I'm just wondering, why is this considered flamebait and why should it be ignored?
It seems to me, I could be wrong, but anyone that says anything critical about open source or Linux or the GPL is instantly attacked. I am speaking from an outside position and am only observing, but is Open source and Linux that perfect that it cannot stand critics that may (or may not) have valid points?
I'm not saying that the writer of the original email was right or wrong, but it's instantly dismissed...almost to the point of "don't even read it, it's flamebait". Well, I did read it and his point about zealots from ANY walk of life do have the potential of spinning out of control and going into illegal and dangerous areas. I said potential...I'm not saying that they WILL do this. Just that the potential is there.
Ask yourself how many people thought in their heads about attacking SCO when they dropped the bombshell of theirs months ago. Maybe the thought was only "boy, they're playing with fire in the Linux community, I sure hope someone teaches them a lesson not to mess with us". Or something similar.
Again, I'm speaking as an outsider only observing. I don't use Linux, though I've used it in the past and I'm a great admire of it. Nor am I a programmer or system admin. I also like Mac OSX, but these two operating systems don't cater to my love of video games as well as XP does. That's all. My job also doesn't involve using a computer at all, so again, I'm only observing the back and fourth of SCO and Linux as one would watch a football game. I'm rooting for Linux though.
Hey dude! Where have you been living? In a cave? You don't have to buy music anymore! There's this really sweet new program out there called Kazaa where you can get al the free music you want. It's totally awesome. And the best part, there are no strings attached.
I personally am done with stealing music. I did it quite a bit when mp3's were getting started and Napster was new. I did Kazaa for a while also...but there was always something nagging me about doing that.
While I'm sure The Rolling Stones or The Beatles wouldn't be hurt by my downloads, little bands would...kinda sorta. While I don't want to reward the money grubbing record companies that make the artists sign these outrageous contracts and then they end up with nothing (there is a list a mile long from past AND present artists that are getting screwed out of money from their record companies), I don't want to cheat anyone out of what they worked hard for.
It's my default mp3 player now. I've uninstalled Music Match (or Match Music...I had this for years and STILL don't know what to call the thing, but don't go by that, I'm an idiot).
I like the way iTunes filters work, I like the way it looks, I like the way the buying works...and I've had zero problems in burning disks.
You know what, I don't give a crap about spires. Stand on the Top floor of these cheating "tallest buildings" and then stand on the top of the Sears Tower...People standing on the Sears Tower would be looking down on the people on the other buildings.
He's a studio guy, through and through. While I'm not a guy that looks for people on the grassy noll, it does make sense that the big studios are trying to squeeze out the indies.
This will also be death to the documentary movies...which in my opinion are the more interesting and entertaining of many movies out there now. How can all the academy members expect to drop everything they're doing and try to find some obscure theater that happens to be playing the movies nominated? How is this possible? They can't of course.
They COULD in the past get a bunch of movies together for the evening and watch them back to back in the comfort of their home, then make a judgement on them. But now, the MPAA has killed that off.
I say screw them. Send them out anyway. What's the MPAA going to do? They only have power because they say they have power. Screw them.
I mean, you're not allowed to even send out screeners to the members even IF THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN RELEASED TO DVD! WTF is that?
Because the screen is big, sound system is better than anything I can get at home...at least the theater I go to.
Also, it has my undivided attention. I become totally engrossed into the movie. The screen commands your entire view. You're not distracted by pausing it, your kid walking in and asking you for his favorite cookie, you can't pause it to get up, you have to watch it from start to finish...the way it was intended to do.
I get no one talking to the movie. I go by myself or with just my wife. I go to the first show because it's cheaper and less people and with people that want to see the movie. I've yet to have anyone get up and start talking during those times.
I've read peoples complaints, I've listened to them rant and rave. That is in between me playing CS through Steam.
I don't know what the problem is. I open Steam, find a server I like, then play the fricken game...case closed. It works great for me. I've played HL and CS since they came out, and I like the Steam version better...except for the Shields for the CT team...but that's another story.
Great, news like this today just hits home the problem I'm going to face next week.
I have to move. My wife has decided to move back to St. Joe Michigan to be with her family...so that means going back to the stone age in terms of the Internet.
For years I've had broadband...before Comcast it was AT&T...before that it was @home...before that it was ISDN. 8 years of living without having to go to Dial-up.
Now I have to go back to basic dial-up. Trust me, there is no other way...it's a wonder that they even have electricity in this backwards po-dunk town...much less broadband. It seems I'm going backwards in connectivity. I'm thinking of just giving the whole thing up as I just don't want to go back to waiting for everything.
Probably won't see Slashdot or any other web sites for a long long time. So to all my friends out there, farewell.
Knights of the Old Republic was bought for my wife, who is really into RPG's. I'm not a big fan of console games having grown up using a keyboard...then a keyboard/mouse combo to control games...never got the feel for the controller.
But I started playing KotOR and thought, eh...not bad...but then the story got more and more involved...and there were so many side quests that were just as interesting as the main one. Pretty soon I was hooked.
Salvador Dali was a Surrealist painter who's one painting "The Persistance of Time" is hanging over my computer right now.
One of my favorite surrealist, even though he was overplayed as it were. I also enjoy Giger and Escher also.
Check out a gallery of his works at:
http://dali.karelia.ru/html/dali.htm
Re:This goes back to the early days of Apple
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, this is lame. And now I know it's not the surviving Beatles per-se that's making this lawsuit.
Also, from what I understand, Michael Jackson doesn't even enter the picture in this at all. He just bought the rights to the songs themselves so he get's royalties when someone makes a cover...he doesn't control the original recordings or Apple Corps.
Speaking of that, it was Jackson that sold some of the songs to advertisers to use on commercials. To me, that's wrong. Use anyone else...the Stones, the Who...Eminem...but don't use the Beatles. I'm sorry, I may be a hippy but to me the Beatles songs should be sacred.
Lets face it, the Beatles changed the face of music, and in some degree the world, forever...and even though that's been hammered into everyones brains for the past 40 years it's true. There is music before the Beatles and music after. Remember, in just 10 years they went from "Love Me Do" to Abby Road.
Ok, this is WAY off topic. But finally, I do think this lawsuit is lame and not really at all in the spirit of the Beatles.
I just saw a special on TV...I think it was on Nova...about 2 weeks ago talking about fuel cell cars. The ones that use hydrogen and the exhaust is water vapor.
Shouldn't we wait for these? I mean, they had a vehicle running on a fuel cell in the show with those two car guys from NPR checking it out. So fuel cells have to be well off the drawing board if they have a prototype running around.
Did anyone else see this program?
This goes back to the early days of Apple
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I agree with the Beatles...this goes back to the early days of Apple in which Jobs and Woz asked if they could use the Apple name...since it was associated with Apple Corps back then. The Beatles said they could use it as long as they didn't get into the music biz.
Now, it may be frivolous, but iTunes is in the music business. The Beatles may not need the money, but it's the thought that counts.
I could be wrong...but I'm a Beatle fan first, and a computer fan second.
How can a software solution that costs money and requires fees be cheaper than a software solution that's freely downloadable, totally supported by 1000s of people, 100s of books written about it and the essence of it is taught in basic CS courses?
Perhaps the questions are answered if I were to RTFA...
Your post made me think quite a bit. Never thought long and hard about the pacifism against a moral enemy. Interesting.
Also, as for me not killing someone who is trying to harm my child, I wouldn't let someone do that...you're right. I would probably tear his arms off...so my earlier comment of not defending my family is wrong. I would defend them...but I personally wouldn't use a gun.
And to make this perfectly clear, I (myself) would not use a gun to defend my household. That is not to say that I oppose those that choose to use a gun in defence as is their right as an American as written into the Constitution per our founding fathers. Is that clear? No one in my family is trying to take away your guns. (that wasn't aimed at you dfenstrate btw).
But again, I hope anyone reading this thread will appreciate the challanges one faces in raising a child today.
I don't even know why I'm responding to this. I mean, come on...use your head. I was refering to how I'm raising my kid.
Violence is wrong...no way around it. Is MA wrong? In every class that I've attended in my youth the main message was of what you described...respect, self-disipline, keeping cool...AVOIDING a fight...and only as a last resort defending yourself. It never teaches you to seek out violence, nor use violence to settle arguments etc etc. If your teacher is telling you this, then he/she is missing the point.
Again, this gets into people picking apart another persons words and taking them out of context. My context of violence is violence in the wrong-doing to someone else...as in a crime. Again, use your head. High school wrestling is "violent" but it's not a crime against a victim.
Come on, do I really need to explain this to you? You and your kids kicking each others asses in practice isn't "violence". Kicking your kid in anger and sending him to the hospital is.
Do you really need someone to tell you the difference?
A very good question. I'm thinking about the time he learns how to drive. When you hit 16 and are driving, a parent has to loosen up on the strings quite a bit and trust that what you've tried to teach him will come into play.
Also, after reading all the people with their views on this subject I've come to the thought that no one knows for sure how to raise a kid.
I also, do NOT teach my son that guns are bad. I may have said this, but I need to clarify it a bit. I ment that I try to teach them how guns are used by people against other people. That VIOLENCE is wrong. And in my eyes, it is wrong. After a life of being a macho gun-toting, pick a fight at the drop of a hat kind of guy, I've learned that being violent has gotten me no where. No where in life, no where in relationships, no where in the human race. I may have turned into a total hippy pacifist now, but I feel my life is better because of it. My sig says it all, and yes, it's a hippy tree-hugging view...but it's worked for me.
But it seems everyone feels that kids are basically if-then statements in a program: if they are exposed to guns, then they will kill. if the parents are good parents, then they are good kids. It's simply not that way. We are all humans, we all have faults. No matter how some are raised, it ultimally comes down to the person themselves. When a situations comes along, how are you going to respond. Also, you have to be a role model for your own child. I try not to be the "do as I say not as I do" kind of parent.
In my experience there are no answers, only choices.
What is it with people who hate guns who are always so obsessed with RKBA advocates' penises?
I was lashing out, and I was childish about it. The crack the original poster to this thread said about people like me making him sick got to me a little. I lashed out with words.
But come on, guns were made for the sole purpose to kill. Don't give me that run-around saying "no no, I use it for target practice...or sports shooting". It's all related. Sure, you used it 300 times and didn't kill anything, but what were you doing in that 300 times? Practicing?
Sure, I could use my computer monitor here to hammer a nail into the wall, but it's purpose...it's invention...it to display data.
Now, don't sit there and pick apart what I said and get away from the gist of my message. You can pick it apart and say "you can use a monitor as a fishtank also though". You KNOW what I mean.
A guns main purpose is to kill...be it for hunting or defending or murder. Now, why not just admit that? Is there anything in and of itself owning a thing that's only purpose is to kill? No. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a right to own it. You do have a right to own it. I have a right to own it. But don't sugar coat it...don't try to hide or be fearful of people saying they're instruments of taking life. Say it loud, say it proud!
Points well taken. And sorry about the penis crack..
But I stated in another post: Olympic trap and skeet shooting. Ok...one thing that takes a gun. A shotgun...But this is also a simulation of birds flying up while hunting. That is how skeet shooting got started...for practice in dove and pheasent hunting.
I was born and raised on a farm in rural Virginia and many times me and my brother and Father went hunting for deer/squire/rabbit not for sport, but to actually put food on our table. Was also a memeber of the NRA. And believe it or not, but in the early 80's I was also a gun dealer and pistolsmith.
Yes, there are sports I call "practice sports" such as silo competition (where the.44 magnum auto-mag gained popularity before the Dirty Harry movie that featured the auto-mag) where you shoot metal silos of rams, deer etc etc. The sport now is mainly with the Thompson-arms single shot rifle caliber pistols.
But my main point is that most of these "sports" are simply practice for hunting. Target practice is practice of shooting a target so when a "real" target comes into a situation that you need to shoot it, you're better prepared to shoot it. True, not much death there, but these are mainly pratice for dealing death if that need should arise.
I changed I guess. In your view, they have a useage and we are given a right to have them. But in my view now, just having a right to have them doesn't mean I HAVE to have them. As far as defending my property, I have no defense. If someone wants to break into my house and murder me and my family, then they will have our dead bodies. Bodies that were going to die within the next 100 years anyway. They can kill me and I will die...but I will not take another life again.
There was this little bald guy that kicked the entire British empire out of his poor country...and never lifted a gun or sword or any weapon to do it.
Now, if teaching my child to be kind and gentle (or in your words fear) is screwing him up...then I guess I'm screwing him up.
Canada has many guns also, probably the same per capita as the US. They also see the same movies that we do, the same video games that we play...yet their homicides due to gun violence is FAR below ours here in the US and it's probably because their media doesn't throw the fear at them that ours does. But then again, who knows for sure.
Olympic trap and skeet shooting. Ok...one thing that takes a gun. A shotgun...But this is also a simulation of birds flying up while hunting. That is how skeet shooting got started...for practice in dove and pheasent hunting. How it made it into olympic sports is beyond me...but hey, they're trying to get frisbee golf in also.
But still, guns were not invented and bought for olympic skeet shooting. They were made to kill.
I'm hardly brain-washed. I was born and raised on a farm in rural Virginia and many times me and my brother and Father went hunting for deer/squire/rabbit not for sport, but to actually put food on our table. Gloucester, Virgina...hell, even look me up in the yearbook. Was also a memeber of the NRA.
But I agree with you, guns are only a tool. Also, no where did you EVER read that I wanted guns banned. I was only speaking how I was raising my 10 year old. I live in a suburb of Chicago now, and going out hunting for deer to put food on my table isn't really needed anymore. Do I want guns banned? No, never said that. Do I want my son growing up knowing the true nature of guns and why people use them? Yes.
How is not liking firearms being a bigot? Didn't know that firearms were a race!
Also, what is this "truth" you hope he can learn from other parents about firearms?
The truth is that firearms are only for killing things. Name me something else they're used for?
I have great respect for firearms...doesn't mean I will own one ever again. My son hopefully will have respect for them also.
A person can be killed many different ways...a knife, by bare hands...yet other ways to kill a person have many different uses. A car can kill a person, but a car has many uses...as does a knife and bare hands. A gun was made for one purpose only...to kill.
Have a gun to defend and protect...a common argument. Yet if you defend with a gun, it's still killing something that's threatening you.
What are you so afraid of that you need a gun? Or is it because penis size is a factor?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just wondering, why is this considered flamebait and why should it be ignored?
It seems to me, I could be wrong, but anyone that says anything critical about open source or Linux or the GPL is instantly attacked. I am speaking from an outside position and am only observing, but is Open source and Linux that perfect that it cannot stand critics that may (or may not) have valid points?
I'm not saying that the writer of the original email was right or wrong, but it's instantly dismissed...almost to the point of "don't even read it, it's flamebait". Well, I did read it and his point about zealots from ANY walk of life do have the potential of spinning out of control and going into illegal and dangerous areas. I said potential...I'm not saying that they WILL do this. Just that the potential is there.
Ask yourself how many people thought in their heads about attacking SCO when they dropped the bombshell of theirs months ago. Maybe the thought was only "boy, they're playing with fire in the Linux community, I sure hope someone teaches them a lesson not to mess with us". Or something similar.
Again, I'm speaking as an outsider only observing. I don't use Linux, though I've used it in the past and I'm a great admire of it. Nor am I a programmer or system admin. I also like Mac OSX, but these two operating systems don't cater to my love of video games as well as XP does. That's all. My job also doesn't involve using a computer at all, so again, I'm only observing the back and fourth of SCO and Linux as one would watch a football game. I'm rooting for Linux though.
Also, how is this in ANY way a Troll? I said I don't want to steal music and I personally want to pay for music? How is this a troll?
Unless the moderator was reading the Italic wording from the post before which I was commenting on.
Again, how is this a fricken troll?
I personally am done with stealing music. I did it quite a bit when mp3's were getting started and Napster was new. I did Kazaa for a while also...but there was always something nagging me about doing that.
While I'm sure The Rolling Stones or The Beatles wouldn't be hurt by my downloads, little bands would...kinda sorta. While I don't want to reward the money grubbing record companies that make the artists sign these outrageous contracts and then they end up with nothing (there is a list a mile long from past AND present artists that are getting screwed out of money from their record companies), I don't want to cheat anyone out of what they worked hard for.
It's my default mp3 player now. I've uninstalled Music Match (or Match Music...I had this for years and STILL don't know what to call the thing, but don't go by that, I'm an idiot).
I like the way iTunes filters work, I like the way it looks, I like the way the buying works...and I've had zero problems in burning disks.
All around, I like this!
You know what, I don't give a crap about spires. Stand on the Top floor of these cheating "tallest buildings" and then stand on the top of the Sears Tower...People standing on the Sears Tower would be looking down on the people on the other buildings.
Case closed.
Who made up these stupid rules anyway?
Why do we waste CPU cycles on moronic spellings like pr0n and l33t and pwn?
It's old, everyone does it so it's not cool anymore. It's time to move on people.
He's a studio guy, through and through. While I'm not a guy that looks for people on the grassy noll, it does make sense that the big studios are trying to squeeze out the indies.
This will also be death to the documentary movies...which in my opinion are the more interesting and entertaining of many movies out there now. How can all the academy members expect to drop everything they're doing and try to find some obscure theater that happens to be playing the movies nominated? How is this possible? They can't of course.
They COULD in the past get a bunch of movies together for the evening and watch them back to back in the comfort of their home, then make a judgement on them. But now, the MPAA has killed that off.
I say screw them. Send them out anyway. What's the MPAA going to do? They only have power because they say they have power. Screw them.
I mean, you're not allowed to even send out screeners to the members even IF THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN RELEASED TO DVD! WTF is that?
Because the screen is big, sound system is better than anything I can get at home...at least the theater I go to.
Also, it has my undivided attention. I become totally engrossed into the movie. The screen commands your entire view. You're not distracted by pausing it, your kid walking in and asking you for his favorite cookie, you can't pause it to get up, you have to watch it from start to finish...the way it was intended to do.
I get no one talking to the movie. I go by myself or with just my wife. I go to the first show because it's cheaper and less people and with people that want to see the movie. I've yet to have anyone get up and start talking during those times.
That's why I go to a theater.
Your milage my very.
I've read peoples complaints, I've listened to them rant and rave. That is in between me playing CS through Steam.
I don't know what the problem is. I open Steam, find a server I like, then play the fricken game...case closed. It works great for me. I've played HL and CS since they came out, and I like the Steam version better...except for the Shields for the CT team...but that's another story.
Perhaps some people just like to complain.
Great, news like this today just hits home the problem I'm going to face next week.
I have to move. My wife has decided to move back to St. Joe Michigan to be with her family...so that means going back to the stone age in terms of the Internet.
For years I've had broadband...before Comcast it was AT&T...before that it was @home...before that it was ISDN. 8 years of living without having to go to Dial-up.
Now I have to go back to basic dial-up. Trust me, there is no other way...it's a wonder that they even have electricity in this backwards po-dunk town...much less broadband. It seems I'm going backwards in connectivity. I'm thinking of just giving the whole thing up as I just don't want to go back to waiting for everything.
Probably won't see Slashdot or any other web sites for a long long time. So to all my friends out there, farewell.
Knights of the Old Republic was bought for my wife, who is really into RPG's. I'm not a big fan of console games having grown up using a keyboard...then a keyboard/mouse combo to control games...never got the feel for the controller.
But I started playing KotOR and thought, eh...not bad...but then the story got more and more involved...and there were so many side quests that were just as interesting as the main one. Pretty soon I was hooked.
Salvador Dali was a Surrealist painter who's one painting "The Persistance of Time" is hanging over my computer right now.
One of my favorite surrealist, even though he was overplayed as it were. I also enjoy Giger and Escher also.
Check out a gallery of his works at:
http://dali.karelia.ru/html/dali.htm
Yeah, this is lame. And now I know it's not the surviving Beatles per-se that's making this lawsuit.
Also, from what I understand, Michael Jackson doesn't even enter the picture in this at all. He just bought the rights to the songs themselves so he get's royalties when someone makes a cover...he doesn't control the original recordings or Apple Corps.
Speaking of that, it was Jackson that sold some of the songs to advertisers to use on commercials. To me, that's wrong. Use anyone else...the Stones, the Who...Eminem...but don't use the Beatles. I'm sorry, I may be a hippy but to me the Beatles songs should be sacred.
Lets face it, the Beatles changed the face of music, and in some degree the world, forever...and even though that's been hammered into everyones brains for the past 40 years it's true. There is music before the Beatles and music after. Remember, in just 10 years they went from "Love Me Do" to Abby Road.
Ok, this is WAY off topic. But finally, I do think this lawsuit is lame and not really at all in the spirit of the Beatles.
I just saw a special on TV...I think it was on Nova...about 2 weeks ago talking about fuel cell cars. The ones that use hydrogen and the exhaust is water vapor.
Shouldn't we wait for these? I mean, they had a vehicle running on a fuel cell in the show with those two car guys from NPR checking it out. So fuel cells have to be well off the drawing board if they have a prototype running around.
Did anyone else see this program?
I agree with the Beatles...this goes back to the early days of Apple in which Jobs and Woz asked if they could use the Apple name...since it was associated with Apple Corps back then. The Beatles said they could use it as long as they didn't get into the music biz.
Now, it may be frivolous, but iTunes is in the music business. The Beatles may not need the money, but it's the thought that counts.
I could be wrong...but I'm a Beatle fan first, and a computer fan second.
The "bsd is dying" rumours are taking on a life of their own.
It's almost as bad as the "Apple is dying" nonsense that's been going on since 1984.
But wait a minute...Apple's OSX runs a BSD variant....omg! IT's TRUE! IT'S TRUE!!!!
How can a software solution that costs money and requires fees be cheaper than a software solution that's freely downloadable, totally supported by 1000s of people, 100s of books written about it and the essence of it is taught in basic CS courses?
Perhaps the questions are answered if I were to RTFA...
Your post made me think quite a bit. Never thought long and hard about the pacifism against a moral enemy. Interesting.
Also, as for me not killing someone who is trying to harm my child, I wouldn't let someone do that...you're right. I would probably tear his arms off...so my earlier comment of not defending my family is wrong. I would defend them...but I personally wouldn't use a gun.
And to make this perfectly clear, I (myself) would not use a gun to defend my household. That is not to say that I oppose those that choose to use a gun in defence as is their right as an American as written into the Constitution per our founding fathers. Is that clear? No one in my family is trying to take away your guns. (that wasn't aimed at you dfenstrate btw).
But again, I hope anyone reading this thread will appreciate the challanges one faces in raising a child today.
I never called anyone a bad parent.
I don't even know why I'm responding to this. I mean, come on...use your head. I was refering to how I'm raising my kid.
Violence is wrong...no way around it. Is MA wrong? In every class that I've attended in my youth the main message was of what you described...respect, self-disipline, keeping cool...AVOIDING a fight...and only as a last resort defending yourself. It never teaches you to seek out violence, nor use violence to settle arguments etc etc. If your teacher is telling you this, then he/she is missing the point.
Again, this gets into people picking apart another persons words and taking them out of context. My context of violence is violence in the wrong-doing to someone else...as in a crime. Again, use your head. High school wrestling is "violent" but it's not a crime against a victim.
Come on, do I really need to explain this to you? You and your kids kicking each others asses in practice isn't "violence". Kicking your kid in anger and sending him to the hospital is.
Do you really need someone to tell you the difference?
A very good question. I'm thinking about the time he learns how to drive. When you hit 16 and are driving, a parent has to loosen up on the strings quite a bit and trust that what you've tried to teach him will come into play.
Also, after reading all the people with their views on this subject I've come to the thought that no one knows for sure how to raise a kid.
I also, do NOT teach my son that guns are bad. I may have said this, but I need to clarify it a bit. I ment that I try to teach them how guns are used by people against other people. That VIOLENCE is wrong. And in my eyes, it is wrong. After a life of being a macho gun-toting, pick a fight at the drop of a hat kind of guy, I've learned that being violent has gotten me no where. No where in life, no where in relationships, no where in the human race. I may have turned into a total hippy pacifist now, but I feel my life is better because of it. My sig says it all, and yes, it's a hippy tree-hugging view...but it's worked for me.
But it seems everyone feels that kids are basically if-then statements in a program: if they are exposed to guns, then they will kill. if the parents are good parents, then they are good kids. It's simply not that way. We are all humans, we all have faults. No matter how some are raised, it ultimally comes down to the person themselves. When a situations comes along, how are you going to respond. Also, you have to be a role model for your own child. I try not to be the "do as I say not as I do" kind of parent.
In my experience there are no answers, only choices.
What is it with people who hate guns who are always so obsessed with RKBA advocates' penises?
I was lashing out, and I was childish about it. The crack the original poster to this thread said about people like me making him sick got to me a little. I lashed out with words.
But come on, guns were made for the sole purpose to kill. Don't give me that run-around saying "no no, I use it for target practice...or sports shooting". It's all related. Sure, you used it 300 times and didn't kill anything, but what were you doing in that 300 times? Practicing?
Sure, I could use my computer monitor here to hammer a nail into the wall, but it's purpose...it's invention...it to display data.
Now, don't sit there and pick apart what I said and get away from the gist of my message. You can pick it apart and say "you can use a monitor as a fishtank also though". You KNOW what I mean.
A guns main purpose is to kill...be it for hunting or defending or murder. Now, why not just admit that? Is there anything in and of itself owning a thing that's only purpose is to kill? No. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a right to own it. You do have a right to own it. I have a right to own it. But don't sugar coat it...don't try to hide or be fearful of people saying they're instruments of taking life. Say it loud, say it proud!
Points well taken. And sorry about the penis crack..
.44 magnum auto-mag gained popularity before the Dirty Harry movie that featured the auto-mag) where you shoot metal silos of rams, deer etc etc. The sport now is mainly with the Thompson-arms single shot rifle caliber pistols.
But I stated in another post: Olympic trap and skeet shooting. Ok...one thing that takes a gun. A shotgun...But this is also a simulation of birds flying up while hunting. That is how skeet shooting got started...for practice in dove and pheasent hunting.
I was born and raised on a farm in rural Virginia and many times me and my brother and Father went hunting for deer/squire/rabbit not for sport, but to actually put food on our table. Was also a memeber of the NRA. And believe it or not, but in the early 80's I was also a gun dealer and pistolsmith.
Yes, there are sports I call "practice sports" such as silo competition (where the
But my main point is that most of these "sports" are simply practice for hunting. Target practice is practice of shooting a target so when a "real" target comes into a situation that you need to shoot it, you're better prepared to shoot it. True, not much death there, but these are mainly pratice for dealing death if that need should arise.
I changed I guess. In your view, they have a useage and we are given a right to have them. But in my view now, just having a right to have them doesn't mean I HAVE to have them. As far as defending my property, I have no defense. If someone wants to break into my house and murder me and my family, then they will have our dead bodies. Bodies that were going to die within the next 100 years anyway. They can kill me and I will die...but I will not take another life again.
There was this little bald guy that kicked the entire British empire out of his poor country...and never lifted a gun or sword or any weapon to do it.
Now, if teaching my child to be kind and gentle (or in your words fear) is screwing him up...then I guess I'm screwing him up.
Canada has many guns also, probably the same per capita as the US. They also see the same movies that we do, the same video games that we play...yet their homicides due to gun violence is FAR below ours here in the US and it's probably because their media doesn't throw the fear at them that ours does. But then again, who knows for sure.
Olympic trap and skeet shooting. Ok...one thing that takes a gun. A shotgun...But this is also a simulation of birds flying up while hunting. That is how skeet shooting got started...for practice in dove and pheasent hunting. How it made it into olympic sports is beyond me...but hey, they're trying to get frisbee golf in also.
But still, guns were not invented and bought for olympic skeet shooting. They were made to kill.
I'm hardly brain-washed. I was born and raised on a farm in rural Virginia and many times me and my brother and Father went hunting for deer/squire/rabbit not for sport, but to actually put food on our table. Gloucester, Virgina...hell, even look me up in the yearbook. Was also a memeber of the NRA.
But I agree with you, guns are only a tool. Also, no where did you EVER read that I wanted guns banned. I was only speaking how I was raising my 10 year old. I live in a suburb of Chicago now, and going out hunting for deer to put food on my table isn't really needed anymore. Do I want guns banned? No, never said that. Do I want my son growing up knowing the true nature of guns and why people use them? Yes.
How is not liking firearms being a bigot? Didn't know that firearms were a race!
Also, what is this "truth" you hope he can learn from other parents about firearms?
The truth is that firearms are only for killing things. Name me something else they're used for?
I have great respect for firearms...doesn't mean I will own one ever again. My son hopefully will have respect for them also.
A person can be killed many different ways...a knife, by bare hands...yet other ways to kill a person have many different uses. A car can kill a person, but a car has many uses...as does a knife and bare hands. A gun was made for one purpose only...to kill.
Have a gun to defend and protect...a common argument. Yet if you defend with a gun, it's still killing something that's threatening you.
What are you so afraid of that you need a gun? Or is it because penis size is a factor?