Is irrelevant in the argument regarding whether or not they should be regulated.
Which is totally irrelevant in THIS thread of the discussion where not a single person in this thread declared anything about regulation one way or the other.
Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
Guns have no other use than as a weapon.
I'm not a hunter or even a gun supporter, but even I can see the stupid in that remark. Guns are simply tools and have wide range of uses beyond hurting other people. Hunting for food comes to mind. Protection while out in the wilderness is another.
Funny, then, that every example you give is an example of a gun being used as a weapon. Hunting? You're using the gun as a weapon to take the animal down. Self defense? You're using the gun as a weapon to protect yourself.
That is a whole lot of stupid in a remark.
And no, I am absolutely not opposed to gun ownership in any way. But it's really disingenuous to claim they have any other purpose than as a weapon. Hell, even when someone is shooting targets or skeet they are practicing using the gun as a weapon.
It's an absurd argument. Guns are weapons and nothing but weapons. They can be used responsibly, justifiably, and even honorably, but they are still only weapons.
3) ... compared to a 50s thug or an 80s gangbanger, the average kid today on the street seems way more likely to resort to violence with a weapon, to group attacks, and so on. That stuff is real,
That stuff is NOT AT ALL REAL. This is:
The murder rate worked out to six murders for every 100,000 U.S. inhabitants, the lowest level since 1966 when there were 5.7 murders for every 100,000 people.
The US homicide rate, which has declined substantially since 1992 from a rate per 100,000 persons of 9.8 to 4.5 in 2013,
That's less than HALF what the murder rate was 20 years ago!!! Source
The boogeyman is NOT out there. Stop LYING and saying that he is.
4) I don't believe for a second you judge cops by the same yardstick. You haven't shown any evidence of it here. You just like to make excuses for them.
Respect my right to have [an opinion] too, even if you don't agree.
You may have your own opinions. Try tempering them with FACTS sometime.
First, it's a question of reported crime. How many people get their bike ripped off and just don't bother to file a police report because it takes too long, they don't have insurance, and they are upset as f-ck about it and don't want to spend more time on it?
Gee, you're back with even more complete and utter speculation (which happens to be TOTALLY wrong) and fear mongering. What is wrong with you? What do you have to gain by scaring people?
Nice way to play with the stats to make it look as though the boogeyman is already among us and ready to pounce. If you had a shred of intellectual honesty you wouldn't be trying to stoke people's fears and instead point out how crime has been falling for DECADES.
The problem at hand is that all laws are some sort of moral value.
Thanks for the belly laugh! It's incomprehensible to me how someone could be so naive to believe such a thing.
But, it's possible you may be right. If you can go to this site and tell me the moral basis behind each of those laws, I will concede that you are correct.
1) I would be jumpy too if a big percentage of the population was armed and had no problem mowing me down because I was trying to give them a speeding ticket (which is where a lot of cop shootings occur, traffic stops).
You can't just pull a statement like that out of your ass and expect people to believe you or be swayed by your argument. Where are the numbers to support it? I call shenanigans (in other words, I think you're full of shit).
2) Times are tough, no doubt about it.
Yea, crime sure has been spiraling out of control. It's hard to feel safe these days.
Oh, wait. That's only what people who can't be bothered to educate themselves the tiniest little bit believe. Crime in the US has been on the decline for DECADES
Spare us the boogeyman bullshit.
3) Teenagers will be teenagers - but now new and improved with gangsta mentality, guns, and a dumb attitude ...
Yea, yea, yea. This generation is SO much worse, right?
I'm sure you don't know this, but EVERY generation says that about the next generation. Even Aristotle (or was it Socrates? I'll look it up if you need me to) noticed way back then that the same thing had been going on forever.
Your "get off my lawn" is showing.
4) Society is often not defined by it's best, but by it's worst.
Really? How come cops aren't judged by the same yardstick? Why do bootlicking apologists like you always claim "it's just a few bad apples" (despite the daily FLOOD of evidence to the contrary)?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't know what you're talking about
Are you suggesting, as the example, that KITT is not a character? Is Herbie the Love Bug not a character in it's own right?
Hey dumbass: how about you read this comment I made which just happens to be right below this one that totally dismantles your "character" argument for the Batmobile.
Only a moron would consider an inaminate object a character. You seem to fit the bill.
Available for $19.50 -- for either Mac or PC (select your preferred version in the drop down menu)
So, I can run this on my PC that runs Linux since that is my preferred version, right?
Seriously? TD should know better than to use this sort of phrasing. Instead you should say "for either Mac or MS Windows operating systems" or something similar.
Hey, be careful there! Because I know what you're referring to that gives that object the status of a character. By even mentioning it you are committing a copyright violation!
Re: Re: Re: You don't know what you're talking about
Is it irony that by pointing out that others may know what someone is talking about when they say, "The Batmobile" you illustrate that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
How about if I said, "Bat Utility Belt" and people recognized that? Does that make it a "character"?
Hell no.
An example from another superhero: Superman's "Fortress of Solitude". Is it a character because people have heard of it?
Of course not.
Wonder Woman's lasso a "character"?
Idiotic!
I could go on and on and on and on. Just because someone is familiar with an object you mention does not make that object a character. Hell, one could even make the very reasonable argument that because people recognize those objects that they are part of our culture and therefore not "owned" by anyone.
Trying to justify things that are nothing more than mindless objects as characters just so they can be controlled and profited from is the height of cynicism and greed.
In your rush to attack the TD analysis of the Batmobile by comparing it to Herbie the Love Bug and KITT you forget (or, more likely, intentionally leave out) one (at least) very important point: will.
With Herbie/KITT they are characters (and yes, I'm willing to call them characters) because ... well, they're characters. They have motivations, whims and foibles that are completely their own. They are independent entities. They have a PERSONALITY.
The Batmobile possesses none of these qualities. It is simply a device. A tool, if you will. Kind of like you.
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: "Guns are weapons"
Which is totally irrelevant in THIS thread of the discussion where not a single person in this thread declared anything about regulation one way or the other.
But thanks for your input. I guess ...
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
Absolutely agree.
Has any society, anywhere, ever held the blacksmith responsible for everyone killed or maimed with the swords he made?
No, and I hope they never do.
But that's completely besides the point that I was trying to make about guns being weapons. Which you seem to have gotten.
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
Funny, then, that every example you give is an example of a gun being used as a weapon. Hunting? You're using the gun as a weapon to take the animal down. Self defense? You're using the gun as a weapon to protect yourself.
That is a whole lot of stupid in a remark.
And no, I am absolutely not opposed to gun ownership in any way. But it's really disingenuous to claim they have any other purpose than as a weapon. Hell, even when someone is shooting targets or skeet they are practicing using the gun as a weapon.
It's an absurd argument. Guns are weapons and nothing but weapons. They can be used responsibly, justifiably, and even honorably, but they are still only weapons.
On the post: In The Post-Ferguson World, Cops Are Now Victims And It's The Public That's Going To Pay The Price
Re: Re: Re: Re: Excelllent piece
On the post: Daily Deal: Scrivener (Ending Soon)
Re: Re: Poor wording
If you want to get really technical about it, there's no distinction between Mac and PC since they are both "personal computers".
On the post: In The Post-Ferguson World, Cops Are Now Victims And It's The Public That's Going To Pay The Price
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Excelllent piece
2) False. See below
3) ... compared to a 50s thug or an 80s gangbanger, the average kid today on the street seems way more likely to resort to violence with a weapon, to group attacks, and so on. That stuff is real,
That stuff is NOT AT ALL REAL. This is: SourceThat's less than HALF what the murder rate was 20 years ago!!! Source
The boogeyman is NOT out there. Stop LYING and saying that he is.
4) I don't believe for a second you judge cops by the same yardstick. You haven't shown any evidence of it here. You just like to make excuses for them.
Respect my right to have [an opinion] too, even if you don't agree.
You may have your own opinions. Try tempering them with FACTS sometime.
On the post: In The Post-Ferguson World, Cops Are Now Victims And It's The Public That's Going To Pay The Price
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Excelllent piece
Gee, you're back with even more complete and utter speculation (which happens to be TOTALLY wrong) and fear mongering. What is wrong with you? What do you have to gain by scaring people?
Fortunately for anyone coming along that might be persuaded by your nonsense, I have this link to A handy myth-busting guide to UK crime statistics
Guess where you myth of non-reporting comes on that list? #1
You are totally, absolutely, 100% WRONG. At this point the only worthwhile thing you could say is to admit it and apologize.
On the post: In The Post-Ferguson World, Cops Are Now Victims And It's The Public That's Going To Pay The Price
Re: Re: Re: Excelllent piece
Cool story, bro. Except it's total horseshit.
Nice way to play with the stats to make it look as though the boogeyman is already among us and ready to pounce. If you had a shred of intellectual honesty you wouldn't be trying to stoke people's fears and instead point out how crime has been falling for DECADES.
Yea, you can start at the ukcrimestats.com site, but the place an intelligent and honest person (i.e., not you) should end is here: "Crime in England and Wales falls 16% to lowest level since 1981"
On the post: In The Post-Ferguson World, Cops Are Now Victims And It's The Public That's Going To Pay The Price
Re: Re: Re: Excelllent piece
Thanks for the belly laugh! It's incomprehensible to me how someone could be so naive to believe such a thing.
But, it's possible you may be right. If you can go to this site and tell me the moral basis behind each of those laws, I will concede that you are correct.
Good luck!
On the post: In The Post-Ferguson World, Cops Are Now Victims And It's The Public That's Going To Pay The Price
Re: Re: Re: Excelllent piece
You can't just pull a statement like that out of your ass and expect people to believe you or be swayed by your argument. Where are the numbers to support it? I call shenanigans (in other words, I think you're full of shit).
2) Times are tough, no doubt about it.
Yea, crime sure has been spiraling out of control. It's hard to feel safe these days.
Oh, wait. That's only what people who can't be bothered to educate themselves the tiniest little bit believe. Crime in the US has been on the decline for DECADES
Spare us the boogeyman bullshit.
3) Teenagers will be teenagers - but now new and improved with gangsta mentality, guns, and a dumb attitude ...
Yea, yea, yea. This generation is SO much worse, right?
I'm sure you don't know this, but EVERY generation says that about the next generation. Even Aristotle (or was it Socrates? I'll look it up if you need me to) noticed way back then that the same thing had been going on forever.
Your "get off my lawn" is showing.
4) Society is often not defined by it's best, but by it's worst.
Really? How come cops aren't judged by the same yardstick? Why do bootlicking apologists like you always claim "it's just a few bad apples" (despite the daily FLOOD of evidence to the contrary)?
Your arguments are weak and erroneous.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't know what you're talking about
Hey dumbass: how about you read this comment I made which just happens to be right below this one that totally dismantles your "character" argument for the Batmobile.
Only a moron would consider an inaminate object a character. You seem to fit the bill.
On the post: Daily Deal: Scrivener (Ending Soon)
Poor wording
So, I can run this on my PC that runs Linux since that is my preferred version, right?
Seriously? TD should know better than to use this sort of phrasing. Instead you should say "for either Mac or MS Windows operating systems" or something similar.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: I love that Caddy's personality!
/sarcasm
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: You don't know what you're talking about
How about if I said, "Bat Utility Belt" and people recognized that? Does that make it a "character"?
Hell no.
An example from another superhero: Superman's "Fortress of Solitude". Is it a character because people have heard of it?
Of course not.
Wonder Woman's lasso a "character"?
Idiotic!
I could go on and on and on and on. Just because someone is familiar with an object you mention does not make that object a character. Hell, one could even make the very reasonable argument that because people recognize those objects that they are part of our culture and therefore not "owned" by anyone.
Trying to justify things that are nothing more than mindless objects as characters just so they can be controlled and profited from is the height of cynicism and greed.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: You aim is WAY off
With Herbie/KITT they are characters (and yes, I'm willing to call them characters) because ... well, they're characters. They have motivations, whims and foibles that are completely their own. They are independent entities. They have a PERSONALITY.
The Batmobile possesses none of these qualities. It is simply a device. A tool, if you will. Kind of like you.
On the post: Appeals Court: It Is In The Public's Interest That Samsung Not Be Allowed To 'Slide To Unlock' Devices
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember when actual living, breathing human beings were also legally speaking property? aka slaves
We prefer to protest obvious fallacies and legal constructions that fly in the face of common sense and fairness.
Your problem is you prefer to justify a broken system and continue to lick your masters boots.
On the post: Appeals Court: It Is In The Public's Interest That Samsung Not Be Allowed To 'Slide To Unlock' Devices
Re: Re: Re:
Whew! Thank goodness we're not talking about actual property here, or you might have a point.
On the post: Larry Lessig Tells New Zealand Court That DOJ's Case Against Kim Dotcom Is A Sham
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There _could_ be an interesting discussion in the comments here ...
On the post: Larry Lessig Tells New Zealand Court That DOJ's Case Against Kim Dotcom Is A Sham
Re: Re: Re: Re: There _could_ be an interesting discussion in the comments here ...
On the post: Larry Lessig Tells New Zealand Court That DOJ's Case Against Kim Dotcom Is A Sham
Re: Re: There _could_ be an interesting discussion in the comments here ...
But look at this. All but ONE of the 18 comments on this thread at this time are dedicated to the troll.
But, yea, I'm the bad guy for pointing out how pathetic that is. Yea, you're a genius.
Next >>