That comparison has been going on since Pong was invented. I don't think
much will come out of this comparison.
--
=========================================
Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing?
MikeBa on the TEN network.
Member of R.O.R. 1999
http://w3.ime.net/~marknjess/noflame.html
=========================================
Racing online with the help of......
Race Communications Association
http://members.xoom.com/RCA/toc.html
Holodyne Engineering
Mystic Music
mikeba.vcf
< 1K
Download
Flame warColumbine shooting and claims that video games cause violence
After the Columbine school shooting, a poster called for a campaign defending PC games against claims they cause violence. The very long off-topic thread moved from games and violent films to parental responsibility, gun control, US and UK attitudes to firearms, self-defence and religion, with increasingly personal exchanges before pleas to get back on topic.
off-topic
Automated summary.
Hello everyone,
did you read about people trying to make a relation between last week's
school massacre and PC games such as DOOM and QUAKE?
YES! The time has come for us gamers to unite and start the most strong
Internet campaign, EVER!
Let's call this campaign (already started), the "PC GAMES ARE 100% POSITIVE"
campaign.
Each of you may contribute for it from your website, with your own words,
but there is a logo and a counter of supports up & running.
All the details and the HTML to support the cause are avaiable from
[link lost in import]
Please DO NOT ignore this call. In France, games like UNREAL were taken out
of the shops, by their own distributor (***)! This is very serious. We
must fight NOW.
Again, please support this campaign.
Your friend, Artur Marques
(really) *VERY* IMPORTANT: PC Games are 100% positive CAMPAIGN
Quoted text (25 lines)
> Hello everyone, > did you read about people trying to make a relation between last week's > school massacre and PC games such as DOOM and QUAKE? > YES! The time has come for us gamers to unite and start the most strong > Internet campaign, EVER! > Let's call this campaign (already started), the "PC GAMES ARE 100% POSITIVE" > campaign. > Each of you may contribute for it from your website, with your own words, > but there is a logo and a counter of supports up & running. > All the details and the HTML to support the cause are avaiable from > [link lost in import] > Please DO NOT ignore this call. In France, games like UNREAL were taken out > of the shops, by their own distributor (***)! This is very serious. We > must fight NOW. > Again, please support this campaign. > Your friend, Artur Marques > (really) *VERY* IMPORTANT: PC Games are 100% positive CAMPAIGNI think its pretty hard to go after game makers when there are gun
manufacturers.
Nuff said
Charles Buscher
Guru_Hans
Team Guru NROS Racing sponsored by Guru *** Systems.
[link lost in import: /***.com]
[link lost in import]
www.simproject.com
POSITIVE"
out
Quoted text (9 lines)
>> Hello everyone, >> did you read about people trying to make a relation between last week's >> school massacre and PC games such as DOOM and QUAKE? >> YES! The time has come for us gamers to unite and start the most strong >> Internet campaign, EVER! >> Let's call this campaign (already started), the "PC GAMES ARE 100%Quoted text (8 lines)
>> campaign. >> Each of you may contribute for it from your website, with your own words, >> but there is a logo and a counter of supports up & running. >> All the details and the HTML to support the cause are avaiable from >> [link lost in import] >> Please DO NOT ignore this call. In France, games like UNREAL were takenQuoted text (13 lines)
>> of the shops, by their own distributor (***)! This is very serious. We >> must fight NOW. >> Again, please support this campaign. >> Your friend, Artur Marques >> (really) *VERY* IMPORTANT: PC Games are 100% positive CAMPAIGN >I like that, you have my full support! I really hate when people make >illogical comments about pc games and *** acts. >PhilsterPersonally, I believe that computer games and *** movies CAN cause
***in people - however, I also believe that for somebody to act
upon those *** tendancy's they must also have some phsycological
problems before hand.
How dare they make such an accusation. I wish I had my Plasma gun so I could
turn them into a pile of glowing embers!
Really....the same people blamed plastic soldiers for the *** in the 70's.
And as for Dungeons and Dragons...thats responsible for the fall of modern
civilisation!
Quoted text (25 lines)
> Hello everyone, > did you read about people trying to make a relation between last week's > school massacre and PC games such as DOOM and QUAKE? > YES! The time has come for us gamers to unite and start the most strong > Internet campaign, EVER! > Let's call this campaign (already started), the "PC GAMES ARE 100% POSITIVE" > campaign. > Each of you may contribute for it from your website, with your own words, > but there is a logo and a counter of supports up & running. > All the details and the HTML to support the cause are avaiable from > [link lost in import] > Please DO NOT ignore this call. In France, games like UNREAL were taken out > of the shops, by their own distributor (***)! This is very serious. We > must fight NOW. > Again, please support this campaign. > Your friend, Artur Marques > (really) *VERY* IMPORTANT: PC Games are 100% positive CAMPAIGNThat'd be a trick considering VIE didn't publish Unreal.
M
The same people would become suicidal or *** over losing a game of Ludo!
Quoted text (30 lines)
> >Hello everyone, > >did you read about people trying to make a relation between last week's > >school massacre and PC games such as DOOM and QUAKE? > >YES! The time has come for us gamers to unite and start the most strong > >Internet campaign, EVER! > >Let's call this campaign (already started), the "PC GAMES ARE 100% POSITIVE" > >campaign. > >Each of you may contribute for it from your website, with your own words, > >but there is a logo and a counter of supports up & running. > >All the details and the HTML to support the cause are avaiable from > >[link lost in import] > >Please DO NOT ignore this call. In France, games like UNREAL were taken out > >of the shops, by their own distributor (***)! This is very serious. We > >must fight NOW. > >Again, please support this campaign. > >Your friend, Artur Marques > >(really) *VERY* IMPORTANT: PC Games are 100% positive CAMPAIGN > Personally, I believe that computer games and *** movies CAN cause > ***in people - however, I also believe that for somebody to act > upon those *** tendancy's they must also have some phsycological > problems before hand.In my day (putting on the good old uncle Bob voice), we didn't play
games. Instead, we sat around and... and... Doh! I knew there was
computer games were invented!
Quoted text (8 lines)
>>Please DO NOT ignore this call. In France, games like UNREAL were taken >out >>of the shops, by their own distributor (***)! This is very serious. We >>must fight NOW. >That'd be a trick considering VIE didn't publish Unreal. >MAgreed, but computer games have an interactive element that movies and music
don't. They also allow people to practice the skills that make them more
effective killers.
I am not saying that computer games should be banned, or that they cause
this sort of thing. These people are screwed up to begin with. But I think
there is enough here to make me uncomfortable.
Keith
>The same people would become suicidal or *** over losing a game of Ludo!
POSITIVE"
>> >campaign.
>> >Each of you may contribute for it from your website, with your own words,
>> >but there is a logo and a counter of supports up & running.
>> >All the details and the HTML to support the cause are avaiable from
>> >[link lost in import]
>> >Please DO NOT ignore this call. In France, games like UNREAL were taken out
>> >of the shops, by their own distributor (***)! This is very serious. We
Quoted text (9 lines)
>> >Hello everyone, >> >did you read about people trying to make a relation between last week's >> >school massacre and PC games such as DOOM and QUAKE? >> >YES! The time has come for us gamers to unite and start the most strong >> >Internet campaign, EVER! >> >Let's call this campaign (already started), the "PC GAMES ARE 100%Quoted text (12 lines)
>> >must fight NOW. >> >Again, please support this campaign. >> >Your friend, Artur Marques >> >(really) *VERY* IMPORTANT: PC Games are 100% positive CAMPAIGN >> Personally, I believe that computer games and *** movies CAN cause >> ***in people - however, I also believe that for somebody to act >> upon those *** tendancy's they must also have some phsycological >> problems before hand.Excuse me? My shooting was, if anything, better at age 8 than I recall it
ever being since playing FPS's. I'm not a gun nut BTW, I just used to shoot
at the police range where I lived as my dad was a police sniper and I used
to enjoy going to practice with him. Since then I've shot .22 rifles a
bunch of times and sucked. Maybe I'm just not playing enough Half-Life,
Unreal, Quake or what have you.
M
Quoted text (19 lines)
>>Agreed, but computer games have an interactive element that movies and >music >>don't. They also allow people to practice the skills that make them more >>effective killers. >>I am not saying that computer games should be banned, or that they cause >>this sort of thing. These people are screwed up to begin with. But I think >>there is enough here to make me uncomfortable. >>Keith >Excuse me? My shooting was, if anything, better at age 8 than I recall it >ever being since playing FPS's. I'm not a gun nut BTW, I just used to shoot >at the police range where I lived as my dad was a police sniper and I used >to enjoy going to practice with him. Since then I've shot .22 rifles a >bunch of times and sucked. Maybe I'm just not playing enough Half-Life, >Unreal, Quake or what have you. >MOn Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:00:28 -0400, "Keith Meyer"
>Agreed, but computer games have an interactive element that movies and music
>don't. They also allow people to practice the skills that make them more
>effective killers.
First, this is rec.autos.sims - the only killing I do is running over
the 2-D marshalls, or suicide runs the wrong way round the circuit.
Or, of course, just wiping myself out in the armco. Has every drunk
driver been honing his/her skills in GPL?
Second, where can I purchase a gun that has a mouse interface, and a
remote-control active-suspension powered skateboard, controlled via
the same mouse, that allows me to slide sideways without any gun
shake.
Finally, I've noticed my local chemist/drug store/kusuriya doesn't
stock first aid kits capable of curing multiple gunshot wounds in a
second.
All these things conspire against my plans to visit my local school
and kill everyone in sight.
Eh? Why? If they don't cause anything, then what's the problem?
A serious opinion - I had the misfortune of watching "Natural Born
Killers" a couple of months ago and that genuinely made me uneasy, as
it portrayed a potential real-life situation. If you want to find a
scapegoat in the popular media, look at TV or movies, where real
actors do things in current-day settings, not at a bunch of lo-res
pixels running around a space station shooting mutants.
Ken
How bout the kids parents. Maybe the blame should be squarely put there. I
know I would know if any of my kids had a sawed off shotgun barrel on his
dresser.
Also, I saw maybe five minute of "Natural Born Killers", what a waste of
tape.
Dave
Okay, let me make this perfectly clear: I do NOT advocate the banning of
video games. I am pretty much a first amendment absolutist when it comes to
these kinds of things. Neither do I think that video games (or movies, or
music, or skywriting for that matter) can CAUSE a person to do the kind of
thing that happened in Colorado.
That being said, 60 Minutes had a very intteresting story on this issue last
weekend, featuring an ex-military man who now does seminars for the military
on the 'psychology of killing'. He had enough points that I am at least
disturbed by this issue.
To elaborate:
>On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:00:28 -0400, "Keith Meyer"
>>Agreed, but computer games have an interactive element that movies and music
Agreed - this is way off topic. But I didn't start the thread, just
responded to it.
Again, agreed to some extent. I think the argument is maybe more against the
arcade type games where you get a plastic gun to shoot with. However, 60
Minutes also showed footage of marines using DOOM to train with. While the
translation to real life is not exact, apparently there is some substance to
it. Did anyone read about the navy pilot who sped up his certification by
spending many hours on MS Flight Sim? The Navy is now going to adopt MSFS
for its standard training. I haven't been in many airplanes that look like
my desk, 15inch monitor and joystick, either.
But to say skills learned in a sim don't translate to real life is an
oversimplification. Otherwise, why do we play sims in the first place? To
get some sort of simulation of a real-life experience. The psych on 60
Minutes called FPS games 'killing simulators.'.....
Okay, now you're just missing the point.
Again, I don't think games can CAUSE this sort of behavior. However, I am
uncomfortable with the idea of someone who is already f'ed in the head
having access to their own personal 'training ground'.
Another example given on 60 Minutes was the shooting in the Kentucky school.
The kid who did that played many hours of FPS's. He fired 8 shots in that
school. All hit head or upper torso. The NYPD pumped 40+ at Louima, and
'only' hit him 16 times. I think they have had a little more live firearms
training then the kid in kentucky, but they can't match his prowess. (My
facts may be a little off with regard to the NYC shooting, and I don't mean
to make light of this tragedy - I use it merely as illustration.)
See above. Do I have an answer? No. But I think debate on this issue can
only be healthy. I can tell you I won't let my kids have a computer in their
room where I can't tell what they're using it for.
The movie made you uneasy? But an interactive kiling simulator doesn't?
60 Minutes also touched on a lawsuit against the producers of this movie
based on some copycat killings. I have a harder time with this - those
people would have killed anyway, they just found a 'cool' way to do it from
the movie. Movies, however, don't have the interactive element that video
games do.
Keith
Quoted text (7 lines)
>>don't. They also allow people to practice the skills that make them more >>effective killers. >First, this is rec.autos.sims - the only killing I do is running over >the 2-D marshalls, or suicide runs the wrong way round the circuit. >Or, of course, just wiping myself out in the armco. Has every drunk >driver been honing his/her skills in GPL?> Agreed, but computer games have an interactive element that movies and music
> don't. They also allow people to practice the skills that make them more
> effective killers.
Yeah, I'm sure that those nutcases needed Doom to teach them how to use a
shotgun. The right to arm bears, where did I read that recently...
l8er
ronny
--
How to get rid of censorship in German game releases
<http://www.gamesmania.com/german/maniac/freedom/freedom.htm>
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
>How bout the kids parents. Maybe the blame should be squarely put there. I
>know I would know if any of my kids had a sawed off shotgun barrel on his
>dresser.
The video games are a SYMPTOM of the collective psychosis affecting many of
today's kids. Their self-centered attitudes toward the worthlessness of life
without instant gratification are begun by their anti-disciplinary parents, and
re-enforced by the *** drivel the find in movies, television, and video
games. They are pretty much unaffected by books, because they can't read or
write a complete sentence.
We shouldn't censor the films, TV shows, or video games. We SHOULD make the
parents of these savages legally and financially responsible for each and every
one of their anti-social, destructive actions. Perhaps that would cause these
parents to rediscover a word that is taboo from the time today's offspring are
born:
"NO!!"
Back to racing,
Trey Behan
Trey,
Somewhere it does say that parents are responible for the actions of a
minor under their roof. I am sure I read that somewhere, or my parents
pointed that out to me when I got arrested once for Street Racing, and was
grounded from doing any real drag racing that year. It was a lesson I
thought was stupid at the time, but with my life now, having three kids I
think I got off rather easy.
Dave
> >How bout the kids parents. Maybe the blame should be squarely put there. I
> >know I would know if any of my kids had a sawed off shotgun barrel on his
> >dresser.
> The video games are a SYMPTOM of the collective psychosis affecting many of
> today's kids. Their self-centered attitudes toward the worthlessness of life
> without instant gratification are begun by their anti-disciplinary parents, and
> re-enforced by the *** drivel the find in movies, television, and video
> games. They are pretty much unaffected by books, because they can't read or
> write a complete sentence.
> We shouldn't censor the films, TV shows, or video games. We SHOULD make the
> parents of these savages legally and financially responsible for each and every
> one of their anti-social, destructive actions. Perhaps that would cause these
> parents to rediscover a word that is taboo from the time today's offspring are
> born:
> "NO!!"
> Back to racing,
> Trey Behan
there is absolutely nothing wrong with owning firearms. they problem is too
many a$$holes have them with out any clue on how to handle the firearm.
FIREARMS ARE NOT TOYS!!!
words,
We
Quoted text (29 lines)
>I think its pretty hard to go after game makers when there are gun >manufacturers. > Nuff said > Charles Buscher >Guru_Hans >Team Guru NROS Racing sponsored by Guru *** Systems. >[link lost in import: /***.com] >[link lost in import] >www.simproject.com >>> Hello everyone, >>> did you read about people trying to make a relation between last week's >>> school massacre and PC games such as DOOM and QUAKE? >>> YES! The time has come for us gamers to unite and start the most strong >>> Internet campaign, EVER! >>> Let's call this campaign (already started), the "PC GAMES ARE 100% >POSITIVE" >>> campaign. >>> Each of you may contribute for it from your website, with your ownQuoted text (8 lines)
>>> but there is a logo and a counter of supports up & running. >>> All the details and the HTML to support the cause are avaiable from >>> [link lost in import] >>> Please DO NOT ignore this call. In France, games like UNREAL were taken >out >>> of the shops, by their own distributor (***)! This is very serious.Quoted text (12 lines)
>>> must fight NOW. >>> Again, please support this campaign. >>> Your friend, Artur Marques >>> (really) *VERY* IMPORTANT: PC Games are 100% positive CAMPAIGN >>I like that, you have my full support! I really hate when people make >>illogical comments about pc games and *** acts. >>PhilsterFIRST at 17 and 18 years old these were not kids but people that should
have the ability to know the difference between right and wrong. i think the
society today refuses to lay the blame squarely where it be longs. with the
individuals who commit the crime.
Quoted text (19 lines)
>How bout the kids parents. Maybe the blame should be squarely put there. I >know I would know if any of my kids had a sawed off shotgun barrel on his >dresser. >Also, I saw maybe five minute of "Natural Born Killers", what a waste of >tape. >Dave >> A serious opinion - I had the misfortune of watching "Natural Born >> Killers" a couple of months ago and that genuinely made me uneasy, as >> it portrayed a potential real-life situation. If you want to find a >> scapegoat in the popular media, look at TV or movies, where real >> actors do things in current-day settings, not at a bunch of lo-res >> pixels running around a space station shooting mutants. >> >Keith >> KenI have an even beter suggession lets blame the comms. or how about the
democrats; republicans, liberals. do you like placing the blame? this is
completely rediculus the blame if any is on the american society fo being
such a me first society. the only thing that americans give a damn about is
the o' mught DOLLAR.
by the way i'm an american 28 years old.
>>How bout the kids parents. Maybe the blame should be squarely put there. I
>>know I would know if any of my kids had a sawed off shotgun barrel on his
>>dresser.
>The video games are a SYMPTOM of the collective psychosis affecting many of
>today's kids. Their self-centered attitudes toward the worthlessness of life
>without instant gratification are begun by their anti-disciplinary parents, and
>re-enforced by the *** drivel the find in movies, television, and video
>games. They are pretty much unaffected by books, because they can't read or
>write a complete sentence.
>We shouldn't censor the films, TV shows, or video games. We SHOULD make the
>parents of these savages legally and financially responsible for each and every
>one of their anti-social, destructive actions. Perhaps that would cause these
>parents to rediscover a word that is taboo from the time today's offspring are
>born:
>"NO!!"
>Back to racing,
>Trey Behan
Natural Born Killers, Resevoir Dogs, Romper Stomper, Clockwork Orange etc. All
glorify *** with no balance. One viewing of any of these movies will do mor
harm than months of Quake.
Quoted text (40 lines)
> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:00:28 -0400, "Keith Meyer" > >Agreed, but computer games have an interactive element that movies and music > >don't. They also allow people to practice the skills that make them more > >effective killers. > First, this is rec.autos.sims - the only killing I do is running over > the 2-D marshalls, or suicide runs the wrong way round the circuit. > Or, of course, just wiping myself out in the armco. Has every drunk > driver been honing his/her skills in GPL? > Second, where can I purchase a gun that has a mouse interface, and a > remote-control active-suspension powered skateboard, controlled via > the same mouse, that allows me to slide sideways without any gun > shake. > Finally, I've noticed my local chemist/drug store/kusuriya doesn't > stock first aid kits capable of curing multiple gunshot wounds in a > second. > All these things conspire against my plans to visit my local school > and kill everyone in sight. > >I am not saying that computer games should be banned, or that they cause > >this sort of thing. These people are screwed up to begin with. But I think > >there is enough here to make me uncomfortable. > Eh? Why? If they don't cause anything, then what's the problem? > A serious opinion - I had the misfortune of watching "Natural Born > Killers" a couple of months ago and that genuinely made me uneasy, as > it portrayed a potential real-life situation. If you want to find a > scapegoat in the popular media, look at TV or movies, where real > actors do things in current-day settings, not at a bunch of lo-res > pixels running around a space station shooting mutants. > >Keith > KenYou advocate the snooping of kids 17 and 18 years old by their parents. If,
during my last year of school or first of Uni, I found my mother checking
out my stuff I'd have gone ballistic. Who's to say that the parents would
recognise a sawn off barrel? My father might, but my mother wouldn't.
M
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:00:28 -0400, "Keith Meyer"
>Agreed, but computer games have an interactive element that movies and music
>don't. They also allow people to practice the skills that make them more
>effective killers.
I race GPL and I don't drive like a madman on the highways, I play
Zelda and I've yet to slash anyone with a sword - I've played Quake
for days on end and never felt the compulsion to blow anyone away with
a shotgun.
The compunction to behave in that manner comes from elsewhere, and to
conveniently pin it onto computer games is to miss the point entirely.
Ask yourself why it is that games like Quake and such *** are so
popular and you're beginning to look in the right place - deal with
the cause, not the effect.
In any case, banning a computer game when anyone can wander into a
shop and buy a gun seems, to me at least, to be missing the point a
wee bit!
Cheers!
John
Perhaps an answer that is equally or more valid to one given by others
who have NO experience of games and the internet....?
We may be so close that we can't see the wood for the trees, but the
people on the outside see only a big scary forest - they don't see any
of the trees and the flowers (man).
Cheers!
John
>Yeah, I'm sure that those nutcases needed Doom to teach them how to use a
>shotgun. The right to arm bears, where did I read that recently...
:-) I like that
A friend of mine moved from Scotland to Indiana a few years ago (it's
a long story) and I remember him telling me how, to him at least,
everyone seemed like a gun-totin', harum-scarum maniac - coming from
outside it was quite shocking. He was describing to me how in
"bow-hunting season" you basically couldn't go for a walk in the
forest for fear of being turned into a walking pincushion. He also
mentioned that most of the people used tungsten tipped arrows in their
bows (it could have been titanium, I forget). The question is, WHY?
When was the last time a deer had a kevlar skin?
Bizarre....
Cheers!
John
>there is absolutely nothing wrong with owning firearms.
There is at least one I can think of - they are a symbol of why you
need to own one.
Cheers!
John
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 13:28:26 -0400, "Keith Meyer"
I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find a psychologist to
blame anything from gun availability to eating too many hamburgers.
I don't go into arcades much, but most of them are based around you
playing a cop or soldier shooting the bad guys with rather
unrealisting pistols or machine guns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
there's no sawn-off shotgun-equipped Postal look-alike or
Carmageddon-style driving game. I loved Carmageddon, BTW, the OTT
physics and grannie pedestrians were such fun!
I believe they have a very heavily modified version. Apparently you've
just a few HPs, one or two shots and you're dead, no Stim-Packs and
certainly no SPACE BAR respawn. Apparently it's to teach the basics of
squad-level tactics in a cost-effective manner.
You can get lots of kit to enhance your flying experience, yokes, big
monitors, pilot seats, etc, at much less than the $5M or so a
full-blown hydraulic surround vision system would cost. Flying is a
very technical business, and the sims simulate all this business.
FPSes don't require you to reload your weapon correctly - Quake
doesn't have controls to move your two arms, open breech over knee,
get ammo out of belt, move into position, close weapon, etc, etc.
Yes, that's why I play racing sims. However, in my experience, they
don't translate very well. First, I am pretty bad at Quake, but we had
an office away-day at an activity centre, and I beat everyone, game
players and non-players, at both real live shotgun clay pigeon
shooting (this was the very first time I, and most others, had ever
used a real firearm - we were in the UK) and archery, again, the first
time with a bow. Second, at the same day out, we had Honda Pilot
racing - off-road buggy things - I was second fastest there as I think
my knowledge of car handling and racing enabled me to slide the thing
about a bit more. Finally, I went on a weekend away to Germany with a
bunch of F1GP fans: I was about the worst at F1GP, yet at one of the
go-kart tracks we visited I was just a whisker behind beating an
Austrian champion karter. I only ride karts about once a year, if even
that.
Tabloid hype over facts. Technically, yes, it simulates killing, just
as films (or even TV News shows) contain
how-to-actually-kill-in-real-life reenactments, or for TV News, from
what I hear about US TV, probably real life real deaths.
No I'm not. The point you, or the Talking Head on 60 Minutes, are
trying to make is that Quake somehow models real-life. Where's the
SPACE BAR in coffins?
I think I read somewhere that the guys involved made a video for a
school drama class or something about a year ago that involved them
killing people in the school.
Quake does not simulate recoil, hand shake, etc, and real life guns do
not have the benefit of big white crosses (OK, maybe a laser sight
does) that shows you where you are going to hit.
Did he also have any real-life firearms range training? Just as I be
more likely to trust a pilot who'd had 10 hours in a real plane versus
100 hours in MSFS. Of course, if she'd had both experiences, I'd
probably trust her more.
Are you going to extend the same level of supervision to TV and video?
No, because I can clearly see that Quake is just a diversion. My
chances of being confused for a mutant space cadet are rather small.
If Quake III comes out with slo-mo arty and***replays every time
you get a fraq, then yes, I will be uneasy.
I think they are now trying to sue games companies too. Video games,
however, don't have the high degree of realism that movies do.
Ken
Quoted text (10 lines)
>Okay, let me make this perfectly clear: I do NOT advocate the banning of >video games. I am pretty much a first amendment absolutist when it comes to >these kinds of things. Neither do I think that video games (or movies, or >music, or skywriting for that matter) can CAUSE a person to do the kind of >thing that happened in Colorado. >That being said, 60 Minutes had a very intteresting story on this issue last >weekend, featuring an ex-military man who now does seminars for the military >on the 'psychology of killing'. He had enough points that I am at least >disturbed by this issue.Quoted text (11 lines)
>To elaborate: >>Second, where can I purchase a gun that has a mouse interface, and a >>remote-control active-suspension powered skateboard, controlled via >>the same mouse, that allows me to slide sideways without any gun >>shake. >Again, agreed to some extent. I think the argument is maybe more against the >arcade type games where you get a plastic gun to shoot with.>I have an even beter suggession lets blame the comms. or how about the
>democrats; republicans, liberals. do you like placing the blame? this is
>completely rediculus the blame if any is on the american society
Sounds as though you're disagreeing with me, and then agreeing with me. Either
way, we have a serious situation on our hands. I wasn't "placing blame;" I was
establishing RESPONSIBILITY for this tragic nonsense.
I happen to be around quite a few parents and their children every day. I've
wondered for the past few years how these parents can idly stand by and let
their children run riot without any correction or supervision whatsoever. The
mystery was cleared up when I heard a parent utter the most ridiculous
philosophy imaginable: "They're little spirits, and shouldn't be inhibited in
any way." Well, spirits come in all stripes, and some are downright evil unless
taught to respect the "spirits" with whom they share the world. Hell, even
puppies are trained not to pee on the carpet.
To nudge this thread back on topic, we stand to lose our rights to uncensored
media and video games (and to own firearms, if that's your thing) if idiots are
going to use them as re-enforcement of their unchecked ***s on society.
It all starts with parents' obligation to RAISE their kids---not just allow
them to reach ***hood with the mentality of children.
Back to my Lotus,
Trey Behan
>On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:00:28 -0400, "Keith Meyer"
>>Agreed, but computer games have an interactive element that movies and music
Agreed, the compuction comes from elsewhere. I've played these games, too,
and have never experienced the urge to go on a killing spree.
Also true, and I don't advocate the banning of ANYTHING because of a few nut
cases (with the possible exception of guns themselves - why give these
idiots the means to carry out their sick fantasies?) What I am uncomfortable
with is giving these people access to their own personal 'training ground',
and the ability to feed their urges. What's the answer if we don't ban the
games (and I don't think we should...)? I don't know. I CAN say that I won't
let my kids have a computer in their own room where I can't tell what
they're doing with it. (And no, not just because of games, and no, not a TV
either...)
Absolutely!!! The argument is always 'guns don't kill people, people do'.
Bullsh*t... why give these idiots the means to do it more quickly and
efficiently...
Keith (trying to get off my soapbox now...)
Quoted text (10 lines)
>>don't. They also allow people to practice the skills that make them more >>effective killers. >I race GPL and I don't drive like a madman on the highways, I play >Zelda and I've yet to slash anyone with a sword - I've played Quake >for days on end and never felt the compulsion to blow anyone away with >a shotgun. >The compunction to behave in that manner comes from elsewhere, and to >conveniently pin it onto computer games is to miss the point entirely.Hi All,
I know this doesn't really belong here, But......
I was on a jury a few years back for a drug and gun peddling *** and I was
amazed that ANYBODY could walk into a Bait and Tackle shop in Ohio sign a form
saying they are not a criminal and purchase 21 hand guns with cash and walk out !
No waiting, no background check or anything. Yeah, I think something is wrong
here !!!
George
Quoted text (24 lines)
> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:00:28 -0400, "Keith Meyer" > >Agreed, but computer games have an interactive element that movies and music > >don't. They also allow people to practice the skills that make them more > >effective killers. > I race GPL and I don't drive like a madman on the highways, I play > Zelda and I've yet to slash anyone with a sword - I've played Quake > for days on end and never felt the compulsion to blow anyone away with > a shotgun. > The compunction to behave in that manner comes from elsewhere, and to > conveniently pin it onto computer games is to miss the point entirely. > Ask yourself why it is that games like Quake and such *** are so > popular and you're beginning to look in the right place - deal with > the cause, not the effect. > In any case, banning a computer game when anyone can wander into a > shop and buy a gun seems, to me at least, to be missing the point a > wee bit! > Cheers! > JohnI've lived in Indiana all of my life and have taken many walks in the forest
(us "harum-scarum manics" call them "the woods") I've never once been poked
by an arrow nor do I know of a single person who has. I watch my Pacers get
beat by the Orlando Magic last night. At halftime, all 16,500 of us broke out
our *** rifles and titanium-tipped arrows and had a rippin' up, kick-ass,
good ol' Hoosier hillbilly time!!! Not really, although an older gentleman
did take a *** tumble down the stairs during a timeout.
It sounds as though that if I ever ventured to Scotland that I would probably
be depicted as the "ugly Hoosier." I may fall back on my sterotyping
instincts and tell my friends back in Indiana that everyone in Scotland is a
"kilt wearin' fag." Coming from the outside, it may be quite shocking. No, I
doubt it. I'll likely take my chances and just stay here, cruise the country
roads in my MG, daydreaming of Scotland while keeping an open mind it's locals
and avoiding such idiotic stereotypes and paranoia.
Have your friend email me, John. I'll show him where it's safe to walk.
Unbelievable.
Cheers,
Jim
Quoted text (14 lines)
> A friend of mine moved from Scotland to Indiana a few years ago (it's > a long story) and I remember him telling me how, to him at least, > everyone seemed like a gun-totin', harum-scarum maniac - coming from > outside it was quite shocking. He was describing to me how in > "bow-hunting season" you basically couldn't go for a walk in the > forest for fear of being turned into a walking pincushion. He also > mentioned that most of the people used tungsten tipped arrows in their > bows (it could have been titanium, I forget). The question is, WHY? > When was the last time a deer had a kevlar skin? > Bizarre.... > Cheers! > JohnBoth of my parents would wonder what it was. Also I am not saying
snooping. the barrel was in plain sight on a dresser. If anyone walked
into room it would be seen, and probly was
> You advocate the snooping of kids 17 and 18 years old by their parents. If,
his
> >dresser.
> >Also, I saw maybe five minute of "Natural Born Killers", what a waste of
> >tape.
> >Dave
Quoted text (9 lines)
> during my last year of school or first of Uni, I found my mother checking > out my stuff I'd have gone ballistic. Who's to say that the parents would > recognise a sawn off barrel? My father might, but my mother wouldn't. > M > >How bout the kids parents. Maybe the blame should be squarely put there. > I > >know I would know if any of my kids had a sawed off shotgun barrel onI don't understand your point...
I've seen all those movies, most of them are masterpieces of art. Kubrick
has done one of the best disturbing movie of all time with A Clockwork
Orange, Tarantino started the "new style/old style" cinema with Reservoir
Dogs, and NBK, even though it's not Stone's best movie, has some incredible
memorable scenes.
I've seen A.C.Orange multiple times, and haven't yet become a mass-***er.
99.999999999999999999999% of the people who saw those movies are all like
me. So your telling we are more entitled to be *** after watching a
piece of art than playing a game where you interact and show emotions
towards ***? (because a movie is art, remember).
Just stop everybody pointing fingers. It's a complex macro-society problem
in America. It's made of all those little micro-systems like movies, games,
gun laws, parents negligence, awareness, school, young ***agers social
skills, medias, etc...
--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank>
-- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/
-- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/
-- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
-- May the Downforce be with you...
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
I'm sure if I ask him nowadays he would say much the same thing - such
a reaction can only come from the contrast of moving to somewhere for
the first time and the culture shock experienced. My first time ever
in the U.S. I flew into Portland, an impressionable ***ager. Shortly
after landing I took the underground rail link between the two
terminals and as it was late at night it was almost empty - just me
and a security guard with what looked like a cannon holstered around
his waist. A serious shock for me, since guns were only what you see
in the movies as far as I was concerned, and in the UK people working
in security jobs are generally not considered as the sharpest tool in
the box (horrible stereotype, I know). I was somewhat perturbed.
Other than people trying to get money from tourists you're unlikely to
see any kilts in Scotland. (Sorry to the Scottish Tourist Board if I'm
shattering any carefully crafted "Braveheart" style illusions!) :-)
I'm sure he knows. After his neighbours advised which guns to buy,
where he could and could not safely shoot intruders etc etc he decided
to ignore everything and do his own thing. As you say, "unbelievable".
Cheers!
John
Quoted text (8 lines)
> >Yeah, I'm sure that those nutcases needed Doom to teach them how to use a > >shotgun. The right to arm bears, where did I read that recently... > :-) I like that > A friend of mine moved from Scotland to Indiana a few years ago (it's > a long story) and I remember him telling me how, to him at least, > everyone seemed like a gun-totin', harum-scarum maniac - coming from> there is absolutely nothing wrong with owning firearms. they problem is too
> many a$$holes have them with out any clue on how to handle the firearm.
> FIREARMS ARE NOT TOYS!!!
I have no problems with people owning certain firearms, but I see absolutely no
justification for the general public's ability to own a weapon like the TEC-9.
This gun, used in the Columbine High School massacre, is a semi-automatic
pistol with a huge ammo clip. It is very inaccurate and its sole purpose is to
spray as many bullets in as short a period of time as possible. It has no use
in hunting, target shooting or even self-protection. The makers of this gun
even advertise it to the criminal element by claiming that it is finger print
resistant. The TEC-9 is a favorite weapon with gangs and is used quite often
in drive-by shootings.
The fact that the National Rifle Association, and the ***s in the U.S.
Congress on their payroll, actively fight to keep weapons like this in public
circulation is abhorent to me and to most reasonable people.
Sorry for contributing to this off-topic thread, but I live 30 miles from
Columbine High School and know many people who live in Littleton.
Dave Ewing
>I have no problems with people owning certain firearms, but I see absolutely no
>justification for the general public's ability to own a weapon like the TEC-9.
>This gun, used in the Columbine High School massacre, is a semi-automatic
>pistol with a huge ammo clip. It is very inaccurate and its sole purpose is to
>spray as many bullets in as short a period of time as possible. It has no use
>in hunting, target shooting or even self-protection. The makers of this gun
>even advertise it to the criminal element by claiming that it is finger print
>resistant. The TEC-9 is a favorite weapon with gangs and is used quite often
>in drive-by shootings.
>The fact that the National Rifle Association, and the ***s in the U.S.
>Congress on their payroll, actively fight to keep weapons like this in public
>circulation is abhorent to me and to most reasonable people.
>Sorry for contributing to this off-topic thread, but I live 30 miles from
>Columbine High School and know many people who live in Littleton.
dave-
if you ban any type of gun, what you do is prevent the "good guys" from
possessing them. the "bad guys" will still have them. they don't really give
a damn whether or not they are legal. the point is, they WILL have them, and
they WILL use them. probably even more so, considering they don't have to
worry about being outgunned by the law abiding public. my girlfriend just
bought a 9mm glock with infared sights. it's nice knowing that someone would
have to pay hell if they wanted to attack her. if guns were banned, she
would be defenseless while the baddies wouldn't have anything to worry about
since they would be the only one holding a gun.
j
p.s. - i don't own a gun, but i hope that you do.
Oh shit, I've watched all of those movies AND played months of Quake -
someone better lock me up before I do something mental and it is
conveniently blamed on the games.
Movies, games and indeed *** acts themselves are only the symptoms
or, if you like, the results. What has caused such movies to be
popular and *** to be common is where attention needs to be
directed. You could well find that games like Quake are in fact a
channeled outlet for pent-up urges and desires, and in banning such
products people may find rather more public ways to vent these.
Knee jerk reactions without understanding a problem are more likely to
be a quick fix to keep people happy rather than doing any actual good.
Unfortunately that's almost a dictionary definition of "politician".
Cheers!
John
What's an outsiders view of the USA.......all the cop shows, action flicks and TV
dramas that feed us an unrelenting view of ***, *** and depressing city
living. Bring back Little House On The Prarie!
How about a Little House On The Prarie sim? (Sorry, just trying to get a little
bit on topic for the group).
Quoted text (40 lines)
> I've lived in Indiana all of my life and have taken many walks in the forest > (us "harum-scarum manics" call them "the woods") I've never once been poked > by an arrow nor do I know of a single person who has. I watch my Pacers get > beat by the Orlando Magic last night. At halftime, all 16,500 of us broke out > our *** rifles and titanium-tipped arrows and had a rippin' up, kick-ass, > good ol' Hoosier hillbilly time!!! Not really, although an older gentleman > did take a *** tumble down the stairs during a timeout. > It sounds as though that if I ever ventured to Scotland that I would probably > be depicted as the "ugly Hoosier." I may fall back on my sterotyping > instincts and tell my friends back in Indiana that everyone in Scotland is a > "kilt wearin' fag." Coming from the outside, it may be quite shocking. No, I > doubt it. I'll likely take my chances and just stay here, cruise the country > roads in my MG, daydreaming of Scotland while keeping an open mind it's locals > and avoiding such idiotic stereotypes and paranoia. > Have your friend email me, John. I'll show him where it's safe to walk. > Unbelievable. > Cheers, > Jim > > A friend of mine moved from Scotland to Indiana a few years ago (it's > > a long story) and I remember him telling me how, to him at least, > > everyone seemed like a gun-totin', harum-scarum maniac - coming from > > outside it was quite shocking. He was describing to me how in > > "bow-hunting season" you basically couldn't go for a walk in the > > forest for fear of being turned into a walking pincushion. He also > > mentioned that most of the people used tungsten tipped arrows in their > > bows (it could have been titanium, I forget). The question is, WHY? > > When was the last time a deer had a kevlar skin? > > Bizarre.... > > Cheers! > > JohnLet's look at the experience my wife and I have had with troubled kids. For
years we looked after "Wards Of The State". These were kids who were either
removed from their parents because they were being abused (physically, mentally
and ***ly) or because they were "delinquent" and heading for a life of
crime. (They used to mix both together!).
The kids could come in the front door with a plastic bag, a tube of glue and
announce they were going to get high. As soon as they entered their bedroom
there was nothing we could legally do to stop them. On occasions we knew there
were weopons and/or hard *** in the room but we couldn't confiscate them or
even report the matter to the police.
Why? Because kids have a right to privacy backed up by legislation and law. If
people are to be held resposible for the actions of "mature" ***agers then
allow us to excercise proper supervision wihtout the interference of social
workers and do gooders!
How about a delinquent sim? (lets get back on topic or move this to another
forum!)
Quoted text (31 lines)
> Both of my parents would wonder what it was. Also I am not saying > snooping. the barrel was in plain sight on a dresser. If anyone walked > into room it would be seen, and probly was > > You advocate the snooping of kids 17 and 18 years old by their parents. > If, > > during my last year of school or first of Uni, I found my mother checking > > out my stuff I'd have gone ballistic. Who's to say that the parents would > > recognise a sawn off barrel? My father might, but my mother wouldn't. > > M > > >How bout the kids parents. Maybe the blame should be squarely put there. > > I > > >know I would know if any of my kids had a sawed off shotgun barrel on > his > > >dresser. > > >Also, I saw maybe five minute of "Natural Born Killers", what a waste of > > >tape. > > >DaveAs I said in an earlier message, those who are mentally ill will just as likely kill
somebody after losing a game of Ludo than after playing 100 hours of Quake of
watching any of the movies I listed. My point was that these movies are more
disturbing. Seeing a real person, even if it is an actor, being beaten to death or
shot or burned alive has a bigger adverse effect than blowing away a bunch of pixels
that, in most games, don't even represent normal everyday human beings.
Graphic *** that makes a point in a movie, such as in Saving Private Ryan, is
perfectly acceptable to me. *** for the sake of it, as in those four movies,
without making any valid point is, in my opinion, very disturbing.
Quoted text (21 lines)
> >Natural Born Killers, Resevoir Dogs, Romper Stomper, Clockwork Orange etc. All > >glorify *** with no balance. One viewing of any of these movies will do mor > >harm than months of Quake. > Oh shit, I've watched all of those movies AND played months of Quake - > someone better lock me up before I do something mental and it is > conveniently blamed on the games. > Movies, games and indeed *** acts themselves are only the symptoms > or, if you like, the results. What has caused such movies to be > popular and *** to be common is where attention needs to be > directed. You could well find that games like Quake are in fact a > channeled outlet for pent-up urges and desires, and in banning such > products people may find rather more public ways to vent these. > Knee jerk reactions without understanding a problem are more likely to > be a quick fix to keep people happy rather than doing any actual good. > Unfortunately that's almost a dictionary definition of "politician". > Cheers! > JohnOn Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:54:34 -0700, "Jay Wolfe"
>if you ban any type of gun, what you do is prevent the "good guys" from
>possessing them. the "bad guys" will still have them. they don't really give
>a damn whether or not they are legal. the point is, they WILL have them, and
>they WILL use them. probably even more so, considering they don't have to
>worry about being outgunned by the law abiding public.
You mean like in Japan, where the "bad guys" all have easy access to
guns and the good guys never carry them? Compared the *** stats
between the US and Japan recently? Even between any major US city and
the whole of Japan? That "if you outlaw guns..." nonsense really is
the weakest argument I've ever heard to keep the arms industry ticking
over. In an ironic way it kind of makes sense in the US though,
because I think the "gun culture" and the sheer number of weapons
makes it impossible to go back.
That is _very_ worrying for me.
It means that any misunderstandings may now have lethal consequences,
or that if someone breaks into her house then either she or they will
die. Given that an intruder has the advantage of surprise, intent and
practice I wouldn't like those odds. There's nothing in my house that
I would even consider dying for, and would infinitely prefer someone
to take what they could and rather than risk being killed or maimed
for it. That's what the police and insurance companies are for.
Then too there's the issues that if a gun is in the house it may be
used in domestic or neighbourhood disputes, in road-rage incidents if
in the car, kids playing with it
If the "baddies" didn't expect to be meeting the Lone Ranger every
time they turned a corner they probably wouldn't feel they needed a
gun, but as I said, I think this can never be the case in the US. You
can't backtrack from a position like that.
Cheers!
John
<snip>
<more snipped...>
Is this because they weren't your kids? I can't believe parents don't have
this right. And isn't 'their' room actually yours if you own the house?
Not arguing, just curious...
Keith
I was just about to jump all over this one, but you said it perfectly John.
My other favorite is 'I keep a gun so no-one will break into my house'...
like the 'baddies' can tell you have a gun by looking at your house. If guns
are truely banned, not just 'regulated', then NO-ONE gets them, including
the bad guys.
Keith
>On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:54:34 -0700, "Jay Wolfe"
>>if you ban any type of gun, what you do is prevent the "good guys" from
>>possessing them. the "bad guys" will still have them. they don't really give
>>a damn whether or not they are legal. the point is, they WILL have them, and
would
about
Quoted text (14 lines)
>>they WILL use them. probably even more so, considering they don't have to >>worry about being outgunned by the law abiding public. >You mean like in Japan, where the "bad guys" all have easy access to >guns and the good guys never carry them? Compared the *** stats >between the US and Japan recently? Even between any major US city and >the whole of Japan? That "if you outlaw guns..." nonsense really is >the weakest argument I've ever heard to keep the arms industry ticking >over. In an ironic way it kind of makes sense in the US though, >because I think the "gun culture" and the sheer number of weapons >makes it impossible to go back. >>my girlfriend just >>bought a 9mm glock with infared sights. it's nice knowing that someoneQuoted text (18 lines)
>>have to pay hell if they wanted to attack her. >That is _very_ worrying for me. >It means that any misunderstandings may now have lethal consequences, >or that if someone breaks into her house then either she or they will >die. Given that an intruder has the advantage of surprise, intent and >practice I wouldn't like those odds. There's nothing in my house that >I would even consider dying for, and would infinitely prefer someone >to take what they could and rather than risk being killed or maimed >for it. That's what the police and insurance companies are for. >Then too there's the issues that if a gun is in the house it may be >used in domestic or neighbourhood disputes, in road-rage incidents if >in the car, kids playing with it >>if guns were banned, she >>would be defenseless while the baddies wouldn't have anything to worryQuoted text (9 lines)
>>since they would be the only one holding a gun. >If the "baddies" didn't expect to be meeting the Lone Ranger every >time they turned a corner they probably wouldn't feel they needed a >gun, but as I said, I think this can never be the case in the US. You >can't backtrack from a position like that. >Cheers! >JohnI still have a problem with this logic - I don't think the issue is the
realism of the image, I think it's the interactive element of games. In a
movie, someone else is doing the simulated killing - realistic looking or
not. In games, it is you doing the killing. There's a big difference.
I agree with John, though. These are symptoms, not causes.
Keith
>As I said in an earlier message, those who are mentally ill will just as likely kill
>somebody after losing a game of Ludo than after playing 100 hours of Quake of
>watching any of the movies I listed. My point was that these movies are more
>disturbing. Seeing a real person, even if it is an actor, being beaten to death or
>shot or burned alive has a bigger adverse effect than blowing away a bunch of pixels
>that, in most games, don't even represent normal everyday human beings.
>Graphic *** that makes a point in a movie, such as in Saving Private Ryan, is
>perfectly acceptable to me. *** for the sake of it, as in those four movies,
etc. All
>> >glorify *** with no balance. One viewing of any of these movies will do mor
Quoted text (10 lines)
>without making any valid point is, in my opinion, very disturbing. >> >Natural Born Killers, Resevoir Dogs, Romper Stomper, Clockwork OrangeQuoted text (19 lines)
>> >harm than months of Quake. >> Oh shit, I've watched all of those movies AND played months of Quake - >> someone better lock me up before I do something mental and it is >> conveniently blamed on the games. >> Movies, games and indeed *** acts themselves are only the symptoms >> or, if you like, the results. What has caused such movies to be >> popular and *** to be common is where attention needs to be >> directed. You could well find that games like Quake are in fact a >> channeled outlet for pent-up urges and desires, and in banning such >> products people may find rather more public ways to vent these. >> Knee jerk reactions without understanding a problem are more likely to >> be a quick fix to keep people happy rather than doing any actual good. >> Unfortunately that's almost a dictionary definition of "politician". >> Cheers! >> JohnThanks for expressing a sane view so concisely and effectively.
> On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:54:34 -0700, "Jay Wolfe"
> >if you ban any type of gun, what you do is prevent the "good guys" from
> >possessing them. the "bad guys" will still have them. they don't really give
> >a damn whether or not they are legal. the point is, they WILL have them, and
would
about
Quoted text (14 lines)
> >they WILL use them. probably even more so, considering they don't have to > >worry about being outgunned by the law abiding public. > You mean like in Japan, where the "bad guys" all have easy access to > guns and the good guys never carry them? Compared the *** stats > between the US and Japan recently? Even between any major US city and > the whole of Japan? That "if you outlaw guns..." nonsense really is > the weakest argument I've ever heard to keep the arms industry ticking > over. In an ironic way it kind of makes sense in the US though, > because I think the "gun culture" and the sheer number of weapons > makes it impossible to go back. > >my girlfriend just > >bought a 9mm glock with infared sights. it's nice knowing that someoneQuoted text (18 lines)
> >have to pay hell if they wanted to attack her. > That is _very_ worrying for me. > It means that any misunderstandings may now have lethal consequences, > or that if someone breaks into her house then either she or they will > die. Given that an intruder has the advantage of surprise, intent and > practice I wouldn't like those odds. There's nothing in my house that > I would even consider dying for, and would infinitely prefer someone > to take what they could and rather than risk being killed or maimed > for it. That's what the police and insurance companies are for. > Then too there's the issues that if a gun is in the house it may be > used in domestic or neighbourhood disputes, in road-rage incidents if > in the car, kids playing with it > >if guns were banned, she > >would be defenseless while the baddies wouldn't have anything to worryQuoted text (9 lines)
> >since they would be the only one holding a gun. > If the "baddies" didn't expect to be meeting the Lone Ranger every > time they turned a corner they probably wouldn't feel they needed a > gun, but as I said, I think this can never be the case in the US. You > can't backtrack from a position like that. > Cheers! > JohnI thought Dogs was good, both from an entertainment point of view and
a psychological one, in the manner that your emotions are tweaked
almost without you noticing. NBK however is one of the worst films
I've ever seen, not only seriously gruesome but having no redeemin
features whatsoever.
We have that already - you're playing the online version of it right
now.....
Cheers!
John
A distinction that is often drawn is whether or not the ***
devalues life - if the person's death is gratuitous or if it conveys
the enormity of the act. Personally I don't see the distinction as
valid, since seeing death or *** in any form inures you to it
over time. I'm certainly not an advocate of censorship in any form, I
think that people have to WANT not to watch gratuitous ***.
The trouble is that in this case "art" really is a reflection of life,
and movies like that are an easy sell for the Sonys and Time-Warners
of the world. Look at sim-racing for an example - count the number of
people who want huge, end-over-end smashes to be included, and are
upset when parts don't fly off cars. I remember doing a survey as part
of Sim Racing News on what people would like to see in the next
Indycar sim, and one guy wanted motion-captured pit-crew that he could
run over, with body parts flying. Now I've got as fine a BS detector
as I've come across and it seemed like a genuine request!
I don't doubt that movies and *** games contribute to a downward
spiral of society as a whole, but they are primarily a result and not
a primary cause. As you mentioned with the "Ward of the state"
program, how can you possibly keep any kind of order when "do-gooders"
preclude it? They don't want people being overly hard, and yet overly
soft doesn't work at all. At base level man is an animal, and in the
animal kingdom you rarely, if ever, see a community based on
harmonious co-existence - it doesn't happen. If you step out of line
you get bitten, banished or eaten, therefore you stay in line.
Cheers!
John
>Agreed, but computer games have an interactive element that movies and music
As its been tried before : if u cant get to the person who did the crime
then go after what the criminal used.
Since PCs are the vessel for all these heinous acts then let congress pass a
bill that prohibits purchasing a PC for 30 days along with a background
check. This bill would include a training and ethics course to pass so as to
weed out hackers, ***s and people who dont use speell check. To purchase
xtras such as a modem one would require another permit( such as the folks in
China require one) to monitor where one surfs.
All these reactive measures never work for the looney tune crackhead who
wants to harm people - period.
I for one cant stand Jerry Farwell( Mr. Anti Teletub dude) but for once I
agreed w/ him when he said it all starts at home - parenting is alot harder
than it looks.
Jude R.
Quoted text (8 lines)
>don't. They also allow people to practice the skills that make them more >effective killers. >I am not saying that computer games should be banned, or that they cause >this sort of thing. These people are screwed up to begin with. But I think >there is enough here to make me uncomfortable. >Keithvery far wrong, johnny.
>On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:54:34 -0700, "Jay Wolfe"
>>if you ban any type of gun, what you do is prevent the "good guys" from
>>possessing them. the "bad guys" will still have them. they don't really give
>>a damn whether or not they are legal. the point is, they WILL have them, and
and what of YOUR particular slice of earth, johnny? how about that recent
bombing in england? were those LEGAL expolsives? the bad guys still got
them, right? when you compare japan to the US, you are forgetting the most
important factor:
that being SOCIETY. it is ingrained on the japanese that this is completely
NOT acceptable. not so in the US. perhaps it's because our laws against such
acts are so wishy-washy or not strict enough (obviously).
there is actually a place in the US where citizens are REQUIRED to carry
guns. the *** rate is "0". why? becasue the baddies KNOW that you
definitely can protect yourself. yes, this is extreme and i disagree with
the whole concept, but it remains interesting.
what worries me about you and your fellow unenlightened chums, is that, GUNS
are not the only way to kill people. do you want to ban knives, too? how
about rat poison? how about a sharpened flute? or a severely overcooked
taco?
perhaps those of you in other parts of the world are so unfamiliar with
having rights that you don't fully understand the horror in losing them.
once a right is taken away from you, it is almost impossible to get them
back...
Quoted text (7 lines)
>>they WILL use them. >You mean like in Japan, where the "bad guys" all have easy access to >guns and the good guys never carry them? Compared the *** stats >between the US and Japan recently? Even between any major US city and >the whole of Japan? That "if you outlaw guns..." nonsense really is >the weakest argument I've ever heard to keep the arms industry ticking >over.Jay,
You are one of the sick people we have to deal with. You have to
realize that a majority of deaths are due to guns that were bought for
"personnal protection". If you ban guns there is much less interest
for a criminal to use one, since he knows you probably don't have one.
It isn't as simple as you seem to think. There are much more facts to
think about than only "I must have a gun so I can shoot the bad guys
if they attack me"... This thinking is flawed and will only result in
a higher number of fatalities in the end.
My opinion.
Frank
P.S.: No point in answering this message, I'm killfiling this thread
since it's off topic. Sorry for adding to it too.
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:54:34 -0700, "Jay Wolfe"
Francois Dubuc,
Simulator ***world,
[link lost in import: /***world/]
Quoted text (14 lines)
>dave- >if you ban any type of gun, what you do is prevent the "good guys" from >possessing them. the "bad guys" will still have them. they don't really give >a damn whether or not they are legal. the point is, they WILL have them, and >they WILL use them. probably even more so, considering they don't have to >worry about being outgunned by the law abiding public. my girlfriend just >bought a 9mm glock with infared sights. it's nice knowing that someone would >have to pay hell if they wanted to attack her. if guns were banned, she >would be defenseless while the baddies wouldn't have anything to worry about >since they would be the only one holding a gun. >j >p.s. - i don't own a gun, but i hope that you do.GUNS
are not the only way to kill people. do you want to ban knives, too? how
about rat poison? how about a sharpened flute? or a severely overcooked
taco?
There's a difference there, isn't there? I suppose I could kill someone
with a frozen, sharpened pig's ear, but it'd be a real struggle. However,
the widespread and common availability of guns-for-killing-people means that
what used to be petty fights (okay, maybe a black eye, a busted lip or
tooth) now more and more becomes a "tragic domestic accident." Or a lethal
spree.
having rights that you don't fully understand the horror in losing them.
once a right is taken away from you, it is almost impossible to get them
back...
Are you refering to individual rights or communal rights? Aren't there any
rights that are worth giving up for some higher good?
ciao,
DK
PS I know, I know, this thread really doesn't belong here . . .
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:57:16 -0700, "Jay Wolfe"
>very far wrong, johnny.
Hey Wolfie-babe - haven't you grasped that there is _NO_ right and
wrong? Surely you can't be so conceited as to believe only your own
opinion is valid can you?
So what do you advocate - we go and bomb someone else's house?
Terrorism and the sliding values of society vis-a-vis firearms and
*** are separate subjects, related only loosely - lets not cloud
the issue.
when you compare japan to the US, you are forgetting the most
Er, yes, my point exactly....
Where is this? The CIA HQ or something?
What is banned in the UK is "offensive weapons", so if you are
wandering around the centre of town with a kitchen knife stashed in
your slacks you'd better be able to whip up a steak and fries pronto
or your gonna have some explaining to do at the police station.
"Offensive weapon" is somewhat vague (probably deliberately so), such
that a baseball bat can be offensive or inoffensive depending upon the
circumstances. I like that, since I'd hate to have my head bashed in
because some *** was carrying an "inoffensive" 3-iron and took a
practice swing at my me.
The right to die in the street, gunned down because some crackhead can
gut a gun more easily than a job? You can keep that one.
Cheers!
John
Quoted text (25 lines)
> very far wrong, johnny. > >On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:54:34 -0700, "Jay Wolfe" > >>if you ban any type of gun, what you do is prevent the "good guys" from > >>possessing them. the "bad guys" will still have them. they don't really > give > >>a damn whether or not they are legal. the point is, they WILL have them, > and > >>they WILL use them. > >You mean like in Japan, where the "bad guys" all have easy access to > >guns and the good guys never carry them? Compared the *** stats > >between the US and Japan recently? Even between any major US city and > >the whole of Japan? That "if you outlaw guns..." nonsense really is > >the weakest argument I've ever heard to keep the arms industry ticking > >over. > and what of YOUR particular slice of earth, johnny? how about that recent > bombing in england? were those LEGAL expolsives? the bad guys still got > them, right? when you compare japan to the US, you are forgetting the most > important factor:Quoted text (9 lines)
>>>what worries me about you and your fellow unenlightened chums, is that, >GUNS >are not the only way to kill people. do you want to ban knives, too? how >about rat poison? how about a sharpened flute? or a severely overcooked >taco? >There's a difference there, isn't there? I suppose I could kill someone >with a frozen, sharpened pig's ear, but it'd be a real struggle. However, >the widespread and common availability of guns-for-killing-people meansQuoted text (10 lines)
>The kids could come in the front door with a plastic bag, a tube of glue >and >>announce they were going to get high. As soon as they entered their bedroom >>there was nothing we could legally do to stop them. On occasions we knew >there >>were weopons and/or hard *** in the room but we couldn't confiscate them >or >>even report the matter to the police. >>Why? Because kids have a right to privacy backed up by legislation and law.Not our kids, State ward kids. We were "Cottage Parents", something akin to
Foster Parents. In Australia any "child"over 15 can complain to a state funded
social worker abou their parents and get funding to move out of home. The
parents crime could simply be to put curfews on their activities or show concern
about their choice of friends etc. The basic rights of parents to be parents is
being taken away. As for searching an 18 year olds room for weapons or
***...that is viewed as basic violation of the kids privacy.
Quoted text (21 lines)
> <snip> > >The kids could come in the front door with a plastic bag, a tube of glue > and > >announce they were going to get high. As soon as they entered their bedroom > >there was nothing we could legally do to stop them. On occasions we knew > there > >were weopons and/or hard *** in the room but we couldn't confiscate them > or > >even report the matter to the police. > >Why? Because kids have a right to privacy backed up by legislation and law. > <more snipped...> > Is this because they weren't your kids? I can't believe parents don't have > this right. And isn't 'their' room actually yours if you own the house? > Not arguing, just curious... > KeithPerfect example of how little most people know about the facts of the issue.
All of the scientific studies done show that the more guns there are in the
hands of law abiding citizens, the lower the rate of *** crime. Criminals
are not stupid, just immoral. Any gun law passed affects only the lawfull,
criminals will ignore it and be emboldened by it, and the statistics bear this
out, without exception. An armed society is a polite society. Remember, the
first thing done by both Hitler and Stalin was to outlaw private ownership of
guns.
Don McCorkle
Libertarian Motorsports
Made by Oliver Stone, a human with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Don McCorkle
Libertarian Motorsports
And you (willingly, I presume) forgot to add:
All of the scientific studies done show that the more guns there are
in the hands of law abiding citizens,
- the higher the rate of accidental gunshot wounds or deaths;
- the higher the incidence of familial disputes ending in a shooting;
- the higher the number of gunshot wounds due to "trigger-happy"
people who think the milkman is trying to come inside their house;
- the higher the number of children learning that the only way to
protect yourself is to get a gun;
- and lots of other things that wouldn't happen if normal people
weren't as uneducated as you are...
I know I said I'd killfile this thread, I forgot... It's done now...
Sorry again for the off-topic post...
Frank
Francois Dubuc,
Simulator ***world,
[link lost in import: /***world/]
What a***head! What made my wife and I qualify? Try many interviews, tests and
probes into our backgrounds. Try a 100% concern for children that made us give up
our nice comfy house and move in with kids who have severe problems caused by
parents who***, bash and abuse them in many other ways.
I held children down while they wer trying to reach for knives to kill themselves.
I was forced, by law, to allow parent access to some of these children when the
kids were terrified of them and literally hid under the bed. My wife has been
bashed and held at knifepoint by these kids. We gave these kids love and
understanding. What have you done to help these children?
BY LAW we were not allowed to enter the childrens bedrooms without express
permisssion of the children. We did the only thing we can do, intercept them before
they got to their room or contacted the social workers who, sometimes, got the kids
to see sense.
The houses we stayed in were not our property. They were government property and
under a completely different set of rules you think you know about.
I am part of the reason kids are afraid to go to schoo?. I have never had to answer
to such an ignorant and totally innacurate piece of ***in my lifetime. My wife
and I, by giving up our comfy nightime vigil in front of the TV and confronting the
problem are part of the solution to the problem, not the cause.
I suggest that you not comment on STATE LAWS IN AUSTRALIA concerning State Ward
Children unless you know the facts.
I also suggest that until you live with drug ***ed, abused, suicidal, homocidal
(two of the children my wife has looked after HAVE commited ***) for 24 hours a
day then shut up and stop making the most stupid and ill informed statements in the
history of newsgroups.
MORON!
Quoted text (27 lines)
> >The kids could come in the front door with a plastic bag, a tube of glue > >and > >>announce they were going to get high. As soon as they entered their bedroom > >>there was nothing we could legally do to stop them. On occasions we knew > >there > >>were weopons and/or hard *** in the room but we couldn't confiscate them > >or > >>even report the matter to the police. > >>Why? Because kids have a right to privacy backed up by legislation and law. > First, you can't even SPELL "weapon," like most owners of them. Second, you are > unaware that your entire house can be confiscated under law for permitting it > to be used in this way. > Who authorized you to house foster children, and (more importantly) for what > rea$on did you volunteer? > If you are so naive or negligent as to allow minors to use and house WEAPONS > and hard *** because of your alleged misunderstanding of the law, you have no > bu$ine$$ posing as "foster" parents. You are part of the reason high school > students are now afraid to attend high school. > I'm not usually so harsh in my judgments, but I will post here and now > that--from what you've written--you are an irresponsible idiot. You would > knowingly allow a nuclear weapon to be stored in your attic, because you feel > powerless to do anything else. Pathetic.I'm sure all the studies funded by arms companies probably do show
that, in much the same way that McDonalds claim their burgers are a
health food. Meanwhile, back here in the real world, the premise that
increasing the number of weapons somehow makes the world safer is
obviously nonsense.
Go study your statistics and somehow manage to show me that the USA
has a lower level of *** crime than Japan, UK, Germany - countries
where people don't have guns.
So when Scottish tourists drive out of the airport in Florida and have
a gun shoved in their face at the first intersection the natives ar
being "polite"? When someone's car breaks down, they knock on the
front door of the nearest house and are gunned down by the landowner
for being an "intruder" he's just giving them the good ol' Texas
welcome?
There is _no_ statistic, properly researched, that can uphold gun
ownership in the US as a means of historically keeping down ***
crime - it's a fallacy. Gun ownership in the US is the residue of
frontier law, where formal law was minimal. At that time it was
necessary to protect yourself, and it has become part of the fabric of
society from there. Without it anarchy would doubtless have prevailed,
but that _shouldn't_ hold true now. As I mentioned though, ironically
in a sense it does - if I were to break into a house in Japan I
wouldn't even think to carry a gun because the guy inside wouldn't
have one. If it was the US you can be damn sure I would, and I'd shoot
anyone who came near me since chances are the home-owner will be armed
to the teeth. You can see how the thinking changes.
Cheers!
John
<snip>
LOL!!!
Keith
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
Let me get this straight... You're saying the majority of ***s in this
country are people defending themselves against bad guys?!?!?!?!?
What color is the sky in YOUR world?
Keith (no longer wondering why this country is so f'ed up...)
Ummm... show me those *** statistics again?
Keith
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Not our kids, State ward kids. We were "Cottage Parents", something akin to > Foster Parents. In Australia any "child"over 15 can complain to a state funded > social worker abou their parents and get funding to move out of home. The > parents crime could simply be to put curfews on their activities or show concern > about their choice of friends etc. The basic rights of parents to be parents is > being taken away. As for searching an 18 year olds room for weapons or > ***...that is viewed as basic violation of the kids privacy.> oh, yeah? lemme see...how about this:
> if jim clark was confronted by a ticked off sartee, would he within legal
> bounds to stab him with a sharpened taco if he was indeed threatened with
> great bodily harm? ; -)
Now I understand where Jay is coming from. He has a hard time distinguishing
between real life and the movies. Jim Clark was a real person, Jean Paul Sartee
was a character in "Grand Prix" played by Yves Montand. Jay probably thinks he
is Rambo (and I don't mean Jack).
Dave Ewing
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:24:06 -0700, "Jay Wolfe"
>if my example holds any water at all, i am glad that the world is rid of 5-6
>more baddies. yes, this freedom does have a cost. if that cost is 1 out of
>100,000 kids having an accident with daddy's gun - then that is a small
>price to pay for a better society. chalk it up to natural selection at work.
>a kid that stupid would've pissed on a light socket eventually anyway.
What is a "baddie"? If your girlfriend breaks down by the freeway late
at night and I stop to help, when she thinks I'm coming to attack her
and pops one in my head with that Glock I guess I'll go down as a
"baddie" in those statistics?
Jeez, the Good Samaritan never had that sort of stuff to contend with!
That is anarchy, not democracy.
Well, that may qualify if Sartee died later from botulism...
Cheers!
John
>Now I understand where Jay is coming from. He has a hard time distinguishing
>between real life and the movies. Jim Clark was a real person, Jean Paul Sartee
>was a character in "Grand Prix" played by Yves Montand. Jay probably thinks he
>is Rambo (and I don't mean Jack).
oh, boy. you sure got me, huh? i should've said "the *** in the honda",
right? besides, i'd take jack rambo over the movie version any day. a lotus
doing 190 would plow sly under like cabbage!
>On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:24:06 -0700, "Jay Wolfe"
>if my example holds any water at all, i am glad that the world is rid of 5-6
>more baddies. yes, this freedom does have a cost. if that cost is 1 out of
>100,000 kids having an accident with daddy's gun - then that is a small
>price to pay for a better society. chalk it up to natural selection at work.
>a kid that stupid would've pissed on a light socket eventually anyway.
A small price to pay?
If that "stupid" kid happens to "have an accident with daddy's gun" and
blows away your own child who is playing with him - will a 1:100000 ratio be
acceptable?
Cheers
Tony
He didn't say that at all, reread it and think.
Quoted text (33 lines)
> <SNIP> > >the US has a huge amount of ***'s when compared to the rest of the > >world. approximately 5-6 more per 100,000. hard to argue with this. i do > >have a suspicion about these (don't worry - it's not a *** theory), > >that being there is no distinguishing between a *** act by a baddie or > a > >life-saving defensive action by an goodie. for example, a couple of baddies > >holds up a goodie at gun point. the goodie then blows away thre baddies > >after being accosted. result: two ***s. the definition of "***, > by > >the way, is: > >a person who kills another. > >this is very different. > >if my example holds any water at all, i am glad that the world is rid of > 5-6 > >more baddies. yes, this freedom does have a cost. if that cost is 1 out of > >100,000 kids having an accident with daddy's gun - then that is a small > >price to pay for a better society. chalk it up to natural selection at > work. > >a kid that stupid would've pissed on a light socket eventually anyway. > <SNIP> > Let me get this straight... You're saying the majority of ***s in this > country are people defending themselves against bad guys?!?!?!?!? > What color is the sky in YOUR world? > Keith (no longer wondering why this country is so f'ed up...)writes:
I've seen 3 out of those 4(never heard of Romper Stomper) and liked them.
However, I have no more desire to kill people now than I did BEFORE I saw them.
I've also played Doom, Duke Nuke'em, and Starcraft. I've been known to
listen to heavy metal and 'gansta' rap. The problem is people who can't
distinguish between a movie(game/song) and REALITY. They need psychological
counselling, not censorship...
__
Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea...
remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
> that would basically be MY point, johnny-baby:
> freedom of choice allows me to arm myself while at the same time allowing
> you to NOT arm yourself. just don't force me into YOUR limited view of
> things. that would be very conceited.
"Freedom of Choice" is just like "Natural Rights" - see below. Everything must
be tempered. Personally I like the freedom to walk around my country with very
little fear of being shot.
As John said before, "There are no natural rights". Study your David Hume and
you will discover this, if you can't work it out for yourself. The only rights
that anyone has are those that are by "agreement" with the society in which we
live. Societies tend to ban anti-social actions like***, ***, theft etc. -
for example even in the US, you are not actually allowed to kill someone,
crackhead or whatever.
And if no one has a gun no one gets shot, right? That's why the US has so many
more ***s, it's because people are allowed to own guns. Pretty simple
really. Sure we have illegal firearms and even a few legal ones, but we have a
markedly lower *** rate not because we are a peaceable people, but simply
because it's a damn site harder to kill someone without a gun.
I wonder. I know little of this, but I wonder whether the gun lobby is so
vociferous that they drown out the very many silent Americans who object to gun
ownership.
Cheers,
Paul
Reacting strongly means that your are genuinly concerned which is good. If we could
all harness our anger at things like the recent shooting and direct that anger
towards positive
action then the problem would lessen.
Lets get back to on topic discussion. After all, it is easy to gorget about the
world's problems for a while when trying to get that extra 1/10 th of a second off
the lap record in your favorite sim....
Quoted text (27 lines)
> >Not our kids, State ward kids. We were "Cottage Parents", something akin to > >Foster Parents. In Australia any "child"over 15 can complain to a state > >funded > >social worker abou their parents and get funding to move out of home. The > >parents crime could simply be to put curfews on their activities or show > >concern > >about their choice of friends etc. The basic rights of parents to be parents > >is > >being taken away. As for searching an 18 year olds room for weapons or > >***...that is viewed as basic violation of the kids privacy. > Mark, I was out of line, and I apologize. I was unaware of the difference > between US and Australian laws, and I commend the efforts put forth by you and > your wife to solve a problem that appears to be much worse in my country than > in yours. > I deserved your reply, complete with the names you called me. I would have > reacted exactly as you did were our roles reversed. In my own defense, I have > an only son who just finished high school, and who might be a victim of the > problem we're addressing at his college. Thus I reacted strongly to what I > perceived as parental negligence, which I believe is at the root of the menace. > I ask your forgiveness. We're all***heads once in a while, and until recently > I had kept my***headedness on the harmless virtual racetrack. > Sincerely, > Trey BehanDidn't mention censorship. Just made the point I found them far more disturbing and
I still believe they would do more harm to a easily influenced person with a mental
instability than a game of Doom or Duke Nukem.
Romper Stomper had a different name in the US and UK. It stared Russell Crow and
was about the Skinhead vs the Asian gangs in Australia.
Quoted text (19 lines)
> writes: > >Natural Born Killers, Resevoir Dogs, Romper Stomper, Clockwork Orange etc. > >All > >glorify *** with no balance. One viewing of any of these movies will do > >mor > >harm than months of Quake. > I've seen 3 out of those 4(never heard of Romper Stomper) and liked them. > However, I have no more desire to kill people now than I did BEFORE I saw them. > I've also played Doom, Duke Nuke'em, and Starcraft. I've been known to > listen to heavy metal and 'gansta' rap. The problem is people who can't > distinguish between a movie(game/song) and REALITY. They need psychological > counselling, not censorship... > __ > Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea... > remove SPAM-OFF to reply.Given the number of car accidents each day all around
the world and also the world wide popularity of racing games,
I'm sure glad no one has yet made the obvious conclusion.... ;)
- Matt
Okay, he says the statistics show 5-6 more ***s per 100,000. Then he
relates a scenario where a bad guy being killed in self defence would still
be called a ***. Then he says that there are 5-6 less bad guys in the
world....
I think that was EXACTLY what he was saying...
Keith
theory),
>> >that being there is no distinguishing between a *** act by a baddie or
>> a
>> >life-saving defensive action by an goodie. for example, a couple of baddies
>> >holds up a goodie at gun point. the goodie then blows away thre baddies
>> >after being accosted. result: two ***s. the definition of "***,
of
this
>> country are people defending themselves against bad guys?!?!?!?!?
>> What color is the sky in YOUR world?
>> Keith (no longer wondering why this country is so f'ed up...)
Quoted text (13 lines)
>He didn't say that at all, reread it and think. >> <SNIP> >> >the US has a huge amount of ***'s when compared to the rest of the >> >world. approximately 5-6 more per 100,000. hard to argue with this. i do >> >have a suspicion about these (don't worry - it's not a ***Quoted text (10 lines)
>> by >> >the way, is: >> >a person who kills another. >> >this is very different. >> >if my example holds any water at all, i am glad that the world is rid of >> 5-6 >> >more baddies. yes, this freedom does have a cost. if that cost is 1 outQuoted text (8 lines)
>> >100,000 kids having an accident with daddy's gun - then that is a small >> >price to pay for a better society. chalk it up to natural selection at >> work. >> >a kid that stupid would've pissed on a light socket eventually anyway. >> <SNIP> >> Let me get this straight... You're saying the majority of ***s in> I wonder. I know little of this, but I wonder whether the gun lobby is so
> vociferous that they drown out the very many silent Americans who object to gun
> ownership.
This is exactly the case, Paul. The vast majority of Americans favor stricter gun
control, but an unrepresentative number of our fine political representives vote
contrary to these wishes. The National Rifle Association is one of the (if not
the) most powerful lobbying groups in the USA. In the state of Missouri, there was
a recent election in which there was a ballot initiative on the topic. The NRA
outspent the opposition for advertising by some *** amount, yet the people of
the state voted in favor of gun control. Unfortunately, these issues are rarely
brought before the people directly.
Right at the time of the Columbine High School shooting, the Colorado state
legislature, with the support of the governor, was about to pass a couple of bills
letting the citizens of the state carry concealed weapons virtually anywhere. Only
three Republicans in the house thought that it might be unwise to let concealed
weapons into schools and sporting events. I'm not making this up.
After the shooting, the Republicans withdrew their bills, stating that this wasn't
an appropriate time to discuss these issues. As Bobby Kennedy said, "If not now,
when? If not here, where?"
And in another case of incredible synchronicity, the NRA held their annual
convention right here in Denver, Colorado, starting on Saturday. The one
concession they made in light of the tragedy was not to have their trade show
where people labeled as "collectors" can sell virtually any type of firearm
(including banned automatic weapons) to anybody without the inconvenience of a
background check. There was a massive rally in favor of gun control / denouncing
the NRA held on the steps of the capital building and a march to the hotel where
the NRA convention was being held. The crowd overwhelmingly consisted of typical
suburban families.
Here's something else for the pro NRA folks to consider: At the previous high
school massacre in Oregon, the ***age gunman was tackled and disarmed after he ran
out of ammo in his clip. Unfortunately, his clip held 50 bullets and he was able
to shoot all 50 of them in approximately one minute. To make hunting more fair for
the deer, many states limit the size of hunter's ammo clips to five bullets. But we
do not offer the same protection for our citizens and children. Needless to say,
the NRA opposes any legislation limiting the size of an ammo clip.
Dave Ewing
>And in another case of incredible synchronicity, the NRA held their annual
>convention right here in Denver, Colorado, starting on Saturday. The one
>concession they made in light of the tragedy was not to have their trade
>show where people labeled as "collectors" can sell virtually any type of firearm
>(including banned automatic weapons) to anybody without the inconvenience of
>a background check.
It is illegal to own or sell an automatic weapon anywhere, anytime in the
United States of America without the owner and buyer both posessing a special
waiver which is not easy to get.
The NRA also consists of typical suburban families.
50 >bullets and he was able to shoot all 50 of them in approximately one
minute.
This is complete bullshit. What weapon was this guy using that used a 50 round
magazine? Incidently, the last weapon I'm familiar with that used a clip was
in early WWII, anything since that uses a magazine. You could shoot 50 rounds
in a minute with a revolver. How about the school shooting where the principal
went to his office, grabbed his legal concealed carry piece and took out the
gunman (gunchild?) before he got a chance to run rampant through the entire
school? Or the woman who watched her parents be killed in the cafeteria
shooting in Texas knowing that her legal handgun was in her car out in the
parking lot? Because of the state law, she wasn't allowed to carry it into the
restaurant, so she didn't. Many people died in a situation where one armed
citizen could have stopped it early, and the means was 30 feet away because she
obeyed the law.
Don McCorkle
Libertarian Motorsports
: This is complete bullshit. What weapon was this guy using that used a 50 round
: magazine? Incidently, the last weapon I'm familiar with that used a clip was
: in early WWII, anything since that uses a magazine. You could shoot 50 rounds
: in a minute with a revolver. How about the school shooting where the principal
: went to his office, grabbed his legal concealed carry piece and took out the
: gunman (gunchild?) before he got a chance to run rampant through the entire
: school? Or the woman who watched her parents be killed in the cafeteria
: shooting in Texas knowing that her legal handgun was in her car out in the
: parking lot? Because of the state law, she wasn't allowed to carry it into the
: restaurant, so she didn't. Many people died in a situation where one armed
: citizen could have stopped it early, and the means was 30 feet away because she
: obeyed the law.
This is exactly the logic that leaves all of us outside of the US shaking
our heads in amazement. You arm your citizens to the teeth to ward off
those one-in-a-million events, thereby increasing the possibilities of
gun-related fatalities due to accidents, domestic abuse, quarrels. We
can't adequately debate the point because we're coming from a completely
opposite direction. I would need such a huge paradigm shift before I
could even begin to understand the American mentality. The two countries
that I have lived in (Canada and Switzerland) are built on social systems
that place the needs of society *above* those of the individual. America
was formed by revolution, and the influence is apparent in the wording of,
the challenges to, and ultimately the defence of the constitution. I am
not going to argue right or wrong here, because as I said, my mind-set, a
product of my environemtn, is (I think) radically different. I would
rather have a gun-free society than to be able to legally carry a firearm
to protect myself from the extremely small chance that I will be the
target of a gunman. By the same logic, I should be allowed to deploy
heavy weapons on my own car to guard against drunk drivers. I'll take my
chances that I won't be a victim, because statistics in my countries are
on my side. Maybe America is past the point of no return?
Stephen
I knew there was a reason why I had to overtake that Subaru WRX on the
inside at the local KMART car park! Damn TOCA 2 did it to me.....
> Given the number of car accidents each day all around
> the world and also the world wide popularity of racing games,
> I'm sure glad no one has yet made the obvious conclusion.... ;)
> - Matt
<snip>
Source?
Sorry, but the idea of an untrained person opening fire in a crowded
restaurant to 'defend' me doesn't make me feel any more comfortable...
Keith
Quoted text (9 lines)
> How about the school shooting where the principal > went to his office, grabbed his legal concealed carry piece and took out the > gunman (gunchild?) before he got a chance to run rampant through the entire > school? Or the woman who watched her parents be killed in the cafeteria > shooting in Texas knowing that her legal handgun was in her car out in the > parking lot? Because of the state law, she wasn't allowed to carry it into the > restaurant, so she didn't. Many people died in a situation where one armed > citizen could have stopped it early, and the means was 30 feet away because she > obeyed the law.It's easy to blame parents. I have 2 kids who are generally very well behaved
(except with us :-) ). This is not because we are particulary good or strict
parents. It is because these little spirits are usually good little spirits. I have
seen many ***y-minded and often downright evil little spirits, and I wonder to
myself how on earth the parents cope. Personalities are born and not made. You can
guide them but not mould them.
Cheers,
Paul
Quoted text (26 lines)
> >I have an even beter suggession lets blame the comms. or how about the > >democrats; republicans, liberals. do you like placing the blame? this is > >completely rediculus the blame if any is on the american society > Sounds as though you're disagreeing with me, and then agreeing with me. Either > way, we have a serious situation on our hands. I wasn't "placing blame;" I was > establishing RESPONSIBILITY for this tragic nonsense. > I happen to be around quite a few parents and their children every day. I've > wondered for the past few years how these parents can idly stand by and let > their children run riot without any correction or supervision whatsoever. The > mystery was cleared up when I heard a parent utter the most ridiculous > philosophy imaginable: "They're little spirits, and shouldn't be inhibited in > any way." Well, spirits come in all stripes, and some are downright evil unless > taught to respect the "spirits" with whom they share the world. Hell, even > puppies are trained not to pee on the carpet. > To nudge this thread back on topic, we stand to lose our rights to uncensored > media and video games (and to own firearms, if that's your thing) if idiots are > going to use them as re-enforcement of their unchecked ***s on society. > It all starts with parents' obligation to RAISE their kids---not just allow > them to reach ***hood with the mentality of children. > Back to my Lotus, > Trey Behan>> I wonder. I know little of this, but I wonder whether the gun lobby is so
>> vociferous that they drown out the very many silent Americans who object to gun
>> ownership.
>This is exactly the case, Paul. The vast majority of Americans favor stricter gun
>control, but an unrepresentative number of our fine political representives vote
>contrary to these wishes.
as you yourself have stated:
SOURCES?
and not some bozo slanted christian coalition crap, either.
one way to have "one of the (if not the) most powerful lobbying groups in
the USA" is to have enormous support of the general public, right?
well, that makes ONE state. hardly a "vast majority", eh?
you ARE kidding, right?
hmmmmm...lemme see here. 50 bullet clip. 50 people shot. that is one bullet
hit per person. that ain't too bad of shootin', amigo. (said with a
severely mocking sneer towards miss ewing)
oh, my gosh, dave! 3 people were killed in c***te due to a car accident
at a race track! wow, maybe we should ban all cars since those people would
still be alive if it wasn't for those evil cars.
don't go outside. you could get killed out there.
> oh, my gosh, dave! 3 people were killed in c***te due to a car accident
> at a race track! wow, maybe we should ban all cars since those people would
> still be alive if it wasn't for those evil cars.
> don't go outside. you could get killed out there.
Jay, I don't think these two events are in any way comparable. In the one
people get inadvertantly killed watching a sport where both the program(me) and
tickets warn them that this is a dangerous sport and in the other a group of
people being deliberately ***ed by a gunman. I hope that after studying the
two you can discern the different ethical dimensions, but if you're still
having difficulty then perhaps it's best just to back out of the argument, eh?
Don't want to get in out of our depth do we, mate?
Cheers,
Paul
:>out of ammo in his clip. Unfortunately, his clip held 50 bullets and
: he was able to shoot all 50 of them in approximately one minute.
: hmmmmm...lemme see here. 50 bullet clip. 50 people shot. that is one bullet
: hit per person. that ain't too bad of shootin', amigo. (said with a
: severely mocking sneer towards miss ewing)
Hey Jay, you under-educated monkey, even a rudimentary knowledge of
english grammar would help you to see that "them" is a pronoun taking the
place of "bullets", not "victims".
best regards
Stephen
I thought I would stay away from this argument but this statement is utter crap.
There is no such thing as an evil child. All children are born innocent. Their
personality is moulded by those around them and the events they experience.
A child requires guidance and strong examples. A child will not listen to a parent
telling them not to smoke when the parent lights one up two minutes after the lecture.
Most "good" parents who end up with problem children are victims themselves of not
having the required skills or guidence. These parents aren't bad people. In our society
the parents are the child's only *** influence apart from teachers. In other
societies the extended family is a good role model and the cases of delinquency are
decreased. Advice from in laws who have been there/done that can help parents.
I have seen some of the most cunning, *** street wise kids become model citizens
not through discipline but what they mostly need and respect, advice from ***s who
treat them as equals and pratice what they preach.
Quoted text (41 lines)
> It's easy to blame parents. I have 2 kids who are generally very well behaved > (except with us :-) ). This is not because we are particulary good or strict > parents. It is because these little spirits are usually good little spirits. I have > seen many ***y-minded and often downright evil little spirits, and I wonder to > myself how on earth the parents cope. Personalities are born and not made. You can > guide them but not mould them. > Cheers, > Paul > > >I have an even beter suggession lets blame the comms. or how about the > > >democrats; republicans, liberals. do you like placing the blame? this is > > >completely rediculus the blame if any is on the american society > > Sounds as though you're disagreeing with me, and then agreeing with me. Either > > way, we have a serious situation on our hands. I wasn't "placing blame;" I was > > establishing RESPONSIBILITY for this tragic nonsense. > > I happen to be around quite a few parents and their children every day. I've > > wondered for the past few years how these parents can idly stand by and let > > their children run riot without any correction or supervision whatsoever. The > > mystery was cleared up when I heard a parent utter the most ridiculous > > philosophy imaginable: "They're little spirits, and shouldn't be inhibited in > > any way." Well, spirits come in all stripes, and some are downright evil unless > > taught to respect the "spirits" with whom they share the world. Hell, even > > puppies are trained not to pee on the carpet. > > To nudge this thread back on topic, we stand to lose our rights to uncensored > > media and video games (and to own firearms, if that's your thing) if idiots are > > going to use them as re-enforcement of their unchecked ***s on society. > > It all starts with parents' obligation to RAISE their kids---not just allow > > them to reach ***hood with the mentality of children. > > Back to my Lotus, > > Trey Behan<snip>.
<snip>
Ummm, no, it's to spend the most money. You can't honestly think the
lobbying industry in this country has anything to do with what the people
want... It's all about organization, money, and pressure.
Keith
Quoted text (11 lines)
> >Here's something else for the pro NRA folks to consider: At the previous > high > >school massacre in Oregon, the ***age gunman was tackled and disarmed > after he ran > >out of ammo in his clip. Unfortunately, his clip held 50 bullets and he > was able > >to shoot all 50 of them in approximately one minute. > hmmmmm...lemme see here. 50 bullet clip. 50 people shot. that is one bullet > hit per person. that ain't too bad of shootin', amigo. (said with a > severely mocking sneer towards miss ewing)> oh, my gosh, dave! 3 people were killed in c***te due to a car accident
> at a race track! wow, maybe we should ban all cars since those people would
> still be alive if it wasn't for those evil cars.
> don't go outside. you could get killed out there.
Very intelligent analogy, Jay. Your debating skills are really quite
remarkable.
Dave Ewing
>Hey Jay, you under-educated monkey, even a rudimentary knowledge of
>english grammar would help you to see that "them" is a pronoun taking the
>place of "bullets", not "victims".
hey, stevey - i gots an edumication. what for is you calling me a
"rudimentary" for? this hain't got nuthin' to do with no aardvarks. heck,
you done spelt "grammur" all wrong, too, and stuff.
>And then you call me "Miss Ewing" .... So you really do equate your ***ity
>with your gun lust. Perhaps the theory that gun nuts are really just
>compensating for their 1"***s isn't so far fetched.
i don't actually own a gun, davey, but i do have a HUGE 12 cylinder car that
represents my lack of bologna, right? ; -)
>> oh, my gosh, dave! 3 people were killed in c***te due to a car accident
>> at a race track! wow, maybe we should ban all cars since those people would
>> still be alive if it wasn't for those evil cars.
>> don't go outside. you could get killed out there.
>Very intelligent analogy, Jay. Your debating skills are really quite
>remarkable.
(AP) DES MOINES, IOWA EARLIER today, funnel clouds were banned throughout
the midwest. This was due to thier illegal life threatening nature. Several
tornadoes are under suspicion of killing over three times the number of
people gunned down in Colorado last week and are being held until details
are known.
< Jay Wolfe's silly stuff about banning cars and tornados deleted >
Come on, Jay. My original post was about the semi-automatic TEC-9 pistol - a
gun that serves absolutely no purpose other than to quickly kill as many people
as possible. It isn't used for hunting. It is too inaccurate to use for target
shooting. If you used it for self defense, you would probably kill your entire
family as "collateral damage", as our friends at the Pentagon like to say. It
was manufactured by a shameless company who targeted the criminal element as
potential customers with advertising information such as its resistance to
finger prints.
Are you really unable to see why some people like me would want these things
banned?
A race car isn't designed to have its wheels fly off and intentionally kill
people. As far as tornados ... you're right, they should be banned. They
serve no useful purpose other than transporting the occassional restless child
over the rainbow.
I'm glad to see you are compensating for your deficiencies in a safer manner.
;-)
Drive carefully,
Dave Ewing
Nature versus nurture - a very old subject that's been debated without any real resolution.
My statement is not "utter crap" - it's what I believe and, obviously, what you do not
believe. I personally think that our genetic make up determines the vast majority of our
personality and our behaviour patterns. The chemicals that occur in relatively low doses in
the brains of people who like to take risks are there because they have relatively low
amounts of the relative proteins which in turn are directly coded for in their DNA. I
believe that learning will affect some chemical pathways just as *** can as well, but I
still believe that sociopaths are born and not made. You take another view, that is your
right, and you can cite much supporting evidence for your view (as can I). In the end, as
with all the really keenly fought debates, which side of the fence you opt for is largely
value judgement. Mark, I respect the work that you do with kids and respect your views on
kids. No, there's no such thing as an evil kid, but then again I don't believe that there's
such a thing as evil anyway. Some kids are born with short attention spans and immunity to
fear. Chances are their parents are as well and putting the two together is a good bet for
deliquency. "Born innocent" - bit theological for me. Many children love to learn, almost
all love to be loved, some need "strong examples" others rarely require discipline. (My son
has been lecturing me for a couple of years to quit smoking and 2 weeks ago I finally did.)
I respect my sons and they respect me. We seldom fight and discipline is seldom an issue.
They appreciate the need to learn and take things in with open eyes and open arms. I know
of other children where that just isn't the case. As far as I can see they were born like
that. I guess we have to agree to differ.
Cheers,
Paul
Quoted text (62 lines)
> I thought I would stay away from this argument but this statement is utter crap. > There is no such thing as an evil child. All children are born innocent. Their > personality is moulded by those around them and the events they experience. > A child requires guidance and strong examples. A child will not listen to a parent > telling them not to smoke when the parent lights one up two minutes after the lecture. > Most "good" parents who end up with problem children are victims themselves of not > having the required skills or guidence. These parents aren't bad people. In our society > the parents are the child's only *** influence apart from teachers. In other > societies the extended family is a good role model and the cases of delinquency are > decreased. Advice from in laws who have been there/done that can help parents. > I have seen some of the most cunning, *** street wise kids become model citizens > not through discipline but what they mostly need and respect, advice from ***s who > treat them as equals and pratice what they preach. > > It's easy to blame parents. I have 2 kids who are generally very well behaved > > (except with us :-) ). This is not because we are particulary good or strict > > parents. It is because these little spirits are usually good little spirits. I have > > seen many ***y-minded and often downright evil little spirits, and I wonder to > > myself how on earth the parents cope. Personalities are born and not made. You can > > guide them but not mould them. > > Cheers, > > Paul > > > >I have an even beter suggession lets blame the comms. or how about the > > > >democrats; republicans, liberals. do you like placing the blame? this is > > > >completely rediculus the blame if any is on the american society > > > Sounds as though you're disagreeing with me, and then agreeing with me. Either > > > way, we have a serious situation on our hands. I wasn't "placing blame;" I was > > > establishing RESPONSIBILITY for this tragic nonsense. > > > I happen to be around quite a few parents and their children every day. I've > > > wondered for the past few years how these parents can idly stand by and let > > > their children run riot without any correction or supervision whatsoever. The > > > mystery was cleared up when I heard a parent utter the most ridiculous > > > philosophy imaginable: "They're little spirits, and shouldn't be inhibited in > > > any way." Well, spirits come in all stripes, and some are downright evil unless > > > taught to respect the "spirits" with whom they share the world. Hell, even > > > puppies are trained not to pee on the carpet. > > > To nudge this thread back on topic, we stand to lose our rights to uncensored > > > media and video games (and to own firearms, if that's your thing) if idiots are > > > going to use them as re-enforcement of their unchecked ***s on society. > > > It all starts with parents' obligation to RAISE their kids---not just allow > > > them to reach ***hood with the mentality of children. > > > Back to my Lotus, > > > Trey Behan>< Jay Wolfe's silly stuff about banning cars and tornados deleted >
>Come on, Jay. My original post was about the semi-automatic TEC-9 pistol - a
>gun that serves absolutely no purpose other than to quickly kill as many people
>as possible. It isn't used for hunting. It is too inaccurate to use for target
>shooting. If you used it for self defense, you would probably kill your entire
>family as "collateral damage", as our friends at the Pentagon like to say. It
>was manufactured by a shameless company who targeted the criminal element as
>potential customers with advertising information such as its resistance to
>finger prints.
>Are you really unable to see why some people like me would want these things
>banned?
heck, no, i can see why. i'm not blind (although i attempt to be, at a near
graeme nash rate!). my point, along with dang near every other pro-gun
person, is:
where do you draw the line?
it is clearly the wish of the anti-gun crowd to eventually ban all guns.
first these guns, then all handguns, then laser scopes, then infared sights,
then rifles, etc. i still maintain that the bad guys will have access to
these guns anyway, so why allow only them to carry them? if the general
public can be outgunned by the horrible few, they WILL take advantage of
this. contrary to popular belief, the average gun-toter is not a flaming
maniac. i have been around guns all of my life. i was taught at a very early
age the repurcusions and danger of handling a weapon. same goes with cars,
for that matter. my father was on the navy pistol team. i went to driving
ranges while growing up and was allowed to shoot his military-pack .45s from
about age 8 onwards. my brother and i where given .22s and bb guns for our
own. we were allowed to decide for ourselves the issue of hunting. my father
never did it, and other than a couple of exploratory lizards, neither have
i. i am glad that i know how to shoot a gun properly, even though i don't
currently own one. if my girlfriend is attacked, the bad guy had better be
ready to eat a 9mm slug. will this add to the 5-6 per 100,000 *** rate?
yes. good. one less person out there who thinks that it is okay to attack
people. she's a pretty good shot, too. on her first target with her new
pistol, she put 7 out of 10 in the "10" ring.
look, if you don't want to own a gun, then don't. but don't tell me that i
can't. fancy semi-automatic pistol or not. your point about banning certains
guns is completely moot since it will only ban them from the good guys.
j
p.s. - if you come over to my house for a BBQ, i promise not to shoot you,
okay? ; -)
In a country where sanity prevailed the child would have been unable
to obtain a handgun, thus preserving not only his school friends but
his own life as well.
As before, although I a) don't fancy her chances of *** out a gun
against someone who already has a gun out and is obviously prepared to
use it, and b) of not killing me in the process.
You don't see any link at all between all these incidents occuring in
the US and you having the weapons laws that you do? I could recite to
you only ONE similar instance in the UK and that was Dunblane and
splashed over the newspapers for months and years thereafter - that's
how unusual it is. There might be a connection there.....
Cheers!
John
Ask anyone with even a modicum of genetic lineage or hereditary
behavioural traits and they will inform you that actually your
statement is utter crap. The ratio is entirely open to question but
both of the so called "nature and nurture" play a large, perhaps
equal, role in determining behavioural patterns.
The child might - it depends also on other factors. You equally can't
say a child WILL listen if you DON'T light up two minutes later.
Rambo, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Kurt Cobain et al don't play a part?
This is one of the areas of discussion that absolutely doesn't lend
itself to simplification, since every subtle nuance plays a critical
part, however small.
Cheers!
John
<snip>
<snip>
This is the point that the pro-gun people keep making that I just don't
understand... If you ban guns altogether, then how are bad guys going to get
them? Why can't you people see that it is the easy availability of these
things that allows bad guys to get them?
Keith
Well replied and I apologise for the "crap" remark. Yes, chemical imbalances are a factor in
some anto social behavior but that is easily tested for and often fixed with suppliments. This
argument is similar to the "are they born gay" vs ?re they made gay"debate that never has an
ending and no middle ground.
lets get back to something moremeasurable, like SCGT vs Viper or EA Superbikes vs AMA
Superbikes.
Quoted text (89 lines)
> Nature versus nurture - a very old subject that's been debated without any real resolution. > My statement is not "utter crap" - it's what I believe and, obviously, what you do not > believe. I personally think that our genetic make up determines the vast majority of our > personality and our behaviour patterns. The chemicals that occur in relatively low doses in > the brains of people who like to take risks are there because they have relatively low > amounts of the relative proteins which in turn are directly coded for in their DNA. I > believe that learning will affect some chemical pathways just as *** can as well, but I > still believe that sociopaths are born and not made. You take another view, that is your > right, and you can cite much supporting evidence for your view (as can I). In the end, as > with all the really keenly fought debates, which side of the fence you opt for is largely > value judgement. Mark, I respect the work that you do with kids and respect your views on > kids. No, there's no such thing as an evil kid, but then again I don't believe that there's > such a thing as evil anyway. Some kids are born with short attention spans and immunity to > fear. Chances are their parents are as well and putting the two together is a good bet for > deliquency. "Born innocent" - bit theological for me. Many children love to learn, almost > all love to be loved, some need "strong examples" others rarely require discipline. (My son > has been lecturing me for a couple of years to quit smoking and 2 weeks ago I finally did.) > I respect my sons and they respect me. We seldom fight and discipline is seldom an issue. > They appreciate the need to learn and take things in with open eyes and open arms. I know > of other children where that just isn't the case. As far as I can see they were born like > that. I guess we have to agree to differ. > Cheers, > Paul > > I thought I would stay away from this argument but this statement is utter crap. > > There is no such thing as an evil child. All children are born innocent. Their > > personality is moulded by those around them and the events they experience. > > A child requires guidance and strong examples. A child will not listen to a parent > > telling them not to smoke when the parent lights one up two minutes after the lecture. > > Most "good" parents who end up with problem children are victims themselves of not > > having the required skills or guidence. These parents aren't bad people. In our society > > the parents are the child's only *** influence apart from teachers. In other > > societies the extended family is a good role model and the cases of delinquency are > > decreased. Advice from in laws who have been there/done that can help parents. > > I have seen some of the most cunning, *** street wise kids become model citizens > > not through discipline but what they mostly need and respect, advice from ***s who > > treat them as equals and pratice what they preach. > > > It's easy to blame parents. I have 2 kids who are generally very well behaved > > > (except with us :-) ). This is not because we are particulary good or strict > > > parents. It is because these little spirits are usually good little spirits. I have > > > seen many ***y-minded and often downright evil little spirits, and I wonder to > > > myself how on earth the parents cope. Personalities are born and not made. You can > > > guide them but not mould them. > > > Cheers, > > > Paul > > > > >I have an even beter suggession lets blame the comms. or how about the > > > > >democrats; republicans, liberals. do you like placing the blame? this is > > > > >completely rediculus the blame if any is on the american society > > > > Sounds as though you're disagreeing with me, and then agreeing with me. Either > > > > way, we have a serious situation on our hands. I wasn't "placing blame;" I was > > > > establishing RESPONSIBILITY for this tragic nonsense. > > > > I happen to be around quite a few parents and their children every day. I've > > > > wondered for the past few years how these parents can idly stand by and let > > > > their children run riot without any correction or supervision whatsoever. The > > > > mystery was cleared up when I heard a parent utter the most ridiculous > > > > philosophy imaginable: "They're little spirits, and shouldn't be inhibited in > > > > any way." Well, spirits come in all stripes, and some are downright evil unless > > > > taught to respect the "spirits" with whom they share the world. Hell, even > > > > puppies are trained not to pee on the carpet. > > > > To nudge this thread back on topic, we stand to lose our rights to uncensored > > > > media and video games (and to own firearms, if that's your thing) if idiots are > > > > going to use them as re-enforcement of their unchecked ***s on society. > > > > It all starts with parents' obligation to RAISE their kids---not just allow > > > > them to reach ***hood with the mentality of children. > > > > Back to my Lotus, > > > > Trey BehanYeah, the "Crap"part was uncalled for and alread apologised for elsewhere.
Both factors are a part of any human beings personality.What ratio each factor has is a
continuing debate that can't be served by agrguing the points on this forum
As for Rambo, Duke Nukem etc having an influence, that is the argument that originally
started this never ending thread.
Quoted text (28 lines)
> >I thought I would stay away from this argument but this statement is utter crap. > >There is no such thing as an evil child. All children are born innocent. Their > >personality is moulded by those around them and the events they experience. > Ask anyone with even a modicum of genetic lineage or hereditary > behavioural traits and they will inform you that actually your > statement is utter crap. The ratio is entirely open to question but > both of the so called "nature and nurture" play a large, perhaps > equal, role in determining behavioural patterns. > >A child requires guidance and strong examples. A child will not listen to a parent > >telling them not to smoke when the parent lights one up two minutes after the lecture. > The child might - it depends also on other factors. You equally can't > say a child WILL listen if you DON'T light up two minutes later. > >Most "good" parents who end up with problem children are victims themselves of not > >having the required skills or guidence. These parents aren't bad people. In our society > >the parents are the child's only *** influence apart from teachers. > Rambo, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Kurt Cobain et al don't play a part? > This is one of the areas of discussion that absolutely doesn't lend > itself to simplification, since every subtle nuance plays a critical > part, however small. > Cheers! > John> lets get back to something moremeasurable, like SCGT vs Viper or EA Superbikes vs AMA
> Superbikes.
Ah, but GP2 versus F1RS. Now there's a "debate that never has an ending and no middle ground."
Cheers,
Paul
Quoted text (7 lines)
>>i still maintain that the bad guys will have access to >>these guns anyway, so why allow only them to carry them? < ><snip> >This is the point that the pro-gun people keep making that I just don't >understand... If you ban guns altogether, then how are bad guys going toOkay, make it impossible for Joe Regular to get a gun. Nothing is
impossible, trust me. If you are going to outlaw firearms, then how about
bomb making materials. It just keeps getting biger and bigger. It makes
no sense to outlaw firearms, since a person who wants to do this will find
a way.
Addtionally, These two individuals broke so many laws already, making
firearms illegal to posess alltogether would have made no difference to
them. Take a look at Colorado law and you will see how many laws were
broken, besides the ***. We need enforceable laws not more laws.
Banning firearms is not enforceable.
Dave
Why set up such a straw-man, Don? No reasonable person thinks passing a law
in and of itself is the panacea to the USA's ***y epidemic.
The idea that "ONLY LAW ABIDING PEOPLE ARE AFFECTED BY LAWS" is itself a bit
cute, a bit naive. Laws, combined with other forces, (whether they be
*real* commitments to addressing inner-city poverty, whether they be *real*
commitments to helping strengthen families caught in a downward spiral of
joblessness, and even--gulp--dependency, or what not) shape a culture, help
express and shift its collective aims, goals.
Of course, some libertarians find the notion that there should even be
collective goals a bit totalitarian.
DK
> >This is the point that the pro-gun people keep making that I just don't
> >understand... If you ban guns altogether, then how are bad guys going to get
> >them? Why can't you people see that it is the easy availability of these
> >things that allows bad guys to get them?
> Same way they get ***. It's kinda cute the way naive people think they can
> pass a law and fix everything just like magic. ONLY LAW ABIDING PEOPLE ARE
> AFFECTED BY LAWS.
> Don McCorkle
> Libertarian Motorsports
>This is the point that the pro-gun people keep making that I just don't
>understand... If you ban guns altogether, then how are bad guys going to get
>them? Why can't you people see that it is the easy availability of these
>things that allows bad guys to get them?
Same way they get ***. It's kinda cute the way naive people think they can
pass a law and fix everything just like magic. ONLY LAW ABIDING PEOPLE ARE
AFFECTED BY LAWS.
Don McCorkle
Libertarian Motorsports
GP2 will always be regarded as a classic. F1RS earns the RS part of its name.
> > lets get back to something moremeasurable, like SCGT vs Viper or EA Superbikes vs AMA
> > Superbikes.
> Ah, but GP2 versus F1RS. Now there's a "debate that never has an ending and no middle ground."
> Cheers,
> Paul
Quoted text (17 lines)
>>>i still maintain that the bad guys will have access to >>>these guns anyway, so why allow only them to carry them? < >><snip> >>This is the point that the pro-gun people keep making that I just don't >>understand... If you ban guns altogether, then how are bad guys going to >get >>them? Why can't you people see that it is the easy availability of these >>things that allows bad guys to get them? >how about the following, keith? >1. in california, to be able to carry a firearm in your car, you must have >a concealed weapons permit. these have been very difficult to get in LA >county. if it is clearly against the law to carry a gun, then how do you >explain the many drive-by shootings??> heck, no, i can see why. i'm not blind (although i attempt to be, at a near
> graeme nash rate!). my point, along with dang near every other pro-gun
> person, is:
> where do you draw the line?
Rocket launchers? Bazookas? Mortars? Anthrax? Nuclear weapons?
I have never understood this logic. We draw the line in every other area of
consumer products - you can't legally drive a Formula One car on public roads
but you can drive a high performance sports car. It is this absolutism which
make the NRA come across as a bunch of lunatics. Perhaps this is a good thing.
If they seemed like a reasonable bunch of folks who really gave a rat's ass
about anyone else, they would be even more powerful in American politics.
Mass proliferation of these weapons is how the bad guys are getting armed in the
first place. Allowing gun manufacturers to produce specific weapons with no
legitimate purposes is insane.
Jay, you have postulated that a substantial number of people in our ***
rate are actually bad guys who were shot in self defense. Here are some actual
stats ....
From the New England Journal of Medicine -
For every self-defense or legally justifiable shooting there are 4 accidental
shootings and 7 criminal ***s or ***s (plus 11 attempted or completed
suicides).
Our *** rate due to firearms is 10 times that of Canada (the second highest
rate) and about 200 times that of Japan.
Stop it ... I'm getting a woody. ;-)
Unlike smoking cigarrettes or viewing ***ography, this issue doesn't boil down
to personal choice because of the inherent dangers presented to the rest of
society.
It's a deal.
Peace,
Dave Ewing
Is this to be the end of the longest thread in r.a.s history? :-)
--
Cheers!
Graeme Nash
http://www.karisma1.demon.co.uk
ICQ# 11257824
________________________________________________________________________________
"Sorry, my eyes were on screensaver"
(Calvin & Hobbes)
>Let me get this straight... You're saying the majority of ***s in this
>country are people defending themselves against bad guys?!?!?!?!?
Boy, I wish THAT was the case. Somebody mentioned natural selection...?
Then, we wouldn't have to SUPPORT these mis-wired carbon-units in jail for
YEARS...
__
Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea...
remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Quoted text (19 lines)
>> Not our kids, State ward kids. We were "Cottage Parents", something akin to >> Foster Parents. In Australia any "child"over 15 can complain to a state >funded >> social worker abou their parents and get funding to move out of home. The >> parents crime could simply be to put curfews on their activities or show >concern >> about their choice of friends etc. The basic rights of parents to be >parents is >> being taken away. As for searching an 18 year olds room for weapons or >> ***...that is viewed as basic violation of the kids privacy. >This is complete bull. If the kid is living under my roof I don't care >if they are 35, it's still MY house and the room they are living in is >MY room. Therefore if I suspect illegal activity I WILL search the room. >If I find what I don't want to find then the proper people will be >informed, *** or no ***. The ultimate authority lays with the >parents. NO ONE in my house has complete privacy if I suspect >lawlessness. After all I could also be charged in the event the cops >break down my door because they suspect someone who lives in my house.>I wonder. I know little of this, but I wonder whether the gun lobby is so
>vociferous that they drown out the very many silent Americans who object to
>gun
>ownership.
>Cheers,
>Paul
I'm a 'sort of' silent American who's not against gun ownership. I'm against
'***', 'semi-automatic' gun ownership. I'm not a hunter, but I don't see
anything wrong with it, if you're not doing it JUST for sport. I wouldn't be
against anyone having a handgun for 'protection', or even target shooting.
But, why does ANYONE need a rapid-fire weapon that can put 20(or more) bullets
in a man before he hits the ground? I don't get it... :(
__
Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea...
remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Quoted text (8 lines)
>US Firearms Age-Adjusted Death Rate: 13.0 deaths per 100,000 population >(1996) >(Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 46, No. 1 Supplement 2) >***s in which the victim and killer are of same sex and unrelated 0.37 >persons >per 100,000 population per annum in England and Wales and 21.63 in Detriot. >In >Iceland that's 0.05. (Daly and Wilson 1990)writes:
It would be easier for me to solve the world's PROBLEMS... <g>
__
Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea...
remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
writes:
Ok, OTHERS have mentioned censorship. Pardon me for grouping you with THEM...
:)
__
Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea...
remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Ok, so he used an old term, so what? <---- that's NOT a flame...
So what happened to the principal? Did HE get arrested?
__
Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea...
remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
writes:
THANK YOU!!!
Someone *finally* admits the parents should be the good influence on these
brats...
__
Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea...
remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
The US doesn't have privacy laws? You can legally search through your kids drwaers
and cupboards? I don't think so.
By the way. I have spoke to Cottage Parents from many different countires and the
rules are the same. If a child is under your protection their bedroom is protected
by the sme rules as your house. Nobody can search your house without the proper
authority and so we wern;t allowed to enter the State Wards bedroom without an
invitation and certainly could not search it.
It iis far better to use the influence you have by keeping the kids under the ame
roof as you. If you upset the kids by doing Nazi type hit and run searches they
will leave home. Then what influence do you have?
Quoted text (28 lines)
> >> Not our kids, State ward kids. We were "Cottage Parents", something akin to > >> Foster Parents. In Australia any "child"over 15 can complain to a state > >funded > >> social worker abou their parents and get funding to move out of home. The > >> parents crime could simply be to put curfews on their activities or show > >concern > >> about their choice of friends etc. The basic rights of parents to be > >parents is > >> being taken away. As for searching an 18 year olds room for weapons or > >> ***...that is viewed as basic violation of the kids privacy. > >This is complete bull. If the kid is living under my roof I don't care > >if they are 35, it's still MY house and the room they are living in is > >MY room. Therefore if I suspect illegal activity I WILL search the room. > >If I find what I don't want to find then the proper people will be > >informed, *** or no ***. The ultimate authority lays with the > >parents. NO ONE in my house has complete privacy if I suspect > >lawlessness. After all I could also be charged in the event the cops > >break down my door because they suspect someone who lives in my house. > That's what I would think. There's no WAY I'm gonna let someone do illegal > stuff in MY house. But, he IS in a different country, right? Maybe they just > have stranger laws... > __ > Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea... > remove SPAM-OFF to reply.Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but isn't tht why we have a police
force, courts, why law-abiding people pay taxes etc etc?
Cheers!
John
>I'm a 'sort of' silent American who's not against gun ownership. I'm against
>'***', 'semi-automatic' gun ownership. I'm not a hunter, but I don't see
>anything wrong with it, if you're not doing it JUST for sport. I wouldn't be
>against anyone having a handgun for 'protection', or even target shooting.
>But, why does ANYONE need a rapid-fire weapon that can put 20(or more)
>bullets in a man before he hits the ground? I don't get it... :(
That's why it's illegal to own one. Automatic weapons are very strictly
controlled.
Semi-automatic means it fires one round when you pull the trigger, then reloads
itself. No different than a revolver. *** in it's current usage means
that it looks like a military weapon.
Don McCorkle
Libertarian Motorsports
Quoted text (11 lines)
> Okay, make it impossible for Joe Regular to get a gun. Nothing is > impossible, trust me. If you are going to outlaw firearms, then how about > bomb making materials. It just keeps getting biger and bigger. It makes > no sense to outlaw firearms, since a person who wants to do this will find > a way. > Addtionally, These two individuals broke so many laws already, making > firearms illegal to posess alltogether would have made no difference to > them. Take a look at Colorado law and you will see how many laws were > broken, besides the ***. We need enforceable laws not more laws. > Banning firearms is not enforceable.(Woodie 83) writes:
Ok, thanks. Not being a gun afficianado, I didn't know the various
definitions...
So, why dod the term 'semi-automatic' seem to be a recent one? They didn't
call revolvers that in the '20s and '30s, did they?
__
Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea...
remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Quoted text (19 lines)
>>I'm a 'sort of' silent American who's not against gun ownership. I'm >against >>'***', 'semi-automatic' gun ownership. I'm not a hunter, but I don't >see >>anything wrong with it, if you're not doing it JUST for sport. I wouldn't >be >>against anyone having a handgun for 'protection', or even target shooting. >>But, why does ANYONE need a rapid-fire weapon that can put 20(or more) >>bullets in a man before he hits the ground? I don't get it... :( >That's why it's illegal to own one. Automatic weapons are very strictly >controlled. >Semi-automatic means it fires one round when you pull the trigger, then >reloads >itself. No different than a revolver. *** in it's current usage means >that it looks like a military weapon. >Don McCorkle >Libertarian Motorsportswrites:
Why not? It's in your HOUSE. If the police raid you and find something you're
damn well going to be RESPONSIBLE for it...
__
Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea...
remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Yes that is wrong and against the law. But a person defending himself or
his wife it is not wrong. Addtionally if someone came into my house or was
going to kill me or my wife I would much rather be judged by 12 then
carried by 6. We do have the right to defend ourselves, in Fact the US
consititution recognizes this GOD given right.
Dave
>Ok, thanks. Not being a gun afficianado, I didn't know the various
>definitions...
>So, why dod the term 'semi-automatic' seem to be a recent one? They didn't
>call revolvers that in the '20s and '30s, did they?
When I said "no different than a revolver", I meant that one trigger pull
delivers one round and leaves the gun ready to fire again. Mechanically, they
are very different. A semi-automatic, often referred to as an automatic
pistol, uses the left over gas from firing to eject the spent cartridge and
load a fresh one from a magazine. The magazine holds more cartriges than a
revolver and is easier to reload, so in a prolonged firefight, the semi-auto
would have an advantage, but for six, seven, or in some cases eight firings,
they would be equal in speed. The press uses semi-automatic, and in some cases
automatic, because it fools some people into thinking someone was using a
machine gun. As you now know, this little scam works quite well.
Don McCorkle
Libertarian Motorsports
We do have the right to defend ourselves, in Fact the US
Well, just remember that you were the one that brought this point up. I
believe God said it best when he stated, "Thou shalt not kill". He did not say
"except when you or your loved one's lives are in danger". There are no
exceptions to that law. And Christ said "You shall love your neighbor as
yourself". Drop the paranoia and realize that, no matter how much it may give
you mental comfort, that gun will not really save your life. If your number is
up today, there is nothing in the world you can do that will change the fact.
On the other hand, if your number is *not* up today nothing is going to take
your life no matter what. Which is where tales of *miracle* survivals in times
of crisis come from. The only thing that gun will do for you is to condemn you
before The Man. Have a nice life.
Chuck Kandler
Don,
I hate to interject into this fruitless, off-topic thread, but I have to
say that for someone seem to be knowledgeable about guns, you are not being
completely truthful.
It is NOT true that revolvers and semi-automatic guns "for six or eight
firings would be equal in firing speed." Revolvers and semi-automatics are
also generally referred as double-action and single-action guns,
respectively, for the way they operate. That is, in a revolver the action
of pulling the trigger first***s the hammer and then releases it to drop
as the second action. Whereas in a semiautomatic gun part of the gas
pressure is used the*** the hammer and ready it for the next round.
Therefore it is much faster to pull the trigger consecutively on a
semi-automatic gun, because very little travel and effort required on the
trigger to drop the hammer.
For the same reason, it would be very easy to modify any semi-automatic
weapon to fully automatic action
Nafi Coker
>>Ok, thanks. Not being a gun afficianado, I didn't know the various
>>definitions...
>>So, why dod the term 'semi-automatic' seem to be a recent one? They didn't
>>call revolvers that in the '20s and '30s, did they?
>When I said "no different than a revolver", I meant that one trigger pull
>delivers one round and leaves the gun ready to fire again. Mechanically, they
>are very different. A semi-automatic, often referred to as an automatic
>pistol, uses the left over gas from firing to eject the spent cartridge and
>load a fresh one from a magazine. The magazine holds more cartriges than a
>revolver and is easier to reload, so in a prolonged firefight, the semi-auto
>would have an advantage, but for six, seven, or in some cases eight firings,
>they would be equal in speed. The press uses semi-automatic, and in some cases
>automatic, because it fools some people into thinking someone was using a
>machine gun. As you now know, this little scam works quite well.
>Don McCorkle
>Libertarian Motorsports
>Well, just remember that you were the one that brought this point up. I
>believe God said it best when he stated, "Thou shalt not kill". He did not
>say
>"except when you or your loved one's lives are in danger". There are no
>exceptions to that law.
Wrong, the original saying was "Thou shall not commit ***". Got kinda
changed in the translation. Do you really think god wants you to stand by and
do nothing if say, a child is being***d? If so, then anything god has said
goes right out the window. That's no one I would listen to.
Don McCorkle
Libertarian Motorsports
Quoted text (10 lines)
>It is NOT true that revolvers and semi-automatic guns "for six or eight >firings would be equal in firing speed." Revolvers and semi-automatics are >also generally referred as double-action and single-action guns, >respectively, for the way they operate. That is, in a revolver the action >of pulling the trigger first***s the hammer and then releases it to drop >as the second action. Whereas in a semiautomatic gun part of the gas >pressure is used the*** the hammer and ready it for the next round. >Therefore it is much faster to pull the trigger consecutively on a >semi-automatic gun, because very little travel and effort required on the >trigger to drop the hammer.Well I would think the reason would be you would not be able to hit the
broad side of a barn with a pistol made to operate fully automatic. I
think you would would encounter a bunch of muzzle lift.
DAve
>Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but isn't tht why we have a police
>force, courts, why law-abiding people pay taxes etc etc?
You bluff old traditionalist you....
Mike.
> If the kid is living under my roof I don't care
> if they are 35, it's still MY house and the room they are living in is
> MY room. Therefore if I suspect illegal activity I WILL search the room.
I absolutely agree with the emotion of this statement. However, having just gone thru
the "system" with a troubled *** myself, I can tell you he's not pulling your leg.
Although most kids are not street-smart enough to try, they can basically tell you
they'll be home in a day or two, whenever they feel like it. What you gonna do? You
touch them, you go to jail in this crazy society. I know of a parent who grabbed the
arm of their child, they wrenched away & purposely slammed their own face into a
doorjam, then called the police. Guess who went to jail, & is probably going to lose
the rest of their kids?
I can agree with holding parents responsible, but *ONLY* if they are also allowed to
also discipline! As things are now, you better not do anything to try & stop your
kids, & if they perform some illegal activity then you're goin down too. Crazy
American society we live in!
--
Chuck Kandler
Quoted text (17 lines)
> the US has a huge amount of ***'s when compared to the rest of the > world. approximately 5-6 more per 100,000. hard to argue with this. i do > have a suspicion about these (don't worry - it's not a *** theory), > that being there is no distinguishing between a *** act by a baddie or a > life-saving defensive action by an goodie. for example, a couple of baddies > holds up a goodie at gun point. the goodie then blows away thre baddies > after being accosted. result: two ***s. the definition of "***, by > the way, is: > a person who kills another. > this is very different. > if my example holds any water at all, i am glad that the world is rid of 5-6 > more baddies. yes, this freedom does have a cost. if that cost is 1 out of > 100,000 kids having an accident with daddy's gun - then that is a small > price to pay for a better society.> Do you really think god wants you to stand by and
> do nothing if say, a child is being***d? If so, then anything god has said
> goes right out the window. That's no one I would listen to.
I don't know. Would he want me to stand by as you ***ed its rapist? Or should
I protect his (also) sacred life? Then who would stand by as I take you out? It
goes both ways. He's wrong for his actions, but you'd be wrong in yours. There
is only one to settle the score. And its not you or me.
A person saving anothers life is not in the wrong. He has a very good
reason for what he is doing and God will not punish him. Additionally I
would venture to guess there is not Court on the Earth that would punish
him either.
This is starting to get stupid. Killing a rapist if its the only way to
stop the*** is justified.
Dave
> > Do you really think god wants you to stand by and
> > do nothing if say, a child is being***d? If so, then anything god has said
> > goes right out the window. That's no one I would listen to.
> I don't know. Would he want me to stand by as you ***ed its rapist? Or should
> I protect his (also) sacred life? Then who would stand by as I take you out? It
> goes both ways. He's wrong for his actions, but you'd be wrong in yours. There
> is only one to settle the score. And its not you or me.
I think you had better bone up on the privacy laws. Are you saying if I rented
somebody the room or the house I would have the right to enter and search? The
Police have to prove you knew the "illegal" items were stored in your kids room.
Respect for their privacy is a legal defence.
Quoted text (13 lines)
> writes: > >The US doesn't have privacy laws? You can legally search through your kids > >drwaers > >and cupboards? I don't think so. > Why not? It's in your HOUSE. If the police raid you and find something you're > damn well going to be RESPONSIBLE for it... > __ > Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea... > remove SPAM-OFF to reply.Perhaps you can point me to the evidence of this? It is clearly "Thou
shalt not kill", unless you are better able to translate the originals
which popped down from Mt. Sinai. It has _been_interpreted_ as thou
shalt not commit ***, but that was probably when being translated
by Uzi....
Do you really think God wants you to second guess him and read what
you want into what He said? You either invole God's words or you
don't, but he's not a guy who's words I'd want to be twisting.
Cheers!
John
On 11 May 1999 10:40:23 GMT, "DAVID "
>A person saving anothers life is not in the wrong. He has a very good
>reason for what he is doing and God will not punish him. Additionally I
>would venture to guess there is not Court on the Earth that would punish
>him either.
So Mr. Wolfe's girlfriend's car breaks down - I stop to help - she
thinks I'm stopping to*** her and "glocks" me one in the head.
Does God punish me, punish her, punish Glock or what? Or is it all a
big misunderstanding with me the "dead" unlucky one?
Cheers!
John
Quoted text (8 lines)
>On 11 May 1999 10:40:23 GMT, "DAVID " >So Mr. Wolfe's girlfriend's car breaks down - I stop to help - she >thinks I'm stopping to*** her and "glocks" me one in the head. >Does God punish me, punish her, punish Glock or what? Or is it all a >big misunderstanding with me the "dead" unlucky one?On Tue, 11 May 1999 14:54:04 -0700, "Jay Wolfe"
>uh...nope. there ain't no dang deities a-flyin' 'round, matey. whatcha wood
>be is done dead. chalk it upta an accident. as the lady said herself:
>"i'd rather be in jail for killing an attacker, than him be in jail for
>killing me."
Or "I'd rather gun down the good samaritan in case he***s me".
On the other hand the world is a worse place overall since Jay, heaven
forfend, may manage by some quirk of nature to spread his evil seed.
Oh lord though art truly a fickle master, and thy tortuos ways are
impossible to understand... :-)
Cheers!
John
Three "number twos"?
Cheers!
John
Don't worry about it. You would probably go to heaven and get to play GP3 on
a Pentium IV 2000 with a 128MB Voodoo 6 card at 350FPS for the sresto of
eternity!
or
You would probably go to hell and get to play GP3 on a Pentium IV 2000 with a
128MB Voodoo 6 card at 350FPS for the sresto of eternity!
Quoted text (16 lines)
> On 11 May 1999 10:40:23 GMT, "DAVID " > >A person saving anothers life is not in the wrong. He has a very good > >reason for what he is doing and God will not punish him. Additionally I > >would venture to guess there is not Court on the Earth that would punish > >him either. > So Mr. Wolfe's girlfriend's car breaks down - I stop to help - she > thinks I'm stopping to*** her and "glocks" me one in the head. > Does God punish me, punish her, punish Glock or what? Or is it all a > big misunderstanding with me the "dead" unlucky one? > Cheers! > Johnwrites:
It sounds like you're talking about FATE. If so, then why bother trying
ANYTHING? It's all 'God's' will, you know... :(
__
Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea...
remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
writes:
Geez, I'm glad I'm an athiest...
__
Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea...
remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Quoted text (12 lines)
>> Do you really think god wants you to stand by and >> do nothing if say, a child is being***d? If so, then anything god has >said >> goes right out the window. That's no one I would listen to. >I don't know. Would he want me to stand by as you ***ed its rapist? Or >should >I protect his (also) sacred life? Then who would stand by as I take you out? >It >goes both ways. He's wrong for his actions, but you'd be wrong in yours. >There >is only one to settle the score. And its not you or me.> Geez, I'm glad I'm an athiest...
Yeah, I was born & raised as one. Came to my senses after about age 30. You're
viewpoint helps you cope now, but eventually will do you in. But it's your right
& I respect it.
--
Chuck Kandler #70
K&S Racing
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195
Unarmed & unafraid!
>> Geez, I'm glad I'm an athiest...
>Yeah, I was born & raised as one. Came to my senses after about age 30.
"...gee, mommy. this science stuff sure is confusing. it's just too damn
logical. i think that chatting sh***ies, drawing people out of dirt,
mysterious mega dudes, 700 year old geeks, talking snakes and a complete
lack of respect for the laws of physics makes a helluva lot more sense.
where do i sign up?"
> "...gee, mommy. this science stuff sure is confusing. it's just too damn
> logical. i think that chatting sh***ies, drawing people out of dirt,
> mysterious mega dudes, 700 year old geeks, talking snakes and a complete
> lack of respect for the laws of physics makes a helluva lot more sense.
> where do i sign up?"
ROTFLMAO!! "No, really man. That building wasn't here last week! I was
just out walkin' the dog when I heard this really loud bang. Then, next
thing ya know, here was this hi-rise office building! Really!"
C'mon guys, its past time to get back on topic.
--
Chuck Kandler #70
K&S Racing
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195
Unarmed & unafraid!
