jfields

Clay, if you use "Thanks" instead of "Thank you", you can free up one of your available 25 words for another part of the female anatomy you might otherwise miss. I leave the selection of what part, and what word, up to you.

Gerb, As sophisticated consumers, how do the ladies know they'll be getting anything worthwhile? If all they wanted was a mediocre roll in the sack, they could get that for free. < Not interested in the mentioned services, but just instigating trouble. >

It's the American way!

Substitute $2607 and do the math again. It becomes financially unreasonable to do most medical procedures, much less providing expensive safety margins. If we can get more aggressive lawyers to squash the value down a little bit more, then we can make an economic case for discontinuing pesky things like vaccinations, safety goggles and health insurance. We'll just take our chances and pay the folks that croak. With all the savings, our economy will be booming! Forgot the smiley to indicate the sarcasm that should be obvious.

[Continued Sarcasm] You're funny NacMac! Value on of human life. Bwahaha. In the initial settlement between Union Carbide and the Indian government over the Bhopal incident, the value per human life was $2607. And that was an accident that killed and disabled 6520 people. If we are more selective in who we kill, we can easily drive the cost per victim down well below the expected increase in economic benefit here at home. It is all about return on investment. Any business student could tell you that! Financial Settlement / People Killed = CPB (Cost per body) If CPB < ROI (Return on Investment) per American factory worker, then start the bombing! Why do you make this whole thing seem complicated? [/Continued Sarcasm]

Depends. [Sarcastic cynicism] We just need to be more selective in who/what we fight. We need to use cheap non-selective bombs to blow up the Chinese factories making inexpensive consumer goods that flood our country and undercut our factories. Bombing Japanese car factories would also be a pretty good move, to reduce the flood of damned inexpensive reliable imports and spur economic rebound in Detroit. While we are at it, we should bomb lots of high-tech weapons sites in hostile countries, so we can sell them replacement parts at inflated prices. [/Sarcastic cynicism]

Dave, I agree with you (mark down the date). Fundamental legal change should be slow moving and somewhat ponderous, to keep the pendulum from swing too far too fast at any given time. Yes, prohibition was a mistake. As I said, the system isn't perfect. But I think it works pretty well.

I disagree. The government is supposed to be by the people, of the people and for the people. I'm not saying that we should have a popular vote every other day for some random issue to let the mob rule. That is why we have checks and balances to guide the lawmaking process down a sensible path while still doing the will of the people. I'm not saying it is a perfect system, but it generally works pretty well in the long run. Laws should be susceptible to reasoned and gradual debate. The will of the people is important, and should be able to change laws. It abolished slavery and gave women the right to vote, among other things. The Constitution allows for this gradual change in Article V, which allows for amendments. These reflect the people, in that they are passed by the houses of government and subject to ratification of states, all by elected officials.

I'm fine most of the top ten list, with the exception of Princess Diana. Other than look good and give birth to the heir to the throne, what did she really do? Yeah, yeah, the whole ban landmines thing. You know, it is really easy to take up some charitable causes when you can live in a palace, have a government allowance and don't need to work for a living. Her intellectual advances to society? Her great leadership in time of crisis? Her contribution to culture or the arts? I kind see the answer to the above questions as "negligable". But I admit that she had better boobies than the rest of the top ten list. I'm kind of partial to Churchill, Newton and Shackleton.

I'm the one mentioned in the thread, and I'm still wondering that myself....

As long as you only fry/inject the guilty ones, I'd have to agree that it would definitely reduce crime. Right now, lots of people where I live are wishing Maryland didn't have a moratorium on capital punishment.

Kallend can certainly speak for himself, but I would assume his point is a refutation of the often-asserted "fact" that a substantial degree of private firearm ownership contributes to a lower crime rate. In specific, people had quoted the alleged drop in crime after the initiation of a concealed carry law. But that is just my assumption about what he means..

And that separates you from the "thugs" you are worried about in what way? Isn't it the courts of our country that decide what is right and what is wrong for our country? We vote and serve on juries as our part of those decisions. Bank robbers and rapists think the same way. If each person is entitled to act in any way they want, who is to judge if you refute the jurisdiction of our court system and laws? Nobody? Do you truly think anarchy is better than democracy?

I agree with almost all of this. I have decided that guns are not right for me. I may not decide whether they are or are not right for you. It is not my place. It is your choice, provided that the courts grant you that choice. We both have an indirect say in that issue, by how we vote.

And what kind of movie was this? Oh, you said trench coat, not rain coat. Well, maybe it still applies...

Me too. I'll probably always be taking some class or working toward some certification or the other, whether work related or not. Right now, I'm doing work related computer stuff, because the boss is footing the whole bill for it. After that, I'll probably get an MBA, also at his expense. Then after that, who knows. When you are learning because you want to be learning, it is easy. That didn't describe me at age 18, but I've come around to that opinion. Now I feel like if I go too long without a class, my brain starts to atrophy.

What the hell do you know? You are just mad that they wouldn't issue you a license to marry a sheep.... or did they?

Well, while I'm in this thread I might as well put my stats in the mix. I've been married for 3 1/2 years so far, with a 6-month old daughter. I was a paratrooper before I met her, but didn't take up civilian skydiving until afterwards. I don't know if it is true or not, but it seems like the divorce rate is way higher among skydivers than whuffos.

I sense a great deal of impending nig-noggery! Sorry about the news, but I'm sure it will work out well in the end.

No. Neither cars nor skydiving equipment are made with the primary function of ending human life. I don't see that the analogy holds up. If you aren't prepared to take a life, there is no reason to own a firearm for self defense, which you must know, as you continue to say, That clause depends on your judgement, which might disagree with my judgement. But if you use a gun as an extension of your judgement, which is not infallible, you risk killing an innocent person. To carry a weapon and be prepared to use it under ANY circumstance acknowledges this risk. It is a risk I am not willing to take with another person's life. You may not. Others may. As Kallend said, people can cross the line for the briefest second, just once, and an innocent person is dead, and a law-abiding citizen is now a criminal. I don't see that I am forcing my opinions any more than you are in the other direction. I think I'm actually being pretty moderate. I'm not for a uniform ban on all firearms. I've not said some people ought not be allowed to carry them. I just don't see the correlations that Firearms=Freedom or Firearms=Safety. Needless to say, I disagree. Hopefully, you don't feel strongly enough about it to shoot me.

I have little faith in the saying, "Might makes right". Because someone is bigger or better armed than I am does not make them right. Empowering this mentality is a step backwards in our development as a race. And by that I don't mean color, nationality or religion. I mean the human race. As for faith in people, I have a lot, but I also understand human nature. Good people make mistakes. I have not lived a perfect life, nor has anyone in this forum. Given that some number of people will make their mistakes with firearms at the expense of other people's lives, I do not see the point in encouraging this behavior by promoting gun ownership. As for faith in human humanity, I'm not the one walking around prepared to take another human life. I am not walking around with the belief that my judgement is so flawless that I may be cavalier in determining whether another person may live or die. I believe I have evolved from the apes to use the power of my brain, not the speed of my index finger on a trigger.

>Take away a gun, and you take away the best way to keep yourself >safe. As Bill said in different words, the best way to keep yourself safe is to use your head, not a gun. I'd go so far as to say that a gun instills a false sense of confidence and a measure of bravado that is as likely to get a person killed as save them in a confrontation scenario. That isn't statistically based, just my opinion. The line between law abiding citizens and "thugs" is also nowhere near as clear as these types of statements imply. A scared, enraged or careless law abiding citizens is a trigger pull away from being a criminal and therefore a "thug". Some people have iron-clad control of their emotions and would never use a firearm without sound reason. While being "good people", others are not so self controlled. Where they might scream, fume and maybe throw a punch, posession of a handgun in the same circumstance could leave them in the position of having committed a crime. The idea that the good and bad are clearly divided by some uncrossible moral line is false. Providing easy access to firearm for law-abiding citizens does not insure that they are not used by that individual in a crime. At that point, it is a little late for the victim, and the advocates of firearm ownership dissavow that circumstance, because the person that did the shooting was "a criminal". The biggest frustration I have with the entire gun control debate is the subterfuge and evasion. Rather than hiding behind the second amendment, comparisons to China and debateable or irrelevant statstics, try calmly and rationally discussing the issues. I've seen a remarkable avoidance of sensible dialogue. As I said way earlier in the thread, I think it has a lot to do with the "slippery slope scenario". The thought of any restriction, no matter how logical, brings up the hackles of gun owners and puts them into a defensive posture that allows no compromise. This very stubborness fuels the paranoid folks on the other side of the issue. I'm somewhere in the middle, but I have to give the hard-headeness award to the pro-gun lobby. By continuing to back themselves into an "all-or-nothing" corner, diehard gun advocates are in denial about the societal changes that are leaving them farther and farther in the minority. I'm not in that camp, but as a pretty moderate gun control supporter, I see compromise as their best plan. (Bill, not directed at you. Just replying to your post.)

Bill, I don't even see that the second amendment guarantees the right for most citizens to bear arms. I went through that way earlier in the thread, including the court cases and Supreme Court opinions substantiating the view. However, I agree that even the most conservative court interpretations still don't mention anything about guaranteed anonymity. I have yet to see any valid documentation supporting that concept. It honestly perplexes me why there is such an objection to it.

Oh, the horror! Believe it or not, it happens occasionally that we agree on things. If you really want the definition of a snowball's chance in hell, I'd say it is AggieDave and I agreeing about gun control.

Very clever!