How many prisoners have corporations tortured and executed?
Bayer (the aspirin people) certainly did a lot of this during WW2.
And when the corporations own the government then they are the ones orchestrating the evil, no?
How many wars have corporations started? How many cities have corporations razed down?
War is good for the economy, as long as it is on foriegn soil. Corporations make money during times of war. If a corporation could buy the government and start a war to help their bottom line, they would (and have).
Was that misspelling of "Bil" intentional, as from the book "Bill the Galactic Hero" (where Bill only rated 1 "l" in his name since he wasn't an officer)?
If so, "+5 Funny, but Obscure". If not, I need to lay off the colas.:-/
There was some info in your (very well written) post that I was unaware of. I don't see how any discussion can be valid if you don't have access to material from both sides of the debate. I don't like the Nazi ideas, but I certainly couldn't say that with any accuracy if I didn't know what they were.
However, I'm a "stupid American" (LOL), and things truly are a lot different over here. AFAIK, you can talk about overthrowing our Constitution freely. You just can't threaten to kill the president. I could be wrong.
If the system you have works, great. I always worry when ANY information is suppressed, because it's hard to debate the boogeyman.;-)
I was really shocked when I found out about Wolfenstein. And your version of Half-Life slightly altered as well, from a similar law IIRC?
I'm not worried about my neighbor, I'm worried about people who don't know how to use a gun using it. I'm not worried about being shot myself, I'm worried about innocent people being accidentaly shot by ignorant people. Unfortunately this is very common in some big cities.
Most of those shootings are by people who have guns illegally. Legal gun owners tend to follow the law, you know.
I never said anything about taking away anyones guns, or whether or not people should be able to own and/or carry guns
Valid point, I apologize. I thought that was in your post. After replying to a few dozen posts in this thread, I blurred who said what. You're right, it really was my mistake.
And drop the condescension too. If you can't debate like a big boy then go back to the sand box.
Sorry, I didn't know I was being condescending either, so if I was then it was unintentional. Apologies again.
I'm not sure, in some minds that would make private citizens (more) legitimate targets, personally I find the act of killing anyone totally sickening. I do understand that there are occations where it is the only alternative, but killing another human being should always be the last resort. (By this I mean that for someone to shoot and kill someone who is threatening your life or the life of another seems reasonable)
To that sniper, private citizens already are legitimate targets. I appreciate your stance on killing, and respect it. I'll _never_ ask you to have a gun.:-) However, if the situation you described comes up, I'll be glad that I have one.
Perhaps you'd support spot checks upon how firearms are stored? So that an official agency would come and ask to inspect how your firearms are being stored, and remove those firearms if they were not being stored correctly. I'm not talking about some random search of your home here either, just a couple of officials wanting to see how the guns you legitimatly own are stored, with no mandate (or power) to snoop into anything else. This seems like a reasonable measure.
Right now, there is no enforcement at all on how your guns are stored. Also, if your gun is improperly stored, you are not always liable if it would be used in a crime or an accident. I don't think spot checking houses would be nearly as effective as holding the owner more responsible for their property, just like dog-owners should be. Now, if you have a gun secured and locked and it is stolen, that's a different story. But to leave one laying around is criminal, and most people would change their behavior accordingly. The ones that wouldn't should NOT have a weapon.
By the way, I appreciate you discussing this in a calm and rational fashion. Thank you.
I've been called worse by better. Did my "stupid people" comment hit too close to home, you stupid prick?
If you believe accidents only happen to stupid people then you have alot to learn about life.
I believe stupid people are more likely to create situations where accidents happen than smart people are. Ever heard of Darwin?
What about if your child was round at a house with a loaded gun?
By the time my kid was old enough to go to a friend's house that I didn't know the parents, the kid would know about guns and what not to do. Good parents teach their kids about potentially dangerous things. I wish your parents hadn't, though. Some Darwinism would have been good in your case.
IN other news, I would just *love* to see you (probably a high school nerd) try and protect yourself against a gangster who had decided they wanted you dead, gun or not.
In other news, I found it ironic that a stupid prick who got mad at me for having a supposedly uninformed opinion had an uninformed (and very incorrect) opinion.
As for the a gun in the house making it safer, I'm not so sure. I'd like to think that such a thing would be under lock and key - I don't much care for the idea that it is easy to find and remove. If it is under lock and key then I doubt it'll do you much good if someone breaks in (let's hope that theory remains unanswered).
If the gun is not in my immediate presence, it is secured and empty. I'm a responsible gun owner. I don't have kids, but I don't want to come home to a suprise either.
I'm also a bit wary of the idea that the best outcome of this sniper thing is for the sniper to be killed. I think this might encourage (these particular) terrorists more than anything, then seem to relish "a glorous death". I think we're all very much at a loss as to what to do.
Do you think the police will take him alive? I'd be very suprised. And it would be better for him to doe to a private citizen than be a martyr against the state.
But wharever lets hope he's caught soon, and we don't see his kind again.
They could electrocute themselves with a screwdriver and a light socket, or burn to death by playing with matches, too. Focus on the real problem: bad parents. Otherwise, you are just treating a symptom.
It's not exactly their fault they have a "dumb sh1t" gun-owning parent.
Amazingly, my parents actually watched me. They didn't expect the neighbors to do it. When I was old enough to know how to survive, then I got more freedom. I think I was 7 or 8 and knew not to go into the street. What's so hard about that?
I didn't mean to inconvenience *you* into having to watch your own kids.
You should have the right to own a gun. Really, I'm a fan of distorting the Constitution as much as the next guy, and I think you should have the opportunity to bear firearms.
I wish the founding fathers would have been a little more clear on the words in question.
The problem is in the actual regulation. How much training were you required to go through before you got your gun? Do all of the members of your family go through training (even the younger ones, so that they know to respect the gun, and so that they know it's not just daddy's toy)? Is it state or federally mandated that you had to prove that you knew what the hell you were doing before they let you take one of those things home with you?
I would like to see more training to own, and much more to carry. However, the system would soon set the training requirements so high that it would effectively deny many qualified citizens the right to have a firearm. I live alone, but if I had children any gun not on my person or in my immediate presence would be secured, and the child would get training from don't touch at first to a shooting range as they age.
This isn't a black or white matter of guns or no guns. People on either side of think so are delusional. This is a question of how carefully we screen and prepare gun recipients. Do we make sure they're prepared for the responsibility, or do we hand them over with new bank accounts [bowlingforcolumbine.com] and throw caution to the wind? How much accountability do you, the gun dealers (gun shows included) and the government have in insuring that people with weapons are people who know how do take care of weapons?
I agree with you again, as long as those requirements weren't abused by the government, a body which has a history of abusing well intentioned laws.
Qualification: I'm not a gun owner. I knew I wouldn't be one the day I went onto a range and my sheet came back without any holes. However, I know several, and most of them treat their weapons with the necessary respect and restrain due them. The ones that don't, well let's just say that's not an extra armrest in the front seat of the car, and pray that they're forced into choosing between responsbility or giving up their arms.
You didn't truly expect to fire accurately your first time out, did you? Like anything else, it takes practice. Personally, I like the practice. For me, it is the same as throwing darts. I follow all safety guidelines, fanatically, and trust me on this: it's a weapon, not a toy. The minute you stop thinking that way, yes, THEN you are a hazard to others. I respect the right and the awesome responsibility that accompanies it. If there was a way to accurately test for that respect, then we'd have found the criteria to use in issuing permits.
Because you can't predict the negligent person in advance. Fools will be fools - but you cannot predict in advance who will be a fool.
Agreed, so the issue is not taking away guns, it keeping them out of the hands of stupid people. Hey, truth be told, I'm all for that. I'd be in favor of reasonable training and even registration if it was done right. Unfortunately, I know that the training would get more and more far-fetched until nobody could do it and the registration would be the first step in rounding them all up. It's happened that way in 2 other countries, IIRC.
that is your democratic right
Democracy? I wish...:-)
I am not standing on the opposite side of the Atlantic telling you how to run your country. I am, however, saying that I am glad that we have chosen to run our country differently.
I'm glad also. I value my right, but I also appreciate the responsibility that comes with it: as do most legal gun owners. There are always exceptions, but you have that with a drivers license as well.:-)
Yes, the police find that they work better that way.
And if you ever need to stop someone from hurting you or yours, and the police aren't around, you'll be WISHING that you had a gun. Just because the situation never came up for you (yet) doesn't mean that nobody else has been in that position.
I'm much more worried about guns being carried on the street
Me, I'm more worried about people carrying illegaly: after all, they are already breaking the law. I don't think most criminals would get a carry permit, to be honest. Wouldn't it be ironic if the east coast sniper was stopped by a private citizen who happened to have his firearm? I doubt an unarmed citizen would have the chance.
I don't see a legitimate reason for a normal citizen to own a gun, and keep it at home
Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? How about a first aid kit? The ambulance and fire trucks are not right outside your house when you need them, and neither are the police.
Of course this is a gut reaction to some shocking and deeply upsetting events - I never claimed to have fully thought the issue through
You are not alone, a lot of people are making decisions about this after only seeing the footage of the sniper. Remember, someone lawfully using a gun to defend themselves is not sensational enough for the media to air in a continuous loop for a week straight, so you'll NEVER see it reported. Nor will you see reports of all the crimes that didn't happen because the criminal wasn't sure if the victim was armed.
I am greatly concerned that this person has demonstrated a very effective new tactic of terror, one that might well be copied. Especially by someone who doesn't value their own life.
I thought this too, but I don't think making guns harder to get legally would slow them down. I bet they have guns they can easily get in the country if they wanted to.
Look at the gun death figures per head of population for the US then the UK
Then after you do this, remove the inter-gang violence from your numbers for both countries and compare. Report your findings.
In the US, I'd bet the gang wars crank that shooting fatalities statistic up quite a lot. I don't give a rat about protecting gang bangers, lets look at how it affects law abiding citizens.
While you are at it, let's talk about home invasions being several hundred percent more common in the UK since the ban on guns.
The only "freedom" relating to guns is the complete removal of all freedoms possesed by a person who has a gun pointed at them.
I'd rather remove the freedoms of the guy who broke into my house at night than have him remove mine while I'm trying to call for help.
Well, this is just a guess, but I'm thinking that if guns were made illegal, he'd have a hell of a harder job getting one to use it.
Not really, due to our drug laws we have a thriving black market infrastructure in place. They'd just add guns to the menu.
Very little gun crime is of the "street crime" variety (presumably because if you can afford to buy a gun, you aren't going to be involved with mugging people, you're going to be robbing banks and dealing drugs). Most shootings in this country (certainly in London) involve inter-gang warfare. The odds of an average citizen being shot in most of the UK are incredibly low.
I don't care if gang members kill each other all day long. However, if I'm being accosted by them I think my odds are better if we all have guns than if I try to fight them all hand to hand. And those are still better than the odds if they had guns and I was unarmed. There is strength in numbers, and like it or not a firearm levels that out.
Much as I would like to own a gun, I wouldn't trust anyone else in my neighbourhood with one.
I do wish that there was more safety and skills training involved to get a carry permit. However, I think the same thing about a drivers license!
So if we can't stop psychopaths killing people randomly, maybe we should legalise that too?
What would you do if that psychopath got in a car and started running people over instead of using a gun? How about if he was a stabber instead? A strangler?
Will you outlaw cars, kitchen utensils, and shoelaces to boot? (Pardon the pun.)
I'm always glad to answer one false analogy with another.
Hmm... Where exactly is the kid's parent while this is going on? If the kid is young enough to run into the street, maybe the parent should be watching him/her instead of relying on everyone else to watch out for him/her. Just a thought?
I've yet to read about anyone returning fire on him yet.
You also don't hear about cases where a legal gun owner uses his weapon to protect himself, it's not flashy news that the media can sensationalize.
And no-one ever knows how many potential crimes don't happen because the intended victim might have a gun. Those episodes never make the news either, for obvious reasons.
I find it disturbing that anyone would make decisions on issues after only viewing the sensationalistic material presented by the media, and not the mundane facts of the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Bayer (the aspirin people) certainly did a lot of this during WW2.
And when the corporations own the government then they are the ones orchestrating the evil, no?
How many wars have corporations started? How many cities have corporations razed down?
War is good for the economy, as long as it is on foriegn soil. Corporations make money during times of war. If a corporation could buy the government and start a war to help their bottom line, they would (and have).
...about who got FP!!!
If so, "+5 Funny, but Obscure". If not, I need to lay off the colas. :-/
"la-ser" -Dr. Evil
However, I'm a "stupid American" (LOL), and things truly are a lot different over here. AFAIK, you can talk about overthrowing our Constitution freely. You just can't threaten to kill the president. I could be wrong.
If the system you have works, great. I always worry when ANY information is suppressed, because it's hard to debate the boogeyman. ;-)
I was really shocked when I found out about Wolfenstein. And your version of Half-Life slightly altered as well, from a similar law IIRC?
Germany being forbidden to discuss Nazism is like Christians being forbidden from discussing the Crusades.
Most of those shootings are by people who have guns illegally. Legal gun owners tend to follow the law, you know.
No problem, it was actually pretty funny. I chuckled when I read it. :-)
Valid point, I apologize. I thought that was in your post. After replying to a few dozen posts in this thread, I blurred who said what. You're right, it really was my mistake.
And drop the condescension too. If you can't debate like a big boy then go back to the sand box.
Sorry, I didn't know I was being condescending either, so if I was then it was unintentional. Apologies again.
To that sniper, private citizens already are legitimate targets. I appreciate your stance on killing, and respect it. I'll _never_ ask you to have a gun. :-) However, if the situation you described comes up, I'll be glad that I have one.
Perhaps you'd support spot checks upon how firearms are stored? So that an official agency would come and ask to inspect how your firearms are being stored, and remove those firearms if they were not being stored correctly. I'm not talking about some random search of your home here either, just a couple of officials wanting to see how the guns you legitimatly own are stored, with no mandate (or power) to snoop into anything else. This seems like a reasonable measure.
Right now, there is no enforcement at all on how your guns are stored. Also, if your gun is improperly stored, you are not always liable if it would be used in a crime or an accident. I don't think spot checking houses would be nearly as effective as holding the owner more responsible for their property, just like dog-owners should be. Now, if you have a gun secured and locked and it is stolen, that's a different story. But to leave one laying around is criminal, and most people would change their behavior accordingly. The ones that wouldn't should NOT have a weapon.
By the way, I appreciate you discussing this in a calm and rational fashion. Thank you.
I've been called worse by better. Did my "stupid people" comment hit too close to home, you stupid prick?
If you believe accidents only happen to stupid people then you have alot to learn about life.
I believe stupid people are more likely to create situations where accidents happen than smart people are. Ever heard of Darwin?
What about if your child was round at a house with a loaded gun?
By the time my kid was old enough to go to a friend's house that I didn't know the parents, the kid would know about guns and what not to do. Good parents teach their kids about potentially dangerous things. I wish your parents hadn't, though. Some Darwinism would have been good in your case.
IN other news, I would just *love* to see you (probably a high school nerd) try and protect yourself against a gangster who had decided they wanted you dead, gun or not.
In other news, I found it ironic that a stupid prick who got mad at me for having a supposedly uninformed opinion had an uninformed (and very incorrect) opinion.
Cheers, you stupid prick.
Why do you think you have the right to make it for me?
If the gun is not in my immediate presence, it is secured and empty. I'm a responsible gun owner. I don't have kids, but I don't want to come home to a suprise either.
I'm also a bit wary of the idea that the best outcome of this sniper thing is for the sniper to be killed. I think this might encourage (these particular) terrorists more than anything, then seem to relish "a glorous death". I think we're all very much at a loss as to what to do.
Do you think the police will take him alive? I'd be very suprised. And it would be better for him to doe to a private citizen than be a martyr against the state.
But wharever lets hope he's caught soon, and we don't see his kind again.
I fully agree!
They could electrocute themselves with a screwdriver and a light socket, or burn to death by playing with matches, too. Focus on the real problem: bad parents. Otherwise, you are just treating a symptom.
It's not exactly their fault they have a "dumb sh1t" gun-owning parent.
Nor is it mine.
I didn't mean to inconvenience *you* into having to watch your own kids.
I wish the founding fathers would have been a little more clear on the words in question.
The problem is in the actual regulation. How much training were you required to go through before you got your gun? Do all of the members of your family go through training (even the younger ones, so that they know to respect the gun, and so that they know it's not just daddy's toy)? Is it state or federally mandated that you had to prove that you knew what the hell you were doing before they let you take one of those things home with you?
I would like to see more training to own, and much more to carry. However, the system would soon set the training requirements so high that it would effectively deny many qualified citizens the right to have a firearm. I live alone, but if I had children any gun not on my person or in my immediate presence would be secured, and the child would get training from don't touch at first to a shooting range as they age.
This isn't a black or white matter of guns or no guns. People on either side of think so are delusional. This is a question of how carefully we screen and prepare gun recipients. Do we make sure they're prepared for the responsibility, or do we hand them over with new bank accounts [bowlingforcolumbine.com] and throw caution to the wind? How much accountability do you, the gun dealers (gun shows included) and the government have in insuring that people with weapons are people who know how do take care of weapons?
I agree with you again, as long as those requirements weren't abused by the government, a body which has a history of abusing well intentioned laws.
Qualification: I'm not a gun owner. I knew I wouldn't be one the day I went onto a range and my sheet came back without any holes. However, I know several, and most of them treat their weapons with the necessary respect and restrain due them. The ones that don't, well let's just say that's not an extra armrest in the front seat of the car, and pray that they're forced into choosing between responsbility or giving up their arms.
You didn't truly expect to fire accurately your first time out, did you? Like anything else, it takes practice. Personally, I like the practice. For me, it is the same as throwing darts. I follow all safety guidelines, fanatically, and trust me on this: it's a weapon, not a toy. The minute you stop thinking that way, yes, THEN you are a hazard to others. I respect the right and the awesome responsibility that accompanies it. If there was a way to accurately test for that respect, then we'd have found the criteria to use in issuing permits.
Agreed, so the issue is not taking away guns, it keeping them out of the hands of stupid people. Hey, truth be told, I'm all for that. I'd be in favor of reasonable training and even registration if it was done right. Unfortunately, I know that the training would get more and more far-fetched until nobody could do it and the registration would be the first step in rounding them all up. It's happened that way in 2 other countries, IIRC.
that is your democratic right
Democracy? I wish... :-)
I am not standing on the opposite side of the Atlantic telling you how to run your country. I am, however, saying that I am glad that we have chosen to run our country differently.
I'm glad also. I value my right, but I also appreciate the responsibility that comes with it: as do most legal gun owners. There are always exceptions, but you have that with a drivers license as well. :-)
And if you ever need to stop someone from hurting you or yours, and the police aren't around, you'll be WISHING that you had a gun. Just because the situation never came up for you (yet) doesn't mean that nobody else has been in that position.
Me, I'm more worried about people carrying illegaly: after all, they are already breaking the law. I don't think most criminals would get a carry permit, to be honest. Wouldn't it be ironic if the east coast sniper was stopped by a private citizen who happened to have his firearm? I doubt an unarmed citizen would have the chance.
I don't see a legitimate reason for a normal citizen to own a gun, and keep it at home
Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? How about a first aid kit? The ambulance and fire trucks are not right outside your house when you need them, and neither are the police.
Of course this is a gut reaction to some shocking and deeply upsetting events - I never claimed to have fully thought the issue through
You are not alone, a lot of people are making decisions about this after only seeing the footage of the sniper. Remember, someone lawfully using a gun to defend themselves is not sensational enough for the media to air in a continuous loop for a week straight, so you'll NEVER see it reported. Nor will you see reports of all the crimes that didn't happen because the criminal wasn't sure if the victim was armed.
I am greatly concerned that this person has demonstrated a very effective new tactic of terror, one that might well be copied. Especially by someone who doesn't value their own life.
I thought this too, but I don't think making guns harder to get legally would slow them down. I bet they have guns they can easily get in the country if they wanted to.
Then after you do this, remove the inter-gang violence from your numbers for both countries and compare. Report your findings.
In the US, I'd bet the gang wars crank that shooting fatalities statistic up quite a lot. I don't give a rat about protecting gang bangers, lets look at how it affects law abiding citizens.
While you are at it, let's talk about home invasions being several hundred percent more common in the UK since the ban on guns.
The only "freedom" relating to guns is the complete removal of all freedoms possesed by a person who has a gun pointed at them.
I'd rather remove the freedoms of the guy who broke into my house at night than have him remove mine while I'm trying to call for help.
Not really, due to our drug laws we have a thriving black market infrastructure in place. They'd just add guns to the menu.
Very little gun crime is of the "street crime" variety (presumably because if you can afford to buy a gun, you aren't going to be involved with mugging people, you're going to be robbing banks and dealing drugs). Most shootings in this country (certainly in London) involve inter-gang warfare. The odds of an average citizen being shot in most of the UK are incredibly low.
I don't care if gang members kill each other all day long. However, if I'm being accosted by them I think my odds are better if we all have guns than if I try to fight them all hand to hand. And those are still better than the odds if they had guns and I was unarmed. There is strength in numbers, and like it or not a firearm levels that out.
Much as I would like to own a gun, I wouldn't trust anyone else in my neighbourhood with one.
I do wish that there was more safety and skills training involved to get a carry permit. However, I think the same thing about a drivers license!
What would you do if that psychopath got in a car and started running people over instead of using a gun? How about if he was a stabber instead? A strangler?
Will you outlaw cars, kitchen utensils, and shoelaces to boot? (Pardon the pun.)
I'm always glad to answer one false analogy with another.
Hmm... Where exactly is the kid's parent while this is going on? If the kid is young enough to run into the street, maybe the parent should be watching him/her instead of relying on everyone else to watch out for him/her. Just a thought?
You also don't hear about cases where a legal gun owner uses his weapon to protect himself, it's not flashy news that the media can sensationalize.
And no-one ever knows how many potential crimes don't happen because the intended victim might have a gun. Those episodes never make the news either, for obvious reasons.
I find it disturbing that anyone would make decisions on issues after only viewing the sensationalistic material presented by the media, and not the mundane facts of the situation.
So it is ok to strip my rights away because my neighbor is a dumb sh1t who left his loaded handgun where his kid could play with it?
Why not go after the negligent person instead of the innocent one?