Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTA: San Andreas gets AO rating! - Page 3

Last response: in Video Games
Share
July 25, 2005 5:06:30 AM

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

In article <qel7e1pv67klu0ncu6tg88g2l6d19tt7bc@4ax.com>,
maxicon13@yahoo.com says...
> 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.
>

Whatever you say and in however ways you try to say it the fact is that
cars were produced in order to ferry people from a to b in a more
efficient manner and that is their main purpose. Now why were guns
originally made? That is their main purpose. So there is no
comparison. Guns have no other 'useful' (note the word) purpose than
what they were originally designed for. They are not going to help you
work out your VAT (unless you stick one to an accountants head first).
Get real.

I'm not advocating the banning of guns in the US. Couldn't care less.
Just was pointing out your odd logic for banning of cars.

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 12:58:25 PM

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

Quoth The Raven "max"<maxicon13@yahoo.com> in
qel7e1pv67klu0ncu6tg88g2l6d19tt7bc@4ax.com
> 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

the idea is to limit the amount of "offensive" weapons, not lethal items, on
the street.

--
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and
he's warm for the rest of his life." - Solid Jackson, "Jingo" by Terry
Pratchett

Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 3:09:02 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:bpt2e1tchao2qq2idn4msi4kb5th8cng0q@4ax.com...

>>> 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.

Most easy to happen on Usenet. :) 
Related resources
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 8:03:02 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 in message

>>> 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.

Whatever you need to do.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 8:05:03 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

>>> 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!

I didn't say that, but thanks for putting words in people's mouths, Mr.
Whineaboutunfairness. :) 

And, those people are already denied guns. It's mostly unregistered guns.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 8:07:01 PM

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

"max" <maxicon13@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7g35e19dngg9bjdlnvnssq1095msfh1v5b@4ax.com...

> I'm curious about your reasoning.

You're being generous.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 8:08:02 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

> 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.

But you watch propaganda and take it for fact. It's hilarious that you even
bring up your programs.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 8:11:03 PM

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

"Peter" <ivingtonAll_stRESS@fast24.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d4e3d612c3b18229897b9@news3.fast24.net...

> Now why were guns
> originally made? That is their main purpose. So there is no
> comparison. Guns have no other 'useful' (note the word) purpose than
> what they were originally designed for. They are not going to help you
> work out your VAT (unless you stick one to an accountants head first).
> Get real.
>
> I'm not advocating the banning of guns in the US. Couldn't care less.
> Just was pointing out your odd logic for banning of cars.

Yet you're going to use original intent as basis? lol. So, do we ban
knives because of their original intent? I mean, there's plenty of places
in the world that don't have the number of guns as the Swiss or the
Americans, but quite a bit higher homicide rates.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 8:16:03 PM

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

"Jesse" <Jesse@hopmail.com> wrote

>>How many people dies from knifes in Canada?
>
> You are comparing guns to knives?

No. Perhaps you need to reread the thread.

> Do you think the Columbine incident
> could have happened with the "trenchcoat mafia" waving knives?

No. That's one incident.

> You can outrun a knife, but not a bullet.

Not one in the back.

To look at Columbine as an end all to this discussion is naive. Do you
realize more people died from knives that year than people in the Columbine
incident? Do you realize that kids can make pipe bombs and do just as much
damage? Do you realize that the Columbine homicides were statistically
insignificant?
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 3:11:23 AM

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

Ajay Tanwar <ajtanwar@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:Xns969E77D163E2Aajtanwaryahoocom@64.164.98.51:

> Canada's more relaxed
> approach keeps drug dealers from blowing each other away on the
> streets.
>

Well, in general yes, but in the late 1990's in Montreal several
of the motorcycle gangs escalated their war in such a way that
innocent persons were affected, to the extent that a 9 year old boy
was killed as he walked by an unoccupied jeep that exploded when he
passed. It was a botched attempt by one gang to kill off the member
of another gang.

Things really got bad in Montreal, some gang members openly
attacked other gang members on the street. One even shot to death a
man in a line-up because he wouldn't get out of the way.

--
Marc
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as
outraged as those who are."--Benjamin Franklin
July 26, 2005 4:14:45 AM

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

In article <42e55501$0$37077$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
nothanks@toocoolforschool.com says...
> "Peter" <ivingtonAll_stRESS@fast24.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d4e3d612c3b18229897b9@news3.fast24.net...
>
> > Now why were guns
> > originally made? That is their main purpose. So there is no
> > comparison. Guns have no other 'useful' (note the word) purpose than
> > what they were originally designed for. They are not going to help you
> > work out your VAT (unless you stick one to an accountants head first).
> > Get real.
> >
> > I'm not advocating the banning of guns in the US. Couldn't care less.
> > Just was pointing out your odd logic for banning of cars.
>
> Yet you're going to use original intent as basis? lol. So, do we ban
> knives because of their original intent?

Lol to you too. You guys are ready to twist and turn every minor detail
of an explanation in order to try and prove how correct you are. Having
said that, I feel knives in the UK are becoming a problem when it comes
to violence and needs to be addressed. Don't tell me, you'll split
hairs on this and start going on about plastic knives being banned, I
don't doubt. That's about your level.

> I mean, there's plenty of places
> in the world that don't have the number of guns as the Swiss or the
> Americans, but quite a bit higher homicide rates.
>

Completely irrelevant. Did I say guns should be banned? Read again.

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
July 26, 2005 5:46:54 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 23:08:39 +0300, Jesse <Jesse@hopmail.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 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.

Can't happen?

There have been multiple school massacres in China and Japan with
knives. Google on school massacre knife japan and school massacre
knife china to find a number of stories.

max
July 26, 2005 7:13:32 AM

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

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 01:06:30 +0100, Peter
<ivingtonAll_stRESS@fast24.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Whatever you say and in however ways you try to say it the fact is that
>cars were produced in order to ferry people from a to b in a more
>efficient manner and that is their main purpose. Now why were guns
>originally made? That is their main purpose. So there is no
>comparison. Guns have no other 'useful' (note the word) purpose than
>what they were originally designed for. They are not going to help you
>work out your VAT (unless you stick one to an accountants head first).
>Get real.
>
>I'm not advocating the banning of guns in the US. Couldn't care less.
>Just was pointing out your odd logic for banning of cars.

What does intent have to do with the results? Do you think the
survivors care about intent? "You'll be glad to know the drunk driver
who wiped out your family was in a mini-van designed for taking kids
to school."

Not only that, but people who kill and injure with cars are frequently
allowed to drive again with no concerns or limitations. Logical?

The point of the comparison is that people are willing to accept the
death and destruction caused by cars, which is far higher than that
caused by guns, because they would be personally inconvenienced by
stringent rules on cars and driving.

Note that I didn't call for the banning of cars, just applied rigorous
logic to a similar situation. If you apply a certain logic to a
certain item (guns are bad because a small percentage of people misuse
them to harm others) and balk when the same logic is applied to
something you want to use yourself, you haven't thought the issue
through to the basics, IMO.

On a different tack, you are aware that the violent crime and gun
crime rates in the UK have increased steadily as guns have been banned
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-537568,00.htm... ), while the
violent crime rate and gun crimes have decreased steadily in the US
for decades, even as more guns are bought every year by law-abiding
citizens?

In 2002, the UN found the UK to have the highest crime rate among the
world's leading economies, and in 2003 the UK was the most violent
country in western Europe.

Whatever you're doing, it's not working. Maybe it's time to try
something different. You'll forgive me if I don't listen to your
dogmatic propaganda that isn't supported by data.

Britain the most violent country in western Europe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=HOTQ5LRNM5SBPQFIQMGSM54AVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2003/10/25/ncrim25.xml

England has worst crime rate in world
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=HOTQ5LRNM5SBPQFIQMGSM54AVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml

US Crime Rate Hits New Low
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/10/national/main...

max
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 2:49:43 PM

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

Thusly max <maxicon13@yahoo.com> Spake Unto All:

>>Whatever you say and in however ways you try to say it the fact is that
>>cars were produced in order to ferry people from a to b in a more
>>efficient manner and that is their main purpose. Now why were guns
>>originally made?

>What does intent have to do with the results?

Everything?

>Do you think the
>survivors care about intent?

Irrelevant much?
But yeah, I *DO* think they care whether their loved one died in an
accident or was murdered. I know I would care. You wouldn't?

>Not only that, but people who kill and injure with cars are frequently
>allowed to drive again with no concerns or limitations. Logical?

Yes it is, you're simply trying to whitewash murder through appeal to
accident.

Or is your bizarre claim that everyone who kills or injure other with
a car does so on purpose? Or that killing or injuring other is the
purpose of cars?
No, you're simply trying your hand at misdirection.

>The point of the comparison is that people are willing to accept the
>death and destruction caused by cars, which is far higher than that
>caused by guns, because they would be personally inconvenienced by
>stringent rules on cars and driving.

Yes. However, if cars were banned, it would be a severe blow to
society. If all privately owned guns were to suddenly disappear, the
only effect would be a lowered homicide rate. The cost to society of
banning privately owned guns is not just zero, it translates to an
actual GAIN.
So not only is your comparison bizarre, it's disingenious.

>Note that I didn't call for the banning of cars, just applied rigorous
>logic to a similar situation.

You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the face.

>On a different tack, you are aware that the violent crime and gun
>crime rates in the UK have increased steadily as guns have been banned
>(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-537568,00.htm... ), while the
>violent crime rate and gun crimes have decreased steadily in the US
>for decades, even as more guns are bought every year by law-abiding
>citizens?

1) Yes, in one year crime involving guns, including soft air guns,
jumped 12% (to a whopping 10000; there were 572 serious injuries
involving firearms. Both figures are far lower than what is reported
annually in New York alone).
Why? At least partly because it was the year the UK introduced a
NATIONAL CRIME REPORTING STANDARD.

2) Have you checked the actual LEVELS? Please do. Insinuating that the
murder rates of UK and US are comparable is ridiculous, but only
reporting trends and not actual levels is a tried and true propaganda
method, which is of course why you're using it.

UK: 19 homicides per million inhabitants and year (and this was 2003,
more on that later).
US: 81 homicides per million inhabitants and year (2002).

As you're no doubt going to ask for citations, be my guest:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm#longterm
(sorry I don't have as hard-hitting sources like your newsrags.)

>In 2002, the UN found the UK to have the highest crime rate among the
>world's leading economies, and in 2003 the UK was the most violent
>country in western Europe.

Haha... Misleading much? You're doing exactly what you're accusing
Michael Moore of doing: lying through misdirection and out-of-context
quotes. Liar liar, pants on fire.

In 2003 the UK was the most violent country in western europe - with a
homicide rate 25% of the US average.

But still, howcome UK got such a high rating in 2003? Homicides, after
all, have always been reported as homicides.
To no small part because that was the year Dr Harold Shipman was found
guilty of 172 cases of murder.

Yes, the murder rate in western europe, including the UK, are so low
that 172 murders skews the statistics.

>Whatever you're doing, it's not working. Maybe it's time to try
>something different. You'll forgive me if I don't listen to your
>dogmatic propaganda that isn't supported by data.

FFS, at least be semi-honest and state that you want easy access to
guns _even though_ easy access to guns means that a bunch of people
more get killed every year.

Incidentally, the number of registered guns per 100000 inhabitants in
the US is roughly twice that of Switzerland (including the Swiss
army), 5 times that of Australia, and in the region of 15 times that
of the UK, and in fact the number of homicides *using guns* per 100000
inhabitants correlates quite well.
In case anyone had gotten a different impression from the dogmatic
propaganda spewed in this thread.
July 26, 2005 4:45:52 PM

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

In article <n37be1hqcfm6k7d4sqa3de01fg44688q7d@4ax.com>,
maxicon13@yahoo.com says...
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 01:06:30 +0100, Peter
> <ivingtonAll_stRESS@fast24.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Whatever you say and in however ways you try to say it the fact is that
> >cars were produced in order to ferry people from a to b in a more
> >efficient manner and that is their main purpose. Now why were guns
> >originally made? That is their main purpose. So there is no
> >comparison. Guns have no other 'useful' (note the word) purpose than
> >what they were originally designed for. They are not going to help you
> >work out your VAT (unless you stick one to an accountants head first).
> >Get real.
> >
> >I'm not advocating the banning of guns in the US. Couldn't care less.
> >Just was pointing out your odd logic for banning of cars.
>
> What does intent have to do with the results? Do you think the
> survivors care about intent? "You'll be glad to know the drunk driver
> who wiped out your family was in a mini-van designed for taking kids
> to school."
>

> Not only that, but people who kill and injure with cars are frequently
> allowed to drive again with no concerns or limitations. Logical?
>

> The point of the comparison is that people are willing to accept the
> death and destruction caused by cars, which is far higher than that
> caused by guns, because they would be personally inconvenienced by
> stringent rules on cars and driving.
>
> Note that I didn't call for the banning of cars, just applied rigorous
> logic to a similar situation. If you apply a certain logic to a
> certain item (guns are bad because a small percentage of people misuse
> them to harm others) and balk when the same logic is applied to
> something you want to use yourself, you haven't thought the issue
> through to the basics, IMO.
>

Too true. Not sure I quite agree with that 'certain logic' as it could
then be applied to almost anything when 'thought through to the basics'.
When guns provide some kind of benefit to society then they can be
classed alongside all those other items that we could list for banning
because they are misused. The only, so-called, benefit I see is to
protect people from other people carrying guns. But hey, I don't live
in a country where guns are so prevalent.

> On a different tack, you are aware that the violent crime and gun
> crime rates in the UK have increased steadily as guns have been banned
> (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-537568,00.htm... ), while the
> violent crime rate and gun crimes have decreased steadily in the US
> for decades, even as more guns are bought every year by law-abiding
> citizens?
>
> In 2002, the UN found the UK to have the highest crime rate among the
> world's leading economies, and in 2003 the UK was the most violent
> country in western Europe.
>
> Whatever you're doing, it's not working. Maybe it's time to try
> something different. You'll forgive me if I don't listen to your
> dogmatic propaganda that isn't supported by data.
>
> Britain the most violent country in western Europe
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=HOTQ5LRNM5SBPQFIQMGSM54AVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2003/10/25/ncrim25.xml
>
> England has worst crime rate in world
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=HOTQ5LRNM5SBPQFIQMGSM54AVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml
>
And right at the bottom of this article it says this:

Criminologists believe that a note of caution needs
to be introduced into analysis of the data, because of the different
ways in which UN member countries record crimes.

> US Crime Rate Hits New Low
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/10/national/main...
>
There's a well known saying:

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

I live in the UK and can walk around the streets freely without fear of
being mugged or violently assaulted. There are not many places, if any,
that I am aware of where I would be frightened to venture. Of course
there are problems. Knife carrying is on the rise and alcohol related
violence too, especially amongst teenagers which needs to be addressed
by the government of the day. A job they're not doing as well as they
could, IMO.

As far as gun crime goes in the UK. Never seen a gun, come across an
incident involving a gun or know of anyone who has. Yes, gun related
incidents are on the increase, but it is highly unlikely that I am going
to find myself caught up in any. How about you?

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 4:45:53 PM

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

"Peter" <ivingtonAll_stRESS@fast24.co.uk> wrote in message

> As far as gun crime goes in the UK. Never seen a gun,

I've seen them.

> come across an incident involving a gun

No me.

> or know of anyone who has.

Only someone killed by police.

> Yes, gun related
> incidents are on the increase, but it is highly unlikely that I am going
> to find myself caught up in any. How about you?

Well, less than %0.00006. Drunk driving, %0.006.
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 4:56:03 PM

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

In article <MPG.1d5032cadb4fffeb9897bc@news3.fast24.net>,
Peter <ivingtonAll_stRESS@fast24.co.uk> wrote:
>because they are misused. The only, so-called, benefit I see is to
>protect people from other people carrying guns. But hey, I don't live
>in a country where guns are so prevalent.

The stated reason for allowing them in the US is so that you can use
them to overthrow the government when it becoms tyrannical.

That's as good a use as any I suppose.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 1:46:11 AM

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

On 25 Jul 2005 16:05:03 -0500, "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com>
wrote:

>"Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote
>
>>>> 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!
>
>I didn't say that, but thanks for putting words in people's mouths, Mr.
>Whineaboutunfairness. :) 

Sorry, perhaps I miss quoted you. I seem to remember you saying that Americas
problem was not a gun problem but a social problem.

>And, those people are already denied guns. It's mostly unregistered guns.

Quite possible but if they weren't so easy to get hold of in the first
place..... To quote Mr Hicks once again, "Studies have shown that there is no
connection between having a gun and shooting someone and not having a gun and
not shooting someone and you would be a liar and a communist if you said there
was".
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:16:45 AM

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

max <maxicon13@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:08:39 +0300, Jesse <Jesse@hopmail.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 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.
>
>Can't happen?
>
>There have been multiple school massacres in China and Japan with
>knives. Google on school massacre knife japan and school massacre
>knife china to find a number of stories.

Most of the hits google finds seem to involve ADULTS attacking small
children.

Just a little bit different than contemporaries at the same school.
A teenager can outrun another teenager, a small child likely isn't going
to be able to get away from an adult.

A gun is a force multiplier, such that a child with a gun could kill
multiple adults. The same cannot be said of a knife, not to mention the
range difference.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:31:13 AM

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> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>"Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote
>
>>>> 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!
>
>I didn't say that, but thanks for putting words in people's mouths, Mr.
>Whineaboutunfairness. :) 
>
>And, those people are already denied guns. It's mostly unregistered guns.


What you seem to be missing (or deliberately ignoring) is that in a
society _saturated_ with guns, it's easy for those people to get one.

More importantly, them having a gun isn't something that stands out
UNLESS you know for a fact that they are unbalanced and NOT legally
allowed to have a gun.

Why isn't the US getting massively tough on gun _crime_ since they seem
totally unwilling to actually stop being gun happy?

IE a mandatory 10 year sentence for using a gun in the commission of a
crime ON TOP of the sentence for the crime, every day of which must be
served.


Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:31:14 AM

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:umdee1d0p8uq2pb0k2v55u2djj9hqrqn2i@4ax.com...

> Why isn't the US getting massively tough on gun _crime_ since they seem
> totally unwilling to actually stop being gun happy?

That's an easy one! Bleeding heart liberals that want to blame everything
except the criminal.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:31:14 AM

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

In article <vmdee1d0p8vq2pb0k2v55v2djj9hqrqn2i@4ax.com>,
Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote:
#Why isn't the US getting massively tovgh on gvn _crime_ since they seem
#totally vnwilling to actvally stop being gvn happy?

#IE a mandatory 10 year sentence for vsing a gvn in the commission of a
#crime ON TOP of the sentence for the crime, every day of which mvst be
#served.

Voters demanded this in the 80's-90's and got it, minimvm 5 to 10 year
sentences for jvst abovt any weapon-related crime in most States in the
Union.

Prosecvtors seized on this career-ending move by tvrning it on its head.
By threatening mandatory sentences vpon convinction, they got defense
attorneys and their clients to agree to plea bargain down to non-violent
misdemeanors for a qvick and easy gvilty plea.

Everybody wins. The criminal is back on the street in 6-12 mos on
probation, and sticks with petty crimes to avoid a big rap when cavght
again. The probation officer stays employed, the revolving door keeps
spinning the same criminals back into the prosecvtor's office, normal
citizens get victimized regvlarly with petty crimes and a large segment
of the popvlation is vnder the control of the covrt system via
probation.

The (evil, bad, gvn-loving) NRA promotes a program for Federal
prosecvtions for gvn crimes ON TOP OF State prosecvtions. Federal
sentences rarely involve probation so every day mvst be served. Of
covrse, they are called anti-civil-rights becavse Federal raps are often
served ovt of state, away from the criminal's svpport network, drvg
connections, etc., and so violate the rights of the criminal. And
besides, what covld the NRA ever do that is right?

Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Fire Rvmsfeld, secvre Iraq's borders.
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | Ovr border with Mexico too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:31:15 AM

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

On 26 Jul 2005 13:05:02 -0500, "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com>
wrote:

>"Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote in message
>news:umdee1d0p8uq2pb0k2v55u2djj9hqrqn2i@4ax.com...
>
>> Why isn't the US getting massively tough on gun _crime_ since they seem
>> totally unwilling to actually stop being gun happy?
>
>That's an easy one! Bleeding heart liberals that want to blame everything
>except the criminal.

We have exactly the same problem in the UK unfortunately. We can't do anything
about these religious nutters who preach hate and applaud suicide bombers
because it might affect "their human rights". The people you say that should
be ashamed and should be made to face the survivors of the London bombings.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:31:15 AM

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:42e67ad7$0$37077$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
>
> That's an easy one! Bleeding heart liberals that want to blame everything
> except the criminal.

BOFTH
(Big ol' fat troll hook)
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:31:15 AM

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

Thusly "terry vickers" <terry@REMOVEterryv.co.uk> Spake Unto All:

>The US government is Liberal??

Many actually think it is that, yes. You should realize that seen from
the very far right pretty much everyone is a leftie.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:31:16 AM

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

> We have exactly the same problem in the UK unfortunately. We can't do anything
> about these religious nutters who preach hate and applaud suicide bombers
> because it might affect "their human rights". The people you say that should
> be ashamed and should be made to face the survivors of the London bombings.

That'd fall under the constitutional freedom of speech here. You may not
like it, but it's their right to say it. Believe me, there were folks in
the US who were making similar comments about the 9/11 terrorists.

What irks many is that these goofball politicians have duped the courts
into thinking that videogames are somehow different from other forms of
experession, and therefore can be censored or even banned - something that
would *never* be considered acceptable for print, TV, or movies.

It's a very slippery slope...and we're dangerously close to going over the
edge.
July 27, 2005 6:10:33 AM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:16:45 -0700, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
wrote:

>max <maxicon13@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the
>porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:08:39 +0300, Jesse <Jesse@hopmail.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 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.
>>
>>Can't happen?
>>
>>There have been multiple school massacres in China and Japan with
>>knives. Google on school massacre knife japan and school massacre
>>knife china to find a number of stories.
>
>Most of the hits google finds seem to involve ADULTS attacking small
>children.
>
>Just a little bit different than contemporaries at the same school.
>A teenager can outrun another teenager, a small child likely isn't going
>to be able to get away from an adult.
>
>A gun is a force multiplier, such that a child with a gun could kill
>multiple adults. The same cannot be said of a knife, not to mention the
>range difference.

Well, whatever. Keep narrowing the definition of what constitutes
unacceptable violence until your point is made. Knives kill more
people in the UK than guns do - I guess only people who can't run fast
enough.

Maybe we should make all non-violent people take track training and
violent people wear heavy weights.

max
July 27, 2005 6:39:21 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:45:52 +0100, Peter
<ivingtonAll_stRESS@fast24.co.uk> wrote:

>When guns provide some kind of benefit to society then they can be
>classed alongside all those other items that we could list for banning
>because they are misused. The only, so-called, benefit I see is to
>protect people from other people carrying guns. But hey, I don't live
>in a country where guns are so prevalent.

As I stated before, there are a number of hobbyist reasons. Whether
this is a benefit to society or not is up to your own interpretation,
but I enjoy shooting at targets and go every week. I also spend a
good bit of time and money customizing and testing guns. Maybe not
very much benefit to society at large, but the same could be said for
stamp collecting, dog-breeding, or whatever.

Before someone pipes up with "But stamps and dogs aren't dangerous", I
should say that my guns are not used for crime or violence. My hobby
doesn't hurt anyone, and I see no reason for the government to deprive
me of my property. I work hard, obey the law, pay my taxes, raise my
kids the best way I know, and spend my money on what I like.

Americans shoot hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo every year, and
the vast majority (99.999+ %) of it is for hobbyist shooting.

>And right at the bottom of this article it says this:
>
>Criminologists believe that a note of caution needs
>to be introduced into analysis of the data, because of the different
>ways in which UN member countries record crimes.

This is true, and data across countries is exceptionally difficult to
correlate, which is why I used reports from British media. Raw data
is always a better source, of course.

>There's a well known saying:
>
>There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
>
>I live in the UK and can walk around the streets freely without fear of
>being mugged or violently assaulted. There are not many places, if any,
>that I am aware of where I would be frightened to venture. Of course
>there are problems. Knife carrying is on the rise and alcohol related
>violence too, especially amongst teenagers which needs to be addressed
>by the government of the day. A job they're not doing as well as they
>could, IMO.

When I toured the UK a few years back, we were in a number of cities
that had cameras in some downtown neighborhoods. I understand that
these were to help reduce crime, which implied to me that there was
crime there in the first place, but I personally didn't experience
any. We hear a lot about street violence in the UK, and it's possible
that we get the wrong impression from our media...

I'm a fan of light government surveillance like that, as that's more
likely to be a behavioral modification than taking away weapons from
law-abiding citizens while the criminals still have them.

>As far as gun crime goes in the UK. Never seen a gun, come across an
>incident involving a gun or know of anyone who has. Yes, gun related
>incidents are on the increase, but it is highly unlikely that I am going
>to find myself caught up in any. How about you?

My neighborhood is quiet, and I live in one of the safer big cities in
the US. I see lots of guns in my neighborhood, though, but it's
because several of my neighbors are shooters, and we share a
hobbyist's interest. I've never seen gun or knife related violence,
despite living in a large, racially diverse urban environgment. Car
accidents are the big killer around here.

The only time I've been threatened with a weapon was in my teens
(quite a few years back), and that was a knife, but I grew up going to
a bad school in a bad neighborhood.
July 27, 2005 6:47:33 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:47:59 GMT, Memnoch
<memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:

>On 26 Jul 2005 13:05:02 -0500, "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote in message
>>news:umdee1d0p8uq2pb0k2v55u2djj9hqrqn2i@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Why isn't the US getting massively tough on gun _crime_ since they seem
>>> totally unwilling to actually stop being gun happy?
>>
>>That's an easy one! Bleeding heart liberals that want to blame everything
>>except the criminal.
>
>We have exactly the same problem in the UK unfortunately. We can't do anything
>about these religious nutters who preach hate and applaud suicide bombers
>because it might affect "their human rights". The people you say that should
>be ashamed and should be made to face the survivors of the London bombings.

I believe the US and the UK suffer from many of the same social
problems, though with different underlying causes. If you don't get
tough on violent criminals, then the reward for violent crime
outweighs the risks, and there's no reason for them to stop.

Passing laws that only affect the law-abiding doesn't seem to do much
good, for some reason.

max
July 27, 2005 7:58:16 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:49:43 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Thusly max <maxicon13@yahoo.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>>Whatever you say and in however ways you try to say it the fact is that
>>>cars were produced in order to ferry people from a to b in a more
>>>efficient manner and that is their main purpose. Now why were guns
>>>originally made?
>
>>What does intent have to do with the results?
>
>Everything?
>
>>Do you think the
>>survivors care about intent?
>
>Irrelevant much?
>But yeah, I *DO* think they care whether their loved one died in an
>accident or was murdered. I know I would care. You wouldn't?

You're welcome to your opinion. I would not feel any better about my
family being killed by a drunk driver versus an armed robber (for
instance), and if it happened to me, I would still be just as dead.
Personally, I feel the penalties for drunk driving should be harsh,
just like for gun violence and any violent crime.


>>Not only that, but people who kill and injure with cars are frequently
>>allowed to drive again with no concerns or limitations. Logical?
>
>Yes it is, you're simply trying to whitewash murder through appeal to
>accident.

IMO, dead is dead, whether from a drunk's carelessness or not. Your
response didn't address whether you believe it's OK to let killer
drivers drive again, or how many times you believe they should be
allowed to kill before something is done about it. Is it okay for
them to keep killing, as long as it's not on purpose?


>Or is your bizarre claim that everyone who kills or injure other with
>a car does so on purpose? Or that killing or injuring other is the
>purpose of cars?
>No, you're simply trying your hand at misdirection.

Speaking of misdirection, please cite where I made any of those
claims. I realize it's much easier to argue against fabricated
absurdities, but if you want to continue the discussion, please try to
pay attention and read more carefully.


>>The point of the comparison is that people are willing to accept the
>>death and destruction caused by cars, which is far higher than that
>>caused by guns, because they would be personally inconvenienced by
>>stringent rules on cars and driving.
>
>Yes. However, if cars were banned, it would be a severe blow to
>society. If all privately owned guns were to suddenly disappear, the
>only effect would be a lowered homicide rate. The cost to society of
>banning privately owned guns is not just zero, it translates to an
>actual GAIN.
>So not only is your comparison bizarre, it's disingenious.

So, you're willing to accept a certain number of deaths and injuries
for the good of society; it's really just a matter of where you draw
the line. I'm glad we got that out of the way.

Did you look at the graphs in the cites you posted below?

When guns were banned in the UK, the homicide rate rose. Likewise,
when they were banned in Australia, the handgun death rate fell, but
the overall homicide rate increased. There is absolutely no data that
I know of showing that banning handguns decreases the homicide rate.
If you have some, please show it.

I might ad that appealing to an impossible situation (all privately
owned guns disappearing) to support your argument is a wee bit
disingenious, if I can borrow a page from your book. Taking away the
defensive weapons of law-abiding citizens while criminals still have
them leads to a rather predictable situation.


>>Note that I didn't call for the banning of cars, just applied rigorous
>>logic to a similar situation.
>
>You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the face.

Hmm... That's quite an impressive comeback. I especially like the
deft use of statistics and data.


>>On a different tack, you are aware that the violent crime and gun
>>crime rates in the UK have increased steadily as guns have been banned
>>(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-537568,00.htm... ), while the
>>violent crime rate and gun crimes have decreased steadily in the US
>>for decades, even as more guns are bought every year by law-abiding
>>citizens?
>
>1) Yes, in one year crime involving guns, including soft air guns,
>jumped 12% (to a whopping 10000; there were 572 serious injuries
>involving firearms. Both figures are far lower than what is reported
>annually in New York alone).
>Why? At least partly because it was the year the UK introduced a
>NATIONAL CRIME REPORTING STANDARD.

Whatever. I'm just going by the official figures released by your
government. Your excuses are duly noted.


>2) Have you checked the actual LEVELS? Please do. Insinuating that the
>murder rates of UK and US are comparable is ridiculous, but only
>reporting trends and not actual levels is a tried and true propaganda
>method, which is of course why you're using it.

Sorry, it's that comprehension thing again. I didn't say or insinuate
that they were comparable. I stated that UK violent crime and
homicide rates have increased steadily over the last decade, while US
rates have decreased steadily over the same period. The cites you
posted below support this statement explicitly.

This is with roughly 5 million guns per year sold in the US over that
same period. This indicates that more guns do not result in higher
rates of gun crime. A neophyte with statistics would argue that more
guns reduce gun crime, but correlation is not causation.

>UK: 19 homicides per million inhabitants and year (and this was 2003,
>more on that later).
>US: 81 homicides per million inhabitants and year (2002).
>
>As you're no doubt going to ask for citations, be my guest:
>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf
>http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm#longterm
>(sorry I don't have as hard-hitting sources like your newsrags.)
>
>>In 2002, the UN found the UK to have the highest crime rate among the
>>world's leading economies, and in 2003 the UK was the most violent
>>country in western Europe.
>
>Haha... Misleading much? You're doing exactly what you're accusing
>Michael Moore of doing: lying through misdirection and out-of-context
>quotes. Liar liar, pants on fire.

As you may recall, I cited UK media stories that stated this, where
the entire article can be read. If you have a problem with the
veracity of them, please take it up with them. Do you have data to
refute the UN's report?

>In 2003 the UK was the most violent country in western europe - with a
>homicide rate 25% of the US average.
>
>But still, howcome UK got such a high rating in 2003? Homicides, after
>all, have always been reported as homicides.
>To no small part because that was the year Dr Harold Shipman was found
>guilty of 172 cases of murder.
>
>Yes, the murder rate in western europe, including the UK, are so low
>that 172 murders skews the statistics.

The USA definitely has a problem with violent crime, there's no doubt,
but it's clearly not caused by guns or other inanimate objects, but by
social issues. This should be obvious in the UK as well, where crime
rates are rising steadily, also due to social issues.

The UK government, having failed to control rising crime rates by
banning guns, is now turning their attention to knives. According to
your data, hitting/kicking and strangulation follow closely after
knives, and exceed guns as a cause of death. Do you remove people's
hands and feet next, or do you step back and look for a root cause
solution, rather than an ineffective attack on tools? Time for a
different approach yet? Nah, just keep letting the crime rate rise
while disarming the law-abiding citizen.


>>Whatever you're doing, it's not working. Maybe it's time to try
>>something different. You'll forgive me if I don't listen to your
>>dogmatic propaganda that isn't supported by data.
>
>FFS, at least be semi-honest and state that you want easy access to
>guns _even though_ easy access to guns means that a bunch of people
>more get killed every year.

There you go again, claiming something I never said.

For the record, I want law-abiding citizens to be able to choose for
themselves whether they can own a gun and take responsibility for
their own defense if they want. Where I live, you have to go through
safety certification, an FBI background check, and a 10 day waiting
period. Easy? Maybe easier than where you live.

You're welcome to your own choice. Oh, wait, your government has made
it for you. Never mind.


>Incidentally, the number of registered guns per 100000 inhabitants in
>the US is roughly twice that of Switzerland (including the Swiss
>army), 5 times that of Australia, and in the region of 15 times that
>of the UK, and in fact the number of homicides *using guns* per 100000
>inhabitants correlates quite well.
>In case anyone had gotten a different impression from the dogmatic
>propaganda spewed in this thread.

You want correlations? If you look at the number of homicides overall
and the number of gun homicides in the US over the last decade, they
have dropped steadily. The number of privately owned guns has risen
steadily in that same time period. That's what's called a negative
correlation. Definitely not causation, but it proves that more guns
do not cause more gun deaths.

This is from one of your links:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

Thanks for playing, and for providing the supporting data. If you get
anything more compelling, I'd love to see it. Please read more
carefully in the future, though, as repeating myself is getting a bit
tiresome.

max
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:15:03 PM

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

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message

> That'd fall under the constitutional freedom of speech here. You may not
> > like it, but it's their right to say it. Believe me, there were folks
> in
> the US who were making similar comments about the 9/11 terrorists.

Freedom of Speach doesn't cover conspiracy to commit murder.

> What irks many is that these goofball politicians have duped the courts
> into thinking that videogames are somehow different from other forms of
> experession, and therefore can be censored or even banned - something that
> would *never* be considered acceptable for print, TV, or movies.

All three of those are regulated, just like games are trying to become.

> It's a very slippery slope...and we're dangerously close to going over the
> edge.

Typical nonsense.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:17:01 PM

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

"JoblessDave" <JoblessDave@notlisted.us> wrote in message
news:A4BFe.50431$4o.38108@fed1read06...
> "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in message
> news:42e67ad7$0$37077$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
>>
>> That's an easy one! Bleeding heart liberals that want to blame
>> everything except the criminal.
>
> BOFTH
> (Big ol' fat troll hook)

HFATASQIYDLIPSTFU

(Honest freaking answer to a simple question, if you don't like it please,
start to feel useful)

I might have got the last part wrong.
July 27, 2005 5:52:53 PM

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

In article <vbrde15siuruq6qag5gb9quse4qvck0f8l@4ax.com>,
maxicon13@yahoo.com says...
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:45:52 +0100, Peter
> <ivingtonAll_stRESS@fast24.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> When I toured the UK a few years back, we were in a number of cities
> that had cameras in some downtown neighborhoods. I understand that
> these were to help reduce crime, which implied to me that there was
> crime there in the first place, but I personally didn't experience
> any. We hear a lot about street violence in the UK, and it's possible
> that we get the wrong impression from our media...
>
There are cameras everywhere in the UK these days. Mainly to help
prevent the anti-social behaviour that goes on, mainly at night.
Mostly, however they cover the main town centre areas.

Some areas are very run-down and socially deprived with high
unemployment and bad housing. These areas seem to attract anti-social
groups of youngsters (many under 16) hanging around on corners with no
money and nowhere to go. Many dress in a way that hides their facial
features and are known as hoodies. They say its a fashion statement,
but it also has the advantage of making them harder to identify and it
can be very unsettling walking past a group of youths who look like
their getting ready to rob a bank because of the way they dress.
Because of this, one large shopping complex in Essex, known as Lakeside,
has actually banned them completely.

Confront any of these youths for any reason and you're likely to come
under attack and, because they are under 16, they are not liable to the
same punishments as an adult, and know it. Hence the cameras, because
by the time the police arrive they are long gone. But also because of
the way they dress it's almost impossible to make use of the video
footage.

Some of these incidents have unfortunately resulted in deaths, which
obviously get highlighted in the media as if it's happening all the
time. It's not, but it is getting worse and needs sorting by the
government. Especially as knife carrying is on the increase this
situation is likely to get worse for the foreseeable future until the
laws change.

> I'm a fan of light government surveillance like that, as that's more
> likely to be a behavioral modification than taking away weapons from
> law-abiding citizens while the criminals still have them.
>
> >As far as gun crime goes in the UK. Never seen a gun, come across an
> >incident involving a gun or know of anyone who has. Yes, gun related
> >incidents are on the increase, but it is highly unlikely that I am going
> >to find myself caught up in any. How about you?
>
> My neighborhood is quiet, and I live in one of the safer big cities in
> the US. I see lots of guns in my neighborhood, though, but it's
> because several of my neighbors are shooters, and we share a
> hobbyist's interest. I've never seen gun or knife related violence,
> despite living in a large, racially diverse urban environgment. Car
> accidents are the big killer around here.
>
> The only time I've been threatened with a weapon was in my teens
> (quite a few years back), and that was a knife, but I grew up going to
> a bad school in a bad neighborhood.
>
>

I too was threatened by 2 guys many years ago, with one holding a knife.
Luckily I was a good runner back then. :) 

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:50:12 AM

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> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>"Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote in message
>news:umdee1d0p8uq2pb0k2v55u2djj9hqrqn2i@4ax.com...
>
>> Why isn't the US getting massively tough on gun _crime_ since they seem
>> totally unwilling to actually stop being gun happy?
>
>That's an easy one! Bleeding heart liberals that want to blame everything
>except the criminal.

Gee Fred, I was totally unaware that Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr were
Liberals.

The US has had enough years of Republican majorities that they could
have done it had they wanted to. Blaming everything on the liberals is
not going to wash.

You'd think jr would be rushing it through while he's got the whole "war
on terror" mandate.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:50:13 AM

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

> Gee Fred, I was totally unaware that Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr were
> Liberals.

Um, you're confusing branches of government, my simple friend.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:50:13 AM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:50:12 -0700, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
wrote:

>"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> looked up from reading the
>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
>say:
>
>>That's an easy one! Bleeding heart liberals that want to blame everything
>>except the criminal.
>
>Gee Fred, I was totally unaware that Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr were
>Liberals.
>
>The US has had enough years of Republican majorities that they could
>have done it had they wanted to. Blaming everything on the liberals is
>not going to wash.
>
>You'd think jr would be rushing it through while he's got the whole "war
>on terror" mandate.

The US political environment is not very homogeneous.

The way the government works in the US, the Feds have some overall
influence, but the local and state laws are all driven by the local
and state governments, which can swing from hard right to hard left
and all points in between.

The typical pattern is that low population density areas are more
conservative, and have lower crime, fewer illegal drug problems, and
looser gun control. High density urban areas are more liberal, have
higher crime, more illegal drug problems, and are more likely to have
strict gun control.

States that are dominated by high-density urban areas (like California
and New York) are much more likely to have serious crime problems in
those urban areas and to be run at all levels by liberal lawmakers who
tend towards soft approaches to crime control. As a result, there are
neighborhoods with very high crime and violence rates, and paroled
criminals tend to return to those areas, since it's easy for them to
make their livings, and the risks are low. Fixing these neighborhoods
is nearly impossible in a liberal-dominated local society, for a
variety of reasons.

The downside of getting tough on crime is that the US prison system is
not really very effective at reform, and people often come out as
better criminals than when they went in. The prisons are also very
overcrowded, which contributes more to the problem.

Higher education and job opportunities are probably a more effective
approach, but these cost money in the short term, though they probably
save it in the long term.

In general, it's a very complex set of problems, with no simple
solutions.


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:50:14 AM

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

> Higher education and job opportunities are probably a more effective
> approach, but these cost money in the short term, though they probably
> save it in the long term.

And liberal influenced education won't help it. Job opportunities are
hampered by a sense of entitlement.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:50:15 AM

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

On 27 Jul 2005 13:37:03 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:

>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote
>
>> Higher education and job opportunities are probably a more effective
>> approach, but these cost money in the short term, though they probably
>> save it in the long term.
>
>And liberal influenced education won't help it. Job opportunities are
>hampered by a sense of entitlement.

I figure that comes from the parents more than from the educational
system (though the system can amplify it), but I'm just going on
personal experience there. By teaching kids critical thinking and to
be aware of dogmatic teachings, you can give them the tools to get the
most out of their educational experience without being unduly
indoctrinated one way or the other.

In the case of lower economic strata kids, though, I don't really
care, as the societal benefits of an education that enables them to
move into the middle class far outweighs any indoctrination they get
in the process. It's a lesser of evils thing, IMO.



--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:50:16 AM

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:4jsfe1pcg6o2bpscanq0i03rpa9mdq67hp@4ax.com...
> On 27 Jul 2005 13:37:03 -0500, "Fred Liken"
> <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
>
>>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote
>>
>>> Higher education and job opportunities are probably a more effective
>>> approach, but these cost money in the short term, though they probably
>>> save it in the long term.
>>
>>And liberal influenced education won't help it. Job opportunities are
>>hampered by a sense of entitlement.
>
> I figure that comes from the parents more than from the educational
> system (though the system can amplify it), but I'm just going on
> personal experience there. By teaching kids critical thinking and to
> be aware of dogmatic teachings, you can give them the tools to get the
> most out of their educational experience without being unduly
> indoctrinated one way or the other.
>
> In the case of lower economic strata kids, though, I don't really
> care, as the societal benefits of an education that enables them to
> move into the middle class far outweighs any indoctrination they get
> in the process. It's a lesser of evils thing, IMO.

I wasn't talking about indoctrination whatsoever, sorry.

I was talking about liberal ideas of what education is supposed to be. A
system that holds the schools arms behind their backs and forces them to
mainstream violent students rather than punish them or remove them. A
system that wants to coddle children rather than teach them how to behave in
society. It doesn't matter what you know if you don't know how to act in a
civilized manner. It's completely worthless. A lot of children simply
don't know how to act.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 2:04:23 PM

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

On 27 Jul 2005 16:12:01 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:

>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote in message
>news:4jsfe1pcg6o2bpscanq0i03rpa9mdq67hp@4ax.com...
>> On 27 Jul 2005 13:37:03 -0500, "Fred Liken"
>> <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Higher education and job opportunities are probably a more effective
>>>> approach, but these cost money in the short term, though they probably
>>>> save it in the long term.
>>>
>>>And liberal influenced education won't help it. Job opportunities are
>>>hampered by a sense of entitlement.
>>
>> I figure that comes from the parents more than from the educational
>> system (though the system can amplify it), but I'm just going on
>> personal experience there. By teaching kids critical thinking and to
>> be aware of dogmatic teachings, you can give them the tools to get the
>> most out of their educational experience without being unduly
>> indoctrinated one way or the other.
>>
>> In the case of lower economic strata kids, though, I don't really
>> care, as the societal benefits of an education that enables them to
>> move into the middle class far outweighs any indoctrination they get
>> in the process. It's a lesser of evils thing, IMO.
>
>I wasn't talking about indoctrination whatsoever, sorry.
>
>I was talking about liberal ideas of what education is supposed to be. A
>system that holds the schools arms behind their backs and forces them to
>mainstream violent students rather than punish them or remove them. A
>system that wants to coddle children rather than teach them how to behave in
>society. It doesn't matter what you know if you don't know how to act in a
>civilized manner. It's completely worthless. A lot of children simply
>don't know how to act.

Yes, and I still believe that this is the parent's job, not the
schools. I don't want the schools teaching my kids behavior - just
facts and data. My point was that they do practice dogmatic
indoctrination in the schools, and again, it's my job to give my kids
the tools to deal with this.

I agree with you that disruptive kids need to be dealt with more
effectively, both for their own benefit and for the other students,
but my experience in our local school systems is that this requires a
lot of additional funding for a small proportion of kids.

The districts tend to minimize and whitewash the problems because
they're already strapped for funds and other resources, and public
schools are unable to wash their hands of it due to their legal
mandate to educate all children. Private schools have this option,
and one of my kids is in a private school because the public schools
only effectively educate the center of the bell curve.

This is another complex issue without simple solutions.


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 2:18:02 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:b8dje1hf99g7qhjpfkr0tn5po7amb4p5vj@4ax.com...

> How many of those knife incidents you refer to are one person killing
> multiple victims at the same time?

It's a completely moot point. It wouldn't change any statistics in a
meaningful way. You're being inane.

BTW, didn't they have pipe bombs as well, or was that some place else?
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 2:58:37 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:42e7f85a$0$37159$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
> "Neil Maxwell" <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote in message
> news:4jsfe1pcg6o2bpscanq0i03rpa9mdq67hp@4ax.com...
>> On 27 Jul 2005 13:37:03 -0500, "Fred Liken"
>> <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Higher education and job opportunities are probably a more effective
>>>> approach, but these cost money in the short term, though they probably
>>>> save it in the long term.
>>>
>>>And liberal influenced education won't help it. Job opportunities are
>>>hampered by a sense of entitlement.
>>
>> I figure that comes from the parents more than from the educational
>> system (though the system can amplify it), but I'm just going on
>> personal experience there. By teaching kids critical thinking and to
>> be aware of dogmatic teachings, you can give them the tools to get the
>> most out of their educational experience without being unduly
>> indoctrinated one way or the other.
>>
>> In the case of lower economic strata kids, though, I don't really
>> care, as the societal benefits of an education that enables them to
>> move into the middle class far outweighs any indoctrination they get
>> in the process. It's a lesser of evils thing, IMO.
>
> I wasn't talking about indoctrination whatsoever, sorry.
>
> I was talking about liberal ideas of what education is supposed to be. A
> system that holds the schools arms behind their backs and forces them to
> mainstream violent students rather than punish them or remove them. A
> system that wants to coddle children rather than teach them how to behave
> in society. It doesn't matter what you know if you don't know how to act
> in a civilized manner. It's completely worthless. A lot of children
> simply don't know how to act.
>

Oh Damn!

<Stands up and applauds>
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 6:15:01 PM

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

"Mattinglyfan" <nyyankees@comcast.net> wrote

>> I wasn't talking about indoctrination whatsoever, sorry.
>>
>> I was talking about liberal ideas of what education is supposed to be. A
>> system that holds the schools arms behind their backs and forces them to
>> mainstream violent students rather than punish them or remove them. A
>> system that wants to coddle children rather than teach them how to behave
>> in society. It doesn't matter what you know if you don't know how to act
>> in a civilized manner. It's completely worthless. A lot of children
>> simply don't know how to act.
>
> Oh Damn!
>
> <Stands up and applauds>

:) 
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 6:17:02 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

>>I wasn't talking about indoctrination whatsoever, sorry.
>>
>>I was talking about liberal ideas of what education is supposed to be. A
>>system that holds the schools arms behind their backs and forces them to
>>mainstream violent students rather than punish them or remove them. A
>>system that wants to coddle children rather than teach them how to behave
>>in
>>society. It doesn't matter what you know if you don't know how to act in
>>a
>>civilized manner. It's completely worthless. A lot of children simply
>>don't know how to act.
>
> Yes, and I still believe that this is the parent's job, not the
> schools. I don't want the schools teaching my kids behavior - just
> facts and data.

That's not what schools are for.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 9:31:43 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> thought that a good way
to threaten somebody was to light a stick of dynamite, then call the
guy and hold the burning fuse up to the phone and say:

> "Neil Maxwell" <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote
>
>> Higher education and job opportunities are probably a more
>> effective approach, but these cost money in the short term,
>> though they probably save it in the long term.
>
> And liberal influenced education won't help it. Job opportunities
> are hampered by a sense of entitlement.

My god, you are just like DiFool/SteamKiller except with you it's not
"VALVE! RAGE!!!" it's "LIEBERALS! RAGE!!!". The sad thing is DiFool
is probably just a troll wheras you're a true believer.

I guess we all need our scapegoats to point the finger at when things
don't go the way we want them to.

--
Ajay Tanwar | MCSE | ajtanwar@spam.yahoo.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people
in large groups." -Despair.com
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 1:34:28 AM

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 news:42e92e9c$0
$37129$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com:

>> Yes, and I still believe that this is the parent's job, not the
>> schools. I don't want the schools teaching my kids behavior -
just
>> facts and data.
>
> That's not what schools are for.
>

Says who?

--
Marc
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as
outraged as those who are."--Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 1:34:29 AM

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

"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96A1B2C87C3EFmastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.135...
> "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in news:42e92e9c$0
> $37129$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com:
>
>>> Yes, and I still believe that this is the parent's job, not the
>>> schools. I don't want the schools teaching my kids behavior -
> just
>>> facts and data.
>>
>> That's not what schools are for.
>>
>
> Says who?

Says those that created the education system.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 1:34:29 AM

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

"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96A1B2C87C3EFmastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.135...
> "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in news:42e92e9c$0
> $37129$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com:
>
>>> Yes, and I still believe that this is the parent's job, not the
>>> schools. I don't want the schools teaching my kids behavior -
> just
>>> facts and data.
>>
>> That's not what schools are for.
>>
>
> Says who?
>

Says teachers and adminstrators who realize that a minimum of 1/3 of a
students day and close to 1/2 of their day awake is spent at school. If we
spent our day only teaching facts and data, there would be a large portion
of the population who would be completely lost when it comes to everything
else. I must admit it would be easier for me to spend my day lecturing
about subject matter but I can't be guaranteed that every kid is receiving
everything that they need at home.

> --
> Marc
> "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as
> outraged as those who are."--Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 4:10:41 AM

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

"Mattinglyfan" <nyyankees@comcast.net> wrote in
news:eKednSPNL9xe-HTfRVn-oA@comcast.com:

>>> That's not what schools are for.
>>>
>>
>> Says who?
>>
>
> Says teachers and adminstrators who realize that a minimum of 1/3
> of a students day and close to 1/2 of their day awake is spent at
> school. If w

Not relevant. Yes, schools have become day cares, but that's not
their purpose. Too many parents abrogate their responsibilities.
Teachers are overworked and unqualified to do what society demands
they do.

--
Marc
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as
outraged as those who are."--Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 4:10:42 AM

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

"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96A1CD450C3ACmastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.135...
> "Mattinglyfan" <nyyankees@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:eKednSPNL9xe-HTfRVn-oA@comcast.com:
>
>>>> That's not what schools are for.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Says who?
>>>
>>
>> Says teachers and adminstrators who realize that a minimum of 1/3
>> of a students day and close to 1/2 of their day awake is spent at
>> school. If w
>
> Not relevant. Yes, schools have become day cares, but that's not
> their purpose. Too many parents abrogate their responsibilities.
> Teachers are overworked and unqualified to do what society demands
> they do.
>

The same can be said of some parents but that does not mean that they
shouldn't try.

> --
> Marc
> "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as
> outraged as those who are."--Benjamin Franklin
!