that are trying to stay out of it shot
instead. turning the local town into its own armed gang, to resist all
the other gangs, doesn't solve the problem. You don't need a gun to
refuse to help a thug, and it doesn't necessarily help to have one
either. They might decide to leave you intact and shoot someone else you
know as a show of force, or any number of other things. Mind, they might
do that anyway, but... its not the same thing as happening to be armed
with some random person tries to rob you on the street, and even that is
imho, a bit of a toss up.
--
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:
> Then I must be missing it,
You're conflating two problems. One concerns whether the kinds of firearms
people own here today would be useful to resist the government. The other is
whether the type of firearms people own today would be useful in other
endeavors.
For the latter, the answer, statistically, is yes - target shooting is safe,
hunting is popular, and having a gun reduces your individual likelihood of
being harmed in a violent crime. If you want to argue against that, you'll
need to say more than "it's obvious".
For the former, we have numerous examples throughout history where
individual ownership of firearms has protected against violence by
governments. While obviously there are also cases where the government has
won, there are also cases where those being invaded have won, or at least
put off for a long time their own demise. So it's not obvious that any
government can squash any civilian resistance out of hand. If it were, we
wouldn't really be still hunting terrorists, would we?
After that, it's just policy, and an estimation of how likely various
"violence by governments" of various forms are: invasion, coup, organized
crime taking over the government, etc. And how likely it is that firearms
would help in any of those particular situations.
We have a process for estimating that latter bit. It's called "amending the
constitution if enough people are convinced the situation has changed." :-)
--
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 2/5/2011 12:07 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Then I must be missing it,
>
> You're conflating two problems. One concerns whether the kinds of
> firearms people own here today would be useful to resist the government.
> The other is whether the type of firearms people own today would be
> useful in other endeavors.
>
> For the latter, the answer, statistically, is yes - target shooting is
> safe, hunting is popular, and having a gun reduces your individual
> likelihood of being harmed in a violent crime. If you want to argue
> against that, you'll need to say more than "it's obvious".
>
> For the former, we have numerous examples throughout history where
> individual ownership of firearms has protected against violence by
> governments. While obviously there are also cases where the government
> has won, there are also cases where those being invaded have won, or at
> least put off for a long time their own demise. So it's not obvious that
> any government can squash any civilian resistance out of hand. If it
> were, we wouldn't really be still hunting terrorists, would we?
>
Ok, not going to really argue the former one, though I do think the jury
is out on whether personal protection is useful (since the statistics
show cooperation as about equal to resistance, there is a small margin
of *maybe* useful, based on your own statistics, but it would be a lot
clearer *if* the, "I gave him my wallet and got away alive", category
had a major failure rate).
As for history... Sure, the problem is that you run into a version of
the, "Atheists killed more people", argument. The argument, when used,
goes like this: X wacko was one, and they killed a bigger percentage of
people that Y non-atheist in the past, therefor religious wars where
never as bad as what an atheist could do. The key problem with the
argument has ***always*** been the same. It ignores the fact that a few
hundred nuts on horseback couldn't kill tens of thousands of people in
24 hours, as could bombs, or even machine guns.
The **exact same** problem exists when arguing, "Historically, there are
a lot of examples of people resisting governments." Yes, there are, but
most of them haven't been governments with access to nearly limitless
high technology. Even the ones with high tech often tended to be several
generations of tech "behind", bought from someone else, and limited in
supply, so once you blew up the 10 planes they had, they didn't have any
left to use against you. But, there is an added problem with this, which
I pointed out before, after a fashion. Its fairly rare for *enlightened*
people to be doing the resisting. What you get, in nearly all cases, is
people attempting to impose their own status quo, or change it, or
replace something they don't like, and most of the people that want to
do so tend not to be someone who wants to create/defend a democracy.
They tend to be people who want to undermine such things, replace them
with theocracies, or monarchies, of one sort or another, or still
believe in some sort of Maoist/Stalinist faux-communism, which is
basically little more than an Oligarchy, with pretenses at universal
distribution of goods and services. They don't have everyone's well
being at heart, and in a lot of cases, the result is worse than the
replacement. So much for resisting the predations of a bad government,
if all you replace it with is a worse one.
Like I said, its not how well armed, or how well you resist, that
changes things, its the inevitability that oppression doesn't work in
the long run, and can't do so, except in a complete vacuum. Armed
resistance may be useful, at the start, but only information will *win*
the battle, create a sound foundation, and result in an improved
government. And, what do we see as the first line of conflict with the
nuts in the US - misinformation, attempts to deny/hide the real
information, and denouncements of anyone that exposes it. The guns come
later, when you already have people convinced you are right, and to win
you have to get rid of the stubborn people, who still won't believe your
bullshit.
The changes that are happening around the world right now are all,
almost entirely, the same thing. Some armed conflict/resistance, but
governments are winning or losing, based on control of information, and
the spread of propaganda *not* how many people they arm, and resistance
is happening in a thousand different ways, due to the spread of
information, but guns and dead people are so much more interesting to
talk about, unless the guy with the gun is also running an internet
cafe. But, in the end, *winning* isn't about if you resisted with a gun,
its if you changed the flow of the information, and the result made
things better, instead of worse. Guns just make it easier, for both
sides, to screw up this process imho.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
