would gangs or gang violence be as bad if everyone owned an assult rifle?
you wouldn't mess with granny down the street if you knew she had an assult rifle
I call bullshit. Gangs fight other gangs. All gangs are equally well-armed, effectively. Each gang knows how well armed their enemies are. And the gangs still fight each other.
Presumably, each gang knows that granny down the street is unarmed, and presumably they don't care. Granny, armed or not, is irrelevant to their interests. The only time she gets involved in gangland violence is when she's shot as an innocent bystander in a drive-by. And if the shooters aren't afraid of the assault rifle that their target is carrying, why should they be worried about the assault rifle that's propping up the old lady next to him?
If equal armament really was a deterrent in gang violence, then we should just give all the gangbangers the best firearms money can buy. Then they'll all be so afraid of each other that they'll all sit at home, polishing their rifles, counting their ammo, dreaming of the day when those East Coast punkasses come busting in and they have an excuse to actually pull the motherfuckin' trigger... in fact, fuck that shit! I can't take it anymore! I've got the guns, I've got the ammo, I'm takin' it to the streets! Those wack bitches thought they could hide, they got anotha think comin', yo! They got a fully-automatic beating, is what they got comin' Word as bond, bro. Let's get it on!
. ..
Anyway, it seems fairly obvious that equal armament isn't a deterrent for gangsters.
It is there for my protection and the protection of those within.
I don't want to flame you, but I do have some questions.
First, protection from what?
Second, why by the door? If the Deadly Home Invaders of Death kick the door down and barge in, they've cut you off from your protection before you've even figured out what's going on. If they knock first, wouldn't a paperweight, or a stun grenade, or a taser, or a cattle prod, or whatever be just as handy--and much less lethal?
Finally, have you ever opened the door to a situation that could be best resolved by killing someone? Do you have any reason to expect that such a situation may come knocking?
I dunno, maybe shooting people dead really is the best solution for the problems that plague your neighborhood... if so, I humbly withdraw my questions.
Bonus: I don't think the point of the Second Amendment was to make law enforcement officials fear for their lives when serving a warrant. If that's your idea of a situation that could best be resolved by killing someone, remind me never to drop by unannounced. It seems your paperweight has put you in the mood for murder.
For the price of a movie ticket, I can rent two games, keep them all week, and play them alone in my living room.
Since I generally hate people who are unlike me, this works out fine, and it's how I watch all my movies.
But every once in a while, it'd be nice to head down to the local LAN party, hang out with people who are enough like me that I don't hate them too much, pick up a few games of whatever in an atmosphere of [cameraderie|easy-going competion|blind fury], and then roll on back home.
Hell, I used to go to the cinema once or twice a week, back before everybody and their asshole started taking calls during the movie. Swap out "movie" for "LAN party", and I guarantee you that two hours there would be worth two games alone at home for a week.
Why on earth didn't you put a stop to it? Ask him to leave? Complain to the management? Do something--anything--to indicate that his behavior was not acceptable?
Next time some clueless jerk answers his cell phone in a movie theater, I'm blaming you.
I think I understand. These attacks are the punishment of an angry god, not moral actions of free individuals.
The American hypocrisy comes from denying that we deserve the punishment, and from refusing to admit that our own actions are just as evil as those of the terrorists who attack us.
Except, of course, that the terrorists aren't really making moral choices for which they are individually responsible--they're just doing the god's work. So we can't even call their actions "evil" in any meaningful sense.
And by the same token, our own actions may not be "evil" either. They may simply be judgements of god against... well, whoever.
Make up your mind: are we simply agents of god's will, or are we responsible for our own actions? Or both? Or neither?
Anyway, if we're responsible for our own actions, then it's hard to justify terror bombings--just as it's hard to justify carpet bombings. There's certainly room for hypocrisy here, but nothing that indicates that evildoers shouldn't be held personally responsible for their evil acts, and judged accordingly.
I don't intend to defend the actions of the U.S. here, but I honestly don't see how the terrorists' actions can be defended either.
If the terrorists are free moral agents, then their attacks are evil. If they are not free moral agents, then their attacks are justified (because they're doing god's work). But in that case, our own actions are also justified, and their attacks are meaningless slaughter. They're off the hook, but now we must ask god to justify these events (if such questioning is part of god's plan for us today).
So let me get this straight: I deserve to be terror-bombed, for persisting as a citizen of this evil State.
I can absolve myself of this guilt by abandoning this State to its doom at the hands of the agents of righteous punishment, and live happily ever after as a citizen of some non-fascist State that does not deserve--and therefore will never receive--punitive "terrorist" attacks. Switzerland, perhaps.
Presumably such a non-fascist State would allow more personal freedoms than the one I currently live in, so it's extremely important that the terrorists--sorry, "righteous avengers"--understand that it does not merit attacks. If they disagreed with the righteousness of my new homland, they would find it quite easy to act within its borders. After all, this non-fascist State would be unwilling and probably unable to effectively monitor its population for likely threats from the Righteous Justice Squads.
But what if I elect to stay in my original State, and work to improve it from within? After all, what good does it do if every right-thinking individual leaves the U.S.? Shouldn't some of them, at least, stay behind to try and improve things?
Assuming I accept my duty as a world citzen, and stay behind to improve the State, how will the Agents of Justice know not to kill me? Will they even agree that I am no longer guilty of crimes against the world?
By your own logic, you deserve to die just as much as most of the victims of the 9/11 attack. And if that's what you deserve, then why do you persist in living? Do the right thing. Turn yourself over to the terrorists. It's what you deserve.
What are you trying to say? If you're not prepared to admit the superiority of the Hipparcos catalogue, then you're obviously a fool and an ass. Ridiculing this serious debate just shows how naive you really are.
So it isn't terrorism, it's the righteous anger of world citizens, trying desperately to get us to take responsibility for our evil deeds?
And all I have to do is repent, and say I'm sorry, and these mis-named "fundamentalists" will forgive me and take their suicide bombers off to some other, more deserving Great Satan?
Because, of course, the pagan demographic was sitting there, saying, "well, I'd really like to get into that Xtian thing, but... there's not enough bunnies."
...like eating the flesh of the alleged savior to name a grotesque ritual...
Ah, but do you find it grotesque... ...because the practice is inconsistent with the beliefs of the practitioners... ...or because the practice is inconsistent with your own religious beliefs... ...or because you believe that all religious beliefs (and the practices which stem from them) are inconsistent with your own experience and interpretation of reality?
Clever context-shifting can make almost any practice seem grotesque. And if you categorically deny that religion has any value except to dupes and demagogues, you may be significantly less inclined to correctly interpret the meaning of religious ceremonies.
Last time I checked, Xtians engage in the communion ritual as a metaphysical act--it symbolizes the integration of the deity's holy qualities into every aspect of the practioner's life. In the same way that food nourishes the body, so does the deity nourish the soul, is how the analogy goes. It's a powerful image, and one that focuses the mind of the practitioner on the fundamental principles of their faith. Misguided, maybe, but certainly no more "grotesque" than burning Guy Fawkes in effigy.
Given the opportunity, I'd readily consume the divine flesh of a god, freely offered, to gain some portion of their power. But such an opportunity probably wouldn't be literal, anyway. Applying physical rules to metaphysical phenomena is kind of silly. What if eating literal food is the grotesque act, and the intake of the deity's holy power is the true phenomenon our dinnertime caricatures?
I'm not saying they're right, or anything, but it doesn't seem grotesque at all, in context. Out of context, a valid interpretation is difficult to find.
Actually, I've never been to a cocktail party. But you do a good job of making it sound like a LAN party.
Anyway, I'd always heard that the point of GE courses was so that you'd be able to hold your own in casual conversation on any topic. The canonical situation was always "a cocktail party". Certainly anybody who felt so confident about not needing European History, and was so enthusiastically committed to only studying video game-related subjects, wouldn't have much to talk about outside of their very narrow career interests.
And how interesting will the next-generation video game be, if its designers set to work with no understanding of history, literature, art, architecture, and a variety of other disciplines that help us give meaning and value to our experiences and ideas?
Slashdot Mirror
you wouldn't mess with granny down the street if you knew she had an assult rifle
I call bullshit. Gangs fight other gangs. All gangs are equally well-armed, effectively. Each gang knows how well armed their enemies are. And the gangs still fight each other.
Presumably, each gang knows that granny down the street is unarmed, and presumably they don't care. Granny, armed or not, is irrelevant to their interests. The only time she gets involved in gangland violence is when she's shot as an innocent bystander in a drive-by. And if the shooters aren't afraid of the assault rifle that their target is carrying, why should they be worried about the assault rifle that's propping up the old lady next to him?
If equal armament really was a deterrent in gang violence, then we should just give all the gangbangers the best firearms money can buy. Then they'll all be so afraid of each other that they'll all sit at home, polishing their rifles, counting their ammo, dreaming of the day when those East Coast punkasses come busting in and they have an excuse to actually pull the motherfuckin' trigger... in fact, fuck that shit! I can't take it anymore! I've got the guns, I've got the ammo, I'm takin' it to the streets! Those wack bitches thought they could hide, they got anotha think comin', yo! They got a fully-automatic beating, is what they got comin' Word as bond, bro. Let's get it on!
. . .
Anyway, it seems fairly obvious that equal armament isn't a deterrent for gangsters.
See, his conclusion doesn't make sense. I've been watching a lot of Westerns lately, and it's quite clear that more guns lead to more shooting deaths.
I don't want to flame you, but I do have some questions.
First, protection from what?
Second, why by the door? If the Deadly Home Invaders of Death kick the door down and barge in, they've cut you off from your protection before you've even figured out what's going on. If they knock first, wouldn't a paperweight, or a stun grenade, or a taser, or a cattle prod, or whatever be just as handy--and much less lethal?
Finally, have you ever opened the door to a situation that could be best resolved by killing someone? Do you have any reason to expect that such a situation may come knocking?
I dunno, maybe shooting people dead really is the best solution for the problems that plague your neighborhood... if so, I humbly withdraw my questions.
Bonus: I don't think the point of the Second Amendment was to make law enforcement officials fear for their lives when serving a warrant. If that's your idea of a situation that could best be resolved by killing someone, remind me never to drop by unannounced. It seems your paperweight has put you in the mood for murder.
Not so much ignorant as bigoted. Certainly audacious, though.
Because, of course, all your TLD are belong to .us!
Dave&Busters is a fancy arcade. This is a different approach altogether.
Just because both are trying to solve the same problem, doesn't make them the same thing.
For the price of a movie ticket, I can rent two games, keep them all week, and play them alone in my living room.
Since I generally hate people who are unlike me, this works out fine, and it's how I watch all my movies.
But every once in a while, it'd be nice to head down to the local LAN party, hang out with people who are enough like me that I don't hate them too much, pick up a few games of whatever in an atmosphere of [cameraderie|easy-going competion|blind fury], and then roll on back home.
Hell, I used to go to the cinema once or twice a week, back before everybody and their asshole started taking calls during the movie. Swap out "movie" for "LAN party", and I guarantee you that two hours there would be worth two games alone at home for a week.
Next time some clueless jerk answers his cell phone in a movie theater, I'm blaming you.
In Soviet Russia, we call this "Canadian Joke".
I think I understand. These attacks are the punishment of an angry god, not moral actions of free individuals.
The American hypocrisy comes from denying that we deserve the punishment, and from refusing to admit that our own actions are just as evil as those of the terrorists who attack us.
Except, of course, that the terrorists aren't really making moral choices for which they are individually responsible--they're just doing the god's work. So we can't even call their actions "evil" in any meaningful sense.
And by the same token, our own actions may not be "evil" either. They may simply be judgements of god against... well, whoever.
Make up your mind: are we simply agents of god's will, or are we responsible for our own actions? Or both? Or neither?
Anyway, if we're responsible for our own actions, then it's hard to justify terror bombings--just as it's hard to justify carpet bombings. There's certainly room for hypocrisy here, but nothing that indicates that evildoers shouldn't be held personally responsible for their evil acts, and judged accordingly.
I don't intend to defend the actions of the U.S. here, but I honestly don't see how the terrorists' actions can be defended either.
If the terrorists are free moral agents, then their attacks are evil. If they are not free moral agents, then their attacks are justified (because they're doing god's work). But in that case, our own actions are also justified, and their attacks are meaningless slaughter. They're off the hook, but now we must ask god to justify these events (if such questioning is part of god's plan for us today).
It's not censorship. Obviously.
Isn't .ca the TLD for California? I thought Canada was .ca.uk, or .ca.fr, or something.
You don't have to go to space to see the beauty all around you. And you won't leave the evils of human nature behind, either.
So let me get this straight: I deserve to be terror-bombed, for persisting as a citizen of this evil State.
I can absolve myself of this guilt by abandoning this State to its doom at the hands of the agents of righteous punishment, and live happily ever after as a citizen of some non-fascist State that does not deserve--and therefore will never receive--punitive "terrorist" attacks. Switzerland, perhaps.
Presumably such a non-fascist State would allow more personal freedoms than the one I currently live in, so it's extremely important that the terrorists--sorry, "righteous avengers"--understand that it does not merit attacks. If they disagreed with the righteousness of my new homland, they would find it quite easy to act within its borders. After all, this non-fascist State would be unwilling and probably unable to effectively monitor its population for likely threats from the Righteous Justice Squads.
But what if I elect to stay in my original State, and work to improve it from within? After all, what good does it do if every right-thinking individual leaves the U.S.? Shouldn't some of them, at least, stay behind to try and improve things?
Assuming I accept my duty as a world citzen, and stay behind to improve the State, how will the Agents of Justice know not to kill me? Will they even agree that I am no longer guilty of crimes against the world?
By your own logic, you deserve to die just as much as most of the victims of the 9/11 attack. And if that's what you deserve, then why do you persist in living? Do the right thing. Turn yourself over to the terrorists. It's what you deserve.
For me, it was the other way around: the first thing I thought when I saw the movie was "hey--how did they get permission to film at Arecibo?".
What are you trying to say? If you're not prepared to admit the superiority of the Hipparcos catalogue, then you're obviously a fool and an ass. Ridiculing this serious debate just shows how naive you really are.
Wait... what are we talking about?
I can't seem to find the /. story where this is explained. Can you tell me what I missed?
Thanks!
That would explain why I can't get my steak to cook properly in there.
"Marketing" is a distinctly modern concept. You may be thinking of "syncretism", which has a different set of motivations and desired outcomes.
So it isn't terrorism, it's the righteous anger of world citizens, trying desperately to get us to take responsibility for our evil deeds?
And all I have to do is repent, and say I'm sorry, and these mis-named "fundamentalists" will forgive me and take their suicide bombers off to some other, more deserving Great Satan?
Awsome! Where do I sign up?
Because, of course, the pagan demographic was sitting there, saying, "well, I'd really like to get into that Xtian thing, but... there's not enough bunnies."
Seriously though, what's your point?
Ah, but do you find it grotesque...
...because the practice is inconsistent with the beliefs of the practitioners...
...or because the practice is inconsistent with your own religious beliefs...
...or because you believe that all religious beliefs (and the practices which stem from them) are inconsistent with your own experience and interpretation of reality?
Clever context-shifting can make almost any practice seem grotesque. And if you categorically deny that religion has any value except to dupes and demagogues, you may be significantly less inclined to correctly interpret the meaning of religious ceremonies.
Last time I checked, Xtians engage in the communion ritual as a metaphysical act--it symbolizes the integration of the deity's holy qualities into every aspect of the practioner's life. In the same way that food nourishes the body, so does the deity nourish the soul, is how the analogy goes. It's a powerful image, and one that focuses the mind of the practitioner on the fundamental principles of their faith. Misguided, maybe, but certainly no more "grotesque" than burning Guy Fawkes in effigy.
Given the opportunity, I'd readily consume the divine flesh of a god, freely offered, to gain some portion of their power. But such an opportunity probably wouldn't be literal, anyway. Applying physical rules to metaphysical phenomena is kind of silly. What if eating literal food is the grotesque act, and the intake of the deity's holy power is the true phenomenon our dinnertime caricatures?
I'm not saying they're right, or anything, but it doesn't seem grotesque at all, in context. Out of context, a valid interpretation is difficult to find.
Actually, I've never been to a cocktail party. But you do a good job of making it sound like a LAN party.
Anyway, I'd always heard that the point of GE courses was so that you'd be able to hold your own in casual conversation on any topic. The canonical situation was always "a cocktail party". Certainly anybody who felt so confident about not needing European History, and was so enthusiastically committed to only studying video game-related subjects, wouldn't have much to talk about outside of their very narrow career interests.
And how interesting will the next-generation video game be, if its designers set to work with no understanding of history, literature, art, architecture, and a variety of other disciplines that help us give meaning and value to our experiences and ideas?
Almost as well invested as that, yes. But only in a "throwing good money after bad" kind of way.
The original poster does care, since he doesn't want his tax dollars to be invested in preventing it.