Aileron

I'm defining "common thug" as any criminal who commits crime in an outdoor urban setting such as a park or alley. Also, the person must not be a member of organized crime. On top of that, a "common thug" has no political or racial agenda, and has a primary interest in preserving their own life. Evil Jin, you watch WAY too many movies. True, you don't need a gun to take down someone. However, you would not be able to take out a gunman with any type of melee weapon, at least consistently. As for stun guns and mace, they are unreliable at best. You could block both of those with body armor made out of cardboard, provided it included a face shield. Rubber bullets work fine in almost any situation, but in order to use those you still need a gun. Madhaha - please don't refer to using guns in the US as a fashion accessory again. It really isn't helping your arguement. The reason why I consider guns solveing problems more than I create is by the following logic: I suppose that if a responsable owner who knows what he is doing has one, it is a good thing. The reason why it is a good thing is because at very worst, it does nothing. If a criminal has one, it is a bad thing. Since the law applies to responsable citizens moreso than criminals, changing the law so that more responsable owners get guns will help. Yes, laws do affect criminals somewhat, such as the availability of guns and the misdemeaner vs felony charge if caught. However, citizens who are directly affected respond much more than criminals.

I know this whole section of the forum is spam because it will never happen, but... Would it be a good idea for someone to opt to fire a lower level bomb or gun than what they have? For example, a person with L3s bombs could switch to L1s inside a base. Another example would be for someone who shoots a lot to switch to L1 guns to conserve his power.

and there are a few jerks who try to freak you out as follows: They would name themselves: "Akai -" That way, when you killed them it would look like: "Akai -(12345) killed by: Aileron" Now, Akai doesn't do this, I'm just using his name as an example.

They were about to have something like that. The UK offered to use mad cows to clear for landmines the same way Iran used children.

There isn't any disproof either. It is just statistics. In reality, they cannot be used either way unless we decided to experiment on a few towns. Since that isn't plauseble, statistics such as this one are the best we got. The point being was that if this occured often enough that it became common, the common criminal would have enough foresight to not try to rob in the first place. The fault in his arguement is that the typical thug doesn't have the intelligence to have any foresight. However, it would be a step in the right direction. Um, that is the biggest insult to the common person I have ever seen. No, most people would be capable of doing something more than piddling his pants. Most people can handle anything that comes if they are are forced. Keep in mind that fear is a survival mechanism. Fear was a designed reaction, whether from a divine source or evolution. To that end, it NEVER overcomes a creature to such a point that it will cause the death of that creature. Yes, your typical person would be very scared, but that fear would not overcome the proper course of action, it would in fact encourage it. The only reason the military needs to train is so that the army can kill others as well as survive. If the military's goal was just to merely survive, it would not need to train soldiers, because fear would be all they need.

Heat-Seeking weapons? !? Are you having problems aiming? Also, you need to pay more attention to the ?status values. Those four are SUPPOSED to be the most important upgrades to your ship. The advent of the one shot kill zones (or more specifically the zones where L1s take three shots and L3s take one shot) changed that. Yeah, I have a question about that. Wouldn't it be just easier to create a sysop name and capture a kid from a third-world country and force him/her to play that name in spec 24/7?

Dead wrong about that last statement. Statistically, guns are used WAY more often to prevent crime than in accidents. At least in the US. If you people really want the reference, I will find it (I don't remember EXACTLY where I got it), but I do not have the time to give it to you offhand. The problem with this issue is that you guys are all making hypothetical examples that do not cover typical human behavior. Yes, SOME people act like that, probably about a dozen or so per million. However, they are so rare that we cannot and should not base the behavior of typical society on those nutcases. Also, everyone is being extremist. The only scenarios discussed are "no guns at all" and "everyone has a gun". Both cases are flawed. The "no guns at all" is a utopia. It would be good, although cannot happen, because as Akai pointed out, we cannot uninvent it. The "everyone has a gun" idea also doesn't work. "Everyone" includes children, those with disclaiming records, and morons. Crime would be down because no sane criminal would want to engage in a gunfight for a few twenties. However, there would be a ton of accidents. I must note that BOTH methods do NOTHING to the occasional psycotic act. Since the participants are trying to commit murder, they don't care about breaking a few gun laws and are willing to pay large amounts of money for black market firearms. Also, since they are insane, they are not deterred by the threat of death. Basically, the solution to psycho acts lies in early detection of their behavior, NOT in any loosening or tightening of gun laws. My view is that anyone who is properly trained and capable of handling, carrying, and storing a gun in a safe matter should have one. One could do thise by having (mandatory or otherwise) training courses in gun safety.

Well, that is the difference between the two of us. In my opinion, a responsable owner can carry and use a gun safely. I'm not against registration. I'm not against keeping them away from convicts. I'm not even against a waiting period. The only problem with those programs is that they are stepping stones to more radical plans. The reason I like the idea of responsable citizens having guns is that it is a fallback for the police forces. Basically, citizens with guns can be a deterrent before police arrive and in failing districts. Basically, what this issue comes down to is wether or not the average citizen can both physically and psycologocally handle a firearm. The former question is more than just pulling the trigger; it includes proper use, storage, and carrying of the weapon. Having operated firearms myself, I think that it is fairly easy use a gun in a safe manner, and that with proper training anyone can do it. The second question is the one you two are attacking. However, I think that you greatly underestimate the human psyche. People don't just "snap"; going crazy is a long and involved process. It still happens, but there are usually tell-tale signs in advance and plenty of time for a crazy to obtain a weapon illegaly. My !@#$%^&*umption is that since most people don't spontaneaously go crazy without a gun, they most likely will not go crazy when they have one either.

Because they are idiots.

no, that would be Terrorist style.

I think this whole deal with Rush Linbaugh being called a racist is sad. Yes, the way he insulted McNabe was rude, but I think the racial element was slight, if any. I just find it sad that republicans are the only ones considered racist. Gosh, when the demecrats filibustered to prevent the approval of Miguel Estrada, that wasn't racist, but when Lindbagh insults a quarterback, he is? I think this is a contradiction.

rofl

Give them a break, they are almost dead anyway. Their problem was that they tried to make themselves an oligopoly, and the RIAA can be considered a cartel. Their existence would violate anti-trust laws if music was anything close to a staple good. However, it isn't important at all. Normally, if such a cartel in an unimportant industry became ridiculous, people would stop buying the goods. In this case, people would not buy music if the CD price exceeded $20. However, downloading songs has replaced simply not having music. Basically, Kazaa and Kazaa lite has been the first compe!@#$%^&*ion the RIAA has had in a while, and they are dealing with it poorly.

Well, I mistermed that. It would be harder for someone who doesn't want to die to commit minor acts of violence safely. As for someone suicidal, it probably would be easier to start the act, but the act would probably (yes, not ALL the time, but most of the time) do less damage. Also, note that it would not be a LOT easier to start the act. The 9/11 terrorists couldn't sneak a gun on to a plane, so they snuck box cutters. There are easy ways to commit violence without guns, and if murder is the goal, the threat of jailtime for carrying a gun is not a deterrent. You must look into why people need weapons to commit acts of violence. Why not use fists? The obvious answer is that the commiter of the crime would have no advantage of the victim. Thus, the threat won't scare the victim and any attempt of murder would be difficult and risky. It would lead into further complications if the criminal or terrorist wanted to kill or subdue a GROUP of people. Thus, criminals and terrorists need the weapons as a means of getting an advantage over their vicitims. Basically, if everyone had guns, it would be easy to get a weapon. However, it would be more difficult to gain a decent advantage. It would do nothing to deny the criminal a weapon, but it would deny the criminal the chief USE of the weapon - to gain an advantage over a victim. Suppose you wanted to kidnap somebody. Suppose you have the whole thing planned out except for the abduction. If they don't have a gun, how do you get an advantage? You either get an illegally obtained gun or any other weapon such as a knife or club. Now, suppose they did. In order to get an advantage, you would need either a bigger conspicous gun, a partner that might stab you in the back, or something else. Point being, while obtaining the weapon is easier, the act itself is more difficult.

I like those odds.

Well, I know a little C++, but don't have any experience in matters like this.

Actually, it has nothing to do with be scared. It has more to with the fact that first of all you already said it and posting to say the same thing would be nothing but spam. Secondly, you are going off topic. The overall point would be that if all regular citizens had guns, while it would be easier to obtain weapons, it would be MUCH more difficult to carry out acts of violence. Put it this way, what would the terrorists have to take on the plane in order for them in order to subdue, but not kill, the armed passengers? Also, they would have to crash the plane to be successfull, so the answer can't be a bomb.

Yeah, my prediction is that NOW he is going to define his economic policy. I posted the reason for this earlier.

Sheesh Jin, that's three topics in a row where I didn't rightly understand what you were saying.

Just an idea. Wouldn't it be nice if some new specials were added in the next version?

Ew, that pwned my arguement.

I have a tendancy to be against laws that protect people from themselves. However, I am pretty undecided with AOC. After all, those who are immature really cannot make an educated decision about this. That is about as far as it should go. People should have a right to screw up their lives if they want to. If they are that stupid, it is only a matter of time before they would do so in a different fashion. We would have to protect them from everything for their entire life for it to work, and that is neither pausible nor does it respect the person's rights. The only exception to this is with children, of whom the stupid ones are either ignorant in the ways of the world or have the possibility of eventually growing a brain. Thus, they can justifiably be protected from themselves, because the protection only has to be temporary. Thus, the age of consent should coincide with one of the dates in which a child passes into adulthood. The current age is 18, the voting age and the age of citizenship as an adult. The other possiblities are 21, the drinking age, and 16, the driving age. We can dismiss 21 as too late because the person has been responsable for a great deal of time. The only real debate then is between 16 and 18. In my opinion, it should be 18. Those of 16 and 17 still have a tendency to think as a child. The only reason it is good to have the driving age that low is to facilitate and to encourage them to get jobs. A job not only will provide them a source of funding but also teaches to discipline needed for adulthood. Sexual relationships do not have such benefit unless you count pros!@#$%^&*ution as a disciplined job, which it isn't, or unless a child born of underage parents is worth the maturity, which it is not. Sex does not force the child to mature at all. Thus, I agree with the status quo of 18 until our society changes.

Yes, there are no "rednecks" in the nuclear power industry. You need a college degree and a federal nuclear engineering liscense to get it. Also, there is an additional liscense. I am unsure of the requirements for mechanics, but they have to p!@#$%^&* several competency tests as well, and work under supervision of the engineers. Now, as Silk pointed out, you don't need any degree to scrub a toilet in a power plant, but lets just ignore that. Seriosly, you watch "The Simpsons" too much. REAL power plants are about as stringent about rules as an army base, and are ONLY filled with professionals.

ITS JUST A STUPID ANALOGY! Hey, I didn't say Kyoto was incompatible to the US. There are several good reasons the US should participate. Mostly, it is for the long term good of our ecology. I'm just saying that it would be wrong for our leadership to engage in an activity that hurts the US and doesn't help it unless we want them to. Basically, Bush was elected to serve the United States. His job is to make decisions for the good of the United States. If there was a situation where the entire rest of the world would be nuked and the US would gain 5 cents profit in both short and long term, the US people should be against it for the clear suffering of others, but Bush should be for it because that is what would be best for the people that elected him. Kyoto is complicated because there is one world and one ecosystem between all countries. I'm just saying that your arguement would be much stronger if it pointed out how the US would eventually benefit rather than calling us greedy and selfish. Ok..back on topic I recently saw this proposed legislation on the latest emissions regulations for coal. Basically, they are to limit CO2 emissions from coal plants. I'm no fan of coal power and no one here is. However, I think this is a little much. Yes, it isn't that healthy, but it isn't really poisonous either. I'd rather have the coal plant put some trees in the parking lot and we can call it even.

That is exactly the point. No leader under any cicurmstances should do something that overall runs counter to his country's interests. The fate of the rest of the world is not a good enough justification. Leaders have a responsablity to their people and not the rest of the world, because his people is where he got his power from. Take an example as a security guard at a bank. Suppose this bank was inside a poor community. The only rich person in this community was the bank owner. Yes, the money in the vault would be best off in the people's hands. It would be a good act for the owner to give out that money. However, it would be wrong for the security guard to do as such. He was given the key to the vault in order to protect it, and it his responsablity to keep it there unless the owner wants it out. He was hired by and owes allegience to the owner of the bank, not the people outside. The same thing holds true to presidents. Kyoto isn't worth squat unless it can be doctored to fit X's interests or can be enacted without X in it, where every country can be inserted for X. Ok, THAT is MY last post on Kyoto unless another topic is started.