jfields

Fair enough. I think that is a place we can continue to disagree, in a civil fashion. Even with that difference, I think we can both agree that it is in our best interest to find ways to reduce crime, accidental firearm deaths and the number of guns in the hands of criminals. Those objectives suit us both. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-10.xls

Can you say... Betamax?

Sadly, that is true as well. Only when you are, Mike, only when you are. Feel the love.

That is true, as I acknowledged already. That is why I suggested we leave out the hypotheticals in both directions and stick to the facts. If you are not a police officer, and you kill someone with a firearm, what reasons would it be ruled justified? I disagree. If one person could be saved by having a .... (fill in the blank), ... should be available to everyone, no matter how many other inadvert deaths it causes. Lets try: grenade tank opiate nerve agent The logic quickly falls apart, because the damage to society is too great. The options of the individual are not unlimited where they interfere with the rights of others.

Actually, I wasn't saying that, even though in some small percentage, it will be true. What I was saying is that people don't like violent crime involving firearms. You can address that a number of ways. Reduce the number of firearms, reduce the number of criminals on the street, or both. Personally, I prefer both. Let's start small and work our way up. Why don't you show me how to prevent accidental deaths caused by legally-owned guns, then we'll deal with the criminals next. I did already say we should do a better job of enforcement.

I've found RealPlayer to be generally unreliable across a number of machines and platforms. To date, I've also never found any worthwhile content that was only available in that format. So I've never bothered following up and re-installing it.

Incorrect. That was just firearms. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-17.xls There is a huge difference. It is like putting a Cypres in your rig and saying it saved your life, even though you've never had a malfunction. Until you go through the event (burglary, holdup, or skydiving malfunction) without the tool, you can't know that it saved you. Maybe you would save yourself, or the problem would go away. We can look at actual events one way or the other. How many people are murdered with firearms? How many people kill (or even wound, if you can find stats) with firearms in self-defense? Simple posession of the weapon is not conclusive evidence that the outcome would have been different in its absence. But this is really a minor side point to what I was getting at in the end of my prior lengthy post.

Where have all the righties gone? Please tell me I didn't kill this thread by posting something so sensible that you agree with me. Or are you all busy reloading?

How is that going? No. You still owe beer. Homebrew beer. Deliverable to Justin Fields.

Isn't that also called lacrosse?

Most I've spent on beer.... Do you mean one single beer, or one trip to the beer store? Single beer: about $8 for some really obscure good beers Trip to store: about $250 for a lot of really good beers, mostly Belgian I'm getting ready to make a Hazelnut Brown Ale and a batch of mead.

Gee... where to start? PhillyKev, We have collectively been around and around on that one in the forums. I disagree that there is a constitutional right to the unlimited access to firearms that the NRA and other gun lobbyists claim. The Supreme Court generally agrees with me. We won't get anywhere on that issue. If the NRA were right, mandatory waiting periods, concealed carry applications, handgun purchase limits and other things would all be declared unconstitutional. They haven't been, because those things don't violate the second amendment. I said times that the firearms were used, no just brandished or mentioned. That is the number of "justified homicides". So that is different than the total amount of deterence. But the number does not include police usage, just civilian. So the numbers stand valid as described. The number people murdered with firearms is 50 times higher than the number of bad people (burglars, criminals, etc.) killed by citizens in self-defense. It is both. I've lived right outside Washington DC for over 30 years. In that whole time, I have known one single person that has been confronted with a gun. He owns a jewelry store. The store was held up. He did not fight the robber. The robber took the money and left. Actually, had my friend resisted, the store's insurance wouldn't have covered the damages, not to mention that he would probably be dead. The policies are written to exclude damages caused after any resistance by the store owner. The insurance companies consider the financial liablity and chance of policyholder death to be significantly higher if they resist. Bill2, I disagree. Let's stick to the tangible facts. As I mentioned above to Kevin, the FBI stats show a 50:1 ratio of murders to justifiable homicides in self-defense. You mention the times when showing a weapon saved people's lives. That is unprovable, so let's dismiss it. You can't know what the outcome would have been had they not had the gun because it didn't happen. People also claim that reduced firearm ownership wouldn't stop any criminals from murdering with other weapons. Also unproveable. To be fair, I won't claim that none of them would find other ways. The truth is somewhere in the middle. But if you toss out all the wild guesses, you are left with that factual concrete 50:1 ratio. It is hardly an overwhelming justification for firearm ownership. I'm not saying responsible people shouldn't be able to own firearms. Not at all. I'm just saying that we should be realistic in our assessment of how they will be used and why you really want them. Saying, "I think they are cool and I like blowing up targets at the range" is perfectly honest. Having used firearms in the military, I agree with that. They are cool, and using them (safely) is fun. Let's just be straightforward with our reasonings. You go on some about the discrepancies between treatment of "Hollywood" people and "regular" people in terms of treatment by police regarding firearms. I don't know the facts about the actors you mention, but I don't really care either. I agree with you. Whatever laws we have should be equally and impartially enforced. They deserve no special treatment or exceptions. BillVon, Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes! Everyone else, pay attention. What Bill said, until I'm blue in the face. No longer just to Bill... I'm far from a radical representative of the left. I'm actually pretty close to the middle. In this particular forum, I haven't honestly seen much of the far left. The far right is well represented. It frustrates me that both extremes are completely blind to the reality of the situation. A complete gun ban is both impractical and unjust. Unlimited gun ownership is equally silly. The way I see things, we are a little to the right (too much access) of where we should be. Gun control does need to be stricter. That goes hand in hand with tougher penalties for people misusing firearms, and on criminal behavior in general. Better education would help the situation greatly, by reducing the number of people who see crime as their only option. Better laws and tighter gun control actually help the rights of gun owners. By having a sharper division between law-abiding citizens with guns and criminals with guns, the latter get punished harder and become less common. This leaves the honest folks with fewer negative associations in the minds of people that don't own guns. Instead of defending every possible gun issue unequivocally, gun advocates should be striving hard to improve gun safety and reduce the criminal uses of firearms. Rather than fighting for easy private sales and resisting government efforts to close gun show loopholes and the like, gun advocates should be doing everything they can to reduce the flow of weapons into the criminal realm. Not even counting morality or decency, they should do all these things out of self-interest. When the body counts decrease, people have less hostility toward gun owners and you'd find you wouldn't have to be on the defensive all the time. You would be amazed how little people care one way or the other about guns when it ceases being a practical concern to them and their families. The opposition you face would drop directly with the drop in firearm violence. Note that I'm not saying a drop in firearm ownership, just violence. When people stop getting shot, the huge middle range of national opinion would cease caring. A few folks on the far left will always complain, but not enough to hinder your use of your firearms. The future of your firearm ownership rests on your ability to use them responsibly and to support measures that keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The nature of our country has changed in the last 300 years. Few people rely on firearms for their daily food, to defend against wild animals or to repel foriegn invaders. Instead of being a standard part of nearly every home, they are moving to be a luxury item owned in more concentrated numbers by a smaller percentage of the population. With the changing of cultural standards and the reduction of actual need, the gradual tide is shifting against widespread firearm ownership. The best way to protect your use of firearms in the shifting future is to minimize the associated negative repercussions of firearms. That is the battle you should be fighting.

What aspect? The spare computer power, the project, the client program, or something else?

Good point!

If you wanna go that way.... Don't make me insult your folding farm, you wannabe!

No. If I'd PhotoShopped the computer, rig and naked chick to look right, then I'd be a geek.

Only if their name is Justin! Otherwise, how will we ever get our record certified?

If you get them all folding, you'll definitely take my spot.

Always do the custom install. That applies to damn near any software.

Well.... I could use the exercise anyway. Seriously, I was just clarifying that her hypothetical situation would in fact reduce crime. That seems pretty obvious. I'm not advocating it, just saying, "Yep, if nobody could afford guns, there would be less gun crime."

Doesn't Perris already have a Skyvan?

Mike, What Wendy said is true. If I had a Ferrari, I'd take great care of it and know where the keys were at all times. Nobody would be out joyriding my car. But I can't afford one, so I don't have that issue. Is the cost of a Ferrari unconstitutional because it limits my right to own and drive a fast Italian car? If working hard and being responsible can get you some of the things you like in life, then maybe I'll end up with one someday. To get there, I'll have to be responsible and law-abiding along the way. If guns were a lot more expensive, the same would be true. I'm not saying I think prices should be raised, but I am agreeing with Wendy's analysis of the economics and societal impact. She is right, whether you (or the NRA) like it or not.

True, but there could be a world of improvement in the discouragement of use. Better enforcement and tougher laws would help. Note that I mean anti-criminal measures, not anti-gun ones. Agreed. Education level is a major factor in crime reduction. We could do a lot of good there, especially in the inner cities. True, in many ways. Firearms have turned up in elementary schools, brought in by the kids. They have brought them from home. The kids aren't responsible, the parents are. But clearly they are failing their duty there, and putting all the people in the school at risk. That isn't right.

3 teraflops Otherwise known as "fast enough to be somebody's bitch for".

Here is a picture of a naked chick with a rig and a computer. Enjoy!