GTA: San Andreas gets AO rating! - page 3

178 answers Last reply
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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. :)
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.html ), 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/main543314.shtml

    max
  14. 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.html ), 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.
  15. 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.html ), 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/main543314.shtml
    >
    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
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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".
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  23. 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.
  24. 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)
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. 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.html ), 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
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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.
  36. 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
  37. 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.
  38. 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
  39. 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.
  40. 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
  41. 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?
  42. 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>
  43. 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>

    :)
  44. 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.
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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.
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Console Gaming Games Video Video Games