likearock

Now that's interesting! Or maybe just a software bug.

Umm, maybe because eyewitness testimony must be validated and can't just be accepted as fact? But you're right though. A witness can say he saw someone shoot someone or push someone off a building. Whether or not that killing constitutes murder is a legal evaluation that is not directly observable. However, it's a stretch to carry over those legal arguments too far. The woman in this case, as a witness, should be able to give testimony that the defendant had sex with her without her consent. Otherwise known as rape. Of course, it's still up to the jury to validate that witness testimony.

Best response in the thread! Regarding the judge banning the use of "rape" Sexual assault", etc., I can see some justification. Would someone giving testimony be allowed to state, "the defendant murdered the victim" or "the defendant committed arson"? If they witnessed it, why not? "I saw the defendant murder the victim," is perfectly admissible testimony.

Umm, who let you out of Bonfire? Thanks for the link, and I looked at a few, but I ain't buying many of those ideas. As Neal mentioned, we US'ers actually have access to news sources all over the world. I've got my Google homepage populated with all kinds of cool international stuff. I will not deny that some media is not controlled by partisan corps, or that there aren't people with limited scope (Friends watchers) who are not "controlled" by certain media, but hopefully free media is getting better and more and more people are getting turned onto free thinking. Quote from Mikkey I disagreed with a few years ago: "tightly controlled American media" Hardly. This website is part of the media. I suppose that means that Sangiro controls the media. Not too well though as can be seen on this forum.

You're right, if he was my friend, I probably wouldn't call him a scumbag, but he still would be one. It's unconscionable to condone that kind of irresponsible behavior. And make no mistake, by shifting the blame the way the father's doing, he's indirectly absolving what the son did. As I said, anyone could have been killed and it's sheer luck it was only the drunk driver.

It doesn't give him carte blanche to disregard the obvious and complete responsibility his son had for his own death. Drunk, on a cell phone, speeding. It was a miracle he didn't kill anyone else. The father has forfeited his right to sympathy with actions like this.

How do you feel about medical problems caused by obesity then? Or by skydiving for that matter? yep, they can get fucked too

Ratings affect the ability to see movies in the theaters not on TV, so I think the effect on older movies will be negligible. The real effect will be to encourage new movies to keep smoking out of them unless they would otherwise be rated R. I don't see anything particularly wrong with that.

How do you feel about medical problems caused by obesity then? Or by skydiving for that matter?

I think you may be wronmg about this. I think a Tunnel Forum has merit. I'm not convinced about tunnel time in the profile though. At ths same time I can't see how it will do any harm. Tunnel time to me is tunnel time. It's not freefall time but it does say something... (it may say different things to different people) Can we possibly revisit this request? Now that we have a Wind Tunnel forum with some posters who only do tunnel, what's wrong with adding Tunnel Flying to the Disciplines of Choice dropdown? True, tunnel flying doesn't teach anything about canopy control, but neither does CRW teach much about freefall skills. Now that tunnel flying is taking off in a big way, I think it's time to add it as a profile option.

Well, if economic progress refers to how well the head of state improves his own personal economy, Mugabe should be an expert on that.

Assuming this isn't just a troll, that's a very weak argument. Are you suggesting that a criminal going out to rob a bank won't need a gun because there's gun control laws? Or that drug gangs will disarm if they know that Joe Sixpack won't be packing?

And here I thought this was a thread about Guy Wright.

I agree with that. There is much truth to the saying "Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns." However, since this discussion is primarily about mass shootings like VT, shouldn't we be asking ourselves if the perpetrators of indiscriminate mass shootings typically fit the profile of "predatory criminals"? Many of them, including Cho, don't have a prior criminal record. Would Cho have gotten those guns illegally if he wasn't able to legally? Perhaps yes, perhaps no, But if no, then just maybe he would have expressed his sickness in a less lethal way.

As you do, when people put out opinions you don't like.. such as keeping their LEGAL guns that have NEVER been used in a crime? Do you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them? No so whats your point? It's clearer in context.

They're also quieter and more energy efficient, which is nice if you're concerned about the effect on the environment.

I was trying to be polite about this, but if we're supposed to take this at face value, you're either 'twisting the truth' or very ignorant on that subject of statistics. The crime data for England since the ban shows an increase in gun crime, not a decrease. It's too small a delta and sample size to make the kind of conclusions John does, but it's even more outrageous for you to claim the data shows success. Much more likely is that like nearly all gun laws in the US, the ban had no significant effect. All of which continues to beg the question. What would it take, what evidence would you require that would persuade you that there might be some truth to the claim that the UK law was showing some measure of success? Why is that so hard to answer?

The desperate pleas are not coming from my side of the aisle. I have no particular axe to grind in this argument. I happen to like guns and like shooting them. I may own one some day but if so, it won't be because I feel completely defenseless and exposed without one. On the other hand, I can completely understand how someone who had been the victim of a violent crime would feel that way. What does bug me though is when people twist the truth to their agenda. And that comes on both sides of the fence. The righties with their willful disregard of the truth concerning Iraq. The lefties with their willful disregard of the truth concerning Iran. And when there is a clear example of cause and effect coming from the UK in terms of passing a gun control law and having no mass shootings for 10 years afterwards, we just see more of the same. If you want to know whether you're in denial about something, anything, ask yourself the following question, "What specific evidence would I need to persuade myself that the thing I'm so convinced of right now just isn't so?" If you can't answer that question, really answer it, ask yourself why.

Okay, fine. It will take more than time to convince you. We can have another 10, 20, even 50 years of peace in the UK while enduring sporadic Virginia Techs over here. From what you say, it won't make a difference to you. So tell me then, what exactly would it take to show you that a gun control law can have an effect on the frequency of mass shootings? Or is there nothing?

you're not a statistician. and as they said, nothing now precludes another such event. There are millions of guns in England still. The question was never whether we could preclude any occurrence. It's obvious that that isn't possible under any circumstances. The question is "did the UK law have an effect in preventing some mass shootings?" So if you think that it didn't, please answer this question: how much longer do we have to wait before we can say that there has been such an effect?

How do you figure? They had at least two mass shootings within 10 years. As a result, they passed the law in 1997 and there haven't been any mass shootings since. Do we have to wait another 10 years before we say there's an effect? BTW, did you read those links?

Well, it hasn't yet, has it? I don't know. There hasn't been a mass shooting in England since they passed theirs, has there? Say what you want about increased violence, etc., if you're looking for an effect on mass shootings, you've got one. How frequent were the mass shootings before the English lost their guns? Isn't one too many? It took no more than a minute to find two: one in 1987, another in 1996. They passed the firearms bill in 1997.

Well, it hasn't yet, has it? I don't know. There hasn't been a mass shooting in England since they passed theirs, has there? Say what you want about increased violence, etc., if you're looking for an effect on mass shootings, you've got one.

Probably not. But I would travel longer to a recirculating tunnel vs an open system.

If you look at what we know of Cho, it's hard to escape the observation that at least some of his symptoms fall in the latter category. From an early age, he was acutely depressed, terrified of the world around him, and spoke of committing suicide numerous times (no excuse for what he did, of course). I realize that most suicidal people do not externalize their repressed anger the way he did and that they are among the most sympathetic people out there. But that sympathy should not blind us to similarities between the two groups.