SudsyFist

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1896499#1896499

I think both are plenty fine. The former provides insight from outside the U.S., which really can't ever hurt -- those with ruffled feathers should just choose to ignore it if it bothers them so much. The latter is just as helpful, as it provides real-world examples of what it's like when some of the variables, such as culture or law, are different -- again, if reviewed and discussed objectively, it couldn't ever hurt either, regardless of whose position the data supports. I know I, myself, have learned a lot from both contributions to many domestic debates, not only here, but also from other sources, as well. EDIT: Euthanized stray prepostion.

Pretty much what I was saying there (falls under "other scenarios"). That's gold right there, and it applies in a ton of areas. Couldn't agree with you more. I'll look into what you subsequently posted. Sounds like good reading. Again, in total agreement. *looking out my window for pigs on the wing*

And here you are, the consummate jedi master of the written word, using "hear" instead of "here" whilst flinging accusations about suppressed homosexual tendencies at others. A bit edgy, perhaps? Tell me about your mother...

My mom used to slip me acid in my before-bed-snack when I'd steadfastly refuse to "see God." I subsequently became a devout and loyal Christian. Good thing the flashbacks finally stopped: I feel like I can finally kill again. We gotta get outta here! Yeah... before he lets loose the marmosets on us! Don't worry, little missie... I'll save you!!!

Billy... DUDE! I just awoke from the coolest dream!!! We were doing karaoke together: my selection being a lovely ballad by Air Supply. The song begins, but somehow the machine starts spitting out Springsteen lyrics on the prompter. And on cue, you go off, belting out some serious 80's beer-and-peanuts rock 'n roll, totally in macho-denim-vest character over the somber piano-and-strings coming over the PA to which you're completely oblivious. And the crowd cheered you on. That was the coolest dream I've had since the one where billvon was giving me a ride to the DZ in his new H2... and I was naked!

Head-up flying is incredibly versatile. With your knees below you, for example, you can fly with a either a vertical (fast) or angled (slow) torso, depending on the nature of the dive. See my post on another thread for more info on the differences.

Playing with those mem'ries again...

Its simple really ... its little head thinking for the big head... how many vigins are the mullahs promising these fucktards when they get to heaven??? Wanna bet that in "heaven" sexuality is not high on the dieties list of things for the faithful;?? Why does it seem that many assume that the virgins thing is really a motivating factor for their actions? Considering the fundamentalism which spurns their extremist actions to begin with, I thought it was just a joke...

How many does it take to make a handful? We already know that waiting periods have killed a 'handful' of women with ineffective restraining orders against their ex'es. Excellent point. You're right, but I still think it would be worthwhile to conduct a study into the various scenarios to come up with an educated guess and an idea of how to strike a balance, though, accurate measurements notwithstanding.

Dude, you've got mad makeup skillz! I'll letcha know next time I do Rocky...

Remember that time i tried to make you eat a cookie? Fondly. I'm sooooo not a cookie prude anymore...

If Martin did issue such a statement, then a retraction is definitely in order: kind words from an RCMP Staff on shift at the precinct ain't enough.

I think that people willing to commit felony crimes with guns, like aggravated assault, robbery and murder, don't give a second thought to some minor inconvenience like a gun ban. Why should they worry about a slap on the wrist for illegal possession of a gun, when they're committing crimes worth a decade or more of hard prison time? I agree with you up to a point: where people either already have the illegal guns and decide to use them to commit other crimes, or are planning a crime (such as a robbery) which requires guns, and will get them one way or the other. When I consider other scenarios, such as crimes of passion or maybe where an otherwise ordinary citizen falls prey to temptation of one sort or another, it seems to me that existing gun laws probably reduce (not bar outright) availability of guns to a point where it may just prevent *some* gun crime. If the red tape (read: mere nuisance) saves a handful of lives (EDIT: research would be appropriate, if not already conducted), I'm down. Are you? I've mentioned before that I think our criminal justice system makes a laughing stock of much of our body of law: penalties are mostly pittances. Until our culture evolves to a point where people are see the law as something to abide for what it stands (rather than just the consequences), I feel we need to up the stakes somehow so that the penalties serve as a more effective deterrent. Exactly how to do so, however, is another topic. EDIT: Added a note above.

That sounds like "You're Only Human." And I'm no huge Billy Joel fan. So suck it.

COOKIE DIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am an... anarchist

What the fuck are robster craws?

Was Bedrock on Thursdays?

A what now? A gabbernaut.

My bad. I was focusing on the "...at this time it only appears to be Islam that promotes it."

You a gabbernaut?

Awesome point. Hypocrisy sucks ass.

Well, it seemed just a few years ago that only Christianity supported the idea of a spaceship riding behind a comet to whisk the faithful to heaven, no? (link) It's silly to assume that the Islam supports terrorism because fringe elements, or even whole nations, do so in its name. We have plenty of examples of such in Christianity, both current and in history, where it's plainly evident that the doctrine of the faith was twisted by people to achieve specific ends, often political. As sad as it sounds, the vast majority of people are sheep to one extent to another, and very much influenced by the presence of a strong shepherd, whether it be a cult leader, a musician, or a name brand. If free-thinking could propagate on a vector of some prolific sort, such as mosquitos or cheeseburgers, I'd sing to the ensuing epidemic, "Ooooh, Heaven is a place on Earth." EDIT: Punctuation. EDIT EDIT: Spelling. *ugh*

Agreed. But it's worthy to note that the presence of the law and the consequences of violating it *may* reduce (not eliminate) the committing of the act in question, depending on a variety of factors, of course. If we determined the success of a law in a black-or-white fashion based upon whether it completely eliminated a specific behavior, then by and large law would be declared a complete failure. But that just doesn't make sense, now, does it?