[GSR13]

As for the Console debate, I own the Playstation2 for three reasons:

1. Backwards compatible with my Playstation.

2. GranTurismo 3

3. MetalGearSolid 2

Unfortunately, the Xbox has Gotham Racing and they are creating MGS X for it. Not to mention the superior hardware in the Xbox. I am kind of regretting my decision. While I love my PS2, I really believe the Xbox is going to be some serious competition.

Microsoft really gets on my nerves. I am waiting on the day when they have a stake in everything electronic. From the Fridge to the toaster to the treadmill and back, one giant crash after the other.

Of course, if Blue is your color, you want really need to decorate...

[Dieter Bohn]

500! 500!

edit: d'oh! GSR's 2nd post got 500, this is 501.

Originally posted by GSR13
The problem is not the guns. The problem is with the people. If you put a gun in the hand of a killer, the odds are he will kill. That same person would likely be just as deadly with a knife. However, you put a gun in the hand of his victim, and he just might think twice about it.

Not so. Simply not so. You put a gun in the hand of a person, that person becomes more likely to become a killer. A person armed with a gun is simply more lethal than any other less-armed person.

Gun crimes are not solely a result of the involvement of a tool called a gun, but the lack of a gun makes a big difference!

As for a License, I feel this could be a good thing, but only if done correctly. Any type of license would no doubt be an attempt to squash gun ownership, not help the law abiding citizen.

I don't think it would be an attempt to squash gun ownership, but to make it reasonable. Remember, if you give me an inch, I will take your m16, but you can keep your glock. So long as you're licensed, trained, educated, and not a felon.

Give me a license that does a thorough background check. Charge me a fee that is not completely out of this world. Make me take training, specific to the type of firearm my license allows me. Then give me a license that allows me to carry a firearm any where I go. If I live in Georgia, it should be just as good in California. Unfortunately, to accomplish this, it would no doubt have to be governed on a Federal Level, and this scares me more than the license itself.

Why? As I said, if you're afraid of the federal gov't, do something about it. They're simply the most qualified entity around to do it. Just make sure there's oversight built in, checks and balances.

[GSR13]

You know what would have been really cool, is if my 500th post on VC hit the same time my 500th post to this thread. Kind of sad really...

I disagree about a person becoming lethal because they own a gun. I own multiple firearms and I have yet to kill anyone. Nor do I have any intention of killing anyone. Unless of course someone enters my home in the middle of the night and threatens my family. Without a gun, you can bet I would find another way, or die trying.

The more armed the populace, the less likely for violent crimes. Of course petty crimes go up, because a criminal is a criminal, but I would much rather someone slash my tires than enter my home.

I do not want you to take my M16. If I am licensed, why should I not be allowed to have it? If I am found of sound mind and a law abiding citizen, why should I surrendor that to you just so I can keep my Glock? I want both.

My fear of the federal government is I believe they would like to abolish gun ownership just as much HandGun Control. I also feel that there is little we can do to change this.

[Dieter Bohn]

Originally posted by GSR13
I disagree about a person becoming lethal because they own a gun. I own multiple firearms and I have yet to kill anyone. Nor do I have any intention of killing anyone. Unless of course someone enters my home in the middle of the night and threatens my family. Without a gun, you can bet I would find another way, or die trying.

Dude, all I'm saying is that a person with a gun is better able to kill you than a person without. I don't think there's much room for argument there.

The more armed the populace, the less likely for violent crimes. Of course petty crimes go up, because a criminal is a criminal, but I would much rather someone slash my tires than enter my home.

I guess I really have a hard time with this statistic... Everytime i see it noted I get the funny feeling there's some bait and switch going on... it just seems ludicrous that the solution to the gun problem is MORE guns, guns for all, yeah for guns.

I do not want you to take my M16. If I am licensed, why should I not be allowed to have it? If I am found of sound mind and a law abiding citizen, why should I surrendor that to you just so I can keep my Glock? I want both.

Because an m16 has no other purpose than to kill lotsa people. The very fact that you want one is pretty suspect, but beyond that, the dangers inherent in arming a populous far outweigh any benefits that might accrue. If we let you have one we have to let others have one. I just don't see the justification for it given the nature of the item.

My fear of the federal government is I believe they would like to abolish gun ownership just as much HandGun Control. I also feel that there is little we can do to change this.

Well, you're putting them in power. You have a voice, or at least you will if this Enron crap finally gets the ball rolling on campaign finance reform.

[errqre]

You know what I've found rather interesting lately? The nature vs. nurture argument (which one is which again?). Turns out, I am like my father in a lot of ways - including sense of humor, type and sound of our laughter, having a child outside of wedlock, giving our significant other a bad time (something I definitely didn't get from my mother's side who like to pretend they don't have a significant other). I'm not as prone to physical violence as he is (I've only been in a fight with one person - more than once, but the same person). We disagree on abortion.

As for the worn "folder" paradigm, I've come up with a water paradigm that would work much better for something like a Mac. You start with a droplet in the center of the screen (labelled "Get something done" or some such). When clicked, it splashes. The resulting droplets are more specific (draw a picture, browse the net, etc.). The splashes continue until a program is launched or a file opened... Pisser is, I have no idea how to make it work at the command line level.

Mr. bohn, there is no bait and switch going on with the stats. If we look at other countries, the key to lowering the crime rate is to completely abolish all guns (no hunting) e.g. Britian, or hand them out (not necessarily "hand them out," but you get the picture) and teach people to use them responsibly e.g. Switzerland. One solution is a little more empowering to the populace and isn't treating an adult like a child. While you may question a person's motivation for having an armory in his/her basement, what gives you the right to grant permission? Maybe it makes the person feel big, in which case taking away that person's gun(s) would make them feel vulnerable and more apt to attack out of fear. Maybe the person's father shot himself in 'Nam, and owning lots of guns and knowing how to use them responsibly helps the person cope with his/her father's death. Not trying to be a *****, but it's not your call. Not until the gun is misused - in which caes it becomes everyone's responsibility. Besides, Jesus obviously owned guns.

Men who wear briefs scare me.

[GSR13]

A person may be better able to kill someone because they own a firearm, that does not mean they are more likely. That is all I am saying.

There is no such thing as a "gun" problem. There is a "people" problem. Violent Criminals are mean people, not likely stupid people. They choose the most efficient weapon available. As I recall, many deaths were recorded before the gun was ever created. You cannot blame the weapon, regardless of what it is.

As for the M16, I personally do not want one. I just don't want you telling me I have to give it up, just so I can keep my Glock. You favor a license, yet you still want to limit my choice because you find one more dangerous than the other. I say, put a license in place, let me get approved, then allow me to purchase whatever I want. I am no more likely to kill with a fully automatic weapon than a handgun.

[errqre]

The Smurf's vs. the heavenly choir of angels - who'd win?

[Dieter Bohn]

GSR- Having a gun makes any person more likely to kill because it increases his/her ability to kill. There are two options: Normally unable to kill without signficant effort and easily able to kill without significant effort. Which option do you think is more likely given the number of random events that naturally occur in the world? You're not going to convince me on that one.

Neither will you or DR convince me that ordinary citizens have any pressing need for an automatic assault rifle. It may not be my call, but it ought to be my government's call if they had the guts to make it. Feelings-schmeelings. Because it is nothing more than a tool for mass-killing, unless you have another use for it, you ought not.

DR- Yeah, I've heard all that before, and am sympathetic to the "treat adults alike adults" argument. Does Switzerland allow the widespread ownership of "big guns?" I dunno, seems to me that their solution won't work in America--They're small, socially stable, and have a fairly uniform social class--we're the opposite in all cases: big, unstable, racist, classist, etc....

[Yorick]

sheesh, ya go away for a day and look what happens...

having a gun doesn't make you better able to kill someone. It makes you better able to fire a gun (because you have one). Any schmuck with a blunt object can kill someone.

[Toby]

Originally posted by volcanopele
Fox News is better than the others.

*shrug* Whatever floats your boat.

Oranges can kick any apples but, but I think crabapples got tangerines beat.

Well, I'm allergic to oranges.

Boxers can bite people with briefs, the dogs are mean that way.

Sure, but a brief round of automatic fire takes 'em out every time.

I have an X-Box so I am biased.

I've got a few X boxen. XFCe is my favorite small window manager.

As far as Tobology goes, what are the tenets of your religion?

They're still in flux. No one can be told what the Toby is...

Have you had any martyrs?

Well, there was this mosquito that tried to bite me a week or two ago. Its sacrifice was spoken of for ...about 30 seconds.

I am a scorpio but that is beside the point, astrobiology=ET=little green bacteria.

I suggest astroanti-biotics.

I am for missile defense, I would rather not have a missile land near me (I live 2 miles from #7 on the Russian and presumable otehr countries list of nuclear targets).

Dude, Putin's moving next door to you in a couple years, and Gorby's already living in Cali. We have met the enemy and he is us.

[Toby]

Originally posted by dietrichbohn
GSR- Having a gun makes any person more likely to kill because it increases his/her ability to kill. There are two options: Normally unable to kill without signficant effort and easily able to kill without significant effort. Which option do you think is more likely given the number of random events that naturally occur in the world? You're not going to convince me on that one. [...]

That's because you've convinced yourself into a false dichotomy. There are at least four options (there are actually about 6 billion): 1) Likely to kill without means of implementation, 2) Likely to kill with means of implementation, 3) Unlikely to kill without means of implementation, 4) Unlikely to kill with means of implementation. Having a gun doesn't make one more likely to kill any more than having a pair of fishnet stockings makes a woman more likely to become a prostitute. If somebody wants to kill a person/people, they'll find a way to do it.

Does Switzerland allow the widespread ownership of "big guns?"

Actually, they require it.

[Toby]

heh...maybe we should go into psychology and discuss hoplophobia?

[Rob]

Originally posted by Toby
Having a gun doesn't make one more likely to kill any more than having a pair of fishnet stockings makes a woman more likely to become a prostitute. If somebody wants to kill a person/people, they'll find a way to do it.

You guys are arguing about the wrong thing. It's not the probability of someone doing harm that changes but the degree of harm that can be done. Assume for the sake of argument that out of every 5,000 gun owners, on average one will use his gun(s) to take revenge on an ex, a boss that fired him, schoolmates who teased him, whatever. Yes, even if he had NO gun, he could probably seriously hurt or kill someone with a knife or a pipe or even his bare hands. With a handgun, he might be able to kill a few more. But with an assault rifle, that same crazy ******* could kill dozens of people in the span of a couple of minutes. What are the advantages of allowing ownership of very powerful weapons capable of quickly killing many people, and do they even come close to making up for the huge costs? If we replaced everyone's M-16s, AK-47s, Uzis, etc. with handguns, does that make them significantly less able to defend themselves against intruders? And despite what you would like to believe about it not being MY choice, it is OUR collective choice as voting citizens. If enough people agree that no civilians need to have high-powered assault weapons (and therefore get their representative to create appropriate legislation), then who are YOU to place your individual right to own whatever you damn well please over the collective rights of everyone else to reduce the amount of killing one person on a rampage(not necessarily YOU) is capable of doing.

[Toby]

Originally posted by Rob
You guys are arguing about the wrong thing.

In your opinion.

It's not the probability of someone doing harm that changes but the degree of harm that can be done.

I can do far more harm by taking my car up on a busy sidewalk than I ever could with any gun.

Assume for the sake of argument that out of every 5,000 gun owners, on average one will use his gun(s) to take revenge on an ex, a boss that fired him, schoolmates who teased him, whatever. Yes, even if he had NO gun, he could probably seriously hurt or kill someone with a knife or a pipe or even his bare hands. With a handgun, he might be able to kill a few more. But with an assault rifle, that same crazy ******* could kill dozens of people in the span of a couple of minutes.

Irrelevant. You will never stop one crazy nut (or even an apparently rational nut a la Ted Bundy) from killing as many people as he wants to kill that make themselves available.

What are the advantages of allowing ownership of very powerful weapons capable of quickly killing many people, and do they even come close to making up for the huge costs?

What huge costs? The imaginary ones in your hypothetical? Outlawing guns because of their potential for damage makes about as much sense as outlawing homes since that's where the overwhelming number of fatal accidents takes place.

If we replaced everyone's M-16s, AK-47s, Uzis, etc. with handguns, does that make them significantly less able to defend themselves against intruders?

Please cite how many people were killed with those weapons in the past ten years as compared to the number killed with a plain old S&W revolver.

And despite what you would like to believe about it not being MY choice, it is OUR collective choice as voting citizens.

Then change the constitution.

If enough people agree that no civilians need to have high-powered assault weapons (and therefore get their representative to create appropriate legislation), then who are YOU to place your individual right to own whatever you damn well please over the collective rights of everyone else to reduce the amount of killing one person on a rampage(not necessarily YOU) is capable of doing.

Outlaw war, then. Outlaw criminals. Pass every friggin' law you want. "What happens when we finally ban guns and bombs and knives and whatever else we want to blame for such tragedies? What happens when we ban every last thing on earth and people still hate each other?" - Daniel Byerly

Fight the real enemy. Take the red pill.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Rob
But with an assault rifle, that same crazy ******* could kill dozens of people in the span of a couple of minutes

a few seconds, really. Just putting it in better perspective. assuming it's semi or fully automatic, which most AR's are.

[Toby]

Originally posted by Yorick
a few seconds, really. Just putting it in better perspective. assuming it's semi or fully automatic, which most AR's are.

_Fully_ automatic? Please cite how many fully automatic weapons have been used to commit crimes in the last ten years (military doesn't count ). Actually, I'm curious as to how many people arguing against 'assault weapons' or 'automatic' weapons really can define them by other than 'something that looks scary to me'.

[Rob]

Originally posted by Toby
I can do far more harm by taking my car up on a busy sidewalk than I ever could with any gun.

Are you serious? Do you really think you could kill more people in a busy location with a car (sans bomb) than with a fully-automatic machine gun? And can you drive your car inside a school cafeteria? Can you sit on a hill and kill people from a distance with your car? Can you kill people stuck in bumper-to-bumper rush-hour traffic on the interstate with a car? And a car has a useful purpose and cannot be easily replaced by something less dangerous (until they up the max. speed of those Ginger/Segway thingies! ). An assault rifle can be replaced with a handgun without significantly reducing its effectiveness for self defense (it could even be more effective, since it would be easier to carry and use safely).

[Rob]

Originally posted by Toby
_Fully_ automatic? Please cite how many fully automatic weapons have been used to commit crimes in the last ten years

Nuclear bombs haven't killed anyone in the last ten years. Let's give everyone a nuke! (plus, as Yorick pointed out, to kill lots of people plenty fast, a semi-automatic would do the trick just fine)

[Rob]

Originally posted by Toby
Actually, I'm curious as to how many people arguing against 'assault weapons' or 'automatic' weapons really can define them by other than 'something that looks scary to me'.

Let's turn that around. Can you give an explanation why limiting people to owning handguns and non-automatic (and non-semi-automatic) rifles is bad, other than 'any restriction at all sounds scary to me (slippery slope, you know)'

[Toby]

Originally posted by Rob
Are you serious?

Yes.

Do you really think you could kill more people in a busy location with a car (sans bomb) than with a fully-automatic machine gun?

Yes. First of all, it's practically impossible to have a 'fully-automatic machine gun'. Second of all, you overestimate the number of people who can easily spot and get away from an individual who has one. Someone carrying one on the street is going to raise a few eyebrows. No one would expect a car to suddenly veer onto the sidewalk.

And can you drive your car inside a school cafeteria?

Sure. What do you think would stop someone from doing that (if they lacked the sense not to do it)?

Can you sit on a hill and kill people from a distance with your car?

Put it in neutral and push it down.

Can you kill people stuck in bumper-to-bumper rush-hour traffic on the interstate with a car?

Depends on how much room I had to build up speed.

And a car has a useful purpose and cannot be easily replaced by something less dangerous (until they up the max. speed of those Ginger/Segway thingies! ).

Old argument.

An assault rifle can be replaced with a handgun without significantly reducing its effectiveness for self defense (it could even be more effective, since it would be easier to carry and use safely).

Oh yeah...now I remembered why I quit this thread the last time. It was a waste of time. Tell you what. You come up with a solution to end criminal intent by other citizens and politicians, and then I'll consider your position. You obviously aren't listening to mine, since you're still hoplophobically fixated on 'automatic assault rifles'.