"And at any rate, this just further shows the disparity between those who have money and those who do not."
Yeah. People with money suck. All the things they can do with that money that poor people can't... I KNOW! Tax it all away from them. That way we can all be the same.
"By the way - his girlfriend is hot. Too bad they seem like a couple of religious nuts."
What, if they weren't religious you'd line up a threesome?
"what kind of a person just sits around with a blank, lost expression on his face after hearing of the terrorist attacks on 9/11? While almost every OTHER American leapt to his or her feet in swift alert, he waited around stupidly for somebody to tell him what to do! Some leader indeed!"
Oh WOW man... Well... Where to start... I guess the usual "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" speech...
"I can't believe he just left like that... panicking and leaving the children frightened..."
That's all I got there.
And, at least where I watched it, everyone was shocked still. Class was cancelled until like 2 hours later, because no one was going anyway... Because everyone was just blown away by the enormity of it.
Jesus... people expect presidents not to be human or do human things... Was I appalled at Clinton because of Monica? Yeah, but I don't think it was necessarily something that makes him a bad president. Do I think Mrs. Kerry is a bitch for telling someone to "shove it"? No. Do I think Cheney (It was Cheney right?) should be reprimanded for telling someone to fuck off? Nope. I'm glad he showed some emotion and that he was human. I wouldn't want him to make a habit of it though. Do I give a fuck that Kerry came back and betrayed other veterans after Vietnam? I don't agree with that, but I don't think that will really matter with his presidency.
And do I think President George W. Bush is in any way unfit for duty because, oh my God, he was shocked by what happened on September 11? NO! Why the hell would that mean anything? We were all shocked. Many of us were paralyzed. And if you could just go on functioning and thinking clearly the moment after you heard about it, you are soulless.
Amazing how F-9/11 still "convinced" people of things even after Moore's blatant lying without actually speaking a lie, and just through serial misrepresentation was brought out after Bowling for Columbine.
Fahrenheit gets my vote for worst movie ever. Well, perhaps it doesn't. Michael Moore just gets my vote for most immoral person in the movie industry.
And George W. Bush will be getting my vote for the presidency of the United States.
http://forums.shareaza.com/showthread.php?threadid =17119&highlight=kazaa+incomplete
The trick is going to be finding the same file on Shareaza. What hash information do you have about the file?
Well, what does P2P have to do with stealing music? I know we've all been through this before... I won't make my usual "pirates/p2p/criminals/guns" comparison... Whoops.:-) P2P has many GREAT applications that are both legal and... GREAT. And uh... useful.
Accidents are easily prevented. Even with no children around my house, my gun is never just sitting out for someone to play with. My point was that by carrying a gun, she's not going to walk into 7/11 to rob it. If anything, owning a gun has made me even more polite and passive. Escalating a situation when you are carrying a firearm is not a good idea. Sure, a lot of people have ASS for self control. Guy looks at them funny, they get pissed off, and shoot them. But a lot of people also know they don't have any self control, like a friend of mine. He loves shooting, but would never carry a firearm because he KNOWS that he has a very low melting point. Guns require responsibility and some common sense safe handling.
"Especially if the shooter is a cop. They get away with it all the time."
Crooked cops are a reason for gun control then?
"You also seem to be ignoring the famous Texan rules-of-engagement."
I'd like to see in Texas where someone was shot in the back while fleeing, and the shooter was found innocent (and not a cop). Personally, my morals go so far as to say that if someone breaks into my house with a gun, I should be able to put them down, no matter what. If they'd do it to me, then by letting them get away I give them the opportunity to do it to someone else, with perhaps more dire consequences. Of course, that's not the law. As soon as the threat is gone (Not necessarily the criminal, but threat. I.e., his back is turned and he's running.) so is the right to lethal force in your self defense.
"No. The aggressor has the element of surprise and initiative."
Not in all cases. I myself have never witnessed a rape to know how it's carried about. But if you've got some suspicious character following you, you get your hand to your gun and cross the street. If they follow, try to find a public place to retreat to. If there is none, and they're still following, turn around, bring the gun to a low ready, and tell them to stop, announcing that you have a gun. If the continue towards you, courts regularly find that the average person would have a legitimate concern for their life, and all's fair in love and war. Now, if rape consists of jumping out from behind a trash can and knocking whoever out, yeah, a gun isn't going to do much. But neither is pepper spray, mace, or a pair of car keys.
"Especially since in a place where many people carry concealed guns, the badguys will be certain to have them too.."
How exactly does a state's issuance of concealed carry permits equate to bad guys also having guns? The only line I draw between concealed carry and criminals carrying, is that if a lot of people concealed carry, and a lot of private businesses ban carry in their stores, then a lot of those concealed carriers will leave their guns in their cars, leading to easy steals for criminals who couldn't legally purchase one. I consider that a problem with the businesses, which is why I take my business elsewhere. I'm not sure how else you can say that concealed carry permit issuance = a higher percentage of bad guys with guns. Criminals are going to carry guns regardless of what the law says. I doubt "Hmm... I'm not allowed to carry this concealed... and I'm not allowed to go into this KMart carrying the gun... maybe I shouldn't go in there and rob them..." is much at all on a criminals mind. I think it's more likely that a criminal will be thinking "Haha, I have a gun. These suckers are mine. Hmmm... 65% of the people in this state carry concealed firearms... that means there might be 5 people in this 7-11 with a gun... There's no way I can pull that off..." (Of course, I doubt 65% of people carry concealed weapons, but I can dream...)
You have to make crime unattractive to criminals. You do this by making it more likely that they be caught, make the punishment more severe, or introduce complications for them. If they have to consider the likelihood that they won't come out of that 7-11 alive, or that the guy they want to mug might be packing, that's probably going to influence their decision to rob it/him.
There are many social factors that contribute to crime. By your argument, the fact that California has such a high crime rate, or that D.C. (NO GUNS ALLOWED) has a higher murder rate than any city in the U.S. would be plenty of support for gun-rights. Not all places where guns are outlawed have low crime, and not all places where guns are legal have high crime.
"If criminals know that the people, whose houses they break into, are armed, they are more likely to be armed themselves."
Or, put another way... if criminals know that their potential victims are armed, they won't risk committing that crime unless they too have a gun. So what you do is... enforce existing laws, or assign a much stiffer penalty to the posession of a firearm by a criminal. You don't take away law abiding citizens' guns hoping that criminals will lay down their arms too since they won't "need" them.
Make the guns harder for criminals to get while not being overly restrictive on how law abiding citizens get them, and you've given people the means to protect themselves. The biggest problem with guns is when law abiding citizens choose not to carry them, and criminals do.
Well, when you have to fight even for the right to have "assault weapons" (No, this does not mean fully automatic weapons. An AR15 is not an assault weapon. An AR15 with a pistol grip, a barrel shroud, and a collapsible stock IS an assault weapon despite the fact that they have the same rate of fire, the same built in accuracy, and shoot the same bullet.), the battle for the higher-up weapons is on the back burner. Though I am a staunch gun supporter (And, of course, member of the NRA), I can't bring myself to support or oppose the idea that we should have access to the same exact equipment (Tanks and whatnot included) that the military has. I myself don't care to own any of those things, but I don't let that interfere with other peoples' rights.
BTW, the NRA isn't just so arbitrary organization that muscles the government around. The NRA has power because it is an organization that consists of a VERY large number of voters. They join to give their support to the support of 2A rights, which is why John Kerry does his "Look, I have a shotgun!" photo shoots: It's a large voter base. It'd be interesting to poll the rest of the NRA members and see what they think about tanks and whatnot. I think that's definitely more of a devisive issue than handguns and rifles.
But again... you gotta take things one step at a time. The anti-gun liberals know this... hence the "assault weapons ban". Desensitize people to the idea of restricting certain weapons, and then slowly encroach on the rest of them.
In California, one of the most gun-unfriendly states, supposedly you can shoot to stop the commision of any felony. A felony is any crime that carries more than a year in prison as its penalty. However, even though this law is on the books, apparently it is not case law, and does not stand up in court. I have no idea how that is the case.... I'm fairly certain that even in Texas, if someone is running out of your house with your TV, you can not shoot them, despite what the law says.
The Washington Times noted that the average police response times in 2002... I think it was... was 8.5 minutes. That's a long time, and it would really suck if it you were on the longer end of that average time. I don't feel that I should have to retreat from my home, the one place I should be safe in, nor do I feel that I could gather my children up safely and get down to the first floor, sneak past this criminal, and run off to Granny's house. In that time you went for the phone to call the cops (Obviously telling them "I just heard a window break downstairs, and I think someone is in my house. I am armed.) you could have also picked up your gun and gone to retrieve your children from their rooms, and then holed up in your master bedroom. I'm not saying you should charge down into the living room shooting like mad, because it very well could be someone with no intent. At the very least, that gun is there when the shit hits the fan, and you just keep everyone safe in one room until the cops get there. Or, you could quietly go downstairs, switch on your tac-light to blind the bastard and make sure it's not your daughter's boyfriend trying to sneak in to see her, and hold them at bay until the cops arrive. The law is very clear that you can not shoot until someone's life is in danger. That doesn't apply to someone who is trespassing, obviously. No warning shots, nothing. You shoot him in the back while he's running away, you're going to jail. You shoot him twice in the chest as he advances blindly towards you after you've let him know that you are armed, you had reason to fear for your life.
I guess my point is, owning a gun does not make you a killer. You do not have to kill someone to use it. Firing a shot is very much a last resort, because human life IS precious, but YOUR life is more precious than a criminals human life, and you should never have to take risk your life just to save theirs.
People talk so much about crime rates with guns and that being justification for outlawing them... As if criminals will just turn in their guns. That just disarms law abiding citizens, and makes them easy prey for those criminals. Or, through some miracle, everyone, including criminals turn in their guns, and then the criminal who is a big burly weight lifter has a decisive advantage over any citizen who is smaller and less adept at hand-to-hand combat. This is why handguns are often referred to as the great equalizer. 4'11" Asian girl friend of mine (Not girlfriend) is at LEAST evenly matched against some asshole trying to rape her, no matter how big he is, as long as she has a gun. And is she going to kill someone just for the hell of it? God, no.
Phoning the police is an important thing to do, and it should be the first, but they can't be there for that 8.5 minutes to protect you if you've got a bunch of gangbangers in your house trying to kill a family as part of their gang initiation.
The likelihood that you will have to fire in self defense is very slim, but as long as you are safe with a firearm, there's no reason not to have one. Anyone who has ever needed a gun, has needed it very badly.
I had to ask the same question, and I did. "What would you do if the government decided to take your guns?" There's no easy answer, and obviously, shooting at a tank isn't going to do much. I don't fully know the answer to this, and I hope I never need to figure it out. But I do know that being disarmed by the government is certainly a step towards giving the government "absolute power", wouldn't you say? Here on Slashdot, we have so many privacy rights advocates, people who don't trust the government to keep watch over something as simple as their emails... yet somehow this same crowd so blindly trusts the government to provide protection 24/7 from foreign and domestic threats, and at the same time to not abuse its power.
"You fucking americans are so short-minded, its all about the self."
Well, it certainly isn't about letting criminals have their way with our bodies, our lives, our posessions, or our families.
"you can't justify murder, especially not on "intent"."
So... if someone broke into your house right now with a baseball bat... what would you do? I guess you'd do the right thing and just let him do whatever it was he came to do. Sure. I guess criminals have to make a living too. If you fundamentally feel that a criminal threatening your life deserves to be able to do what he wishes, fine. I can't argue with that, because that's a moral judgment. I'm certainly sorry you feel that way. Very fortunate for criminals though, they've found an ideal sheeple victim.
"But the vast majority of guns that are used at all are used to commit crimes. Period."
Oh. Well then I guess my 10,000+ rounds of ammo that I've been through just disappeared into thin air. Wait, that can't be... I didn't kill anyone. I guess hunting, target shooting, carrying for self protection (In case one of those nice, unfortunate criminals with an evil, unnecessary gun assumes I'm one of those sheeple who believes the police can be there 24/7 to prtect me), all don't count as using a gun. I guess owning and keeping guns has no use as far as keeping the government in line, and that I should just give up every gun I have and trust the government to be fair, represent me, and protect me 24/7. Right English subjects?
Why should any gun owner who legally uses guns give a crap about how often people use them illegally? That sounds like more of a reason for law abiding citizens to pack heat to me. There is only one reason not to own a gun: If you are not comfortable with yourself. Guns don't do anything on their own. They are a tool. If more good people took up this tool and responsibly used it, the people who choose to do evil with it would find crime much less appealing. Would YOU try to rob McDonalds if there was the possibility that 3 or 4 of the soccer moms there carried concealed firearms and regularly competed in IPSC self defense shooting competitions?
Uses for guns: Self defense, hunting, shooting sports (Guess what, guns are in the olympics!), protection from an oppressive government, crime.
Bad guy breaks into your house with three of his friends and a baseball bat. Guess what. The gun you have that is "designed to kill" is not quite so evil then, is it? Unless of course, you think killing someone to prevent the rape of your wife and children, the beating of yourself, and the thieving of anything that those guys find interesting in your house is... evil. "Killing" is one of many uses for a gun. I've never killed anyone with any of my guns, but I've still used them. Besides, "killing" isn't ALWAYS bad, right? The problem is... criminals with guns. Not guns. It's a tool like anything else. Its uses are determined by who wields it. Just like P2P. P2P's potential for misuse may not be very great, but the value of its legal use is not that great either.
Well, just as with guns, the problem is that the people in charge are uneducated. Just as guns have legitimate uses (Self defense, hunting, shooting sports, hobbies, protection from an oppressive government...) so does P2P (Amateur porn, game patches and demos...). One thing you CAN'T argue, however... is that guns are used a lot more legally than they are illegally, and that P2P is, at least for now, predominantly used illegally. Now, P2P isn't ever used for robbing or killing someone, but I digress..... I think until P2P is demonstrated as being popoular, and almost essential, to its legal uses, and that it is used more often legally than not, we won't be able to convince any of the lawmakers that it has a place in society. Also... an assload of gun-rights supporters (myself included) make a lot of phone calls to their "representatives". Good luck organizing that with supporters of P2P networks, since I'd say most of them are not of legal voting age, AND use P2P primarily for illegal purposes. When GamePhilez downloads have as many sources as Jenna Jameson's latest foray into adult entertainment and are uploaded as often as Britney Spears' latest hit, then you'll have some bargaining chips. But not until then. Besides, there are people who want to ban guns despite the facts, and there are also those people who want to ban P2P, regardless of... anything.
Oh yeah, you mean the fact that the media and Hollywood and virtually all forms of mainstream communication are all very liberal biased? Oh, no? Then maybe I'll RTFA.
Gnutella, Gnutella 2, EDonkey, and BitTorrent.
http://gamephilez.us/index.php?action=viewFile&req uest=200
How upsetting that his story was accepted just moments before mine. (Sigh)
Here's what I posted to one of the gun boards I'm on:
I had it done in Harrisonburg, Va. I was supposedly an excellent candidate.
It was the most comfortable surgery, and weirdest, I've ever had done. After a few checkup visits for measuring and whatnot, I came in for what seemed like 5 minutes, and they did both eyes. I walked out with better vision than when I walked in. The next day, my vision was better than 20/20 in both eyes. It's been roughly 6 months I think, and as it healed, that sharpness has been lost a little. I don't see as well as I did with glasses or contacts (I had better than 20/20 when corrected) but I'm WELL within the legal limit to drive, and I can do groundhog checks at home without throwin' on any specs.
Naturally, the updated the process like a week after I got it. Argh.
I recommend it if you can afford it. Though, reading the list of things that can go wrong was kind of frightening.....
The procedure is basically this... Your eyeball is gently sunctioned to pull it a bit out of the socket and stretch it out (Much like you might pinch up some skin to drive a spike through it). "Gently" means that you feel like your eyeball is getting pulled completely out of your head and your vision goes completely black. Then, a fun-filled little spinning blade comes in from the side and cuts the front of your eye, almost COMPLETELY cutting off the front of it. A little hinge is left there. Then that flap that was created is flipped back, and the laser does its thing. The flap goes back into place, and you leave.
Now, the possible catastrophy that most troubled me was them accidentally cutting all the way through, and not leaving a flap. Basically slicing a contact-lens-like piece out of your eye. And then this piece falls on the ground and they lose it. And then you have no lens on the front of your eye and are fuX0red!
But yeah, it's interesting. Smile The doctor really only seems to be involved in the measuring of your eye and the subscription. When they rent the machine (Most places rent it for a day or two and do as many patients as possible in a marathon-run), they also rent the guy who knows how to use it. He seemed to be doing most of the work. There actually wasn't much manipulation by anyone's hands... The machine does all the work. I wouldn't get too hung up on the doctor that's doing it. Shop around. Smile
Let's not forget the fact that Tritium is used extensively in night-sights for firearms. Good stuff! Still, it's amazing how heavily regulated the stuff is...
Not 95% of MY traffic. There are plenty of places for legal links for files! My personal favorite use... distributing game patches, modifications, trailers, and all that jazz! If you're as hung up on contributing to legal uses for P2P technologies, check out http://GamePhilez.us , or one of the (many?) other sites with similar intentions.
Slashdot Mirror
"And at any rate, this just further shows the disparity between those who have money and those who do not."
Yeah. People with money suck. All the things they can do with that money that poor people can't... I KNOW! Tax it all away from them. That way we can all be the same.
"By the way - his girlfriend is hot. Too bad they seem like a couple of religious nuts."
What, if they weren't religious you'd line up a threesome?
"what kind of a person just sits around with a blank, lost expression on his face after hearing of the terrorist attacks on 9/11? While almost every OTHER American leapt to his or her feet in swift alert, he waited around stupidly for somebody to tell him what to do! Some leader indeed!" Oh WOW man... Well... Where to start... I guess the usual "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" speech... "I can't believe he just left like that... panicking and leaving the children frightened..." That's all I got there. And, at least where I watched it, everyone was shocked still. Class was cancelled until like 2 hours later, because no one was going anyway... Because everyone was just blown away by the enormity of it. Jesus... people expect presidents not to be human or do human things... Was I appalled at Clinton because of Monica? Yeah, but I don't think it was necessarily something that makes him a bad president. Do I think Mrs. Kerry is a bitch for telling someone to "shove it"? No. Do I think Cheney (It was Cheney right?) should be reprimanded for telling someone to fuck off? Nope. I'm glad he showed some emotion and that he was human. I wouldn't want him to make a habit of it though. Do I give a fuck that Kerry came back and betrayed other veterans after Vietnam? I don't agree with that, but I don't think that will really matter with his presidency. And do I think President George W. Bush is in any way unfit for duty because, oh my God, he was shocked by what happened on September 11? NO! Why the hell would that mean anything? We were all shocked. Many of us were paralyzed. And if you could just go on functioning and thinking clearly the moment after you heard about it, you are soulless. Amazing how F-9/11 still "convinced" people of things even after Moore's blatant lying without actually speaking a lie, and just through serial misrepresentation was brought out after Bowling for Columbine. Fahrenheit gets my vote for worst movie ever. Well, perhaps it doesn't. Michael Moore just gets my vote for most immoral person in the movie industry. And George W. Bush will be getting my vote for the presidency of the United States.
http://forums.shareaza.com/showthread.php?threadid =17119&highlight=kazaa+incomplete
The trick is going to be finding the same file on Shareaza. What hash information do you have about the file?
Well, what does P2P have to do with stealing music? I know we've all been through this before... I won't make my usual "pirates/p2p/criminals/guns" comparison... Whoops. :-) P2P has many GREAT applications that are both legal and... GREAT. And uh... useful.
With a little finangling, you can import that incomplete download into Shareaza.
Why do we care what a slashdotter says of Apple? Unless of course, you mean Virgin the company....
Accidents are easily prevented. Even with no children around my house, my gun is never just sitting out for someone to play with. My point was that by carrying a gun, she's not going to walk into 7/11 to rob it. If anything, owning a gun has made me even more polite and passive. Escalating a situation when you are carrying a firearm is not a good idea. Sure, a lot of people have ASS for self control. Guy looks at them funny, they get pissed off, and shoot them. But a lot of people also know they don't have any self control, like a friend of mine. He loves shooting, but would never carry a firearm because he KNOWS that he has a very low melting point. Guns require responsibility and some common sense safe handling. "Especially if the shooter is a cop. They get away with it all the time." Crooked cops are a reason for gun control then? "You also seem to be ignoring the famous Texan rules-of-engagement." I'd like to see in Texas where someone was shot in the back while fleeing, and the shooter was found innocent (and not a cop). Personally, my morals go so far as to say that if someone breaks into my house with a gun, I should be able to put them down, no matter what. If they'd do it to me, then by letting them get away I give them the opportunity to do it to someone else, with perhaps more dire consequences. Of course, that's not the law. As soon as the threat is gone (Not necessarily the criminal, but threat. I.e., his back is turned and he's running.) so is the right to lethal force in your self defense. "No. The aggressor has the element of surprise and initiative." Not in all cases. I myself have never witnessed a rape to know how it's carried about. But if you've got some suspicious character following you, you get your hand to your gun and cross the street. If they follow, try to find a public place to retreat to. If there is none, and they're still following, turn around, bring the gun to a low ready, and tell them to stop, announcing that you have a gun. If the continue towards you, courts regularly find that the average person would have a legitimate concern for their life, and all's fair in love and war. Now, if rape consists of jumping out from behind a trash can and knocking whoever out, yeah, a gun isn't going to do much. But neither is pepper spray, mace, or a pair of car keys.
"Especially since in a place where many people carry concealed guns, the badguys will be certain to have them too.."
How exactly does a state's issuance of concealed carry permits equate to bad guys also having guns? The only line I draw between concealed carry and criminals carrying, is that if a lot of people concealed carry, and a lot of private businesses ban carry in their stores, then a lot of those concealed carriers will leave their guns in their cars, leading to easy steals for criminals who couldn't legally purchase one. I consider that a problem with the businesses, which is why I take my business elsewhere. I'm not sure how else you can say that concealed carry permit issuance = a higher percentage of bad guys with guns. Criminals are going to carry guns regardless of what the law says. I doubt "Hmm... I'm not allowed to carry this concealed... and I'm not allowed to go into this KMart carrying the gun... maybe I shouldn't go in there and rob them..." is much at all on a criminals mind. I think it's more likely that a criminal will be thinking "Haha, I have a gun. These suckers are mine. Hmmm... 65% of the people in this state carry concealed firearms... that means there might be 5 people in this 7-11 with a gun... There's no way I can pull that off..." (Of course, I doubt 65% of people carry concealed weapons, but I can dream...)
You have to make crime unattractive to criminals. You do this by making it more likely that they be caught, make the punishment more severe, or introduce complications for them. If they have to consider the likelihood that they won't come out of that 7-11 alive, or that the guy they want to mug might be packing, that's probably going to influence their decision to rob it/him.
There are many social factors that contribute to crime. By your argument, the fact that California has such a high crime rate, or that D.C. (NO GUNS ALLOWED) has a higher murder rate than any city in the U.S. would be plenty of support for gun-rights. Not all places where guns are outlawed have low crime, and not all places where guns are legal have high crime.
"If criminals know that the people, whose houses they break into, are armed, they are more likely to be armed themselves."
Or, put another way... if criminals know that their potential victims are armed, they won't risk committing that crime unless they too have a gun. So what you do is... enforce existing laws, or assign a much stiffer penalty to the posession of a firearm by a criminal. You don't take away law abiding citizens' guns hoping that criminals will lay down their arms too since they won't "need" them.
Make the guns harder for criminals to get while not being overly restrictive on how law abiding citizens get them, and you've given people the means to protect themselves. The biggest problem with guns is when law abiding citizens choose not to carry them, and criminals do.
Well, when you have to fight even for the right to have "assault weapons" (No, this does not mean fully automatic weapons. An AR15 is not an assault weapon. An AR15 with a pistol grip, a barrel shroud, and a collapsible stock IS an assault weapon despite the fact that they have the same rate of fire, the same built in accuracy, and shoot the same bullet.), the battle for the higher-up weapons is on the back burner. Though I am a staunch gun supporter (And, of course, member of the NRA), I can't bring myself to support or oppose the idea that we should have access to the same exact equipment (Tanks and whatnot included) that the military has. I myself don't care to own any of those things, but I don't let that interfere with other peoples' rights.
BTW, the NRA isn't just so arbitrary organization that muscles the government around. The NRA has power because it is an organization that consists of a VERY large number of voters. They join to give their support to the support of 2A rights, which is why John Kerry does his "Look, I have a shotgun!" photo shoots: It's a large voter base. It'd be interesting to poll the rest of the NRA members and see what they think about tanks and whatnot. I think that's definitely more of a devisive issue than handguns and rifles.
But again... you gotta take things one step at a time. The anti-gun liberals know this... hence the "assault weapons ban". Desensitize people to the idea of restricting certain weapons, and then slowly encroach on the rest of them.
In California, one of the most gun-unfriendly states, supposedly you can shoot to stop the commision of any felony. A felony is any crime that carries more than a year in prison as its penalty. However, even though this law is on the books, apparently it is not case law, and does not stand up in court. I have no idea how that is the case.... I'm fairly certain that even in Texas, if someone is running out of your house with your TV, you can not shoot them, despite what the law says.
The Washington Times noted that the average police response times in 2002... I think it was... was 8.5 minutes. That's a long time, and it would really suck if it you were on the longer end of that average time. I don't feel that I should have to retreat from my home, the one place I should be safe in, nor do I feel that I could gather my children up safely and get down to the first floor, sneak past this criminal, and run off to Granny's house. In that time you went for the phone to call the cops (Obviously telling them "I just heard a window break downstairs, and I think someone is in my house. I am armed.) you could have also picked up your gun and gone to retrieve your children from their rooms, and then holed up in your master bedroom. I'm not saying you should charge down into the living room shooting like mad, because it very well could be someone with no intent. At the very least, that gun is there when the shit hits the fan, and you just keep everyone safe in one room until the cops get there. Or, you could quietly go downstairs, switch on your tac-light to blind the bastard and make sure it's not your daughter's boyfriend trying to sneak in to see her, and hold them at bay until the cops arrive. The law is very clear that you can not shoot until someone's life is in danger. That doesn't apply to someone who is trespassing, obviously. No warning shots, nothing. You shoot him in the back while he's running away, you're going to jail. You shoot him twice in the chest as he advances blindly towards you after you've let him know that you are armed, you had reason to fear for your life.
I guess my point is, owning a gun does not make you a killer. You do not have to kill someone to use it. Firing a shot is very much a last resort, because human life IS precious, but YOUR life is more precious than a criminals human life, and you should never have to take risk your life just to save theirs.
People talk so much about crime rates with guns and that being justification for outlawing them... As if criminals will just turn in their guns. That just disarms law abiding citizens, and makes them easy prey for those criminals. Or, through some miracle, everyone, including criminals turn in their guns, and then the criminal who is a big burly weight lifter has a decisive advantage over any citizen who is smaller and less adept at hand-to-hand combat. This is why handguns are often referred to as the great equalizer. 4'11" Asian girl friend of mine (Not girlfriend) is at LEAST evenly matched against some asshole trying to rape her, no matter how big he is, as long as she has a gun. And is she going to kill someone just for the hell of it? God, no.
Phoning the police is an important thing to do, and it should be the first, but they can't be there for that 8.5 minutes to protect you if you've got a bunch of gangbangers in your house trying to kill a family as part of their gang initiation.
The likelihood that you will have to fire in self defense is very slim, but as long as you are safe with a firearm, there's no reason not to have one. Anyone who has ever needed a gun, has needed it very badly.
I had to ask the same question, and I did.
"What would you do if the government decided to take your guns?" There's no easy answer, and obviously, shooting at a tank isn't going to do much. I don't fully know the answer to this, and I hope I never need to figure it out. But I do know that being disarmed by the government is certainly a step towards giving the government "absolute power", wouldn't you say? Here on Slashdot, we have so many privacy rights advocates, people who don't trust the government to keep watch over something as simple as their emails... yet somehow this same crowd so blindly trusts the government to provide protection 24/7 from foreign and domestic threats, and at the same time to not abuse its power.
"You fucking americans are so short-minded, its all about the self."
Well, it certainly isn't about letting criminals have their way with our bodies, our lives, our posessions, or our families.
"you can't justify murder, especially not on "intent"."
So... if someone broke into your house right now with a baseball bat... what would you do? I guess you'd do the right thing and just let him do whatever it was he came to do. Sure. I guess criminals have to make a living too. If you fundamentally feel that a criminal threatening your life deserves to be able to do what he wishes, fine. I can't argue with that, because that's a moral judgment. I'm certainly sorry you feel that way. Very fortunate for criminals though, they've found an ideal sheeple victim.
"Nope! Thanks for playing, see my response to the last time you spouted this bull."
How am I supposed to find a response posted by an anonymous coward?
"But the vast majority of guns that are used at all are used to commit crimes. Period."
Oh. Well then I guess my 10,000+ rounds of ammo that I've been through just disappeared into thin air. Wait, that can't be... I didn't kill anyone. I guess hunting, target shooting, carrying for self protection (In case one of those nice, unfortunate criminals with an evil, unnecessary gun assumes I'm one of those sheeple who believes the police can be there 24/7 to prtect me), all don't count as using a gun. I guess owning and keeping guns has no use as far as keeping the government in line, and that I should just give up every gun I have and trust the government to be fair, represent me, and protect me 24/7. Right English subjects?
Why should any gun owner who legally uses guns give a crap about how often people use them illegally? That sounds like more of a reason for law abiding citizens to pack heat to me. There is only one reason not to own a gun: If you are not comfortable with yourself. Guns don't do anything on their own. They are a tool. If more good people took up this tool and responsibly used it, the people who choose to do evil with it would find crime much less appealing. Would YOU try to rob McDonalds if there was the possibility that 3 or 4 of the soccer moms there carried concealed firearms and regularly competed in IPSC self defense shooting competitions?
Uses for guns: Self defense, hunting, shooting sports (Guess what, guns are in the olympics!), protection from an oppressive government, crime.
Bad guy breaks into your house with three of his friends and a baseball bat. Guess what. The gun you have that is "designed to kill" is not quite so evil then, is it? Unless of course, you think killing someone to prevent the rape of your wife and children, the beating of yourself, and the thieving of anything that those guys find interesting in your house is... evil. "Killing" is one of many uses for a gun. I've never killed anyone with any of my guns, but I've still used them. Besides, "killing" isn't ALWAYS bad, right? The problem is... criminals with guns. Not guns. It's a tool like anything else. Its uses are determined by who wields it. Just like P2P. P2P's potential for misuse may not be very great, but the value of its legal use is not that great either.
Well, just as with guns, the problem is that the people in charge are uneducated. Just as guns have legitimate uses (Self defense, hunting, shooting sports, hobbies, protection from an oppressive government...) so does P2P (Amateur porn, game patches and demos...). One thing you CAN'T argue, however... is that guns are used a lot more legally than they are illegally, and that P2P is, at least for now, predominantly used illegally. Now, P2P isn't ever used for robbing or killing someone, but I digress..... I think until P2P is demonstrated as being popoular, and almost essential, to its legal uses, and that it is used more often legally than not, we won't be able to convince any of the lawmakers that it has a place in society. Also... an assload of gun-rights supporters (myself included) make a lot of phone calls to their "representatives". Good luck organizing that with supporters of P2P networks, since I'd say most of them are not of legal voting age, AND use P2P primarily for illegal purposes. When GamePhilez downloads have as many sources as Jenna Jameson's latest foray into adult entertainment and are uploaded as often as Britney Spears' latest hit, then you'll have some bargaining chips. But not until then. Besides, there are people who want to ban guns despite the facts, and there are also those people who want to ban P2P, regardless of... anything.
Oh yeah, you mean the fact that the media and Hollywood and virtually all forms of mainstream communication are all very liberal biased? Oh, no? Then maybe I'll RTFA.
"Guess I need new glasses." Or one of these monitors. :-)
Or better yet, enforce the M rating as strictly as we enforce R ratings?
Jesus God, that got mangled... Prettified link
Gnutella, Gnutella 2, EDonkey, and BitTorrent. http://gamephilez.us/index.php?action=viewFile&req uest=200
How upsetting that his story was accepted just moments before mine. (Sigh)
Here's what I posted to one of the gun boards I'm on: I had it done in Harrisonburg, Va. I was supposedly an excellent candidate. It was the most comfortable surgery, and weirdest, I've ever had done. After a few checkup visits for measuring and whatnot, I came in for what seemed like 5 minutes, and they did both eyes. I walked out with better vision than when I walked in. The next day, my vision was better than 20/20 in both eyes. It's been roughly 6 months I think, and as it healed, that sharpness has been lost a little. I don't see as well as I did with glasses or contacts (I had better than 20/20 when corrected) but I'm WELL within the legal limit to drive, and I can do groundhog checks at home without throwin' on any specs. Naturally, the updated the process like a week after I got it. Argh. I recommend it if you can afford it. Though, reading the list of things that can go wrong was kind of frightening..... The procedure is basically this... Your eyeball is gently sunctioned to pull it a bit out of the socket and stretch it out (Much like you might pinch up some skin to drive a spike through it). "Gently" means that you feel like your eyeball is getting pulled completely out of your head and your vision goes completely black. Then, a fun-filled little spinning blade comes in from the side and cuts the front of your eye, almost COMPLETELY cutting off the front of it. A little hinge is left there. Then that flap that was created is flipped back, and the laser does its thing. The flap goes back into place, and you leave. Now, the possible catastrophy that most troubled me was them accidentally cutting all the way through, and not leaving a flap. Basically slicing a contact-lens-like piece out of your eye. And then this piece falls on the ground and they lose it. And then you have no lens on the front of your eye and are fuX0red! But yeah, it's interesting. Smile The doctor really only seems to be involved in the measuring of your eye and the subscription. When they rent the machine (Most places rent it for a day or two and do as many patients as possible in a marathon-run), they also rent the guy who knows how to use it. He seemed to be doing most of the work. There actually wasn't much manipulation by anyone's hands... The machine does all the work. I wouldn't get too hung up on the doctor that's doing it. Shop around. Smile
Let's not forget the fact that Tritium is used extensively in night-sights for firearms. Good stuff! Still, it's amazing how heavily regulated the stuff is...
Not 95% of MY traffic. There are plenty of places for legal links for files! My personal favorite use... distributing game patches, modifications, trailers, and all that jazz! If you're as hung up on contributing to legal uses for P2P technologies, check out http://GamePhilez.us , or one of the (many?) other sites with similar intentions.