Flare Sci-Fi Forums: 2 students are dead, 13 more are injured in school shooting.

This is topic 2 students are dead, 13 more are injured in school shooting. in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/638.html

Posted by MIB on :

2 people died and 13 more were injured in a high school shooting in California earlier today. The suspect has been captured. He is a 16 year old student who goes to the very school where the shooting took place. You can get more info on Fox news and/or MSNBC.

------------------
If anyone has a Star wars action fleet E-wing starfighter or Tie defender toy they want to sell, please E-mail me at [email protected]

Posted by Gaseous Anomaly (Member # 114) on :

It only happened like an hour or two ago, didn't it? Roll on the Flameboard...

Hope the little shit gets his hole thoroughly kicked before they get to the precinct house.

------------------
"Sack me!? I MADE the BBC!!"

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Did you people get together while I was asleep and plan out how best to make my day difficult? And I've got to work, too. And record Babylon 5. It's a mess, I tell you.

(Yes, this thread will probably need to be moved later on. Not just yet, though. We shall see.)

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Gaseous Anomaly (Member # 114) on :

You'd be as well off to move it now, Simon.

JMHO.

------------------
"Sack me!? I MADE the BBC!!"

Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :

Perfect some little shit has to go out a blow a bunch of holes in his classmates on my birthday. I'm going to go down there and kick his ass myself. The only thing I wanted to have happen today was me getting messed up with a bottle of irish whiskey. Stupid little moron.

------------------
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the weaponry to make the difference.

Posted by Gaseous Anomaly (Member # 114) on :

Did it happen near you?

------------------
"Sack me!? I MADE the BBC!!"

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

You are probably quite right.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :

Heard about this on the radio. The bastard was smiling as he pumped lead into kids' bodies.

------------------
"Lately I've noticed that everyone seems to trust me. It's really quite unnerving. I'm still trying to get used to it."
- Garak, "Empok Nor"

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :

I just got finished playing Unreal Tournament and feel like doin' it in real life now!!

Well no, of course not. Why? Because I have common sense to know UT is only game. I love playing UT, I love blowing people to bits with the rocket launcher. But that doesn't mean I'd do it in real life.

But I can't help but think parents are going to blame games for this. I guess it's easier for them to blame games, TV, or movies than to think their kid was messed up and mentally unstable to begin with.

------------------
Flare: Where sarcasm is just one more service we offer.
Federation Starship Datalink: Brand new look, fresh minty scent, same great taste!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

It's not that the games are to blame per se, in that the game says, "hey, go take a shotgun to school and kill people!" but that "entertainment" these days desensitizes kids to death and violence.

I'm not saying these are my beliefs, just that that is one argument (and the one most plausable, honestly)

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
"The candidate who slimed John McCain in the primaries and smeared Al Gore in the general election is now the president who pledges to elevate the nation's tone and bring civility to our discorse. Kind of like Michael Corleone brought peace to the mob by killing the heads of the other four families."
--Paul Begala, Is Our Children Learning?

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

I saw it the minute I started my browser. The news service of my start-page broke it to me. This is terrible.
A boy in Stockholm was shot dead in the school restroom only two months ago, exactly like in the end of "American History X". This is so bad.

------------------
Here lies a toppled god,
His turnip not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.

-Tleilaxu Epigram

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Wow. A gun thread? What is the nature of this thread? I do not recall any of these in recent memory, and I seem to recall them all ending in peaceful, mutual agreement on a final solution.

Not the Holocaust, mind you.

This came as a shock to some people? If it did, one must ask the ultimate question, is your current place of residence a acutely thin, round layer of material filled with a hollow inside?

Speaking of desensitization of violence, I for one can appreciate the good action movie, preferably one with Arab terrorists. In any event, people, such as myself are desensitized to this real world violence much more so than any fictionalized, fantasized or sensationalized media violentia. So, when I feel the need to click on the little 'e' with a circle around it (which is very pretty, I might add) and Reuters attempts to alarm me by showing big headlines such as '2 dead in High School shooting', there's not much more to do than see if any nude celebrity sites have updated.

This is not demoting this tragedy in any way. It's bad. We all know that. The thing is that it happens so often it's like mosquito bites.

You gotta watch where you go so you don't get bitten.

There is nothing more you can do.

PS - I can't recall the last time I felt scared going to School. This isn't to say there will never, or there isn't a chance this can't happen here. It's just - nice, I suppose, to be comfortable in your surroundings.

PPS - There was some American Senator-ma-thingy on the TV, is it? About an hour ago. I think he was a Republican, but I'm not sure. He was hawking some Vacuum cleaner of Gun Control lobby/proposal/bill/little guy who dances and sings on the steps from that TV show from the 80's, which, as we all know has about as much chance of doing anything as I do bedding Nikki Taylor, but he mentioned something that I though was interesting, right before I turned it to VIP. He said something along the lines of 'For all the good that supporters of the First Ammendment say about how guns provide protection, it sure helped those kids at school'.

Now, wether he means that guns are bad, or that we should equip children with handguns (It is not my place to decide which is the correct answer, I'm foreign.), I do not know. I do know the USP is quite light, however. And perhaps a six-year-old may be able to carry it.
Time will tell of course.

And our hindsight will be 10/200 as it always seems to be.

------------------
"I WANT A POST VOY SERIES STAR TREK ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS LOOKING FORWARD NOT LOOKING BACK."

-Darkstar

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

'For all the good that supporters of the First [sic] Ammendment say about how guns provide protection, it sure helped those kids at school'

Ironically, this is true, from what I hear. The shooting was stopped by an off-duty policeman. A man carrying a gun. Same in Pearl, Mississippi. Someone on staff actually ran out to his car to get his gun (He had parked 100 yards away from the school, as required by law when you're carrying a gun in your vehicle. Too bad; more lives might have been saved had he been able to park closer.), came back in, and held the kid while he was reloading until the police came.

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 05, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yes, because we all know that that kid BRAGGING about what he was going to do the WEEK before couldn't have prevented it.

HELLO? "I'm going to take a gun to school on Monday and shoot people." Why the fuck don't people take this seriously?

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

If ever one could be said of finding the proverbial silver lining in an overcast world, Omega could be. And the hand that is not this one but is the other, said one could also be the chief candidate for the election to the post of the person who sees things only how, and if they appropriate the situation at hand.

Certainly that one sentence, which wasn't the bulk of my post, nor was it even anything but a passing reference got the most attention.

If I had money, and if I were to buy something, it wouldn't be a Mercury, as per the country music sensation, but it would be a little world, so I could go live on it. And know where certain members of these forums come from.

------------------
"I WANT A POST VOY SERIES STAR TREK ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS LOOKING FORWARD NOT LOOKING BACK."

-Darkstar

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I corrected possible misinformation. I also added information about the situation that is being discussed. What's your problem, again?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I think UM's problem is that you appear to be saying that gun violence is a solution to gun violence.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

It is not my place to decide which is the correct answer, I'm foreign.

------------------
"I WANT A POST VOY SERIES STAR TREK ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS LOOKING FORWARD NOT LOOKING BACK."

-Darkstar

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Who said anything about violence? He simply held the perpetrator using a gun. I didn't say he shot the kid. 'Course, I suppose he may have, I didn't hear all of the report, but that wasn't indicated by what I did hear.

Not that shooting the perpetrator of one of these shootings wouldn't stop the violence, of course, but always, the prefered solution would obviously have been for the kids idiot parents to have been paying attention to their son's life.

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Not that shooting the perpetrator of one of these shootings wouldn't stop the violence, of course, but always, the prefered solution would obviously have been for the kids idiot parents to have been paying attention to their son's life.

Gun control debates aside, you are correct, Omega.

I can sympathize with the shooter, does not mean that it justifies what he did. As a person formerly picked on, verbally and physically abused and wherever I go to get help, people laugh and say "it's all in my head". My parents didn't help, they only cared about whether or not I had A's. They did not care about justice for their own son from all this bullying, teasing, practical jokes and the like. And when I'm depressed about it all, my tormentors even suggest ways for me to commit suicide.

Yes, I did consider it for a while, but fortunately, I had my mental faculties intact to ignore the recommendation. I swear by God and Sonny Jesus that if I wasn't of sound mind, I would have pumped shotgun lead into the people who I wish were held accountable for their actions in picking on me, but alas, weren't.

I'm a much better individual now, but sometimes painful memories come to haunt me now and then. I've learned to ignore then and grow to my present age of 23, and moving on in life.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Well. That was...disturbing.

Remember the days when kids learned Judo to stand up to bullies. Much more honorable than today, plus you get fat Chinese mentors like the guy from Karate Kid, or that other guy from Happy Days.

------------------
"I WANT A POST VOY SERIES STAR TREK ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS LOOKING FORWARD NOT LOOKING BACK."

-Darkstar

Posted by Teelie (Member # 280) on :

I can sympathize with the kid's being bullied, tormented and teased into snapping, but I can't condone his course of action either.
Who remembers their childhood and especially teen years and how cruel others or even we could be to our peers? The kid snapped because his schoolmates tormented him into it. That doesn't make what he did right but then it also won't click in the minds of people who will run to blame video games, movies, music and other "violent" media forms.
The kid needs psychiatric help, not locked up in prison for life. Those he went to school with need to be taught a lesson as well, in that doing what was done to him will only cause more of these kinds of incidents.
Teaching students that bullying and tormenting their classmates is wrong would be more effective than rushing to ban guns, video games and movies for it.

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

There are people who seem to've been born evil. There was a kid when I grew up who was a true sadist. And he seemed to have nice parents, everyone thought...

------------------
Here lies a toppled god,
His turnip not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.

-Tleilaxu Epigram

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Having asked around a bit, I've noticed a disparity in how people want to respond to bullies:

1/ British kids want to kick the shit out of bullies.

2/ American kids want to shoot them dead. And then shoot some other people too.

Why is this? Do these bullied children think "I'll kill the guys who stuck my head down the toilet", get into school, and then change their plan to "kill everyone! Huh huh huh!"?

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Children don't normally have experience with armed combat.
When they put themselves in that situation they tend to get a little nervous, like that guy from "Crime and Punishment", and when things get out of hand their judgement drops even lower and people get hurt.
Even grown men can puke their guts out after killing for the first time, it's not meant to be, it tears up a part of you that's better used in other ways...
The human mind works best with the "live and let live" policy.

I hope I'll never kill anyone. If I do, it will be through self-preservation. I never wanted to kill my old ghosts, I just wanted to knock them out or hear them apologize. ;(

------------------
Here lies a toppled god,
His turnip not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.

-Tleilaxu Epigram

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Anyone here a fan of Picket Fences?

Remember when Matt Brock (the middle kid), gets his head stuck in the toilet by some high schooler? He gets his vengeance by firing a potato gun at the high schooler -- causing the older kid to lose control of his car and break his back. In response to that, the high schooler's kid brother shoots Matt Brock in school with a .38.

Just thought it was interesting time for TNN to re-run that episode today ...

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

And thus we get to another solution: stop the bullies to begin with.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

And how would you propose doing that?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Haven't spent much time thinking about it. I'm speaking strictly hypothetically.

One thing I'd be interested to know: do such shootings ever occur at private schools?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

There was an incident here in Maryland about 10 years back, but I don't recall the details. In this case, a "straw purchase" was the culprit -- an older brother or friend legally purchased a handgun then sold it to a younger child who shot several people ... about a year later, the gun store where the gun had been purchased, relocated -- right across from the school where the shooting happened.

Frankly, as much as I hate to suggest this, I think schools need to look into taking more precautions: namely, metal detectors, and/or police sweeps of lockers for weapons.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"...if I wasn't of sound mind, I would have pumped shotgun lead into the people who I wish were held accountable for their actions in picking on me, but alas, weren't."

Therein lies one problem. I was like that, too. If I had been less mentally stable, I probably would have gone berserk on the people that have fucked w/ me all my life. The difficulty lies in the fact that there are too many kids out there being picked on who are not stable enough to realize that shooting up their school is a bad thing.

------------------
"...I know this board in secret, intimate ways which are beyond your comprehension.... Let's just say that people should *not* be telling me what to do; it should always be the other way around."
-"Red Quacker", conspiracy theorist and contemporary lunatic

Posted by dih1138 on :

Video games are not to blame, he was a skater and according to a friend he played "extreme sports" games (eg. Tony Hawk) nor are bullies... he is said to have only been picked on by his friends & not seriously. He was a recent arrival to Santee, who wasn't adjusting well and missed his friends in Maryland. He was a product of a broken home though... Questions arise about his fathers responsibility for all this, access to his his father's supposed locked guns contributing to this...

------------------
-dih1138

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

Y'know what? I AM less stable. I AM insane. I DO know how to use a gun, I DO know how to handle a sword. I WAS bullied and picked on when I was in school. Did I want to kill them? Yes. Did I actually do it? No. Maim, yes...kill, no.

I caught the ass end of the "Great Nerd Wars" of the 80s & early 90s. Many of my friends in the NYC Tri-State Metro Area were nerds, geeks, freaks, etc. which is to say they weren't football/soccer/lacrosse players or cheerleaders, therefore they were targets. Many a time I was forced to defend them from said khaki eclipse, so much so that I finally decided one day to rig my overcoat up with a butterfly clip to carry my katana with.

Less than a week later, I was in Elmsford, NY, with some friends. We weren't doing anything, just keeping to ourselves. It was a Saturday; we were hanging out in the local shopping district. A group of about 5 or 6 offensive linemen spotted us & decided that we were suddenly persona non grata in a public place. They didn't know me, but they knew Marlo Weiss; she dressed like a goth. They knew Mike Mentzer; he was gay. They knew Christy Nolan and Wendy Karras; they were lovers. They knew Rob Harring and Sam Kentner; they played AD&D. None conformed. None played sports, took part in clubs, or "played the party line." They were, in effect, free thinkers, unburdened by the yokes of societal classification.

They came over as a group, moving in unison, looking just as good together as the Hitler Youth did when they all raised their arms at once. They verbally harangued us. They attempted to publically embarrass us. Nothing worked. Eventually, we got up and moved to another area. They followed us, picked up random objects and hurled them at us. Finally, one of them ran up, grabbed Sam--who was fairly small in stature--picked him up, & shoved him head first into a fairly full trashcan. That was it for me. I lost it. I told him in no uncertain terms to remove my friend and to apologize to him.

Let's set the picture here: I'm 5' 3" at the time, maybe 150, 160 pounds. My opponent was a goot foot taller than me, bulkier, and perhaps 100 or 120 pounds heavier than me. He trained and was muscular; I was scrawny.

Needless to say he laughed at my suggestion, making some snide remark to his buddies about how I was standing up to him; this made them guffaw loudly.

Without thinking, with the quickest flash, I reached in, pulled out the katana, & had the point up in his face. To this day, I rememebr the look of disbelief mixed with fear and hatred in his eyes. I calmly restated my position: "You may be bigger than me, but I'm faster and I'm ARMED. I asked you to remove him. Now I'm TELLING you. DO it." He hesitated, tried to stammer out some insult or excuse. "Not GOOD enough! MOVE!"

And I sliced him across his upper right arm, from shoulder to a point just inboard of the elbow. It wasn't deep, wasn't even serious. But it slit his jacket, his shirt, and drew enough blood to sting. I remember having the hardest look on my face as I held up the blade to his face, the tip of it a scant few inches away from his eyes, dripping lightly with a few blobs of his blood.

I remember having the coldest tone in my voice as I said, "That was a mere taste. Remove him NOW, NEVER harass him, me, or ANY of us....or in the name of all that is holy, I will hunt you down to the very ends of the earth and make you bleed until you can bleed no more, until you have died knowing the physical equivalent of all the pain, suffering, and anguish you have inflicted on these people over the years. And you will NOT tell the police, your parents, or speak of this to anyone else. If you do, I WILL find out, I WILL act upon it, and it will be MOST unpleasant. Do I make myself comPLETEly understood?"

He simply nodded, his face the same grey-white as ash; his cohorts had similarly drained features. This neanderthal removed my friend from the trash, cleaned him off, and proceeded to run off with his cronies.

My friends thanked me and were amazed at what had transpired that day. For me, it scared me, because right then, I WOULD have killed him, WOULD have gladly taken his life for a perceived slight, for a promise made to honor and protect. Since that day, I've toned that urge down, made sure that I could never do that again unless absolutely necessary...and I only make that promise of protection to those I truly care about. I also keep the butterfly clip sewn into the liner of my jacket as a reminder that some things aren't worth the price.

So yeah...I know where this kid came from, and the Columbine kids, and all the others. But unlike them, I was taught to have a sense of honor, a sense of loyalty, a sense of respect. These are not things one learns from teachers at school nor parents at home. They are lessons learned by the hardships of life.

These kids failed. They shall be judged for their actions, made to take responsibilty for them as should be. But American society as a whole needs to sit back and not try to find an excuse why, not try to find a convenient scapegoat, but instead look at the very conceptual fiber of our lives.

For the answer lies therein.

------------------
"Gee, the public whipping didn't quite convey their fascist culture, I need something more straightforward. Ah, leather hats!" --Nimrod, on National Socialism fashion design.

Posted by Orion Syndicate (Member # 25) on :

I suppose in that country, you need something like that to stop bullies. It's so fucking sad.

I myself was a victim of bullies for three years of my school life. Why? Because I was actually there to work and get an education. The schools much trumpeted anti-bullying policy didn't work, especially since I had reported several incidents to teachers. One rainy day, the guy started on me again but this time I punched him in the face and clearly hurt him - no weapons necessary. He never picked on me again. There were times when I would have gladly killed him, and given the access to weaponry, I probably would have. It was however not necessary.

Bullies get off on the sense of power they think they have, but if you break this myth they seem to have about their own power, they'll stop. If I did this in the States though, the guy would probably have returned with some kind of gun and killed me so it is a different situation I admit and needs a different solution. The easy access to guns however doesn't help, especially when if someone pisses you off, you can just grab a gun and shoot them.

------------------
The Worlds Ten Greatest 'Fucks' #3

What a stupid place to plant a fucking tree - Marc Bolan

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

I'm with Orion. What Shik said was disturbing, and also quite sad that such things are necessary. The bullying I received had pretty much completely gone by the time I was 16. I've been in pubs, and people who used to pick on me have walked in, and they usually just say "Kavanagh!" in a loud voice, then shake my hand, and ask me how I've been. As long as they don't hug me, that's okay. I don't want them to think I play AD&D.

But Orion's also right. Hitting the bully over here will, 9 times out of 10, stop the bullying. Or at least tone it down considerably. It certainly wouldn't lead to the bully finding out where you live, knocking on your door, and then pumping you full of lead.

Unless you're Phil Mitchell, I suppose. But he was asking for it.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Retaliation never worked for me. It only allowed the bullies to turn up the temperature in my living hell.

That's how it is. They get the joy and pleasure of breaking you physically and emotionally, so when you can no longer resist, you are nothing more than their mere slave.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited March 07, 2001).]

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

And there's especially a problem if you can't effectively fight back. If I'd tried to, it just would have pissed them off, and I would have gotten the crap beaten out of me.

Posted by Right on :

I was a tiny girl in high school, so some guys liked to pick on me.

Until I started kicking them between the legs.

------------------
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make them my friends?" - Abraham Lincoln

"America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail it knocks over a chair." - Arnold Toynbee

"Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity." - Anonymous

"Our bombs are smarter than [George W. Bush]. At least they can find Kuwait." - A. Whitney Brown

Posted by Right on :

In another matter ...

For our Canadian friends -- have you heard about this 16 year old boy who wrote a story for a drama class in which the protagonist entered the school with explosives, planning on exploding his tormentors? He was arrested, expelled from school, jailed for a month, and goes on trial in a few weeks. Interesting story, and it sort of applies here (that in: identifying trouble students early).

Fascinating society we live in.

------------------
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make them my friends?" - Abraham Lincoln

"America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail it knocks over a chair." - Arnold Toynbee

"Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity." - Anonymous

"Our bombs are smarter than [George W. Bush]. At least they can find Kuwait." - A. Whitney Brown

Posted by Right on :

Well, shit.

Surf on over to CNN.com. There was another shooting -- an 8th grade girl shot another 8th grade girl at a Catholic school in Pennsylvannia.

I think that answers an earlier question by you, Omega.

------------------
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make them my friends?" - Abraham Lincoln

"America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail it knocks over a chair." - Arnold Toynbee

"Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity." - Anonymous

"Our bombs are smarter than [George W. Bush]. At least they can find Kuwait." - A. Whitney Brown

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I was going to write something about how immensely disturbing this thread has become, with how all of the former little kids who were picked on wanted desperately to kill their bullies, and how "hard" & "kick-ass" it makes them seem now. But I don't think its too important now. Just as long as you don't pass on your 'woe is me' & 'The goggles - they do nothing!' attitudes to your kids who'll probably end up shooting my kids. Or slitting them up real good.

This isn't to say I haven't been picked on. I visit a Star Trek messageboard. I think everyone here has. Everyone gets picked on. Even the Quarterback, or the Cheerleaders, or whatever Stereotypical bully-of-the-week you'd like to insert.

I was picked on. These two big Hockey dudes apparently felt it necessary to inform me that I had - to my surprise - changed my sexual orientation, among other things. It pissed me off.

Did I think to kill them? No.

They called me 'gay'. How the fuck does that make one murderous? If someone beats you up, and you want to actually, physically, end their life, go to a fucking shrink, asshole.

Anyway, these two guys ended up being on my Hockey team the next year. First game of the season, I said "Look, this isn't gonna fucking work if we hate each other. We both wanna play, so if we all just shut the fuck up, we can play, and none of this other shit will affect us none." Guess what? It worked. The relationship was Neutral, but not adversely affective to my mental capacity. I didn't once think of taping a swicthblade to my shinguard, or anything else as inventive as Shik's forbidden Ninja routine. (For Which, the Football dudes should have, and were entitled to have pressed charges.)

What was that? I solved a problem without violence? Yeah, that's right. I guess us Foreigners are wierd that way. Disliking the thought of killing stupid adolescents because they're stupid adolescents.

When I was like 8, and I first heard (and saw) Pearl Jam's video for Jeremy, I was fairly disturbed that people would kill other people at school. It seems that video was simply an extension of America's subconsious desires.

People take bullying way too seriously. Learn Judo. Bully back. Or stop hanging around people who say things like "The Host of the unholy netherworld is pleased." Things like that get you bullied. By association it seems.

------------------
"I WANT A POST VOY SERIES STAR TREK ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS LOOKING FORWARD NOT LOOKING BACK."

-Darkstar

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited March 07, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
One thing I'd be interested to know: do such shootings ever occur at private schools?

quote:

Pennsylvania girl arrested in classmate's shooting

March 7, 2001
Web posted at: 6:00 p.m. EST (2300 GMT)
WILLIAMSPORT, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- An eighth-grade girl was wounded and a classmate arrested Wednesday in the latest outbreak of gunfire at a U.S. school.
Authorities said the shooting occurred during lunch at Bishop Neumann Junior-Senior High School, a Roman Catholic school in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. A police spokesman said the shooting stemmed from a long-standing dispute between the suspect and victim.
"This is not a random act of violence, and as far as I understand there are no other targets for this violence," Officer David Ritter said.

Maria Orzel, a spokeswoman for the diocese of Scranton, said school authorities approached the suspect and convinced her to surrender.
The victim, a 13-year-old girl, was in stable condition at a hospital in nearby Danville after being shot once in the right shoulder, Geisinger Medical Center spokesman Max Meng said.
The 14-year-old suspect was being questioned and would be taken to a juvenile detention center, authorities said. She was expected to face juvenile court charges of attempted homicide.
Williamsport is about 180 miles northwest of Philadelphia. The school lists an enrollment of 231 students.
After the shooting, all were taken to the school's auditorium and patted down by police in a search for weapons, Lycoming County District Attorney Thomas Marino said. Students were later taken to a nearby school and questioned, he said.
Classes have been canceled for Thursday but will resume Friday with counselors available for the students, Orzel said.
The incident comes two days after a shooting at a high school in Santee, California, a suburb of San Diego. Two students died and 13 people were wounded in that incident. A hearing for the 15-year-old freshman boy arrested in that incident was postponed until March 26 at the request of defense lawyers.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 07, 2001).]

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

UM has obviously missed the point of my post. Let me explain.

After that event, I wrote up thousands of lines of mental code to prevent such actions from ever happening again unless a VERY specific set of events unfolded. I scared myself into inaction.

As for the Khaki Eclipse, 3 went to jail for raping the sister of one of my friends.

------------------
"Gee, the public whipping didn't quite convey their fascist culture, I need something more straightforward. Ah, leather hats!" --Nimrod, on National Socialism fashion design.

Posted by Orion Syndicate (Member # 25) on :

UM: One incident doesn't make you want to kill someone else (at least it shouldn't) - it didn't for me. But three years of continuous bullying and the teachers who did nothing even though they knew it was going on because if they acknowledged it, the reputation of their precious school would have been tarnished. After three years of that, you're damned right I felt like killing the bastard - but I didn't, partly through self restraint, partly because I couldn't really take another human life and partly because I didn't have the means. So I just punched the guy in the face, hurt him and thus let him know that he wouldn't be getting a laugh out of my misery ever again. SIMPLE!

And in response to an earlier post, I was a small kid too. I was shorter than my mother up until the age of 16, and she's 5 feet 2 inches tall. I was pretty skinny at that time aswell. I suppose I just got lucky because the bully although much bigger than me was a coward. He realised he'd have a fight on his hands from that day on, and decided he didn't want to pursue it any further.

------------------
The Worlds Ten Greatest 'Fucks' #3

What a stupid place to plant a fucking tree - Marc Bolan

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Wanting to kill, that's fine.
Actually DOING so, that's not.

Self-control and self-discipline, that's what it's all about. Yes, the temptation to cut loose and give these neanderthals just what for is always there, isn't it? But the control. That's what we have that they don't.

Our ability NOT to act on our base desires is what separates us from the lower life forms.

Understanding that those who continue to act on their base desires (ie. bullies, etc.) are lower life forms can give one a legitimate sense of superiority.

I look at what has become of the people who used to give me a hard time at school. I have had a more successful life than any of them, and I'm not even that well off. One got himself killed. One got himself arrested. One got himself crippled, and two others... well, they best they're gonna do is gas station attendant.

Still, sometimes I think the world needs a few more Frank Castles.

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching

Posted by Right on :

Kick 'em in the balls, they'll leave you alone. Plus, everyone who hears about it (who is a male) will leave you alone too. You boys REALLY need to wear cups.

------------------
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make them my friends?" - Abraham Lincoln

"America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail it knocks over a chair." - Arnold Toynbee

"Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity." - Anonymous

"Our bombs are smarter than [George W. Bush]. At least they can find Kuwait." - A. Whitney Brown

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

UM: Two guys called you "gay" on one occasion, and you didn't want to kill them? And you think that's something special? Anyone who wanted to kill over something like that would be really dangerous.

Go back to being five years old. Start getting picked on by many different people, continuously, over a span of thirteen years. Then tell us the thought of really fucking one of them up never crossed your mind.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

...

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited March 08, 2001).]

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

i was bullied for most of my life, but at age 14 i had an immense growth spurt, and then at age 16 my height is 6'1, and 167pounds. that added to my brown belt was very effective in stopping bullies. just today, someone tried to bully me, i grabbed his hand as he was punching me, twisted it around pressed it against his throat and then smashed him against the wall. he was atleast a whole head bigger than me, and much much "wider"

When someon makes fun of you it's not as easy because you can't respond violently and still keep the moral upper hand, in this case, just go on the online yellow pages, find the person's address write it on a piece of paper and give it to him the next morning, it's VERY effective. i've only done this once, but the guy totally paled, and never bothered me again.
if you don't want to fight anybody, try to spread rumours that you are a homicidal maniac that takes drugs, that's always an excellent countermeasure.

------------------
Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Ironically, this is true, from what I hear. The shooting was stopped by an off-duty policeman. A man carrying a gun.

Hate to pick a bone, but ...

How would this help the victims in the bathroom? Answer: it wouldn't. Even if the off-duty cop had been closer to the bathroom, those people still would have been shot. While the cop certainly may have stopped further violence, you don't need a gun to stop someone when they're reloading a revolver* (tackling will work). In other words, a gun did not help to resolve the situation.

Metal detectors, people. In public schools, and in private schools. Why don't we try and keep guns out of schools instead of thinking that bringing more in will solve the problem?

* = At least, not when they're a 15-year old kid, no doubt scared out of their ever-loving mind. But then, anyone else would've brought a semi-automatic for faster reloading ...

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Hnnnngggggggg.

Of course, while I'm all for the right to do whatever you want, wear whatever you want, and say whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, I have found that the level of bullying I received went down drastically when I got a decent hairstyle and stopped wearing my "warp factor 2, Mr Sulu" t-shirt.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

In other words, when you successfully conformed.

I wish I could have had a reasonable hairstyle. I have a double crown, which results in my naturally having two immense cowlicks, like small horns, on my forehead. (I was Triceratops-boy, in elementary school.) Not as bad as Dagwood's but close. (I finally solved that problem by parting through one of them, and using a LOT of mousse.)

I'll tell you what will end discipline problems in schools. Issue every teacher a semiauto, and allow them a 10% casualty rate per class. Kind of like the Spartans did in the old days.

*BLAMM!* Okay, anybody else not do their homework?

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 09, 2001).]

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

hmm.. and the parents of those ten percent? they're not just gonna allow that

------------------
Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

They shoulda done a better job, then. Tough for them.
Rememmber, I'm also in favor of taking the RTB ('Right' To Breed) away from unfit parents.

Hey, instead of being overcompetetive at meaningless sports, let's transfer some of that energy into parents' involvment in their kids' academic careers!

I mean, you hear allatime some guy saying "Yeah, I started playing ball with Johnny when he was only 2, and now he's an all-star," but you never hear "Yeah, I started Johnny in on Science when he was 3, and now he's Valedictorian and got a scholarship to MIT."

Posted by dih1138 on :

Parents are already pressuring kids into acedimic competition. Early applied pressure to gain exceptance to a good college or university has resulted in kids carrying too many books in their backpacks, which has in turn led to compaction of their spines...

Now for the subject of this thread... Not that it seems there is interest, but I thought some of you would enjoy these neato links...
http://www.mem.com/SantanaHS2/bio_SantanaHS.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrm/pressrel/pressrel00/school.htm

also since some seem to be in this age group and also seem in great need of empathy for the victims, not the suspected gunman, here is an email address to reach out to Santana High students... [email protected]

------------------
-dih1138

[This message has been edited by dih1138 (edited March 09, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Just be careful of what you say in those e-mails ...

quote:
Maryland man arrested after Santana High e-mail threat

Santana High School on Wednesday
March 10, 2001
Web posted at: 7:43 a.m. EST (1243 GMT)
SANTEE, California (CNN) -- Police arrested a young Maryland man after e-mail threats of new violence at California's Santana High School.
Heightened security had been ordered for the school in Santee, California, a San Diego suburb, for Friday after a student received a threat warning of plans to "complete" the job started Monday in a shooting rampage at Santana High.
"We are going to assume that it's serious until proven otherwise," said Sgt. Mike Radovich of the San Diego County Sheriff's Department.
Late Friday, the San Diego County district attorneys office identified a suspect in the e-mail case as Patrick Andrew Smith, 19, of Walkersville, Maryland.
"I can't tell you a whole lot, because no search warrant has been served yet," said Liz Pursell, a spokeswoman for the San Diego County Sheriff's Department.
Two students died and 13 people were wounded in Monday's shootings. Charles Andrew Williams, a 15-year-old freshman boy known to friends as Andy, faces murder, assault and weapons charges in the attack.
Grossmont Union School District Superintendent Granger Ward said the threat made Thursday was sent to a Santana student via instant messaging on the Internet. According to Ward, the message threatened to "complete what Andy hadn't finished."
The message said more violence could be expected Friday, but none materialized.
No consideration was given to canceling classes, Principal Karen Degischer told a school assembly Thursday. She urged the students not to let such threats force them to live in fear, and recommended they wear the school's colors of purple and gold Friday in a show of solidarity.
School re-opened Wednesday, and about 80 percent of the 1,900 students enrolled at Santana showed up for classes Thursday, Degischer said.
A sheriff's spokesman said a second Internet threat was received by a student at neighboring West Hills High School, and that also is under investigation.
A memorial service took place Friday night for the two boys who were killed -- Bryan Zuckor, 14, and Randy Gordon, 17. Meanwhile, four students who said they knew about the planned shooting rampage but didn't tell authorities will be enrolled at other schools, Ward said, out of concern for their safety.
Ward said the four students are not being punished, but he is concerned for their safety.
"We have been in contact with the families of four students who allegedly had prior knowledge," he said. "We are working with these families to determine the best program for their children. This is not a punitive action.
"We are working with them and on a voluntary basis. We are assisting them to have their child enrolled in another program at the school district."
Authorities had previously said three students may have known about Monday's attack.
One of Williams' friends said she had not believed he was serious when he made the alleged threats.
"He said, 'I'm joking. You can trust me. I'm just joking,'" a girl who wished to be identified only as Katy told CNN. She said the episode had left her confused and hurt.
"I can't even figure out what I'm trying to feel right now," she said.
Katy originally thought she would be among those banned, but later said she was not.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 10, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Why violence?
The Secret Service's findings on school shootings
March 6, 2001
Web posted at: 6:25 PM EST (2325 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Secret Service study into school-shooting incidents found that most of the attackers were on what researchers called a "path to violence."

The report cautions adults to be alert to warning signs and to be on the lookout for the pattern of behavior described in the report.
The Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center began to look at school shooting incidents in September 1999. It examined 37 incidents involving 41 perpetrators. Besides reviewing case files, the Secret Service researchers interviewed 10 perpetrators in person.
The interim report, released in October, found incidents were not impulsive -- rarely were there cases where a student just "snapped." Instead, the incidents were the end results of an observable and understandable pattern of thinking and behavior.
More than half of the attackers planned their attack at least two days in advance. More than three-quarters of them told someone of their plans, usually a peer, and usually more than one person. However, even though friends, classmates or siblings often knew of the attacker's plans, rarely was this information brought to the attention of an adult.
History of depression
Although people often ask, "what kind of person does this type of thing?" the Secret Service report concludes that might be the wrong question to ask, since its survey of attackers did not yield a useful profile.
Although all the shooters were boys or young men, they ranged in age from 11 to 21 and their family backgrounds ranged from intact families to foster families with a history of neglect. Some perpetrators were excellent students; some were failing. Some were popular; some were socially isolated. Very few had ever been diagnosed with a mental illness.
There was one common theme: depression.
More than half of the young men had a history of feeling extremely depressed. Prior to the violent incident, three-quarters of them had either threatened to kill themselves, made a suicidal gesture or actually tried to kill themselves.
More than two-thirds felt persecuted or bullied by someone. The motive for the shooting was often revenge.
The Secret Service report does offer some hope: Since the shooters usually take some time to plan their attacks, there is time to intervene. Sometimes it might be only a few days, so the researchers warn it is necessary to move quickly.
One of the shooters interviewed by Secret Service researchers was Luke Woodham, who killed his mother and two students in Pearl, Mississippi, in 1997.
The Secret Service asked Woodham what it would have taken for a grown-up to know what he felt.
Woodham: Pay attention. Just sit down and talk with me.
Question: What advice do you have for adults?
Woodham: I think they should try to bond more with their students ... Talk to them ... It doesn't have to be about anything. Just have some kind of relationship with them.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.65 out of 10 Smileys by Carl Marx (with four hundred eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence you stinking bastard!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 10, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

It all comes down to decent parenting.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

And kids not knowing the combination to their parents' gun safe.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Of course, one could argue that decent parenting includes making sure that your kid can't access your gun(s).

But then, you could also argue that decent parenting includes making sure your kid wouldn't use the gun for illicit purposes, regardless of whether they can access it or not.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yep, and since the Secret Service's report shows that:

quote>Although all the shooters were boys or young men, they ranged in age from 11 to 21 and their family backgrounds ranged from intact families to foster families with a history of neglect. Some perpetrators were excellent students; some were failing. Some were popular; some were socially isolated. Very few had ever been diagnosed with a mental illness.

I don't really think good parenting has a lot to do with it. The Secret Service blamed depression more than a particular parenting style. And how do you know that someone is depressed?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

The answer to that is in your own post:

>"Prior to the violent incident, three-quarters of them had either threatened to kill themselves, made a suicidal gesture or actually tried to kill themselves."

That's a pretty damn strong hint.

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Well a person can be predisposed for depression, genetically. There's an old test that I IIRC has credibility; If your ring finger is longer than your index finger you can be susceptible to depression.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Indeed.

And yet, many people (adults, too) in Santee, CA heard the boy threaten to kill people, yet did nothing.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 10, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Thus, bad parenting. We can reasonably assume that if many people heard this, his parents were included. And if they weren't, then they probably needed to spend more time with their kid.

And I would point out that none of the factors JK mentioned say anything about the quality of the child's upbringing.

*looks at hands*

Well, guess I'm screwed...

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I highly doubt that the ring finger thing has any real validity. It reminds me of the "if you hold your right hand out at arms length, and your ring and middle fingers naturally stay close together, you're creative."

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I absolutely agree. Any parents dumb enough to give their kid the code to their gun-safe deserves to be tossed in jail along with them when something like this happens.

quote:
And I would point out that none of the factors JK mentioned say anything about the quality of the child's upbringing.

A clarification: those factors were what the United States Secret Service said. This was a report about the nationwide school shootings, not any one case in particular.

quote:
...their family backgrounds ranged from intact families to foster families with a history of neglect. Some perpetrators were excellent students; some were failing. Some were popular; some were socially isolated. Very few had ever been diagnosed with a mental illness.

I think this does talk about upbringing (although in a general sense). The very fact that the Secret Service used "intact families" and "foster families with a history of neglect" says that the "intact families" are thus, without a history of neglect. Yes?

And, gee, look at that. Very few had ever been diagnosed with a mental illness. Isn't depression a kind of mental illness?

If children were supposed to have guns, then George W. Bush would've made a law in Texas allowing 6 years olds the right to carry concealed handguns. - Me

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 10, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Re: "intact families"

Dig deeper.

Sometimes, people and their families can have wide renown for being good and 'intact,' when the truth is quite opposite.

"Intact," in the FBI's report, I'd wager, means nothing more than 'both mother (biological) and father (biological) present.'

My gf grew up in an intact and well-respected family, and you've heard me talk about HER life enough already.

Posted by Teelie (Member # 280) on :

The kids not being tormented or bullied (as nearly all of those in the report have claimed) may help too. Good parenting or not, if someone is constantly harassed, insulted and generally degraded by someone on a daily basis, it's going to fuck them up. Some people snap faster than others. Just because they take time to plan it out and go through with it, doesn't mean they didn't crack under the harassment earlier.
The lack of discipline and "You spanked me for doing something! I'm suing!" shit that's been going on has something to do with it too I think. Both the bullies themselves and the kids they pick on.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Hmmm. Can anyone here name any of the Columbine victims without having to look it up? Because I was just thinking of this, and the only people I remember are: Klebold and Harris -- the killers.

The reason these kids are shooting each other is because they're "glorified" (sorta) by the nation after each shooting. They become house-hold names, and for those who've been picked on, what better way to be remembered then as someone to be feared? And not picked on?

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Actually, I couldn't have told you the killers' names, either. And if someone had mentioned them out of context, I'm not sure I even would have recognized the names...

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I've heard that some of the other students at the schools in question act similarly. "Well, I was told my hair looked horrible on channel four, so I'm gonna run home and fix it." "Oh, I just CAN'T be seen on TV with this on." That particular girl came out of her apartment shortly thereafter with short shorts and a tank-top on, much to the appreciation of the cameramen.

The desire for fame is apparently almost universal among our youth. It seems more of a question of how that desire is expressed.

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

That's disgusting. They'll be contestants in the next docu-soap, I'll wager.
Other opportunists have gotten more doe for being less famous...

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Besides the killer's names, the only thing I remember from Columbine is that story "she said 'yes'" that turned out to be a fib.

Well, okay, not a fib exactly, but they went ahead with the publication of the book and the Christian media blitz even after the guy who supposedly eyewitnessed the incident admitted that what was reported wasn't what happened, and that the girl who said 'yes' wasn't shot.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Just as a quick point: There's a difference between "conforming", and not looking like a tit.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

depression doesn't have anything to do with it, and neither does bad parenting, people seem to blame everything on the parents nowadays. i know a lot of depressed people, but the reason they are depressed is simple, they don't like waking up in ungodly hours of the day and wasting their lives away in some institution that is supposed to give them knowledge, yet it ends up giving most people pyschological conditions that cripple them for the rest of their lives.(i'm talking about schools

) there are a lot of things that can make you depressed, there is always the low average which gets kids yelled at, and aggravated non-stop while people tell them that they aren't gonna have a future. and then there is the non-popular thing which turns people into social rejects and takes away all of their hope of a better future. and ofcourse there are people that have had to put up with a damned lot from everybody and they all develop in different ways. There is the inferiority complex, when the person beleives that he/she sucks and everyone is better than them. there is also the many fobias and unsociability. and the worst case scenario, people develop a superiority complex and think they are better than everyone else(i fall within this category) and feel a constant need to prove themselves and put others down, this dissabilitates group work, because the sufferer beleives that he/she can do the best job by themselves, and leads to them snapping at everybody and widening the social rift that had formed originally.
__

the true idiocy is firearms. okay, now why do you need guns? to PROTECT yourself? what are cops for, what about a damned pepperspray. NO, we are gonna allow every Joe Schmoe, that lives in a box and has a dead end job (homer simpson comes to mind) to handle a firearm, and were just gonna HOPE that he/she doesn't decide to go around killing people!!!!
and ofcourse it is too late to do that now that they are widely available, but if in the begginig guns and other stuff was restricted to the police and the military, then people wouldn't have a basement full of barettas now would they?

------------------
Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Dear Sweet God.

"depression doesn't have anything to do with it, and neither does bad parenting,"

Of course not. Not one iota. With a statement like this, one would hope for (and require) an explanation.

"people seem to blame everything on the parents nowadays."

This is intolerable. Blaming parents simply for the fact that they are the main source of all behavioral influences in children. How could they? Really.

"i know a lot of depressed people, but the reason they are depressed is simple, they don't like waking up in ungodly hours of the day and wasting their lives away in some institution that is supposed to give them knowledge, yet it ends up giving most people pyschological conditions that cripple them for the rest of their lives.(i'm talking about schools )"

Yes, you are talking about schools. And quite cheeky about it. This isn't depression. Depression is quite worse. This is, scientifically, Standardadolescentitus, known to us layman as EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN KID THAT GOES TO FUCKING SCHOOL. This is not depression. Find a kid at school who doesn't feel this way. He's the one you need to worry about. (He'll like, throw a rook at you or something.)

"there are a lot of things that can make you depressed..., there is always the low average which gets kids yelled at, and aggravated non-stop while people tell them that they aren't gonna have a future. and then there is the non-popular thing which turns people into social rejects and takes away all of their hope of a better future. and ofcourse there are people that have had to put up with a damned lot from everybody and they all develop in different ways. There is the inferiority complex, when the person beleives that he/she sucks and everyone is better than them. there is also the many fobias and unsociability. and the worst case scenario, people develop a superiority complex and think they are better than everyone else(i fall within this category) and feel a constant need to prove themselves and put others down, this dissabilitates group work, because the sufferer beleives that he/she can do the best job by themselves, and leads to them snapping at everybody and widening the social rift that had formed originally."

Okay. So this is about how people can become depressed? And yet, the point of this thread, if I haven't had my turnip turned round the wrong way, is kids shooting kids. This disgressed into bullying, being bullied & why or why not kids may or may not kill other kids. You said depression has nothing to with it.

These factors that you associate with the formation of Depression are many of the traits viewed in the children who have indeed felt the desire to shoot up schools. But Depression (based on the things you described) has nothing to do with shootings. Fine.

quote:
the true idiocy is firearms. okay, now why do you need guns? to PROTECT yourself? what are cops for, what about a damned pepperspray. NO, we are gonna allow every Joe Schmoe, that lives in a box and has a dead end job (homer simpson comes to mind) to handle a firearm, and were just gonna HOPE that he/she doesn't decide to go around killing people!!!! and ofcourse it is too late to do that now that they are widely available, but if in the begginig guns and other stuff was restricted to the police and the military, then people wouldn't have a basement full of barettas now would they?

Homer Simpson is fictional.

Can of worms. Don't open it. Here, it's been opened. Fifty Million times. With no resolution. This will go nowhere. Especially not with your argument. (If, this emotional tangent can be considered so.) The exact content of this last paragraph is a horse. I think we're all out of beating sticks.

I don't understand why it's so hard to press 'Shift' & 'I', or whatever letter that starts a sentence, usually denoted by a '.'. Usually.

------------------
"I WANT A POST VOY SERIES STAR TREK ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS LOOKING FORWARD NOT LOOKING BACK."

-Darkstar

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited March 11, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I promise, this is the ONLY thing I will respond to from this irrational tirade on guns. JK makes better arguements than this. And that's saying something.

to PROTECT yourself? what are cops for

Didn't the Supreme Court rule a couple years back that a police officer is not required to interfere with a crime in progress? Something along those lines?

Under any circumstances, by the time the police could arrive at the vast majority of residences in this country, anyone doing the calling could easily be dead, and the perpetrator be long gone. Let me guess: you live deep in a major city, half a block from a police station, don't you? Well here's a tip: the rest of us don't! If someone's threatening us, the police can't defend us. They aren't here.

Oh, and pepper spray is a close range defense measure. The whole point of a gun is to hold someone at bay from across the room, so they can't, say, pull out a knife and stab you repeatedly.

OK, I lied. That was two things.

This is, scientifically, Standardadolescentitus, known to us layman as EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN KID THAT GOES TO FUCKING SCHOOL. This is not depression. Find a kid at school who doesn't feel this way. He's the one you need to worry about.

Homeschooling rocks!

*throws a rook at UM*

Chess rocks, too!

------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, co-operate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, [and] die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects."
- Woodrow Wilson Smith

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a fucking chair down your throat!

Grrr!

So, the only thing that's come out of this is:

Every school in the US is a place of nightmares, where bullies have free reign, childrens spirits are regularly crushed, people want to kill each other, everyone ignores everything that happens, and people who don't got A's for everything want to commit suicide.

Cheerful.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a fucking chair down your throat!

Yep, that, too.

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

none of the things i mentioned would actually cause anyone to go out shooting people, in order for that to happen the person would have to be seriously f*d up in the first place and the depression wouold just be a trigger, as could anything else. also there is no way for this violence to be channeled into something more productive(get a punching bag for f*k's sake), so people end up getting shot up.

i should have expected the citizens of the country with the highest crime rate on the planet to protect their precious guns so they won't lose their much coveted first place, and their "every 15 seconds a car is stolen" "every 30 minutes a person is killed and every 7 a woman is raped" ratio.

(i understand this is the flame board so i assume there are no hard feelings)

------------------
Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

No hard feelings. Provided you start using the "shift" key a bit more

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Oh, well. We TRIED to keep this from degenerating...

i should have expected the citizens of the country with the highest crime rate on the planet to protect their precious guns so they won't lose their much coveted first place

I would point out that our crime rate is dropping, whereas the crime rate in countries with no guns whatsoever (Britain, et al.) is increasing.

and their "every 15 seconds a car is stolen" "every 30 minutes a person is killed and every 7 a woman is raped" ratio.

More guns in the hands of private citizens would prevent these things, wouldn't you say? Would you try and rape a woman with a gun?

Oh, and how 'bout our, "Every fifteen seconds, a private citizen uses a gun to prevent a crime?"

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Why is Omega attributing Heinlien quotes to some guy named Woodrow?

Or, as an alternate question, why did I never read the book in which the character by that names says that? The mysteries of the universe, my friends.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Infinity, I'd like to know where you get your numbers from. Chances are, they're invalid.

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond, UB Stude

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"Every school in the US is a place of nightmares, where bullies have free reign, childrens spirits are regularly crushed, people want to kill each other, everyone ignores everything that happens, and people who don't got A's for everything want to commit suicide."

Well, on that last bit, most students don't care about their grades. But the rest of it sounds fairly accurate...

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You know, I really don't know where that quote came from. I just found it in my bigly largely huge archive, liked it, and used it. Please, if you can confirm a different source, tell me.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I don't understand the appeal of arguing an ever-arguable issue like gun control with someone (to use an Omega-ism) isn't capable of creating and/or using valid discussion techniques.

Unintelligible, misspelled, emotional tangent "arguments" are seemingly a waste of time.

But, I have no power to remove the wall upon which you beat your head. Continue, I suppose.

------------------
"I WANT A POST VOY SERIES STAR TREK ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS LOOKING FORWARD NOT LOOKING BACK."

-Darkstar

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

It's good practice. The more opportunities I have to argue the subject, the more refined my argument will be in the event that I come up against a worthy adversary.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Your arguments are refined?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

Omega: Your WHAT archive? That sounded suspiciously close to one of the cracks on MST3K. I wish I could remember the movie they were trashing, or at least the main character's name. I know it was "Something McSomething Something", because every time he appeared on screen after he introduced himself, Joel and the Bots would shout out some variation on it. My fav being "I'm Big McLarge Huge!"...

Anyway. I now return you to the flame already in progress.

--Jonah

------------------
"It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."

--Col. Edwards, ROBOTECH

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

In infinity11's defense, I have a theory that many people play so much online multiplayer games that the constant ingame-chatting has forced them to sacrifice spacing, capital letters, spellchecking and other luxuries we at Flare enjoy, as WE are aware we have all the time in the world to write our little notes.

Just breathe deeply, nobody's gonna shoot you with a sniper rifle or take your flag. It's aaaaall good...
There! Much better, eh?

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

It's not like it takes any time. Or they could just be stupid.

Hell, Red Quacker used punctuation, took the Grammatocratic Oath, and could spell.

------------------
"I WANT A POST VOY SERIES STAR TREK ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS LOOKING FORWARD NOT LOOKING BACK."

-Darkstar

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Aren't we the repeating little turnip?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Peregrinus:

Your WHAT archive?

My quote archive. 350 kb, plain ASCII. LOTS of quotes.

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

As to the stats, that was just an example, I would never bother with actual numbers. I still feel the same way about weapons, and that NOT having them would reduce the crime rate a lot more. And it's Unreal Tournament's fault incase you're wondering about my lack of capitalization, but trust me it isn't as bad as this guy on the Winamp board that capitalizes every word. I dare anyone to try and face me on deathmatch on any FPS game though, I may not like real guns, but I feel great about virtual ones.

------------------
Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

That's much better.

I'd rather eat my own eyeballs that argue about guns anymore, but this:

I still feel the same way about weapons, and that NOT having them would reduce the crime rate a lot more.

This, in combination with your lack of desire to come up with actual numbers for crime, is a perfect lead in for Omega or Rob to set you up the bomb.

To argue guns, and anything else around here, you have to be willing to stick in, and actually give evidence, examples and explanations, else it's pointless.

------------------
"I WANT A POST VOY SERIES STAR TREK ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS LOOKING FORWARD NOT LOOKING BACK."

-Darkstar

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

There is also the problem that some of us actually LIKE guns simply for what they are and how they look. Personally, I can't stand most of the "generic" revolvers and automatics out there, but I am the proud owner of a 1922 "Bolo" Mauser Broomhandle pistol, a Chinese-made Mauser in .45ACP, and a Walther PPK. I am looking for a good-quality Browning Automatic Rifle, a Mauser Model 98 -- all German markings, and a WWI Parabellum Mauser Broomhandle.

These are as much pieces of art to me as the various swords, knives, daggers, and bows I own, and I readily admit to enjoying the experience of going to shooting ranges to fire them off from time to time. But I always keep them unloaded at home, with the ammo VERY safely locked away. I hate to tell the "home defense" proponents out there this, but with an automatic pistol, there is no way for a burglar or other assailant to know if it is loaded or unloaded short of being shot -- and most won't risk that unless some illicit substance makes them immune to such pangs of self-preservation.

And that's all I have to say about that...

--Jonah

------------------
"It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."

--Col. Edwards, ROBOTECH

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

As long as everything has been UM fresh tested....No capitalization approved before it's time.

------------------
I should've known you were the only one stupid enough to kidnap you! Now get down here so I can spank you in front of this gawking rabble
~ C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

*Lurchspeak*
YOU RANG?

>"As to the stats, that was just an example, I would never bother with actual numbers."

We here on the flameboard have several expressions for that behavior. Among the more polite ones are "just asking to be skinned alive."

>"I still feel the same way about weapons, and that NOT
having them would reduce the crime rate a lot more."

As in most cases of fact, your 'feelings' about the subject are irrelevant. try reading "More Guns, Less Crime" by some bigshot Yale prof whose name escapes me at the moment.

"let's get rid of all the guns" might SOUND like a nice solution. it might even WORK, if such a thing could be done. The problem is, it CAN'T and WON'T ever be done. Mostly because those people that do illegal things won't worry much about keeping THEIR weapons when the call goes out to turn your guns in.

Britain outlawed handguns, and their own press admits the country has been flooded with millions of illegal guns. (I posted a thread and the source some time back.)

As a solution for crime, gun-banning ranks just below the 'back-to-africa' movement in terms of raw stupidity. (That is, there are certain people stupid enough to believe that you could lower crime by shipping all the black folks back to Africa. This is much stupider and even more impractical than banning weapons, obviously)

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

I am not really an "active" flamer here, I just wanted to say my point and leave, I'm not really into prolonged debates. It's quite true that people would smuggle them in, but if more attention was paid to the borders, well i guess it could work, but perhaps some NON-lethal preventative was found, it would be better.

------------------
Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I just wanted to say my point and leave, I'm not really into prolonged debates

Yes, there are names for people like that. Anyone care to tell him what they are?

if more attention was paid to the borders, well i guess it could work

We can't keep drugs out of the country. What makes you think we could do it for guns? Heck, Britain can't do it, and they don't even HAVE borders.

perhaps some NON-lethal preventative was found, it would be better.

You seem to like dealing with hypotheticals. I deal in reality. Communism's great, in theory, too, but theory and practice are two seperate things.

Oh, and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" was one John R. Lott.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Britain doesn't have borders? Since when? At least you're spelling it correctly.

As for Herr Lott, why is it gun nuts always support his conclusions while ignoring that his methods are suspect? Well I will tell you. Because Mr. Lott is without doubt a Republican. How else would you explain his belief that the wealthy should be able to buy their way out of court? Or, oh yeah, he thinks that giving women the vote caused government spending to surge out of control. And people wonder why I'm a liberal. Right. Off-topic. Back to topic!

Still, his admirers would give him the Nobel Prize if they could -- "More Guns, Less Crime" claims that the world would be a safer place if citizens carried guns, and his supporters have described him as a "Yale professor" (escept he isn't on the faculty, doesn't teach, and no-one at Yale can find the basement office he claims to have).

Why are his numbers suspect? No one seems to figure out how he draws his conclusions from the statistics. The most anyone else (that is: aside from Lott*) can figure out, is that the figures at most suggest that concealed gun-laws don't create crime -- but say nothing about preventing it. Lott is also an opponent of child-safety locks, and thinks teachers should carry guns to prevent school shootings, ignoring the simple fact that, in the recent most case, the teacher would've had to have been in the bathroom to stop the shooting.

* - one of the concerns of Lott's conclusions are that if his conclusions are incorrect, then he's peddling a false message and gun nuts are falling for it

Newsweek, March 12, 2001 pg. 36

Just some observations. Now I await Omega's "scathing" spin.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 13, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Mr. Lott is without doubt a Republican. How else would you explain his belief that the wealthy should be able to buy their way out of court?

The phrase "non sequitor" leaps to mind.

in the recent most case, the teacher would've had to have been in the bathroom to stop the shooting

The point isn't to keep ANYONE from getting shot. That's obviously impossible (assuming that the kid has the gun in the school to begin with). The point is to keep that number to a minimum. For example, if that police officer hadn't been in the school (with his gun), then the kid could have gone into the rest of the school and killed more people. Or he could have shot some of the wounded again, and killed them. Either way, that policeman saved lives by having his gun there.

As for Lott, have you even read his report, or are you just parroting? Again?

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Everyone. Not anyone.

Sorry.

To be fair, I'm sure that drug smuggling is a lot easier than gun smuggling, due to the differences in size and stuff. You can't shove a semi-automatic up yer arse.

Well, you might. But I'd hate to use the toilet after you.

------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."
-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I'm simply pointing out criticisms of John Lott. Speaking of which, when do you do anything but parrot?

Have you by-chance bothered to research his figures, or investigate the criticsm against him? Just curious, because isn't that what you accused me of?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 13, 2001).]

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

sorry, you want to reduce the number of casualties? so you're one of those people that sees numbers not people.

there isn't a single word for people like me, but i prefer "has a life"
you on the other hand appear to be one of those "hardcore" flamers that tries to score points on a newbie after he's tried to make peace and back out of an argument.

if all of us thought like you, this world would be a very sad place indeed

------------------
Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

There will be no peace as long as Kirk lives!

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 13, 2001).]

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

i took too long to type that last one so a lot of people got in replies before me, but is intended for omega

------------------
Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I guess we can't expect punctuation from you, if that post took an enormously great amount of time. You've got to eat, you know.

------------------
"I WANT A POST VOY SERIES STAR TREK ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS LOOKING FORWARD NOT LOOKING BACK."

-Darkstar

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Oh, and I'll let someone else call you on your personal attack on Omega.

He may disagree with you, but he's better informed, better researched, better prepared and a better debater than you.

------------------
"I WANT A POST VOY SERIES STAR TREK ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS LOOKING FORWARD NOT LOOKING BACK."

-Darkstar

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Just a gentle word of advice infinity11, do keep posting and don't let the schmoes get to you too much...esp Omega. He has a point of view that he believes in strongly and if you intend to argue against his rather stilted position, you had better believe in your views just as much.

Punctuation hasn't go a damned thing to do with being able to "bring it" on the Board de Flambe, but I would caution you infinity11, if you are going to bring up a hot button issue like guns, you would be better off bringing your A game. People get very serious about their arguments in here. Omega is generaly very wrong with his, but he's very serious about them while being wrong. (back off homeslice, that was a joke)

Anyway, if you are anti-gun-violence as I am, keep on keepin on.

------------------
I should've known you were the only one stupid enough to kidnap you! Now get down here so I can spank you in front of this gawking rabble
~ C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

I guess I kinda aksed for it on that one.

Well I had to run out and get something while posting and since I wasn't done I didn't submit it. Oh and btw maybe I don't feel like punctuating

I'm not used to doing it, and I don't really feel like going back and correcting myself. Well I put it in on this one, but who knows for the rest.

How old are you people? In high school nobody punctuates when talking online, if somebody does, people think two things of them: They have too much time on their hands, or that they are nerds. I might have a little too much time, but I difuse it quite well

One other thing before I go: CHILLAX! Maybe it would be a good idea to take a break from your keyboards and your little game of flame the newbie.

Thanks for the support Jay, the way this is going i am definitely gonna need it.

------------------
Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

you want to reduce the number of casualties? so you're one of those people that sees numbers not people.

Um... buh? I see the NUMBER of PEOPLE. What planet are you from, again? And on your planet, do they not think that fewer people dying is preferable to more people dying?

UM:

he's better informed, better researched, better prepared and a better debater than you.

Hey, I've found my new status line!

Liam:

Anyway, if you are anti-gun-violence as I am, keep on keepin on.

Forgive me, but... have you ever met someone that was PRO gun violence? That wasn't actually pointing a gun at someone? :-)

To answer 11's question, I'm a Jr. in HS. I punctuate because I prefer my sentences to be easy to read, and so my meaning won't get confused.

And, hey, we're not flaming you, PERSONALLY. We're flaming your debating skills. ;-)

Or lack thereof. ;-)

See, it's a joke. We're trying to make you feel at home. When we say something that you feel is insulting, just remember: we don't mean anything personal by it. It's more in response to something you've said, than to you personally. It's like the difference between saying, "Well, that was a stupid thing to say/do," and, "Boy, you're stupid." Two completely different concepts. We ALL do stupid things at times. I once started a 120 post thread, based on a piece of misinformation.

But please, DO punctuate. It's a real pain to read, otherwise.

JK:

Have you by-chance bothered to research his figures

Oh, well, I've only read the frikin' book. Have you done that much?

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 14, 2001).]

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

It were me and not Liam, you gun toting wannabe.

------------------
I should've known you were the only one stupid enough to kidnap you! Now get down here so I can spank you in front of this gawking rabble
~ C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

[This message has been fucked up by Ultra Magnus (fucked up March 13, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited March 13, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Ooooh! Wow! You can read! How wonderful is that? But tell me -- if his figures are based on false data, doesn't the book and its conclusions become suspect? But, hey, you just said you don't really care how he came to his conclusions, because they're the conclusions you agree with.

Fascinating, truly.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Regarding something First said... You could reduce crime by getting rid of all the blacks. But, then, you could also reduce crime by shipping all the whites back to Europe. Reduce the population, and of course fewer crimes will be committed. :-)

oh and infinity people who use punctuation don't have more time on their hands they just know how to type if it takes you that much longer to type a sentence with punctuation maybe you shouldn't be in an environment that requires typing to communicate in the first place eh its much easier to understand what someones trying to say if they type normally theres a reason punctuation capitalization and garmmar rules exist to make things standard so they dont have to be interpreted it may be faster to type but its slower to read

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

if his figures are based on false data, doesn't the book and its conclusions become suspect?

If the premises are false, the conclusion is likely false. Basic logic.

Can you show that the numbers he began with are not correct? 'Cause otherwise, you've got nothing.

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

It doesn't take any longer to punctuate if you do it as you write, but I am not used to doing it, so I have to go back and correct it.
If guns were not present some people may not be able to defend themselves, but they could carry guns loaded with tranquiliser darts instead of bullets. This would prevent crime just as effectively, but it would not kill as many people. Also this will give police officers a lot more freedom to shoot first, because they will not need to worry about killing anyone. All in all it is quite stupid for people to use lethal weaponry against eachother, it makes us a little too much like animals.

------------------
Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

I'm simply pointing out criticisms of his data and conclusions. When no one else gets the same data from the same statistics (including Doug Weil, and Stanford Prof. John Donohue), I simply feel it's neccessary to point that out. Hell, his own protoge -- David Mustard -- disagrees with many of Lott's conclusions (including allowing teachers to carry guns: in an Ohio gun case, Mustard admitted he had "concerns" about that idea).

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

they could carry guns loaded with tranquiliser darts instead of bullets.

*L*

And where, praytell, would they get these? And why don't people carry them already? Perhape because there's no tranquelizer publicly available that'll knock a human out quickly enough to do that much good. Again, try to deal in reality, not hypotheticals.

All in all it is quite stupid for people to use lethal weaponry against eachother, it makes us a little too much like animals.

Logic triumphs over emotional sentiment any day, 11. Say a criminal is holding a gun to your head. Are you HONESTLY going to be trying to convince him that he's making himself look like an animal? Or are you going to be wishing that you'd had a gun handy?

There is EVIL in this world, in case you didn't notice. You don't eliminate it by wishing it would go away. You can either deal with it and prepare for it, or you can bury your head in the sand and hope someone doesn't shoot you in the butt in the process. If you don't want to own a gun, fine, that's your call. But don't you DARE try to force that same decision on me.

I'm simply pointing out criticisms of his data and conclusions.

Ah, so you have no LEGITIMATE objection? OK, then.

Please, Jeff: stop with the appeals to authority. It's the oldest trick in the book. If you know some REAL reason that the conclusion would be false, please, tell us. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and ours.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Infinity11: You're posting on a Star Trek message board, and you're not using punctuation because people at school won't think that's cool? Huh?

Don't you ever have to write essays or reports? Surely you use punctuation then?

English is a wonderful language, with many wonderful rules, and if you follow them, then all our base will belong to you. If not, then I'm afraid I'll have to set you up the bomb.

For great punctuation!

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

For the record, most drugs don't enter the country up someone's butt. They enter the country in crates, smuggled like anything else. Sometimes by truck, but often by boat or by plane. And when you're packing the crates for delivery, it ain't that hard to throw in a couple of illegal weapons to help your compadres defend all that valuable powder.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

Appeal to authority? What? Isn't that what you did when you mentioned Lott's book in the first place? Appealing to authority? And now that someone says, "hey, maybe he's not correct..." you cry foul? Hush, homeslice! Do you have evidence as to how Lott's numbers and/or conclusions are correct? No, you admitted as much. So stop bitching.

And of course, people saying that Lott's concerns aren't incorrect isn't legitimate? What the fuck? Please explain yourself. Let's see: Lott's colleagues (even those who agree with his research methods) say "the conclusions he draws from the data are dangerously misguided" isn't legitimate? You're smoking crack, aren't you?

While you can treat Lott's book as the Holy Bible (and you certainly seem too), understand that the conclusions it draws are not accepted (hell -- even Lott's protoge, David Mustard, disagrees with a lot of Lott's conclusions) and if you can't understand that ... well, this is you we're talking about, so why bother?

quote:
Say a criminal is holding a gun to your head. Are you HONESTLY going to be trying to convince him that he's making himself look like an animal? Or are you going to be wishing that you'd had a gun handy?

If someone's got a gun to your head, having a gun yourself won't do a whole lot of good. If someone's pointing a gun at you already, having a gun won't do you any good. Really, Omega, you talk about how others shouldn't deal in hypotheticals, but you sure do dwell into it a lot yourself.

quote:
There is EVIL in this world, in case you didn't notice. You don't eliminate it by wishing it would go away. You can either deal with it and prepare for it, or you can bury your head in the sand and hope someone doesn't shoot you in the butt in the process. If you don't want to own a gun, fine, that's your call. But don't you DARE try to force that same decision on me.

Really? Evil, where? You mean the guy on the corner whose about to rob the supermarket to get money so he can feed his family? Or maybe the homeless guy thinking about breaking your window so he can take your TV to the pawn shop and get some cash so he can buy dinner for himself. Maybe evil is a special interest group with so much money, and so much political power that it can make the wishes of a very few into a scary rhetoric to cause the rest of the population to become scared for no reason.

Evil doesn't exist in the average Joe-Schmore criminal. He's misguided, sure, but evil? No, Hitler was evil. That Tate boy isn't evil. The KKK is evil. Be careful of the line you draw (not that you ever are, of course).

quote:
You don't eliminate it by wishing it would go away.

Ah-hah! So much for believer and defender of the Constitution! How do you eliminate it, Omega? You wouldn't be advocating viligante justice, would you? Not surprising -- for all your bitching about complaining how liberals defile the Constitution, what you're talking about here completely disregards one basic concept of our system of justice: innocent until proven guilty. You should read it sometime. Fascinating document.

Omega -- sometimes I'm really surprised by how much ignorance you can show. You make the distinction that gun owners fight crime, while non-gun owners cower in fear. Do you really believe that? If so, I feel very sorry for you. You're going to be in for a hell of a shock when you grow up and see that things aren't as simple as black and white anymore.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 14, 2001).]

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

I am not purposely ommiting punctuation to look cool, it's just that I've been doing it so often, that it is a nasty habit that I can't get rid of. If you use ICQ a lot, you will have noticed that it has developed it's own little language in a way, which is a mix letters numbers and other symbols.
for ex.
- u gotta d/l this song
- cya,l8r
- wtf is that 4?

------------------
Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Appeal to authority? What? Isn't that what you did when you mentioned Lott's book in the first place?

Well, actually, Rob mentioned it in the first place, but besides that, no, it's not. He pointed out a very good, very thorough statistical study that you should read, because it proves the point he was trying to make. That's not an appeal to authority. It IS an appeal to authority, however, to say that just because a certain person disagrees with a statement makes that statement suspect or wrong. The difference is, we're showing our work. You're just refusing to read it.

If someone's got a gun to your head, having a gun yourself won't do a whole lot of good.

If you'd had a gun, you wouldn't have ended up in the situation to begin with! Obviously! Use your brain for once, Jeff. It atrophies with time.

You mean the guy on the corner whose about to rob the supermarket to get money so he can feed his family? Or maybe the homeless guy thinking about breaking your window so he can take your TV to the pawn shop and get some cash so he can buy dinner for himself.

Oh, yes, the poor, innocent victim criminal. Typical.

THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN! It'd be far more likely that they'd be stealing so as to support their drug habit. Anyway, I don't CARE what your rationalization is. Stealing is WRONG. PERIOD. Dot it, file it, stick it in a box marked "DONE".

You wouldn't be advocating viligante justice, would you?

No, I'm advocating DEFENDING YOUR OWN FRIKIN' SELF, 'cause ain't no one else gonna do it for you. Do you even know the definitions of the terms you use?

what you're talking about here completely disregards one basic concept of our system of justice: innocent until proven guilty.

Are you honestly suggesting that if someone's pointing a gun at me, I can't defend myself, and simply have to wait until he's arrested, put on trial, convicted, etc? 'Cause by then, I will be DEAD! My right to defend my status as a living being superceeds the right to a fair trial of one who is breaking the law and threatening my life. You disagree? Well, then, go back to whatever planet you came from, 'cause that's how things work on Earth.

You make the distinction that gun owners fight crime, while non-gun owners cower in fear. Do you really believe that?

No. Exactly what are you reading when you get these things, anyway? 'Cause it ain't my posts.

You're going to be in for a hell of a shock when you grow up and see that things aren't as simple as black and white anymore.

There is such incredible irony contained in this statement, it's hard to know where to begin. YOU'RE the one that denies that there is evil in the world. YOU'RE the one that denies that I have any need to be able to defend myself. YOU'RE the one that thinks that the right to a fair trial for a murderer is more important than my frikin' LIFE! You, sir, are the naive one, not I.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Well, actually, Rob mentioned it in the first place, but besides that, no, it's not. He pointed out a very good, very thorough statistical study that you should read, because it proves the point he was trying to make. That's not an appeal to authority. It IS an appeal to authority, however, to say that just because a certain person disagrees with a statement makes that statement suspect or wrong. The difference is, we're showing our work. You're just refusing to read it.

Just as you're refusing to read the criticisms of his conclusions. And it's quite a few people disagreeing with Lott's conclusions -- including his own frickin' protoge! And these are people who agree with his research data, too! These aren't just members of Handgun Control. These are people who like Lott, who like the data he gathered, but still say -- hey, you got the wrong conclusions. That tells me something.

quote:
THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN! It'd be far more likely that they'd be stealing so as to support their drug habit. Anyway, I don't CARE what your rationalization is. Stealing is WRONG. PERIOD. Dot it, file it, stick it in a box marked "DONE".

My only contention was that it was not evil.

quote:
If you'd had a gun, you wouldn't have ended up in the situation to begin with! Obviously! Use your brain for once, Jeff. It atrophies with time.

I suppose you carry your gun to the bathroom with you? Oh, wait -- you don't own a gun. So, how come you're not being mugged and robbed every night? And what about people who leave the gun in their nightstand? You make a lot of assumptions (not surprising, really), but in this case, that assumption is: people carry their guns everywhere.

Another assumption is that even if you have your gun on you, and you're surprised by someone already carrying a gun, that you can draw your gun before the someone else shoots you. That's dangerous thinking. Have you, by chance, watched Die Hard a few times too many, mayhaps?

quote:
No, I'm advocating DEFENDING YOUR OWN FRIKIN' SELF, 'cause ain't no one else gonna do it for you. Do you even know the definitions of the terms you use?

And ...

quote:
Are you honestly suggesting that if someone's pointing a gun at me, I can't defend myself, and simply have to wait until he's arrested, put on trial, convicted, etc? 'Cause by then, I will be DEAD! My right to defend my status as a living being superceeds the right to a fair trial of one who is breaking the law and threatening my life. You disagree? Well, then, go back to whatever planet you came from, 'cause that's how things work on Earth.

That's not what you said. You said "eliminate" ... how exactly do you plan to eliminate it? And unless you're ignorant of the laws on self defense, you should be aware that YES ... that's the way things work in the US. Now, if you do shoot someone and it falls under Self Defense, hey, you're free and clear. But if you just start blasting away 'cuz someone rings your doorbell or is walking out your back door with your stereo, you're in a world of trouble little-one. You're ignorance of laws is absolute. You're aware this country prides itself on that criminals recieve equal protection under the law? Not by your way of thinking, apparently.

quote:
No. Exactly what are you reading when you get these things, anyway? 'Cause it ain't my posts.

So you deny saying this next quote?

quote:
You can either deal with it and prepare for it, or you can bury your head in the sand and hope someone doesn't shoot you in the butt in the process. If you don't want to own a gun, fine, that's your call. But don't you DARE try to force that same decision on me.

What did you mean by "bury your head in the sand" if not that people who don't own guns cower in fear? Read your own posts please.

quote:
There is such incredible irony contained in this statement, it's hard to know where to begin. YOU'RE the one that denies that there is evil in the world.

I don't deny that there is evil in the world. I gave examples as to what "evil" is compared to people that are just criminal. There is a difference, even if you can't see that. I'm not about to lump, for example, that Tate boy in with Adolf Hitler. A difference between the KKK and the punk who ripped the stereo out of my car.

quote:
YOU'RE the one that denies that I have any need to be able to defend myself.

Do you have need to defend yourself? Well, hell, I don't know. When have you ever been the victim of a crime, Omega? And speaking of which, you're too young to OWN a gun, so yeah -- you have no legal right to a gun for a few more years. How is it you stay safe without a gun, if I might ask? If you're safe now, why would you be less safe once you turn 21?

On the other hand, if you want to live somewhere with inadequate police protection, feel free to buy yourself a handgun. Just don't make any illusions about whats doing the damage when a 16-year walks into a school and starts shooting.

quote:
YOU'RE the one that thinks that the right to a fair trial for a murderer is more important than my frikin' LIFE! You, sir, are the naive one, not I.

Omega, I simply respect everyone's right to equal protection under the law. Hey -- if you kill someone under the law of Self Protection, that's one thing.

But there's a big difference between doing that and shooting some guy in the back whose ripping your TV off, and I hope you understand the difference -- or you could someday find yourself being prosecuted for murder. If you believe that those two are the same thing, then it's you who are naive kid.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 14, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Actually, there are a number of states in which the use of deadly force to defend property rights IS permissible.

And quite frankly, it should be that way in all of them. People who don't respect the property rights of others will steal anything that isn't nailed down. And it's a VERY small step from that to killing someone in order to steal his property. In fact, most of the killing in homes is done by people who were there to steal in the first place, and some luckless person happened to be home or come home, and get in the way.

"Equal Protection under the Law" is a nice belief to have, but an impractical one. YOU are NOT protected from the criminal by the law.

You are not obliged to respect the 'rights' of someone who does not respect yours. Rights are part of the contract with society that every law-abiding person lives by. When you choose to go against the society, by committing criminal acts, you abrogate your ability to claim those rights.

After all, "FREEDOM" is generally considered to be a 'right' in this country.. but we certainly restrict THAT right of criminals. You know, jail?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

My only contention was that it was not evil.

Did you even read what I said originally when you responded to it? I was simply giving your post the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it was actually in response to mine, instead of a complete non sequitor, as it now seems to have been. Oh, well...

re: next topic

Again, look at what you originally responded to. Your statements are of little or no relation to mine.

But if you just start blasting away 'cuz someone rings your doorbell or is walking out your back door with your stereo, you're in a world of trouble little-one.

And yet again, this has no relation to any of my beliefs, stated or otherwise. Who exactly are you responding to, when you post these things?

What did you mean by "bury your head in the sand" if not that people who don't own guns cower in fear? Read your own posts please.

Again, you do not know the definitions of the terms you use. To bury one's head in the sand is not to cower in fear. It is to simply pretend that a problem doesn't exist, instead of dealing with it.

And speaking of which, you're too young to OWN a gun, so yeah -- you have no legal right to a gun for a few more years.

You have brought this up several times. How is my age and legal status relevant to broad points? You are attempting to confuse the subject.

If you're safe now, why would you be less safe once you turn 21?

Because by then, I won't spend 90% of my time at home, nor will I live in such a location that a burgaler would have to be a moron not to go for the easier target across the street. (Hills are nice.)

On the other hand, if you want to live somewhere with inadequate police protection, feel free to buy yourself a handgun.

Look, oh thou of minimal cranial capacity, not everyone lives two blocks from a police station. You've got to learn that you're little corner isn't all there is to the world. There is not, nor will there ever be, such a thing as police protection so good as to be able to defend you from something so simple as a mugger at night. Exactly what percentage of the populace do you think works for the police, anyhow?

But there's a big difference between doing that and shooting some guy in the back whose ripping your TV off, and I hope you understand the difference

Why do I even bother typing all this stuff if you don't even read it? Go back and look at previous threads. You've made this statement multiple times, and multiple times have I pointed out that it has no relation to my beliefs. Do you even have a cerebellum in that melon of yours?

Rob:

YOU are NOT protected from the criminal by the law.

Bingo. You're simply protected from prosecution if you happen to shoot him.

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Trust me, let it all hang out...

[This message has been edited by Nimrod (edited March 14, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

You're not protected from posecution if you shoot him, which is the point I'm trying to make here. You'd better understand what the laws regarding self defense means where you live, Omega, or you could find yourself one of the criminals you so vigerously detest.

quote:
Did you even read what I said originally when you responded to it? I was simply giving your post the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it was actually in response to mine, instead of a complete non sequitor, as it now seems to have been. Oh, well...

THIS is what you wrote, Omega:

quote:
There is EVIL in this world, in case you didn't notice. You don't eliminate it by wishing it would go away. You can either deal with it and prepare for it, or you can bury your head in the sand and hope someone doesn't shoot you in the butt in the process. If you don't want to own a gun, fine, that's your call. But don't you DARE try to force that same decision on me.

So what you mean here is that it's only okay to shoot "evil" people and not merely "criminals"? There's a big difference between being evil and being a criminal, and I don't think you see it.

quote:
Again, you do not know the definitions of the terms you use. To bury one's head in the sand is not to cower in fear. It is to simply pretend that a problem doesn't exist, instead of dealing with it.

As well all know, Omega is taking a page from the Ostrich, which buries it's head in the sand. Omega claims it does so to ignore a problem, when in fact, Ostriches do so to try and "hide" from danger. Now, Omega may be using it in a different form, of course, and making up his own definitions, but the closest comparison I can find to what he said is the ostrich example:

quote:
Perhaps the most enduring myth about the ostrich is that it hides it head in the sand when in danger. Both Pliny and Oppian believed this to be true. Pliny also said that it would hide its head in a bush in threatening circumstances. The Eclectic Ostrich

Now, perhaps Omega is using a more vague obscure reference I'm not aware of. However, his contention that I don't know of what he alludes to is ridiculous. Ostriches hide from danger: clearly, Omega was drawing a similarity between Ostriches hiding from danger and people who don't own guns.

One word: ignorant.

quote:
Why do I even bother typing all this stuff if you don't even read it? Go back and look at previous threads. You've made this statement multiple times, and multiple times have I pointed out that it has no relation to my beliefs.

I'm simply looking to clarify your beliefs. You say you want the right to protect your property by taking a human life, thus, wouldn't that include shooting someone running out of your house carrying a TV? Very relevent.

quote:
Do you even have a cerebellum in that melon of yours?

Although beautifully worded, I must admit, is this not anything more than a thinly veiled insult? Don't personal attacks fall outside the range of your prized "Valid Debating Tactics?" Honestly, kiddo, maybe you should read your own rules sometimes. This is about as valid a debating tactic as me saying I'd like to put you naked into a gay Klingon sauna with a big sign that says "come and get it!" and let the big Klingons have their way with you (In all seriousness, only Wesley Crusher deserves that kind of fate)(okay, okay, the Voyager writing staff too).

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 14, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

So what you mean here is that it's only okay to shoot "evil" people and not merely "criminals"?

This has what, exactly, to do with what I said? Do you even speak English?

Omega claims it does so to ignore a problem, when in fact, Ostriches do so to try and "hide" from danger.

I claim no such thing. I stated what the phrase means in contemporary language. If it's not related to the reason the bird in question literally does so (assuming it does), well, that's not my problem. It IS, however, yours, because you don't seem to understand that a term means what people use it to mean. It IS an existing idiom, you know. It's not something I just made up on the spur of the moment.

I'm simply looking to clarify your beliefs.

Which I have done several times. You simply didn't pay attention.

You say you want the right to protect your property by taking a human life

Did I, now?

is this not anything more than a thinly veiled insult?

Veiled? Who's trying to conceal it? It's not like I'm pretending I made a point by insulting you. I simply felt like you deserved it.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
This has what, exactly, to do with what I said? Do you even speak English?

No, I'm speaking Klingon. What the fuck do you think? Sheesh!

Do you not agree that there is a distinction between evil and criminal? Apparently not. That's very sad, because there's a big difference between someone who mugs you on the street and Adolf Hitler.

quote:
I claim no such thing. I stated what the phrase means in contemporary language. If it's not related to the reason the bird in question literally does so (assuming it does), well, that's not my problem. It IS, however, yours, because you don't seem to understand that a term means what people use it to mean. It IS an existing idiom, you know. It's not something I just made up on the spur of the moment.

The bird does literaly hide it's head. References in contemporary English refer back to that. It's your problem if you don't understand the origins of the idiom you use. Yes, I'm aware it's existing -- it goes back to the ostrich doing it. Why does the ostrich do it? Because it's afraid! Wow. How hard was that? Honestly.

quote:
Which I have done several times. You simply didn't pay attention.

Best as I can tell, someone looks at you funny, and you want to blow them away. Please -- where have you clarified your beliefs?

quote:
Did I, now?

Yes, you did, as the next quote will show.

quote:
There is not, nor will there ever be, such a thing as police protection so good as to be able to defend you from something so simple as a mugger at night.

How exactly do you plan to protect yourself? And don't try to argue that the threat of a gun is enough. While it may be, there's always the possibility that you'll have to take a human life. So, yes, right here you're arguing that it is very permissible to shoot a mugger.

quote:
Veiled? Who's trying to conceal it? It's not like I'm pretending I made a point by insulting you. I simply felt like you deserved it.

As long as we're clear that you apparently don't give a shit about your precious "valid debating tactics." Not that this surprises me, mind you. Since you've obviously lost this debate to me, you must resort to mud slinging.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 14, 2001).]

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

I'm going to be making the most important point of this thread now, so pay attention.

"If you use ICQ a lot, you will have noticed that it has developed it's own little language in a way, which is a mix letters numbers and other symbols.
for ex.
- u gotta d/l this song
- cya,l8r
- wtf is that 4?"

That's not language. That's H@x0r L33t talk. And I shall now give you an example of one of mine and Simon's fun chats:

SIMON: "You did invent the [railway]".

LIAM: "Me? I'm sure I didn't. I did invent the electric hat, and the giant fork, but the railway?"

SIMON: "What about the automatic trousers?"

LIAM: "That's crazy talk. They were invented by Wallace. Of ...and Gromit fame."

SIMON: "Ah.
Well, apparently my mother wants to call her friend, and my father wants to call his relatives and see if they escaped being swallowed by the Earth. So I should probably go for a bit."

LIAM: "And I should go to bed. I'm on strike tomorrow, so I need to be rested for by day of doing sod all.

It's about paying student fees apparently. We don't think we should have to. Obviously."

You see? You can't pay for that type of scintilating talk. And the punctuation was perfect all the way though. Simon said "I should probably go for a bit", and not "cya l8r". And I love him for it.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

And don't try to argue that the threat of a gun is enough. While it may be, there's always the possibility that you'll have to take a human life. So, yes, right here you're arguing that it is very permissible to shoot a mugger.

Once you've pulled out a gun, if he continues to advance, he is no longer a mugger, but an actual threat to one's person. I'd have no problem shooting him at that point, assuming he'd had an adequate chance to know that I was armed. And even then, I'd be likely to just shoot him in the butt or something.

Since you've obviously lost this debate to me, you must resort to mud slinging.

Let's see: you've misinterpreted everything I've said, ignored my explainations, ignored my answers to your questions, and ignored all attempts at reason. This isn't even a debate. It's a verbal slaughter. Yours.

----------

Example of a question you asked that I've already answered:

Best as I can tell, someone looks at you funny, and you want to blow them away. Please -- where have you clarified your beliefs?

My answer:

Go back and look at previous threads. You've made this statement multiple times, and multiple times have I pointed out that it has no relation to my beliefs.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Once you've pulled out a gun, if he continues to advance, he is no longer a mugger, but an actual threat to one's person. I'd have no problem shooting him at that point, assuming he'd had an adequate chance to know that I was armed. And even then, I'd be likely to just shoot him in the butt or something.

He's a threat, so you're going to shoot him ... in the ass? That makes no sense, unless he's facing AWAY from you, in which case I don't see how he could be a threat to you. Also, how could he be a threat unless he had a gun as well (in which case, he'd probably shoot you as you went for your own gun, rendering the matter moot). Yes, I'd say if you were holding a gun, he'd recongize you were armed. Unless, of course, he wasn't facing you and you shot him in the butt. But if he's not facing you, I still don't see how he could be a threat.

But, please, explain what you meant by "something else." Could it be you posess the skill with a firearm to do what police agencies cannot? That is, shoot out someone's knee or arm to disable them? That's always the PD response when they shoot and kill someone: "We had to aim for the body mass, it's too stressful in those situations to aim for anything else."

But, apparently, you're like Errol Flynn, only with a gun. Wow.

quote:
Let's see: you've misinterpreted everything I've said, ignored my explainations, ignored my answers to your questions, and ignored all attempts at reason. This isn't even a debate. It's a verbal slaughter. Yours.

Is this why you find the need to resort to insults?

quote:
Go back and look at previous threads. You've made this statement multiple times, and multiple times have I pointed out that it has no relation to my beliefs.

That's not an answer. That's mis-direction. You've yet to post a quote by you that backs up your original statement. Misdirection is not a valid debating tactic. As far as I know, anyway, but then, you said insulting people wasn't valid either, but that didn't stop you.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 15, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I said "the butt, or something." Meaning that I would shoot him in the butt, or a similar area, which was also non-vital, but an easy target. Again, pay attention.

Is this why you find the need to resort to insults?

Oh, it's not a resort, or a need. It's a desire.

That's not an answer. That's mis-direction.

I'm not about to do your homework for you. You're challenging what I've said it previous threads. You go look it up. I have nothing to prove. You, on the other hand, have some chance to regain a shred of credibility if you prove me wrong. Be my guest.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
I said "the butt, or something." Meaning that I would shoot him in the butt, or a similar area, which was also non-vital, but an easy target. Again, pay attention.

Erm. I did, which is why I said:

Maybe you should be the one paying attention ... ?

quote:
Oh, it's not a resort, or a need. It's a desire.

That makes it any more "valid" as a debating tactic? Tsk-tsk. It's an "el-hominem" or whatever.

I said:

But there's a big difference between doing that and shooting some guy in the back whose ripping your TV off, and I hope you understand the difference

You replied:

Simple question. Do you recognize the difference between someone ripping off some property; and someone pointing a gun at you? It's a "yes" or "no" answer. Not that difficult!

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 15, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I don't answer questions twice. It's a pet peeve of mine. If you don't remember the answer I've already given, it's your own darned fault. You want an answer? Well, you've gotten it. If you don't want to do some work of your own, it's not my problem. Why should I have to type up my beliefs umpteen times, while you're too lazy to even look through a recent thread?

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

You do of course realize that if you shoot them in a non-vital area, you will almost certainly land yourself in more trouble than if you killed them.

This is assuming the lack of guilt factor, as you already have a gun, and are prepared to use it.

On a different note, is it just me, or does JeffK and Omega seem to get in this argument every week?

------------------
You've got to be kidding!
I'm wet, I'm naked, your sister is wearing my clothes
And this is all part of some evil plot to rule the world as a soggy chimp in my BIRTHDAY SUIT???!!!
Saiyanman Benjita's Dragonball Page

[This message has been edited by Saiyanman Benjita (edited March 15, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
I don't answer questions twice. It's a pet peeve of mine. If you don't remember the answer I've already given, it's your own darned fault. You want an answer? Well, you've gotten it. If you don't want to do some work of your own, it's not my problem. Why should I have to type up my beliefs umpteen times, while you're too lazy to even look through a recent thread?

Okay -- so in other words, you don't recognize the difference between an unlawful shooting and a self-defense shooting? Very good. I have been unable to find any posts where you recognize the difference.

Since this is the only post you responded too, I take it I win on the other points? Gracias -- as always, it has been fun debating with you: although I must admit, I am always dissapointed when you resort to your ad-hominems. On the other hand, it is nice to see that you can now correctly spell "Britain."

I bid you adieu.

quote:
On a different note, is it just me, or does JeffK and Omega seem to get in this argument every week?

This is the first gun debate in quite some time, actually. It does get tiring watching Omega beat the dead horse, tho. Maybe I should stop goading him on one of these days.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 15, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Time for me to shift some poor boy's paradigms...

What I can't believe is that there's actually somebody so daft as to believe that ostriches ACTUALLY hide their heads in the sand. Too many WB cartoons.

"Hide your head in the sand," I can say with my English degree to back me up, is a WELL-KNOWN phrase whose SOLE etymology (origin and meaning) is FROM the ostrich legend, and means "to pretend a real problem does not exist." It has NO relation to 'cower in fear,' especially as the ostrich is actually a bird which strikes back viciously when cornered.

You might also want to brush up on your definition of the word "evil."

1: morally reprehensible (also part of definition #4 of 'crime' ie. "a morally reprehensible act", in Webster's
2: arising from bad character or conduct
3: causing discomfort or revulsion
4: causing harm
5: something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity.

"evildoer" - one who commits evil acts.

Now, since criminals do and are ALL of the above definitions, it naturally follows that it is CORRECT to describe them using the adjective 'evil', because they commit evil acts. They may not be Hitler or Stalin or Mao, but they're evil nonetheless. Your 'poor criminal' DOES NOT EXIST.

And notice that so far you've confined your objections to thieves. But there are other crimes, even more likely to require methods of self-defense, including assault, rape (oh, pity the poor rapist? You'll get nowhere with that one), stalking, home invasion with intent to do bodily harm, etc.

It's amazing how many opponents' arguments one can chop up simply by consulting reference materials, isn't it?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
What I can't believe is that there's actually somebody so daft as to believe that ostriches ACTUALLY hide their heads in the sand. Too many WB cartoons.

Indeed, yet it is a most popular belief. And in the past, both Pliny and Oppian believed that the ostrich hid its head in danger -- thus, the WB reference. Regardless, the inference still stands. Omega inferred that those who hide their heads in the sand do so like the ostrich -- and as popular culture and old myths show: they do so because they're afraid.

quote:
Now, since criminals do and are ALL of the above definitions, it naturally follows that it is CORRECT to describe them using the adjective 'evil', because they commit evil acts. They may not be Hitler or Stalin or Mao, but they're evil nonetheless. Your 'poor criminal' DOES NOT EXIST.

Sorry -- there's a big difference between Hitler and the guy running out your backdoor with your TV under the arm.

If I hit the gas to get through a yellow light before it turns red, am I evil? By your defenition: yes. If I resort to ad-hominems, am I evil? Well, by that definition, yes. Oh, wait, right, Omega did the ad-hominem this time. See? Proves my point: Omega's evil. Speaking of which, maybe your entire post discomforted me: gee, guess you're evil too. See the problem?

quote:
And notice that so far you've confined your objections to thieves. But there are other crimes, even more likely to require methods of self-defense, including assault, rape (oh, pity the poor rapist? You'll get nowhere with that one), stalking, home invasion with intent to do bodily harm, etc.

And ...? Are you contendening that thieves are evil?

When did I say pity the poor rapist? Please stop putting words into my mouth, dear chap. All I ever argued was that it is not fair to put everyone into the category "evil", because while some certainly are, not all are. I only ask that you realize that not everything is black and white, and not every crime requires a gun to solve. And if you don't understand that, you've no business owning a gun.

quote:
It's amazing how many opponents' arguments one can chop up simply by consulting reference materials, isn't it?

Yet apparently you missed that Pliny and Oppian believed the ostriches hid their heads out of fear

And for all your talk of giving everybody a gun, you ignore the statistics from Texas showing that after Bush passed the concealed carry permit, 3,051 Texans (lawfully allowed to own and carry guns) were arrested for crimes including manslaughter and attempted murder (in the first year!. Felony and misdemeanous charges and concealed permit holders increased 54% from the first to second year of the program.* Wow. Look at that -- give law abiding citizens guns ('cuz otherwise how else could they have gotten them?) and they become criminals! Wow. Fascinating. I never would've guessed. Still, leave it to you to argue about an ostrich and the definition of evil.

*Houston Chronicle, 3/23/99; Greensboro News & Record, 11/29/98

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 15, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

On a different note, is it just me, or does JeffK and Omega seem to get in this argument every week?

Exactly my point, SB. We've been through this before, and I have no intention of answering the exact same question for the sixth time.

On the other hand, it is nice to see that you can now correctly spell "Britain."

And I find it equally gratifying to see that you can spell hominem.

Omega inferred that those who hide their heads in the sand do so like the ostrich -- and as popular culture and old myths show: they do so because they're afraid.

I used a term. That term has a meaning in common language. Your analysis of the entomology of the idiom is irrelevant. If the common meaning differs from your analysis, YOUR CONCLUSION DOES NOT APPLY. You are WRONG. Can you not admit this even for something so minor?

Please stop putting words into my mouth, dear chap.

Oh, that's priceless...

Since this is the only post you responded too, I take it I win on the other points?

You made no points. You asked questions that either had already been answered, or had no relation to my posts, and they were rightly ignored.

Speaking of which, maybe your entire post discomforted me: gee, guess you're evil too.

And even now, you don't see the hole in your reasoning. You make major logical jumps in a single sentence. See if you can figure out what about your post simply doesn't follow from one point to the next.

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 15, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

So can you show a definite LINK between the crime rate going up and the concealed carry permits, or do you just ASSUME one because that's the data you're LOOKING FOR? Or are there economic reasons or drug reasons (the two main 'causes,' outside of a lack of self-restraint, of crime)?

Your statistics tell us very little in the way of actually USEFUL information.
">3,051 Texans (lawfully allowed to own and carry guns) were arrested for crimes including manslaughter and attempted murder (in the first year!. "

Out of how many who didn't? What percentage of the gun-carrying population IS this? .25%? And how many of those crimes they were arrested for had NOTHING to do with the use of guns? How many were arrests for things like drunkenness, littering, too many unpaid tickes, etc? Your article makes the UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTION that guns were involved, but FAILS to back that up with real data.

>"Felony and misdemeanous charges and concealed permit holders increased 54% from the first to second year of the progam"

Same problem here. 54% from what to what? An increase from 4 to 6 is a 50% increase. So?? and notice it says "and" rather than "BY." AND tries to CREATE a link, but only BY would BE a legitimate link.

As for our ostrich pals...
What Pliny and Opie believed is hardly of relevance here, unless you base the entirety of your scientific knowledge on them as well... in which case you're dafter than you look. Many great and revered historic figures believed in a great number on nonsensical things, including magic, gods, faeries and unicorns. If you get your ornithological knowledge from Pliny, it's time to get yerself a broader education.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

You might also try reading this, though I doubt it.

Although it has no relevance to guns/crime, it has a great deal of relevance to guns/self-defense. IF you can summon up the mental fortitude to plow through it.
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/lethal.html

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 15, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Oh, and one more thing. I'm not "contending" that thieves are evil... flat out TELLING you, is what I'm doing.

Tell me how they aren't. Use nonemotional terms. Do not resort to the 'poor criminal' myth. Then expand it to include the other criminals. Especially rapists. I'd like to see you try and justify that one, try and make me feel sorry for one of those, especially. What is your argument that criminals aren't evil? Because the only understanding of the definition of 'evil' that you've been exposed to is dictators and mass murderers? Well that AIN'T the only one.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Now that was just weird. A double post with my post in between?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Exactly my point, SB. We've been through this before, and I have no intention of answering the exact same question for the sixth time.

Yet you've no problem getting into the exact same debate six times, apparently.

quote:
And I find it equally gratifying to see that you can spell hominem.

Yes, and I believe our roles have reversed in that you are now the one engaging in them, correct?

quote:
I used a term. That term has a meaning in common language. Your analysis of the entomology of the idiom is irrelevant. If the common meaning differs from your analysis, YOUR CONCLUSION DOES NOT APPLY. You are WRONG. Can you not admit this even for something so minor?

Obviously, it has several different meanings in common language. First said as much by pointing out that it is supposedly a WB cartoon trademark. Can you not admit that this has several meanings? I do. Right now. Misunderstanding. However -- neither of us are wrong. Perhaps next time you should say what you mean instead of relying on metaphor? Might save us some time and energy posting responses on the habits of birds.

quote:
Oh, that's priceless...

Absolutely.

quote:
You made no points. You asked questions that either had already been answered, or had no relation to my posts, and they were rightly ignored.

I made points. You ignore whatever doesn't agree with you. Mainly by screaming really loud and throwing out ad-hominems and claiming that people are appealing to "authority." Truly fascinating.

quote:
And even now, you don't see the hole in your reasoning. You make major logical jumps in a single sentence. See if you can figure out what about your post simply doesn't follow from one point to the next.

3: causing discomfort or revulsion

This is under the definition of evil. Clearly, if something or someone causes discomfort or revulsion it must be evil. Do you not agree? Well, frankly, I don't agree with that definition. Evil is evil, and the run-o'-the-mill criminal isn't evil.

quote:
Out of how many who didn't? What percentage of the gun-carrying population IS this? .25%? And how many of those crimes they were arrested for had NOTHING to do with the use of guns? How many were arrests for things like drunkenness, littering, too many unpaid tickes, etc? Your article makes the UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTION that guns were involved, but FAILS to back that up with real data.

Well, yes, in the cases where they were arrested for manslaughter and attempted murder, I'm sure the guns were involved. Where do you get this .25% number, anyway? Aren't you the one who said people should have accurate figures and not make them up? And the simple fact that these people were law-abiding until they got their hands on a carry permit should tell you something.

quote:
Same problem here. 54% from what to what? An increase from 4 to 6 is a 50% increase. So?? and notice it says "and" rather than "BY." AND tries to CREATE a link, but only BY would BE a legitimate link.

Ah, of course. The 54% was from the number earlier given, 3,051, from the first to the second year of the program. And I'm afraid I mistyped, it's felony and misdemeanor charges against concealed weapon permit holders ... my apologies for the typo.

quote:
What Pliny and Opie believed is hardly of relevance here, unless you base the entirety of your scientific knowledge on them as well... in which case you're dafter than you look. Many great and revered historic figures believed in a great number on nonsensical things, including magic, gods, faeries and unicorns. If you get your ornithological knowledge from Pliny, it's time to get yerself a broader education.

I'm not basing scientific knowledge on them. I'm simply ascertaining that "hiding your head in the sand" means more than just ignoring a problem, which would no doubt be clear to you if you bothered to read my posts. You yourself said that the WB portrayed the ostrich as hiding its head in the sand to avoid danger, yet now you claim that the pop-culture reference is invalid? Please.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 15, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

No, I NEVER said "to avoid danger." The ostrich was hiding its head in the sand (in the WB cartoon) to avoid seeing an unpleasant/embarassing situation. Because another animal called him 'ugly.'

>"Well, yes, in the cases where they were arrested for manslaughter and attempted murder, I'm sure the guns were involved."

How are you 'sure'? Vast psychic powers? There are literally hundreds of ways to commit even those to crimes that don't involve firearms, including with your bare hands and by vehicle. We're interested in FACTS, not conjecture.

>"Where do you get this .25% number, anyway? Aren't you the one who said people should have accurate figures and not make them up?"

I was ASKING for YOUR (or better, the article writer's) fact-based ESTIMATE, not making a factual statement. However, since the number of firearms used in crimes in the US as related to the number of privately owned firearms in EXISTENCE in the US is somewhere around .025% (data gleaned from World Almanac, again), I felt it was a MORE than generous assumption, around TEN TIMES what one would expect... but still an insignificant percentage.

>"And the simple fact that these people were law-abiding until they got their hands on a carry permit should tell you something."

Not neccessarily, until the previous objections are satisfied. And dependent on what the TX qualifications for the permit are.

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 15, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
You might also try reading this, though I doubt it. Although it has no relevance to guns/crime, it has a great deal of relevance to guns/self-defense. IF you can summon up the mental fortitude to plow through it. http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/lethal.html

Well, right, let's go with this:

quote:
What is "wrong" with this book? First, its lead author is an economist, not a law professor or even an attorney. Second, the topic of the book is gun control statutes in nations which have perpetrated genocide (p.356)in the twentieth century. Third, the book's insistent thesis is that gun control paves the way for genocide.

quote:
Tell me how they aren't. Use nonemotional terms. Do not resort to the 'poor criminal' myth. Then expand it to include the other criminals. Especially rapists. I'd like to see you try and justify that one, try and make me feel sorry for one of those, especially. What is your argument that criminals aren't evil? Because the only understanding of the definition of 'evil' that you've been exposed to is dictators and mass murderers? Well that AIN'T the only one.

Where did I say that rapists aren't evil? Please -- show me. I'm simply arguing that not everyone can be grouped into the category of "evil" simple because they break the law. I run a red light -- am I evil? You jaywalk -- that's evil? Tell me, that 12 year old boy who killed the little girl -- do you think he did that intentionally? Is he evil? This isn't a black and white, open and shut ideal here, First. This is shades of grey.

quote:
Now that was just weird. A double post with my post in between?

There's no evidence of a double post. I demand a recount.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
No, the ostrich was hiding its head in the sand (in the WB cartoon) to avoid seeing an unpleasant/embarassing situation. Because another animal called him 'ugly.'

So this would be the third example of a different way in which our culture perceives ostriches of hiding its head in the sand!

quote:
how are you 'sure'? Vast psychic powers? There are literally hundreds of ways to commit even those to crimes that don't involve firearms, including with your bare hands and by vehicle. We're interested in FACTS, not conjecture.

Yeah. They've got a permit to carry guns. They're arrested for trying to or actually killing someone, and you expect people to believe that guns weren't involved? Isn't your whole post conjecture in and of itself? Would you try and kill someone with your bare hands if you had a gun at your side? Don't make much sense to me.

quote:
I was ASKING for YOUR (or better, the article writer's) fact-based ESTIMATE, not making a factual statement. However, since the number of firearms used in crimes in the US as related to the number of privately owned firearms in EXISTENCE in the US is somewhere around .025% (data gleaned from World Almanac, again), I felt it was a MORE than generous assumption, around TEN TIMES what one would expect... but still an insignificant percentage.

Fascinating. So guns are only used in crimes .25 percent and you claim that all the criminals need guns? Or is this not what you're saying? Looks like we don't need the guns at all, actually.

And ... by some chance, is this the Almanac that said the Gov't reported 2,000,000 lawful shootings per year? When actually the number was about 80,000? Something screwy going on there, methinks.

quote:
Not neccessarily, until the previous objections are satisfied. And dependent on what the TX qualifications for the permit are.

Since the Texas qualification consists of having a clean criminal record and attending a training course, I'd call it a good example that guns make some people bad.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Who says that they had the gun in their possession at the time of the event they were charged for? I mean, my whole family has permits, but we don't pack heat every second of every day. None of us (except my brother, when he delivered pizza to high-crime areas) usually carry our weapons to work, or while at home on the farm (where we don't need a permit, anyway), or, in fact, most places. But we like to be ABLE to, should it become necessary.

So why do you ASSUME that they were armed when these things occurred?

Come on, do you have ANYTHING?

>"So guns are only used in crimes .25 percent"

No, The ratio of guns used to guns that are out there is .025 percent. Those few guns, however, are used, by a very small minority of people, in a large number of crimes. This is why some people have very long criminal records. They commit crimes over and over again. Until they're stopped.

"and you claim that all the criminals need guns?"

where exactly did I say this? I say that some non-criminals should be allowed to carry guns. There's no 'need' implied.

"Or is this not what you're saying? Looks like we don't need the guns at all, actually."

Nothing I said could reasonably lead to that conclusion.

"And ... by some chance, is this the Almanac that said the Gov't reported 2,000,000 lawful shootings per year?"

No.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
So why do you ASSUME that they were armed when these things occurred?

Why do you assume they weren't?

quote:
No, The ratio of guns used to guns that are out there is .025 percent. Those few guns, however, are used, by a very small minority of people, in a large number of crimes. This is why some people have very long criminal records. They commit crimes over and over again. Until they're stopped.

Yes. Stopped by being arrested. Or do you think the punishment for every crime should be a .40 to the skull?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
So why do you ASSUME that they were armed when these things occurred?

Why do you assume they weren't?

quote:
No, The ratio of guns used to guns that are out there is .025 percent. Those few guns, however, are used, by a very small minority of people, in a large number of crimes. This is why some people have very long criminal records. They commit crimes over and over again. Until they're stopped.

Yes. Stopped by being arrested. Or do you think the punishment for every crime should be a .40 to the skull?

quote:
Nothing I said could reasonably lead to that conclusion.

Really? Only .025 percent of the guns are used in crimes. A very small amount. Why would we all need guns to combat that very small amount?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

However -- neither of us are wrong.

No, you ARE wrong. You said You make the distinction that gun owners fight crime, while non-gun owners cower in fear. I never made this distinction. You jumped to a conclusion without thinking it through. Admit your mistakes. You'll seem so much bigger in people's eyes.

Well, frankly, I don't agree with that definition.

Your opinion is irrelevant. The definition of a word is what it is. Whether you like it or not is immaterial.

Clearly, if something or someone causes discomfort or revulsion it must be evil.

You know, you still didn't do what I told you. You originally said:

Speaking of which, maybe your entire post discomforted me: gee, guess you're evil too.

This can be broken down into two statements, with the definition of "evil" inserted between.

1) Your post made me uncomfortable.
D) Something is evil if it causes discomfort.
2) You are therefore evil.

This is not logical reasoning. You might consider his POST to be evil, but not Rob himself.

Regardless, when did I say anything about there being evil PEOPLE in the world? You've gotten worked up over the past few dozen posts over absolutely nothing. I was hoping that you'd notice on your own, but I guess that's just asking too much of you, to actually read what you're responding to.

in the cases where they were arrested for manslaughter and attempted murder, I'm sure the guns were involved

I would point out that manslaughter is far more likely to be commited with a vehicle such as a car. It is the ACCIDENTAL killing of another human, remember. Learn your definitions, Jeff.

Although as I read further, I notice that Rob has already beaten me to the punch on this.

I'm simply ascertaining that "hiding your head in the sand" means more than just ignoring a problem

Which is where you are wrong. Ignoring the problem is EXACTLY what it means, because that is how it is used in contemporary language.

They've got a permit to carry guns. They're arrested for trying to or actually killing someone, and you expect people to believe that guns weren't involved?

Yes, I do. But only those people that have enough intelligence as to not jump to conclusions without knowing facts.

Would you try and kill someone with your bare hands if you had a gun at your side?

MANSLAUGHTER, Jeff. That's where you kill someone WITHOUT trying.

is this the Almanac that said the Gov't reported 2,000,000 lawful shootings per year?

Who said the government reported that?

Rob: So why do you ASSUME that they were armed when these things occurred?

Jeff: Why do you assume they weren't?

Who said we did? You made an assumption, with which you backed up a conclusion. Explain it.

Only .025 percent of the guns are used in crimes. A very small amount. Why would we all need guns to combat that very small amount?

Did he just say that? This makes no sense whatsoever. Jeff, you have reached a new low.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

>"Why do you assume they weren't? "

Ah-Ah-AHHH! No, no, no. YOU made the inference, therefore YOU must back up the conclusions, not me.

>"Yes. Stopped by being arrested."

No. SOMETIMES stopped by being arrested. Sometimes stopped by being killed. OFTEN not stopped until AFTER they've killed one or more people, and USUALLY after at least SEVEN prior felonies.

>"Or do you think the punishment for every crime should be a .40 to the skull?"

No, just some of them.

Murder, rape, stalking, child abuse, assault with intent to cause bodily harm, mugging, robbery, home invasion, and DUI on the second offense.

Why would we need guns to combat such a small amount of crime? To have a leg up on all the OTHER criminals, who use guns, knives, baseball bats, chains, bricks, and their bare hands. And because one day one of the guys with that .025% of guns used in a crime might run up against one of us with the 99.975% that aren't, and I'd like the playing field to be at LEAST even on that point.

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Well...

We just had a attempted murder/suicide shooting here today less than 2 blocks from MY house at A.K Suter Elementary. Fortunatly none of the students inside were involved.

What happened was that apparently a guy and his estranged wife while waiting to pick up their child got into a fight in the student pick up zone and the guy pulled a gun on his wife and shot her twice. He then turned the gun on himself and killed himself. She (the wife) managed to get out only to collapse like some 20 feet from the school. She's in serious condition right now at Baptist Hospital.

*sigh*

People are so fucked in the head.

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
No, you ARE wrong. You said You make the distinction that gun owners fight crime, while non-gun owners cower in fear. I never made this distinction. You jumped to a conclusion without thinking it through. Admit your mistakes. You'll seem so much bigger in people's eyes.

How am I wrong? You jumped to the conclusion that everyone understands the metaphor as you do. That's not the way I've been exposed to the ostrich hiding in the sand, yet you assume that everyone sees it the same way you do. Now, I admit, I assumed that you used it in the same way I understand it. Therefore, we're both guilty of jumping to conclusions. Really, the fact that this is so hard to understand makes me wonder how you'll be at reading a map.

quote:
Your opinion is irrelevant. The definition of a word is what it is. Whether you like it or not is immaterial.

Ah. So, likewise, your opinion of what the Constitution should be is immaterial because the lawful definition is what it is? Fantastic.

But seriously -- do you believe that boy Tate Donovan is evil? You know, the 12 year old. There's a big difference between what he did and a thirty-year old man doing the same thing. You've got to draw the distinction between what evil is and what evil is not. You don't seem able to.

quote:
Regardless, when did I say anything about there being evil PEOPLE in the world?

Right here:

quote:
There is EVIL in this world, in case you didn't notice. You don't eliminate it by wishing it would go away. You can either deal with it and prepare for it, or you can bury your head in the sand and hope someone doesn't shoot you in the butt in the process.

Now, if you didn't say people are evil, what exactly are you afraid is going to shoot you in the butt when your head is buried in the sand? Yes -- the evil people!!!!!! Unless you think Ahriman is real, of course. And can hold a gun. But that's another matter.

quote:
This is not logical reasoning. You might consider his POST to be evil, but not Rob himself.

Ah, yes. My bad. Of course, one could always argue that only evil people are capable of posting evil posts.

quote:
I would point out that manslaughter is far more likely to be commited with a vehicle such as a car. It is the ACCIDENTAL killing of another human, remember. Learn your definitions, Jeff.

That's not entirely correct, Omega.

manslaughter \Man"slaugh`ter\, n. 1. The slaying of a human being; destruction of men. --Milton.

2. (Law) The unlawful killing of a man, either in negligenc? or incidentally to the commission of some unlawful act, but without specific malice, or upon a sudden excitement of anger.

While yes, it most certainly is applied to car crash deaths and the like ... it could also apply to someone drawing their gun and killing someone in a spurt of anger. Gun related death. Ya see?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

**Damn Double Posts**

quote:
Which is where you are wrong. Ignoring the problem is EXACTLY what it means, because that is how it is used in contemporary language.

As I think we've pounded into the ground, there are several ways its used in contemporary language. Maybe next time just SAY what you mean?

quote:
MANSLAUGHTER, Jeff. That's where you kill someone WITHOUT trying.

How do you kill someone without trying? Ah! You mean without malice aforethought? Which can be easily acquired by someone just drawing their gun and killing someone in the midst of a heated argument. Read above definition.

quote:
Who said the government reported that?

You did. It was your link (in an older thread) that said that official government figures put the number at only 80,000. I want to know where you got the two million from. (Your ass, most likely).

quote:
Who said we did? You made an assumption, with which you backed up a conclusion. Explain it.

Someone is going to go to the trouble of obtaining a carry permit in Texas (involving a training course), and then NOT carry their gun? Yeah, okay. That's called common sense right there. If you feel you can only be safe with a Glock at your side, why would you go out without it?

quote:
Ah-Ah-AHHH! No, no, no. YOU made the inference, therefore YOU must back up the conclusions, not me.

Over three thousand concealed carry permit holders are arrested for a variety of crimes including murder. And you expect people to believe that the murderers didn't commit their crimes with a gun. Right. Again, common sense. Why bludgeon someone to death with a hammer when you've got a gun at your side? You're the one disputing that they used guns at all -- you prove it. I've got numbers showing over 3,000 concealed carry permit holders arrested for crimes. Whatchu got?

quote:
Murder, rape, stalking, child abuse, assault with intent to cause bodily harm, mugging, robbery, home invasion, and DUI on the second offense.

Well, ya'll ready know my view of the Death Penalty. But, Jesus H. Fucking Christ. You make George W. look compassionate! Mugging? Robbery? Yeah, that's right -- someone steals your cheapo stereo, so you gotta gun 'em down for it. Thank god you'll never be a poltical power.

quote:
And because one day one of the guys with that .025% of guns used in a crime might run up against one of us with the 99.975% that aren't, and I'd like the playing field to be at LEAST even on that point.

Yes, and it's quite possible that one of those .025% are of the 3,000 and growing number from Texas, and they're about to commit their first crime against you. But, hey, that's the price of freedom, right?

quote:
People are so fucked in the head.

Yep. And many own guns. Hence: this thread.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 15, 2001).]

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

I'm glad i got out of this argument in time

------------------
Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yeah, thanks for starting it again

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You jumped to the conclusion that everyone understands the metaphor as you do.

No, I came to a well thought-out conclusion, because the vast majority of people DO use the term the same way I do. Ask any ten people whether they've heard the phrase, then ask them what they think it means. No multiple choice.

your opinion of what the Constitution should be is immaterial because the lawful definition is what it is

My definition is the lawful definition, according to the Constitution. Your definition is the lawful definition according to the Supreme Court. Which is the higher authority on law in this country?

re: evil

Look VERY carefully at the post you quoted. Do you see the word "evil" being used to modify any form of the word "person"?

I was hoping you'd figure it out on your own, but once again, you disappoint me. I'll throw you this: diagram the sentence. What type of word is "evil" in this context?

re: manslaughter

From 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon

MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.

From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

manslaughter \'man-,slot-er\ n (15c): the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice

Killing someone without premeditation or malice requires that you not want to kill them for the purpose of killing them. This would qualify as either self-defence, which is legal, or an accident.

Where, pray tell, did you get YOUR definition? I've never seen such a horrible pronunciation guide.

You [said the Gov't reported 2,000,000 lawful shootings per year]. It was your link (in an older thread)

A) Rob posted that link, IIRC.
B) We never said ANYTHING about there being 2,000,000 lawful shootings per year. We said that the FBI report stated that there were 2,000,000 incidents per year in which a civilian used a gun to prevent a crime. See the difference?

I've got numbers showing over 3,000 concealed carry permit holders arrested for crimes.

What does this have to do with your assertion that guns were used in the crimes, or that the permit assisted in the commission of said crimes?

You made an assertion. It's not our job to disprove it until you give us some reason to take it seriously. A chain of logic leading up to the conclusion would help.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
No, I came to a well thought-out conclusion, because the vast majority of people DO use the term the same way I do. Ask any ten people whether they've heard the phrase, then ask them what they think it means. No multiple choice.

Well ya see? I'm one of the minority who don't use the term that way. We could chalk this up to a simple misunderstanding ... ?

quote:
My definition is the lawful definition, according to the Constitution. Your definition is the lawful definition according to the Supreme Court. Which is the higher authority on law in this country?

Well, according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court is.

quote:
I was hoping you'd figure it out on your own, but once again, you disappoint me. I'll throw you this: diagram the sentence. What type of word is "evil" in this context?

Omega, if people aren't evil, why'd you bring it up in the first place? Right -- because you think people are evil! And as you said, it'd shoot you in the butt. Here ya' go:

quote:
There is EVIL in this world, in case you didn't notice. You don't eliminate it by wishing it would go away. You can either deal with it and prepare for it, or you can bury your head in the sand and hope someone doesn't shoot you in the butt in the process.

Now, how do you eliminate evil if there are not evil people? How does evil shoot you in the butt when you've got your head buried in the sand? Really, it's quite clear that you're talking about evil people here.

quote:
MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.

Well, gee -- that's still using a gun, isn't it? You're the one who said people committed manslaughter with cars. Guess you had to fall of that position, huh?

Oh, yes, Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary[/i]

Pronunciation is irrelevent. It is not a valid debating tactic as the definition is what we're looking for. And nowhere does the definition say that manslaughter can not be committed with a gun. In fact, it can be. Yes, that's correct -- you can shoot someone (and kill them) and be charged with manslaughter. You don't need malice aforethought to pull a trigger last I checked -- just a momentary loss of control.

Which comes back to: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE LAWS OF SELF DEFENSE IN YOUR STATE? 'Cuz I'll be laughing my ass off when you're dragged to jail and charged with killing someone

quote:
A) Rob posted that link, IIRC.

You don't. You posted it.

quote:
B) We never said ANYTHING about there being 2,000,000 lawful shootings per year. We said that the FBI report stated that there were 2,000,000 incidents per year in which a civilian used a gun to prevent a crime. See the difference?

Ah, yes. And the FBI said the number was 80,000, not two million

quote:
What does this have to do with your assertion that guns were used in the crimes, or that the permit assisted in the commission of said crimes?

Gee. Let's see here. People are law-abiding citizens (they have be, to get both the guns and the permits). Less than a year after getting both, they're arrested for a crime -- including manslaughter and murder. Gee -- I wonder why I think guns played a part?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 15, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Well, according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court is.

Quote the section saying that, please.

Think about it, Jeff. According to your theory, the founders designed a system by which the highest law of the land was the desires of the Supreme Court. You really think this country was designed to be a dictatorship?

Omega, if people aren't evil, why'd you bring it up in the first place?

Bring what up? That evil exists? This is only prehipherally related to the concept of their being evil people.

Now, how do you eliminate evil if there are not evil people?

Who said evil could be eliminated?

Really, Jeff, stop reading what ain't there, and try reading what is. I mean exactly what I say, unless I'm using pre-existing metaphor, or obviously joking, neither of which applies here.

Well, gee -- that's still using a gun, isn't it?

Possible, but unlikely. 1,300 or so people are killed each year in accidents involving guns. How many in cars?

You're the one who said people committed manslaughter with cars.

Which they do. Do you deny that?

the FBI said the number was 80,000, not two million

A) That's REPORTED incidents.

B) He posted the wrong study. The one we were looking for (and I only just found) can be found here. It was commissioned by the National Institute of Justice. They didn't like the conclusion, but they did arrive at it. You can find similar studies here and here. A response from the conductor of the study in question can be found here. Enjoy. If you bother to read it. Guess I got some good bookmarks out of it if you don't.

People are law-abiding citizens (they have be, to get both the guns and the permits). Less than a year after getting both, they're arrested for a crime -- including manslaughter and murder.

There could be one murder in the group, for all you know, and manslaughter implies nothing to do with guns. How many of these crimes actually involved a gun? And were facilitated by the criminal having a permit? You don't know, and are thus in no position to make any statments on the subject.

You have nothing.

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 16, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Quote the section saying that, please.

Article III, Section 1

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made,

There ya' go, Omega. Maybe you should try reading the Constitution from time to time?

quote:
Think about it, Jeff. According to your theory, the founders designed a system by which the highest law of the land was the desires of the Supreme Court. You really think this country was designed to be a dictatorship?

Hardly, as there is more than one person on the Supreme Court. It's called "checks and balances" ... you know? Maybe you've heard of that. Probably not thought. Take a political science course please Omega, because you're really making yourself out to be a moron.

quote:
Bring what up? That evil exists? This is only prehipherally related to the concept of their being evil people.

Omega, you expect that "evil" is going to shoot you in the butt? No, evil people will do that, yes? Evil itself can't just shoot you. It's not coporeal by and of itself. Honestly, do you really want me to post what you said AGAIN?!

quote:
Who said evil could be eliminated?

You obviously believe it can. You said as much.

quote:
There is EVIL in this world, in case you didn't notice. You don't eliminate it by wishing it would go away. You can either deal with it and prepare for it, or you can bury your head in the sand and hope someone doesn't shoot you in the butt in the process.

How then do you plan to eliminate it? Even going by "your" interpretation of the ostrich, it's still the non-gun owners who are ignoring the problem, while it's clear the gun owners are in a position to eliminate "evil." Honestly, dude, please read your own posts. I get tired of pointing this stuff out to you.

quote:
Possible, but unlikely. 1,300 or so people are killed each year in accidents involving guns. How many in cars?

Well, gee, Omega. Maybe ... none? Why don't you look that up? I've no problem believing those people could've lost their temper and shot someone in the heat of the moment. And, you've done nothing to prove otherwise, except bring up the definition of manslaughter which proved your original contention quite wrong. Truly fascinating that you tell others to know what definitions they're talking about when you don't know yourself.

quote:
Which they do. Do you deny that?

Not at all. Just that people can also commit manslaughter with guns. Do you deny that?

quote:
A) That's REPORTED incidents.A) That's REPORTED incidents.

Ahhh --- so the other 1,820,000 were unreported? How then did these numbers come about? Yet, you still claim the UCR back up the 2,000,000 number -- they don't.

quote:
B) He posted the wrong study. The one we were looking for (and I only just found) can be found here. It was commissioned by the National Institute of Justice. They didn't like the conclusion, but they did arrive at it. You can find similar studies here and here. A response from the conductor of the study in question can be found here. Enjoy. If you bother to read it. Guess I got some good bookmarks out of it if you don't.

Don't blame it on Rob, you posted it.

quote:
There could be one murder in the group, for all you know, and manslaughter implies nothing to do with guns. How many of these crimes actually involved a gun? And were facilitated by the criminal having a permit? You don't know, and are thus in no position to make any statments on the subject.

Twenty-seven were arrested for charges ranging from manslaughter to murder. Others were arrested for armed robbery, burglary, etc*. Honestly, the idea that you don't see a link between people carrying guns and committing crimes only proves what a ... oh, wait, that'd be an ad-hominem. Ahem.

*Houston Chronicle, 3/23/99; Greensboro News & Record, 11/29/98

quote:
You have nothing

Actually, you have nothing.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 16, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Evidence suggests that this survey and others
like it overestimate the frequency with which
firearms were used by private citizens to defend
against criminal attack.

Hey -- proof positive.

quote:
Motivations. The most common motivation for owning firearms was recreation.

Wow. Looks like not everyone is as fearful as you.

quote:
In 1994, about two-thirds of gunless adults were actively opposed to having guns in their homes because they viewed guns as dangerous, "immoral," or otherwise objectionable.

Damn straight.

quote:
Firearm regulations place
special restrictions on commerce in short-barreled
guns (because they are easily concealed and
disproportionately used in crime) and on
large-capacity magazines.

Look at that! I tell ya', common sense at work right here.

quote:
Based on the NSPOF, an estimated 0.9 percent of all gun-owning households (269,000) experienced the
theft of one or more firearms during 1994. About
211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were stolen
in noncommercial thefts that year, for a total of
593,000 stolen firearms. Those estimates are
subject to considerable sampling error but are
consistent with earlier estimates of about half a
million guns stolen annually.[10]

Gee -- if you'd invest in a fucking safe or a trigger lock, your gun might be safe. But no -- now they're on the streets. Good work.

quote:
Gun storage. Of 1,356 accidental deaths by gunshot in 1994, 185 involved children 14 years old and
younger.[11] For each such fatality, there are
several accidental shootings that cause serious
injury. Guns were also the means of destruction in
19,590 suicides, 210 involving children 14 or
younger. For these reasons, safe handling and
storage of firearms have attracted the attention of
the public health community.

185 Children?! Didn't you say that children gun death were less than 20 per year? GUN LOCKS people! How fucking hard is it to understand?

quote:
Although training programs usually include
suggestions on how to store guns safely, it does
not appear that trainees are paying attention. More
than half (56 percent) of owners had received some
form of "formal" training from the military, law
enforcement, National Rifle Association, National
Safety Council, or other source. As a group, owners
who received such training were no less likely than
others to keep guns loaded and unlocked. This
surprising result is consistent with other recent
studies.[12]

Gee. Imagine that. People ain't storing their guns safely. Probably why 185 kids blew their heads off.

quote:
Carrying a gun outside the home, especially in an urban area, is problematic because the public is at
risk if the carrier is reckless or inclined to
violence.

Gee -- like those 27 people in Texas, I wonder?

quote:
NSPOF estimates. Private citizens sometimes use
their guns to scare off trespassers and fend off
assaults. Such defensive gun uses (DGUs) are
sometimes invoked as a measure of the public
benefits of private gun ownership. On the basis of
data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics'
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data,
one would conclude that defensive uses are rare
indeed, about 108,000 per year. But other surveys
yield far higher estimates of the number of DGUs.
Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of
2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994
telephone survey conducted by Florida State
University professors Gary Kleck and Mark
Gertz.[13] The 2.5 million figure has been picked
up by the press and now appears regularly in
newspaper articles, letters to the editor,
editorials, and even Congressional Research Service
briefs for public policymakers.

A telephone survery? Prone to over-sampling. And the Gov't figures still show a much lower figure, a bit over 100,000 here. This hardly backs up your claim.

quote:
For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in
self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that
the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which
a woman defended herself with a gun was more than
the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS
(exhibit 8).

It doesn't make sense? Kinda like you, Omega

quote:
NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number
of gunshot cases.[14]

Erm. Omega, you're using this site to BACK UP your conclusions? Amazing.

quote:
False positives. Regardless of which estimates one believes, only a small fraction of adults have used
guns defensively in 1994. The only question is
whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would
conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated
by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz's
criteria).

Well, gee, the Gov't figures would say 1 in 1,800, and until Omega shows a reliable source for his two-million number, I'm inclined to go with that.

quote:
Respondents might falsely provide a positive
response to the DGU question for any of a number of
reasons:
o They may want to impress the interviewer by their
heroism and hence exaggerate a trivial event.
o They may be genuinely confused due to substance
abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate
memories.
o They may actually have used a gun defensively
within the last couple of years but falsely report
it as occurring in the previous year--a phenomenon
known as "telescoping."
Of course, it is easy to imagine the reasons why
that rare respondent who actually did use a gun
defensively within the time frame may have decided
not to report it to the interviewer. But again, the
arithmetic dictates that the false positives will
likely predominate.

quote:
In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of
these reports, the respondents' answers to the
followup items are not consistent with respondents'
reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF
respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and
Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that
the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or
attack--but then responded "no" to a subsequent
question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or
injure you?"

Erm. Yeah -- okay. This is a laughable resource, Omega.

quote:
The key explanation for the difference between the
108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs
and the several million from the surveys discussed
earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive
problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who
first reported that they were crime victims. Most
NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the
DGU question, falsely or otherwise.
o First, people who draw their guns to defend
themselves against perceived threats are not
necessarily innocent victims; they may have started
fights themselves or they may simply be mistaken
about whether the other persons really intended to
harm them. Survey interviewers must take the
respondent's word for what happened and why; a
competent police investigation of the same incident
would interview all parties before reaching a
conclusion.

Sort of like those 27 in Texas!!!!!!!!!

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made

This says nothing about being able to override the Constitution. JUDICIAL power INTERPRETS law. It does not create new law. How can the law be interpreted and conflicts be resolved if you don't have one all-overriding set of rules?

Constitution trumps everything, INCLUDING the Supreme Court. Get over it.

there is more than one person on the Supreme Court. It's called "checks and balances"

*L*

Oh, yes, I'm sure they intended to have a BOARD of dictators, balancing each other.

*/SarcasmMode*

Your model makes is inconsistant, both internally and with the Constitution.

A) Why would they give Congress the power to set up the Supreme Court in the first place, only to give that Supreme Court the power to do whatever the heck it pleased, including overriding the Constitution?

B) If all you had to do to change the Constitution was convince five Supreme Court justices, why would the founders have set up such a complex system to do the same thing?

C) If the Supreme Court is all-powerful, as you claim, then how can there be ANY checks and balances against them?

D) If the Supreme Court is all-powerful, as you claim, then why do we even have the other two branches of government?

Your understanding is flawed.

Omega, you expect that "evil" is going to shoot you in the butt? No, evil people will do that, yes?

I didn't say that, now did I? I said "someone". Never have I stated in this discussion that an evil person exists on this planet. Instead, I have stated that evil ITSELF exists. You can be an agent of evil, and do evil, without BEING evil. Don't you realize that? Diagram the sentence, as I suggested. You'll find something very interesting about the word "evil". Hint: it's not an adjective.

Again, Jeff, read what's there, not what you want to be.

You obviously believe [evil] can [be eliminated]. You said as much.

Again, you're reading what's not there. I said evil COULDN'T be eliminated by ignoring it. I never proposed any method by which it could be eliminated. I simply stated a method by which one can defend one's self from it. A completely different concept.

I've no problem believing those people could've lost their temper and shot someone in the heat of the moment.

This would not qualify as manslaughter. Killing someone out of anger on the spur of a moment is called second degree murder, a considerably more serious crime.

people can also commit manslaughter with guns. Do you deny that?

I admitted that. I also pointed out that far more people are likely to be killed in negligent accidents involving cars than in negligent accidents involving guns. Do you deny that?

How then did these numbers come about?

You obviously didn't read the information given.

Honestly, the idea that you don't see a link between people carrying guns and committing crimes only proves...

It proves that I don't just jump to the conclusion I want. You have said nothing about guns being used in the crimes, or the crimes being facilitated by the posession of a carry permit. You STILL have nothing.

Hey -- proof positive.

Didn't you read what you just quoted? "Evidence suggests..."

Gee -- if you'd invest in a fucking safe or a trigger lock, your gun might be safe.

Trigger lock? Come on, like THAT's gonna prevent someone from stealing your gun. How hard could it possibly be to break the thing, with the right tools?

Didn't you say that children gun death were less than 20 per year?

Children UNDER FIVE. READ, Jeff.

GUN LOCKS people!

If someone is irresponsible enough to leave a gun where a kid can get to it, what makes you think they'd bother to lock the gun behind them? Your reasoning is flawed.

And the Gov't figures still show a much lower figure, a bit over 100,000 here.

Jeff, I will say this one more time: that is REPORTED CLAIMS. When Rob gets back, ask him if his brother reports to the police every single time that he's displayed a gun, forcing unsavory characters to retreat.

It does not make sense, then, that
the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which
a woman defended herself with a gun was more than
the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS

Sure it does. It makes sense in that it shows that over twice as many rapes would occur if the women didn't carry guns.

Read everything you're given, Jeff. I simply handed you a site that contained his set of results, along with inexpert commentary. You obviously didn't bother to read the other survey, the compilation of information gathered from multiple surveys, and the criticism of the method by which your 100,000 was obtained.

Tell me: if these numbers are so horribly flawed, then why, oh, why did thirteen other surveys report numbers between 800,000 and 2,500,000?

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 16, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
This says nothing about being able to override the Constitution. JUDICIAL power INTERPRETS law. It does not create new law. How can the law be interpreted and conflicts be resolved if you don't have one all-overriding set of rules?

Omega: I hate to break this to you, but if the Supreme Court interprets the law, and the Constitution IS the law, then the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, does it not? I posted the section where it says that. Why don't you post where it says that it doesn't?

quote:
Oh, yes, I'm sure they intended to have a BOARD of dictators, balancing each other.

I don't think it'll come as a surprise to anyone here at Flare that you a) don't know jack about the US Political system, and b) you give paranoids a good name.

quote:
A) Why would they give Congress the power to set up the Supreme Court in the first place, only to give that Supreme Court the power to do whatever the heck it pleased, including overriding the Constitution?

Why ... simply to tell the country what laws are constitutional. Duh.

quote:
B) If all you had to do to change the Constitution was convince five Supreme Court justices, why would the founders have set up such a complex system to do the same thing?

Only Ammendments can change the Constitution. That's PoliSci 101. The Supreme Court looks at laws when they're brough to the court, and decides whether they're Constitutional or not.

quote:
C) If the Supreme Court is all-powerful, as you claim, then how can there be ANY checks and balances against them?

The Supreme Court isn't all-powerful. It can't pass laws. It can just say what laws are un-Constitutional.

quote:
D) If the Supreme Court is all-powerful, as you claim, then why do we even have the other two branches of government?

To pass the laws. It's then up to the Supreme Court to decide if the laws are un-Constitutional or not.

quote:
Your understanding is flawed.

That's just funny -- LOL!!!!

quote:
I didn't say that, now did I? I said "someone". Never have I stated in this discussion that an evil person exists on this planet. Instead, I have stated that evil ITSELF exists. You can be an agent of evil, and do evil, without BEING evil. Don't you realize that? Diagram the sentence, as I suggested. You'll find something very interesting about the word "evil". Hint: it's not an adjective.

That was my whole point (if you bothered to read). Just because someone commits an evil act does not mean that they are evil. We have to look at things case-by-case. How can there be justice if laws are absolute?

quote:
Again, you're reading what's not there. I said evil COULDN'T be eliminated by ignoring it. I never proposed any method by which it could be eliminated. I simply stated a method by which one can defend one's self from it. A completely different concept.

Then how can it be eliminated? Clearly, the inference was with guns.

quote:
This would not qualify as manslaughter. Killing someone out of anger on the spur of a moment is called second degree murder, a considerably more serious crime.

And many of those 27 Texans were charged with murder. But did you read the definition of manslaughter? No, you can commit manslaughter with a gun. Really, Omega.

quote:
I admitted that.

Then why are we still arguing it ...?

quote:
I also pointed out that far more people are likely to be killed in negligent accidents involving cars than in negligent accidents involving guns. Do you deny that?

Certainly. Far more people own cars then own guns, therefore logic would show that more people would be charged with an automobile related manslaughter charge than a gun related manslaughter charge. Yet, you've posted no stats on the ratio of automobile/gun manslaughter charges to people who own guns, so it's all purely conjecture.

quote:
You obviously didn't read the information given.

Ah -- but I did! A telephone survery, which is highly inacurate (I posted the reasons why the survey might be incorect above). In fact, official Gov't figures are still much lower. While the 2,000,000 fig has risen by 500,000, the Fed figure is only about 110,000. Still a large difference, which you've yet to explain.

quote:
It proves that I don't just jump to the conclusion I want. You have said nothing about guns being used in the crimes, or the crimes being facilitated by the posession of a carry permit. You STILL have nothing.

Actually, Omega, I've got proof that 3,000 carry permit holders were arrested for criminal acts -- many of them violent. Or did they commit that armed robbery with a baseball bat? Or the murder with a pencil? Really.

quote:
Trigger lock? Come on, like THAT's gonna prevent someone from stealing your gun. How hard could it possibly be to break the thing, with the right tools?

Well, perhaps the criminal might decide it's not worth the trouble? Also, if it was in a safe, he wouldn't be able to get to it. And, if it had a trigger lock, what kid is going to try to break the thing so they can accidently shoot themselves?

quote:
Children UNDER FIVE. READ, Jeff.

I read about 185 dead children. And your original statement gave no age specifics.

quote:
If someone is irresponsible enough to leave a gun where a kid can get to it, what makes you think they'd bother to lock the gun behind them? Your reasoning is flawed.

Which is exactly why some people shouldn't have the right to own guns.

quote:
Jeff, I will say this one more time: that is REPORTED CLAIMS. When Rob gets back, ask him if his brother reports to the police every single time that he's displayed a gun, forcing unsavory characters to retreat.

And how do I know such figures wouldn't be made up? That method is very unreliable. Tough shit, Omega-san, the number stands at 100,000.

quote:
As I said, read the response from the surveyor, Jeff. I simply handed you a site that contained his set of results, along with inexpert commentary. You obviously didn't bother to read the other survey, the compilation of information gathered from multiple surveys, and the criticism of the method by which your 100,000 was obtained.

The criticism is about how the 2,500,000 number is obtained. Guess you didn't read it.

quote:
Tell me: if these numbers are so horribly flawed, then why, oh, why did thirteen other surveys report numbers between 800,000 and 2,500,000?

Sure. Keep reading:

quote:
Respondents might falsely provide a positive
response to the DGU question for any of a number of
reasons:

o They may want to impress the interviewer by their
heroism and hence exaggerate a trivial event.
o They may be genuinely confused due to substance
abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate
memories.
o They may actually have used a gun defensively
within the last couple of years but falsely report
it as occurring in the previous year--a phenomenon
known as "telescoping."
Of course, it is easy to imagine the reasons why
that rare respondent who actually did use a gun
defensively within the time frame may have decided
not to report it to the interviewer. But again, the
arithmetic dictates that the false positives will
likely predominate.
In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of
these reports, the respondents' answers to the
followup items are not consistent with respondents'
reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF
respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and
Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that
the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or
attack--but then responded "no" to a subsequent
question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or
injure you?"
The key explanation for the difference between the
108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs
and the several million from the surveys discussed
earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive
problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who
first reported that they were crime victims. Most
NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the
DGU question, falsely or otherwise.
o First, people who draw their guns to defend
themselves against perceived threats are not
necessarily innocent victims; they may have started
fights themselves or they may simply be mistaken
about whether the other persons really intended to
harm them. Survey interviewers must take the
respondent's word for what happened and why; a
competent police investigation of the same incident
would interview all parties before reaching a
conclusion.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 16, 2001).]

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

Originally posted by JeffKarde:

quote:
Yeah, thanks for starting it again

Well seeing as how much fun you and Omega seem to be having I am certain that you have quite a lot to be thankfull for.

------------------
Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

We must have these two over for dinner sometime, ne Infinity?

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

I sincerely doubt that they would be able to spend five minutes without arguing about something or other.

------------------
Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Not to mention we'd have to hide the cutlery to keep them from stabbing each other ther death.

------------------
In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

Let's hope that they don't decide to do some experimentation with gun laws.

------------------
Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Oh, bother...

I'll just slip some 'ludes in the mashed potatoes. As soon as Nimmy gets his dick out of it first.

------------------
In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I'd never discuss politics over the dinner table. I'd be too tempted to start a "Hook"-style food fight.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Hook-style?

Do I even wanna know?

Of course I do!

Elaborate, boyo.

------------------
In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Uh, that movie with Robin Williams. They all throw paint, or maybe it's food, at each other, especially that fat dude.

HAHA! EAT THIS BLUE PASTE FATTY!

Sounds right exciting to me.

------------------
"I WANT A POST VOY SERIES STAR TREK ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS LOOKING FORWARD NOT LOOKING BACK."

-Darkstar

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Roight?

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

That's what happens when people watch too much TV.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Just wanted to make sure we were on the same level.

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Nuh-uh. We are DEFINETLY not on the same level as you, matie...

*L*

------------------
In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Chalk this argument up as a win for the Liberals

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with <i>seven</i> eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Chalk that reply up as restarting this again, in some form or another.

------------------
"Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Of that I have no DOUBT that will happen.

------------------
In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Me either

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Did I mention that I was back?

Unfortunately, this thread has taken off in too many directions. I wish people could stay and argue one damn point at a time. In any case...

My brother displayed his firearm twice. He never felt the need to report it, although he probably should.

Trigger locks, at least the ones I have seen, are fairly useless things, for several reasons.

1: They make it difficult to use a gun at its most necessary, in a crisis situation.

2: They're breakable, with some effort. (But effort you can't apply in #1.)

3: In a home with responsible gun knowledge, they're redundant. In a home without... well, in a home without, guns shouldn't be there in the first place. However, this can be solved by something that even the NRA agrees should be widespread and probably mandatory... we call it EDUCATION.

Children are killed by guns not in spite of their parents' wanting to shelter them and protect them, but BECAUSE of it. Parents aren't willing to show their kids what guns are, what they can do, and how very, VERY dangerous they can be when used improperly. So the kids grow up seeing guns used to little effect on TV, and aren't afraid of them. BAD idea.

Take my example. As I've said before, I grew up surrounded by guns I could have accessed regularly. I even shot some, when I was young. My parents, BOTH of them, grew up in gun-owning homes. Yet, NO problems. Why? Because we all had an experience similar to this one:

When I was elementary-aged, my father took me out back with one of his larger pistols, and a watermelon. He had me poke the melon, and compare its hardness and consistency to that of my body. And he told me about kids who play with guns. To suppose that that melon was another kid, my friend. And suppose I was playing with a gun. And suppose I pointed it at him. And pulled the trigger. And *BLAM!*

Now you'll have to take my word for this, I suppose, but looking at a melon explode, imagining that that was my friend with his insides blown all over the place... was a pretty sickening experience.

But it kept me from playing with guns, EVER.

.....
And now, a bit about Jeff's problem with my being in favor of expanding the on-scene shooting ability to include muggers, etc.

Tough. I might point out that shooting someone DURING the commission of a crime is a LOT different from arresting a suspect based solely on later evidence and subsequently executing them. Most obviously, there is no doubt possible that the person was actually COMMITTING the illegal act. DNA evidence will never clear them. THEY WERE DOING IT AT THE TIME!

On-site shooting is far less morally ambiguous than the Death Penalty.

However, someone doing so had better be damned sure they can prove some kind of intent, of they're screwed. And be sure NOT to overdo it. That's how they got Mr. Goetz.

There was a wise writer long ago, who said "People who do not have respect for other people's property will steal anything that isn't nailed down. These animals should be destroyed on sight. The problem is identifying them." People who do those things will do anything. They will, most likely, end up killing someone eventually (the average murderer's rap sheet, as I pointed out before, has 7 pre-murder felonies), simply because that person was 'inconvenient' to them. Plenty of robbers, muggers, rapists, etc have murdered their victims. You can't expect me to feel sorry for them. The're NOT pitiable. NONE of them NEED to do what they're doing. They choose to do it, and the consequences shouldn't be UP to THEM. The idea is to discourage the act by making it DANGEROUS. Less people are going to do something if they know that there's a very good chance that they will DIE doing it.

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 20, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Unfortunately, this thread has taken off in too many directions. I wish people could stay and argue one damn point at a time. In any case...

You're one to talk, given that you were pretty instrumental in the whole "Ostrich" debate.

quote:
My brother displayed his firearm twice. He never felt the need to report it, although he probably should.

Yes, if he wanted that number to be part of an "official government figure", then, yes, he should have.

quote:
Trigger locks, at least the ones I have seen, are fairly useless things, for several reasons.
1: They make it difficult to use a gun at its most necessary, in a crisis situation.
2: They're breakable, with some effort. (But effort you can't apply in #1.)

Which is why I'm for a push for stronger gun locks, that are reasonably easy to remove for gun-owners if they feel the need. Honestly, if I can get the lock off my locker at the gym in three seconds, I don't see why they're so damn difficult to get off guns in an emergency. Practice, practice, practice.

quote:
3: In a home with responsible gun knowledge, they're redundant. In a home without... well, in a home without, guns shouldn't be there in the first place. However, this can be solved by something that even the NRA agrees should be widespread and probably mandatory... we call it EDUCATION.

Redundancy can be a good thing. You can never be "too safe" with some things. But, I quite agree with First that that not everyone should have a right to own a gun.

quote:
Children are killed by guns not in spite of their parents' wanting to shelter them and protect them, but BECAUSE of it. Parents aren't willing to show their kids what guns are, what they can do, and how very, VERY dangerous they can be when used improperly. So the kids grow up seeing guns used to little effect on TV, and aren't afraid of them. BAD idea.

Yep. The de-sensitizing of violence. One of many factors which contributes to school shootings. These families should not own firearms as well.

quote:
Take my example. As I've said before, I grew up surrounded by guns I could have accessed regularly. I even shot some, when I was young. My parents, BOTH of them, grew up in gun-owning homes. Yet, NO problems. Why? Because we all had an experience similar to this one:
When I was elementary-aged, my father took me out back with one of his larger pistols, and a watermelon. He had me poke the melon, and compare its hardness and consistency to that of my body. And he told me about kids who play with guns. To suppose that that melon was another kid, my friend. And suppose I was playing with a gun. And suppose I pointed it at him. And pulled the trigger. And *BLAM!*

While my view that guns = bad is I'm sure, quite well known, I'd be more comfortable if more people took 1of2's folks' approach to gun safety. Maybe then I'd be less opposed to people walking around with guns.

quote:
Now you'll have to take my word for this, I suppose, but looking at a melon explode, imagining that that was my friend with his insides blown all over the place... was a pretty sickening experience.
But it kept me from playing with guns, EVER.

Which is a good thing. People who aren't willing to take those steps to illustrate gun safety don't deserve to own a gun.

quote:
Tough. I might point out that shooting someone DURING the commission of a crime is a LOT different from arresting a suspect based solely on later evidence and subsequently executing them. Most obviously, there is no doubt possible that the person was actually COMMITTING the illegal act. DNA evidence will never clear them. THEY WERE DOING IT AT THE TIME!

I'd be happier if you'd lay out specific situations for which a shooting might be justified. I think I'd always have a problem if you shot an unarmed burgler, or a mugger with a knife. On the other hand, if someone's pointing a shotgun at you, that would be a pretty cut-and-dry case of self-defense.

quote:
On-site shooting is far less morally ambiguous than the Death Penalty.

Again, depending on the circumstances of the shooting.

quote:
However, someone doing so had better be damned sure they can prove some kind of intent, of they're screwed. And be sure NOT to overdo it. That's how they got Mr. Goetz.

Refresh my memory: was Goetz the guy on the NY subway?

quote:
There was a wise writer long ago, who said "People who do not have respect for other people's property will steal anything that isn't nailed down. These animals should be destroyed on sight. The problem is identifying them." People who do those things will do anything. They will, most likely, end up killing someone eventually (the average murderer's rap sheet, as I pointed out before, has 7 pre-murder felonies), simply because that person was 'inconvenient' to them. Plenty of robbers, muggers, rapists, etc have murdered their victims. You can't expect me to feel sorry for them. The're NOT pitiable. NONE of them NEED to do what they're doing. They choose to do it, and the consequences shouldn't be UP to THEM. The idea is to discourage the act by making it DANGEROUS. Less people are going to do something if they know that there's a very good chance that they will DIE doing it.

Well, look, you can't shoot some kid to death for shop-lifting for crimes he might commit someday. If a woman is about to be raped and she kills someone, that's one thing. But if you shoot a guy whose ripping off some magazines from a newstand, that's a different story altogether.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 21, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Well, here's a point on which perhaps we can agree:

I'm in favor of making the taking and passing of a gun safety/training course a MANDATORY requirement for owning/carrying one's own firearm.

Mostly, responsible owners have already done such things, or can with minor difficulty. Everyone in my family has. The NRA, various police and security organizations, and even the Boy Scouts offer such courses. (When I was in, -- Eagle, Class of 88 -- the Scouts had Rifle and Shotgun shooting merit badges, and safety training was a requirement for both. I think now they've narrowed it down to one badge.)

"Justified" shooting, on the other hand, seems likely to be an area on which we will not agree, since we clearly disagree on the morality of using force to defend property, and seem to disagree on the morality of using SUPERIOR force against even an armed assailant, as your comment about the mugger with the knife seems to indicate.

For myself, I would prefer to be BETTER armed than my assailant, and yes, I would PREFER to hope that the simple display of a firearm would frighten him away. Some people, however, are determined/stupid beyond the point of reason and will continue to advance. You will need to dispatch them in a way that does not endanger you. And in a crisis, you may not have time to decide between choosing to brandish and choosing to fire.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
I'm in favor of making the taking and passing of a gun safety/training course a MANDATORY requirement for owning/carrying one's own firearm

Absolutely.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Gee. Why am I so NOT surprised?

quote:
EL CAJON, California (CNN) -- For the second time in three weeks, a California high school on Friday canceled classes and opened its doors for counseling after a student opened fire on campus.
Four students -- including the alleged shooter -- and two teachers were wounded at Granite Hills High School, just seven miles from a fatal shooting on March 5.
Authorities said none of the injuries appeared to be life-threatening.
Suspected gunman Jason Hoffman, an 18-year-old senior, was listed in fair but stable condition Friday after undergoing nearly five hours of surgery Thursday night, said hospital spokeswoman Eileen Cornish. He remained under police guard.
"He was shot in the buttock area as well as in his face, and the facial wound required reconstruction, and he broke his jaw," Cornish told CNN. "He did speak with sheriff's detectives last night after he came out of surgery." Police said he received the wounds in a gun battle with a campus police officer.
Granite Hills, in the San Diego suburb of El Cajon, is part of the same school district as Santana High in Santee, where 15-year-old freshman Charles "Andy" Williams was accused of killing two students and wounding 13 more people in the March 5 shooting.
Williams is charged with 28 felonies, including two counts of murder. Investigators said in court documents that Williams carefully planned the shooting but had no specific target.
Witnesses said the Granite Hills gunman simply started shooting just before 1 p.m., firing off at least eight shots before school resource officer Richard Agundez, an El Cajon police agent, brought him down in a gun battle.
"He engaged the suspect in this case ... they had a slight running gun battle at the school," said Capt. Bill McClurg of the El Cajon Police Department.
Andy Yafuso, 15, hit by shotgun pellets in face, arms and chest, in stable condition in intensive care unit at Sharp Memorial Hospital
Shaunda Hughs, a junior, grazed in right leg, taken to Scripps Mercy Hospital and discharged
Toby Haltstead, 15, hit in arm and leg, taken to Scripps Mercy Hospital and discharged
William Dietzler, injured during fall while running across street, taken to University of California at San Diego Medical Center.
Corina Scribellito, 17, hyperventilating, taken to Grossmont Hospital and discharged
Unidentified 15-year-old, treated for shortness of breath at Grossmont and released.
Pricilla Murphy, 53, struck in left arm and leg, grazed taken to University of California at San Diego Medical Center and released. A resource instructor
Fran Zumwalt, 47, grazed by bullet, scratches on face and legs, taken to Scripps Mercy Hospital and discharged. A social science teacher.

The gun battle occurred near the administration building on the north side of the school.
San Diego District Attorney Paul Pfingst said Hoffman could face charges ranging from attempted murder to assault, as well as weapons charges. By law, he should be arraigned by Tuesday, but Pfingst said his injuries may require that to be postponed.
El Cajon Police Chief James Davis said authorities believe the 12-gauge Mossberg pump shotgun and the .22 caliber pistol recovered after the shooting came from Hoffman's home, and said additional ammunition for the pistol was also recovered at the scene.
Pfingst said his office and law enforcement agencies were executing search warrants in more than one location as part of the investigation.
McClurg said that investigators have not been told of any threats Hoffman may have made, but they were interviewing students, teachers and other faculty, searching for a motive.
"There were no warning signs," said senior Travis Peters who was in an algebra class with Hoffman. "He wasn't an outcast, no one made fun of him. As far as I know, he was like every other kid."
But 18-year-old Andrew Dunkel, a senior who has known Hoffman since elementary school, said the boy always seemed to be upset.
"The thing I got from him was that he never had friends," said Dunkel.

"He had this hate-the-world walk," said student Sean Connacher, 18. "This is a kid who didn't get picked on very often because most of the kids were afraid of him."
At Santana High, where students are still struggling to understand the shooting that disrupted their lives earlier this month, students were dismayed to hear about Granite Hills.
A Thursday afternoon baseball game between Granite Hills and Santana was canceled, and counselors were made available at Santana as well as Granite Hills.
"I think everyone was kind of in shock because it happened again," said Aaron Novotny, a Santana freshman.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Let's hear it for armed school guards!

5'll getcha 10 this kid was a copycat.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Too bad the armed security guard couldn't stop six people from being shot before he could get into place ... I betcha if the gun had been in a safe with a combination that the kid didn't have, this never woulda happened.

Yes, I agree it was probably a copy-cat crime.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Too bad the armed security guard couldn't stop six people from being shot before he could get into place

Liberals. Always pessimistic. Yes, six people got shot, but HOW MANY MORE WERE SAVED?

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Agreed, this kid should not have had access to his home's guns (assuming that's where they came from.)

Moreover, he should have been better taught than to take something without permission.

A 'I hate everybody' attitude certainly deserved a closer watch.

If 'people are afraid of him' there's probably a reason. And someone should have told his parents that.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Liberals. Always pessimistic. Yes, six people got shot, but HOW MANY MORE WERE SAVED?

I don't know -- do you? No. Still, if his parents had been responsible gun owners ... maybe no one would've been shot at all. Wow. What a concept! No one getting shot at all! *gasp!*

Forget prosecuting the kid, I want to throw his parents in jail for owning a gun without posessing a requisite brain to go along with it.

quote:
El Cajon Police Chief James Davis said authorities believe the 12-gauge Mossberg pump shotgun and the .22 caliber pistol recovered after the shooting came from Hoffman's home,

Safe to assume that the weapons came from his house.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 23, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Given lack of evidence to the contrary, I would tend to agree.

Nevertheless, I still can't resist getting in a jab against "authorities believe."

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Still, proves that:

Armed security doesn't deter gun violence in schools ...

Armed security isn't effective in stopping gun violence until before it's started.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You can prove this, I presume?

Well, no, actually, I don't presume that. It's a blanket negative statement, and thus can not be proven or disproven. It's based on emotion, not rational thought. Thus, it should be ignored.

I would point out, though, that a man with a gun saved
lives. This you can not deny, if you wish to maintain credibility.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, it's reasonable to assume that the young man wasn't detered by the presense of an armed security guard when he walked into the school and began shooting people. If he'd been detered, he wouldn't have done that, now would he?

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that armed security will not deter shooters. In fact, if you look at the incidences of "suicide by cop" (do I need to explain this sad phenomenom?) it may even attract suicidal shooters.

I would point out, though, that a man with a gun endangered lives. This you can not deny, if you wish to maintain credibility.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 24, 2001).]

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Maybe he was hoping to get shot in the head and die gloriously like so much Tosk? Then armed guard would come in handy.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

It's very possible. When a person commits "suicide by cop", they essentially want someone else to kill them instead of doing the job themselves. It's especially tragic because: a) the person is successful in suicide, and b) a police officer or armed guard has to deal with the emotional consequences of the killing or shooting.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

it's reasonable to assume that the young man wasn't detered by the presense of an armed security guard when he walked into the school and began shooting people.

True.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that armed security will not deter shooters.

False. You draw a generality from a single instance. This one shooter is not necessarily representative of all shooters.

a man with a gun endangered lives.

No, a CHILD with a gun endangered lives. Completely different thing.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Both statements must be recognized to maintain credibility.

A man with a gun endangered lives.
A man with a gun saved lives.

The most obvious conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the gun is a neutral object. It is the man, and his nature, that determines whether a gun is used to endanger or to save.

So the question you must ask yourself is: "what is my basic opinion of human nature?"

If you feel that humans are basically evil, malicious and out of control, then you must feel that guns will be used for evil, and you should support their removal.

If you feel that humans are basically good, decent, and capable of self-control, or at least benign, then you must feel that guns will be used for good and benign purposes, and you should support their presence.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
No, a CHILD with a gun endangered lives. Completely different thing.

Incorrect! Mr. Hoffman was an 18-year old senior at the school. In other words: an adult, not a child. I understand you missed that in the article (even thought it's pretty clear right next to his name), but still!

quote:
False. You draw a generality from a single instance. This one shooter is not necessarily representative of all shooters.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I surely hope that I am false, but with "Suicide by Cop" being a rather common place phenomenom (with people with suicidal tendencies seeking out people with guns), I could be very well correct.

quote:
If you feel that humans are basically evil, malicious and out of control, then you must feel that guns will be used for evil, and you should support their removal.
If you feel that humans are basically good, decent, and capable of self-control, or at least benign, then you must feel that guns will be used for good and benign purposes, and you should support their presence.

Unfortunatly, humans are both of the above qualities. Therefore, one must seek to support the removal of guns from humans who are malicious and out of control; and not oppose the obtaining of firearms from others more qualified to keep them.

If all humans were "basically good, decent, and capable of self control, or at least benign" no one would need a gun in the first place.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 24, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

If you feel that humans are basically evil, malicious and out of control, then you must feel that guns will be used for evil, and you should support their removal.

If that's the case, then you must also feel that humans in general should be removed.

And I would point out: who would do the removing, but another human being, and thus another evil entity. Guns exist. Guns will always exist. It's just a question of who controls them.

JK:

Mr. Hoffman was an 18-year old senior at the school. In other words: an adult, not a child. I understand you missed that in the article

No, actually, I noticed that. I still qualify him as a child.

Therefore, one must seek to support the removal of guns from humans who are malicious and out of control; and not oppose the obtaining of firearms from others more qualified to keep them.

Exactly. The real question is how one might do this.

So... any ideas?

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
And I would point out: who would do the removing, but another human being, and thus another evil entity. Guns exist. Guns will always exist. It's just a question of who controls them.

Yes, which is why we should keep them away from crazy people.

quote:
No, actually, I noticed that. I still qualify him as a child.

Why? Why do you still qualify him as a child? He's old enough, where he could easily have walked into a K-Mart or Walmart and purchased the shotgun himself without the need to steal it from his folks (the handgun is a seperate matter). Nope, sorry Omega, he's an adult.

quote:
Exactly. The real question is how one might do this.
So... any ideas?

Of course. You're not going to like them, however.

1) Anyone purchasing a firearm must purchase either a gun-safe or a trigger lock* for their weapon. These will serve the purposes of keeping the weapons out of the hands of children and of robbers breaking into the house to steal the weapons.

*Speaking purely for myself, I can get the combination lock off my gym-locker in about a second. There's no reason why a gun-owner couldn't be able to remove a combination trigger-lock from his rifle or handgun in the same amount of time. Combine this with a gun-manufacturer wide effort to produce a sturdy, reliable trigger-lock which aren't as easy to break, and this should work wonders.

2) Mandatory gun-training classes given by the local or state Police Department. Doesn't matter if you've just bought your first gun and ain't fired one yet or if you've been firing a gun since you were six. The class will make sure you know how to use, clean, and operate the gun properly, plus make sure you're up to date of local, state, and Federal gun-laws.

3) The local or state government will fire one round from each weapon purchased. The fired casing will be sent to a national registry -- if you use your gun in the commission of a crime and a shell is recovered, that shell can be matched to the shell fired by the government and they can trace the weapon back to the owner.*

*As I understand it, the "rifling marks" inside each gun barrel are different, sort of like a human fingerprint. Thus, just like the FBI's fingerprint directory, police agencies will be able to identify the type of gun and it's owner if ever used in a crime

4) Any report of a stolen or lost gun will be investigated thoroughly -- "straw" purchases are one of the easiest ways for guns purchased legally to be sold illegally to those who couldn't otherwise purchase them. If the police suspect and have evidence (direct or circumstancial) that someone is engaging in straw purchasing, they'll have the right to seize that person's weapons, arrest them, and make certain they never have the right to buy or own a gun again ever.

5) When conducting background checks, police agencies will have access even to sealed juvenile files. While argueable a breach of personal privacy, the agencies will recieve no specific information of the crime or offense committed, but will simply be informed* "yes" or "no" for eligibility based on juvenile record.

*When someone applies for a gun-license, if they have a "red-flag" in their file (indicating a juvenile offense), a board of psychologists will meet and (without being told the person's name, only the relevent information) will determine whether or not the offense is serious enough to warrant refusing to allow a firearm

These are, of course, just a few ideas.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Anyone purchasing a firearm must purchase either a gun-safe or a trigger lock* for their weapon. These will serve the purposes of keeping the weapons out of the hands of children

Again, no, it won't. In the case that someone was so negligent as to leave the gun where a kid could get to it, trigger locks and safes would do no good, as we've pointed out in manifold instances.

Trigger locks would do no good, even if you could design one that would not break, and would not impede the use of the weapon. They still have to be locked by the owner, and that requires forethought. The lack of forethought being the problem you're trying to combat, your logic escapes me.

If the police suspect and have evidence (direct or circumstancial) that someone is engaging in straw purchasing, they'll have the right to seize that person's weapons, arrest them, and make certain they never have the right to buy or own a gun again ever.

Too broad a power. Needs to be proven guilty in a court of law, as always. Unreasonable search and seizure's unconstitutional, remember?

When conducting background checks, police agencies will have access even to sealed juvenile files.

They should anyway. I've never seen any reason why crimes commited while you were a kid should be your private business.

The local or state government will fire one round from each weapon purchased. The fired casing will be sent to a national registry

Why not just fire them as they're leaving the factory? I'd like the idea, BUT, the idea of the government knowing who owns every gun in the country bugs me. Historically, that's been a prelude to the guns being confiscated.

As for your list:

A) Can you be sure these things are feasable? The trigger lock, specifically. I'm reminded of the suggestion someone made a while back about tranquelizer darts.

B) Can you be ABSOLUTELY SURE that the government would not abuse the sweeping powers that would have to be granted it to accomplish this?

C) It's still unconstitutional.

The only way I can see to avoid "B" and "C" would be an EXTREMELY carefully worded constitutional ammendment, with ABSOLUTELY no room for some liberal activist judge to come in and rewrite it, as they are wont to do. IF you can meet these qualifications to my satisfaction, I might be with you on certain things. But NOT done through legislation or judical fiat.

I'd also prefer that the system itself be administered on a state or local level.

Oh, and a line that says that if anyone tries to confiscate your gun without a warrant, you can shoot them.

And that the ammendment can't be changed on the floor of Congress, but must be voted on as is.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 25, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Again, no, it won't. In the case that someone was so negligent as to leave the gun where a kid could get to it, trigger locks and safes would do no good, as we've pointed out in manifold instances.

I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to design a lock which would "snap" locked again after a short period of being un-locked. As all gun-manufacturers will be building the trigger-locks into their guns in the next few years, this combination would ensure that the accidental useage of guns would drop.

quote:
Too broad a power. Needs to be proven guilty in a court of law, as always. Unreasonable search and seizure's unconstitutional, remember?

Easily remedied. Police furning evidence and get warrant from judge to sieze suspects' weapons and prevent further gun purchases. The warrant holds until either the evidence is found to be not valid, the suspect makes a plea, or is aquited or found guilty by a trial.

quote:
They should anyway. I've never seen any reason why crimes commited while you were a kid should be your private business.

Not in every case. It certainly depends on many factors, including the age of the child at the time, the offense or crime committed, etcetra.

quote:
Why not just fire them as they're leaving the factory? I'd like the idea, BUT, the idea of the government knowing who owns every gun in the country bugs me. Historically, that's been a prelude to the guns being confiscated.

That might work. If the police had a recovered shell, they could take it to a catalogue maintained by the various gun manufacturers who could figure out which gun fired it, and who bought it. In this case, the gun manufacturer's association would know who owns the guns.

Also, as sad as it is to admit it, the government would have a very hard time confiscating everybody's guns even if they wanted to. This is a nation founded on gun violence, and I suspect even law enforcement agents might balk at that step. Hopefully someday in the future ...

quote:
A) Can you be sure these things are feasable? The trigger lock, specifically. I'm reminded of the suggestion someone made a while back about tranquelizer darts.

If we can build an International Space Station, we can build guns with built-in trigger locks which automatically "re-lock" and are hard to break. I'm not saying it'll be real quick, but it can be done. Perhaps the "re-lock" could be engaged by some sort of pressure sensor in the grip, which when released, would "re-lock" the weapon?

Tranq-darts are a ridiculous suggestion, however non-lethal weapons are in wide use. Everything from paintball guns, to rubber bullets, to "expand-a-net" and "beanbag" shotgun shells. In fact, these are so effective, the military used them in Kosovo. Now, granted, I'm not saying that these would neccessarily be preferable to a 9mm round in every instance, but non-lethal methods are certainly an option.

quote:
B) Can you be ABSOLUTELY SURE that the government would not abuse the sweeping powers that would have to be granted it to accomplish this?

With enforcement power divided equally between local, state, and Federal government (sort of like the checks and balances in the Fed. gov't.), it's an extremely reasonable plan.

quote:
C) It's still unconstitutional.

One word for ya'. It also actually happens to be the third word of the Second Ammendment. Regulated. Gives the government the power to regulate the "militia" -- as modern interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment says that anyone capable of owning a gun is a "militia" member, the government thus has the right to regulate.

quote:
The only way I can see to avoid "B" and "C" would be an EXTREMELY carefully worded constitutional ammendment, with ABSOLUTELY no room for some liberal activist judge to come in and rewrite it, as they are wont to do. IF you can meet these qualifications to my satisfaction, I might be with you on certain things. But NOT done through legislation or judical fiat.

Or, on the other hand, some conservative activist judge coming in and rewriting it -- as some seem wont to do.

quote:
I'd also prefer that the system itself be administered on a state or local level.

It would be administered on all levels of the government.

quote:
Oh, and a line that says that if anyone tries to confiscate your gun without a warrant, you can shoot them.

And ya'll thought RedQuaker was paranoid ...

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 25, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

An automatically re-locking trigger lock built into every gun is a HORRIBLE idea. You'll kill a lot of police officers AND armed civilian home defenders that way, especially in the couple hundred years before the NON-locked guns disappear from the streets.

Picture it... the bad guy breaks in.
You get your gun, unlock it... and wait, because you don't really WANT to go up against an intruder if you don't have to.
The gun locks again. and JUST after it locks is the moment the thug, armed with his NON-locking gun, enters the room.

Several hours later, they find your body, with your still-locked gun lying under you.

Jeff, you like to use the word 'paranoid' a lot.. as if bad things never happen in this country that involve the federal government's direct involvement.

There's a large number of Native Americans that might disagree with you. And a large number of Japanese-Americans, for that matter. And the families of a few dead people who were previously residents of a commune in Texas.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
An automatically re-locking trigger lock built into every gun is a HORRIBLE idea. You'll kill a lot of police officers AND armed civilian home defenders that way, especially in the couple hundred years before the NON-locked guns disappear from the streets.

Why would police officers be dying?

quote:
You get your gun, unlock it... and wait, because you don't really WANT to go up against an intruder if you don't have to.
The gun locks again. and JUST after it locks is the moment the thug, armed with his NON-locking gun, enters the room.

If you'd read my post, you'd see that the lock mechanism would be triggered by the release of the grip. If there was an intruder in your home, why would someone put their gun down? Your reasoning is faulty.

quote:
Several hours later, they find your body, with your still-locked gun lying under you.

If there was an intruder in your home, why'd you let go of the grip thus triggering the re-locking of the mechanism?

quote:
Jeff, you like to use the word 'paranoid' a lot.. as if bad things never happen in this country that involve the federal government's direct involvement.

This from the person who thinks there's a massive liberal elite movement in Hollywood.

quote:
There's a large number of Native Americans that might disagree with you. And a large number of Japanese-Americans, for that matter. And the families of a few dead people who were previously residents of a commune in Texas.

Most of that is thankfully far behind us. As for the commune, as sad as that is, perhaps people will stop resisting agents with warrants next time? A lot of people died on both sides.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I might point out, that as you might wail about gun locks, mandatory trigger-locks built in to the gun are required off all manufacturers wishing to sell a handgun in Maryland beginning in 2003, I believe. And once they start sellin' em here, they'll start selling them everywhere, and soon, you won't be able to get a handgun without a built in trigger-lock. So, you might as well get used to the idea

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

No! I'm going to sit here and use Vinyl records, just like I always have. They sound so much better.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

As for the commune, as sad as that is, perhaps people will stop resisting agents with warrants next time?

And perhaps federal officers will actually their presence and intentions, and simply REQUEST entry. They were INVITED into the compound, you know. They decided to start a firefight instead.

A lot of people died on both sides.

Yes, all thanks to the stupidity and thick-headedness of the government officers in charge.

And once they start sellin' em here, they'll start selling them everywhere, and soon, you won't be able to get a handgun without a built in trigger-lock.

Do you know ANYTHING about economics? They'll keep making guns without trigger locks so long as there's demand for them, and it's cost-effective. One state isn't going to change that. In fact, if the cost of production was that different, they'd be more likely to just stop selling guns in Maryland at all.

Also, what's to prevent someone from driving to Virginia and buying a real gun, then taking it home?

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
And perhaps federal officers will actually their presence and intentions, and simply REQUEST entry. They were INVITED into the compound, you know. They decided to start a firefight instead.

Erm. I think you left out a word up there, buddy-boy. And you got a reliable source for that invited crap you talk of? Didn't think so.

quote:
Yes, all thanks to the stupidity and thick-headedness of the government officers in charge.

Not to mention the stupidity and thick-headedness of the religious wackos inside the compound.

quote:
Do you know ANYTHING about economics? They'll keep making guns without trigger locks so long as there's demand for them, and it's cost-effective. One state isn't going to change that. In fact, if the cost of production was that different, they'd be more likely to just stop selling guns in Maryland at all.

Fantastic! Maryland'll be a much safer place then. Of course, if it turns out not to cost too much more to fit a gun with a trigger-lock, the guns without built in locks may soon dissapear quite quickly. You seem to be avoiding reality, Omega: guns with built in trigger-locks are coming, and all you're doing is bitchin' about economics.

quote:
Also, what's to prevent someone from driving to Virginia and buying a real gun, then taking it home?

Guns with built in trigger-locks are toy guns, would be what you're saying here then? Wow. You make me laugh

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 26, 2001).]

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

I can't beleive all of this started because of little ol' me

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
I can't beleive all of this started because of little ol' me

Any thread about guns, or shootings, etcetra, usually produces this argument.

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Be glad we didn't shoot you.

------------------
In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Seeing as how the original post was related to Guns, a discussion about guns is a seemingly logical progression, regardless of your input.

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

Aww, I feel so insignificant

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You know, this was on the last page, and for some odd reason, it suddenly jumped to mind that, hey, hey, you're wrong here, too, and I may as well jump on it.

One word for ya'. It also actually happens to be the third word of the Second Ammendment. Regulated. Gives the government the power to regulate the "militia" -- as modern interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment says that anyone capable of owning a gun is a "militia" member, the government thus has the right to regulate.

Are you and I reading from the same Constitution?

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

You say that this gives the government the power to regulate the militia. Does anyone see anything here conveying the right to the government to do so? You seem to think that everything before the comma is a qualification, Karrde. It's not. As the English-speakers among us can tell you, it's an explaination. The actual law is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The rest is just why the writers thought that necessary. Learn the language, man. Words mean things.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Somebody go get a goddamn Ouija board and ask the "Founding Fathers" just what in the HELL they meant.

This is beyond silly.

------------------
In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Or you could just read the Federalist Papers...

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Proof positive that Omega is a moron.

The Federalist Papers aren't law, doofus. They also were written well over two-hundred years ago. I think it's safe to say that what the Founding Fathers may or may not have intended doesn't really apply anymore. That's why they had the foresight of vision to set up the Supreme Court, which rules on what is or is not Constitutional. It's also why we've got the ability to "ammend" the Constitution. Because they knew that if the USA lasted for any length of time, the peoples of coming generations would need to make laws for themselves and not rely on what some people thought men dead over two hundred years "intended."

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

::Sigh::

What does this law say? Well, that citizens of the US have a right to keep and bear arms. And yet, why can't criminals own firearms, Omega? The 2nd Ammendment says nothing about taking it away from them, does it? Well, yes, it does. That word: regulated allows the local, state, and Federal governments to make laws pertaining to gun ownership. Honestly.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

"Why would police officers be dying?"

Well, I'd assumed that the police officers would obey the law and be issued your deathtrap gun.

"If you'd read my post, you'd see that the lock mechanism would be triggered by the release of the grip. If there was an intruder in your home, why would someone put their gun down? Your reasoning is faulty."

I read your post. Have you ever tried to maintain a constant pressure on something you grip in your hand for an extended period of time? In order for your grip to work, a user would have to maintain a tight grip on his gun for as long as he/she wanted it to be operable.

There are numerous problems with this concept.

sensitivity & strength -- some people can manage strong grips for a time.. many can't. old people with arthritis, people with gripping problems (you know, there are people who need special tools just to open mason jars? my gf is one of them) Hands cramp fairly easily, and maintaining pressure is not as easy as it appears. People's guns will disarm as they shift hand position to keep from cramping.

To create a mechanism which will be sensitive enough to detect hand pressure yet rugged enough not to break under greater than average pressure, which can be used repeatedly, and which will not be TOO sensitive to arm simply under jostling, is a difficult proposition. You will need one which can be operated by a 90-lb grandmother as well as by a football linebacker.

I noticed that you finally had the temerity to say exactly what you think of the Constitution and its founders... that their ideas and opinions and intent are no longer relevant.

This is great news. We can trash the whole system now. I can expect to be installed as Dictator any day now.

I KNEW that liberals had a hard time learning history, but I didn't know it was THIS bad. From the writings of the time, it is quite clear that the framers of the Bill of Rights, Madison et al, intended for the first ten amendments to be inviolable, for all time. Misuse of the ability to make amendments has happened, as it did with prohibition, with disastrous results.

As for your babbling about criminals... criminals, Being people who go against the social conract, ABROGATE their Constitutional rights. That's what Jail IS. In jail you have little 1st, no 2nd, and very little of the other rights. You can't vote. You can't 'peaceable assemble.' You are subjected to search and seizure. That's JAIL.

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 27, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Well, I'd assumed that the police officers would obey the law and be issued your deathtrap gun.

All guns are deathtraps, you moron.

However, no, police would not neccessarily be issued this weapon. Keep the gun at the police station while officers' are off duty (under lock-and-key) and issue it to them when they're coming on for their shift. Honestly, how do these simple solutions get past you?

I understand that Colt has developed a "smart" gun which can take a "finger-print" of the owner, and will only activate if the finger-print matches the owner. Once Colt gets it to actually shoot, too, all your problems with a trigger lock will be done.

quote:
I read your post. Have you ever tried to maintain a constant pressure on something you grip in your hand for an extended period of time? In order for your grip to work, a user would have to maintain a tight grip on his gun for as long as he/she wanted it to be operable.

Yes, because I'm sure if you're in a life-or-death situation, you wouldn't be able to maintain the pressure. Yeeesh.

quote:
To create a mechanism which will be sensitive enough to detect hand pressure yet rugged enough not to break under greater than average pressure, which can be used repeatedly, and which will not be TOO sensitive to arm simply under jostling, is a difficult proposition. You will need one which can be operated by a 90-lb grandmother as well as by a football linebacker.

Difficult is not impossible. It's also kind of hard to imagine a 90-lb grandmother and a football linebacker using the same type of gun. There's a big difference between a Saturday Night Special and a Desert Eagle.

quote:
I noticed that you finally had the temerity to say exactly what you think of the Constitution and its founders... that their ideas and opinions and intent are no longer relevant.

First, let me ask you a question. What will life be like in the 23rd century? Would it be okay for you to force your ideas and opinions and intent on people who will live far different lives and deal with much different issues than people in the 21st century?

The founders have been dead for over 200 years. While it's always nice to look back at their ideas and opinions, it's important to remember that we're not living in the past. Also, the Constitution is law. Not the Federalist Papers.

The times have changed, and thanks to Ammendments and the interpretations of the Supreme Court, the Constitution has changed as well. And, oh yes, the Federalist Papers aren't law. Maybe you need to start living in the Twenty-First century. And, once again, the Federalist Papers aren't law. The opinions of the Founders aren't law. The intent of the Founders isn't law. The Constitution is law. Learn it. Accept it. Be one with it.

quote:
This is great news. We can trash the whole system now. I can expect to be installed as Dictator any day now.

And you accuse me of not following the basic precepts of the Constitution ...

quote:
I KNEW that liberals had a hard time learning history, but I didn't know it was THIS bad. From the writings of the time, it is quite clear that the framers of the Bill of Rights, Madison et al, intended for the first ten amendments to be inviolable, for all time. Misuse of the ability to make amendments has happened, as it did with prohibition, with disastrous results.

Where has the Second Ammendment been violated? Has the Federal Government banned guns? Have guns been siezed? Have laws been passed telling you can not own guns? No. And again, you seem to skip over the "regulated" part of the Ammendment. No, no, that's okay. Only read what you want to.

quote:
As for your babbling about criminals... criminals, Being people who go against the social conract, ABROGATE their Constitutional rights. That's what Jail IS. In jail you have little 1st, no 2nd, and very little of the other rights. You can't vote. You can't 'peaceable assemble.' You are subjected to search and seizure. That's JAIL.

And yet those who have served their time in jail never regain their right to the 2nd Ammendment. That's part of regulating the Ammendment. I know you agree with not giving those who come out of jail guns, but can how you support this obvious violation of rights unless you acknowledge that one little word: regulate?

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

quote:

However, no, police would not neccessarily be issued this weapon. Keep the gun at the police station while officers' are off duty (under lock-and-key) and issue it to them when they're coming on for their shift. Honestly, how do these simple solutions get past you?

Police are required to carry their weapons off duty, in case of emergency.

And while I make take the liberal view on some things, let me make it clear that I would neer support scraping or changeing the Constitution. It stands up as well now as it did 200+ years ago. When it is broken down and changed, I'll go live somewhere else.

------------------
Witty Remark

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

But the point is that the Constitution has been changed. Frequently. Where do you think all those Ammendments came from? Why do you think it stands up so well? It's essentially the same document, but it has changed to account for the 200 years it has survived. And it will continue to be changed.

And that is a tribute to the founding fathers: that they knew that the Constitution would need to be changed and updated to keep up with times. To pretend that people who lived over 200 years ago know what is best for this country today is the craziest thing I've ever heard.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 27, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Police are required to carry their weapons off duty, in case of emergency.

As long as they take precautions with the gun when it's not on their person ... the whole point of the trigger lock is to make sure people don't accidently kill themselves. You think a child really knows what'll happen if they pull the trigger?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

"All guns are deathtraps, you moron."

Oh, that's REALLY erudite. Can we please stay off the name-calling? Otherwise I might have to say something like: Tell me, you tiny-brained fool, do you still french-kiss your mama with that mouth?

We've already established that guns are neutral, inanimate objects, and are no more 'deathtraps' than anything else which, if used improperly, can lead to unnecessary death. Hell, a Ford Pinto is a bigger safety risk, and wading pools kill more children.

"However, no, police would not neccessarily be issued this weapon."

Does this mean that the police would carry the regular, hazardous guns, that you didn't really mean ALL guns, but just those ones NOT controlled by the government, or just that you weren't aware that the police carry guns while off-duty?

"Yes, because I'm sure if you're in a life-or-death situation, you wouldn't be able to maintain the pressure. Yeeesh."

And you base this on your experience in dangerous situations? I don't. However, I know people who couldn't, under any circumstances. That's enough for me.

"Difficult is not impossible."

Granted. But let's wait until somebody actually manages to do it successfully. Meanwhile, I'd bet my money heavily against their ability to do it.

"First, let me ask you a question. What will life be like in the 23rd century?"

Life will be different. PEOPLE, however, will not change significantly. They will still be entitled to the same, unaltered rights as one finds in the constitution. Perhaps other ones, but those will not change. The idea that I am "forcing" people to have rights is ludicrous.

"And, oh yes, the Federalist Papers aren't law. Maybe you need to start living in the Twenty-First century. And, once again, the Federalist Papers aren't law. The opinions of the Founders aren't law. The intent of the Founders isn't law. The Constitution is law."

I never said the Fed. Papers were law. They, and other papers were and ARE, however, the BEST way of understanding what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution, which is what the Supreme Court is supposed to determine when it looks at Constitutionality. The Supreme Court does not simply rely on the letter of the Constitution, but on what it INTERPRETS it to mean.. but these interpretations are to be determined IN CONTEXT to what the Founders and Framers believed. The Federalists Papers, among others, ARE that context.

'Regulated', in 1787, incidentally, ment the same as 'maintained' and 'upkept,' NOT regulated by regulations and legislation. You can look that up, too.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Oh, that's REALLY erudite. Can we please stay off the name-calling? Otherwise I might have to say something like: Tell me, you tiny-brained fool, do you still french-kiss your mama with that mouth?

How nice. You ask me to please refrain from name calling, then do the same yourself. Tsk-tsk. But point taken, and I apologize.

quote:
We've already established that guns are neutral, inanimate objects, and are no more 'deathtraps' than anything else which, if used improperly, can lead to unnecessary death. Hell, a Ford Pinto is a bigger safety risk, and wading pools kill more children.

Which is why I'm for the elimination of Ford Pinto's and wading pools. Strangely enough though, I'm not for the elimination of guns: (well, I am, but I'm willing to be realistic) I'm just for them being regulated.

quote:
Does this mean that the police would carry the regular, hazardous guns, that you didn't really mean ALL guns, but just those ones NOT controlled by the government, or just that you weren't aware that the police carry guns while off-duty?

This means that because police officers have a more reasonable assumption to be placed in danger, they don't need the trigger locks. It's also based on the reasonable assumption that a police officer will take better care to make sure their child won't find it then the average joe-schmoe, thus negating the use of a trigger lock. While some departments require officers to carry a weapon all of the time, many do not.

quote:
And you base this on your experience in dangerous situations? I don't. However, I know people who couldn't, under any circumstances. That's enough for me.

What would be your alternative?

quote:
Granted. But let's wait until somebody actually manages to do it successfully. Meanwhile, I'd bet my money heavily against their ability to do it.

We can put humans on the moon, we can blow up entire cities, and even build machines to fly, but we can't build a safer gun? I find that a tad hard to believe.

quote:
Life will be different. PEOPLE, however, will not change significantly. They will still be entitled to the same, unaltered rights as one finds in the constitution. Perhaps other ones, but those will not change. The idea that I am "forcing" people to have rights is ludicrous.

No one denies this. One simply argues that the rights alloted to them in today's version of the Constitution might not be enough, or might be too little. Or that certain rights might endanger other rights. Certainly, the idea of un-regulated gun-rights to all endangers lives. Heck, you even agree with me on this point: or do you not agree that criminals out of jail should be forbidden from owning firearms? I point out that this is regulation of the Second Ammendment.

quote:
I never said the Fed. Papers were law. They, and other papers were and ARE, however, the BEST way of understanding what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution, which is what the Supreme Court is supposed to determine when it looks at Constitutionality. The Supreme Court does not simply rely on the letter of the Constitution, but on what it INTERPRETS it to mean.. but these interpretations are to be determined IN CONTEXT to what the Founders and Framers believed. The Federalists Papers, among others, ARE that context.

What about when the situation is beyond anything the Founding Fathers could have possibly imagined? And no, you didn't say they were law, but Omega implied it. My point still stands: when faced with situations beyond the Founders and Framers experience and opinions ...

Well, here's an example.

First of Two, does the Second Ammendment say anything about the restriction of this right to someone who has committed a crime, served his time, and been re-introduced into society? Yet do we both not support keeping guns out of the hands of those who have been to jail? Is this not a regulation? How can you support this yet argue that the Second Ammendment can't be regulated?

quote:
'Regulated', in 1787, incidentally, ment the same as 'maintained' and 'upkept,' NOT regulated by regulations and legislation. You can look that up, too.

Is this 1787? No -- it's 2001. Look, as far as I know, there are two major viewpoints on the Constitution.

Omega is one of those viewpoints. He's the same guy who thinks NASA and interstate Highways are un-Constitutional. Apparently, although I'm sure you disagree about NASA, you agree that the opinions of those long dead should influence how the Constitution is ruled on.

Well, that's fine. But to pretend that the Constitution shouldn't adapt to situations that the Founding Fathers had no way of knowing of or predicting or forming opinions on is ... short-sighted, IMHO. Did the Founding Fathers really intend for Americans living in 2001 to live their lives like they did in 1787? No. Did they intend for those same rights to exist? No, of course not. People used to have a right to buy slaves. Rights change, society changes, and the Constitution changes along with.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 27, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
(WJZ) Police in Howard County get an anonymous tip about a student allegedly planning to sell a gun. The tip was phoned into a school violence hotline. As a result of the call, officers investigated and arrested two 15-year-old freshmen from Hammond High School. One of the students was allegedly going to sell one of his father's handguns to the other. Police say the gun was never brought to school. The school violence tip line number is 410 313-3250. The hotline is monitored 24 hours a day by Howard County Police.

Just to prove my point -- if this father had had his gun in a safe, this incident might never almost have happened. This is why there should be regulation -- so that this kid would never even think of doing this. You speak of illegal guns in the streets? No, they're legal guns, aquired illegally by incidents like this.

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

I decided to exclude myself from this argument when it became exclusively "American" but do not assume that you are the world, for you will be gravely mistaken. The world will solve their problems however it deems necessary and I fail to see how YOUR consitution and YOUR founding fathers have ANYTHING to do with it.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

As if we haven't been over that enough either. And besides, when did anyone in this discussion mention solutions for anything or anyone other than themselves. The main proponents in this are Jeff, Jeff, Rob & Omega , all of whom are American.

Sure, we foreigners interject, but only for biscuits and the occasional jab at the Man-Train. For some, literally.

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
I decided to exclude myself from this argument when it became exclusively "American" but do not assume that you are the world, for you will be gravely mistaken. The world will solve their problems however it deems necessary and I fail to see how YOUR consitution and YOUR founding fathers have ANYTHING to do with it.

Well, obviously, they've nothing to do with how other countries deal with the problem. But in case you hadn't noticed, these school shootings have been ... in America! Therefore, this discussion is about America's problem with guns and what to do about it.

Other nations will do what they deem best, and you'll notice NO-ONE anywhere in this thread is saying what OTHER countries should do about it. Do you see that? However, in America, our long-dead founding fathers and Constitution DO have something to do with it.

One of the things we're hotly debating is HOW they have something to do with it. But, this is purely a debate on America's situation, and it's not a judgement or indication of action for any other nation. ::shrugg:: Look, whenever the topic of "guns" come up, this debate is going to happen ...

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 27, 2001).]

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Maybe it's time for this country to break up along the lines of what the Soviet Union did. 'Cos sooner or later it will do exactly that.

------------------
In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I think we've got a few more centuries ...

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

No, we don't. We may have a few more decades. Look, none of us can or will EVER agree on what's right for this country. We can't even agree to dissagree without resorting to bashing each other over the head with our ideological bats. So we should just take a page from what the Czechs and Slovaks did a several years back and just go our own seperate ways before it goes way past ugly and we wind up shooting at each other like Yugoslavia did.

------------------
In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I disagree. We've had these disagreements for the whole run of the country. We've already had a civil war. We got through it somewhat okay. This country isn't going to split over guns, or drug policy, or abortions.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:

All guns are deathtraps, you moron.

Not for the person holding them. First rule of tools: a tool must not harm its user in doing its job.

Yes, because I'm sure if you're in a life-or-death situation, you wouldn't be able to maintain the pressure.

Not if you're an eighty-year-old woman, or have sweaty palms, or your hands tend to shake when you're in a life or death situation, or...

Rob said To create a mechanism which will be sensitive enough to detect hand pressure yet rugged enough not to break under greater than average pressure, which can be used repeatedly, and which will not be TOO sensitive to arm simply under jostling, is a difficult proposition. You will need one which can be operated by a 90-lb grandmother as well as by a football linebacker.

You said Difficult is not impossible.

Design one.

What would be your alternative?

You can't even DESCRIBE a trigger lock that would protect children as you claim without reducing the functionality of the weapon as a defensive measure, much less design one. Until then, I don't NEED an alternative to your proposal. The way things are is better than they would be after your proposed change. Change is not ALWAYS good, Jeff. Yeah, the way things are could stand improvement, but what you describe would not lead to it.

We can put humans on the moon, we can blow up entire cities, and even build machines to fly, but we can't build a safer gun?

Sure, we can build a safer gun, but not without compromising it's abilities as a defensive weapon. Putting a man on the moon is simple, compaired with creating a weapon that can determine whether the person firing it really NEEDS to, by... what, mind-reading? Heck, if we could design weapons like that, we could design them to be able to tell whether the person holding them was mentally unstable or had criminal intent, and simply not let THEM fire weapons, and then we wouldn't need laws at all. But then, we can't do that. You compare one area of technology to a completely unrelated area. Non sequitor.

The Federalist Papers aren't law, doofus.

Positive proof that you do not read the posts you're replying to. QW asked if there was some way we could get inside the founders' heads. I answered him. READ.

And no, you didn't say they were law, but Omega implied it.

I did no such thing. NEVER work off of perceived implications in your arguments, Jeff. You loose face when you're shown to have been wrong for a dozen posts.

That word: regulated allows the local, state, and Federal governments to make laws pertaining to gun ownership.

No, it DOESN'T. The second ammendment gives no power to the government whatsoever. It RESTRICTS the government, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights. That's why it's called the "Bill of Rights": it lists the rights the people have that the government can't touch. Read the entire second ammendment, Jeff. Try diagraming the sentence, if that helps. If you knew a thing about the language you type in, you'd see that your argument is about as specious as my saying that the fact that the first ammendment contains the words "law abridging freedom of speech" gives Congress the power to do pass just that. You have to read the whole thing, Jeff, or you can't understand the meaning.

Look at it this way. The second ammendment can be divided into two statements:

"A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state."
"Therefore, no government may abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

You make the first statement law, even though your interpretation directly contradicts the second statement. But see, the first statement ISN'T law. It's a statement of fact, but it doesn't say a frikin' THING about the powers of the government. It therefore does not grant any such powers.

thanks to Ammendments and the interpretations of the Supreme Court, the Constitution has changed as well.

FINALLY! You admit that the Supreme Court has been actively rewriting the Constitution! A process which is obviously blatantly unconstitutional! Thank you. I must write that down somewhere for future reference.

But the point is that the Constitution has been changed. Frequently.

Quantity is not quality. If you count the Bill of Rights as part of the original Constitution, what major has been changed? Aside from increases in the guarentee of basic freedoms to all humans living in the country, the only truely major changes have been prohibition, which was repealed; the popular election of Senators, which doesn't change all that much; and the income tax, which was never legitimately ratified (but that's for another thread), and still doesn't change all that much. The basic precepts of the Constitution still stand firm after two centuries, and I see no reason why they will not continue to do so.

do you not agree that criminals out of jail should be forbidden from owning firearms? I point out that this is regulation of the Second Ammendment.

No, it's not. Criminals have never, in the history of mankind, been considered to have had all the rights of every other citizen. Same with children. They are the two groups whose rights there are specific exceptions to in the Constitution. In fact, I would contend that you effectively have NEVER repaid your "debt to society" if you commit a crime beyond a certain arbitrary point, and you're simply on parole for the rest of your life, subject to any applicable laws regarding the restriction of your rights.

This is why there should be regulation -- so that this kid would never even think of doing this.

What regulation, praytell, do you propose that would have prevented this? And DON'T say a regulation forcing all guns to be kept in safes. He left the gun where his kid could get to it. He obviously wasn't smart enough to train his kid in the proper use and respect for a gun. The father was irresponsible, and yet again, if he's that irresponsible, he's irresponsible enough to not place his gun in a safe, and thus the regulation wouldn't have helped.

Really, how many times to I have to repeat these arguments before you pay attention?

You speak of illegal guns in the streets? No, they're legal guns, aquired illegally by incidents like this.

Buh? A legal gun acquired illegally is an ILLEGAL GUN.

Rob:

The idea that I am "forcing" people to have rights is ludicrous.

Right on. Freedom is not an imposition. It is the natural state of mankind. All other states are impositions.

QW:

Maybe it's time for this country to break up along the lines of what the Soviet Union did. 'Cos sooner or later it will do exactly that.

There are MAJOR major differences between us and the USSR. There is a single, unifying American culture, as opposed to the smaller states having been conquored by the biggest one and assimilated. We choose our leaders freely, instead of having them foisted upon us by the ruling elite. We have basic guarentees of freedom, poachers like JK aside. We are NOTHING like the Soviets, nor will we be.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

"There is a single, unifying American culture"

Eh? There AREN'T differences in culture in people from Deep Texas, anyone from Harlem or Brooklyn, someone from wherever you guys fish and a Pennsylvania Dutch dude?

You have as many 'cultures' as the Former Soviet Union had, but two very important differences. You have communication between peoples, and a government that recognizes each equally, for the most part. And, you weren't divided into seperate entities before joining together in confederation. (Well, not so adamantly as to provide current-day regionalism)

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :

wanna know what happens when shit like this happens? they get all fucking paranoid and implement zero tollerance policies here in the US.

here's my statement regaurding the schools in my area:

http://www.techfx.org

------------------
Wes Button � [email protected]
TechFX Studios � The United Federation Uplink �
------------------
I don't like Wesley Crusher.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Not for the person holding them. First rule of tools: a tool must not harm its user in doing its job.

You've never heard of people committing suicide with guns before, have you?

quote:
Not if you're an eighty-year-old woman, or have sweaty palms, or your hands tend to shake when you're in a life or death situation, or...

Fine. I'm sure there's some way that a pressure sensor could be created which would keep the gun unlocked. Perhaps some sort of "button" on the front of the gun-handle, where you would be gripping anyway instead of integrated into the handle itself?

quote:
Design one.

I'm not an engineer. I can't build a space-shuttle or fly a plane, either. But others can. And if they can build space shuttles and airplanes and weapons that can destroy the world ... what's so friggin' difficult about a pressure sensor?!?!

quote:
You can't even DESCRIBE a trigger lock that would protect children as you claim without reducing the functionality of the weapon as a defensive measure, much less design one. Until then, I don't NEED an alternative to your proposal. The way things are is better than they would be after your proposed change. Change is not ALWAYS good, Jeff. Yeah, the way things are could stand improvement, but what you describe would not lead to it.

Well then, please, fill us in with the wonder that is your mind. What would you do, Omega?
Posted March 27, 2001 10:17 PM from 216.80.152.*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JK:
All guns are deathtraps, you moron.

Not for the person holding them. First rule of tools: a tool must not harm its user in doing its job.

Yes, because I'm sure if you're in a life-or-death situation, you wouldn't be able to maintain the pressure.

Not if you're an eighty-year-old woman, or have sweaty palms, or your hands tend to shake when you're in a life or death situation, or...

You said Difficult is not impossible.

Design one.

What would be your alternative?

We can put humans on the moon, we can blow up entire cities, and even build machines to fly, but we can't build a safer gun?

quote:
Sure, we can build a safer gun, but not without compromising it's abilities as a defensive weapon. Putting a man on the moon is simple, compaired with creating a weapon that can determine whether the person firing it really NEEDS to, by... what, mind-reading?

Not at all. While that certainly would be preferable, what the lock's purpose would be is to prevent an accidental mis-fire, or prevent the firing if the person is incapable of working the gun: aka, drunk (I think we can both agree that both accidental shootings and drunks with guns are a bad idea).

quote:
Heck, if we could design weapons like that, we could design them to be able to tell whether the person holding them was mentally unstable or had criminal intent, and simply not let THEM fire weapons, and then we wouldn't need laws at all. But then, we can't do that. You compare one area of technology to a completely unrelated area. Non sequitor.

Um -- you're the one who brought up mind-reading technology, dude, not me.

quote:
Positive proof that you do not read the posts you're replying to. QW asked if there was some way we could get inside the founders' heads. I answered him. READ.

The Founder's have been dead for over 200 years. To assume that their thoughts and opinions from a different time are relevent to what we're going through today is ridiculous. You sure they'd think the 2nd Ammendment was such a hot idea if they knew of Colombine?

quote:
I did no such thing. NEVER work off of perceived implications in your arguments, Jeff. You loose face when you're shown to have been wrong for a dozen posts.

Omega, you've been shown to be wrong ... how many times? You've contradicted yourself ... how many times? You bitch about people who use ad-hominems, and then use them yourself. Who are you to talk about losing face?

quote:
No, it DOESN'T. The second ammendment gives no power to the government whatsoever. It RESTRICTS the government, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights. That's why it's called the "Bill of Rights": it lists the rights the people have that the government can't touch.

Has the government banned handguns? No? Wow! Then you've still got that right, don't you? Oh: news-flash -- how can you take guns away from people who've done their time without REGULATING that right? Try thinking things through sometimes, okay?

quote:
A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state." "Therefore, no government may abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

That's not what it says. Like the time you inserted your own words into one of UM's statements, you're making stuff up again. But ...

Has the government banned handguns? No, you can still buy them. But doesn't the government restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms when it refuses to allow ex-convicts to own them? GASP! Guess you're in support of ex-cons owning guns then, huh?

quote:
You make the first statement law, even though your interpretation directly contradicts the second statement. But see, the first statement ISN'T law. It's a statement of fact, but it doesn't say a frikin' THING about the powers of the government. It therefore does not grant any such powers.

Right. Sure, Omega-san. Again, if the government can't regulate the rights of the people to own guns, who do ex-cons not get guns? I mean, it's their right! It spells it out quite clearly. Please elaborate on this point, because, I don't see how you can make the argument that ex-cons can't own guns ... unless you admit that the government can regulate them.

quote:
FINALLY! You admit that the Supreme Court has been actively rewriting the Constitution! A process which is obviously blatantly unconstitutional! Thank you. I must write that down somewhere for future reference.

No I didn't. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution as it applies to modern laws. That's what it's been doing. Stop making shit up. And please promise to take a Constiutional Law class in college, okay? The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. That's pretty basic knowledge, and I'm surprised to see you don't know that. Maybe homeschooling isn't all it's cracked up to be, huh?

quote:
Quantity is not quality. If you count the Bill of Rights as part of the original Constitution, what major has been changed? Aside from increases in the guarentee of basic freedoms to all humans living in the country, the only truely major changes have been prohibition, which was repealed; the popular election of Senators, which doesn't change all that much; and the income tax, which was never legitimately ratified (but that's for another thread), and still doesn't change all that much. The basic precepts of the Constitution still stand firm after two centuries, and I see no reason why they will not continue to do so.

Right. Remind me: you're the nut who thinks NASA and interstate highways are un-Constitutional, right? Grow up. Constitutional Law 101 please.

quote:
No, it's not. Criminals have never, in the history of mankind, been considered to have had all the rights of every other citizen. Same with children. They are the two groups whose rights there are specific exceptions to in the Constitution. In fact, I would contend that you effectively have NEVER repaid your "debt to society" if you commit a crime beyond a certain arbitrary point, and you're simply on parole for the rest of your life, subject to any applicable laws regarding the restriction of your rights.

That's nice. Tough, though, the Constitution doesn't say "everyone but criminals" or "ex-criminals" may not own a gun. It says ALL citizens have that right. Why do you ignore that? Like it or not, this is government regulation. Admit it.

quote:
What regulation, praytell, do you propose that would have prevented this? And DON'T say a regulation forcing all guns to be kept in safes. He left the gun where his kid could get to it. He obviously wasn't smart enough to train his kid in the proper use and respect for a gun. The father was irresponsible, and yet again, if he's that irresponsible, he's irresponsible enough to not place his gun in a safe, and thus the regulation wouldn't have helped.

Well, a trigger-lock his son couldn't have opened probably would have helped.

quote:
Buh? A legal gun acquired illegally is an ILLEGAL GUN.

I'm not saying it's not. But I'm saying that for all your talk about illegal guns, you seem to forget that they were legally purchased.

quote:
Right on. Freedom is not an imposition. It is the natural state of mankind. All other states are impositions.

No one accused Rob of forcing rights on people. The argument is that people who lived 200 years ago don't know what's going on today and probably aren't the best to go crying to for help. Unless you believe in ghosts ...

quote:
There is a single, unifying American culture,

No, actually, there isn't.

quote:
as opposed to the smaller states having been conquored by the biggest one and assimilated

You forgot about our Civil War, Omega ... of course, it was a good thing. That Lincoln fella', bringing Big Government to squash the rights of them' states like that.

quote:
We choose our leaders freely, instead of having them foisted upon us by the ruling elite

Too bad our leaders are from the ruling elite.

quote:
We have basic guarentees of freedom, poachers like JK aside.

I beg your fucking pardon? You speak from ignorance, but I'll refrain from giving you a verbal lashing because, as JeffRaven points out to me often, "[Omega is] just a kid" and you've got a lot to learn.

Omega, I'm not trying to restrict the rights of people to own guns, I just want to make sure they're used properly. I want devices to prevent accidental shootings, I want parents to educate their children about firearms, and I want everyone who owns one to understand Federal, State, and local laws in their area about how one may use theirs legally. I do believe First agrees with me on many of these points.

Now, if you don't think the government can "regulate" guns, hey, that's your business. But I live in the real world, so does First, and we both understand that it can and it does. So, until you either enter the real world or take a constitutional law course, you must understand that nearly everything you say, I laugh at. I find you humerous beyond words. When I have a bad day, I come to Flare, surf up your posts, and laugh my ass off.

But what was I saying? Omega, sometimes I don't get you. Hell, I never get you? Poacher of freedom? Hardly. Speak not of which you do not know, little-one.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 27, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

There AREN'T differences in culture in people from Deep Texas, anyone from Harlem or Brooklyn, someone from wherever you guys fish and a Pennsylvania Dutch dude?

No, no, I didn't say that there weren't different sub-cultures. I said that there IS a single, unifying culture, that overrides the differences.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

"You've never heard of people committing suicide with guns before, have you?"

People can commit suicide with a Tylenol overdose. Should we stop manufacturing them?

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
People can commit suicide with a Tylenol overdose. Should we stop manufacturing them?

If you can come up with a way to make it hard(er) for a person to commit suicide with Tylenol, sure. Guns make suicide ridiculously easy.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
No, no, I didn't say that there weren't different sub-cultures. I said that there IS a single, unifying culture, that overrides the differences.

Um. No there isn't. You want to explain what you think it is?

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Now, the Tylenol set up us the point:

Tylenol containers have Child Locks on them.

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

This isn't a jab at "He-who-I will-not-name". Just some random streams of consciousness.

"There are MAJOR major differences between us and the USSR."

That's true.

"There is a single, unifying American culture, as opposed to the smaller states having been conquored by the biggest one and assimilated."

The only thing holding this country together is the almighty dollar. BTW, ever been to Miami?

"We choose our leaders freely, instead of having them foisted upon us by the ruling elite."

*yawn* I voted for John Sheridan and Delenn. (SERIOUSLY!)

"We have basic guarentees of freedom, poachers like JK aside. We are NOTHING like the Soviets, nor will we be."

Basic? Why not MORE? We're supposed to be a democracy. Oh. I forgot. We're not a democracy, we're a Federal Republic.

- Personal, I couldn't give a rat fuck about gun control, abortion, rights for this group, that group...whatever. This country is so beyond help that the fact it HASN'T exploded into another Yugoslavia borders on the ludicrious.

So i'm tossing my hat the ring for supporting First for dictator. The country's yours. Enjoy.

------------------
In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

test

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited March 28, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:

You've never heard of people committing suicide with guns before, have you?

The rule doesn't apply if the tool's intended by its user to do harm to same.

I'm sure there's some way that a pressure sensor could be created which would keep the gun unlocked.

Any particular engineering reason why you're so sure?

Perhaps some sort of "button" on the front of the gun-handle, where you would be gripping anyway instead of integrated into the handle itself?

You'd still need some way to have it unlocked immediately in an emergency situation. You have two contradictory goals: you want to prevent a gun from being fired by a child; you must ensure that this does not compromise the instantaneous defensive use of a weapon if necessary. Your goals are mutually exclusive at our current level of technology. We can't build guns that read minds. If you COULD, then I'd be all for it, but again, I deal in reality, not hypotheticals.

And if they can build space shuttles and airplanes and weapons that can destroy the world ... what's so friggin' difficult about a pressure sensor?!?!

Completely seperate technologies and unreasonable requirements, perhaps?

what the lock's purpose would be is to prevent an accidental mis-fire, or prevent the firing if the person is incapable of working the gun: aka, drunk

Purpose is irrelevant. EFFECT is relevant.

Omega, you've been shown to be wrong ... how many times?

By you? One, on the ACLU, and I admitted it immediately. You've been shown wrong... how many dozen times now? And you have yet to admit a single one.

how can you take guns away from people who've done their time without REGULATING that right?

A) Even in your flawed "reading", the right isn't regulated. The militia is.

B) A criminal has no rights to regulate.

Now are you going to respond to all my points to which you made this response? WITHOUT changing the subject, this time? They include the following:

1) The second ammendment gives no power to the government whatsoever. It RESTRICTS the government, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights.

2) You make the first statement law, even though your interpretation directly contradicts the second statement. But see, the first statement ISN'T law. It's a statement of fact, but it doesn't say a frikin' THING about the powers of the government. It therefore does not grant any such powers.

Me: "A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state." "Therefore, no government may abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

You: That's not what it says.

What changed in my rewording? What of the meaning is different? The words are different, but the meaning is the same. Therefore, yes, that IS what it says.

No I didn't [admit that the Supreme Court has been actively rewriting the Constitution.]

Funny...

thanks to Ammendments and the interpretations of the Supreme Court, the Constitution has changed as well

Looks like it to me.

Well, a trigger-lock his son couldn't have opened probably would have helped.

Even though any trigger lock that tough would have eliminated the gun as a useful tool for legitimate purposes.

And if you think there's any such thing as a security device that a fifteen-year-old can't get past that his parents can, you don't know fifteen-year-olds.

That Lincoln fella', bringing Big Government to squash the rights of them' states like that.

What? The non-existant right to seceed? The federal government has the right to use federal troops to put down insurrections, remember?

I beg your fucking pardon?

As well you should.

we never executed our own citizens (Ohio State)

If you don't see the difference between actions ordered by the government, and unauthorized actions by officers of that goverment, then you, sir, are a total moron.

Oh, wait, I guess you saw that mistake and edited it out of your post. Oh, well. You're still a total moron.

I'll refrain from giving you a verbal lashing because, as JeffRaven points out to me often, "[Omega is] just a kid" and you've got a lot to learn.

*L*

Riiiight. Listen, buddy, I know more about this country, about human nature, about logic, about history, about freedom than you ever will. I'm more mature, more rational, more intelligent, more grounded in reality, and more arrogant about it all than you have the capacity to comprehend. You're no match for me. You have YET to make a real point against my beliefs. If the government's going to "regulate" ANYTHING outside of its Constitutional powers, it should be the very existance of people like you.

I want devices to prevent accidental shootings

Design one.

I want parents to educate their children about firearms

So do I. Care to try and legislate it?

But I live in the real world

You just get funnier and funnier.

you must understand that nearly everything you say, I laugh at

Oh, is THAT why you can never type a comprehensible response?

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I'm sure there's some way that a pressure sensor could be created which would keep the gun unlocked

Marx was sure he could create a communist utopia. Marx knew nothing about human nature. You're sure that a viable trigger lock mechanism with the desired characteristics could be created. You know nothing about engineering. The fact that you're "sure" about something of which you know nothing instills me with no confidence whatsoever, nor should it you.

if they can build space shuttles and airplanes and weapons that can destroy the world ... what's so friggin' difficult about a pressure sensor?!?!

A) They're completely different technologies.

B) You have mutually exclusive requirements at our current level of advancement. You want a gun that certain people can't use regardless of the responsibility level of the owner, and yet you want this device to not interfere with the defensive use of the gun. This is not possible at present, nor will it be in the forseeable future.

the lock's purpose would be is to prevent an accidental mis-fire, or prevent the firing if the person is incapable of working the gun: aka, drunk

Purpose is irrelevant. EFFECT is relevant.

Omega, you've been shown to be wrong ... how many times?

By you? One, on the ACLU, but then, I was only wrong by the usual definition of liberal, not your definition, so I don't know you'd count that.

You've contradicted yourself ... how many times?

Zero, if you're mind's advanced enough to comprehend my statements, and if you bother to pay attention.

how can you take guns away from people who've done their time without REGULATING that right?

A) WHAT RIGHT? Criminals HAVE no rights.

B) Even in your screwed up little world where you only have to read one word of the ammendment, the right isn't regulated. The militia is.

C) You have yet to respond to the following point:

"The second ammendment gives no power to the government whatsoever. It RESTRICTS the government, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights."

Me: "A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state." "Therefore, no government may abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

That's not what it says.

You're right. It says: "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now if you can tell me how this is qualitatively different from what I said above, you may have a point. But you can't, so you won't, so you don't.

You have yet to respond to the following point:

"You make the first statement law, even though your interpretation directly contradicts the second statement. But see, the first statement ISN'T law. It's a statement of fact, but it doesn't say a frikin' THING about the powers of the government. It therefore does not grant any such powers."

No I didn't [admit that the Supreme Court has been actively rewriting the Constitution].

Funny...

thanks to Ammendments and the interpretations of the Supreme Court, the Constitution has changed

Looks like you did to me.

Well, a trigger-lock his son couldn't have opened probably would have helped.

The man was irresponsible enough to leave the gun where his kid could get to it. The man was irresponsible enough NOT to teach his kid the proper respect for a gun. His irresponsibility would have prevented him from locking the gun. And if you think there's such a security device that parent could open that a fifteen-year-old couldn't override, you don't know fifteen-year-olds.

That Lincoln fella', bringing Big Government to squash the rights of them' states like that.

What, like the non-existant right to seceed?

I beg your fucking pardon?

As well you should.

I'll refrain from giving you a verbal lashing because, as JeffRaven points out to me often, "[Omega is] just a kid" and you've got a lot to learn.

Whatever gets you through the night, kid.

I want devices to prevent accidental shootings

If you can come up with a design (heck, even a description) for one that doesn't compromise the use of the gun, please tell me.

I want parents to educate their children about firearms

Care to try and legislate that?

you must understand that nearly everything you say, I laugh at.

Oh, is THAT why you can't form a coherant response?

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I'm sure there's some way that a pressure sensor could be created which would keep the gun unlocked

if they can build space shuttles and airplanes and weapons that can destroy the world ... what's so friggin' difficult about a pressure sensor?!?!

A) They're completely different technologies.

the lock's purpose would be is to prevent an accidental mis-fire, or prevent the firing if the person is incapable of working the gun: aka, drunk

Purpose is irrelevant. EFFECT is relevant.

Omega, you've been shown to be wrong ... how many times?

By you? One, on the ACLU, but then, I was only wrong by the usual definition of liberal, not your definition, so I don't know you'd count that.

You've contradicted yourself ... how many times?

Zero, if you're mind's advanced enough to comprehend my statements, and if you bother to pay attention.

how can you take guns away from people who've done their time without REGULATING that right?

A) WHAT RIGHT? Criminals HAVE no rights.

B) Even in your screwed up little world where you only have to read one word of the ammendment, the right isn't regulated. The militia is.

C) You have yet to respond to the following point:

"The second ammendment gives no power to the government whatsoever. It RESTRICTS the government, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights."

Me: "A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state." "Therefore, no government may abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

That's not what it says.

You have yet to respond to the following point:

No I didn't [admit that the Supreme Court has been actively rewriting the Constitution].

Funny...

thanks to Ammendments and the interpretations of the Supreme Court, the Constitution has changed

Looks like you did to me.

Well, a trigger-lock his son couldn't have opened probably would have helped.

That Lincoln fella', bringing Big Government to squash the rights of them' states like that.

What, like the non-existant right to seceed?

I beg your fucking pardon?

As well you should.

I'll refrain from giving you a verbal lashing because, as JeffRaven points out to me often, "[Omega is] just a kid" and you've got a lot to learn.

Whatever gets you through the night, kid.

I want devices to prevent accidental shootings

If you can come up with a design for one, please tell me.

I want parents to educate their children about firearms

Care to try and legislate that?

you must understand that nearly everything you say, I laugh at.

Oh, is THAT why you can't form a coherant response?

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :

(Test)

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

What's going on? I could only see Omega's multi-post after I had deleted my own.

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :

.

Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :

I believe this is suffeciently fucked up.