Syntho-sis

Wasn't there one bank robbery in NY where the bad guys just literally came out and blew the cops away because they had high powered weapons and body armor? Im pretty sure a sniper still put them down...but does anyone know what I'm thinking of? I may have the details a bit off.

Maybe you're thinking of the North Hollywood shootout. Happened back in '97 got alot of press.

Merged post follows:

One of them actually had an AK-47 I think..

A one legged man stands on a Ledge; in his hand is a Wedge. The man falls off the Ledge, loses his Wedge. What happened to it?

Answer: It was broken into a "V"

How did I come to that conclusion using subtraction and simple geometry?

This is a simple puzzle I made up last night...

Merged post follows:

Hint: Pay attention to the in-bold letters..

Yeah, our gun laws are fairly lax now.

It is easy for "criminals" to get guns and commit crimes with them.

 

Do I think a ban on guns us the way to go? Hell no.

And this opinion is based on a little piece of history called "Prohibition" where they outlawed alcohol. People wanted a drink, bad people saw a market, and thus, the bad people grew in power, and people were still getting drunk.

 

So...bad people would still seek guns, good people wouldn't have any, more "bad" people would sell guns to the really bad people, and guns would still be used to commit crimes.

 

A ban does nothing.

 

 

And I partially agree with Bascule. I see no immediate threat from Obama on gun ownership.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Yeah...I've always wondered about that. Maybe because you can do the same thing with a pistol that you can do with an AK-47? And the pistol is easier to find and buy, and prob cheaper? Those might be the reasons.

I pretty much agree with all that..

Pistols are easier to conceal also.

I said that saying the legal ways to obtain guns were unproblematic and that it was only the illegally-obtained guns that are a problem is -in the context of the question whether people should be allowed to have/carry/buy guns in principle- short-sighted. That is because legal and illegal market are probably not independent.

What I did not say, but in effect did mean, is that there would be much less guns illegally bought if there was no legal market. You already mentioned scenarios. Guns are not drugs that a farmer or wannabe-gangster can grow in his backyard. And despite knowing little of US reality I claim that the problem with assault rifles illegally smuggled in from some east-block state is negligible compared to attacks with ordinary pistols.

 

EDIT: To make that clear: Above is not a conclusive statement about my attitude towards legal private gun ownership (but for the record: I value the freedom/right not to be treatened with guns above the freedom/right to own guns). I just say that I think the statement "the legal market is unproblematic" is not correct.

 

 

This attitude comes as a surprise to you?

Depends on the market. The gun market in Rwanda is gonna be a tad bit more "problematic" than the one over here in the U.S.

Not all gun markets are created equal...

And gun-related crime is precipitated by different factors. IMHO

Some years ago I experienced what can fairly be described as a classical transcendent episode (spontaneously triggered by an ecstatic sexual orgasm). Features included a transport in a plasma-like stream of energy- a confrontation with an omnipotent consciousness to choose between returning or accepting death and continuing- annihilation of my corporal and ego selfness- union with a cosmic consciousness of light, bliss and love- and finally returning through a filimentous cord winding down to where it was attached to the top of the head of my "sleeping" body. At the time I was agnostic and totally naive about metaphysical or paranormal events but in an attempt to integrate the experience, researched those subjects plus concepts in Vedantic mysticism. I discovered enough corallary in these various sources to confirm that I had experienced an archetypal mystical event uncontaminated by any of the infinite variety of religious metaphores or occult artifacts that often arise in accounts of this nature.

What kindav boogley bolical crap is this?

Are you sure you weren't high?

 

Where do you get take away your compensation? Or do you mean partly?

 

Secondly, what makes you go out is to prevent your life from becoming utter emptiness. Really, you've never seen the people you could try helping and who'd entirely refuse it? Or the people who don't retire? Or the many people with strongly ingrained ambitions?

 

Do you really need the government to provide motivation? Not that I support communism, but Russia was 2nd in the world in the space race.

 

And China's making headway and becoming a runaway economic juggernaut -- and communism's even supposed to be a more extreme version of socialism. I'm certain though it took real motivation by engineers to nearly match the world's #1 capitalist and fully indutrial nation.

 

So your claims are a wee bit off maybe?

Nope my "claims" are opinions and you are drawing false conclusions.

A council of Taliban leaders decided that Americans shouldn't have guns?

Nope, not even water guns. Remember, the Taliban doesn't believe in "wild and wet fun."

that it is the media simply adopting the word socialism as a scare word like they did with communism or radiation or nuclear rather than an inherent evilness of socialism.

I agree. But I'd be slow to forget that socialism and communism have become very attractive ideologies over the years to some very sinister leaders. Wonder why that is?

I would further state that if I had to make a choice between the two economic systems- Capitalism and Socialism...Or even a hybrid of both...

I know that I'd probably have more than a few people to disagree with me on both sides of the table.

Cheers,

Dunno. Where do the guys selling guns to criminals on the black market (wouldn't that make them criminals, too?) get them? Saying that criminals [people attacking or threatening other people with guns in a way not allowed by the law] get their guns from the black market so legally selling guns is fine sounds a bit like blindly preferring electrical motors over diesel motors because they consume electricity instead of fossil fuel.

What is it you are saying then?

Some criminals may attain guns legally. But most get them by somewhat shady methods.

One misconception people have is that gun criminals often steal the weapons.

This is wrong, nine times out of ten, they'll just have a buddy buy it for them..

This is called straw purchasing. Another way they might weaponry is contact a licensed gun dealer who sales guns illegally at his house. They'll often buy them that way.

Ability to attain guns legally is not the main cause of violent gun related crime. It's the illegal or shady methods that criminals will often use.

Merged post follows:

There probably is a black market for guns just as there is for drugs. While I suspect most guns in this black market are from the US (originally sold by a licensed dealer), there are probably lots of ways these guns go from legal to illegal hands. And there is no realistic way for the law to stop the black market for guns. For example, if you are part of a criminal enterprise shipping in a few tons of cocaine from Columbia, I don't think it would be a big deal to throw in a few guns as well. As long as there are drugs on the black market, there are going to be guns on a similar black market. The solutions for both can't be entirely more laws and harsher penalties (we've seen how well the war on drugs has worked).

 

Yes. This is expressly permitted by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Until there is an amendment to the Constitution repealing the 2nd amendment, Americans will have this right.

Well you have to take into consideration that alot of weapnonry can end up on the black market when a nation goes bankrupt. Sattelite nations ended giving alot of their stuff away. Litterly saling AK-47s for pennies to terrorist organizations.

Remember Afghanistan's big heroin trade? Like you said maybe a few guns get thrown in as part of a deal, then shipped over here. And I don't see the heroin trade slowing down anytime soon. Who's cares that its cold war stuff, most of it never even got used and is still in good condition

I specifically agree that solutions to these problems won't be found in more laws and penalties.

that wasn't the origional topic either.

 

probably time for this thread to die. it served its purpose a few pages ago anyway.

Well can you at least provide us with what conclusions you came to?

(Gigantically) large-scale, not the ones you grew up in or around.

 

 

They make some good points, but ultimately...they're biased against meat eating in any form, plus make claims on how animals feel about death which lack citations and so they might well be pulling it out of their asses.

 

However, who cares? I'm not for or against vegan philosophy. My own research into tracking ANY packaged food down to its source, and how exactly do those responsible slip into bed with government, has convinced me enough to seek real alternatives to that unsustainable/disastrous system.

 

I lived on a farm as well, and they plowed using mules, collected rainwater for drinking, and were organic simply either because they had no access to pesticides, or didn't care to use them. Yet we managed just fine on the 20 acres (or so) of land.

I just thought it was sad that such fallacious arguments were being used to further an agenda such as this.

Is there any rationale at all for deciding not to eat meat or use animal products?

There's been research into the diet of our descendants and it was found at the time our brain the developed the most, vast quantities of protein were being consumed.

It's been speculated that humanoids had more time to think since they weren't spending all their time foraging for veggies.

I've committed a property offense. Theft.^* I got my gun at a local pawn shop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* $0.25 candy bar, when I was 5 years old. I did my time, earned that quarter by cleaning the store owner's car.

Yea but did you take that gun and go shoot your neighbor in the back?

No didn't think so.

My question was "Where do criminals really get their guns?"

"Criminals" being....People who attain guns...then use the guns....as a tool...in order...to commit crimes.

Certain crimes are alot easier to commit with guns, for instance, its much easier to murder your *neighbor* with a gun, than by repeatedly striking his foot with a plastic spoon.

"Criminals" could be definitive of literally millions of different terms. Do criminals get their guns from licensed dealers?

No, I don't think so. Most seem to get their stuff from black market trade. I'll need to find some evidence for that though.

i think this thread has gone so far off topic that its in danger of leaving the galaxy.

haha..seriously...

Here, I'll put us back on topic.

Socialism sucks!

If you take away my compensation what makes me wanna go out and be successful? The good of my neighbor? To "help" the government?

Haha yea right...

I guess we're pretty much all criminals then. Has anyone never jaywalked?

Actually I'm sure there is at least one person on here who hasn't jaywalked.

For the purposes of this discussion though, I'm referring to criminals who commit fatal offenses, personal offenses, property offenses, and Participatory offenses.

Define "criminals."

I guess the short answer would be, a person who commits crime.

So there's been all this talk lately about whether or not gun rights are in jeopardy with our current congress and president running things.

My question has more to do with: Should Americans be allowed to own and use firearms?

And is the ability to acquire firearms the main cause of gun-related crimes in this country?

Where do criminals really get their guns?

Proper Manuscript Format

 

a lot of paragraphs all missing capital letters punctuation and double spaces is way more difficult to read even if spelled correctly

 

Peeling gar

 

And that's just for starters It applies to many things.

 

 

The one working most of the time is the one done the smart way and taking many variables into account while maintaining simplicity and elegance....

 

Good kitchen skills.

Organization habits.

Cover letter on a resume.

Work smarter, not harder.

 

Plus even the way our very scienceforums.net is far more neatly and intuitively organized than many forums around the web.

Even going back and reading the previous posts I'm having trouble understanding how this is at all relevant to "What's wrong with socialism?"

Seems to me the discussion has drifted into topics of Theoretical psychology and.....garlic.

Can someone please explain the relevance?

Does anybody here know of a program (doesn't necessarily have to be freeware) that would allow me to compose music on my PC (not Mac)? But I'm looking for something along the lines of GarageBand, which can make "real" music (piano, guitar, etc.). On second though, if you do know of a good "unreal" music maker, post the name as well...but I'm primarily looking for a "real" music player. Thanks.

 

EDIT: I just found out about Overture, but I'm not sure if it also plays back music, or if it's just for writing. They also have something called "Garritan Personal Orchestra", but I'm not sure if that's a program or just a big collection of samples.

Friend of mine uses Floops to make music..Awesome program..Expensive though

Oh and think you kind sir for acknowledging my apology. I'll remember to be extra civil to you next time...

Now theres an idea....pay no attention to what socialism really means, just look at it from a utopian perspective....and trust your government to never let it evolve into a full blown economy killing albatross.

Ever give a thought to the poor masses of this country? Of course, the masses aren't poor; on a global and historical scale, they're moderately wealthy and getting more so year on year. Socialism is grounded in the Nineteenth century concepts of poor exploited workers so let's pretend for the sake of argument that they really are poor and plentiful. Oh, and trapped there. There’s no fluidity in this imagining unlike the real world. The standard argument runs: how do we help these people? We give them wealth. Where do we get the wealth? From the government. Where does the government get the wealth? From the rich. Where do the rich get the wealth? From exploiting the poor. So the money runs a cycle back to its rightful source.

http://philtforpontefract.blogspot.com/2007/05/socialism-doesnt-work.html

The question I believe was.. "What's wrong with socialism?"

Hybrids does not equal pure socialism. Lots of things are born out of even more expansive ideas and concepts. You keep what works, not the additional garbage that has been packed on by hundreds of years worth of morons thinking they know what is right for the people.

And a note on morality i.e. Greed.

Greed has absolutely nothing to do with if capitalism/socialism works or not. Greed will always exist, doesn't matter what form of economic organization we use.

Merged post follows:

Most realistically (for now)? It's a threat to a power structure's dependants: the thieves and greedies who demand no interference by authorities or public leveraging of fairness onto their schemes.

The Founding Fathers created government to provide Justice, not fairness.

Certainly, we created math it did not come from some heavenly kingdom.

We didn't 'create' math in the sense of the word.

This entire thread is preposterous...

But why would you need a 'relevant secular reason' to 'oppose' same sex marriage, if opposition is just a statement of opinion?

Interesting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

An opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence. It is normally a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.

To be frank, I'm willing to call it. There are none to be had.

 

All we are left with are the religious, irrational, and unquestioned learned reasons.

Agreed.

just because the topic isn't interesting to you does not meanit isn't interesting to anyone else.

 

if you want to discuss something you're interested in then you are welcome to start your own thread.

It's only an interesting discussion in that it's relevant to the question asked by the OP, so far no one has been able to answer that question.

Otherwise we're just going off topic, which is what we've been doing for the last several posts.

The question raised is an interesting one, but is not the question asked here.

 

We're looking for the motives behind people's opposition to gay marriage. The claim is that those opposition views stem from religious concepts OR are inconsistent, and we are trying to see if there's any such position that is secular and rational.

 

It has nothing to do with allowing or disallowing, but with opposing and supporting. The allowing and disallowing aspect can come later, after we figure out if there's any reason to oppose such an idea, we cna talk about whether or not we should keep disallowing it despite of majority (or rather apparent majority).

Haven't all the reasons been ruled out? Several times by now?

Why not discuss the more interesting topic anyway?

No secular reasoning exists for opposing SSM. IMHO