prev <-> next
[2004-05-19 09:23:00] - paul: oh? impeachment? recall? I wouldn't be surprised if it was legal. -dave
[2004-05-19 09:22:00] - Paul: but again, the example you just gave is the government breaking its own rules. No system can guarantee 100% adherence. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:22:00] - And I'm saying that there's some subset of "things that the government could want", such as to turn the country into a dictatorship overnight, that it would not (in practicality) be able to do. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:21:00] - Dave: Not legally.
-Paul[2004-05-19 09:21:00] - pierce: yeah, I think that's his point -dave
[2004-05-19 09:21:00] - Pierce: Are you so sure? There are some pretty shady things going on in some of those military prisons that we've thrown arabs into after 9-11. Imprisoned without charges, and nobody has heard from them. Are we sure they aren't dead? -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:21:00] - Paul: but you have to concede that, at any given moment, the government has a set of laws that it holds itself to, correct? Your claim is simply that it can change those laws to do "whatever it wants"? - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:20:00] - paul: I guess my point is, if you're talking about extremes, you could probably also state something like "the american public could depose every single govt. official in a single day" -dave
[2004-05-19 09:20:00] - Paul: I said it can't be changed to allow just anything... yes it can be changed, but a change to allow, say, execution without trial would never (in practicality) go through. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:18:00] - Pierce: Firstly, the constitution CAN be changed and HAS been changed many times. Secondly, the government doesn't even follow the constitution anymore so the matter is fairly moot. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:17:00] - Pierce: Again, this has nothing to do with proposing alternate systems. This is just about saying that "the governmet is the only entity that can legally use force to kill you to get whatever it wants" is a true statement. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:17:00] - Paul: you may technically be correct, because the government controls what "legally" means. But the constitution can't, in practicality, be changed to allow just any governmental behavior, and thus it is the fundamental line of defense against government abuses. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:17:00] - Pierce: All I'm doing is defending the point which I think is entirely valid which (if I understand correctly) you see as faulty. Your opinion of government has little to do with it. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:16:00] - paul: no it doesn't change the point. but it does make the point moot for most practical purposes -dave
[2004-05-19 09:15:00] - Dave: Even if you're right, that doesn't change the point. Just because it's difficult sometimes for the government to do unpopular things doesn't mean it couldn't legally do it. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:15:00] - Yes, it's not always going to work. Yes, there are serious problems. But in order for your claims to be anything but empty complaining, you need to be proposing an alternative that shows that it solves the problems you're complaining about. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:14:00] - Paul: you keep saying this stuff as if we all think the government is perfect. Not only is that false, but our system was specifically designed so that we could have a voice to stand against the imperfections. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:14:00] - Pierce: "You're not telling us anything we don't already know." But I thought that was the point, the government is the only entity that can legally use force to kill anybody to get anything it wants. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:14:00] - paul: oh, I'm not at all saying that your point is wrong theoretically. I'm just saying practically, it is enormously difficult for the govt to get away with what you're saying -dave
[2004-05-19 09:11:00] - Dave: Then look at Waco. I'll admit there aren't as many examples domestically but that's because citizens tend to follow the rules the government lays out so that the government doesn't HAVE to use force. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:11:00] - Dave: I dunno. It's actually kind of weird that I knew both of those factoids. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:10:00] - It's like the quote, "Democracy is the worst system of government... except for all the other ones." - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:10:00] - Paul: but we all recognize that the government disobeying its own rules is a real problem. You're not telling us anything we don't already know. But representative democracy is the best solution we've come up with so far. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:08:00] - paul: hmmm, I think there's a distinction between killing US citizens and killing non-US citizens. Like waging war on another country is much easier than gassing a bunch of US citizens -dave
[2004-05-19 09:08:00] - Pierce: We're not talking about government employees, we're talking about the government as an entity. And this has absolutely nothing to do with any of "my" alternatives. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:08:00] - pierce: were they originally called the secret service? seems amusing to have a "secret service" to prevent counterfeiting -dave
[2004-05-19 09:07:00] - The government as a single mind wanted Saddam Hussein out of power, so (without any declaration of war like the "rules" say are required) the government went and killed hundreds (thousands?) of Iraqis to get what it wanted. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:07:00] - Paul: you still don't address the issue of how any of these things are prevented, or even decreased, in your alternatives. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:06:00] - Paul: but "the government" isn't some invisible entity. It is composed of people, and those people are held to laws in the same way that normal citizens are held to its laws. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:06:00] - No matter what the rules, if the government as a single mind wants something, then they are going to give themselves the legal right to kill whoever they want to get it. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:04:00] - Pierce: Yes, but the government makes up the rules which govern it's own behavior. It's like saying I'm not allowed to eat meat because I personally don't let me eat meat. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:02:00] - Dave: They were started in 1865, but only to prevent counterfeiting. They didn't start presidential protection until 1894. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:01:00] - And to say that the government ignores its own rules (like with eminent domain) is as invalid as saying that anyone is allowed to commit murder in our society. While they theoretically can do so, it is a violation of some rule system and some effort will be made to enforce accountability. - pierce
[2004-05-19 08:59:00] - anyone know when the secret service was created? Did Washington have agents following him around for the rest of his life? -dave
[2004-05-19 08:59:00] - Paul: but you're still wrong in the "whatever it wants" claim... the government does have rules that control its own behavior, and those rules are obeyed to some extent. I fail to see what prevents anyone from killing anyone else in the types of societies you propose, assuming murder is something you're trying to avoid. - pierce
[2004-05-19 08:58:00] - pierce: HEHE -dave
[2004-05-19 08:55:00] - dave: I take exception to *SNORE* - pierce
[2004-05-19 08:53:00] - a: oh so helpful ;-p -dave
[2004-05-19 08:52:00] - paul: Yup yup. The courts are definitely head honchos of what they can do though -dave
[2004-05-19 08:46:00] - i think i was probably born knowing it
~a[2004-05-19 08:46:00] - man, i don't ever remember learning perl. ~a
[2004-05-19 08:45:00] - Dave: Ok, you're right about stuff like that. I was more just thinking of passing laws and the like, not ordering the military around.
-Paul[2004-05-19 08:45:00] - Irish are more likely to fall asleep at work. Most amusing -dave
[2004-05-19 08:43:00] - anyone know of a good perl primer or intro/tutorial kinda thing? -dave
[2004-05-19 08:41:00] - powers -dave
[2004-05-19 08:40:00] - paul: or what if they wanted to take out bin laden? Executive power are quite clearly out of the courts' hands -dave
[2004-05-19 08:40:00] - paul: hmm, that may be true. But what if they wanted something like an amendment to the constitution? -dave
[2004-05-19 08:37:00] - Dave: I think there is always some case out there for every issue the Supreme Court would want to rule on. It's just a matter of accepting the case to listen to it. -Paul
[2004-05-19 08:36:00] - paul: the courts seem purely reactive. Like if they have something they specifically want to do, they have to depend on other things to happen before they can have their say. At least this is the way I see it -dave
[2004-05-19 08:33:00] - paul: like how? if there's no case for them to rule on, they can't do squat -dave
[2004-05-19 08:32:00] - Dave: Yeah, technically there are limits like that but if the Court really wants something to happen, they can find a way to get it to happen. -Paul
[2004-05-19 08:26:00] - paul: the courts also need someone to bring an actual case to them so that they can rule on stuff I believe -dave
[2004-05-19 08:25:00] - paul: although theoretically, the courts can't create law. Technically, they might be able to interpret a law to mean something entirely different that they want. -dave
[2004-05-19 08:24:00] - paul: ironically, yes. Although the lack of that power was explicitly put in place -dave
[2004-05-19 08:21:00] - Dave: The courts pretty much have all the power, although ironically they have absolutely no means to backup that power.
-Paul[2004-05-19 08:20:00] - paul: in practicality, you'd probably have to get all the major media sources to agree with you too -dave
[2004-05-19 08:19:00] - paul: I think the real sticking point is the courts. If you can get them to say that whatever law you pass is constituational, then you're golden -dave
[2004-05-19 08:18:00] - paul: govt is just made up of way too dang many people for anything to happen easily or that quickly -dave
[2004-05-19 08:17:00] - paul: Yeah, if all three branches of govt banded together, they could probably do whatever they wanted. The problem is getting all three branches to agree. -dave
[2004-05-19 08:15:00] - i concede. ~a
[2004-05-19 08:12:00] - a: Put another way, I dare you to envision some scenario where the government wants something and it's NOT legally allowed to kill you to get it. -Paul
[2004-05-19 08:10:00] - a: That's not really the point. The point is that the government can legally do whatever it wants because it makes the rules. Look at Waco. If it was anybody besides the government it would've been seen as a horrific mass murder, but since it's the government it was ok. -Paul
[2004-05-19 08:07:00] - paul: you think that law would hold up? ~a
[2004-05-19 08:06:00] - a: Yes it can. If the government decides to pass a law saying that it can kill anybody with a red car, then they are 100% legally able to. -Paul
[2004-05-19 08:06:00] - Dave: Yeah, but something that we all kinda noticed was that the movie tried it's best to stay as far away from the mythical elements and make it as realistic as possible. -Paul
[2004-05-19 08:05:00] - mig: i'm stuck on the "whatever it wants" part. it can't decide to kill you for no other reason than because you own a red car. ~a
[2004-05-19 08:02:00] - and contrast that with a bank who has foreclosed a property but the person won't leave the house. can the bank legally kill that person. no. they have to get the government to do that for them. - mig
[2004-05-19 07:50:00] - as for cops, i think the rules are lax enough on them for shooting people that IMO many of them have indeed gotten away with murder. - mig
[2004-05-19 07:48:00] - from you. - mig
[2004-05-19 07:48:00] - ~a: that's not exactly what the author means. he's just saying that government can kill you legally. let's use eminent domain as an example. if the government decides to take your house away (and they can use just about any lame excuse to do so), and you decide to defend your house, the government can kill you legally to try and take your house
[2004-05-19 07:34:00] - paul: "the government – the only entity legally empowered to use lethal force to get whatever it wants" i don't believe this is true. a cop can't kill someone for no reason (i.e. a cop can't kill someone to get whatever he wants). ~a
[2004-05-19 07:04:00] - "A recent survey showed that 70 percent of people would reveal their computer password for a bar of chocolate. Even without a bribe, passwords were handed over by 34 percent." haha -dave
[2004-05-19 07:01:00] - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4979103/ Lamborghini cop car -dave
[2004-05-19 07:01:00] - what I find amusing about the "real" story of Troy is that it wasn't like Paris "stole" Helen at all. Aphrodite just gave her to him -dave
[2004-05-18 20:56:00] - http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0405/18/a01-156198.htm auto plant workers say "no thanks" to efforts to unionize employers there. note how the union tries to take credit for those workers relatively high wages. - mig
[2004-05-18 20:47:00] - Travis: Like I've been saying, the gun isn't because I expect to need it because ideally I won't ever need it. It's just in case the worst happens. -Paul
[2004-05-18 20:38:00] - Travis: From the movie perspective, Troy was about two men who started a big war over a woman and a great warrior who met his downfall because of a woman. -Paul
[2004-05-18 20:35:00] - Wow, the conversation really died when I went home.
-Paul[2004-05-18 18:59:00] - paul: one final point about the gun issue: assume you become proficient shooting a gun, then you still have to be awake to point it at a robber and 99% of the time that's going to happen while you're gone or asleep, and if you're asleep a decent robber won't wake you (if we assume you can shoot we can assume he can sneak) - travis
[2004-05-18 18:50:00] - paul: from the greek perspective, troy was about a man stealing something that belonged to another man, emphasized by agamemnon stealing achilles girl captive - travis
[2004-05-18 18:47:00] - communism is a very idealistic concept yet everyone despises and prevents it wherever it shows up - travis
[2004-05-18 18:05:00] - bye Paul. -mel
[2004-05-18 18:04:00] - Anyway, you two can debate marriage all you want. You know my position. I'm off to go home now. Bye all! -Paul
[2004-05-18 18:01:00] - travis: because its a nice concept. a very idealistic concept. -mel
[2004-05-18 18:01:00] - Travis: You saw Troy.
-Paul[2004-05-18 18:01:00] - Travis: For the same reason I gave, we men get all weak kneed and stupid when it comes to women.
-Paul[2004-05-18 18:00:00] - paul: why do people keep getting married if it's such a horrible thing to do? surely that many people aren't just succumbing to peer pressure and tradition (although that's how religions work, i guess) - travis
[2004-05-18 17:58:00] - mel: good, i couldn't tell if you were glad he skipped it or not
- travis[2004-05-18 17:58:00] - Paul: haha. thats honest. well marriage isn't anything I think people should take lightly. -mel
[2004-05-18 17:56:00] - To be honest, it probably wouldn't take more than a pretty girl with a passing interest in me to automatically turn my willpower into jello, but that doesn't mean that getting married is a good idea by any stretch of the imagination. -Paul
[2004-05-18 17:54:00] - paul: haha. no. I already heard a lot of it, so I think I know where you're going.
-mel[2004-05-18 17:53:00] - a: "at least"?
-Paul[2004-05-18 17:53:00] - Mel: Ouch, you didn't want to hear my stirring logical explanation of why men love more strongly than women?
-Paul[2004-05-18 17:51:00] - paul: now that i'm not at work, i could read your link. "Film director Alexandra, 30, showed at least two reasons why Americans should vote her dad into the White House in November." bahaha. ~a
[2004-05-18 17:51:00] - paul: it's not raining anymore. ~a
[2004-05-18 17:50:00] - travis: thanks for the comment that prevented Paul from reintroducing the evolution of love.
-mel[2004-05-18 17:48:00] - Mel: Just to prove Travis wrong, I'll avoid the evolution of love and just say that I agree. I consider myself a traditional romantic, but the realist in me keeps reminding me that it doesn't work that way in the real world. -Paul
[2004-05-18 17:47:00] - a: It's raining men? -Paul
[2004-05-18 17:47:00] - mel: now you're gonna get him started on his theory about the evolution of love
- travis[2004-05-18 17:46:00] - paul: I know its an idealistic perspective, but in a marriage, hopefully both partners care about the other person's happiness, probably more than their own. Thats the whole idea with love, isn't it? -mel
[2004-05-18 17:45:00] - it's raining! ~a
[2004-05-18 17:41:00] - Dave: Either way, it's a reason not to get married.
-Paul[2004-05-18 17:39:00] - paul: wives don't already do that to the majority of husbands? -dave
[2004-05-18 17:34:00] - Which is another reason I should never get married, I would let my wife walk all over me.
-Paul[2004-05-18 17:33:00] - Travis: Which is the downside, I suppose, to being me. I'm sometimes more interested in making others happy than myself. -Paul
[2004-05-18 17:32:00] - paul: yeah, but you're also most likely to keep doing something you don't like just because you want to satisfy other people - travis
[2004-05-18 17:17:00] - Travis: Kellen Winslow Jr. I didn't think he should've gotten nearly as yelled at as he did, but the man is a huge ass. -Paul
[2004-05-18 17:16:00] - Travis: I like to think I'm open to giving things a try, which is what I think you're talking about. I also think I'm somewhat of a follower. I'm always looking for somebody to tell me what to do, never making my own decisions. -paul
[2004-05-18 17:15:00] - vinnie: sounds similar to that miami college player that talked about being "a fucking solider" and how much trouble he got into - travis
[2004-05-18 17:14:00] - yeah, but regarding your fighter/pacifist statement, it seems like you're the most likely to do something if enough people badger you into it than someone like dave or me - travis
[2004-05-18 17:13:00] - Which very rarely happens. -Paul
[2004-05-18 17:12:00] - Basically, I'm only stubborn if I feel strongly about something. -paul
[2004-05-18 17:08:00] - Travis: Well, I'm stubborn when I think it matters. Papa John's is a funny thing because I think it's been blown out of proportion a bit. They are my least favorite pizza place but I would still eat their pizza if there wasn't a convenient alternative. -Paul
[2004-05-18 17:07:00] - Travis: I like to put a positive spin on things.
-Paul[2004-05-18 17:06:00] - paul: you always claim your stubborn and such, but i think that only applies to your thoughts and beliefs but regarding actions you seem very easily swayed, occassionally refusing to do some things like eat papa john's pizza - travis
[2004-05-18 17:04:00] - paul: funny how vinnie called it "caving in" and you called it "being tolerant" - travis
[2004-05-18 17:04:00] - Vinnie: You mean the original ones that all the sports people are bashing him for? I thought it was fucking great. And I don't even like KG. -paul
[2004-05-18 16:59:00] - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2004/news/story?id=1804051 who else found his comment awesome? - vinnie
[2004-05-18 16:47:00] - http://www.attrition.org/technical/firearms/40_gun_control.html So some of this is wrong, but I think there is a lot of grim truth to some of the points here. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:47:00] - what is the rest of that title supposed to say? - vinnie
[2004-05-18 16:45:00] - vinnie: eww i don't want to eat your cookies - aaron
[2004-05-18 16:45:00] - too rock, VP. too rock - vinnie
[2004-05-18 16:44:00] - paul: And twice as effective at cutting cookies - aaron
[2004-05-18 16:44:00] - rock salt - vinnie
[2004-05-18 16:44:00] - with rock gun, natch - vinnie
[2004-05-18 16:43:00] - Aaron: Yes. You are far too likely to shoot the pizza delivery boy because he accidentally put vegetables on your pizza.
-Paul[2004-05-18 16:43:00] - Actually, from reading some articles it seems like a shotgun is actually best for home defense instead of a pistol. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:41:00] - paul: Are you implying that I'm too intolerant of foods and recreational activities to safely own a gun? - aaron
[2004-05-18 16:40:00] - Dave: Or you could just hire some bodyguards that use guns.
-Paul[2004-05-18 16:39:00] - Vinnie: Which I think is a good argument for me. I'm fairly tolerant of stuff so if I'm driven to the point of shooting somebody, then they must have really done something to deserve it. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:38:00] - paul: If I was really rich, I might buy a gun just for the novelty of it. And take up learning to use it as a past-time or whatever -dave
[2004-05-18 16:37:00] - although if you didn't compromise on stuff, we might never agree on anything, so it probably shouldn't be an insult
- vinnie[2004-05-18 16:37:00] - paul: well, spending the money, taking all the effort to learn how to use it and continue to practice regularly, and take the risk of someone getting hurt who I didn't want to get hurt -dave
[2004-05-18 16:37:00] - paul: if I lived in the house I grew up in, I would say no. Because I think the chance of getting burglarized would be much too small to justify spending the money -dave
[2004-05-18 16:36:00] - well, you're the first to cave in on something you don't want to do, whether it be a movie you don't want to see or a game you don't want to play. this is obviously a good thing from our perspective, but I see that as being pacifistic - vinnie
[2004-05-18 16:36:00] - paul: I don't know. I'd probably be much more driven by the fact that guns and ammunition are expensive, and I don't think I'd ever use them. It probably would depend on where I ended up living -dave
[2004-05-18 16:35:00] - Dave: So do you plan on buying a gun when you get your own place? -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:34:00] - Vinnie: Actually, do you think I seriously do? -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:34:00] - paul: yeah, you'd probably do something. I'm just saying I think I would be just as likely if not more likely to do something than you even in that situation -dave
[2004-05-18 16:34:00] - *** Paul shoots Vinnie.
[2004-05-18 16:34:00] - http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds15.html The last paragraph is what concerns me the most. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:33:00] - (intended as insult) - vinnie
[2004-05-18 16:33:00] - paul: you let everyone push you around!
- vinnie[2004-05-18 16:32:00] - Dave: It really depends on the situation. Most of the time, I probably am more pacifistic than most, but sometimes I get real stubborn and obstinate and I'm pretty sure I would get that when if somebody was robbing me. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:31:00] - paul: haha, that's funny, because that's the opposite of how I would characterize you vs me. I would say I'm much more likely to do something than you -dave
[2004-05-18 16:30:00] - Dave: Yeah, so you don't think I can learn how to drive a manual transmission car?
-Paul[2004-05-18 16:30:00] - paul: but yeah, you could definitely practice and learn -dave
[2004-05-18 16:30:00] - I guess we have a fundamental difference of opinion regarding what to do when people push you around. I tend to be a fighter whereas it seems like (and I do not intend this as an insult) you all are more pacifistic. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:30:00] - paul: actually shooting a gun accurately enough to defend yourself isn't so easy. Kinda like driving a manual transmission, seems simple in theory, but quite more difficult in practice -dave
[2004-05-18 16:28:00] - Pierce: I know, and I admit that. My point was that whatever it takes to be able to shoot a gun, I think I am capable of doing it. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:27:00] - Again, it's like saying that you should never lock your doors because that just makes it more likely that people will have to smash it down instead of walking in. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:27:00] - Travis is correct. Shooting a gun is definitely not about intelligence. Fundamentally, the operation is about as simple as it gets. Proper, effective usage comes from experience and (to a smaller extent) natural ability. - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:26:00] - Pierce: And I emphatically deny that the presence of a real gun makes you more likely to get hurt. It also ignores the fact that even though you might be safer, you're still losing all your stuff. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:26:00] - it's not like he can't learn how to handle a gun properly. - mig
[2004-05-18 16:25:00] - Travis: Granted, but what then? You don't think I possess the X (where X is some quality) that seemingly the vast majority of people in the world possess? -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:25:00] - Paul: and what I'm saying is that of those three goals, the first two are served by a replica (one that shoots blanks), and the last one is invalid because the presence of a real gun makes you more likely to get hurt, even if you're wielding it. - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:25:00] - Pierce: When did I ever say that I was going to be accurate? All I need to do is hit the person as a last resort. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:24:00] - Paul: your intelligence really has nothing to do with how well you can handle a gun - travis
[2004-05-18 16:23:00] - Pierce: Fine then, you don't think I am smarter then a prison guard?
-Paul[2004-05-18 16:23:00] - And if you think you're going to have accuracy like you see in the movies, in real situations, then I've got bad news for you. - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:23:00] - Pierce: You're missing the point, though. In my case, shooting a bullet into a person would be a last resort. The purpose really is mainly to protect me. Whether by displaying it, shooting it into the air, or shooting a person. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:23:00] - Yes, handguns are meant to shoot people/things. otherwise people wouldn't rely on them for self defense. - mig
[2004-05-18 16:22:00] - Paul: don't change the subject. The CA thing indicates that proper gun usage is more complex than simply point-and-shoot. - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:21:00] - Actually, the replica thing makes a lot of sense. If you're just meaning to scare off burglars, it'll still work. But if they disarm you, you have the upper hand in that they think they have a new weapon when they really don't. - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:21:00] - Pierce: Besides, it's not like a gun is a terribly complicated thing. Basically you figure out which direction to point, and pull a trigger. I'm a little disappointed you don't think I'm capable of that. Of course, you also thought I was (still am?) an alcoholic once.
-Paul[2004-05-18 16:20:00] - Come on, Paul. Do you honestly believe that a handgun isn't meant to shoot anyone? Why not just buy a replica, then? - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:20:00] - Paul: less specific, then. You can try to dodge the issue that a handgun is meant to shoot a bullet into a person, but I think we all know that it's true. - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:20:00] - I could go on and on. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:20:00] - The purpose of the cops are to throw people in jail. The purpose of the military is to kill people. The purpose of the IRS is to steal money. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:19:00] - Pierce: You can make the purpse of a lot of things sound bad if you want to. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:19:00] - Pierce: Specifically? The purpose of a gun is to propel an object at fast speeds. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:18:00] - Mig: no, I understand what the nebulous goal of owning a gun is, but I'm talking about the means by which it supposedly achieves that goal. - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:17:00] - Paul: no, specifically what are their purposes? In what way do they protect those things? - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:17:00] - pierce: while saying the purpose of a gun is to inflict harm on things is technically correct, i think it's a wee bit misleading. - mig
[2004-05-18 16:16:00] - Pierce: To protect yourself, your property, and your loved ones, at least in my case. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:16:00] - Travis: Nono, that was the opposite of my point. I'm saying comparing using a gun to defend myself with being a racecar driver is like comparing driving normally to being a soldier. They are totally different extremes. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:15:00] - and what is the purpose of an alarm system, for that matter? - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:14:00] - boy did i mess up spelling "competent" there - travis
[2004-05-18 16:14:00] - Paul: what, then, is the purpose of a gun? - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:14:00] - Pierce: And I'm saying that I have more confidence in myself that I won't shoot myself in the foot if I ever have to use a gun to defend myself. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:14:00] - I guess what I'm trying to say is that the danger posed by a car is a side effect of its primary purpose, not the primary purpose itself. Therefore it makes more sense to own a car. - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:14:00] - Paul: so you think your as compenent at driving as a racecar driver and as compenent with a gun as a soldier? - travis
[2004-05-18 16:13:00] - Pierce: The purpose of a gun in my case is NOT to inflict harm upon a human being any more than the purpose of an alarm system is to throw people in jail. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:11:00] - And as a result of that, you would greatly increase the risk of personal harm to yourself. - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:11:00] - And I'm saying that it's naive to think that owning a gun would preclude you from wanting to use it, and that there's a significant probability that you wouldn't use it properly. - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:10:00] - Paul: the purpose of a car is transportation. the purpose of a gun (in your case) is to inflict harm upon a human being. Now, in your case you seem to be wanting to own a gun so that you won't have to use it, but you'd never own a car so that you wouldn't have to drive anywhere. - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:04:00] - Honestly, I'm far more capable and likely to inflict far greater damage while driving my car than I am while owning a gun, I think. So I'm really not sure what the big deal is here. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:03:00] - Pierce: I consider myself comparable to a racecar driver in the same way I consider myself comparable to a soldier, yes. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:02:00] - Paul: I think that's one applicable issue, yes. - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:02:00] - Paul: would you consider yourself comparable to a racecar driver? - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:02:00] - Pierce: So you're saying I'm not capable of effectively using a gun for self defense (I'm not being touchy, just want clarification)? -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:01:00] - Pierce: The same reason I think I am composed enough to pilot a heavy vehicle at high speeds in a narrow area with other high speed vehicles. -Paul
[2004-05-18 16:01:00] - Vinnie: wouldn't it make more sense to practice with quake or unreal? - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:00:00] - Paul: but the title is tongue-in-cheek. Prison guards, Californian or no, are more likely to effectively use a gun than you are, Paul, no matter how much education you get. IMO. - pierce
[2004-05-18 16:00:00] - practice on wario ware games like wild gunman and hogan's alley - vinnie
[2004-05-18 15:59:00] - I don't know what makes you think you would be composed enough to effectively use a gun to protect both your possessions and your life in a real situation, Paul. - pierce
[2004-05-18 15:59:00] - Pierce: Thus reinforcing the title. -Paul
[2004-05-18 15:58:00] - regarding guns, I agree with Travis. All the gun safety education in the world won't calm your nerves the first time you ever have to use a gun in a real situation. The probability of incompetence goes down with real-world experience, and yet CA has still had that problem with prison guards. - pierce
[2004-05-18 15:57:00] - well, in some ways class begets class. like connections and stuff - vinnie
[2004-05-18 15:55:00] - Travis: I guess it could be, I've gone and confused myself now. -Paul
[2004-05-18 15:54:00] - I think people can be stratified within their political party, but neither of the two major parties directly translates into "rich" or "poor". Although the dems do more PR work claiming that they help the lower classes. - pierce
[2004-05-18 15:54:00] - Mel: Think Dharma's parents and Greg's parents, minus the political differences and money differences.
-Paul[2004-05-18 15:54:00] - paul: isn't social standing based on what class your in? how can social status affect your class? - travis
[2004-05-18 15:52:00] - paul: but that still doesn't prevent you from avoiding gun malfunctions, tripping and falling in your waking up state (since most robberies would happen at night), etc. - travis
[2004-05-18 15:51:00] - paul: I think that definition is too vague. -mel
[2004-05-18 15:51:00] - vinnie: interesting question. hmm, ok I think you're right. there are more fundemental reasons that people align themselves with either party. -mel
[2004-05-18 15:51:00] - ack! I made the amount/number switch, one of my kinda pet peeves - vinnie
[2004-05-18 15:49:00] - does political orientation really divide people into classes in the US, or is it the other way around? the fact that there are a fair amount of wealthy democrats seems to suggest the latter - vinnie
[2004-05-18 15:48:00] - Mel: Well, something closely tied to money I guess, but if you have somebody who is used to hanging out with big wigs and the like compared to somebody who just spends his time with the average Joe. -Paul
[2004-05-18 15:47:00] - paul: what do you mean by social standing? -mel
[2004-05-18 15:46:00] - Religion and social standing. -Paul
[2004-05-18 15:45:00] - vinnie: yes, education is definitely one, I agree.
-mel[2004-05-18 15:45:00] - paul: hmmm.. race to some degree, level of education, political orientation... -mel
[2004-05-18 15:44:00] - education can definitely do it, though that's tied to money for the most part - vinnie
[2004-05-18 15:43:00] - Travis: Because I think the assumption is that if you're spending all that money on a gun, you're going to learn how to use it (at least that's what I plan to do). -Paul
[2004-05-18 15:42:00] - Mel: In the United States I would say, so no counting castes. -Paul
[2004-05-18 15:42:00] - Mel: I didn't even do it.
-Paul[2004-05-18 15:41:00] - mig: why do you keep downplaying the "incompetence" level of handling a gun? are people like you and paul that much less likely to have a mistake occur? - travis
[2004-05-18 15:39:00] - paul: in the united states or the world? -mel
[2004-05-18 15:38:00] - Paul: ha! new title. -mel
[2004-05-18 15:38:00] - Ok, so we know that money can be something that divides people into classes (being out of one's league), what else can do that? -Paul
[2004-05-18 15:38:00] - mig: my understanding is that it is inmates who take them. The LA Times had an article about and I was surprised to learn that prison gurads don't carry guns (in CA anyway). I'll look for the article... -mel
[2004-05-18 15:38:00] - Mel: Yeah, but Californians are crazy and incompetant.
-Paul[2004-05-18 15:37:00] - mel: do they get hurt through their own incompetence of handling guns or from inmates who take them? - mig
[2004-05-18 15:34:00] - Travis: It's going to be virtually impossible for me to prove my point, but I wouldn't be worried at all about trying to take a bat from somebody whereas trying to take a gun from somebody would terrify me. -Paul
[2004-05-18 15:34:00] - paul: did you know that in california prisons, wardens don't have guns because the likelihood that they will be hurt with their own gun is too high? -mel
[2004-05-18 15:33:00] - paul: and they have to train with their guns regularly -dave
[2004-05-18 15:32:00] - paul: well, the difference is that a policeman has to deal with more than burglars, like gang members or other such people who do have guns more often -dave
[2004-05-18 15:32:00] - Paul: i'd argue your claim a bat is easier to take away than a gun - travis
[2004-05-18 15:31:00] - paul: the majority of burglars who don't have guns will run away anyways if they know you are there or have woken up etc -dave
[2004-05-18 15:30:00] - Dave: And again, this kind of logic means that police should never carry guns or get involved in high speed chases. -Paul
[2004-05-18 15:29:00] - Dave: Right. So in that case having a gun isn't clearly better. But how about the more likely case where the burglar doesn't have a gun? -Paul
[2004-05-18 15:28:00] - I'm guessing the vast majority of burglars will turn and run as soon as they see somebody with a gun and I think the stats back me up on this. -Paul
[2004-05-18 15:28:00] - paul: or how about this example. Burglar has gun. If you don't have gun, he will probably force you to go somewhere while he takes your stuff. You both have guns, firefight ensues in which you are much more likely to get hurt (tho better chance of keeping your stuff) -dave
[2004-05-18 15:27:00] - Travis: Because a baseball bat is even easier to take away and use against you than a gun. -Paul
[2004-05-18 15:26:00] - use #3: whack pesky moles that keep coming out of holes - travis
[2004-05-18 15:26:00] - travis: A crowbar seems a lot more useful than a baseball bat in a fight... to me anyway. I guess if you miss, you're more likely to hurt yourself with a crowbar than a baseball bat - aaron
[2004-05-18 15:26:00] - sorry, travis, you're gonna have to come up 13 more reasons for the bat
- vinnie[2004-05-18 15:26:00] - use #2: play baseball - vinnie
[2004-05-18 15:25:00] - use #14: girlfriend repellant - aaron
[2004-05-18 15:25:00] - paul: you don't want insurance because the cost is greater than a gun. so why not buy a baseball bat to protect yourself since it's cheaper than a gun and probably more useful - travis
[2004-05-18 15:24:00] - otherwise, you're just as likely to shoot your wife or kid if the burglar resorts to hiding behind one of them -dave
[2004-05-18 15:24:00] - (and don't think just because you have a gun means he can't take it from you, you have probably one shot before he's within range to take you down) - travis
[2004-05-18 15:23:00] - Besides, as somebody pointed out, owning a gun has the fortunate side-effect of repelling any potential girlfriends.
-Paul[2004-05-18 15:23:00] - assuming the burglar is armed, it might make him more likely to use his own force to counter to your force. if he isn't armed, he might be able to take control of the gun away from you and put you in a worse situation (true for any weapon, though) [cont.] - travis
[2004-05-18 15:23:00] - vinnie: yeah, a lot of it is about training - hence sorta what I said earlier in that if you have a handgun, you're supposed to practice with it a lot if you want to be effective -dave
[2004-05-18 15:22:00] - paul: I think the argument is not that the gun itself would make it less safe, but that the confrontation between you and the burglar is more likely to end in you getting injured than a non-confrontation from you hiding -dave
[2004-05-18 15:21:00] - first "it" meaning travis' argument - vinnie
[2004-05-18 15:21:00] - oh, even if it's true, it's not something I think matters. like you said, if you're competant and train enough, you're a heck of a lot safer. similar to my marriage argument that competant people are unlikely to have ugly divorce or custody issues
- vinnie[2004-05-18 15:19:00] - Vinnie: By that rationale, shouldn't the US not have an army because it makes us more likely to do something stupid?
-Paulprev <-> next