PDA

View Full Version : Nra And Kazaa



clocker
05-04-2003, 11:45 PM
It appears likely that the manufacturers of guns are soon to enjoy legislated immunity from lawsuits. See here (http://www.denverpost.com).

Should this happen it seems to me that Sharman has the perfect legal defense against the RIAA/MPAA. This would be bolstered by the Grokster ruling earlier this week.

If gun makers can't be held liable for criminal use of their product then I don't see how Sharman could be held liable for illegal use of the FastTrack network.

Plus, I don't ever recall reading about a death due to a driveby download.

Jibbler
05-04-2003, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by clocker@4 May 2003 - 19:45
Plus, I don't ever recall reading about a death due to a driveby download.
Fucking priceless! :lol:

Seriously, the Grokster/Sharman ruling this week was a huge step. This virtually opens the door for tons of filesharing programs, and protects the creators, as long as their is a legitimate use for the software. P2P is going to be around for a while. B)

tyberius
05-05-2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by clocker@4 May 2003 - 23:45
It appears likely that the manufacturers of guns are soon to enjoy legislated immunity from lawsuits. See here (http://www.denverpost.com).

Should this happen it seems to me that Sharman has the perfect legal defense against the RIAA/MPAA. This would be bolstered by the Grokster ruling earlier this week.

If gun makers can't be held liable for criminal use of their product then I don't see how Sharman could be held liable for illegal use of the FastTrack network.

Plus, I don't ever recall reading about a death due to a driveby download.
I am getting a mental image. It is Charlton Heston holding a "pirated CD" saying, "You will take this from my cold dead hands!"

clocker
05-05-2003, 10:23 PM
In Charlton's case that may not be too far in the future...

TIDE-HSV
05-05-2003, 11:13 PM
Or he may not know it, even if they're not quite cold and dead yet.

dave
05-08-2003, 09:34 AM
Charlton Heston rules! I love the NRA and guns! Also, filesharing will continue to thrive once more of them incorporate encryption and proxies.

opivy
05-08-2003, 09:50 AM
Charlton Heston is an idiot

dave
05-08-2003, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by opivy@8 May 2003 - 10:50
Charlton Heston is an idiot
Charlton Heston is one of the few people in the USA who is truly fighting to preserve people's rights. He is a great man.

opivy
05-08-2003, 11:39 AM
ya he is preserving your right to take a gun werever you want geez now you can kill somebody anywere.
People are far to stupid to be trusted with something so deadly

balamm
05-08-2003, 11:49 AM
Duties are not performed for duty's sake, but because their neglect would make the man uncomfortable. A man performs but one duty - the duty of contenting his spirit, the duty of making himself agreeable to himself.
Mark Twain

Schmiggy_JK23
05-08-2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by balamm@8 May 2003 - 06:49
Absolutely!! Their much better off in the hands of felons than law abiding citizens like most of us.

And it's much easier to overtake an unarmed country or to remove civil rights from an unarmed population!!

Right on Sadamm!!
amen to that sarcasm!

for real... its well proven in the states here, that the states with concealed weapon laws, have a far lower violent crime rate, and even crime in general drops since such legislation has been in effect...

Nesseight
05-08-2003, 02:31 PM
The criminals who have nothing to lose aren't going to care about some gun laws, and they can get their guns from other places than wal-mart.

If somebody breaks into your house, and has a gun, you don't really have time to call the police. Sure you could probably attack him with a kitchen knife or a ball bat, and maybe piss him off before he shoots you, and your entire family dead.

Hey, that's just your vote though, and is understandable if you live in some little town with no crime. Living near Phoenix AZ (imagine LA, but a slight bit smaller, and packed with Hispanics). My vote is to keep my gun at my side at all times, and if somebody threatens my life with a deadly weapon, then I will protect myself with mine.

You know that show, "America's Most Wanted." with John Walsh, there are reinactments of vicious crimes on that show where the good guy is never armed. Do you know why they never show one where the good guy is armed? Could it have something to do with the good guy knowing his own house better than the bad guy, therefor eliminating the need for a manhunt of a criminal? If you honestly think that law obiding citizens shouldn't have guns, try watching that show (get your mommy's permission first little girl). Most guns used in crimes aren't legally owned by the killer anyway.

Ask me to turn in my gun and make myself defenseless, and I'll explain to you why your mother and grandmother are the same person. :ph34r:

imported_pichan916
05-08-2003, 03:02 PM
since you are so in favor of having gun, why don't we give a gun to everyone (adult, kid, grandparent, etc..) and see what happen.

Sooner
05-08-2003, 08:29 PM
I think all firearms should be banned, just like the guy who wrote the following speech:

This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation
has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.

Adolph Hitler, 1935


NOT!

Jibbler
05-09-2003, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by Sooner@8 May 2003 - 16:29
I think all firearms should be banned
Welcome to planet earth, where man used weapons like rocks before he had even considered reading and writing. Fast forward 2000 years. Now we have guns. Hurry up and make them illegal before someone gets shot&#33; <_<

Prohibition doesn&#39;t work. They still teach that in school don&#39;t they? :huh:

RealitY
05-09-2003, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Sooner@8 May 2003 - 21:29
I think all firearms should be banned
I always liked this saying...

WHEN FREEDOM IS OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE FREEDOM.

Skillian
05-09-2003, 12:50 AM
Well there are lots of things that are outlawed, they can&#39;t all be considered "freedom".

RealitY
05-09-2003, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by Skillian@9 May 2003 - 01:50
Well there are lots of things that are outlawed, they can&#39;t all be considered "freedom".
Ok then.

jtbuffer
05-09-2003, 09:01 AM
anyone seen bowling for columbine??

a great arguement for &#39;the right to bear arms&#39; in the &#39;land of the free&#33;&#33;&#39;

dave
05-09-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by jtbuffer@9 May 2003 - 10:01
anyone seen bowling for columbine??

a great arguement for &#39;the right to bear arms&#39; in the &#39;land of the free&#33;&#33;&#39;
Bowling For Columbine is fictionalized propoganda. That&#39;s right fictionalized. He edited Charlton Heston&#39;s speeches. He declared that the missile company was for military purposes, when it really was for non-violent civilian purposes. He made completely untrue statements and generated statistics out of thin air. Michael Moore is probably a pathological liar, and even worse, he&#39;s probably a pathological liar with an agenda.

OlderThanDirt
05-09-2003, 11:45 AM
Michael Moore is probably a pathological liar, and even worse, he&#39;s probably a pathological liar with an agenda.

Worse than that. "Bowling For Columbine" won an Oscar for Best Documentary. However, there is a possibility that the Oscar might be yanked and given to another nominee. It has been alleged that some of the scenes in the film, purported to be spontaneous, were staged ... removing it from the pure definition of what a documentary is supposed to be. He still has the Oscar for now. But he might not have it in the future. The vote is still out.

Having said that, and though I&#39;m neither a gun-owner nor NRA member, I think that all law-abiding citizens should have a right to gun ownership ... with one proviso. Before owning a gun, it should be mandatory that a purchaser prove they&#39;ve taken/passed an NRA-approved gun safety course (like the one I took via 4-H when I was younger). The idea of someone just walking in off the street and buying a gun without first having proof they know how to handle it is like the idea of allowing someone to just walk in off the street, buy a car, and drive it off the lot ... without having proof they have a license (and have gone through a driving test). There are responsible gun owners. But, sad to say, there are also dodos who&#39;s idea of proper gun ownership comes from watching too many Baretta or Kojak reruns on TV.

dave
05-09-2003, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@9 May 2003 - 12:45

Michael Moore is probably a pathological liar, and even worse, he&#39;s probably a pathological liar with an agenda.

Worse than that. "Bowling For Columbine" won an Oscar for Best Documentary. However, there is a possibility that the Oscar might be yanked and given to another nominee. It has been alleged that some of the scenes in the film, purported to be spontaneous, were staged ... removing it from the pure definition of what a documentary is supposed to be. He still has the Oscar for now. But he might not have it in the future. The vote is still out.
You&#39;re right. Did everybody check out http://www.revoketheoscar.com? Write letters/email and complain that his fiction won best documentary&#33;

Benno
05-09-2003, 12:10 PM
Could someone from all the ppl who say that guns are so good please explain me why countries with stricter laws have so much fewer shootings than for example the USA?

OlderThanDirt
05-09-2003, 12:17 PM
Write letters/email and complain that his fiction won best documentary&#33;

I&#39;ve already sent them email, not criticizing Moore&#39;s Oscar (since I don&#39;t know the facts, just the allegations), but telling them that an investigation is warranted. Since the allegations have been made, an investigation is the only way to remove the cloud hanging over the MPAA ... and the matter needs to be resolved, one way or another, before Oscar-time next year if the next ceremony is to have any credence. And, if the allegations are true, it is extremely unfair to the other documentarians nominated ... one of whom is truly deserving of the honor. This situation reminds me of the Winter Olympics where Tonya Harding made an appearance. She should never have been there ... and only admitted her involvement in the attack on Nancy Kerrigan after she returned from competition. It became an embarrasment to the United States and, worse, stole the honor of having the 3rd slot on the skating team from a very young Michelle Kwan (who just may have brought home the Gold).

dave
05-09-2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@9 May 2003 - 13:17

Write letters/email and complain that his fiction won best documentary&#33;

I&#39;ve already sent them email, not criticizing Moore&#39;s Oscar (since I don&#39;t know the facts, just the allegations), but telling them that an investigation is warranted. Since the allegations have been made, an investigation is the only way to remove the cloud hanging over the MPAA ... and the matter needs to be resolved, one way or another, before Oscar-time next year if the next ceremony is to have any credence. And, if the allegations are true, it is extremely unfair to the other documentarians nominated ... one of whom is truly deserving of the honor. This situation reminds me of the Winter Olympics where Tonya Harding made an appearance. She should never have been there ... and only admitted her involvement in the attack on Nancy Kerrigan after she returned from competition. It became an embarrasment to the United States and, worse, stole the honor of having the 3rd slot on the skating team from a very young Michelle Kwan (who just may have brought home the Gold).
I agree about the olympics. I always thought that it was fair, but that&#39;s been under a lot of doubt. What about the Russian judges?? Awarding 2 gold medals so they don&#39;t annoy either country??? Like David Letterman said "They&#39;ve awarded everybody in the world a gold medal, so they don&#39;t annoy anybody"&#33; LOL

OlderThanDirt
05-09-2003, 12:26 PM
Benno wrote:

Could someone from all the ppl who say that guns are so good please explain me why countries with stricter laws have so much fewer shootings than for example the USA?

Can you explain why Switzerland, where gun ownership is mandatory, has the lowest murder rate in the world (not counting the Vatican, hehe)? Can you explain why Canada&#39;s murder rate went up, not down, after they put in place the most Draconian anti-gun law they&#39;ve ever had?

The answer is simply that the U.S.A. is a violent culture. Always has been. If we didn&#39;t have guns, we&#39;d be stabbing each other (grin). True fact. What is the #1 choice of weapon by female murderers? Poison. Another true fact. What is one of the most prevalent causes of accidental death in men? Accidental poisoning. Think about that, hehehe, the next time your girlfriend/spouse hands you a beer.

dave
05-09-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Benno@9 May 2003 - 13:10
Could someone from all the ppl who say that guns are so good please explain me why countries with stricter laws have so much fewer shootings than for example the USA?
I&#39;m not sure this fact is particularly true. It sounds like some kind of left-wing propaganda. I do know however that it is estimated that privately owned firearms in the USA are used to stop 2.5 Million (2,500,000) crimes each year (and that&#39;s only ones that get reported). So, assuming all firearms are outlawed and the criminals are the only ones with guns, there will be at lease 2.5 Million more crimes each year...

One other fact:
When prohibition was the law of the land, people who wanted alcohol were forced to turn to violent mobsters to get their alcohol, thereby encouraging the homicidal mania.
As of today a lot of violent crimes are being caused by drug dealers.
Just like drugs and alcohol, gun purchaches will either support law abiding gun dealers, or the average homicidal maniac off the street.

OlderThanDirt
05-09-2003, 12:44 PM
dave wrote:

One other fact:

When prohibition was the law of the land, people who wanted alcohol were forced to turn to violent mobsters to get their alcohol, thereby encouraging the homicidal mania.

Far worse than that. Organized crime existed before prohibition ... but it was prohibition (and rum-running) that gave this criminal element the financial clout to create the modern-day Mafia. Had prohibition never taken place, we&#39;d probably still have a Mafia ... but the power structure would not have been as formidible so quickly.

jtbuffer
05-09-2003, 01:14 PM
Right....let me get this straight....


the missile company was for non-violent civilian puposes??? wtf???

and i think some of you may be missing the point of the film...

not that gun ownership is neccessarily wrong but that the american government and society in general is badly fucked up&#33;&#33;

i dont know the ins on outs of the various arguements regarding the documentary, but are you trying to suggest that all of the people interviewed were actors or that the bizarre things that go on in America and are regarded as normality portrayed in the documentary were fabrications??

jtbuffer
05-09-2003, 01:19 PM
oh...and about generating statistics out of thin air......

pot and kettle mean anything to you???

Benno
05-09-2003, 01:41 PM
@OlderThanDirt

You mean that one culture can be so much more violate than an other? Well I dont know many american citizens so I cant say much about american culture. ;)

The fact that gun ownership is mandatory in Switzerland is not quite correct.
Switzerland do have a mandatory military service, and you have every few years some sort of training, so you take your weapon home with you.

Anyway I will be more carefull with my next beer. :D

@dave

I dont know about all countries, but I do know that in europe you have very few shootings compared to the USA.
For example here in Austria there is probably a shooting once a year.

OlderThanDirt
05-09-2003, 02:06 PM
jtbuffer wrote:

the missile company was for non-violent civilian puposes???

Moore intones that the missiles with their "Pentagon payloads" are trucked through the town "in the middle of the night while the children are asleep." Moore asks whether knowledge that weapons of "mass destruction" were being built nearby might have motivated the Columbine shooters.

After Bowling was released someone checked and found that the Lockheed-Martin plant does not build weapons-type missiles; it makes rockets for launching satellites.

jtbuffer
05-09-2003, 02:15 PM
[QUOTE]

After Bowling was released someone checked and found that the Lockheed-Martin plant does not build weapons-type missiles; it makes rockets for launching satellites.


&#39;someone checked&#39;???

if michael moore is guilty of what he is being accused of, i dont think arguements like that will help the cause...do you??

propoganda is propoganda

&#39;telling lies to our children&#39; - dead prez - propoganda

OlderThanDirt
05-09-2003, 02:31 PM
jtbuffer wrote:

&#39;someone checked&#39;???

Yes, and they didn&#39;t have to check very hard since the Lockheed-Martin plant Moore referred to is part of their Space Systems Company-Astronautics Operations division. Of course, I suppose Moore could be privy to information on "secret activities" in their satellite rocket plant.


jtbuffer also wrote:

propoganda is propoganda

We agree completely on that.

OlderThanDirt
05-09-2003, 02:49 PM
Benno wrote:

You mean that one culture can be so much more violate than an other? Well I dont know many american citizens so I cant say much about american culture.

Yup. I think someone earlier put their finger on the origins ... prohibition ... which led to the meteoric rise of organized crime in the U.S., fueled by alcohol smuggling from Canada (and elsewhere). You ended up with criminals owning guns for their "work" and honest citizens owning guns to protect themselves from the criminals. And, things haven&#39;t changed much since then, even after prohibition was repealed.


Benno also wrote:

The fact that gun ownership is mandatory in Switzerland is not quite correct.&nbsp; Switzerland do have a mandatory military service, and you have every few years some sort of training, so you take your weapon home with you.

So, it isn&#39;t mandatory gun ownership, it&#39;s mandatory gun stewardship. Somehow, the difference between the two escapes me since the guns are still in the homes of every able-bodied man.

Benno
05-09-2003, 03:18 PM
It sounds plausible what you say about the american culture but as said above I know way to few americans to take myself the right to judge them or the culture. ;)

About Switzerland, I was born there and lived there for about 12 years. I can hardly imagine that a man take out his weapon to shoot someone. It&#39;s such a tidy and civilized country. :D

Barbarossa
05-09-2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Benno@9 May 2003 - 15:18
It&#39;s such a tidy and civilized country. :D
At the end of the day, that&#39;s the key really, isn&#39;t it? ;)

OlderThanDirt
05-09-2003, 03:48 PM
It sounds plausible what you say about the american culture but as said above I know way to few americans to take myself the right to judge them or the culture.

About Switzerland, I was born there and lived there for about 12 years. I can hardly imagine that a man take out his weapon to shoot someone. It&#39;s such a tidy and civilized country.

Americans, growing up in a violent culture, tend to become violent (or used to violence). The Swiss, growing up in a tidy and civilized culture, tend to become tidy and civilized. And I&#39;ve heard that in Iceland, there is no minimum age for drinking alcohol -- and that, not surprisingly, they have a high rate of alcoholism. But that makes me wonder. From what I&#39;ve heard, the French drink wine at meals starting at a very early age -- and they don&#39;t seem to have an alcoholism problem. But maybe the ones who drink the most grow up to be politicians instead. :lol:

insanebassman
05-09-2003, 06:47 PM
I really wanted to leave this alone....
but my demons wil not let me...

I first learned to use a gun when I was about 8 years old. I learned to safely handle, clean and operate it. I was taken out to our family&#39;s shooting range and taught to respect the destruction a PERSON is capable of doing with a gun. I was then taught how to kill for food using the gun. I also learned that people could be easily killed in the same way, either accedentally or on purpose. It was drilled into my head how careful I needed to be in order to avoid this. Both my temper and care of the gun were drilled until I automatically took care at everything I did involving fire arms.

When I was 10 years old, I went through the same learning process with the Bow. A nice, long range silent weapon. I learned everything about it that I learned with the gun.

When I was 12 years old, I enrolled in a Martial arts calss. I learned that my hands, feet, and other body parts were weapons. After the first several years I learned that anything in my hands was a potential weapon when applied with enough skill. My teacher then introduced a few of us to Kendo. I learned that knives and swords were as effective as ant projectile weapon. I also learned that in the state I lived in, when in a fight, I had to inform my attacker of my skill level in Jui-Jitsu. Were I wo not inform them of my skills and use my skills to defend myself, I could be prosecuted for assault with a deadly weapon.

While continuing my martial arts training, I learned other things from my uncle. He was a Green Beret. He spent 3 tours in Vietnam and wanted to stay until the war was over, but they made him go home. He taught me that there are a number of common chemicals and bological agents that can be used to improvise weapons and tools. I was then trained that my mind, when applied to these materials, was also deadly.

All of these skills combined since childhood, make me a potential threat to anyone I come in contact with. The one thing that makes this irrelevent is the one thing taught to me during all of this "training". I learned discipline and self control. I am a compulsive person with a terrible temper. I think many many violent thoughts and have even acted on some of them. Yet, some how, I fell back on my discipline and restrained my violent urges to the benefit of my adversaries.

The moral of all this shit is this:

Weapons, knowledge and skill can all be used to hurt and destroy. It is our choices that can determine wether or not it happens. Not the devices, not the chemicals and not the providers of the weapons.

If guns are banned, I still have access to all the materials I need to destroy... At least until thought is effectively banned and controlled.

Benno
05-09-2003, 07:19 PM
insanebassman I think I get your point but the thing is you dont need to learn how to kill using a gun.
Everybody can pick up a gun and shoot, well probably he will miss the target.

But to know how to destroy or kill with for example your hands and feet aint that easy and you have to learn it first.




I hope I could make myself somehow clear. ;)

insanebassman
05-09-2003, 07:39 PM
Much of my point was as much self control as it was a verbose way of saying "guns don&#39;t kill people, people do..." I came from a bizarre fucked up childhood, but those adults in my past who actually helped, made sure I could control myself. This discipline applies to emergency situations as well as violence. I have seen so many people panic and almost kill themselves in situations in which I acted with cool, yet intense, discipline. I know how to party, have fun and act a fool. Yet, I also know how to keep shit from going south even when I am in the throes of a good drunk or doing something chaotic. It has to do with the self control I learned. Someone would not pick up a weapon unnecessarily and randomly kill had they the will power and self control to reason thier way through. It is the modern "touchy-feely" school of parenting and permissivness that has everyone fucked. It is also the lieniency of the law on killers and sex offenders (and other violent offenders) that has helped, not caused, but helped in the break down of society. All of this combines with human stupidity to make the world dangerous.

Might as well blame the iron ore in the gun metal for the actions of some useless pig.

I am not bagging on you or anyone, I just do not connect with anyone who thinks removing something is the solution. Pretty soon, anything with the potential for harm will be illegal. No mor corners on walls... must be rounded. No more cars, they kill too. Forget swimming, you may drown. No more risk taking...

I would rather die than live in a benign world like that. (And I will fight a world order that wants to "protect" us in that way)

clocker
05-09-2003, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@9 May 2003 - 08:06

jtbuffer wrote:

the missile company was for non-violent civilian puposes???

Moore intones that the missiles with their "Pentagon payloads" are trucked through the town "in the middle of the night while the children are asleep." Moore asks whether knowledge that weapons of "mass destruction" were being built nearby might have motivated the Columbine shooters.
Well, after a few days away I see that this thread has mutated into a gun control/Michael Moore war. Not really my original intention, but there you go.

Just for reference- I live not 5 miles from Columbine HS, I grew up in Columbine Hills where all my neighbors worked at Martin Marietta. My father just retired from Martin a few years ago.
When someone refers to military satellites they are in fact talking about weapons. Maybe not the traditional high explosives type, or even ICBMs ( which Martin DID manufacture at the Waterton plant) capable of delivering nuclear payloads, but weapons of the new frontier battlefield.
EM weapons, LASER weapons, ultra sophisticated evesdropping and spy satellites- Martins builds boosters to deliver them all.
Moore may have overdramatized the effect this may/may not have had on Harris and Klebold, and he certainly overdramatized the nighttime movement of the missiles- after all, Denver is a fairly large city, you can&#39;t really shut down Interstate highways at rushhour to transport your Titan 3C.
Back in the early 60&#39;s while the rest of the country was practicing "Duck and Cover" ( if you&#39;re of a certain age you know what I&#39;m talking about) no one out here in Jefferson County bothered. When you lived 3 miles from Martin and less than 50 miles from NORAD it pretty much was a given that you were toast in the event of nuclear war.
We figured we were the lucky ones.
When I was in elementary school, Martin used to test fire engines at the Waterton plant. If the wind was right the toxic cloud from the test would crawl towards Denver. Martin would casually call the city manager and suggest that it might be a good idea if maybe folks went indoors for a while "just to be on the safe side". Air raid sirens would go off and your beautiful summer afternoon was shot to hell.
If "somebody checked" and discovered that Martin doesn&#39;t build weapons missiles at the Waterton plant, I personnaly would be very skeptical.
My father found that highly amusing.
He won&#39;t/can&#39;t talk about a lot of the projects that he worked on, but you don&#39;t get Top Secret Air Force clearance while working on phone company satellites.
Just a thought.

OlderThanDirt
05-09-2003, 10:13 PM
There could be a lot of things going on in "civilian" plants that we&#39;re unaware of. And perhaps Moore was privy to such information. But perhaps the most ludicrous suggestion of Moore is that living close to a defense plant causes children to become violent. If he could show definitively that kids living close to defense plants kill more often than kids living elsewhere, he&#39;d make a valid point. But he didn&#39;t do this because he can&#39;t. Inner-city violence among youth gangs far surpasses any violence found in or near defense plants as far as I can tell.

But Moore is no less guilty than a lot of other people in engaging in the great American pastime of pointing the finger. Some people say video games or popular music makes kids violent. There&#39;s even a subgroup within the organization, Parents of Murdered Children, called M.I.N.E. (murder is not entertainment) that has proposed a ban on murder mystery novels because they believe reading them leads to violence. And some people picket Harry Potter movies because they say it leads to demonic possession in children. There&#39;s just so much finger pointing going on that one might believe everything leads to violence if one wants to believe it&#39;s true.

I think the greater truth is far simpler. It simply depends on an individual person&#39;s perception of anything. A hundred kids could play a video game without becoming violent. But then the next kid playing it might be a messed-up kid waiting for the catalyst to push him over the edge. A hundred teenagers could get behind the wheel and drive responsibly. But then the next kid driving a car might be a messed-up kid who&#39;s prone to drive irresponsibly. It boils down to a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" question ... but one I think we know the answer to. The "messed-up" part came before the act.

Benno
05-09-2003, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@10 May 2003 - 00:13
I think the greater truth is far simpler. It simply depends on an individual person&#39;s perception of anything. A hundred kids could play a video game without becoming violent. But then the next kid playing it might be a messed-up kid waiting for the catalyst to push him over the edge. A hundred teenagers could get behind the wheel and drive responsibly. But then the next kid driving a car might be a messed-up kid who&#39;s prone to drive irresponsibly. It boils down to a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" question ... but one I think we know the answer to. The "messed-up" part came before the act.
I have to agree here. ;)

OlderThanDirt
05-11-2003, 02:58 AM
insanebassman wrote:

Weapons, knowledge and skill can all be used to hurt and destroy. It is our choices that can determine wether or not it happens. Not the devices, not the chemicals and not the providers of the weapons.

Yup. And one other thing. In the "Godfather Epic" movie collection, the "uncut" chronological version that can only be found in video stores (they stopped selling it in 1982), there was a scene showing a younger Don Corleone and Clemenza visiting a gunsmith to acquire weapons -- weapons that were built not bought. I think that&#39;s a fair description of organized crime activities then and am certain little has changed since then.

Banning the sale of guns in stores is no obstacle to organized criminals who make their own ... and sell some of what they make to lesser criminals who aren&#39;t part of the "family." It&#39;s just an obstacle that prevents law-abiding citizens from acquiring a self-protective weapon.

MichaelS
05-11-2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Nesseight@8 May 2003 - 15:31
If somebody breaks into your house, and has a gun, you don&#39;t really have time to call the police. Sure you could probably attack him with a kitchen knife or a ball bat, and maybe piss him off before he shoots you, and your entire family dead.

Hey, that&#39;s just your vote though, and is understandable if you live in some little town with no crime. Living near Phoenix AZ (imagine LA, but a slight bit smaller, and packed with Hispanics). My vote is to keep my gun at my side at all times, and if somebody threatens my life with a deadly weapon, then I will protect myself with mine.

I live in L.A., I&#39;m a former gun owner, and I&#39;ve been a crime victim. So let me respond to your rant.

Firstly, we have plenty of every kind of people, a few of whom commit crimes. Citing "Hispanics" as the source of crime sounds preposterous and racist to me.

Also I&#39;ve been the victim of crimes, so I know of the anger and bitterness of having been robbed. I owned a gun, but it wouldn&#39;t have helped and arguably, a gun could have been stolen if I was less careful. Your grandmother example was interesting, but before my grandmother became ill, she used to drive from the Valley all the way to Bell Gardens to gamble at a card club. She never had a problem there. I&#39;ve driven all over the worst parts of town in a modest looking car with no problems. I&#39;m talking Downtown L.A. at day and night, South Central L.A. off Crenshaw Boulevard day and night, Long Beach along Anaheim Boulevard, East Los Angeles/Unincorporated county "islands," Van Nuys/Reseda, and I can tell you: the best defense against crime is AWARENESS and COMMON SENSE. If you discount hand to hand combat, let me tell you that within 21&#39; a trained Law Enforcement Officer cannot adequately protect himself with a sidearm against someone with open hands, a knife or a baseball bat to do him or her harm (reference Sgt. Tueller&#39;s court backed findings, Salt Lake City, UT).

On the flipside, I&#39;ve had my neighbor, drunk and in his underwear, stagger out into our carport the middle of the night for no good reason while I was out on my balcony (my friends smoke so I kept them company). He probably shouldn&#39;t have been drunk and walking around with a gun, but hey, it&#39;s a free country. Confronting him with another gun would&#39;ve certainly started a gun fight. If he started shooting, I&#39;d have beat a retreat and dialed the Sheriff&#39;s Department. By the way, he&#39;s a card carrying NRA member (or at least his car&#39;s window sticker says so).

As far as I&#39;m concerned, the biggest criminals in my area are the electric utility companies and oil companies. They rob everybody of billions legally. They are above the law and that pisses me off.

If you want to protect yourself, learn to pay attention to your surroundings and work on your body language. Take self-defense courses that emphasize awareness as well as real, hand to hand skills. If you want to protect what&#39;s yours, get a dog to patrol your house. A barking dog discourages criminals from doing you harm or entering your home. They make great companions and I&#39;m told they&#39;re man&#39;s best friend.

What does this have to do with filesharing?

I used to leave my PC on for filesharing; no more because I use a high-powered gaming rig with all the bells and whistles and because I&#39;m being robbed every month by Southern California Edison, it&#39;s too expensive to leave on for the sake of filesharing.

MichaelS
05-11-2003, 02:22 PM
If you&#39;re interested in a fun martial art that incorporates hand to hand weapons training, try eskrima/kali/Filipino Martial Arts. You will definitely be much more fit in about six weeks time.

Google a search with your city name and find an instructor with good credentials by drilling down on another Google with their name. Don&#39;t get locked into a contract and ask for an introductory class.

OlderThanDirt
05-11-2003, 05:56 PM
Joel Rosenberg is a well-known writer in the science-fiction field. But, a real-life experience in his own home prompted him to write this essay about guns (http://www.winternet.com/~joelr/burglary.html). It&#39;s well worth the read.