I probably shouldn't post this...
-
Hmmm, guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing people? I don't think so. Guns are used by police to defend themselves, to stop and apprehend runaway criminals, and to deter people from causing trouble. In the hands of the police, guns are good. In the hands of hunters or target shooters, guns are good too. They allow hunters to catch the prey they're after, or target shooters to experience the thrill of aiming at something, pulling the trigger, and hitting it. You probably don't know what I'm talking about, but target shooting is actually fun. In the hands of the common folks guns can be good or bad. If a drug addict or a compulsive gambler has a gun then he/she is more likely to hold up the liquor store, like you said. I'm sure if you or I had a gun, the last thing on our mind would be to use it for that purpose, right? We would probably keep it safely at home in case someone ever tried to invade our property. Your point seems to be that guns should be taken away from everyone because they facilitate crime in the hands of a derranged minority. Isn't that a lot like your boss dictating that all developers are now going to use Java because it's a safer language? I don't think you would agree, right? You'd probably say, "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals can be used to efficiently write software. We shouldn't take it away; rather, we should train everyone to use it correctly and make them responsible for their usage. Thus, if a developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she should be fired." That's my take on guns. Give people the freedom to own them but teach them how to properly use them and make them responsible for their actions with it. Regards, Alvaro
Hmmm, guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing people? I don't think so. Really ? You don't think guns were designed to give their designer an advantage in warfare over the guys with the bows and arrows, in the same way that bows & arrows were designed to give an advantage over the pointed stick brigade ? Guns are used by police to defend themselves, to stop and apprehend runaway criminals, and to deter people from causing trouble. In the hands of the police, guns are good. Why does the criminal stop ? Because guns make a loud noise, or because he knows they are an instrument designed to kill people they are pointed at ? In the hands of hunters or target shooters, guns are good too. They allow hunters to catch the prey they're after, or target shooters to experience the thrill of aiming at something, pulling the trigger, and hitting it. You probably don't know what I'm talking about, but target shooting is actually fun. I'm sure target shooting is lots of fun. So is Counter Strike. This does not give good reason for arming the community. In the hands of the common folks guns can be good or bad. If a drug addict or a compulsive gambler has a gun then he/she is more likely to hold up the liquor store, like you said. I'm sure if you or I had a gun, the last thing on our mind would be to use it for that purpose, right? We would probably keep it safely at home in case someone ever tried to invade our property. Well, I have an axe for that purpose. It will do nicely, given that in Australia someone who invades my home is unlikely to have a gun. In the US, it's pretty much a given, I'd guess. Your point seems to be that guns should be taken away from everyone because they facilitate crime in the hands of a derranged minority. Isn't that a lot like your boss dictating that all developers are now going to use Java because it's a safer language? I don't think you would agree, right? You'd probably say, "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals can be used to efficiently write software. We shouldn't take it away; rather, we should train everyone to use it correctly and make them responsible for their usage. Thus, if a developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she should be fired." Well, I don't know of anyone being killed with Java. My point is that the only 'reason' for the decent portion of society to have guns seems to be that the criminals have them. Isn't it better if guns are harder to get for everyone
-
Yep, I got it. :) Jon Sagara "Your schwartz is as big as mine!"
It was more aimed at John (I saw your :laugh: ). Speaking of which, doesn't the :laugh: look like a smilie who's just been shot in the head with a shotgun? ;P David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
> With possible expectation to your right to not to say anything if it incriminates > you (whoever though that one up certainly wanted Justice to prevail...) So, you're saying you'd rather have it like it was in the 1600's when the Court of England *always* found you guilty, but were kind enough to allow you to confess to your crimes? Man, that sounds fair to me. > I can understand the need to protect yourself, your family and to a certain extent > your property, but those guys in the films who sit on their porches stroking their > shotguns shouting "Geeeeeaaat off of muy lannnd" at everybody that walks past their > house is surely taking it a bit too far? "These guys in film" are necessary to the story line, and most of those stories pertain to the past, not present day. Most cities have laws prohibiting firing weapons within city limits, and most states have laws against even displaying a firearm in a threatening manner. Granted, the further out from civilization you get, the less likely it is that the local sheriff is gonna haul you to the pokey for bending the rules a bit, but generally speaking, we don't have the shotgun-stroking toothless redneck to whom you are referring. > Have you ever sat down and wondered why in America the postman leave your mail at > the end of your drive? Not at all. It's called "convenience". Have you ever noticed that the driver's side of the mail jeep is on what we yanks refer to as the "wrong side"? It's so they can just flip down the mailbox door, and slip the mail inside without leaving their vehicle. Not only that, but many rural addresses are usually several hundred yards OFF the road, so I see it as someone doing the mailman a favor by putting a box on a pole down by the road. In ALL of my 45 years, I've lived in houses where the mailbox was either right next to the front door, or was a slot in the door. I recently moved to Texas, and this is honestly the first time I've had a mailbox out by the curb.
Why did you move to Texas? I just visited your website and saw that you lived in San Diego, my favorite place to live. Were there no jobs in San Diego? Sorry if I'm prying but I've been trying to talk my husband into moving there for years. Should I abort mission? :confused: Cathy
-
It is funny, Chrisitan, that the NRA's numbers are all propaganda but the "Brady's" numbers are all factual. Its *all* propaganda, dude. It is obviously ridiculous to compare numbers of "gun" deaths out of a population of 270 Million + to war time deaths out of a few hundred thousand troops in combat. Of *course* it's all propoganda, I thought I said as much. But the figures that interested me were gun deaths in the US compared to other countries. The site had figures per 100,000 population, and you guys still 'win' hands down. Virtually every American I know believes they have a God-given right to own whatever kind of weaponry they please and it is a waste of breath to try to convince them otherwise. I don't own a gun myself, and probably never will, yet I fully believe that a free man does not have to ask permission to defend himself, and I like knowing that, if needed, I could avail myself of weaponry as I please. This is the problem - you have a culture that can't see the issue of human rights beyond your own right to see the world through gun sights if and when you desire. So while the school shootings and workplace shootings continue, the odds of the situation coming under control are pretty much zip. Could disarming the American public bring gun deaths down? Well, duh! Well, thank you. This is my sole point. But people who are determined to kill each other will find a way to do it even if they don't have guns. Timothy McViegh killed, what, 180 something - never fired a shot. Yet, you could also bring those numbers down not by getting rid of the 2nd amendment but by getting rid of the 1st. When I was a kid people were heavily armed, and far fewer people were being murdered, because we were a more moral nation (in that regard). The thought of shooting your classmates was simply not an option. Today, after 40 years of the "if it feels good, do it" mentality, people are far more inclined to solve their problems with guns. Shut Hollywood up for a few years, teach Chrisitan morality in school again, and I can assure you those numbers *will* go down. To me, as an American, one option is as onerous as the other. Sorry, are you saying that teaching respect for life is an onerous idea ? I said last time we discussed this that the 'right' to bear arms was given to a nation with totally different values, a nation more likely to be able to be trusted with that right. I am a trained combat officer in the U.S. Army (inactive), I have hunted on a regular basis m
Let me make myself perfectly clear. By onerous I meant the abandonment of either the first or the second amendment to our constitution not the teaching of respect for life. I have no passion for guns, don't own one, never wanted to, don't belong to the NRA, don't belong to a militia or other such groups. In truth, guns scare me, but not as much as government does. I do, however, passionately believe that my government should respect the constitutional constraints placed upon it. I also passionately believe that I am under no obligation to adher to the views or opinions or legal dictates of any global authority. I only start getting a little nervous when comments are made that seem to imply that, as an American, I am so obligated. When that happens, I start wondering if the black helicopter crowd might have a point, and maybe it is time I went out and bought an assault rifle. So IMHO: 1)Banning "assualt" rifles does little to make the world a safer place. My children could be killed just as easily by a deer rifle, a shot gun or a pipe bomb, or a car, or any number of means available to someone trully intent on harming them. 2)If you don't have a society based upon some sort of grassroots principles of morality, people are going to kill each other in greater numbers. Guns or not. 3)We *do* buy security at the price of liberty. 4)We should fear government and it should fear us. 5)The Civil War taught us that the government *should* be scared of a bunch of well armed rednecks.:rose:
-
Re: the postmen: That's not entirely true. My sisters ex-boyfriends father (we'll call him Bob) works as a postal worker in the US (I seem to recall it was in Austin, which I beleive is in Texas?). He told us that during his training he was told he was not to deliver post to the property directly, unless it was clear the owner 'allowed' it (i.e. by the presense of a letter slot in their door). If there was no indication then they were to leave the post just inside the property's border. Not knowing much about American towns/cities/whatever, I couldn't tell you if Austin is a city or a rural town (or a cities with rural outskirts), etc. This could be another reason why mailboxes started appearing next to the pavement (sorry - the "curb"). David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
Austin is the capitol of Texas. I have no idea why they put post boxes on the curb here, but it's the only place I've lived where they did it. I'm sure that part of that rule is so that the mailmen aren't mauled by dogs or fall victim to the average American's scattered claymore anti-personnel mines that are planted in the front yard, or to avoid litigation because the mailman stepped on one of the delicate endangered species of animal or plant life. '
-
Hmmm, guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing people? I don't think so. Guns are used by police to defend themselves, to stop and apprehend runaway criminals, and to deter people from causing trouble. In the hands of the police, guns are good. In the hands of hunters or target shooters, guns are good too. They allow hunters to catch the prey they're after, or target shooters to experience the thrill of aiming at something, pulling the trigger, and hitting it. You probably don't know what I'm talking about, but target shooting is actually fun. In the hands of the common folks guns can be good or bad. If a drug addict or a compulsive gambler has a gun then he/she is more likely to hold up the liquor store, like you said. I'm sure if you or I had a gun, the last thing on our mind would be to use it for that purpose, right? We would probably keep it safely at home in case someone ever tried to invade our property. Your point seems to be that guns should be taken away from everyone because they facilitate crime in the hands of a derranged minority. Isn't that a lot like your boss dictating that all developers are now going to use Java because it's a safer language? I don't think you would agree, right? You'd probably say, "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals can be used to efficiently write software. We shouldn't take it away; rather, we should train everyone to use it correctly and make them responsible for their usage. Thus, if a developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she should be fired." That's my take on guns. Give people the freedom to own them but teach them how to properly use them and make them responsible for their actions with it. Regards, Alvaro
Alvaro, You were almost there, but fell at the last hurdle. Your analogy is quite good, but you just took a sudden turn at the last minute. You are right - no one is advocating the complete removeal of guns from all levels and forms of society. Also, proper training and resposibility should be part of gun ownership. I think you need to slightly modify your final statement. Instead of : "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals can be used to efficiently write software. We shouldn't take it away; rather, we should train everyone to use it correctly and make them responsible for their usage. Thus, if a developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she should be fired." It should read : "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals can be used to efficiently write software. We should take it away from those who don't understand it, don;t need it, and have easy access to safe alternatives. We should train those who have need for it's power to use it correctly and make them responsible for their usage. Thus, if a trained and licensed developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she should be fired." Really, I must admit I cannot understand how you can make the argument that (a) you admit it is dangerous in the wrong hands, and requires skill, training and a responsible attitude to be used correctly, and then state that (b) anyone should be allowed to have it, and it's up to the owner to decide whether they meet the criteria, and wheterh they will get training or not. What could be the problem with a society that says "No guns as a general rule. Prove yourself capable, demonstrate a need (shooting cans in the backyard doesn't count as 'need'), and accept responsibility for your actions, and you can have a gun". At the moment, America says - "you've got the money, we've got a gun for you". There seems to be quite a distance between these two statements.
-
Hmmm, guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing people? I don't think so. Really ? You don't think guns were designed to give their designer an advantage in warfare over the guys with the bows and arrows, in the same way that bows & arrows were designed to give an advantage over the pointed stick brigade ? Guns are used by police to defend themselves, to stop and apprehend runaway criminals, and to deter people from causing trouble. In the hands of the police, guns are good. Why does the criminal stop ? Because guns make a loud noise, or because he knows they are an instrument designed to kill people they are pointed at ? In the hands of hunters or target shooters, guns are good too. They allow hunters to catch the prey they're after, or target shooters to experience the thrill of aiming at something, pulling the trigger, and hitting it. You probably don't know what I'm talking about, but target shooting is actually fun. I'm sure target shooting is lots of fun. So is Counter Strike. This does not give good reason for arming the community. In the hands of the common folks guns can be good or bad. If a drug addict or a compulsive gambler has a gun then he/she is more likely to hold up the liquor store, like you said. I'm sure if you or I had a gun, the last thing on our mind would be to use it for that purpose, right? We would probably keep it safely at home in case someone ever tried to invade our property. Well, I have an axe for that purpose. It will do nicely, given that in Australia someone who invades my home is unlikely to have a gun. In the US, it's pretty much a given, I'd guess. Your point seems to be that guns should be taken away from everyone because they facilitate crime in the hands of a derranged minority. Isn't that a lot like your boss dictating that all developers are now going to use Java because it's a safer language? I don't think you would agree, right? You'd probably say, "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals can be used to efficiently write software. We shouldn't take it away; rather, we should train everyone to use it correctly and make them responsible for their usage. Thus, if a developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she should be fired." Well, I don't know of anyone being killed with Java. My point is that the only 'reason' for the decent portion of society to have guns seems to be that the criminals have them. Isn't it better if guns are harder to get for everyone
You don't think guns were designed to give their designer an advantage in warfare over the guys with the bows and arrows, in the same way that bows & arrows were designed to give an advantage over the pointed stick brigade ? Yes, guns definitely provide an advantage. That's it. They're not designed to kill people. They're designed for anyone wishing to fire a projectile at high speed to do so with minimum effort. Whether that projectile is aimed at a human heart, a human leg, a rabbit, a snake, or just hung on a shelf, is another story. Why does the criminal stop ? Because guns make a loud noise, or because he knows they are an instrument designed to kill people they are pointed at ? I haven't studied criminal behavior but I would assume that the criminal stops because he's afraid of what the gun could do to him. It could kill him or just injure him -- either way he would eventually have to stop so might as well avoid making things worse for himself. Whatever the reason, the gun in this case is a good thing, don't you think? I'm sure target shooting is lots of fun. So is Counter Strike. This does not give good reason for arming the community. If the community can't get their hands on Counter Strike but is responsible with guns and loves to shoot targets, why not? Let them have their fun. I don't think anyone wants to "arm the community". I think it's a few members of the community who seek to arm themselves, for whatever reason. As long as they do their "arming" responsibly, why not? Well, I have an axe for that purpose. It will do nicely, given that in Australia someone who invades my home is unlikely to have a gun. In the US, it's pretty much a given, I'd guess. Well an axe is good, but wouldn't a gun be better? You never know when an American may come around... :) Isn't it better if guns are harder to get for everyone ? Yes, we shouln't just sell a gun to anyone, and as far as I know, we don't. There's a seven-day background check on everyone who buys a gun in the US. The statistics seem to indicate that it's working great, too. Well, if it's not working then let's find a way to fix it without resorting to drastic measures. How about making people take a mini-course on gun responsibility before they can purchase one? There's got to be a way to improve things without treating everyone like a potential criminal. Regards, Alvaro
-
> With possible expectation to your right to not to say anything if it incriminates > you (whoever though that one up certainly wanted Justice to prevail...) So, you're saying you'd rather have it like it was in the 1600's when the Court of England *always* found you guilty, but were kind enough to allow you to confess to your crimes? Man, that sounds fair to me. > I can understand the need to protect yourself, your family and to a certain extent > your property, but those guys in the films who sit on their porches stroking their > shotguns shouting "Geeeeeaaat off of muy lannnd" at everybody that walks past their > house is surely taking it a bit too far? "These guys in film" are necessary to the story line, and most of those stories pertain to the past, not present day. Most cities have laws prohibiting firing weapons within city limits, and most states have laws against even displaying a firearm in a threatening manner. Granted, the further out from civilization you get, the less likely it is that the local sheriff is gonna haul you to the pokey for bending the rules a bit, but generally speaking, we don't have the shotgun-stroking toothless redneck to whom you are referring. > Have you ever sat down and wondered why in America the postman leave your mail at > the end of your drive? Not at all. It's called "convenience". Have you ever noticed that the driver's side of the mail jeep is on what we yanks refer to as the "wrong side"? It's so they can just flip down the mailbox door, and slip the mail inside without leaving their vehicle. Not only that, but many rural addresses are usually several hundred yards OFF the road, so I see it as someone doing the mailman a favor by putting a box on a pole down by the road. In ALL of my 45 years, I've lived in houses where the mailbox was either right next to the front door, or was a slot in the door. I recently moved to Texas, and this is honestly the first time I've had a mailbox out by the curb.
-
Why did you move to Texas? I just visited your website and saw that you lived in San Diego, my favorite place to live. Were there no jobs in San Diego? Sorry if I'm prying but I've been trying to talk my husband into moving there for years. Should I abort mission? :confused: Cathy
> Why did you move to Texas? For a few reasons: 1) My dad lives here in San Antonio (1/2 mile down the street from where we bought our house). He's getting on in years and I wanted to spend some time with him. 2) We wanted to buy a house, but we couldn't afford one on a decent piece of land of any appreciable size. The house we bought here is on 3/4 acre and has 2200 sqaure feet of space, and is only 7 years old. In San Diego, the same house would have cost us between $350-500K (depending on the area we selected). It cost us $108K here. 3) I figured "the big one" is gonna hit at any time, and I didn't want to be there. > > I just visited your website > Are you afraid of me now? :) > > and saw that you lived in San Diego, my favorite place to live. Were there no jobs in San Diego? > Plenty of jobs if you like brown-nosing Microsoft. Everyone there has gone internet startup crazy. I actually turned down a couple of jobs, and quite frankly dumped an interview in mid-process. > Sorry if I'm prying but I've been trying to talk my husband into moving there for > years. Should I abort mission? No problem. :) Consider the possible gas/electric bills you'll be paying, the fact that regular gasoline is $1.85/gallon, and the over-inflated price of real estate, and you make the call. I don't know where you are now, but i'd stay there.
-
Why did you move to Texas? I just visited your website and saw that you lived in San Diego, my favorite place to live. Were there no jobs in San Diego? Sorry if I'm prying but I've been trying to talk my husband into moving there for years. Should I abort mission? :confused: Cathy
-
Let me make myself perfectly clear. By onerous I meant the abandonment of either the first or the second amendment to our constitution not the teaching of respect for life. I have no passion for guns, don't own one, never wanted to, don't belong to the NRA, don't belong to a militia or other such groups. In truth, guns scare me, but not as much as government does. I do, however, passionately believe that my government should respect the constitutional constraints placed upon it. I also passionately believe that I am under no obligation to adher to the views or opinions or legal dictates of any global authority. I only start getting a little nervous when comments are made that seem to imply that, as an American, I am so obligated. When that happens, I start wondering if the black helicopter crowd might have a point, and maybe it is time I went out and bought an assault rifle. So IMHO: 1)Banning "assualt" rifles does little to make the world a safer place. My children could be killed just as easily by a deer rifle, a shot gun or a pipe bomb, or a car, or any number of means available to someone trully intent on harming them. 2)If you don't have a society based upon some sort of grassroots principles of morality, people are going to kill each other in greater numbers. Guns or not. 3)We *do* buy security at the price of liberty. 4)We should fear government and it should fear us. 5)The Civil War taught us that the government *should* be scared of a bunch of well armed rednecks.:rose:
Stan, we are so close and yet so far apart! Yep - gun control will not solve everything, and teaching of respect is a BIG (the biggest, I'd say) part of any solution. But gun control can't actually make it worse, can it? And I can only shake my head in amazement at the statement that a state of distrust between government and citizen is both necessary and desireable ! Finally, I would have thought the the Civil war taught a bunch of rednecks that you can make a noise, but really you can't win in the end, and you'll suffer a hell of lot a long the way. And just maybe if the rednecks weren't armed to the teeth in the first place they'd have tried a slightly more reasonable way of making their point, rather then 4 years of fairly senseless killing ?
-
Who is this person masquerading as John Simmons? Why, this is a positively 'logical' and 'well argued' response. The real John would simply 'KEEL US ALL'!! (by the way, your still wrong - guns belong in wars, not suburbs)
-
Austin is the capitol of Texas. I have no idea why they put post boxes on the curb here, but it's the only place I've lived where they did it. I'm sure that part of that rule is so that the mailmen aren't mauled by dogs or fall victim to the average American's scattered claymore anti-personnel mines that are planted in the front yard, or to avoid litigation because the mailman stepped on one of the delicate endangered species of animal or plant life. '
Actaully, think about it, the last options is probably a bigger reason than the one I initially thought. David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
You don't think guns were designed to give their designer an advantage in warfare over the guys with the bows and arrows, in the same way that bows & arrows were designed to give an advantage over the pointed stick brigade ? Yes, guns definitely provide an advantage. That's it. They're not designed to kill people. They're designed for anyone wishing to fire a projectile at high speed to do so with minimum effort. Whether that projectile is aimed at a human heart, a human leg, a rabbit, a snake, or just hung on a shelf, is another story. Why does the criminal stop ? Because guns make a loud noise, or because he knows they are an instrument designed to kill people they are pointed at ? I haven't studied criminal behavior but I would assume that the criminal stops because he's afraid of what the gun could do to him. It could kill him or just injure him -- either way he would eventually have to stop so might as well avoid making things worse for himself. Whatever the reason, the gun in this case is a good thing, don't you think? I'm sure target shooting is lots of fun. So is Counter Strike. This does not give good reason for arming the community. If the community can't get their hands on Counter Strike but is responsible with guns and loves to shoot targets, why not? Let them have their fun. I don't think anyone wants to "arm the community". I think it's a few members of the community who seek to arm themselves, for whatever reason. As long as they do their "arming" responsibly, why not? Well, I have an axe for that purpose. It will do nicely, given that in Australia someone who invades my home is unlikely to have a gun. In the US, it's pretty much a given, I'd guess. Well an axe is good, but wouldn't a gun be better? You never know when an American may come around... :) Isn't it better if guns are harder to get for everyone ? Yes, we shouln't just sell a gun to anyone, and as far as I know, we don't. There's a seven-day background check on everyone who buys a gun in the US. The statistics seem to indicate that it's working great, too. Well, if it's not working then let's find a way to fix it without resorting to drastic measures. How about making people take a mini-course on gun responsibility before they can purchase one? There's got to be a way to improve things without treating everyone like a potential criminal. Regards, Alvaro
Yes, guns definitely provide an advantage. That's it. They're not designed to kill people. They're designed for anyone wishing to fire a projectile at high speed to do so with minimum effort. Whether that projectile is aimed at a human heart, a human leg, a rabbit, a snake, or just hung on a shelf, is another story. This is just stupid. Guns provide an advantage BECAUSE they are designed to fire a projectile at high speed towards something with the intention of bringing it harm. I haven't studied criminal behavior but I would assume that the criminal stops because he's afraid of what the gun could do to him. It could kill him or just injure him -- either way he would eventually have to stop so might as well avoid making things worse for himself. Whatever the reason, the gun in this case is a good thing, don't you think? The point is that it's a good thing *because* it's common knowledge that it was designed to point at people you want to hurt. If the community can't get their hands on Counter Strike but is responsible with guns and loves to shoot targets, why not? Let them have their fun. I don't think anyone wants to "arm the community". I think it's a few members of the community who seek to arm themselves, for whatever reason. As long as they do their "arming" responsibly, why not? Well, I'd love to have a go at target shooting myself. I'd be most comfortable with that if the guns were kept at the place where I did it, under secure lock and key. Well, I have an axe for that purpose. It will do nicely, given that in Australia someone who invades my home is unlikely to have a gun. In the US, it's pretty much a given, I'd guess. Well an axe is good, but wouldn't a gun be better? You never know when an American may come around... The axe is for chopping wood, it happens to be by the door and therefore also available if the need arises. Statistically the odds of someone coming to my house with a gun, American or not, are very remote. Isn't it better if guns are harder to get for everyone ? Yes, we shouln't just sell a gun to anyone, and as far as I know, we don't. There's a seven-day background check on everyone who buys a gun in the US. A subset of the people who would clearly pass such a check seem to be the people responsible for the schoolyard/workplace shootings that seem to occur so often over there. And this is my main point. Such unhinged people are less likely to kill as many people if their only option is a knife. They are unli
-
I forgot to mention - new car registration for my 2000 F-150 was $570 in California. This year it would have been $527. In Texas, I paid $53. Next year, it will be $53. I think you get the idea. :-)
I live in the San Francisco Bay area. So the costs are the same but San Diego is a lot prettier, the ocean water is warmer, there is a lot less traffic. I just wasn't sure about the job market there. I lived there for 3 years. I went to U.C. San Diego. After my son was born and I graduated I needed to be near my parents so I moved back up here (free babysitters). I miss it. Thanks for the information. :) Cathy
-
Stan, we are so close and yet so far apart! Yep - gun control will not solve everything, and teaching of respect is a BIG (the biggest, I'd say) part of any solution. But gun control can't actually make it worse, can it? And I can only shake my head in amazement at the statement that a state of distrust between government and citizen is both necessary and desireable ! Finally, I would have thought the the Civil war taught a bunch of rednecks that you can make a noise, but really you can't win in the end, and you'll suffer a hell of lot a long the way. And just maybe if the rednecks weren't armed to the teeth in the first place they'd have tried a slightly more reasonable way of making their point, rather then 4 years of fairly senseless killing ?
Did I say I was against gun control? If I did, let me elaborate. The state of Indiana can ban what ever it likes, and I will obey its laws. All I'm saying is that demonizing a particular type of firearm and then beleiving you are safer because you banned it is stupid. Also, I simply want the federal government to at least pretend it has some respect for the constitution that my ancestors sacrificed so much to bring into existence. And I certainly resist the implication that I should be willing to submit to some sort of international moritorium on firearms. The "family of man" can kiss my rear. If you are an American, Mike, I am absolutely amazed that you would find my comments about our relationship with government to be out of line. The only thing more inherently evil than government is the abscence of government. Government, any government, by its very nature, wants to possess everything you have, your weatlh, your freedom, everything - thats what goverment does, it controls, and it never has enough control. Never. Thats why it wants people to be dependent upon it, so it can control them. And that is why we have a constitution. The Constitution is a legal contract which is supposed to force the government to behave in a manner conducive to our general welfare. Without it, we are on our own. This is why it should be scary to anyone when the most powerful government since the fall of the Roman Empire begins to willfully ignore its constitutional limits. This nation was founded upon the very principle that government is untrustworthy. That was true in 1789 and it is true today. The founders were terrified of the federal government they had creatd out of neccessity, hence the "bill of rights" which was written to clearly limit its authority in relation to the states. Similarly, that government must be made to understand that we have the will and the means to resist it if and when it decides to ignore the limits we have placed upon it. Believeing that is what it means to be an American. Not to offend, but anyone who believes otherwise should move back to Europe. Don't get me started on the Civil War.
-
Did I say I was against gun control? If I did, let me elaborate. The state of Indiana can ban what ever it likes, and I will obey its laws. All I'm saying is that demonizing a particular type of firearm and then beleiving you are safer because you banned it is stupid. Also, I simply want the federal government to at least pretend it has some respect for the constitution that my ancestors sacrificed so much to bring into existence. And I certainly resist the implication that I should be willing to submit to some sort of international moritorium on firearms. The "family of man" can kiss my rear. If you are an American, Mike, I am absolutely amazed that you would find my comments about our relationship with government to be out of line. The only thing more inherently evil than government is the abscence of government. Government, any government, by its very nature, wants to possess everything you have, your weatlh, your freedom, everything - thats what goverment does, it controls, and it never has enough control. Never. Thats why it wants people to be dependent upon it, so it can control them. And that is why we have a constitution. The Constitution is a legal contract which is supposed to force the government to behave in a manner conducive to our general welfare. Without it, we are on our own. This is why it should be scary to anyone when the most powerful government since the fall of the Roman Empire begins to willfully ignore its constitutional limits. This nation was founded upon the very principle that government is untrustworthy. That was true in 1789 and it is true today. The founders were terrified of the federal government they had creatd out of neccessity, hence the "bill of rights" which was written to clearly limit its authority in relation to the states. Similarly, that government must be made to understand that we have the will and the means to resist it if and when it decides to ignore the limits we have placed upon it. Believeing that is what it means to be an American. Not to offend, but anyone who believes otherwise should move back to Europe. Don't get me started on the Civil War.
Well, generalisations are always dangerous, but the idea that society has learned nothing about how to make government since the founding fathers is, to me, ignoring change. Despite your obvious distain for Europe, some parts (always dangerous to group too many people together under one label, and "Europe" is a very broad label) are clearing moving forward in terms of social structure. And to think that the environment of the late 1700's is the same, or even close to the same, as today seems highly dangerous to me. America's governmental problem is not the inherent untrustworthyness of government (which does exist, but is, as you say, a part of the beast), it's the fact that there is a choice of "right", or "more right" in the political process. The constitution is a great idea, but to me it is not a set of limits imposed by the people on the government (although in effect it plays that role) - it establishes a framework for conversation between the people and the government. And like the people and the government it must change over time. Anyway, you seem to be arguing in a circle - on the one hand the constitution is there to protect you, on the other hand the current (and recent) governments are ignoring it. SO it's there, but it doesn't work ? In whcih case, it's not really there, right? Yes, lets not get started on the Civil War.
-
Alvaro, You were almost there, but fell at the last hurdle. Your analogy is quite good, but you just took a sudden turn at the last minute. You are right - no one is advocating the complete removeal of guns from all levels and forms of society. Also, proper training and resposibility should be part of gun ownership. I think you need to slightly modify your final statement. Instead of : "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals can be used to efficiently write software. We shouldn't take it away; rather, we should train everyone to use it correctly and make them responsible for their usage. Thus, if a developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she should be fired." It should read : "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals can be used to efficiently write software. We should take it away from those who don't understand it, don;t need it, and have easy access to safe alternatives. We should train those who have need for it's power to use it correctly and make them responsible for their usage. Thus, if a trained and licensed developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she should be fired." Really, I must admit I cannot understand how you can make the argument that (a) you admit it is dangerous in the wrong hands, and requires skill, training and a responsible attitude to be used correctly, and then state that (b) anyone should be allowed to have it, and it's up to the owner to decide whether they meet the criteria, and wheterh they will get training or not. What could be the problem with a society that says "No guns as a general rule. Prove yourself capable, demonstrate a need (shooting cans in the backyard doesn't count as 'need'), and accept responsibility for your actions, and you can have a gun". At the moment, America says - "you've got the money, we've got a gun for you". There seems to be quite a distance between these two statements.
Mike, I think you may have misunderstood me with my C++ analogy. I was referring to a case where there's a group of developers who need to write code and want to do it in C++. The manager would then say, "No, use Java 'cause it's safer". My argument is: No, they can use C++ as long as they get proper training and become responsible with how they use it. In other words, make them happy but make sure they know what they're doing before even starting with it. It wouldn't be an option, it would be a prerequisite. I think your last statement about "demonstrating a need" is where I don't agree. If I need to own a gun to boost my ego, or to shoot squirrels, or to hang high on the wall, or to feel safe, that's my problem. I shouldn't need to demonstrate a need that pleases you or any government. The government should be content with me being capable and responsible with the weapon. The need part is none of their business. Also, I'm not sure about this, but I've always heard that there's a 7-day waiting period before a person can buy a gun, during which a background check is run. So it's not quite as simple as "got money? have gun". Unfortunately for the gangsters and thugs it's different, they typically get guns through illegal sources. Regards, Alvaro
