Geology Lecture

Pages

AuthorTopic: Geology Lecture
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #75
quote:
Originally written by Xel'Raga:

If your in a school massacre, remember, the untrained gunman will miss is you run criss-cross across the shooting plain, and you can hide behind objects if the gunman has low-caliber bullets, if he has high-caliber bullets, run like hell, also keep in mind that shotguns are short range and inaccurate.

Use tazers, lower death rate.

Or perhaps instead of running around like a rabbit in the spotlight, you could come to school strapped. Then you can pop one in any crazy who tries to shoot up the place. But then again, law abiding students can't take guns on campus, essentially making them sitting ducks.

I think it's funny when a foreigner such as myself(Australian) whose country has some of the tightest gun laws on Earth is willing to argue in favour of the lax gun laws in America.

Apparently the tender sensibilities of retarded liberals supercede the individual's right to self-defense.

[ Friday, February 29, 2008 14:28: Message edited by: Lepus timidus ]

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #76
quote:
Originally written by The_Other_Guy:

quote:
the Superme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment was meant to apply specifically to militias
Let's look at the actual text:
quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the militia. The 2nd Amendment guarantees that the militia and the government can't take your gun from you.

What, you thought radical left wingers were capable of reading? :confused:

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #77
Apparently comprehension isn't an issue either. The idea behind the second amendment is that having a militia is all well and good, except that it is essentially useless without armed participants. And since the militia consists of volunteer citizens, it is they that need to have their own weapons to participate. I'm sure they thought it would be too easy for a government to destroy a cache of militia weapons.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
Profile #78
Also the Supreme Court has defined that weapons for an individual can't be exteme. So that machine gun or Gattling gun isn't for home use.
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #79
Arguing in circles again, but what chance does any militia have today against a military that has firearms of a caliber not available to civilians, to say nothing of armored vehicles, aircraft, bombs, and missiles?

—Alorael, who also would like to point out the last few pages of discussion. Self-defense is good, but there's a cost to giving people the opportunity to defend themselves. That cost may well be requiring far too many people to perform self-defense against guns.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
Profile #80
No one ever said that the law makes sense. Read Charles Dickens who worrked as a law clerk and got his revenge as a writer showing how bizarre the law can be.
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #81
quote:
Originally written by Sprink:

[b]Arguing in circles again, but what chance does any militia have today against a military that has firearms of a caliber not available to civilians, to say nothing of armored vehicles, aircraft, bombs, and missiles?

A better chance than an unarmed populance.

quote:

Self-defense is good, but there's a cost to giving people the opportunity to defend themselves. [/b]
Even if there was a cost involved, the cost is well worth paying.

To put it simply: If you don't think you're responsible enough to handle a gun in a safe manner, then don't buy one. It should be a decision made between you and your conscience, not the state and the individual.

[ Saturday, March 01, 2008 18:25: Message edited by: Lepus timidus ]

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #82
Why is it the sentence before "To put it simply" shorter than the one following? That seems illogical.

[ Saturday, March 01, 2008 18:29: Message edited by: Jumpin' Salmon ]

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #83
Fie on you, nitpicker!

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #84
The two ideas you separated are not, in fact, separate. Yes, any weapons are better than none if you need to fight the government. But the benefits of that ability when weighed against the harm done by the proliferation of guns shows that a good law, not simply the one on the books, would severely restrict or ban firearms.

Your reasoning that a gun should be a personal decision, not a legal one, is very nice and leads to anarchism. Anarchism sounds nice and works out really terribly because trusting the collective consciences of the people is a good way to end up with very bad things.

—Alorael, who doesn't think there's much benefit in arguing about what the current law is. He also doesn't think there's any sane way to argue that there should not be laws regulating individuals on behalf of the state. The real question is what the best laws would be, and that's where this debate deadlocks.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #85
quote:
Originally written by Bowing to the Inevitability of Nets:

[QB]The two ideas you separated are not, in fact, separate. Yes, any weapons are better than none if you need to fight the government.

It's pleasing that you're willing to acknowledge that an armed population is more likely to resist State tyranny than an unarmed population.

quote:

But the benefits of that ability when weighed against the harm done by the proliferation of guns shows that a good law, not simply the one on the books, would severely restrict or ban firearms.

I disagree. I'm not going to quibble and 'justify' my stance, since how an individual weighs up the pros and cons of a particular measure is rather subjective. I feel that in this particular instance, personal freedoms and the right to defend oneself supercede any harm that may be done as a result of lax gun laws.

quote:

Your reasoning that a gun should be a personal decision, not a legal one, is very nice and leads to anarchism.

False dilemma fallacy. Holding the belief that the State should butt out of some personal decisions is not leading to anarchism, any more than supporting a woman's right to an abortion is leading to anarchism. Being an opponent of over-regulation and excessive legislation does not make one an anarchist, any more than opposing unlimited corporate freedoms makes one a Communist.

quote:

Anarchism sounds nice and works out really terribly because trusting the collective consciences of the people is a good way to end up with very bad things.

So what you're saying is that the liberal ideology is based on the fear and mistrust of your fellow man?
That your fellow man can't be trusted with anything 'dangerous' without State supervision, much like a toddler can't be trusted with a kitchen knife without adult supervision.
That you're willing to punish and deprive the collective merely because a few bad apples might misbehave?

Just grand.

[ Saturday, March 01, 2008 22:57: Message edited by: Lepus timidus ]

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #86
quote:
Originally written by Lepus timidus:

To put it simply: If you don't think you're responsible enough to handle a gun in a safe manner, then don't buy one. It should be a decision made between you and your conscience, not the state and the individual.

To put it simply: If you are not responsible responsible enough to handle a gun in a safe manner, the state should not let you buy one. And the greatest safety for the greatest number of people comes about when no one is allowed to buy a gun. The safety of many can trump the rights of a few. This isn't speaking legally here. This is morals.

In other words, I don't buy that this is a personal decision. It is a state decision whether or not guns should be personally available. You're coming down on the libertarian (or anarchist, when I feel hyperbolic) side of things, and I disagree. You can't just say it's a matter of personal decision when that's the very matter under debate.

quote:
So what you're saying is that the liberal ideology is based on the fear and mistrust of your fellow man?
That your fellow man can't be trusted with anything 'dangerous' without State supervision, much like a toddler can't be trusted with a kitchen knife without adult supervision.
That you're willing to punish and deprive the collective merely because a few bad apples might misbehave?

Just grand.

Conservative ideology is based on the belief that people are good, kind, and righteous? That's probably largely reasonable, but it's those few bad apples who misbehave who manage to make things go very, very bad. Supervision has nothing to do with it. Society has its toddlers, and the state is responsible for making sure there are no knives left lying around.

—Alorael, who would find the issue much more complicated if he thought the right in question were in fact necessary or even useful. Besides hunting, guns aren't helpful to anyone. Self-defense is outweighed by avoidable offense, and fighting the good fight against the government is both implausible and impractical. The sacrifice is minimal and the benefits are enormous.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #87
quote:
Originally written by Alorael:

To put it simply: If you are not responsible responsible enough to handle a gun in a safe manner, the state should not let you buy one. And the greatest safety for the greatest number of people comes about when no one is allowed to buy a gun. The safety of many can trump the rights of a few. This isn't speaking legally here. This is morals.
I assume you are speaking strictly about injuries inflicted by guns, right? Because there are still quite a few injuries from knifes, fists, blunt objects, arrows, and any number of other improvised weapons. Oh, and the bullets fired by police or National Guardsmen.
Our great country believes firmly in the principle of preemptive arms accumulation. We have abandoned the arms race in favor of a technological race, whereby other nations are held in check because they understand that we can see and hear everything and then attack with impunity from thousands of miles away. It is because of that principle, using fear as a weapon, that it is notionally rational to fear our government. Possession (legal) of firearms by private citizens is a check, and a necessary one.
So, any problems with my solution of RFID chips in guns, and detectors in doorjams?

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #88
Frankly, I don't care much about self-defence one way or the other. If you're capable of offending someone badly enough that they're willing to face the consequences of murdering you, your death is probably no great loss to society anyway. There are 6.6 billion more where you came from.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #89
[quote=Bowing to the Inevitability of Nets]
[QB]
quote:
To put it simply: If you are not responsible responsible enough to handle a gun in a safe manner, the state should not let you buy one.

So you support gun ownership for those who behave responsibly with guns? Funny, I thought you wanted to impose strict gun laws on all individuals, responsible or not.

quote:

And the greatest safety for the greatest number of people comes about when no one is allowed to buy a gun.

Conjecture, and also a fantastic pipe dream. We have rigid and repressive gun restriction laws in Australia, yet gangsters and thugs are still quite capable of obtaining firearms, and the elderly are still bashed in their home by lead pipe wielding gutter trash spaced out on crack.
Gun control simply means that the scum of society will skirt around the law (as criminals are prone to do, that's why they are criminals), while unarmed law abiding citizens are left defenseless.

quote:

The safety of many can trump the rights of a few.
This isn't speaking legally here. This is morals.

Since when did liberals support utilitarian ideology? And this isn't the 'the rights of a few' that we are talking about. Every human being in nations with gun laws, with at least one arm is being denied the right to choose whether they can possess a firearm for self-defense. Don't try to minimize the enormity of the State's meddling.

quote:

You're coming down on the libertarian

Although I don't consider myself to have a political alignment, my beliefs are closest to that of a libertarian.

quote:

You can't just say it's a matter of personal decision when that's the very matter under debate.

Yes I can. Just watch me: "It's a matter of personal decision." Your disagreement does not invalidate my assertion.

quote:

Conservative ideology is based on the belief that people are good, kind, and righteous?

I'm not Conservative, so I can't say for sure. However, Conservative ideology apparently assumes that you are innocent up until you actually commit a violent crime, upon which you are dog meat.
On the other hand, liberal ideology assumes that the masses are too spastic to tie their own shoes without triggering the apocalypse, hence the need for 're-education' and excessive legislation, Orwellian style.

Hey, I just thought of something. The Outer Party didn't have guns in the Oceania of 1984. Funny that, hey?

quote:

That's probably largely reasonable, but it's those few bad apples who misbehave who manage to make things go very, very bad.

Then punish the bad apples, instead of depriving law abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves from thugs.

quote:

Supervision has nothing to do with it. Society has its toddlers, and the state is responsible for making sure there are no knives left lying around.

Yet anti-gun ideology is the equivalent of wanting to dispose of ALL knives in order to completely eliminate the possibility of any toddlers getting their hands on them, while denying responsible adults the right to bring a cut lunch to work.

quote:

Besides hunting, guns aren't helpful to anyone. Self-defense is outweighed by avoidable offense, and fighting the good fight against the government is both implausible and impractical. The sacrifice is minimal and the benefits are enormous.

So simply because you personally feel that guns aren't of a net benefit to someone, you (and the State) should have the right to prevent that individual from obtaining firearms. Their right to choose (aka. autonomy) doesn't matter to you. How incredibly selfish.

What's hilarious here is that you probably champion a woman's 'right to choose' whether she has an abortion.

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #90
quote:
Originally written by Lepus timidus:

Since when did liberals support utilitarian ideology?
So I guess that means you haven't heard of Peter Singer?

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #91
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Lepus timidus:

Since when did liberals support utilitarian ideology?
So I guess that means you haven't heard of Peter Singer?

Singer reminds me more of a classical liberal than those neo-liberal Democrats you have in America.

[ Sunday, March 02, 2008 01:45: Message edited by: Lepus timidus ]

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #92
Thuryl isn't from America. Regardless, American Democrats are definitely not neoliberals, a label which better fits Libertarians.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #93
IMAGE(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Guns/butt_pain.gif)

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 9906
Profile Homepage #94
IMAGE(http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-hurr.gif)

IMAGE(http://sa.tweek.us/emots/images/emot-roflolmao.gif)

--------------------
Vivan los Drayks! Viva Khyryk! Vivan los Serviles! Vivan los Travokites!
Tastes like Bambi, delicious
No matter what name I have, people can call me Xel
Pylons! this is what you send to blizzard if they cancel Starcraft 2.
Posts: 301 | Registered: Tuesday, August 21 2007 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #95
Since bad things happen in threes, here is # 3.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Apprentice
Member # 13003
Profile Homepage #96
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:


So, any problems with my solution of RFID chips in guns, and detectors in doorjams?

Great idea, the only problem I can see is buying a gun, then removing the chip, or a gun made before there were RFIDs.

--------------------
"Time Line? That makes no sense! Time is in circles! That is why clocks are round," - Michael J. Caboose
Posts: 16 | Registered: Friday, January 4 2008 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #97
Those obstacles are pretty easy to surmount. There are enough sheep that they could pass a law mandating retrofit, with harsh penalties for failure to comply.

In the case of the VT and other recent shootings, the weapons were not old grandpa's hunting rifle. They were only recently purchased and caressed prior to the *snap* sound.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00

Pages