jfields

Jib, You are pretty much missing the entire point of what I said. If we don't sell them guns, they wouldn't have them. But putting any restrictions of the flow of weapons is seen as a violation of the prior gun owner's "rights". I didn't say that, and you know it. The unavoidable Nazi Germany analogies will be next. Nope. I didn't say that at all. I knew that was coming. Like clockwork.... The scenario is really fairly improbable. Guns were used to kill people about 45,000 times between 1997 and 2001 and there were only 880 justified firearm uses for self defense in the same time. (FBI stats) So it would probably behoove your argument just to drop the whole self defense issue, because you'd be a lot safer if no private citizens had guns. But that isn't what I'm pushing for. You've hit all the usual pro-gun requirements. Let's try something novel: List some ways that people could own guns more responsibly, and what incentives we could give gun owners to use their weapons safely. You can also feel free to toss out some suggestions on how to more accurately screen potential gun owners to keep the guns out of the hands of those who would (or have) misused them. Instead of harping on the same issues of gun owner's "rights", be a part of the solution. Contribute to the discussion of how to make the country safer from mis-used firearms. I'm not (and haven't been) talking about banning guns, so drop the rebuttals to that. This is about *everyone's* rights, namely, the right not to get shot. How do you propose we safeguard that right?

Nah. It wasn't a retroactive deal, so you don't owe me. I'm just offering it up for the future. http://folding.stanford.edu/download.html Team 31515.

That sounds like such a loaded question. I'm thinking of all the ways saying "yes" could go terribly wrong.

Steve, I think it is okay for people to own guns *responsibly*, but many people don't care at all about either their own safety or of those around them. If it takes some laws (existing, new, revised, whatever) to steer people onto the path of responsibility, then I'm fine with that. No system can ever be perfect, but it could be a lot better than it is. When I wanted a drivers license, I had to go to drivers ed. I had to know some basics and watch the gory "idiot drivers getting hit by trains" videos. I also had to physically demonstrate my aptitude before getting the license. It ought to be at least as hard to buy a handgun as to get a drivers license. If inadvertent child gun deaths are down, as Mike's link says, that's great. But it doesn't change the fact that the number should be zero. It doesn't change the fact that guns are used overwhelmingly to murder. The self-defense role is valid, but miniscule in comparison to the offensive criminal one in which innocent people die. The "only criminals use guns for evil and they don't obey gun laws anyway" argument is also flawed. It totally discounts the "honest citizens" that are always touted in the second amendment discussions, that go legally buy a weapon, buy ammunition, then go and murder someone. They are then lumped with all the other criminals as people that would have done it anyway and excluded as reasons for increased gun control. Things do need to get much stricter. A pro-gun person that is able to see the big picture and be openminded about the future should agree. A nation with better-enforced and stricter gun laws would be much safer. Keeping guns out of the hands of those who can't handle them actually goes a long way to preserve the ability of the responsible folks to continue owning and using firearms.

I'll even throw out an incentive. FREE JUMP TICKET All you have to do is take the top dropzone.com Folding@Home spot away from me. It is a good cause, so I'll chuck in the ticket for whoever gets enough work units to steal the lead. I know one of you geeks out there has access to enough computers to crank up a massive folding farm.

I know Mike was being sarcastic. But I was just pointing out the problems with the "ban ...." retorts that are often used by pro-gun folks, including Mike on occasion. While sarcastic this time, they've been thrown around so often that it gets mind-numbing. The senseless rhetoric gets piled on so deep that it is very easy to write off the whole pro-gun lobby as "those fucking moronic gun nuts", while actually having some justification for doing so. However, that doesn't further the communication or bring up any new approaches that might help with the problems. The goal of the gun lobby should be to work toward compromises that would safeguard the privilege of owning firearms, while improving public safety. I'm on the opposite side of the argument, but I'd be happy to work toward that middleground as well. Where I see a problem is the unwillingness of the gun lobby to make any small step away from their "free, unfettered, unlimited rights to own any damn thing we want according to our second amendment rights, god-damnit" mantra. I agree with you that the big picture is important. That is why the quality of the discussion need to be raised up a notch and nudged into more productive avenues.

Amusing idea. Now, how many pop-up ads do I have to endure while hunting for NSFW pictures of boobies with computers to post for our cause? It would be so much better if we just got some of our lovely folding ladies to take some pictures of their own. After all, a skydiving hottie posed next to a folding farm would be more appropriate for this forum.

Yet another reply that is both useless and meaningless. If you really care about informing people about a drop in gun-related child deaths, refrain from stooping to the usual "ban buckets" arguments. I know your original post in the thread was both documented and rational. Kudos on that. You were only responding to the "melt the guns" comment, but you'd be better off ignoring the post completely. When you start talking about banning or eliminating all the other things, in this case, including water and children's legs, it makes you look like a total moron. I doubt you are one, but that is the way it looks, however sarcastic you are being. Some of us are always willing to get into a rational debate on the issue, but the silly analogies don't contribute at all to the conversation.

Yeah. Like that... for us lazy people. I've always found that the best way to get people to help (with anything) is to make it disgustingly easy on them. I'm glad I could pitch in a little bit. See you there!

No shit. You have some weepy whiney idiots describing how difficult it is to overcome their fears and do some stunt, with professional safety people making sure the whole thing is fine. Like you, I'd pay money to them to be able to try the stunts. Some of them are cool. My wife is a big fan, so sometimes I get sucked in while she is watching, because I want to be with her. Ah, the things we endure for our S.O.'s.

JCeman, I was thinking of the one Kevin did here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=453694#453694 but no big deal. I'll figure it out.

Damn. You are supposed to use toilet paper, not sandpaper. Do I need to send a care package of Charmin to Raeford?

Sorry. Your sly attempt to get me to send you a pair of my underwear as proof so you can add it to your collection has failed.

Wipe? You wipe? Isn't that what underwear is for? Joking!

You mentioned PayPal. You have a link to make it easy for us lazy butts to send you our spare nickels?

Moonbounce church? That could almost get me to be religious.

A little copy editing.... Much better.

Okay, folks. Time to weigh in on "Reality TV" in general.

The same reason Jump for the Cause became Jump for the Boobies. It is because us guys care. Really.

Get our DZ.com folding females to flash for extra processors?

Good catch, Skycat. Mountainman, you just got busted! We expect to see your WUs appearing for us any day now.

Hey, I'm totally safe. I have a Cypres.

So did Dolly the sheep, and look what happened to her!

And now you are calling her easy? Dude, you've got no manners!

Clay, I'm sure you'd have no problem concealing a rocket launcher... until the cavity search.