Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTA: San Andreas gets AO rating! - Page 2

Last response: in Video Games
Share
July 21, 2005 11:13:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Bill Cable" <billcable@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121956081.026792.156320@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Boody Bandit wrote:
>>
>> Don't you have to only be 18 to purchase adult movies?
>> Why not just change the rating to M18 and be done with it?
>> M17 never made sense to begin with.
>
> Because Walmart and Target will sell games with a M "suggested" for 17+
> players, but you put an "adult" label on it and they won't touch it
> with a 10-foot pole. It's the same way they'll sell R-rated movies,
> but not porn.
>
> After seeing video of the hot coffee minigame, putting an AO rating on
> the game is just ridiculous. If it were a less popular game, this
> whole thing wouldn't raise an eyebrow. It's all just politics...
> Hillary going out and trying to look like she's protecting your little
> kids from the big evil video game business.
>
> --
> Bill Cable - Steelers Fan & Star Wars Collector
> http://CreatureCantina.com <----- funny!


The worrying thing being that, the sort of parents dumb enough to buy little
8 year old Johnny this game are the same dullards who will believe H R
Clinton (or should that be HRH Clinton?).

A bit OT, I tried reading her autobiography and found her one of the most
pompous self obsessed people I have ever encountered.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 11:17:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Ethan Hammond <eshammond@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I wonder why this game was singled out when things like
> having a naked playable Kasumi in DOA2 way back in
> the days of the DC were not. Maybe GTA is too popular
> for its own good.

Good point.

Furthermore, you can see the girls mostly naked (with strategic parts
covered with stars) without any hackery whatsoever in the DOA volleyball
game. I'm surprised that didn't get the game an AO...
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 11:21:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Schrodinger <no@way.com> wrote:

> The worrying thing being that, the sort of parents dumb enough to buy little
> 8 year old Johnny this game are the same dullards who will believe H R
> Clinton (or should that be HRH Clinton?).

Yes, they are one and the same. I remember shortly after Columbine, there
was a committee of concerned parents asking congress to regulate the video
game industry because they( the parents!) were admitting they couldn't
possibly keep up with what their children were playing! Yes, these people
were literally asking the government to raise their children for them! It
made me sick.

Yet, how many times have you been browsing the video game area of your
favorite store, only to see one of these clueless idiot parents buying GTA
or some other inappropriate game for their child? Doom3 for my 6 year
old? Don't mind if I do! Gahh!
Related resources
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 11:25:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:08:35 -0000, Doug Jacobs
<djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:

>In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Schrodinger <no@way.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) This fuss has appeared as sales for PS2 must have all but died and we
>> have gone past the intial rush of PC sales.
>
>Yeah, but this whole thing is going to renew interest in the game across
>all platforms.
>
>> 2) Wal Mart will not stock the game with this rating. This is a major blow.
>
>Maybe. So people will go to Wallmart, find out they don't stock the game,
>and will go elsewhere. Bottom line - people will still buy the game. If
>not from Wallmart, then from somewhere else or on the internet.

Not just Wal-Mart. Target. BestBuy. Each of their Web sites. The other
big box retailers will do the same. None will stock an AO-rated game.
It's going to be difficult to find a copy for awhile at least.

I was in the Mall of America this week. A year ago there were three PC
game stores, including an EB. Today there are none.

Take Two yesterday, following the announcement, called its net sales
numbers down by $10 million ($170 million to $160 million.) In
addition, Rockstar is going to have to rework the code to remove
everything that makes it "AO" and is going to re-issue, at great
expense, a "new M" version later this year. That doesn't sound like a
situation where they planned this and will made bucks due to the
controversy.

Put up a brave face, but this is a disaster for Rockstar and the
industry. The ratings scrutiny will now force publishers to submit
final code farther in advance for more extensive QA examination by the
rating board, slowing down launches and increasing launch costs.

"On Wednesday, the Rating Board also announced changes in its
requirements to determine game ratings. The board will now require all
game publishers to submit any pertinent content in the final product
even if it is not intended to be used, or else remove it from the
final disc before submitting it.

"The publishing community is now on notice that in the future any
content on that disc -- if it's pertinent to a rating, then it must be
submitted," Vance said.

She acknowledged that the move to re-rate a game was highly unusual
and said it stems from the unique modification to "Grand Theft Auto:
San Andreas."

"This has obviously highlighted a number of issues for us about
third-party modifications and where the responsibility for the
publisher begins and ends," she said."

http://www.startribune.com/stories/789/5517490.html

Steve


--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 9:31:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Zackman" <zackman@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote in message
news:t4mdnQN9_9lRoX3fRVn-oA@giganews.com...
> RKRM wrote:
>
>> Isn't wierd that some dude just happened to figure out how to unlock
>> the content? Riiiigggggghhhhht. It was done intentionaly and now they
>> are getting MASSIVE pub. Just the kind of pub a game like this wants.
>
> And what about Take Two cuttung its earnest forecast by nearly $50 million
> (not sure if that's for the quarter or the fiscal year) based solely on
> the fact GTA:SA now has an AO rating? It is not "good publicity" to have
> your game no longer being sold at some of the country's biggest retailers,
> and to have to go through the expense of reissuing a new version in the
> hopes they'll carry it again. (Walmart has said they're not even going to
> commit to carrying the revised M version once it's available.)
>
> -Z-

O.K. Maybe it backfired on them but I still find it impossible that some
anonomous dude just happened upon the hidden content.
>
>
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 9:34:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> What's your point beyond solidifying the opinion people have of you as a
> Mooreon?

It is worth mentioning that spastic use of an adjective often hides (to put
it compassionately) the unability to put together some coherent thinking.

Like "Lieneith 9/11". One can accuse Moore to present only facts relevant to
his point of view (shooting himself in the knee, since one of Moore
arguments is that the basically media do the same) - but Moore was never
caught *lying* in his movies - the closest thing to it being when he put the
St. Petersburg Times logo over a reader's letter with a different date that
the day when the piece was published (something that, give the ruckus it
caused, speaks volumes about the total failure to expose other "lies" - not
that this stops the anti-Mooreons to neurotically repeat that he is a liar).
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 12:17:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Vincenzo Beretta" <reckall@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6KZDe.32033$b93.61@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>> What's your point beyond solidifying the opinion people have of you as a
>> Mooreon?
>
> It is worth mentioning that spastic use of an adjective often hides (to
> put
> it compassionately) the unability to put together some coherent thinking.
>
> Like "Lieneith 9/11". One can accuse Moore to present only facts relevant
> to
> his point of view (shooting himself in the knee, since one of Moore
> arguments is that the basically media do the same) - but Moore was never
> caught *lying* in his movies - the closest thing to it being when he put
> the
> St. Petersburg Times logo over a reader's letter with a different date
> that
> the day when the piece was published (something that, give the ruckus it
> caused, speaks volumes about the total failure to expose other "lies" -
> not
> that this stops the anti-Mooreons to neurotically repeat that he is a
> liar).

Except in Roger and Me where he showed events out of context and sequence.
It cost him an Oscar nomination. I had to study Michael Moore to get my
Film Minor.

--
All Purpose Culture Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 2:27:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote

> Maybe not but it is a start. How many people die in the US ever year from
> guns?

How many people dies from knifes in Canada? You seem to be of some strange
mental state that makes you think that touching a gun turns you into a
homicidal maniac that will go out and kill someone. It's laughable. I bet
on the other hand you will burb till you're blue that videogames don't cause
violence. Ironic.

People kill people. A gun is simply a tool. If they didn't have a gun,
they'd use a knife, poison, etc. It's the knee-jerk pinko reaction to ban
the symptoms rather than actually address a problem. Why? Because ignorant
people will applaud you as you take away their rights. Hilarious.

Norway has as many guns per household as the US. Yet the homicide rate is
among the lowest of developed countries. As you can see, guns don't make
people kill people. Northern Ireland has a fifth as many guns, and the
homicide rate is the same.

The distribution doesn't follow your hypothesis. It very much looks like it
follows a social issue distribution, though. South Africa, Colombia,
Northern Ireland all the way to Netherlands, Japan, and Ireland.

The statistics counter your hypothesis.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 2:32:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote in message
news:9qb0e1dm3t7n6e6rukvb0l3gfrj2bqareg@4ax.com...

>>BTW, "why they're messed up" is an ignorant statement.
>>Switzerland basically requires all adult males to have guns, and their
>>homicide rate is lower than countries that have strict gun control laws,
>>sorry... can't help myself........ idiot.
>
> Uh Fred, you're missing something there.

No, you're grasping at straws...

> Switzerland requires all adult male _members_of_the_militia_ to have
> guns. Guns that are issue to them.

Yes, they are required to have guns.

> People who are properly trained in the use of those weapons as well as
> proper storage, handling, etc.

Moot point since we're only looking at homicide. Accidental deaths have
been removed.

> Any untrained bozo in the USA can buy a gun, so the two situations are
> in no way parallel.

Moot point since we're only looking at homicide. Accidental deaths have
been removed.

> If ALL US gun owners had military training (or other training in the
> proper use/storage/handling of firearms) you'd probably have the same
> per capita homicide rate that the Swiss have.

Moot point since we're only looking at homicide. Accidental deaths have
been removed.

> But you don't, and it's unlikely you ever will.

Moot point since we're only looking at homicide. Accidental deaths have
been removed.

>>Really should apply some critical thinking skills to what your handlers
>>have
>>to parrot.
>
> Judging by your example this applies to you too Fred.

Keep up with the thread before trying to grasp at straws.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 2:38:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Quoth The Raven "Fred Liken"<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> in
42dfb444$0$2564$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com
> "Wurm" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:D bo3rs$9ho$1@dns3.cae.ca...
>
>> remember, its the country where you can buy a gun and kill someone 3
>> or 5 years before youre allowed to buy a beer or a pack of cigs, and
>> they wonder
>> why theyre messed up ;o)
>
> That's retarded. You can go to the store and buy a knife and kill
> someone when you're baby. BAN KNIVES! No wonder they're so messed
> up. An forks can smart a bit too. The only sanctioned utensil is
> the spork.
> BTW, "why they're messed up" is an ignorant statement.
> Switzerland basically requires all adult males to have guns, and their
> homicide rate is lower than countries that have strict gun control
> laws, sorry... can't help myself........ idiot.
>
> Really should apply some critical thinking skills to what your
> handlers have to parrot.

in AUS we cant buy a box knife, let alone a kitchen knife until your 18. any
combat knife is banned from sale, particularly double edged ones. and you
cant carry a utility knife longer than 3 finger width unless you can prove
you've been using it in the course of your duties that day and you can be
arrested if found otherwise.

--
Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of
principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
(Ambrose Bierce)

Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 2:38:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> in AUS we cant buy a box knife, let alone a kitchen knife until your 18.
any
> combat knife is banned from sale, particularly double edged ones. and you
> cant carry a utility knife longer than 3 finger width unless you can prove
> you've been using it in the course of your duties that day and you can be
> arrested if found otherwise.

In the US they are blowing mayor blood vessels attempting to stop
technologies that ***COULD ALLOW*** to someone to pirate software and/or
music, but if you touch the "why don't ban technologies that allow you to
machinegun people, then?" blood vessels do explode in the opposite
direction. Freedom of speech doesn't seem to include the ability to do it
coherently.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 2:43:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:38:49 +1000, "Highlandish"
<ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote:

>in AUS we cant buy a box knife, let alone a kitchen knife until your 18. any
>combat knife is banned from sale, particularly double edged ones. and you
>cant carry a utility knife longer than 3 finger width unless you can prove
>you've been using it in the course of your duties that day and you can be
>arrested if found otherwise.

And this, along with the Australian gun ban, has stopped all violence
in Australia, right?

Congratulations!


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 3:04:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:48:37 GMT, Memnoch
<memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:

>They even have banks where when you open your account you get a free hunting
>rifle! <boggle>

You've been victimized by propaganda, I'm afraid. Let's work this
through.

Do you actually think that a criminal is going to go to a bank,
deposit thousands of dollars, and take the investment interest in the
value of a gun so they can commit crimes with it? Wouldn't it be
easier to just buy a cheap gun outright and use that to rob the bank,
without having to show them your ID, social security number, etc?

To get the gun from the bank, the investor has to pass a federal
background check and fill out the standard form 4473, the same as if
they were buying one at a gun shop. This weeds out known felons,
though it won't stop you from becoming a criminal later.

Two questions:

If you're in a bank, opening an account, and someone hands you a
rifle, what would you do with it? Kill the manager, rob the bank?
Would the gun turn you into a criminal?

When Moore, for the first big laugh of his mockumentary, asked the
question "Do you think it’s a little dangerous handing out guns in a
bank?", what was their answer? I won't hold my breath for this one.


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 3:05:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> Except in Roger and Me where he showed events out of context and sequence.
> It cost him an Oscar nomination. I had to study Michael Moore to get my
> Film Minor.

Except that this is not "lying" per se, or, you can choose, that both the
media and the politicians can lie even if the facts they present are true.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 3:13:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Vincenzo Beretta" <reckall@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6KZDe.32033$b93.61@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>> What's your point beyond solidifying the opinion people have of you as a
>> Mooreon?
>
> It is worth mentioning that spastic use of an adjective often hides (to
> put
> it compassionately) the unability to put together some coherent thinking.
>
> Like "Lieneith 9/11". One can accuse Moore to present only facts relevant
> to
> his point of view (shooting himself in the knee, since one of Moore
> arguments is that the basically media do the same) - but Moore was never
> caught *lying* in his movies - the closest thing to it being when he put
> the
> St. Petersburg Times logo over a reader's letter with a different date
> that
> the day when the piece was published (something that, give the ruckus it
> caused, speaks volumes about the total failure to expose other "lies" -
> not
> that this stops the anti-Mooreons to neurotically repeat that he is a
> liar).

lol. He has been caught of lying. Either that, or he is extremely stupid.
Either way, people that buy his garbage are idiots.

For example, his whole, what, Washington State Patrol fiasco. They cut the
State Patrol! The ocean boarder is unprotected! That's a lie since the
State Patrol doesn't Patrol the coast, the Coast Guard does. So, either
that's a blatant lie to the moviegoers, or he's so unbelievable stupid he
got that from his "research".

Either way, you and your ilk are parrots.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 3:17:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Vincenzo Beretta" <reckall@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Uz2Ee.32316$b93.14402@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>> Except in Roger and Me where he showed events out of context and
>> sequence.
>> It cost him an Oscar nomination. I had to study Michael Moore to get my
>> Film Minor.
>
> Except that this is not "lying" per se, or, you can choose, that both the
> media and the politicians can lie even if the facts they present are true.

Moore is most definitely guilty of trying to deceive or give a wrong
impression of what he is reporting on. His facts may be at top level
correct, but they are used out of context and order to deceive.
He is most definitely lying.
July 22, 2005 5:17:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in message
news:42e10fae$0$2553$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
> "Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote
>
>> Maybe not but it is a start. How many people die in the US ever year from
>> guns?
>

Or better yet lets bring cars into the equation and ban them along with
assault weapons, I'll keep my guns until they ban everything else that can
be used to kill people too.

> How many people dies from knifes in Canada? You seem to be of some
> strange mental state that makes you think that touching a gun turns you
> into a homicidal maniac that will go out and kill someone. It's
> laughable. I bet on the other hand you will burb till you're blue that
> videogames don't cause violence. Ironic.
>
> People kill people. A gun is simply a tool. If they didn't have a gun,
> they'd use a knife, poison, etc. It's the knee-jerk pinko reaction to ban
> the symptoms rather than actually address a problem. Why? Because
> ignorant people will applaud you as you take away their rights.
> Hilarious.
>
> Norway has as many guns per household as the US. Yet the homicide rate is
> among the lowest of developed countries. As you can see, guns don't make
> people kill people. Northern Ireland has a fifth as many guns, and the
> homicide rate is the same.
>
> The distribution doesn't follow your hypothesis. It very much looks like
> it follows a social issue distribution, though. South Africa, Colombia,
> Northern Ireland all the way to Netherlands, Japan, and Ireland.
>
> The statistics counter your hypothesis.
>
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 6:24:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Neil Maxwell" <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote in message
news:rvb2e19b9kp2g3oo25je51jk3k089m2oal@4ax.com...

>>in AUS we cant buy a box knife, let alone a kitchen knife until your 18.
>>any
>>combat knife is banned from sale, particularly double edged ones. and you
>>cant carry a utility knife longer than 3 finger width unless you can prove
>>you've been using it in the course of your duties that day and you can be
>>arrested if found otherwise.
>
> And this, along with the Australian gun ban, has stopped all violence
> in Australia, right?
>
> Congratulations!

Nope, actually puts it above France in homicides, despite higher gun
ownership in France.
Belgium has less guns, lower homicides, but almost twice as many of their
homicides are committed with a gun than in Australia.

There's simply no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 7:10:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote

>>>>BTW, "why they're messed up" is an ignorant statement.
>>>>Switzerland basically requires all adult males to have guns, and their
>>>>homicide rate is lower than countries that have strict gun control laws,
>>>>sorry... can't help myself........ idiot.
>>>
>>> Uh Fred, you're missing something there.
>>
>>No, you're grasping at straws...
>>
>>> Switzerland requires all adult male _members_of_the_militia_ to have
>>> guns. Guns that are issue to them.
>>
>>Yes, they are required to have guns.
>>
>>> People who are properly trained in the use of those weapons as well as
>>> proper storage, handling, etc.
>>
>>Moot point since we're only looking at homicide. Accidental deaths have
>>been removed.
>
> Nice try.
>
> Improperly STORED FIREARMS are firearms that can be gotten hold of by
> other people who then use them to commit homicide.

You're using circular logic.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 7:47:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "RKRM" <rkrm@NOSPAMcomcast.net> Spake Unto All:

>O.K. Maybe it backfired on them but I still find it impossible that some
>anonomous dude just happened upon the hidden content.

Just as impossible as that people found the cut ending in KOTOR2.

You know, as alien as that concept is to me, there are actually people
out there who disassemble and analyze games. Sometimes to hack/crack,
sometimes to make cheats, but often just for fun, to see how the game
works or to find cut content.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 7:51:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Alfie [UK]" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:17l2e1ln128l27fhk4o405l050plk8mahm@4ax.com...

> Switzerland is a bad example in some ways due to the compulsory military
> service issue. Having stayed with friends over there and had an assault
> rifle handed to me to have a look at, I would say that the culture
> generated by compulsory service and arming, coupled with the very swift
> and often lethal police response to crime (most police I saw over there
> are armed with SMGs and automatic pistols) criminals know they run a
> very severe risk of being killed if they commit an armed crime. Knowing
> every house you might break into has at least one military-trained
> rifleman in it really cramps your criminal style :) 
>
> Switzerland also has some of the toughest laws and strictist penalties
> for armed offences...you really can't compare it to most of the rest of
> Europe and the US.

Sure you can. It shows that it's a social problem, not a gun problem.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 7:55:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

DarthChaosofRSPW@gmail.com wrote:
> Either retailers will pull their copies of GTA:SA from the shelves, or
> they'll still sell them but have a strict policy of not selling it to
> anyone under either 18 or 21 and require valid ID for all transactions.
>

sure they will.

-
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 7:56:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Raymond Martineau wrote:
>
> These two points are only individually a threat. When combined, Rockstar
> already made their profit (unless there are still massive warehouses of
> that sort of stuff - in which case Rockstar is in trouble.)
>

They've made their profits. A few hundred thousand DVD packages aren't
going to trouble them.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 8:40:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Vincenzo Beretta wrote:
>>Except in Roger and Me where he showed events out of context and sequence.
>>It cost him an Oscar nomination. I had to study Michael Moore to get my
>>Film Minor.
>
>
> Except that this is not "lying" per se, or, you can choose, that both the
> media and the politicians can lie even if the facts they present are true.
>
>
Very deceptive nonetheless,

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/fifty.htm

^^^^^^^^^^Have you read it?

My impression: Shitbag out to make a quick buck.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 9:30:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2005 10:27:03 -0500, "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com>
wrote:

>"Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote
>
>> Maybe not but it is a start. How many people die in the US ever year from
>> guns?
>
>How many people dies from knifes in Canada? You seem to be of some strange
>mental state that makes you think that touching a gun turns you into a
>homicidal maniac that will go out and kill someone. It's laughable. I bet
>on the other hand you will burb till you're blue that videogames don't cause
>violence. Ironic.

No. I do think it causes violence, but in already unbalanced people. Violent
programs would probably tip them over the edge too.

>People kill people. A gun is simply a tool. If they didn't have a gun,
>they'd use a knife, poison, etc. It's the knee-jerk pinko reaction to ban
>the symptoms rather than actually address a problem. Why? Because ignorant
>people will applaud you as you take away their rights. Hilarious.

Yes but it is easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Why make it
easier for these nut jobs? How are they getting the guns in the first place.
Oh, that's right, they opened a bank account. ;-)

>Norway has as many guns per household as the US. Yet the homicide rate is
>among the lowest of developed countries. As you can see, guns don't make
>people kill people. Northern Ireland has a fifth as many guns, and the
>homicide rate is the same.

That's religion for you.

>The distribution doesn't follow your hypothesis. It very much looks like it
>follows a social issue distribution, though. South Africa, Colombia,
>Northern Ireland all the way to Netherlands, Japan, and Ireland.
>
>The statistics counter your hypothesis.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 9:30:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote

> No. I do think it causes violence,

Then, that settles it.

>>People kill people. A gun is simply a tool. If they didn't have a gun,
>>they'd use a knife, poison, etc. It's the knee-jerk pinko reaction to ban
>>the symptoms rather than actually address a problem. Why? Because
>>ignorant
>>people will applaud you as you take away their rights. Hilarious.
>
> Yes but it is easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Why make it
> easier for these nut jobs?

It's easier for them to kill them with a knife than a rubber chicken, so we
should outlaw everything that's more dangerous than a rubber chicken. Makes
no sense. Before curbing the rights of the masses, it has to be justified.
So far, there's no justification. There are countries that have less guns
than the US yet still have higher homicide rates. It won't make that big of
a difference and would be a waste of money. You only have to look to Canada
to see the waste of money in such a your logic.

> How are they getting the guns in the first place.
> Oh, that's right, they opened a bank account. ;-)

Mooreon mantra!

>>Norway has as many guns per household as the US. Yet the homicide rate is
>>among the lowest of developed countries. As you can see, guns don't make
>>people kill people. Northern Ireland has a fifth as many guns, and the
>>homicide rate is the same.
>
> That's religion for you.

>>The statistics counter your hypothesis.

^^^^
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 9:30:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:30:04 GMT, Memnoch
<memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:

>On 22 Jul 2005 10:27:03 -0500, "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com>
>wrote:
>
>>How many people dies from knifes in Canada? You seem to be of some strange
>>mental state that makes you think that touching a gun turns you into a
>>homicidal maniac that will go out and kill someone. It's laughable. I bet
>>on the other hand you will burb till you're blue that videogames don't cause
>>violence. Ironic.
>
>No. I do think it causes violence, but in already unbalanced people. Violent
>programs would probably tip them over the edge too.

So, you believe item A (guns) cause violence in unbalanced people, and
should be banned for everyone. Following your logic, does this mean
that item B (violent games), which you also believe causes violence,
should also be banned for everyone? Alcohol also makes certain people
violent. Some people use cars to kill and commit crimes. Do you
think they should be banned for everyone as well?

>>People kill people. A gun is simply a tool. If they didn't have a gun,
>>they'd use a knife, poison, etc. It's the knee-jerk pinko reaction to ban
>>the symptoms rather than actually address a problem. Why? Because ignorant
>>people will applaud you as you take away their rights. Hilarious.
>
>Yes but it is easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Why make it
>easier for these nut jobs? How are they getting the guns in the first place.
>Oh, that's right, they opened a bank account. ;-)

Heh! How many guns do you think are obtained in lieu of interest on
investment accounts, and how many of them are used in crimes? Cites
would be nice.


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 9:30:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Neil Maxwell" <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote in message
news:0dp2e11qrunqupv4nvb7q64drnuevo6kte@4ax.com...

>>Yes but it is easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Why make it
>>easier for these nut jobs? How are they getting the guns in the first
>>place.
>>Oh, that's right, they opened a bank account. ;-)
>
> Heh! How many guns do you think are obtained in lieu of interest on
> investment accounts, and how many of them are used in crimes? Cites
> would be nice.

Exactly.

I hate Mooreons, I tell you. Almost as much as hippies!
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 9:30:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2005 17:02:04 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:

>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote in message
>news:0dp2e11qrunqupv4nvb7q64drnuevo6kte@4ax.com...
>
>>>Yes but it is easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Why make it
>>>easier for these nut jobs? How are they getting the guns in the first
>>>place.
>>>Oh, that's right, they opened a bank account. ;-)
>>
>> Heh! How many guns do you think are obtained in lieu of interest on
>> investment accounts, and how many of them are used in crimes? Cites
>> would be nice.
>
>Exactly.
>
>I hate Mooreons, I tell you. Almost as much as hippies!
>
I was a hippie once, when I was young. Well, we called ourselves
freaks, but same difference to the casual observer, just a little
harder edged. We all had guns, too - we were raised with them, and I
got my first one at 13 - but for some reason they never turned us into
violent criminals, possibly because we were raised to respect guns and
not hurt people unless they were trying to hurt us.

I believe that teaching all kids to handle guns safely and shoot
accurately at an early age would help reduce gun violence, and it
would dramatically reduce gun accidents (not that there are many of
those). Worked for my grandparents, my parents, my brothers and
friends, and it's working fine for my kids as well.


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 9:32:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2005 10:32:02 -0500, "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com>
wrote:

>"Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote in message
>news:9qb0e1dm3t7n6e6rukvb0l3gfrj2bqareg@4ax.com...
>
>>>BTW, "why they're messed up" is an ignorant statement.
>>>Switzerland basically requires all adult males to have guns, and their
>>>homicide rate is lower than countries that have strict gun control laws,
>>>sorry... can't help myself........ idiot.
>>
>> Uh Fred, you're missing something there.
>
>No, you're grasping at straws...
>
>> Switzerland requires all adult male _members_of_the_militia_ to have
>> guns. Guns that are issue to them.
>
>Yes, they are required to have guns.
>
>> People who are properly trained in the use of those weapons as well as
>> proper storage, handling, etc.
>
>Moot point since we're only looking at homicide. Accidental deaths have
>been removed.

I'm guessing that's the royal 'we' then?
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 9:33:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote

> I'm guessing that's the royal 'we' then?

Point, set, match.
Thanks for playing, gg.
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 9:51:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Vincenzo Beretta" <reckall@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Uz2Ee.32316$b93.14402@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>> Except in Roger and Me where he showed events out of context and
>> sequence.
>> It cost him an Oscar nomination. I had to study Michael Moore to get my
>> Film Minor.
>
> Except that this is not "lying" per se, or, you can choose, that both the
> media and the politicians can lie even if the facts they present are true.

He said Reagan visited the town to try and boost moral when the plant
was failing when Reagan actually visited the town when he was running
for President long before problems at the plant actually started.

Yes the fact that Reagan visited the town is true, but the context he
presents it in is completely false. If people only watch the movie and
do not do any independent research they have no idea of this fact.

There are plenty more examples like this in the film.

--
All Purpose Culture Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 10:24:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Ethan Hammond wrote:
> "Vincenzo Beretta" <reckall@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Uz2Ee.32316$b93.14402@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>
>>>Except in Roger and Me where he showed events out of context and
>>>sequence.
>>>It cost him an Oscar nomination. I had to study Michael Moore to get my
>>>Film Minor.
>>
>>Except that this is not "lying" per se, or, you can choose, that both the
>>media and the politicians can lie even if the facts they present are true.
>
>
> He said Reagan visited the town to try and boost moral when the plant
> was failing when Reagan actually visited the town when he was running
> for President long before problems at the plant actually started.
>
> Yes the fact that Reagan visited the town is true, but the context he
> presents it in is completely false. If people only watch the movie and
> do not do any independent research they have no idea of this fact.
>
> There are plenty more examples like this in the film.
>
EVERY one of his films in fact. Anybody that confuses any of his works
with a documentary or reality need a slap with the wake-up stick :) 
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 3:49:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2005 15:51:02 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:

>"Alfie [UK]" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:17l2e1ln128l27fhk4o405l050plk8mahm@4ax.com...
>
>> Switzerland is a bad example in some ways due to the compulsory military
>> service issue. Having stayed with friends over there and had an assault
>> rifle handed to me to have a look at, I would say that the culture
>> generated by compulsory service and arming, coupled with the very swift
>> and often lethal police response to crime (most police I saw over there
>> are armed with SMGs and automatic pistols) criminals know they run a
>> very severe risk of being killed if they commit an armed crime. Knowing
>> every house you might break into has at least one military-trained
>> rifleman in it really cramps your criminal style :) 
>>
>> Switzerland also has some of the toughest laws and strictist penalties
>> for armed offences...you really can't compare it to most of the rest of
>> Europe and the US.
>
>Sure you can. It shows that it's a social problem, not a gun problem.
>
Agreed, I may have misconstrued the context in which Switzerland was
being used as an example.

--
Alfie
<http://www.delphia.co.uk/&gt;
Keyboard error - press any key to continue...
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 2:36:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Quoth The Raven "Neil Maxwell"<neil.maxwell@intel.com> in
rvb2e19b9kp2g3oo25je51jk3k089m2oal@4ax.com
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:38:49 +1000, "Highlandish"
> <ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>in AUS we cant buy a box knife, let alone a kitchen knife until your
>>18. any combat knife is banned from sale, particularly double edged
>>ones. and you cant carry a utility knife longer than 3 finger width
>>unless you can prove you've been using it in the course of your
>>duties that day and you can be arrested if found otherwise.
>
> And this, along with the Australian gun ban, has stopped all violence
> in Australia, right?
>
> Congratulations!

all it's done was to disarm the populace, not the criminals. and now because
of terrorism threats we have to rely upon the police more and more, having
to vote them more powers to protect us from the "boogieman du jour"

--
Don't compare yourself to the best others can do, but to the best you
can do.

Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 6:27:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2005 12:45:07 -0500, "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com>
wrote:

>"Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote
>
>> No. I do think it causes violence,
>
>Then, that settles it.

Thanks for quoting me out of context. What I actually said was:

"No. I do think it causes violence, but in already unbalanced people. Violent
programs would probably tip them over the edge too."

Nice try thought to skew the argument in your favour. I think at this point it
would be easier if I just kilfiled you since you can't argue fairly.

>>>People kill people. A gun is simply a tool. If they didn't have a gun,
>>>they'd use a knife, poison, etc. It's the knee-jerk pinko reaction to ban
>>>the symptoms rather than actually address a problem. Why? Because
>>>ignorant
>>>people will applaud you as you take away their rights. Hilarious.
>>
>> Yes but it is easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Why make it
>> easier for these nut jobs?
>
>It's easier for them to kill them with a knife than a rubber chicken, so we
>should outlaw everything that's more dangerous than a rubber chicken. Makes
>no sense. Before curbing the rights of the masses, it has to be justified.
>So far, there's no justification. There are countries that have less guns
>than the US yet still have higher homicide rates. It won't make that big of
>a difference and would be a waste of money. You only have to look to Canada
>to see the waste of money in such a your logic.
>
>> How are they getting the guns in the first place.
>> Oh, that's right, they opened a bank account. ;-)
>
>Mooreon mantra!
>
>>>Norway has as many guns per household as the US. Yet the homicide rate is
>>>among the lowest of developed countries. As you can see, guns don't make
>>>people kill people. Northern Ireland has a fifth as many guns, and the
>>>homicide rate is the same.
>>
>> That's religion for you.
>
>>>The statistics counter your hypothesis.
>
>^^^^
>
>
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 6:29:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2005 12:46:09 -0500, "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com>
wrote:

>"Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote
>
>> I'm guessing that's the royal 'we' then?
>
>Point, set, match.
>Thanks for playing, gg.

You probably don't even know what I meant. I was implying that you were
speaking for yourself. See, I don't quote you out of context, snipping bits
out to suite myself. Still, you are American I guess so I have to forgive you.
;-)
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 6:30:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2005 15:51:02 -0500, "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com>
wrote:

>"Alfie [UK]" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:17l2e1ln128l27fhk4o405l050plk8mahm@4ax.com...
>
>> Switzerland is a bad example in some ways due to the compulsory military
>> service issue. Having stayed with friends over there and had an assault
>> rifle handed to me to have a look at, I would say that the culture
>> generated by compulsory service and arming, coupled with the very swift
>> and often lethal police response to crime (most police I saw over there
>> are armed with SMGs and automatic pistols) criminals know they run a
>> very severe risk of being killed if they commit an armed crime. Knowing
>> every house you might break into has at least one military-trained
>> rifleman in it really cramps your criminal style :) 
>>
>> Switzerland also has some of the toughest laws and strictist penalties
>> for armed offences...you really can't compare it to most of the rest of
>> Europe and the US.
>
>Sure you can. It shows that it's a social problem, not a gun problem.

So you don't think that in a country which you have already admitted has
horrendous social issues, with unbalanced people running around, it would be
wise to try to stop them getting guns? Wow!
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 6:57:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly Neil Maxwell <neil.maxwell@intel.com> Spake Unto All:

>>in AUS we cant buy a box knife, let alone a kitchen knife until your 18. any
>>combat knife is banned from sale, particularly double edged ones. and you
>>cant carry a utility knife longer than 3 finger width unless you can prove
>>you've been using it in the course of your duties that day and you can be
>>arrested if found otherwise.
>
>And this, along with the Australian gun ban, has stopped all violence
>in Australia, right?

Australia has a gun ban?
July 23, 2005 10:35:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:36:26 +1000, "Highlandish"
<ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote:

>Quoth The Raven "Neil Maxwell"<neil.maxwell@intel.com> in
>rvb2e19b9kp2g3oo25je51jk3k089m2oal@4ax.com
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:38:49 +1000, "Highlandish"
>> <ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>in AUS we cant buy a box knife, let alone a kitchen knife until your
>>>18. any combat knife is banned from sale, particularly double edged
>>>ones. and you cant carry a utility knife longer than 3 finger width
>>>unless you can prove you've been using it in the course of your
>>>duties that day and you can be arrested if found otherwise.
>>
>> And this, along with the Australian gun ban, has stopped all violence
>> in Australia, right?
>>
>> Congratulations!
>
>all it's done was to disarm the populace, not the criminals. and now because
>of terrorism threats we have to rely upon the police more and more, having
>to vote them more powers to protect us from the "boogieman du jour"

Well, what could really happen bad in the 15 minutes between calling
the police and them arriving (assuming you could get to the phone and
make the call first)? The bad guys will wait without hurting anyone,
right?

Calling the police is just so someone will come, collect the evidence,
and document the mess. In the US, it's been upheld all the way to the
Supreme Court that the police have no responsibility for protection of
the individual, only for society at large.

If you want protection from violent criminals, you really only have 2
options - plan to do it yourself, or count on someone else to do it
whenever they get around to it. I'm not trusting my family's safety
to a chain of public servants who may or may not arrive in time.
July 23, 2005 10:44:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:30:25 GMT, Memnoch
<memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:

>On 22 Jul 2005 15:51:02 -0500, "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Sure you can. It shows that it's a social problem, not a gun problem.
>
>So you don't think that in a country which you have already admitted has
>horrendous social issues, with unbalanced people running around, it would be
>wise to try to stop them getting guns? Wow!

How do you stop "unbalanced people" who have never committed a crime
or been under treatment for psychological problems from getting guns
(or drivers licenses or knives)? Who decides that someone with no
history of crime or being "unbalanced" shouldn't have a weapon? You?
Me? Tony Blair?

What if someone decided that people who play violent video games were
"unbalanced", and shouldn't be allowed to own or use guns, knives, or
cars, even if they had never committed a crime?

Do you support taking away the rights of everyone because a few may
abuse those rights?

There are 75 million legal gun owners in the United States. How many
of them committed crimes with their guns last year? Do you take away
their rights and property because criminals use guns illegally?

Should you also do this with cars, which kill more people and are used
in more crimes in the US than guns?

I'm curious about your reasoning.

max
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 11:58:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Have you seen Bowling for Columbine?

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

www.moorewatch.com

http://www.moorelies.com/

http://www.centigrade911.com/

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=michael+moore+debu...

If you're a liberal, that's respectable, however there are a lot more
credible people to rally behind on the Left than the universally debunked
and increasingly irrelevant Moore.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 12:48:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Rockstar has had people on them since grand theft auto came out. This
will be a big money loss for rockstar.
July 24, 2005 6:05:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <7g35e19dngg9bjdlnvnssq1095msfh1v5b@4ax.com>,
maxicon13@yahoo.com says...
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:30:25 GMT, Memnoch
> <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> There are 75 million legal gun owners in the United States. How many
> of them committed crimes with their guns last year? Do you take away
> their rights and property because criminals use guns illegally?
>
> Should you also do this with cars, which kill more people and are used
> in more crimes in the US than guns?
>
> I'm curious about your reasoning.
>

Yours is a little out of wack too. Cars have a rather more essential
purpose than to injure of maim, don't you think? What other purpose/use
do guns have?

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:02:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Abrcrmbieguy@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Rockstar has had people on them since grand theft auto came out. This
> will be a big money loss for rockstar.

I sincerely doubt it.
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 8:28:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:05:59 +0100, Peter <ivingtonAll_stRESS@fast24.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <7g35e19dngg9bjdlnvnssq1095msfh1v5b@4ax.com>,
>maxicon13@yahoo.com says...
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:30:25 GMT, Memnoch
>> <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> There are 75 million legal gun owners in the United States. How many
>> of them committed crimes with their guns last year? Do you take away
>> their rights and property because criminals use guns illegally?
>>
>> Should you also do this with cars, which kill more people and are used
>> in more crimes in the US than guns?
>>
>> I'm curious about your reasoning.
>>
>
>Yours is a little out of wack too. Cars have a rather more essential
>purpose than to injure of maim, don't you think? What other purpose/use
>do guns have?

Defending yourself for one but if you assailant didn't have one in the first
place you wouldn't need it of course. Programs I have seen which have
interviewed NRA members and other pro gun "nuts" for want of a better word
seem to offer the flimsiest reasons for gun ownership other than the right to
bear arms.
July 24, 2005 10:12:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:05:59 +0100, Peter
<ivingtonAll_stRESS@fast24.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <7g35e19dngg9bjdlnvnssq1095msfh1v5b@4ax.com>,
>maxicon13@yahoo.com says...
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:30:25 GMT, Memnoch
>> <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> There are 75 million legal gun owners in the United States. How many
>> of them committed crimes with their guns last year? Do you take away
>> their rights and property because criminals use guns illegally?
>>
>> Should you also do this with cars, which kill more people and are used
>> in more crimes in the US than guns?
>>
>> I'm curious about your reasoning.
>>
>
>Yours is a little out of wack too. Cars have a rather more essential
>purpose than to injure of maim, don't you think? What other purpose/use
>do guns have?

The obvious reasons are self-defense, hunting, collecting, target
shooting, and competetive shooting sports, like in the Olympics
(skeet, trap, IDPA, you name it). I shoot several hundred rounds a
week at paper - it's a hobby of mine, and one I enjoy quite a bit, as
do a number of my friends.

You might be surprised at how many enjoy shooting, except your
government has disarmed most of the law-abiding. The criminals in the
UK still have their guns, right? That's OK, the police will be along
in 20 minutes or so to clean up what's left.

That aside, are you proposing that people should only be allowed to
have items with an "essential" purpose? Swimming pools kill more kids
than guns do in the US, and are not essential by any means. Should
they be banned? How about fast sport cars? You could get by with a
Kia just as well as a Jag XKR.

Should people only be allowed to drive their cars for essential
purposes? Maybe the government should make them take the bus or
train, since that's a government-provided alternative to the deadly
automobile. Would you be OK with that, since "essential" needs would
be covered? You could always get a permit when you need to drive your
car for other reasons, like a cruise in the country.

And motorcycles - definitely not essential. Ban them? Let's get into
violent video games. Essential? Not very. Some people think they
breed violence and evil. Should they be banned, based on someone's
misperceptions?

Sounds like you're saying you don't have a need for guns, so might as
well ban them for other people. Thanks anyway, but no thanks. You
pick your hobbies, and I'll pick mine.

max
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 12:15:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Memnoch <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:e8g7e112g2vig6ifhfi1hjvm0qmr5nkma0@4ax.com:

> Defending yourself for one but if you assailant didn't have one in
> the first place you wouldn't need it of course.

Say that to the 130 lb young woman when attacked by a 300lb bat
weilding man.

--
Marc
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as
outraged as those who are."--Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 3:08:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2005 10:27:03 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:

>How many people dies from knifes in Canada?

You are comparing guns to knives? Do you think the Columbine incident
could have happened with the "trenchcoat mafia" waving knives? You can
outrun a knife, but not a bullet.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 4:28:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:15:16 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote:

>Memnoch <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote in
>news:e8g7e112g2vig6ifhfi1hjvm0qmr5nkma0@4ax.com:
>
>> Defending yourself for one but if you assailant didn't have one in
>> the first place you wouldn't need it of course.
>
> Say that to the 130 lb young woman when attacked by a 300lb bat
>weilding man.

Then she needs a bigger bat. ;-)
!