Debate : 8594


Off-Topic / Debate / 8594

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) I'm sorry but obviously you're not terribly aware of the nature of a moving bullet. From previous conversations, you're telling me the bullet cn go through a wall but not through a household washing machine? Think about this for a moment. (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Dave Schuler

(...) Of course, now that I think about it, if the washing machine is on spin cycle, I guess it would have considerable angular momentum. And if you were washing particularly stiff fabrics, the two factors together could very likely create a (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) Yep, I do not live in a gun culture. (...) I'm pretty sure it could do both. Think about this for a moment. Scott A (23 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) Hold on a second here! Who's saying what????? First you make the comment that the bullet is going to bounce of the washing machine and then you agree with me that it could both go through a wall or a washing machine.....which is what I said in (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) Think about this for a moment: 1) Are all walls the same? 2) Are all washing machines the same? 3) What angle will a bullet hit a wall at? 4) What angle will a bullet hit a washing machine at? I concede that a bullet may well go through a wall (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Call the question. Are we arguing ballistics, or discussing the role of a well regulated militia in a free society? (or even in Canada, not quite free at this time) I'm confused. For the record, I concede that there is a non zero probability (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —James Powell

(...) No, not really. I think that your average Lego fan is of above average inteligence, and is more likely to follow through in actually being reasonably careful to unload the gun before trying to clean it :) It is also possible/probable that of (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) This is quite a good example, in a odd way. Car manufactures strive to make there cars safer to reduce death/injury rates for both owners and others - it helps sell cars. Have gun manufactures done the same in any real way? (...) Gun accidents (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

Snipped. (...) There's a lot of stuff out there if you want to dig. I don't, since I'm already convinced and I don't much care for your thoughts either way. However, for the other readers... Here's a book reference for you: (URL) that these authors (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) They claim it is some sort of sinister media conspiracy. (...) "more concerned" does not mean were concerned. (...) Yet, I live in a society which is relatively free of guns... and I feel no need to carry any sort of weapon, or devise a tin (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

demographics - Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) There is no need, I found them: =+= OWNERSHIP OF guns is extraordinarily widespread in the United States, and has been for some time. Indeed, since the late 1950's, when surveys on this question were first done, the share of American (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: demographics - Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Did you just use that for a demographic factoid, or do you agree with the conclusions the author draws? By the way, do you think this author's factoids are sufficiently vetted? Do you accept all of them, or just the ones that agree with your (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: demographics - Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) Assume you do not dispute the points I made which you snipped? (...) What do you think? Read the message header. Read the text I quoted. Read my argument. Draw your own conculsions. Key phrase of note: "they (guns) are most likely to belong to (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I _do_ live in a society where guns are not needed for defense. But luckily, they are an option. I know that's a bit obtuse, but I'll go on to an answer that you might like better... Sure. All things being equal, I'd rather that people not (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) There is a cultural difference between us which makes you think this is a logical mindset, but, at the same time, makes me believe you are a little crazy. :-) Scott A (23 years ago, 13-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Indeed there is. We have a culture of freedom, or did, in the US. (...) And some of us think that to be willing to go along (with majorities, with tyrannical laws, etc..) instead of *want* that freedom is, in turn, a little crazy. Actually, (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) There are those who say the US has no culture. (...) Larry I have questioned your "freedoms" many times - and each time you fail to answer me. Until you are willing to answer those points, keep you vague assertions to yourself. :-) (...) There (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Frank Filz

(...) If we have so little culture then why are US movies and TV shows so popular around the world? Now I grant that most movies and TV shows aren't terribly refined, but then most enetertainment for the masses isn't. I think there is just as much (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) The problem may be that you view gun ownership, perhaps, as an inalienable “god given” freedom. I’d argue that I feel freer because my society is, relatively, free of guns. I am not restricted by a fear of suffering armed oppression from my (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Description vs. argument —Larry Pieniazek

(...) This can be taken many ways. If intended as a slur about our arts/literature/media, etc... it's irrelevant, and untrue. If intended as a comment on melting pots vs. many separate cultures, it's also untrue. The US has more of a unified culture (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) It is a simple observation. (...) You are a little wrong here about the UK. But I think, overall, we have mixed well - given that most immigrants arrived here post WW2. As far as I know we have never had legal segregation in the UK. (...) I (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Christopher L. Weeks

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: May I? (...) Yes. And to compare, how is the history of British society and homosexuals? It's not exactly a political freedom, but it's similar, and your record sucks. (...) We did. (...) Evolution is (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) As does most of the world, up until a few years ago many still viewed this homosexuality as a medical condition. Thankfully, those days have mostly passed - so much so that homosexuality is not an issue. Indeed, there are a few at the highest (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Oh...well if that's all it takes, then I can dispel your assertions by mentioning that there are a few blacks at the highest levels of US government too. Great. (...) them? Their rights did protect them. But bad men in the government -- the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) Indeed. So what is the point of your system, if your "god given" rights can be removed the government? Are they only fair weather rights? (...) I know of no UK school which has a "whites only" policy in the last century. I know of no UK (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) Things are worse than I thought in the US. "blacks" have been out of the closet here for a long time. Scott A (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I happen to feel connected to this particular fight since I'm from the US, but it's really not my favorite of these examples. I prefer the one where Shaka, using nothing but spears and genius, routed the British army in Zululand (South (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) The keyword is militia. My dictionary says: militia a military force which only operates for some of the time and whose members often have other jobs, used either instead of or to support the official army. I’d hate to get involved in (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Your dictionary is wrong, when viewed in the context of the US constitution. Words change meanings, but to understand the 2nd, you have to know what militia meant to the founding fathers, and what they meant when they said it. Intent is (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) I tend to view my dictionary in the context of the English language. If you do consider it in the context of your constitution - did not some states/real real militia back then? Was a militia then not more like my dictionary describes? (...) (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No. (...) Asked and answered. The very text you cite goes on to shred that argument. But you didn't cite that part, did you? This subthread is about the difference between description and argument. Either *admit* your bumpersticker snipe was (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) Well what was a "militia" back then? Let's start here: =+= When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" -- a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Todd Lehman

(...) Is that like Lar += 2? :) --Todd (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Dave Schuler

(...) You make good points, both for the importance of meaning and the difficulty of determining intent. As I understand it, the term "militia" as it applies to the 2nd has never come before the Supreme Court, so there is no "final" definition to be (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Scott Arthur

(...) I am not sure if it is what you are after, but if you scroll down to "THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE COURTS" at (URL) find: "Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey’s strict gun control (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Description vs. argument —Jennifer Clark

(...) From what I recall of history, the Zulus led by Shaka were anything but ragtag; they were an extremely well trained, organised and disciplined army consisting of men who had been taken into the army as boys and brought up in a military and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Where did that cultural difference come from? 225 years ago we were one culture (basically). My culture splintered off from yours and we were able to do so because "we" had guns. I think the current state of things in both nations is based on (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) You had a Scottish culture... and gave it up! Now I know why you all eat such crap food - we still do so too. :-) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Dave Low

(...) Are guns necessary for a revolution? Perhaps non-violent movements can more effectively create social change: Gandhi and post-colonial India, South Africa in the past decade. Interestingly both these countries have examples that show how a (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) Very true. I’d like to add to the list much of the eastern European states which have “come in from the cold”. It is a gross generalisation, and I hope I do not offend anyone, but much of these popular uprising have been against oppressive / (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Frank Filz

(...) I think you underestimate what someone who REALLY believes they are right, and are REALLY willing to die for their cause is capable of doing. Governments have been doing this for over 200 years (that underestimation is what lost the American (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Is it your assertion then, that the changes in government in states such as the DDR, Poland, Czechoslovokia, Hungary, etc. had nothing whatever to do with guns, that is, that they were completely non violent, and no guns or weapons anywhere in (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Scott Arthur

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) Larry, reply to my whole message please. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Who is it that you think is out of shape and middle aged? Similarly, who is it that you think only has pistols? In the US, it is easy to acquire military ordnance that "fell of a truck." While I have never engaged in such transactions, of (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Scott Arthur

(...) Me for one. :) (...) Yes - but that is illegal. (...) It really is a worry. Neadless to say, some of your civilian countrymen have a history of exporting these weapons to murderers across the globe. (...) Tell that to the Kurds. Tell that to (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) They are necessary for an armed insurgency. Revolution is a messy term because it has so many contextual meanings. (...) And you would claim that these two nations are exemplars of successful national organization? (...) I'm pretty sure that (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant)) —Dave Low

(...) Well, I suppose guns are necessary for an insurgency to be armed. They may not be the only effective means of achieving substantial political change; cf feminism for another example. (...) Not necessarily, but that's not my point. Gandhi's (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

Snipped again. (...) BTW.... You asked the wrong question. The correct question is not "Are you able to?", because I am, should I care to take the time. The correct question is "Do you want to?". And the answer in your *particular* case is "No". (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) I know what I meant. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) Thanks Larry....agree with most of your post except... (...) Yes, you are correct. However, I must point out that we're probably the most free non-free nation in the world. For all intents and purposes we consider ourselves free: ... God keep (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Joseph Cardana

Well, I understand this whole debate came from the initial posting of gun control. And I agree that controlling guns may not have the desired affect upon gun related crimes, since only law-abiding citizens will register. But lately, it sounds like (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) People with guns kill people. Scott A (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Kevin Bannister

(...) ... and people without guns still kill people. (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) I asked for that :-) Scott A (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) But they are more willing to do it with a gun. And if they want to knife fight, that's okay, my knife is three feet long! Crocodile Dundee, eat your heart out. Of course, I'd reach for the 12 gauge first... Bruce well-armed liberal :-) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) Hmm. 3ft. That'll be a sword. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Most people would describe it as a sword, but it is in fact a Bolo Knife (kind of a pointy Phillipines machete). Bruce (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Frank Filz

(...) One book on guns I bought back in college (while in college I used to do some very serious research for my roleplaying games), written by a police man, talked about various decisions in chosing a gun for home defence. He did point out that a (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) I remember, a year or so ago, saying there was some sort of plan for an "electronc" child proof lock. Did anything ever come of that? Scott A (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) As I mentioned in a previous post, that's exactly what has to happen! If everyone would get over their unjustified fear that if child knows about or has an interest in guns that they'll grow up to be some crazy bank robber and realized that if (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Dave Schuler

(...) You are completely correct; the notion that knowledge of a gun's usage and consequences will somehow lead inexorably to a gun's illegal use is simply falacious. A true awareness of the consequences of one's actions can only lead to an (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) Free to do what exactly? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) Free in the sense that we're a free nation free to do what we want without a monarch or dictator telling us what to do. The reason that Canada isn't actually technically free is because the Queen still has the power to have the last say in a (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) It is pretty much the same here - she only really acts on the advice of the privy council (politicians). If she ever where to speak on a political issue, I think she'd find her self out of a job. The closest we get the "Royals" medalling in (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

The Queen is on every piece of Canadian currency I believe....on the opposite side of the beavers, birds, and leaves. (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Kevin Bannister

(...) <pulling out my wallet> $5 - Wilfred Laurier and a belted kingfisher $10 - John A. MacDonald and an osprey $20 - the Queen and a common loon $50 - now property of the casino $100 - Robert Borden she is on all the coins, however, IIRC. (23 years ago, 13-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) Well seeing as we have such interesting diversified money you can't expect me to keep track of all of it :)...dumb yankees have to actually look at their money and half the time you don't even know what you've got at a glance at your wallet. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) Sorry to reply to my own message, but I found this interesting page: (URL) -TiM NB, CA (URL) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) time I promise) (URL) -TiM NB, CA (URL) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) My point is that, even when well trained (and I doubt you are), when a person fires a gun the bullet can end up almost anywhere. (...) In your opionion. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

(...) While some people were working the theme for humor value, who was actually arguing that point in a serious way? No one. You need to draw some meaningful conclusion from it or it has no relevance. That's not just an opinion, that's the way (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) How macho. All this gun talk. Try to be constructive Larry. If you think I am not making a point, just leave me alone. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Tim Culberson

(...) I hate to continue an argument when people start getting personally offended (a it seems you may be Scott), but I have to add my .02 to Larry here. What (I think) Larry is saying is that we've discussed the point that yes, bullets do ricochet, (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Scott Arthur

(...) Don't worry about me, I'm pretty think skinned. I know Larry tries to wind me up at times; I don't mind as, in my eyes, it only makes him look silly. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Larry Pieniazek

(...) If you *are* making a further point, please make it. If you're *not*, say so. But if you just want to repeat the same point over and over after it's been acknowledged and after you've been asked what the further point is, I would submit that (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: My Gun Control Rant —Joseph Cardana

Scott, Larry & Tim, Well, I understand this whole debate came from the initial posting of gun control. And I agree that controlling guns may not have the desired affect upon gun related crimes, since only law-abiding citizens will register. But (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)