X-Box = 1.5 million GC = 1.2 million
Ethan Hammond
http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2837293,00.html
Gamecube sales:
http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2837351,00.html
--
All Purpose Cultural Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
TM2 Seed
news:3C3C56...@worldnet.att.net...
> X-Box sales:
>
> http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2837293,00.html
>
> Gamecube sales:
>
> http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2837351,00.html
And now gamespot is supposed to be a accurate news site, O.o
You believe far too much about what you read online. Accurate and online do
not go together, sucka. :)
--
____________________________
TM2 Seed
"Whenever a guy asks me if I have a Hotmail address, I wonder if he's
gay..." - TM2Seed
"Yeah, I'm stupid all right.....stupid like a FOX!!!" - Homer Simpson
"I knew it, I'm surrounded by Assholes." - Dark Helmet
Ethan Hammond
>
> "Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3C3C56...@worldnet.att.net..
> >
> > http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2837293,00.html
> >
> > Gamecube sales:
> >
> > http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2837351,00.html
>
> And now gamespot is supposed to be a accurate news site, O.o
>
> You believe far too much about what you read online. Accurate and online do
> not go together, sucka. :)
I don't see why Microsoft or Nintendo would lie about how many consoles they
have sold. Especially when they could say they sold alot more. The two
links are to press releases from the companies. What you meant to say
was accurant and New York Times do not go together.
TM2 Seed
> I don't see why Microsoft or Nintendo would lie about how many consoles
they
> have sold. Especially when they could say they sold alot more. The two
> links are to press releases from the companies. What you meant to say
> was accurant and New York Times do not go together.
Honestly, I could say that too and not fail a lie detector test. :)
Accurate and New York Times, that is. I have no idea what accurant means.
:p
RedFox
Thing is, Nintendo are now outselling Mircosoft. Also Microsoft were
announcing shipped consoles a while back compared to Nintendo who were
talking about sales, I'm not sure how these figures you quote Ethan are
related. I will go check :)
-=RedFox
<--Captain Universe ł-->
and I will claim more of mine than yours. The copycat technique works well
on the ignorant wouldn't you say?
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C3C5F...@worldnet.att.net...
Ethan Hammond
> announcing shipped consoles a while back compared to Nintendo who were
> talking about sales, I'm not sure how these figures you quote Ethan are
> related. I will go check :)
Nintendo wasn't outselling Microsoft. The X-Box was sold out by December 22nd
so Nintendo sold more because there were more to sell. It dosen't mean
they sold more overall.
Ethan Hammond
>
> It's called competition. I will sell my console on the same week as yours
> and I will claim more of mine than yours. The copycat technique works well
> on the ignorant wouldn't you say?
The Gamecube is a pos that geeks online support because they have to embrace
anything that is against the mainstream. If something is popular in the real
world it will get bashed online and thus the cycle continues. Microsoft
gets $100 more on each console they sell. Gamecube will be the next DC and
people online will not understand how it could start off so well then crap
out.
Ethan Hammond
>
> <--Captain Universe ł--> wrote:
> >
> > It's called competition. I will sell my console on the same week as yours
> > and I will claim more of mine than yours. The copycat technique works well
> > on the ignorant wouldn't you say?
>
> The Gamecube is a pos that geeks online support because they have to embrace
> anything that is against the mainstream. If something is popular in the real
> world it will get bashed online and thus the cycle continues. Microsoft
> gets $100 more on each console they sell. Gamecube will be the next DC and
> people online will not understand how it could start off so well then crap
> out.
Actually I didn't mean all of that. You guys were just pissing me off.
If you like the GC fine. I like the X-Box, whatever. If you can't see
any reason to get X-Box thats fine, I can't see any reason to get GC.
Ethan Hammond
up to take Sony's lame crap console down, then turn on each other.
BWAH HA HA HA!!!!
RedFox
> <--Captain Universe ł--> wrote:
> >
> > It's called competition. I will sell my console on the same week as
yours
> > and I will claim more of mine than yours. The copycat technique works
well
> > on the ignorant wouldn't you say?
>
> The Gamecube is a pos that geeks online support because they have to
embrace
> anything that is against the mainstream. If something is popular in the
real
> world it will get bashed online and thus the cycle continues. Microsoft
> gets $100 more on each console they sell. Gamecube will be the next DC
and
> people online will not understand how it could start off so well then crap
> out.
Both Nintendo and Microsoft lose money on console sales, and the Xbox costs
much more to manufacture, hence the extra $100 on the price tag
-=RedFox
Ethan Hammond
> much more to manufacture, hence the extra $100 on the price tag
Actually it costs $100 more because it has things the GC does not.
Can we say harddrive, built in BB support, DVD support.
Charles Doane
>
> > Both Nintendo and Microsoft lose money on console sales, and the Xbox costs
> > much more to manufacture, hence the extra $100 on the price tag
>
> Actually it costs $100 more because it has things the GC does not.
> Can we say harddrive, built in BB support, DVD support.
None of which have a darned thing to do with games.
--
ense petite placidum sub libertate quietem;
With the sword she seeks calm repose under
liberty: By the sword we seek peace, but
peace only under liberty.
(motto of Massachusetts)
TM2 Seed
> > Both Nintendo and Microsoft lose money on console sales, and the Xbox
costs
> > much more to manufacture, hence the extra $100 on the price tag
>
> Actually it costs $100 more because it has things the GC does not.
> Can we say harddrive, built in BB support, DVD support.
Bottlenecks, bells and whistles, unneeded add-ons to jack up the price, more
than likely a shorter life due to implementation flaws, um, it leaks
anti-freeze, ah, who really needs a built in cup holder, hmm, the damn thing
comes stock with bees.....BEES!!!!
TM2 Seed
> Actually I didn't mean all of that. You guys were just pissing me off.
> If you like the GC fine. I like the X-Box, whatever. If you can't see
> any reason to get X-Box thats fine, I can't see any reason to get GC.
As long as you remember that you started the threads of postulation, we will
not speak of this debacle again.... or at least until the next person
decides it's actually important conversation. =)
Matrriix
22nd
so Nintendo sold more because there were more to sell. It dosen't mean
they sold more overall.--
Not at first, but the last few weeks Nintendo has been selling far more
consoles then the Xbox. It looks like the gamecube will have more staying
power. I have both systems, so it doesn't matter to me as long as they both
are somewhat successful.
Not that it matters, the Ps2 outsold both consoles...they sold over 300k
consoles in the same time period and rightfully so. Ps2 is defnitely the best
system at the moment.
-Neo
Pipian
"RedFox" <red...@firenet.ws> wrote in message
news:a1k0pa$relpm$2...@ID-111763.news.dfncis.de...
I heard that Nintendo was breaking even on the Gamecube and that MS and the
PS2 were losing money on each sale.
Pipian
<--Captain Universe ł-->
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A5C3F...@worldnet.att.net...
<--Captain Universe ł-->
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C3D8A...@worldnet.att.net...
HW
Elaine (HUnewearl Lv145)
"<--Captain Universe ł-->" <cap_un...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:A191412AC4E17BE9.1F464F28...@lp.airnews.net...
Ethan Hammond
>
> Ethan Hammond wrote:
> >
> > > Both Nintendo and Microsoft lose money on console sales, and the Xbox costs
> > > much more to manufacture, hence the extra $100 on the price tag
> >
> > Actually it costs $100 more because it has things the GC does not.
> > Can we say harddrive, built in BB support, DVD support.
>
> None of which have a darned thing to do with games.
How will you play PSO on the GC when it comes out in a few months?
Gamecube modem?? What?? I said Gamecube modem. What?? I said
you will have to buy modem for the Gamecube?? What??
Ethan Hammond
>
> "Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3A5C3F...@worldnet.att.net..
> > If you like the GC fine. I like the X-Box, whatever. If you can't see
> > any reason to get X-Box thats fine, I can't see any reason to get GC.
>
> As long as you remember that you started the threads of postulation, we will
> not speak of this debacle again.... or at least until the next person
> decides it's actually important conversation. =)
I got tired of everyone ganging up on me, that shit gets old.
Ethan Hammond
>
> "RedFox" <red...@firenet.ws> wrote in message
> news:a1k0pa$relpm$2...@ID-111763.news.dfncis.de..
> >
> > news:3A5C3D...@worldnet.att.net..
> > > >
> > > > It's called competition. I will sell my console on the same week as
> > yours
> > > > and I will claim more of mine than yours. The copycat technique works
> > well
> > > > on the ignorant wouldn't you say?
> > >
> > > The Gamecube is a pos that geeks online support because they have to
> > embrace
> > > anything that is against the mainstream. If something is popular in the
> > real
> > > world it will get bashed online and thus the cycle continues. Microsoft
> > > gets $100 more on each console they sell. Gamecube will be the next DC
> > and
> > > people online will not understand how it could start off so well then
> crap
> > > out.
> >
> > Both Nintendo and Microsoft lose money on console sales, and the Xbox
> costs
> > much more to manufacture, hence the extra $100 on the price tag
>
> I heard that Nintendo was breaking even on the Gamecube and that MS and the
> PS2 were losing money on each sale.
It dosen't matter how much money Microsoft losses.
Ethan Hammond
>
> I second that motion!
Thank god someone for finally agrees with me again, it has been days.
What joy.
Ethan Hammond
>
> But a gaming console doesn't need that if the games were good enough.
Well online is the way of the future so it needs the BB.
Hardrive is better because you don't need a stupid memory card
and they can make add on's to the games like PC games get.
DVD is good because I can use it as my second DVD player
so it serves more than one function and is twofold.
Ethan Hammond
> need them. For example, Starfox 64 came with the Rumble Pack as a
> pack-in. Donkey Kong 64 came with the RAM expansion as a pack-in.
> Hey You! Pikachu came with the VRU and microphone as a pack-in.
Yes but you still paid extra for the pack ins. Its not like Nintendo is
being nice and giving them away for free.
> Sega does the same thing. Seaman came with a microphone VMU, as
> did Alien Front Online. NiGHTs came with the 3-D (aka NiGHTs)
> controller.
And the games cost extra because of it.
> So, given the history, I'd say the modem is gonna be an included
> item with the game. It would be unlike either Sega or Nintendo
> to do otherwise.
Sega has nothing to do with the online service for any of the new
versions of PSO. Sega is only going to be running the server for
the DC version. You can call them and ask yourself. Then ask
who is going to be running the online service for the new versions
and they have no idea. Go Sega the company of geniuses!!!! *Thumbs up*
HW
out until their software sales begin to make enough money so that they
aren't in the red anymore.
Elaine (HUnewearl Lv145)
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C3ED1...@worldnet.att.net...
Charles Doane
>
> Charles Doane wrote:
> >
> > Ethan Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > > Both Nintendo and Microsoft lose money on console sales, and the Xbox costs
> > > > much more to manufacture, hence the extra $100 on the price tag
> > >
> > > Actually it costs $100 more because it has things the GC does not.
> > > Can we say harddrive, built in BB support, DVD support.
> >
> > None of which have a darned thing to do with games.
>
> How will you play PSO on the GC when it comes out in a few months?
> Gamecube modem?? What?? I said Gamecube modem. What?? I said
> you will have to buy modem for the Gamecube?? What??
No you won't. Nintendo always packs peripherals in with games that
need them. For example, Starfox 64 came with the Rumble Pack as a
pack-in. Donkey Kong 64 came with the RAM expansion as a pack-in.
Hey You! Pikachu came with the VRU and microphone as a pack-in.
Sega does the same thing. Seaman came with a microphone VMU, as
did Alien Front Online. NiGHTs came with the 3-D (aka NiGHTs)
controller.
So, given the history, I'd say the modem is gonna be an included
item with the game. It would be unlike either Sega or Nintendo
to do otherwise.
--
RedFox
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > I heard that Nintendo was breaking even on the Gamecube and that MS and
the
> > PS2 were losing money on each sale.
>
> It dosen't matter how much money Microsoft losses.
Not to me. The more the merrier!
-=RedFox
RedFox
> TM2 Seed wrote:
> >
> > "Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A5C3F...@worldnet.att.net..
> > > Actually I didn't mean all of that. You guys were just pissing me
off.
> > > If you like the GC fine. I like the X-Box, whatever. If you can't
see
> > > any reason to get X-Box thats fine, I can't see any reason to get GC.
> >
> > As long as you remember that you started the threads of postulation, we
will
> > not speak of this debacle again.... or at least until the next person
> > decides it's actually important conversation. =)
>
> I got tired of everyone ganging up on me, that shit gets old.
Don't take things so hard man. Maybe not everyone is so diehard about the
new generation of consoles as you are just yet, we don't always have to
agree, do we? :)
-=RedFox
TM2 Seed
> Charles Doane wrote:
> >
> > Ethan Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > > Both Nintendo and Microsoft lose money on console sales, and the
Xbox costs
> > > > much more to manufacture, hence the extra $100 on the price tag
> > >
> > > Actually it costs $100 more because it has things the GC does not.
> > > Can we say harddrive, built in BB support, DVD support.
> >
> > None of which have a darned thing to do with games.
>
> How will you play PSO on the GC when it comes out in a few months?
> Gamecube modem?? What?? I said Gamecube modem. What?? I said
> you will have to buy modem for the Gamecube?? What??
Well, you can't even buy a modem for the Xbox...Whatsup wit dat?
TM2 Seed
> > No you won't. Nintendo always packs peripherals in with games that
> > need them. For example, Starfox 64 came with the Rumble Pack as a
> > pack-in. Donkey Kong 64 came with the RAM expansion as a pack-in.
> > Hey You! Pikachu came with the VRU and microphone as a pack-in.
>
> Yes but you still paid extra for the pack ins. Its not like Nintendo is
> being nice and giving them away for free.
We shall see...
> > Sega does the same thing. Seaman came with a microphone VMU, as
> > did Alien Front Online. NiGHTs came with the 3-D (aka NiGHTs)
> > controller.
>
> And the games cost extra because of it.
We shall see... :)
> > So, given the history, I'd say the modem is gonna be an included
> > item with the game. It would be unlike either Sega or Nintendo
> > to do otherwise.
>
> Sega has nothing to do with the online service for any of the new
> versions of PSO. Sega is only going to be running the server for
> the DC version. You can call them and ask yourself. Then ask
> who is going to be running the online service for the new versions
> and they have no idea. Go Sega the company of geniuses!!!! *Thumbs up*
>
There is no denying their infrastructure and power of realization of ideas,
such is their two-fold assault. Only not quite...
Ethan Hammond
> > being nice and giving them away for free.
>
> We shall see...
That phrase is forbidden has it been so long that you have forgotten the ways.
AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! *Squels in horror*
> > > Sega does the same thing. Seaman came with a microphone VMU, as
> > > did Alien Front Online. NiGHTs came with the 3-D (aka NiGHTs)
> > > controller.
> >
> > And the games cost extra because of it.
>
> We shall see... :)
Now I know you are doing it on purpose. I will have my revenge
by returning to PSO and reinstilling the "training" in you!!!!
> > > So, given the history, I'd say the modem is gonna be an included
> > > item with the game. It would be unlike either Sega or Nintendo
> > > to do otherwise.
> >
> > Sega has nothing to do with the online service for any of the new
> > versions of PSO. Sega is only going to be running the server for
> > the DC version. You can call them and ask yourself. Then ask
> > who is going to be running the online service for the new versions
> > and they have no idea. Go Sega the company of geniuses!!!! *Thumbs up*
> >
>
> There is no denying their infrastructure and power of realization of ideas,
> such is their two-fold assault. Only not quite...
The Genesis was a winner. Good times, good times!!!! The DC was an awesome
console, but they were too half assed to get the word out.
Ethan Hammond
*LOL* Modems suck anyway. I needs me some BB action.
Ethan Hammond
Heh, too bad they have basically infinite money though. Bill Gates could
lose a billion and not even break a sweat. Which is why he should
give me a million dollars for no reason with no strings attached.
Ethan Hammond
>
> Don't take things so hard man. Maybe not everyone is so diehard about the
> new generation of consoles as you are just yet, we don't always have to
> agree, do we? :)
Shhh, its a ruse. :P People don't always have to agree, just agree with me.
BWAH HA HA HA!!!!
TM2 Seed
> > Well, you can't even buy a modem for the Xbox...Whatsup wit dat?
>
> *LOL* Modems suck anyway. I needs me some BB action.
That would be nice. Modems do suck. But a BBA is useless to most everyone
in this land we live in, that what they call "a double edged sword".
Which reminds me, the GC version of POS....er.....um PSO...:)....should come
with a double sword, that would be schweet.
HW
Elaine (HUnewearl Lv145)
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C3EE9...@worldnet.att.net...
<--Captain Universe ł-->
We'll just be lying to ourselves if we did.
I say lets just leave it alone until an established winner comes out on top.
Speaking of consoles, Is Sony really going to release the PS3 when PS2 is a
clearly decent investment?
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C3EE9...@worldnet.att.net...
<--Captain Universe ł-->
why Sony wants a PS3. LOL!
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C3ED1...@worldnet.att.net...
<--Captain Universe ł-->
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C3ED2...@worldnet.att.net...
<--Captain Universe ł-->
all that bad.
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C3EDB...@worldnet.att.net...
<--Captain Universe ł-->
collapsing by the thousands. It would have been thoughtful to give an option
for a modem.
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C3EE9...@worldnet.att.net...
<--Captain Universe ł-->
at Wal-Mart, he is not even going to give you $5.
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C3EE9...@worldnet.att.net...
RedFox
"<--Captain Universe ł-->" <cap_un...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Yeah PS2 is crap. A whole year behind in advanced technology. I guess
that's
> why Sony wants a PS3. LOL!
PS2 was released too early and as such used technolody ahead of its time.
Thats why it took Nintendo and Microsoft a year and a half to release
anything comparable (and better). GC isn't *that* much more powerful than
the PS2 and by the time you see games really making the most of Xbox PS3
will be out.
-=RedFox
RedFox
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > Well, you can't even buy a modem for the Xbox...Whatsup wit dat?
>
> *LOL* Modems suck anyway. I needs me some BB action.
Not everyone has BB or can afford it. Everyone (almost) has a phoneline and
can afford $10-20 for a pack in modem.
-=RedFox
Charles Doane
>
> > No you won't. Nintendo always packs peripherals in with games that
> > need them. For example, Starfox 64 came with the Rumble Pack as a
> > pack-in. Donkey Kong 64 came with the RAM expansion as a pack-in.
> > Hey You! Pikachu came with the VRU and microphone as a pack-in.
>
> Yes but you still paid extra for the pack ins. Its not like Nintendo is
> being nice and giving them away for free.
No, but they do give them away for cost, which is basically the same
thing. *nods with the ancient wisdom*
For example, DK64 cost $60 with the RAM expansion. The RAM expansion
alone (no game) cost $25. So, either you believe that Nintendo was
selling one of their hottest franchises for $35, or you believe that
Nintendo was tossing in the pack-in for cost (basically free).
> > Sega does the same thing. Seaman came with a microphone VMU, as
> > did Alien Front Online. NiGHTs came with the 3-D (aka NiGHTs)
> > controller.
>
> And the games cost extra because of it.
Yeah, maybe 10 bucks! Big DEAL! Any game store in this nation is
going to have games with price differences varying as widely as $50,
and you're worried about $10? You gotta be cheaper than a Scotsman!
> > So, given the history, I'd say the modem is gonna be an included
> > item with the game. It would be unlike either Sega or Nintendo
> > to do otherwise.
>
> Sega has nothing to do with the online service for any of the new
> versions of PSO. Sega is only going to be running the server for
> the DC version. You can call them and ask yourself. Then ask
> who is going to be running the online service for the new versions
> and they have no idea. Go Sega the company of geniuses!!!! *Thumbs up*
GOOD! You've said yourself that Sega can't control the servers.
So why would you even WANT Sega in charge of the GC versions server?
Cripes, DRICAS has screwed up so badly that over half the people I
liked playing with from PSOv1 are all gone now. You have to hit
JAPAN with the DC in order to play PSO now. That's pretty stupid!
Here we have a game that's supposed to have worldwide appeal, play
across language barriers, make allies and friends with people you've
never met, and then it gets so centralized that it has to call Japan.
And nobody can play it unless they have a Visa or Mastercard. Now,
that doesn't exactly keep *me* off, but it does affect how many
players there are in a negative way. The only reason to go online
is to play with other gamers. A system that keeps other gamers out
(like requiring a credit card) is anathema to this premise.
So, in summary, if Sega ain't gonna be running the GC PSO servers,
all I can say is WOO HOO!! YAY! YIPPEE!! FUN FUN!!!
<--Captain Universe ł-->
sure better plan that carefully.
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"RedFox" <red...@firenet.ws> wrote in message
news:a1nn3k$rgmch$1...@ID-111763.news.dfncis.de...
<--Captain Universe ł-->
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Charles Doane" <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C3FC8A6...@mindspring.com...
Unless Nintendo makes their own network you will be stuck with DRICAS again.
And also those pesky Credit card restrictions. Some one has to maintain the
damn thing.
Ethan Hammond
>
> That sounds crunchy like Frosted Flakes.
> We'll just be lying to ourselves if we did.
> I say lets just leave it alone until an established winner comes out on top.
> Speaking of consoles, Is Sony really going to release the PS3 when PS2 is a
> clearly decent investment?
They sure seem like they want to release the PS3 by the end of this year.
Ethan Hammond
>
> Also breaking the Logical Console barrier of 199.99. Damn inflation!!!
You do know there have been lots of consoles that have come out at
more than $199.99 besides the X-Box.
Ethan Hammond
>
> Its most likely to be 59.99 for the game and pack in. 10.00 dollars isn't
> all that bad.
I bet it will be closer to $79.99 if they pack in the modem.
Ethan Hammond
>
> But think, everyone can't spend 50 dollars a month on shaky BBISPs. They are
> collapsing by the thousands. It would have been thoughtful to give an option
> for a modem.
Its not $50 a month.
TM2 Seed
> Unless Nintendo makes their own network you will be stuck with DRICAS
again.
> And also those pesky Credit card restrictions. Some one has to maintain
the
> damn thing.
If Nintendo runs the servers, there will be no problems. We can only hope.
That is if you intend to buy PSO a third time. There is only one way they
could get me to buy it again.....add a jump button. :)
Charles Doane
>
> --Captain Universe ł-->" <cap_un...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:D1D38216242E78E2.53268AE1...@lp.airnews.net...
> > Unless Nintendo makes their own network you will be stuck with DRICAS
> again.
> > And also those pesky Credit card restrictions. Some one has to maintain
> the
> > damn thing.
>
> If Nintendo runs the servers, there will be no problems. We can only hope.
> That is if you intend to buy PSO a third time. There is only one way they
> could get me to buy it again.....add a jump button. :)
Jumping with firearms or bladed weapons is dangerous and cannot be condoned
by Sonic Team. Besides, they're OUT of buttons. They have to use the
the shoulder button as a shift key NOW. The GC controller has exactly one
more button compared to the DC controller (and another analog stick, but
that doesn't help unless it pulls camera off of the L-trigger).
Besides, you ain't playing Rayman 2. Jumping would ruin the game.
RedFox
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > That sounds crunchy like Frosted Flakes.
> > We'll just be lying to ourselves if we did.
> > I say lets just leave it alone until an established winner comes out on
top.
> > Speaking of consoles, Is Sony really going to release the PS3 when PS2
is a
> > clearly decent investment?
>
> They sure seem like they want to release the PS3 by the end of this year.
Its not out till 2004. Might be demo'ed privately at the next tokyo games
show though...
-=RedFox
RedFox
"<--Captain Universe ł-->" <cap_un...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > So, in summary, if Sega ain't gonna be running the GC PSO servers,
> > all I can say is WOO HOO!! YAY! YIPPEE!! FUN FUN!!!
>
> Unless Nintendo makes their own network you will be stuck with DRICAS
again.
> And also those pesky Credit card restrictions. Some one has to maintain
the
> damn thing.
My thinking is that Sega will run the servers. Nintendo will set up an ISP
but you'll be able to connect using your own and you'll enter the details in
PSO rather than having to use the browser to embed them in flash ROM like
the DC
-=RedFox
RedFox
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > But think, everyone can't spend 50 dollars a month on shaky BBISPs. They
are
> > collapsing by the thousands. It would have been thoughtful to give an
option
> > for a modem.
>
> Its not $50 a month.
I just realised. BB only on the Xbox will be a big disadvantage (in terms of
online games), most homes won't have BB for years yet. Not as a standard
anyway.
-=RedFox
TM2 Seed
> Jumping with firearms or bladed weapons is dangerous and cannot be
condoned
> by Sonic Team. Besides, they're OUT of buttons. They have to use the
> the shoulder button as a shift key NOW. The GC controller has exactly one
> more button compared to the DC controller (and another analog stick, but
> that doesn't help unless it pulls camera off of the L-trigger).
If you want to get technical, the GC controller has 3 more buttons than the
DC controller. The obvious Z button, plus each shouder button has two
steps, one analog and one that clicks after that.
I've never seen a game be less interesting from the addition of a jump
feature, the reason I said it should come with one was to imply that they
should rethink the gameplay mechanics. Not keep adding on to the same old
game over and over again. The only reason the GC version of PSO is tempting
for me to buy is the possiblity there will be no cheating. (at least for a
little while)
> Besides, you ain't playing Rayman 2.
Thank God for that. :)
> Jumping would ruin the game.
If adding jumping to PSO ruins the game, then that should speak more to
Sega's inability as programmers to make a good game and less to what your
expectations of it would be if they did it. But it's all moot in the long
run. They will just add some new challenge mode and more battle rules or an
exciting new lobby "game" that no one will play.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see if there is still a market for a
game that people play more for the community and less for the actual game,
'cos that is about the only thing in my opinion Sega did exceedingly well in
the first place with PSO.
I guess I speak so much about the short comings of the game because there is
so much potential being wasted.
Ethan Hammond
>
> --Captain Universe ł-->" <cap_un...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:D1D38216242E78E2.53268AE1...@lp.airnews.net..
> again.
> > And also those pesky Credit card restrictions. Some one has to maintain
> the
> > damn thing.
>
> If Nintendo runs the servers, there will be no problems. We can only hope.
> That is if you intend to buy PSO a third time. There is only one way they
> could get me to buy it again.....add a jump button. :)
There is no way I will buy it a third time because I don't want to start over.
Ethan Hammond
> online games), most homes won't have BB for years yet. Not as a standard
> anyway.
MS is going to offer a super cheap X-Box only BB deal this summer.
<--Captain Universe ł-->
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C4001...@worldnet.att.net...
<--Captain Universe ł-->
How much cheaper? 19.99 for 3 months then 44.99 a month? MS can't possibly
give a cheaper BBISP deal unless the cable companies agree with the terms.
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C415D...@worldnet.att.net...
>
Ethan Hammond
>
> >>>MS is going to offer a super cheap X-Box only BB deal this summer.>>>
>
> How much cheaper? 19.99 for 3 months then 44.99 a month? MS can't possibly
> give a cheaper BBISP deal unless the cable companies agree with the terms.
Well its not $44.99 a month in Houston, I know that much. You can get a deal
from Time Warner cable where you get cable and BB acess for about $40 a month.
MS hasn't mentioned any specifics to the deal and I don't care to dabble
in speculation. What I do know is they are moving forward by making the
X-Box BB ready rather than limiting themselves to a modem and narrowband.
Ethan Hammond
>
> I guess that's why they are losing money.
Who isn't losing money on console sales?
<--Captain Universe ł-->
the Recession? Layoffs? Paycuts? It won't be worth it until the economy gets
back to normal.
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C4293...@worldnet.att.net...
<--Captain Universe ł-->
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C4292...@worldnet.att.net...
Ethan Hammond
>
> But they didn't think of the people who cant afford BB access yet. Remember
> the Recession? Layoffs? Paycuts? It won't be worth it until the economy gets
> back to normal.
The recession crap is blown out of proportion on TV. Its just that all the idiots
thought internet IPO's would keep going up and up even though the companies didn't
make any money. I didn't invest in the dot com companies during the boom because
I knew it would bust. Also the average time to find a new job is 3 and 1/2
months. The country is not in a huge crisis. The Dow is still over 10,000 and
the Nasdac is doing fine.
<--Captain Universe ł-->
not all that bad, Why are companies still laying off? And knowing the .Com
bubble would bust is pure lying. AND now I just got informed from legal
sources that the Government wants back those Tax rebates. So if you got one,
expect to pay it back. ALSO speaking of finding a job, you said 3 and 1/2
months. It used to be 4 days to a week.
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C43D2...@worldnet.att.net...
Ethan Hammond
>
> The Dow dipped and just broke the 10,000 mark not too long ago. And If its
> not all that bad, Why are companies still laying off? And knowing the .Com
> bubble would bust is pure lying. AND now I just got informed from legal
> sources that the Government wants back those Tax rebates. So if you got one,
> expect to pay it back. ALSO speaking of finding a job, you said 3 and 1/2
> months. It used to be 4 days to a week.
The market always goes back up and comes back stronger. Companies always lay
people off, the news just wants to talk about it more. Especially the
liberal media who is afraid of Bush and his 95% approval rating. Actually I
did know the .com bubble would burst, you can ask my lawyer and broker why
I didn't invest in those stocks in 1999 and he will tell you what I told him.
Yes sir, its called being realistic. I never got a tax rebate because I only
pay taxes out of my paycheck. And they are not going to ask for the money
back, that is what the Democrats are trying to propose. Getting a job never
took 4 days to a week. It is usually 1-6 months.
<--Captain Universe ł-->
just about everyone pays taxes out of their paycheck. You didn't get one
because you don't get paid enough, you're filing single or have other legal
obligations. Also if you just started working. Nomatter where you work in
the U.S. they will find you and will make you pay taxes. Its the law. If you
didn't get a check, you won't pay anything back but people who did will.
Unless the Democratic party can stop those Republican leaches from sucking
you dry, those individuals will have to pay back the rebate.
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C4596...@worldnet.att.net...
Ethan Hammond
>
> Your facts are very weak, so to avoid run-on posts. Just to let you know,
> just about everyone pays taxes out of their paycheck. You didn't get one
> because you don't get paid enough, you're filing single or have other legal
> obligations. Also if you just started working. Nomatter where you work in
> the U.S. they will find you and will make you pay taxes. Its the law. If you
> didn't get a check, you won't pay anything back but people who did will.
> Unless the Democratic party can stop those Republican leaches from sucking
> you dry, those individuals will have to pay back the rebate.
Wow your last sentance shows that you are really misinformed. Democrats are
the ones who notoriously raise taxes because they think the government can
take better care of us than we can. Personally I don't need the government
telling me how to spend my money. No one has to pay back the rebate, that
is just what Ted Kennedy and Tom Dashle would like to happen because they
are desperately trying to get more seats in this off year election. I have
been working since I was 16. America is a capitalist system if you don't like
it move to Canada where they will baby you and take care of your every
whim. Oh yeah and if you think taxes are bad here in the USA then Canada will
be a kick in da nuts. The richest 10% pays 90% of the taxes in America, its
true, its true. Of course you actually have to read and be informed to find
out these things.
<--Captain Universe ł-->
something silly like this. Just remember, Republicans are in the Executive
branch and were in a recession, get the picture? Of course not. Oh well, I
quit.
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C466F...@worldnet.att.net...
Ethan Hammond
>
> OK.............Good. Leave it like that. I'm not gonna argue about
> something silly like this. Just remember, Republicans are in the Executive
> branch and were in a recession, get the picture? Of course not. Oh well, I
> quit.
But the recession started before Bush took office. Anyway I'm more worried
about this sudden rash of college shootings than I am at the economy at this
point. I expect those kind of things in high school, but not in college.
*Nods sage like whist making out with sweet sweet Nuku Nuku* *Moan is what she says*
<--Captain Universe ł-->
about 6 people. Time for anger management classes.
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C484F...@worldnet.att.net...
RedFox
"<--Captain Universe ł-->" <cap_un...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Yeah. I just remembered what happened the other day. That Law student shot
> about 6 people. Time for anger management classes.
More like time to ban guns. The right to own a gun is ridiculous in this day
and age and as long as guns are legal then this will happen
-=RedFox
Ethan Hammond
>
> Yeah. I just remembered what happened the other day. That Law student shot
> about 6 people. Time for anger management classes.
And another one today where a guy shot some girl he was aguring with and then
shot himself. It was at some college in Florida.
Ethan Hammond
Taking away guns won't stop anything. Remember that guy earlier this year in
Japan who knifed up a bunch of elementary school kids. If someone wants
to do something crazy they will find a way.
RedFox
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > Yeah. I just remembered what happened the other day. That Law student
shot
> > > about 6 people. Time for anger management classes.
> >
> > More like time to ban guns. The right to own a gun is ridiculous in this
day
> > and age and as long as guns are legal then this will happen
>
> Taking away guns won't stop anything. Remember that guy earlier this year
in
> Japan who knifed up a bunch of elementary school kids. If someone wants
> to do something crazy they will find a way.
It will make gaining access to guns a lot harder. Knife stabbings, although
horrific are not like gun shootings, you can run from a guy with a knife.
Any country that allows its citizens to own guns is asking for trouble...
-=RedFox
Ethan Hammond
So how is it better to only let criminals have guns? I know in England you
can have a gun for hunting so I dunno what the difference is.
Charles Doane
Let's see. Mass murders and the weapons of choice.
World Trade Center. Boeing 767. Over 3000 dead.
Oklahoma City Bombing. Ryder Truck full of Ammonium Nitrate. Over 100 dead.
Waco Branch Davidians. Incendiary devices. Over 30 dead.
Jeffery Dahmer never used a gun. Neither did Charles Manson. Nor did
Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber). The Japanese Aum Shinri Kyo cult prefers
Sarin Nerve Gas to deodorize subways (12 dead, 6,000 injured).
So, since few terrorists are using guns in terrorist attacks, and the
most notorious villains of our time don't use guns either, precisely
what would banning guns solve? Not much.
Let's see, where are you from? Germany? Oh, that's EASY! Home of
one of history's most notorious mass murderers, one Adolf Hitler.
6,000,000 Jews dead, and what was the preferred method? Guns? Nope.
Cyanide Gas. Good thing he wasn't using guns, huh? I bet the dead
people really felt oh so much safer.
One of the USA's founding fathers was a man named Benjamin Franklin.
His face is on the USA's $100 note. He had some great things to say.
This is one of his quotes:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Guns are an essential part of American Liberty. It's what made us
free from the tyranny of King George the III, and it's what will
keep us free from tyranny in the future. The first thing a tyrant
will try to do is grab the guns. You should know that, living in
Germany. Hitler was a huge fan of gun control. He loved the idea.
And no, my sig is not just for this post. I've used it several times
in past posts. But please, do read it.
--
ense petite placidum sub libertate quietem;
With the sword she seeks calm repose under
liberty: By the sword we seek peace, but
peace only under liberty.
(motto of Massachusetts)
RedFox
The point is it would be hard for them to get guns if they were banned. Only
high risk crime would necessitate a gun.
Hunting laws here only allow shotguns with a license and its only country
upper class lord-of-the-manor types that own guns really.. and some farmers
-=RedFox
RedFox
"Charles Doane" <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > It will make gaining access to guns a lot harder. Knife stabbings,
although
> > horrific are not like gun shootings, you can run from a guy with a
knife.
> > Any country that allows its citizens to own guns is asking for
trouble...
>
> Let's see. Mass murders and the weapons of choice.
>
> World Trade Center. Boeing 767. Over 3000 dead.
> Oklahoma City Bombing. Ryder Truck full of Ammonium Nitrate. Over 100
dead.
> Waco Branch Davidians. Incendiary devices. Over 30 dead.
>
> Jeffery Dahmer never used a gun. Neither did Charles Manson. Nor did
> Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber). The Japanese Aum Shinri Kyo cult prefers
> Sarin Nerve Gas to deodorize subways (12 dead, 6,000 injured).
For mass murder guns are ineffective. We were talking about school/college
shootings where kids have got access to firearms and used them to shoot
innocent people. This is possible because of American's gun laws, which make
it easier for them to be bought and used illegally.
> So, since few terrorists are using guns in terrorist attacks, and the
> most notorious villains of our time don't use guns either, precisely
> what would banning guns solve? Not much.
It would solve the horrifying gun related deaths in america. How often do
terorrists strike america? Very rarely, compare that to the number of gun
related homocides and then comment.
> Let's see, where are you from? Germany? Oh, that's EASY! Home of
> one of history's most notorious mass murderers, one Adolf Hitler.
> 6,000,000 Jews dead, and what was the preferred method? Guns? Nope.
> Cyanide Gas. Good thing he wasn't using guns, huh? I bet the dead
> people really felt oh so much safer.
Except! I'm not from Germany. My news server is. And Hilter did use guns,
guns are just not a good way to kill large numbers of people.
> One of the USA's founding fathers was a man named Benjamin Franklin.
> His face is on the USA's $100 note. He had some great things to say.
> This is one of his quotes:
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Those times were vastly different to now.
> Guns are an essential part of American Liberty. It's what made us
> free from the tyranny of King George the III, and it's what will
> keep us free from tyranny in the future. The first thing a tyrant
> will try to do is grab the guns. You should know that, living in
> Germany. Hitler was a huge fan of gun control. He loved the idea.
Sorry but thats laughable. No one is going to invade the USA with hand guns,
you don't need a pistol to protect yourselves from tyrany, or are you one of
those mountain campers that waits for the NWO and the UN to march in?
-=RedFox
Charles Doane
>
> "Charles Doane" <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> > > It will make gaining access to guns a lot harder. Knife stabbings,
> although
> > > horrific are not like gun shootings, you can run from a guy with a
> knife.
> > > Any country that allows its citizens to own guns is asking for
> trouble...
> >
> > Let's see. Mass murders and the weapons of choice.
> >
> > World Trade Center. Boeing 767. Over 3000 dead.
> > Oklahoma City Bombing. Ryder Truck full of Ammonium Nitrate. Over 100
> dead.
> > Waco Branch Davidians. Incendiary devices. Over 30 dead.
> >
> > Jeffery Dahmer never used a gun. Neither did Charles Manson. Nor did
> > Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber). The Japanese Aum Shinri Kyo cult prefers
> > Sarin Nerve Gas to deodorize subways (12 dead, 6,000 injured).
>
> For mass murder guns are ineffective. We were talking about school/college
> shootings where kids have got access to firearms and used them to shoot
> innocent people. This is possible because of American's gun laws, which make
> it easier for them to be bought and used illegally.
So what? Outlawing something doesn't get rid of it. That dumb old method
has been tried on illegal drugs for literally decades, and it hasn't worked.
We don't need to get rid of the guns, we need to get rid of the people who
do evil things. That's what executions are for. The death penalty works
every time it's tried. It really cuts down on repeat offenders.
> > So, since few terrorists are using guns in terrorist attacks, and the
> > most notorious villains of our time don't use guns either, precisely
> > what would banning guns solve? Not much.
>
> It would solve the horrifying gun related deaths in america. How often do
> terorrists strike america? Very rarely, compare that to the number of gun
> related homocides and then comment.
Guns save more lives than they take. Every police officer has one, and
no, it's not because police officers go around killing people. Guns are
very effective at keeping the peace. So what if there's a few homocides?
Murder has been around since the caveman days. Guns are not a cause of
murder, because murder definitely predates guns.
> > Let's see, where are you from? Germany? Oh, that's EASY! Home of
> > one of history's most notorious mass murderers, one Adolf Hitler.
> > 6,000,000 Jews dead, and what was the preferred method? Guns? Nope.
> > Cyanide Gas. Good thing he wasn't using guns, huh? I bet the dead
> > people really felt oh so much safer.
>
> Except! I'm not from Germany. My news server is. And Hilter did use guns,
> guns are just not a good way to kill large numbers of people.
That depends on how big the gun is.
> > One of the USA's founding fathers was a man named Benjamin Franklin.
> > His face is on the USA's $100 note. He had some great things to say.
> > This is one of his quotes:
> > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>
> Those times were vastly different to now.
No, they are not. There is NO DIFFERENCE between then and now. There
are still people who want to take over the world, now same as ever.
There is no shortage of despots. It wasn't even a year ago that the
world was introduced to the Taliban and their despotic ways, so nothing
has changed over the course of the last several thousand years at all.
Evil is never truly defeated, it merely goes off and regroups for
another assault.
> > Guns are an essential part of American Liberty. It's what made us
> > free from the tyranny of King George the III, and it's what will
> > keep us free from tyranny in the future. The first thing a tyrant
> > will try to do is grab the guns. You should know that, living in
> > Germany. Hitler was a huge fan of gun control. He loved the idea.
>
> Sorry but thats laughable. No one is going to invade the USA with hand guns,
> you don't need a pistol to protect yourselves from tyrany, or are you one of
> those mountain campers that waits for the NWO and the UN to march in?
They won't be marching in while the average household is an armed one.
Which is the whole point, of course. Tyrants have to deal with being
outmanned, but they sure don't like being outgunned. The UN has tried
to harm the USA in the past, most recently with that horrid Kyoto Treaty
which was designed to cripple industrialized nations that use power in
order to prevent global warming. I *want* global warming! It's too
cold as it is! Bring on the heat!
Ethan Hammond
>
> World Trade Center. Boeing 767. Over 3000 dead.
> Oklahoma City Bombing. Ryder Truck full of Ammonium Nitrate. Over 100 dead.
> Waco Branch Davidians. Incendiary devices. Over 30 dead.
The most pathetic part of the WTC deal is that they highjacked the planes with
boxcutters and ceramic knives.
Ethan Hammond
> shootings where kids have got access to firearms and used them to shoot
> innocent people. This is possible because of American's gun laws, which make
> it easier for them to be bought and used illegally.
So do you think Prohibition was a good idea?
> > So, since few terrorists are using guns in terrorist attacks, and the
> > most notorious villains of our time don't use guns either, precisely
> > what would banning guns solve? Not much.
>
> It would solve the horrifying gun related deaths in america. How often do
> terorrists strike america? Very rarely, compare that to the number of gun
> related homocides and then comment.
Why would criminals stop usings guns because they are illegal, that would
kind of defeat the point of being a criminal to begin with.
Ethan Hammond
> high risk crime would necessitate a gun.
Its not hard to get drugs and they are illegal.
> Hunting laws here only allow shotguns with a license and its only country
> upper class lord-of-the-manor types that own guns really.. and some farmers
Can you have a double barreled shotgun or just a pump action?
Anyway Charleton Heston is the head of the NRA and he would never lead
me astray.
RedFox
"Charles Doane" <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > For mass murder guns are ineffective. We were talking about
school/college
> > shootings where kids have got access to firearms and used them to shoot
> > innocent people. This is possible because of American's gun laws, which
make
> > it easier for them to be bought and used illegally.
>
> So what? Outlawing something doesn't get rid of it. That dumb old method
> has been tried on illegal drugs for literally decades, and it hasn't
worked.
> We don't need to get rid of the guns, we need to get rid of the people who
> do evil things. That's what executions are for. The death penalty works
> every time it's tried. It really cuts down on repeat offenders.
It makes them harder to obtain. Which is my point. Gun smuggling is slightly
different to drugs, and many other countries where firearms are outlawed
manage not to have gun problems. The police should still carry guns IMO,
just not the general public.
> > > So, since few terrorists are using guns in terrorist attacks, and the
> > > most notorious villains of our time don't use guns either, precisely
> > > what would banning guns solve? Not much.
> >
> > It would solve the horrifying gun related deaths in america. How often
do
> > terorrists strike america? Very rarely, compare that to the number of
gun
> > related homocides and then comment.
>
> Guns save more lives than they take. Every police officer has one, and
> no, it's not because police officers go around killing people. Guns are
> very effective at keeping the peace. So what if there's a few homocides?
> Murder has been around since the caveman days. Guns are not a cause of
> murder, because murder definitely predates guns.
Never said it was the cause of murder and its more than a few...
Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996: Thomas Gabor, Professor of
Criminology - University of Ottawa:
"Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything
else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning
firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".
-
The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and
suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire.
'International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and
suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.
-
In 1998 a total of 30,708 people were killed by guns in the U.S. Of these
17,424 were gun suicides, 12,102 were gun homicides, 886 were unintentional
or accidental shootings, and 316 were shooting deaths of undetermined
intent.
-
> > > Let's see, where are you from? Germany? Oh, that's EASY! Home of
> > > one of history's most notorious mass murderers, one Adolf Hitler.
> > > 6,000,000 Jews dead, and what was the preferred method? Guns? Nope.
> > > Cyanide Gas. Good thing he wasn't using guns, huh? I bet the dead
> > > people really felt oh so much safer.
> >
> > Except! I'm not from Germany. My news server is. And Hilter did use
guns,
> > guns are just not a good way to kill large numbers of people.
>
> That depends on how big the gun is.
So now you contradict yourself? One gun is ineffective at killing large
amounts of people yes, but lots of people with lots of guns indicates a big
social risk.
> > > One of the USA's founding fathers was a man named Benjamin Franklin.
> > > His face is on the USA's $100 note. He had some great things to say.
> > > This is one of his quotes:
> > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> > > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> >
> > Those times were vastly different to now.
>
> No, they are not. There is NO DIFFERENCE between then and now. There
> are still people who want to take over the world, now same as ever.
> There is no shortage of despots. It wasn't even a year ago that the
> world was introduced to the Taliban and their despotic ways, so nothing
> has changed over the course of the last several thousand years at all.
> Evil is never truly defeated, it merely goes off and regroups for
> another assault.
There is no American civil war and no one would invade the USA. Things are
vastly different, if you are talking about the risk of other countries
necessitating guns then you are weakening your argument, the USA doesn't
need a bunch of hillbillies to stand on the border with shotguns or
barettas, they have armed forces, fighter jets, tanks etc etc. They never
had those back then.
In terms of terrorist attack the only people that will have guns in a
terrorist situation are the police or armed guards, terrorists never usually
walk up to someone's front porch and set bombs up. Heh.
> > > Guns are an essential part of American Liberty. It's what made us
> > > free from the tyranny of King George the III, and it's what will
> > > keep us free from tyranny in the future. The first thing a tyrant
> > > will try to do is grab the guns. You should know that, living in
> > > Germany. Hitler was a huge fan of gun control. He loved the idea.
> >
> > Sorry but thats laughable. No one is going to invade the USA with hand
guns,
> > you don't need a pistol to protect yourselves from tyrany, or are you
one of
> > those mountain campers that waits for the NWO and the UN to march in?
>
> They won't be marching in while the average household is an armed one.
> Which is the whole point, of course. Tyrants have to deal with being
> outmanned, but they sure don't like being outgunned. The UN has tried
> to harm the USA in the past, most recently with that horrid Kyoto Treaty
> which was designed to cripple industrialized nations that use power in
> order to prevent global warming. I *want* global warming! It's too
> cold as it is! Bring on the heat!
So you actually use that as part of your argument? That the average
household has guns partly to protect against foreign invaders? What a joke,
they'd use worse means to get you out your hole than a trooper with a rifle,
dodging potshots from a handgun.
And your view on the UN kyoto treaty is just ignorant. Almost every other
major industrialised nation is reducing CO2 levels and greenhouse emissions
to meet the goals of the treaty except the USA. Buying up land and growing
forests in other countries doesn't work successfully and this has been
proven, you actually have to cut down on the crap you're pumping into the
atmosphere. Its not impossible to do it, its just it would cost money and
mean some sacrifices. The USA's selfish, lone gunner attitude to the rest of
the world is one of the reasons everyone else hates them. Not me, but I hate
the way America acts in world situations.
-=RedFox
RedFox
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > For mass murder guns are ineffective. We were talking about
school/college
> > shootings where kids have got access to firearms and used them to shoot
> > innocent people. This is possible because of American's gun laws, which
make
> > it easier for them to be bought and used illegally.
>
> So do you think Prohibition was a good idea?
yeah, I do. In some kind of stepped ban, over time. I personally feel no
guns is preferable to legalised ownership of a firearm because there is more
chance of missuse if gun are readily available in shops.
> > > So, since few terrorists are using guns in terrorist attacks, and the
> > > most notorious villains of our time don't use guns either, precisely
> > > what would banning guns solve? Not much.
> >
> > It would solve the horrifying gun related deaths in america. How often
do
> > terorrists strike america? Very rarely, compare that to the number of
gun
> > related homocides and then comment.
>
> Why would criminals stop usings guns because they are illegal, that would
> kind of defeat the point of being a criminal to begin with.
>
Petty criminals wouldn't use guns. I'm not saying there would be an instant
change but there would be a big effect in the long run. POlice should still
carry firearms.
-=RedFox
Charles Doane
>
> "Charles Doane" <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> > > For mass murder guns are ineffective. We were talking about
> school/college
> > > shootings where kids have got access to firearms and used them to shoot
> > > innocent people. This is possible because of American's gun laws, which
> make
> > > it easier for them to be bought and used illegally.
> >
> > So what? Outlawing something doesn't get rid of it. That dumb old method
> > has been tried on illegal drugs for literally decades, and it hasn't
> worked.
> > We don't need to get rid of the guns, we need to get rid of the people who
> > do evil things. That's what executions are for. The death penalty works
> > every time it's tried. It really cuts down on repeat offenders.
>
> It makes them harder to obtain. Which is my point. Gun smuggling is slightly
> different to drugs, and many other countries where firearms are outlawed
> manage not to have gun problems. The police should still carry guns IMO,
> just not the general public.
It doesn't make them harder to obtain at all. Like drugs, guns are very
easy to make. A piece of pipe and a firing pin are all that's needed.
Guns have been around for 300 years and the average home set of power tools
definitely outclass what was around in the 17th century. Making guns isn't
that difficult. Ammo? I've got a reloading press in the closet. I can
make ammo too. Anyone with commonly available household items and tools
could make several zip guns per day.
http://www.lysator.liu.se/phrack/phrack2_3.html
I can't stand countries where firearms are outlawed. They tend to move
inexorably towards socialism with stupid things like nationalized health
care and far-too-generous unemployment programs.
> > > > So, since few terrorists are using guns in terrorist attacks, and the
> > > > most notorious villains of our time don't use guns either, precisely
> > > > what would banning guns solve? Not much.
> > >
> > > It would solve the horrifying gun related deaths in america. How often
> do
> > > terorrists strike america? Very rarely, compare that to the number of
> gun
> > > related homocides and then comment.
> >
> > Guns save more lives than they take. Every police officer has one, and
> > no, it's not because police officers go around killing people. Guns are
> > very effective at keeping the peace. So what if there's a few homocides?
> > Murder has been around since the caveman days. Guns are not a cause of
> > murder, because murder definitely predates guns.
>
> Never said it was the cause of murder and its more than a few...
>
> Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996: Thomas Gabor, Professor of
> Criminology - University of Ottawa:
>
> "Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything
> else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning
> firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".
Not an appreciable one. Cars kill more people than guns do every year
and nobody's turning in their car keys.
> The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and
> suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire.
Gun ownership is related to the level of death by gunfire? Who's the
genius who wrote that? Car accidents are related to the level of deaths
in car accidents too.
> 'International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and
> suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.
Figures, he's an academic type. Those are dyed-in-the-wool socialists.
> In 1998 a total of 30,708 people were killed by guns in the U.S. Of these
> 17,424 were gun suicides, 12,102 were gun homicides, 886 were unintentional
> or accidental shootings, and 316 were shooting deaths of undetermined
> intent.
BIG DEAL.
There were an estimated 6,356,000 car accidents in the US in 2000. There were
about 3.2 million injuries and 41,821 people were killed in auto accidents
in 2000 based on data collected by the Federal Highway Administration.
That's almost 4 TIMES the number of homocides using guns, and your numbers
PALE in comparison. So why ain't ya telling people that they need to turn
in their cars? Hmmm?
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html
Besides, 30,000 out of a nation of 300,000,000 is 0.01%! I ain't going to
give up a vital right to save 1 out of every 10,000 people! That's crazy!
Such a law would be of absolutely no benefit to 99.99% of the people.
Which makes it a stupid, useless law.
> > > > Let's see, where are you from? Germany? Oh, that's EASY! Home of
> > > > one of history's most notorious mass murderers, one Adolf Hitler.
> > > > 6,000,000 Jews dead, and what was the preferred method? Guns? Nope.
> > > > Cyanide Gas. Good thing he wasn't using guns, huh? I bet the dead
> > > > people really felt oh so much safer.
> > >
> > > Except! I'm not from Germany. My news server is. And Hilter did use
> guns,
> > > guns are just not a good way to kill large numbers of people.
> >
> > That depends on how big the gun is.
>
> So now you contradict yourself? One gun is ineffective at killing large
> amounts of people yes, but lots of people with lots of guns indicates a big
> social risk.
I wouldn't call 0.01% of a population being affected to be a "big social
risk". I can't imagine anyone who would. The fact of the matter is, there
are guns that can kill a lot of people. My pre-ban SKS, for example, has
several 30-round clips. I could easily shoot over 100 rounds in one minute.
It's loads of fun! It blows the crap out of just about anything, and it's
legal to shoot it in the desert, just plinking targets. It's a great way
to relieve stress after a busy week.
> > > > One of the USA's founding fathers was a man named Benjamin Franklin.
> > > > His face is on the USA's $100 note. He had some great things to say.
> > > > This is one of his quotes:
> > > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> > > > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> > >
> > > Those times were vastly different to now.
> >
> > No, they are not. There is NO DIFFERENCE between then and now. There
> > are still people who want to take over the world, now same as ever.
> > There is no shortage of despots. It wasn't even a year ago that the
> > world was introduced to the Taliban and their despotic ways, so nothing
> > has changed over the course of the last several thousand years at all.
> > Evil is never truly defeated, it merely goes off and regroups for
> > another assault.
>
> There is no American civil war and no one would invade the USA.
Tell that to Al-Quaeda terrorists. I know for a fact that there were at
least 20 of them, and possibly more, who had, indeed, invaded the USA.
Besides, just because there's no civil war now doesn't mean one can't
happen. But it doesn't need to be a civil war, either. L.A. has riots
about once every decade whether it needs one or not, and Chicago has
riots every time the Bulls basketball team wins a championship. As
self-defense is a basic right, and riots are hardly unheard of, then
guns are necessary to defend oneself in case of a riot.
It doesn't need to be a civil war, civil unrest is common enough.
> Things are
> vastly different, if you are talking about the risk of other countries
> necessitating guns then you are weakening your argument, the USA doesn't
> need a bunch of hillbillies to stand on the border with shotguns or
> barettas, they have armed forces, fighter jets, tanks etc etc. They never
> had those back then.
Dude, are you listening to yourself? How are fighter jets and tanks going
to roust out bad guys from in American cities? We can't drop bombs on
ourselves! The best offense is a good defense, and that defense starts
at home.
> In terms of terrorist attack the only people that will have guns in a
> terrorist situation are the police or armed guards, terrorists never usually
> walk up to someone's front porch and set bombs up. Heh.
Actually, that's just about what Timothy McVeigh did to the Alfred P. Murrah
Federal Building in Oklahoma City. He was certainly a terrorist.
> > > > Guns are an essential part of American Liberty. It's what made us
> > > > free from the tyranny of King George the III, and it's what will
> > > > keep us free from tyranny in the future. The first thing a tyrant
> > > > will try to do is grab the guns. You should know that, living in
> > > > Germany. Hitler was a huge fan of gun control. He loved the idea.
> > >
> > > Sorry but thats laughable. No one is going to invade the USA with hand
> guns,
> > > you don't need a pistol to protect yourselves from tyrany, or are you
> one of
> > > those mountain campers that waits for the NWO and the UN to march in?
> >
> > They won't be marching in while the average household is an armed one.
> > Which is the whole point, of course. Tyrants have to deal with being
> > outmanned, but they sure don't like being outgunned. The UN has tried
> > to harm the USA in the past, most recently with that horrid Kyoto Treaty
> > which was designed to cripple industrialized nations that use power in
> > order to prevent global warming. I *want* global warming! It's too
> > cold as it is! Bring on the heat!
>
> So you actually use that as part of your argument? That the average
> household has guns partly to protect against foreign invaders? What a joke,
> they'd use worse means to get you out your hole than a trooper with a rifle,
> dodging potshots from a handgun.
Bet they'd respect my assault rifle. It's as good as anything they're likely
to have. Plus the neat thing about handguns is that it provides backup for
a good rifle. If the rifle jams or fails, it's always nice to have another
firearm and two rifles really are a bit much to carry. Do the armed forces
carry handguns? Why yes, they do. I spent 8 years in the US Navy, and the
Colt Model 1911A .45 was the service weapon of choice for the Quarterdeck
watch. I believe now it's the Glock 9MM, these days.
> And your view on the UN kyoto treaty is just ignorant. Almost every other
> major industrialised nation is reducing CO2 levels and greenhouse emissions
> to meet the goals of the treaty except the USA.
That's a lie. No one else even signed that stupid treaty. They just wanted
the USA to sign it to hurt the United States. They never, ever had any sort
of intention to sign it. That treaty was written specifically to try and
ensnare the USA and no one else.
> Buying up land and growing
> forests in other countries doesn't work successfully and this has been
> proven, you actually have to cut down on the crap you're pumping into the
> atmosphere.
No, you don't. Why? Nobody's proven that it does a damned thing! When
every jet airliner in the USA was grounded for days, there was no measurable
improvement in the Ozone layer or in global warming despite the fact that
no fossil fuels were being burned in the upper atmosphere at all.
So, emissions are a sham. Global warming is a sham. The Ozone layer thinning
is a sham. It's junk science. In the 1970's it was Global COOLING that was
the bad thing. When the stupid scientists noted that the Globe wasn't
actually cooling, did they shut up? No! They just changed their panic cry.
Now it's warming, even though it isn't doing that either and it could stand
to be a couple of degrees warmer anyway. If these idjuts want tropical
rain forests so bad, why not warm things up and broaden the tropical zone?
> Its not impossible to do it, its just it would cost money and
> mean some sacrifices. The USA's selfish, lone gunner attitude to the rest of
> the world is one of the reasons everyone else hates them. Not me, but I hate
> the way America acts in world situations.
There's no reason to make sacrifices in the name of junk science. Do you
realize what you'd actually have to do to get rid of the Ozone layer?
You would literally have to put out the Sun. We ain't got a fire extinguisher
that big. It'd be fun to try (hey, it'd solve the whole global warming thing
to boot!) but I really don't think we could manage it.
RedFox
"Charles Doane" <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > It makes them harder to obtain. Which is my point. Gun smuggling is
slightly
> > different to drugs, and many other countries where firearms are outlawed
> > manage not to have gun problems. The police should still carry guns IMO,
> > just not the general public.
>
> It doesn't make them harder to obtain at all. Like drugs, guns are very
> easy to make. A piece of pipe and a firing pin are all that's needed.
> Guns have been around for 300 years and the average home set of power
tools
> definitely outclass what was around in the 17th century. Making guns
isn't
> that difficult. Ammo? I've got a reloading press in the closet. I can
> make ammo too. Anyone with commonly available household items and tools
> could make several zip guns per day.
> http://www.lysator.liu.se/phrack/phrack2_3.html
Riiiight. Make one and blow you hand off, I'd love to see the pictures.
> I can't stand countries where firearms are outlawed. They tend to move
> inexorably towards socialism with stupid things like nationalized health
> care and far-too-generous unemployment programs.
Hmmm.. I wonder what the percentage is, of countries that ban firearms and
are socialist? You are extremely ill informed. National health services are
for the good of the everyone, EVERYONE deserves healthcare when they need
it.
Because cars are necessary and their role is not to kill people but to
transport them from A to B faster than if they walked. Their job is not to
kill people. Isn't this blatantly obvious?
> > The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and
> > suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire.
>
> Gun ownership is related to the level of death by gunfire? Who's the
> genius who wrote that? Car accidents are related to the level of deaths
> in car accidents too.
As is alcohol, road conditions, weather conditions etc. The meaning of
statement is to summarise that as gun ownership rises, then so do gun
related deaths.
> > 'International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide
and
> > suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.
>
> Figures, he's an academic type. Those are dyed-in-the-wool socialists.
Socialists again. Some Americans have a warped idea of the world it seems,
you're not the only person who calls someone that disagrees with your
country a socialist. Can you explain this, or are you just being ignorant
again?
> > In 1998 a total of 30,708 people were killed by guns in the U.S. Of
these
> > 17,424 were gun suicides, 12,102 were gun homicides, 886 were
unintentional
> > or accidental shootings, and 316 were shooting deaths of undetermined
> > intent.
>
> BIG DEAL.
> There were an estimated 6,356,000 car accidents in the US in 2000. There
were
> about 3.2 million injuries and 41,821 people were killed in auto accidents
> in 2000 based on data collected by the Federal Highway Administration.
> That's almost 4 TIMES the number of homocides using guns, and your numbers
> PALE in comparison. So why ain't ya telling people that they need to turn
> in their cars? Hmmm?
> http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html
As I said up there -points- its because guns are designed to KILL, cars are
designed for TRAVEL.
> Besides, 30,000 out of a nation of 300,000,000 is 0.01%! I ain't going to
> give up a vital right to save 1 out of every 10,000 people! That's crazy!
> Such a law would be of absolutely no benefit to 99.99% of the people.
> Which makes it a stupid, useless law.
You say that, lets hope none of your family get shot in the face or anything
eh?
> > > > > Let's see, where are you from? Germany? Oh, that's EASY! Home
of
> > > > > one of history's most notorious mass murderers, one Adolf Hitler.
> > > > > 6,000,000 Jews dead, and what was the preferred method? Guns?
Nope.
> > > > > Cyanide Gas. Good thing he wasn't using guns, huh? I bet the
dead
> > > > > people really felt oh so much safer.
> > > >
> > > > Except! I'm not from Germany. My news server is. And Hilter did use
> > guns,
> > > > guns are just not a good way to kill large numbers of people.
> > >
> > > That depends on how big the gun is.
> >
> > So now you contradict yourself? One gun is ineffective at killing large
> > amounts of people yes, but lots of people with lots of guns indicates a
big
> > social risk.
>
> I wouldn't call 0.01% of a population being affected to be a "big social
> risk". I can't imagine anyone who would.
Because you are blinkered and don't value human life. What a shameful
opinion to have.
> The fact of the matter is, there
> are guns that can kill a lot of people. My pre-ban SKS, for example, has
> several 30-round clips. I could easily shoot over 100 rounds in one
minute.
> It's loads of fun! It blows the crap out of just about anything, and it's
> legal to shoot it in the desert, just plinking targets. It's a great way
> to relieve stress after a busy week.
Or when you get fired by the boss eh? In the office... etc
Well there are serious problems with america then. To riot over a sporting
event is bizarre in the extreme, and to use it as a case for keeping a
weapon is worse. You'd shoot someone in a riot? Generally riots don't take
place in your house but in the street, where I thought guns were illegal?
This is my point, the gungho attitude of most americans is the reason guns
should be banned.
> > Things are
> > vastly different, if you are talking about the risk of other countries
> > necessitating guns then you are weakening your argument, the USA doesn't
> > need a bunch of hillbillies to stand on the border with shotguns or
> > barettas, they have armed forces, fighter jets, tanks etc etc. They
never
> > had those back then.
>
> Dude, are you listening to yourself? How are fighter jets and tanks going
> to roust out bad guys from in American cities? We can't drop bombs on
> ourselves! The best offense is a good defense, and that defense starts
> at home.
This was in answer to your general argument of foreign invaders, which your
last post concerned. Terrorists won't be in places where you can use your
gun, since terrorists attack buildings of national significance, not Hank
Hill and lil Bobby while they sit watching TV.
> > In terms of terrorist attack the only people that will have guns in a
> > terrorist situation are the police or armed guards, terrorists never
usually
> > walk up to someone's front porch and set bombs up. Heh.
>
> Actually, that's just about what Timothy McVeigh did to the Alfred P.
Murrah
> Federal Building in Oklahoma City. He was certainly a terrorist.
A federal building, not someone's front porch. They are not alike, and yes,
he was a terrorist.
A UN team of soldiers would kill you in seconds, even if you were fortified
in your house with an assault rifle. What the hell are you needing an
assault rifle for anyway? This is part of my point. LOL
> > And your view on the UN kyoto treaty is just ignorant. Almost every
other
> > major industrialised nation is reducing CO2 levels and greenhouse
emissions
> > to meet the goals of the treaty except the USA.
>
> That's a lie. No one else even signed that stupid treaty. They just
wanted
> the USA to sign it to hurt the United States. They never, ever had any
sort
> of intention to sign it. That treaty was written specifically to try and
> ensnare the USA and no one else.
You are so misinformed. Most of Europe signed and Canada, Australia, the
Russian Federation... even America, although they broke the treaty and their
agreements. Read the list found here:
http://www.unfccc.de/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html
> > Buying up land and growing
> > forests in other countries doesn't work successfully and this has been
> > proven, you actually have to cut down on the crap you're pumping into
the
> > atmosphere.
>
> No, you don't. Why? Nobody's proven that it does a damned thing! When
> every jet airliner in the USA was grounded for days, there was no
measurable
> improvement in the Ozone layer or in global warming despite the fact that
It takes years to have an affect, but you didn't know that obviously. Global
warming taking place now is the result of polution caused 20-30 years ago.
It isn't only limited to greenhouse emitions but these are a contributor
along ith deforestation etc. There is also the increase in the rates of skin
cancer to think about.
> no fossil fuels were being burned in the upper atmosphere at all.
> So, emissions are a sham. Global warming is a sham. The Ozone layer
> thinning
Burning fossil fuels produces gaseous by-products that rise into the upper
atmosphere over time, they're not burnt there, LOL. It takes time for them
to reach the areas that become affected.
> is a sham. It's junk science. In the 1970's it was Global COOLING that
was
> the bad thing. When the stupid scientists noted that the Globe wasn't
> actually cooling, did they shut up? No! They just changed their panic
cry.
> Now it's warming, even though it isn't doing that either and it could
stand
> to be a couple of degrees warmer anyway. If these idjuts want tropical
> rain forests so bad, why not warm things up and broaden the tropical zone?
You seem to know very little of science to comment on its validity. It could
stand up to being a little warmer eh? Not around the polar ice caps it
couldn't, but you just think about the good ole USA right? Phew, thats
alright then!
> > Its not impossible to do it, its just it would cost money and
> > mean some sacrifices. The USA's selfish, lone gunner attitude to the
rest of
> > the world is one of the reasons everyone else hates them. Not me, but I
hate
> > the way America acts in world situations.
>
> There's no reason to make sacrifices in the name of junk science. Do you
> realize what you'd actually have to do to get rid of the Ozone layer?
> You would literally have to put out the Sun. We ain't got a fire
extinguisher
> that big. It'd be fun to try (hey, it'd solve the whole global warming
thing
> to boot!) but I really don't think we could manage it.
Its not getting rid of the ozone layer, its poluting it with 'greenhouse'
gases. 'Putting out the sun' wouldn't 'get rid' of the ozone layer, it would
kill everything on Earth though. Such ignorance.
-=RedFox
<--Captain Universe ł-->
cocaine, heroine, Mary Jane(just to name a few). Illegal guns that are
already being sold by the millions. It would take all of us to get rid of
things like that but unfortunately we all don't think the same. If guns are
banned then it would get sold like crack in corner alleys. The Prohibition
period didn't succeed because of Speak Easys and Moon Shine bathtubs. Much
like Crack houses today. The only difference between the two is the danger
factor. I'm pretty sure that if they do ban guns I'll just go and get me a
Japanese Katana to sit under my bed. Anything can become a weapon, think
about Binladen and other terrorists. And something else to ponder, when a
woman inmate can stab someone 16 times in the head with a common spoon
killing the victim, anything can kill. I'll just use my car to run people
over or strangle you with a rope, use a butter knife and shove it up your
nose. Educating people about controlling their temper and anger management
or Depression treatment can avoid alot of violence.
--
>>>>>>>**********@@@@@@@@@@
>>>>>I think that Videogame Console bickering has gone on long
>enough. Just Pass The Courvoisier and everything will be alright.
>>>>>>******@@@@@@@@@------------
>>>>>>>>***@@@@@@@@@@@@@------
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C4912...@worldnet.att.net...
Ethan Hammond
>
> "Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> > > For mass murder guns are ineffective. We were talking about
> school/college
> > > shootings where kids have got access to firearms and used them to shoot
> > > innocent people. This is possible because of American's gun laws, which
> make
> > > it easier for them to be bought and used illegally.
> >
> > So do you think Prohibition was a good idea?
>
> yeah, I do. In some kind of stepped ban, over time. I personally feel no
> guns is preferable to legalised ownership of a firearm because there is more
> chance of missuse if gun are readily available in shops.
Or they could actually try to educate the populace about guns instead of
making another pointless law that will not be enforced.
> > > > So, since few terrorists are using guns in terrorist attacks, and the
> > > > most notorious villains of our time don't use guns either, precisely
> > > > what would banning guns solve? Not much.
> > >
> > > It would solve the horrifying gun related deaths in america. How often
> do
> > > terorrists strike america? Very rarely, compare that to the number of
> gun
> > > related homocides and then comment.
> >
> > Why would criminals stop usings guns because they are illegal, that would
> > kind of defeat the point of being a criminal to begin with.
> >
>
> Petty criminals wouldn't use guns. I'm not saying there would be an instant
> change but there would be a big effect in the long run. POlice should still
> carry firearms.
If someone wants to get something bad enough they will get it.
Ethan Hammond
> major industrialised nation is reducing CO2 levels and greenhouse emissions
> to meet the goals of the treaty except the USA. Buying up land and growing
> forests in other countries doesn't work successfully and this has been
> proven, you actually have to cut down on the crap you're pumping into the
> atmosphere. Its not impossible to do it, its just it would cost money and
> mean some sacrifices. The USA's selfish, lone gunner attitude to the rest of
> the world is one of the reasons everyone else hates them. Not me, but I hate
> the way America acts in world situations.
The UN is just America's puppet for when we want to force other countries to help
us out. If we get tired of it we could dissolve it in one day like the Imperial
Senate. And Japan likes us more than you Europeans and I don't really care what
the rest of the world besides Japan thinks. BWAH HA HA HA!!!!
Charles Doane
<snip>
> > Ammo? I've got a reloading press in the closet. I can
> > make ammo too. Anyone with commonly available household items and tools
> > could make several zip guns per day.
> > http://www.lysator.liu.se/phrack/phrack2_3.html
>
> Riiiight. Make one and blow you hand off, I'd love to see the pictures.
I don't need to make one as long as I can go to the gun store less than a
mile from my house and buy all sorts of different guns.
> > I can't stand countries where firearms are outlawed. They tend to move
> > inexorably towards socialism with stupid things like nationalized health
> > care and far-too-generous unemployment programs.
>
> Hmmm.. I wonder what the percentage is, of countries that ban firearms and
> are socialist? You are extremely ill informed. National health services are
> for the good of the everyone, EVERYONE deserves healthcare when they need
> it.
No, they don't. It's not an entitlement, nor is it a right. Any attempt
to make it so is only going to make health care equally BAD for everyone.
The USA is a prime destination for people who need state of the art health
care, mainly BECAUSE we don't have socialized medicine. That means Doctors
and Nurses in the USA have a reason to improve the quality of care, as they
can make more money by doing so.
What reason would a Doctor have for spending 6 years getting himself educated
and heavily in debt with student loans, only to graduate and have the Gov't
tell him he can't charge what he's worth, much less make a profit at his
profession? Would any other profession stand for that? Heck no!
<snip>
> > > "Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels.
> > > Everything
> > > else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning
> > > firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".
> >
> > Not an appreciable one. Cars kill more people than guns do every year
> > and nobody's turning in their car keys.
>
> Because cars are necessary and their role is not to kill people but to
> transport them from A to B faster than if they walked. Their job is not to
> kill people. Isn't this blatantly obvious?
Cars aren't necessary. Who told you they were? They're a luxury. Many
people go through their whole lives never owning one. BTW, a gun's job
is not to kill people either. I've fired easily over 10,000 rounds and
never once killed a person.
> > > The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and
> > > suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire.
> >
> > Gun ownership is related to the level of death by gunfire? Who's the
> > genius who wrote that? Car accidents are related to the level of deaths
> > in car accidents too.
>
> As is alcohol, road conditions, weather conditions etc. The meaning of
> statement is to summarise that as gun ownership rises, then so do gun
> related deaths.
That's stupid on the face of it. Drowning is more prevalent where there's
water too, so you gonna use that to ban water?
> > > 'International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide
> and
> > > suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.
> >
> > Figures, he's an academic type. Those are dyed-in-the-wool socialists.
>
> Socialists again. Some Americans have a warped idea of the world it seems,
> you're not the only person who calls someone that disagrees with your
> country a socialist. Can you explain this, or are you just being ignorant
> again?
Fine. You wish to engage in social engineering. You wish to impose your
beliefs by government fiat. If you want everybody in the world to get
medical care, that's fine. YOU pay for it. Don't go telling everyone else
to pay for something that YOU want to happen. You haven't got that right.
If you'd feel better if YOU didn't own a gun, that's fine. Don't own a gun.
If you'd feel better if *I* didn't own a gun, well that's over the line.
You've got no right making me give up my guns to make you feel a little bit
more comfy and cozy.
> > > In 1998 a total of 30,708 people were killed by guns in the U.S. Of
> these
> > > 17,424 were gun suicides, 12,102 were gun homicides, 886 were
> unintentional
> > > or accidental shootings, and 316 were shooting deaths of undetermined
> > > intent.
> >
> > BIG DEAL.
> > There were an estimated 6,356,000 car accidents in the US in 2000. There
> > were
> > about 3.2 million injuries and 41,821 people were killed in auto accidents
> > in 2000 based on data collected by the Federal Highway Administration.
> > That's almost 4 TIMES the number of homocides using guns, and your numbers
> > PALE in comparison. So why ain't ya telling people that they need to turn
> > in their cars? Hmmm?
> > http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html
>
> As I said up there -points- its because guns are designed to KILL, cars are
> designed for TRAVEL.
Guns are not designed to kill. They just can, that's all. Same as cars.
You could easily use a car to kill somebody. In fact, it's a well-known
method of suicide to run a car in a closed garage.
> > Besides, 30,000 out of a nation of 300,000,000 is 0.01%! I ain't going to
> > give up a vital right to save 1 out of every 10,000 people! That's crazy!
> > Such a law would be of absolutely no benefit to 99.99% of the people.
> > Which makes it a stupid, useless law.
>
> You say that, lets hope none of your family get shot in the face or anything
> eh?
The odds are so far against it happening that it's safe to say it won't.
<snip>
> > I wouldn't call 0.01% of a population being affected to be a "big social
> > risk". I can't imagine anyone who would.
>
> Because you are blinkered and don't value human life. What a shameful
> opinion to have.
I do value human life. The 99.99% of lives far outweigh the .01% by any
measure. It's BECAUSE of the value of human life that the right of self
defense is one of the very few good justifications for killing people.
> > The fact of the matter is, there
> > are guns that can kill a lot of people. My pre-ban SKS, for example, has
> > several 30-round clips. I could easily shoot over 100 rounds in one
> > minute.
> > It's loads of fun! It blows the crap out of just about anything, and it's
> > legal to shoot it in the desert, just plinking targets. It's a great way
> > to relieve stress after a busy week.
>
> Or when you get fired by the boss eh? In the office... etc
Like I couldn't get a new job faster than my boss could fire me... Really.
Besides, as you noted yourself, there are more effective ways of killing
people than with a gun. Many more effective ways. Some of them can even
look like a total accident. Pop the cover off of the Master Brake Cylinder
in a car, for example. It'll work fine for 6 or 7 stops.
<snip>
> > It doesn't need to be a civil war, civil unrest is common enough.
>
> Well there are serious problems with america then. To riot over a sporting
> event is bizarre in the extreme, and to use it as a case for keeping a
> weapon is worse.
Yeah, right, like there's never any riots over Soccer games in Europe.
> You'd shoot someone in a riot? Generally riots don't take
> place in your house but in the street, where I thought guns were illegal?
Guns aren't illegal in the street at all. Where'd you get that idea? I
can and do take walks with my Ruger .357 Magnum on my belt, and it's
perfectly legal. So is the Makarov .380 I keep in the center console of
my truck. I typically carry my S&W .357 Magnum when I go bicycling.
Arizona is what we call an "open carry" State. If the gun is legal, and
the gun is holstered in plain sight, then it's okay to carry it in public.
It's no big deal. It's one of the benefits of living out here in the
Wild West.
> This is my point, the gungho attitude of most americans is the reason guns
> should be banned.
That's a dumb reason. You feel safer without guns, and I feel safer with
them. Does your idea of safety outweigh my idea of safety? Of course not.
You're unwilling to deprive a police officer of his firearm as a matter of
safety, so why would you be willing to deprive anyone else of the same sort
of safety? It simply doesn't make sense. Don't *I* deserve to be as safe
as a Police Officer is?
> > > Things are
> > > vastly different, if you are talking about the risk of other countries
> > > necessitating guns then you are weakening your argument, the USA doesn't
> > > need a bunch of hillbillies to stand on the border with shotguns or
> > > barettas, they have armed forces, fighter jets, tanks etc etc. They
> never
> > > had those back then.
> >
> > Dude, are you listening to yourself? How are fighter jets and tanks going
> > to roust out bad guys from in American cities? We can't drop bombs on
> > ourselves! The best offense is a good defense, and that defense starts
> > at home.
>
> This was in answer to your general argument of foreign invaders, which your
> last post concerned. Terrorists won't be in places where you can use your
> gun, since terrorists attack buildings of national significance, not Hank
> Hill and lil Bobby while they sit watching TV.
I see. You think that I can only use my gun in the confines of my home.
Try thinking outside of that box.
> > Do the armed forces carry handguns? Why yes, they do. I spent 8
> > years in the US Navy, and the Colt Model 1911A .45 was the service
> > weapon of choice for the Quarterdeck watch.
> > I believe now it's the Glock 9MM, these days.
> A UN team of soldiers would kill you in seconds, even if you were fortified
> in your house with an assault rifle.
The UN soldiers suck ass. They always need the USA to help them and they
cry like little babies when they can't get US troops. I was trained by
the US military. I'd send the sorry asses off crying for their mamas.
> What the hell are you needing an assault rifle for anyway? This is part
> of my point. LOL
I don't need it. I want it. It's a lot of fun. I love setting the
battle sights up and nailing targets from 200 meters away. It's a
very fun hobby and it's satisfying learning to work with a weapon
properly. You know, there ARE videogames that treat shooting things
as fun. PSO is one such game.
> > > And your view on the UN kyoto treaty is just ignorant. Almost every
> other
> > > major industrialised nation is reducing CO2 levels and greenhouse
> emissions
> > > to meet the goals of the treaty except the USA.
> >
> > That's a lie. No one else even signed that stupid treaty. They just
> wanted
> > the USA to sign it to hurt the United States. They never, ever had any
> sort
> > of intention to sign it. That treaty was written specifically to try and
> > ensnare the USA and no one else.
>
> You are so misinformed. Most of Europe signed and Canada, Australia, the
> Russian Federation... even America, although they broke the treaty and their
> agreements. Read the list found here:
> http://www.unfccc.de/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html
That doesn't say who signed it. That says who they think the victims should
be. The USA wouldn't have EVER have signed that stupid piece of trash, and
it wouldn't have made ANY difference if the USA had.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/australia.greenhouse.reut/
That's a scientist saying, in effect, that the Treaty is worthless and makes
zero difference in the global climate. And, he's right. It's just a bunch
of stupid feel-good crap that is all symbolism, no substance, and for all
the effort spent, it won't change anything in the slightest degree.
> > > Buying up land and growing
> > > forests in other countries doesn't work successfully and this has been
> > > proven, you actually have to cut down on the crap you're pumping into
> the
> > > atmosphere.
> >
> > No, you don't. Why? Nobody's proven that it does a damned thing! When
> > every jet airliner in the USA was grounded for days, there was no
> > measurable
> > improvement in the Ozone layer or in global warming despite the fact that
>
> It takes years to have an affect, but you didn't know that obviously. Global
> warming taking place now is the result of polution caused 20-30 years ago.
That's silly. Greenhouse gases don't last 20-30 years.
> It isn't only limited to greenhouse emitions but these are a contributor
> along ith deforestation etc. There is also the increase in the rates of skin
> cancer to think about.
The increased in skin cancer (and ALL types of cancer) is because people are
living longer. People didn't used to live long enough to worry about that.
> > no fossil fuels were being burned in the upper atmosphere at all.
> > So, emissions are a sham. Global warming is a sham. The Ozone layer
> > thinning
>
> Burning fossil fuels produces gaseous by-products that rise into the upper
> atmosphere over time, they're not burnt there, LOL. It takes time for them
> to reach the areas that become affected.
That is ridiculous on the face of it. Who's carrying it up there? Does it
catch a train? There's no public transit to the upper atmosphere.
<snip>
> You seem to know very little of science to comment on its validity. It could
> stand up to being a little warmer eh? Not around the polar ice caps it
> couldn't, but you just think about the good ole USA right? Phew, thats
> alright then!
It's not warming up at the poles. Heck, it's getting COLDER in Antarctica.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40974-2002Jan13.html
The scientists who have been crying about a .1 degree increase every decade
(that means it'll be 5 degrees warmer in the year 2500, like I'm quakin' in
my boots about that) have noted a 1.2 degree DROP in Antarctica per decade.
Researcher Peter Doran says "We've sort of hit a point where we're a little
confused". Hehehe. There's no global warming. Never was, never will be.
<snip>
> > There's no reason to make sacrifices in the name of junk science. Do you
> > realize what you'd actually have to do to get rid of the Ozone layer?
> > You would literally have to put out the Sun. We ain't got a fire
> > extinguisher that big. It'd be fun to try (hey, it'd solve the whole
> > global warming
> thing to boot!) but I really don't think we could manage it.
>
> Its not getting rid of the ozone layer, its poluting it with 'greenhouse'
> gases. 'Putting out the sun' wouldn't 'get rid' of the ozone layer, it would
> kill everything on Earth though. Such ignorance.
What a load of hooey. You want to cut down on CO2 emissions? Stop
breathing. The more carbon-based life forms that stop breathing, the
less CO2 will be produced and the less greenhouse gases there will be.
Nevermind that trees and plants kinda need that CO2 for photosynthesis;
you'll be doing the right thing for the planet and environment if you
just give up breathing.
RedFox
"Charles Doane" <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > > "Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels.
> > > > Everything
> > > > else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning
> > > > firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".
> > >
> > > Not an appreciable one. Cars kill more people than guns do every year
> > > and nobody's turning in their car keys.
> >
> > Because cars are necessary and their role is not to kill people but to
> > transport them from A to B faster than if they walked. Their job is not
to
> > kill people. Isn't this blatantly obvious?
>
> Cars aren't necessary. Who told you they were? They're a luxury. Many
> people go through their whole lives never owning one. BTW, a gun's job
> is not to kill people either. I've fired easily over 10,000 rounds and
> never once killed a person.
For many people they are necessary. Not everyone works within walking
distance or in a place that has access through public transport. Guns are
made to kill. They're a weapon, you might not have killed anyone but that
doesn't mean its not intended for killing.
> > > > The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder
and
> > > > suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire.
> > >
> > > Gun ownership is related to the level of death by gunfire? Who's the
> > > genius who wrote that? Car accidents are related to the level of
deaths
> > > in car accidents too.
> >
> > As is alcohol, road conditions, weather conditions etc. The meaning of
> > statement is to summarise that as gun ownership rises, then so do gun
> > related deaths.
>
> That's stupid on the face of it. Drowning is more prevalent where there's
> water too, so you gonna use that to ban water?
You're the one making ridiculous arguments Charles. Banning something
intended to kill is a valid viewpoint to have, please don't make stupid
statements that have no comparison to the argument I'm making. Things that
can be avoided should. Banning water is impossible, grow up.
> > > > 'International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of
homicide
> > and
> > > > suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.
> > >
> > > Figures, he's an academic type. Those are dyed-in-the-wool
socialists.
> >
> > Socialists again. Some Americans have a warped idea of the world it
seems,
> > you're not the only person who calls someone that disagrees with your
> > country a socialist. Can you explain this, or are you just being
ignorant
> > again?
>
> Fine. You wish to engage in social engineering. You wish to impose your
> beliefs by government fiat. If you want everybody in the world to get
> medical care, that's fine. YOU pay for it. Don't go telling everyone
else
I do pay for it. Its not perfect but I live in civilised society, in one of
the most developed countries in the world. It should provide services to all
its citizens and basic healthcare is one of them, IMO.
> to pay for something that YOU want to happen. You haven't got that right.
> If you'd feel better if YOU didn't own a gun, that's fine. Don't own a
gun.
> If you'd feel better if *I* didn't own a gun, well that's over the line.
> You've got no right making me give up my guns to make you feel a little
bit
> more comfy and cozy.
Not comfy or cozy, its to protect people from nutters who go around shooting
people. I can see no credible reason to own a gun in this day and age other
than to protect yourself from others that own one. They should be banned to
eliminate this, i know the process wouldn't be that simple but its the
action that should be taken. Its rather selfish to risk other's lives just
so you can take potshots at tin cans, wouldn't you say?
> > As I said up there -points- its because guns are designed to KILL, cars
are
> > designed for TRAVEL.
>
> Guns are not designed to kill. They just can, that's all. Same as cars.
> You could easily use a car to kill somebody. In fact, it's a well-known
> method of suicide to run a car in a closed garage.
They are designed to kill. Why else were they invented? They were invented
to kill enemies in war which is what they have done for centuries. Not for
shooting paper targets.
> > > Besides, 30,000 out of a nation of 300,000,000 is 0.01%! I ain't
going to
> > > give up a vital right to save 1 out of every 10,000 people! That's
crazy!
> > > Such a law would be of absolutely no benefit to 99.99% of the people.
> > > Which makes it a stupid, useless law.
> >
> > You say that, lets hope none of your family get shot in the face or
anything
> > eh?
>
> The odds are so far against it happening that it's safe to say it won't.
True, but perhaps your viewpoint would change if it did. I hope it never
happens.
> > > I wouldn't call 0.01% of a population being affected to be a "big
social
> > > risk". I can't imagine anyone who would.
> >
> > Because you are blinkered and don't value human life. What a shameful
> > opinion to have.
>
> I do value human life. The 99.99% of lives far outweigh the .01% by any
> measure. It's BECAUSE of the value of human life that the right of self
> defense is one of the very few good justifications for killing people.
99.99% of people having fun has more value to you than 0.01% that die
because of it?
> > > The fact of the matter is, there
> > > are guns that can kill a lot of people. My pre-ban SKS, for example,
has
> > > several 30-round clips. I could easily shoot over 100 rounds in one
> > > minute.
> > > It's loads of fun! It blows the crap out of just about anything, and
it's
> > > legal to shoot it in the desert, just plinking targets. It's a great
way
> > > to relieve stress after a busy week.
> >
> > Or when you get fired by the boss eh? In the office... etc
>
> Like I couldn't get a new job faster than my boss could fire me...
Really.
> Besides, as you noted yourself, there are more effective ways of killing
> people than with a gun. Many more effective ways. Some of them can even
> look like a total accident. Pop the cover off of the Master Brake
Cylinder
> in a car, for example. It'll work fine for 6 or 7 stops.
You just don't get my point. Whats the point in arguing if you're going to
move off in a tangent. Guns are intended to kill and they should be banned
IMO. Thats my argument.
> > > It doesn't need to be a civil war, civil unrest is common enough.
> >
> > Well there are serious problems with america then. To riot over a
sporting
> > event is bizarre in the extreme, and to use it as a case for keeping a
> > weapon is worse.
>
> Yeah, right, like there's never any riots over Soccer games in Europe.
I didn't say europe didn't have serious problems. And its football, not
soccer.
> > You'd shoot someone in a riot? Generally riots don't take
> > place in your house but in the street, where I thought guns were
illegal?
>
> Guns aren't illegal in the street at all. Where'd you get that idea? I
> can and do take walks with my Ruger .357 Magnum on my belt, and it's
> perfectly legal. So is the Makarov .380 I keep in the center console of
> my truck. I typically carry my S&W .357 Magnum when I go bicycling.
> Arizona is what we call an "open carry" State. If the gun is legal, and
> the gun is holstered in plain sight, then it's okay to carry it in public.
> It's no big deal. It's one of the benefits of living out here in the
> Wild West.
Thats crazy then. I'm amazed people can be so tied up in old ideals that
they allow people to carry guns on the street. You people deserve everything
you get, keep the guns. I don't care if American's get shot, if thats the
case.
> > This is my point, the gungho attitude of most americans is the reason
guns
> > should be banned.
>
> That's a dumb reason. You feel safer without guns, and I feel safer with
> them. Does your idea of safety outweigh my idea of safety? Of course
not.
> You're unwilling to deprive a police officer of his firearm as a matter of
> safety, so why would you be willing to deprive anyone else of the same
sort
> of safety? It simply doesn't make sense. Don't *I* deserve to be as safe
> as a Police Officer is?
Police Officers work with criminals, you don't (I assume). Their situation
is vastly different to yours. The chances you would get need a gun for
safety are extremely low.
> > This was in answer to your general argument of foreign invaders, which
your
> > last post concerned. Terrorists won't be in places where you can use
your
> > gun, since terrorists attack buildings of national significance, not
Hank
> > Hill and lil Bobby while they sit watching TV.
>
> I see. You think that I can only use my gun in the confines of my home.
> Try thinking outside of that box.
Thats nuts. Truely.
> > > Do the armed forces carry handguns? Why yes, they do. I spent 8
> > > years in the US Navy, and the Colt Model 1911A .45 was the service
> > > weapon of choice for the Quarterdeck watch.
> > > I believe now it's the Glock 9MM, these days.
>
> > A UN team of soldiers would kill you in seconds, even if you were
fortified
> > in your house with an assault rifle.
>
> The UN soldiers suck ass. They always need the USA to help them and they
> cry like little babies when they can't get US troops. I was trained by
> the US military. I'd send the sorry asses off crying for their mamas.
The US doesn't train the best soldiers, the SAS are considered the most
elite and well trained fighting group in the world. The UN ask the USA to
help in international crisises because the USA is part of the UN and the USA
has a large fighting force. They'd blow your tin shack off the face of the
earth. Armies don't only rely on rifles and pistols.
> > > > And your view on the UN kyoto treaty is just ignorant. Almost every
> > other
> > > > major industrialised nation is reducing CO2 levels and greenhouse
> > emissions
> > > > to meet the goals of the treaty except the USA.
> > >
> > > That's a lie. No one else even signed that stupid treaty. They just
> > wanted
> > > the USA to sign it to hurt the United States. They never, ever had
any
> > sort
> > > of intention to sign it. That treaty was written specifically to try
and
> > > ensnare the USA and no one else.
> >
> > You are so misinformed. Most of Europe signed and Canada, Australia, the
> > Russian Federation... even America, although they broke the treaty and
their
> > agreements. Read the list found here:
> > http://www.unfccc.de/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html
>
> That doesn't say who signed it. That says who they think the victims
should
> be. The USA wouldn't have EVER have signed that stupid piece of trash,
and
> it wouldn't have made ANY difference if the USA had.
But they did. Check around.
> http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/australia.greenhouse.reut/
> That's a scientist saying, in effect, that the Treaty is worthless and
makes
> zero difference in the global climate. And, he's right. It's just a
bunch
> of stupid feel-good crap that is all symbolism, no substance, and for all
> the effort spent, it won't change anything in the slightest degree.
CNN reporting, a really neutral source there. Its open to opinion but theres
no denying it has an effect on global warming. It might not be the highest
contributor but it contributes none-the-less and its in our power to kerb
it.
> > > > Buying up land and growing
> > > > forests in other countries doesn't work successfully and this has
been
> > > > proven, you actually have to cut down on the crap you're pumping
into
> > the
> > > > atmosphere.
> > >
> > > No, you don't. Why? Nobody's proven that it does a damned thing!
When
> > > every jet airliner in the USA was grounded for days, there was no
> > > measurable
> > > improvement in the Ozone layer or in global warming despite the fact
that
> >
> > It takes years to have an affect, but you didn't know that obviously.
Global
> > warming taking place now is the result of polution caused 20-30 years
ago.
>
> That's silly. Greenhouse gases don't last 20-30 years.
Where are you getting this from? These are facts that I'm writing.
> > It isn't only limited to greenhouse emitions but these are a contributor
> > along ith deforestation etc. There is also the increase in the rates of
skin
> > cancer to think about.
>
> The increased in skin cancer (and ALL types of cancer) is because people
are
> living longer. People didn't used to live long enough to worry about
that.
No, in the past 20-30 years skin cancer has increased dramatically, due to
increases in UV light reaching the Earth's surface. That is due to depletion
of (or hole in) the Ozone layer.
> > > no fossil fuels were being burned in the upper atmosphere at all.
> > > So, emissions are a sham. Global warming is a sham. The Ozone layer
> > > thinning
> >
> > Burning fossil fuels produces gaseous by-products that rise into the
upper
> > atmosphere over time, they're not burnt there, LOL. It takes time for
them
> > to reach the areas that become affected.
>
> That is ridiculous on the face of it. Who's carrying it up there? Does
it
> catch a train? There's no public transit to the upper atmosphere.
Its less dense than the air so it rises. Its simple science.
> > You seem to know very little of science to comment on its validity. It
could
> > stand up to being a little warmer eh? Not around the polar ice caps it
> > couldn't, but you just think about the good ole USA right? Phew, thats
> > alright then!
>
> It's not warming up at the poles. Heck, it's getting COLDER in
Antarctica.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40974-2002Jan13.html
>
> The scientists who have been crying about a .1 degree increase every
decade
> (that means it'll be 5 degrees warmer in the year 2500, like I'm quakin'
in
> my boots about that) have noted a 1.2 degree DROP in Antarctica per
decade.
> Researcher Peter Doran says "We've sort of hit a point where we're a
little
> confused". Hehehe. There's no global warming. Never was, never will be.
The hole in the Ozone layer is in the Northern Hemisphere and the northern
polar ice cap is the one melting. There is proven global warming, you go by
averages not just the coldest point. The 0.1 degree rise includes the 1.2
degree drop so the climate is getting warmer and there is a RISE. It says in
the link you posted.
> > > There's no reason to make sacrifices in the name of junk science. Do
you
> > > realize what you'd actually have to do to get rid of the Ozone layer?
> > > You would literally have to put out the Sun. We ain't got a fire
> > > extinguisher that big. It'd be fun to try (hey, it'd solve the whole
> > > global warming
> > thing to boot!) but I really don't think we could manage it.
> >
> > Its not getting rid of the ozone layer, its poluting it with
'greenhouse'
> > gases. 'Putting out the sun' wouldn't 'get rid' of the ozone layer, it
would
> > kill everything on Earth though. Such ignorance.
>
> What a load of hooey. You want to cut down on CO2 emissions? Stop
> breathing. The more carbon-based life forms that stop breathing, the
> less CO2 will be produced and the less greenhouse gases there will be.
> Nevermind that trees and plants kinda need that CO2 for photosynthesis;
> you'll be doing the right thing for the planet and environment if you
> just give up breathing.
Any form of combustion releases CO2. People can't stop breathing, (unless
they are shot -wink-) but they can cut down on emissions into the
atmosphere.
-=RedFox
RedFox
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > And your view on the UN kyoto treaty is just ignorant. Almost every
If that was true then the USA wouldn't feel the need to distance itself from
the UN. Its not puppet, although the USA has a big effect on it because of
the amount of military help it provides.
Oh, and the USA can't disolve the UN. Thats just crazy. It can't use it to
force people to fight either.
UN stands for United Nations btw.
-=RedFox
Ethan Hammond
> the UN. Its not puppet, although the USA has a big effect on it because of
> the amount of military help it provides.
The UN was made after WWII to prevent WWIII. I think it may have failed.
Therefore it must be dissolved.
> Oh, and the USA can't disolve the UN. Thats just crazy. It can't use it to
> force people to fight either.
Sure we can, the UN Building is in New York after all.
> UN stands for United Nations btw.
It sure does way to keep up with your abbreviations. I say f--- the UN.
Charles Doane
<snip>
> > Cars aren't necessary. Who told you they were? They're a luxury. Many
> > people go through their whole lives never owning one. BTW, a gun's job
> > is not to kill people either. I've fired easily over 10,000 rounds and
> > never once killed a person.
>
> For many people they are necessary. Not everyone works within walking
> distance or in a place that has access through public transport. Guns are
> made to kill. They're a weapon, you might not have killed anyone but that
> doesn't mean its not intended for killing.
People can just get jobs within walking distance then. They get jobs in
driving distance, after all. It's the same principle.
Besides, lots of things are made to kill. Mouse traps, rat poison, bug
spray, ant bait, etc. and nobody's bothered by those.
<snip>
> > > As is alcohol, road conditions, weather conditions etc. The meaning of
> > > statement is to summarise that as gun ownership rises, then so do gun
> > > related deaths.
> >
> > That's stupid on the face of it. Drowning is more prevalent where there's
> > water too, so you gonna use that to ban water?
>
> You're the one making ridiculous arguments Charles. Banning something
> intended to kill is a valid viewpoint to have, please don't make stupid
> statements that have no comparison to the argument I'm making. Things that
> can be avoided should. Banning water is impossible, grow up.
That's overly simplistic. Things that can be avoided should? There goes
half of the fun in the world. May as well ban skiing, skydiving, biking,
auto racing, mountain climbing and anything else that might result in a
death or injury.
> > > > > 'International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of
> homicide
> > > and
> > > > > suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.
> > > >
> > > > Figures, he's an academic type. Those are dyed-in-the-wool
> socialists.
> > >
> > > Socialists again. Some Americans have a warped idea of the world it
> seems,
> > > you're not the only person who calls someone that disagrees with your
> > > country a socialist. Can you explain this, or are you just being
> ignorant
> > > again?
> >
> > Fine. You wish to engage in social engineering. You wish to impose your
> > beliefs by government fiat. If you want everybody in the world to get
> > medical care, that's fine. YOU pay for it. Don't go telling everyone
> else
>
> I do pay for it. Its not perfect but I live in civilised society, in one of
> the most developed countries in the world. It should provide services to all
> its citizens and basic healthcare is one of them, IMO.
Society doesn't *provide* anything. It takes wealth from one group of people
(inexplicably, as that group did nothing wrong) and transfers it to another
group of people (inexplicably, as that group did nothing to earn it).
Everything that a society has, it has because it took it from someone. If
someone is getting healthcare for free, that means that someone else is
getting less healthcare than they're actually paying for. It's a ripoff.
> > to pay for something that YOU want to happen. You haven't got that right.
> > If you'd feel better if YOU didn't own a gun, that's fine. Don't own a
> > gun.
> > If you'd feel better if *I* didn't own a gun, well that's over the line.
> > You've got no right making me give up my guns to make you feel a little
> > bit more comfy and cozy.
>
> Not comfy or cozy, its to protect people from nutters who go around shooting
> people.
Since only .01% of people are getting shot, that makes the number of
"nutters" rather low, now doesn't it? So, it's an extreme solution for a
slight problem. Besides, going around shooting people is already illegal,
so there's already a law that says what you want the law to say. The
"nutters" who are going around shooting people are already ignoring at
least one law. Why would you think they wouldn't also ignore two?
> I can see no credible reason to own a gun in this day and age other
> than to protect yourself from others that own one.
They're a hobby, and a fun one at that. Sega's made several light-gun
games, including Virtua Cop, House of the Dead, Jurassic Park and more.
So, it's undeniable that guns are fun, recreational, and appealing.
They're even more fun for real.
As for the "this day and age" comment, there is no difference between
this day and age and any other. People are no more 'civilized' now
than they were two World Wars ago. In fact, it's easily arguable that
people are less civilized now than ever before. With terrorists making
open threats towards civilians (because they're scared shitless of any
real military) and with terrorist cells found in nearly every nation,
you cannot deny the fact that there are some very bad men around who
don't give a rat's patootie about any laws. And so long as there are
such bad men (which will be forever) then there's a very good reason
for good men to be armed.
> They should be banned to eliminate this, i know the process wouldn't
> be that simple but its the action that should be taken. Its rather
> selfish to risk other's lives just so you can take potshots at tin
> cans, wouldn't you say?
I'm not risking other's lives at all when I go out shooting. I know
exactly what I'm doing, and there are a lot more dangerous hobbies.
The safety record of properly handled firearms is very, very good.
Besides, murder is already banned in every civilized nation, ain't it?
Doesn't that law work? No? Then why in the heck would you think that
a gun ban would work any better? Heck, the criminals would like the
idea! The only people to be disarmed would be their law-abiding victims!
> > > As I said up there -points- its because guns are designed to KILL, cars
> are
> > > designed for TRAVEL.
> >
> > Guns are not designed to kill. They just can, that's all. Same as cars.
> > You could easily use a car to kill somebody. In fact, it's a well-known
> > method of suicide to run a car in a closed garage.
>
> They are designed to kill. Why else were they invented? They were invented
> to kill enemies in war which is what they have done for centuries. Not for
> shooting paper targets.
No they weren't. My Ruger 10/22 would be a very poor choice to try and
kill something larger than a rabbit. It's a varmint gun. Varmint control
is a legit use for firearms. Firearms were invented mainly for use in
hunting, which is a legitimate sport and a legitimate use.
<snip>
> > > > I wouldn't call 0.01% of a population being affected to be a "big
> > > > social risk". I can't imagine anyone who would.
> > >
> > > Because you are blinkered and don't value human life. What a shameful
> > > opinion to have.
> >
> > I do value human life. The 99.99% of lives far outweigh the .01% by any
> > measure. It's BECAUSE of the value of human life that the right of self
> > defense is one of the very few good justifications for killing people.
>
> 99.99% of people having fun has more value to you than 0.01% that die
> because of it?
Absolutely. People die in recreational boating accidents, skiing accidents,
auto racing accidents, mountain climbing accidents, etc. all the time, and
it's no reason to ban those activities. If people want to have some fun,
then that's their right and any concern for their lives is outweighed by
their own right of a pursuit of happiness. You could, in theory, ban all
recreation in the name of safety, but most people would agree that it's
far too high a price to pay for mere safety. Happiness is the more
important of the two.
<snip>
> You just don't get my point. Whats the point in arguing if you're going to
> move off in a tangent. Guns are intended to kill and they should be banned
> IMO. Thats my argument.
That's not true. If guns were intended to kill, then I, as a gun owner,
would have to intend to kill by extension. Yet, here I am, I've owned
a gun since I was 8 years old, that's 30 years now, and I haven't killed
one single person yet. That belies your assertion that they're intended
to kill. If they are, then they aren't very good at it.
A gun is just a tool. It is the hand which wields that tool which
decides whether the tool will be used in a good or a bad way.
Just as a ball bat can be used for sport or used to bash in a skull,
the common denominator is the hand which bends it to such uses.
You simply don't trust your fellow man to be basically good. You brag
about living in a civilized society, but your society is nothing of the
sort. It's a society steeped in suspicion, doubt, and mistrust of your
neighbor. You see a murderous maniac in the eyes of every stranger and
so you think that everyone should be disarmed in order to make them
less likely to kill you. Nevermind that they never wanted to kill you
in the first place. Your paranoia is worth more to you than their
rights.
> > > > It doesn't need to be a civil war, civil unrest is common enough.
> > >
> > > Well there are serious problems with america then. To riot over a
> sporting
> > > event is bizarre in the extreme, and to use it as a case for keeping a
> > > weapon is worse.
> >
> > Yeah, right, like there's never any riots over Soccer games in Europe.
>
> I didn't say europe didn't have serious problems. And its football, not
> soccer.
Not over here, it's not. If a game company sells a football game over
here and it turns out to be soccer, that's false advertising.
> > > You'd shoot someone in a riot? Generally riots don't take
> > > place in your house but in the street, where I thought guns were
> illegal?
> >
> > Guns aren't illegal in the street at all. Where'd you get that idea? I
> > can and do take walks with my Ruger .357 Magnum on my belt, and it's
> > perfectly legal. So is the Makarov .380 I keep in the center console of
> > my truck. I typically carry my S&W .357 Magnum when I go bicycling.
> > Arizona is what we call an "open carry" State. If the gun is legal, and
> > the gun is holstered in plain sight, then it's okay to carry it in public.
> > It's no big deal. It's one of the benefits of living out here in the
> > Wild West.
>
> Thats crazy then. I'm amazed people can be so tied up in old ideals that
> they allow people to carry guns on the street.
OLD IDEALS? Do you know how old Arizona is? As a State, we turn 90 on
February 14th of 2002. That's not old at all. That's very new, especially
in comparison to the age of some European cities. Besides, what's so wrong
with carrying guns on the street? If the guy's not a criminal and he's not
doing criminal things with it, then what's the big deal? It's really less
annoying than a cell phone, all things considered.
> You people deserve everything you get, keep the guns.
Good. I find that it makes for a much politer society. Heck, at the gun
range people tend to be super polite.
> I don't care if American's get shot, if thats the case.
It's only .01%, so it's not as if it's a plague or anything.
> > > This is my point, the gungho attitude of most americans is the reason
> guns
> > > should be banned.
> >
> > That's a dumb reason. You feel safer without guns, and I feel safer with
> > them. Does your idea of safety outweigh my idea of safety? Of course
> not.
> > You're unwilling to deprive a police officer of his firearm as a matter of
> > safety, so why would you be willing to deprive anyone else of the same
> > sort of safety? It simply doesn't make sense. Don't *I* deserve to be as
> > safe as a Police Officer is?
>
> Police Officers work with criminals, you don't (I assume). Their situation
> is vastly different to yours. The chances you would get need a gun for
> safety are extremely low.
Your police work with criminals? Jeeze, no wonder you're so suspicious.
Our police work against criminals, not with them.
Besides, it doesn't matter how low my chances for needing a gun for safety
are, I have a right to safety and I have a right to self defense.
<snip>
> > The UN soldiers suck ass. They always need the USA to help them and they
> > cry like little babies when they can't get US troops. I was trained by
> > the US military. I'd send the sorry asses off crying for their mamas.
>
> The US doesn't train the best soldiers, the SAS are considered the most
> elite and well trained fighting group in the world.
Elite=candyass.
> The UN ask the USA to
> help in international crisises because the USA is part of the UN and the USA
> has a large fighting force. They'd blow your tin shack off the face of the
> earth. Armies don't only rely on rifles and pistols.
They'd never make it *to* my "tin shack". Any foreign-flagged vehicle of
mass destruction on Arizona soil is fair game for the Arizona National Guard.
You see, we don't only have an Army and an Air Force for the USA, each and
every State (all 50) have their own standing armed forces as well.
This particular National Guard is particularly well-equipped, as Arizona
happens to be the home of McDonnell-Douglas. I'd almost feel sorry for
the UN trying some stupid crap like that. All of the Elite Training in
the world doesn't mean crap with a helicopter tank-killer gunship on
your ass.
<snip>
> > > Read the list found here:
> > > http://www.unfccc.de/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html
> >
> > That doesn't say who signed it. That says who they think the victims
> > should be. The USA wouldn't have EVER have signed that stupid piece
> > of trash, and it wouldn't have made ANY difference if the USA had.
>
> But they did. Check around.
Nope, they didn't. You see, according to our Constitution, any Treaty
has to be ratified by our Congress. That never happened. They took
a test vote and out of the 100 votes, 98 were against Kyoto. So,
it never came to a real vote, never got ratified, and the President
never even got a chance to sign it, although he wouldn't have even if
he did.
> > http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/australia.greenhouse.reut/
> > That's a scientist saying, in effect, that the Treaty is worthless and
> makes
> > zero difference in the global climate. And, he's right. It's just a
> bunch
> > of stupid feel-good crap that is all symbolism, no substance, and for all
> > the effort spent, it won't change anything in the slightest degree.
>
> CNN reporting, a really neutral source there. Its open to opinion but theres
> no denying it has an effect on global warming. It might not be the highest
> contributor but it contributes none-the-less and its in our power to kerb
> it.
Don't like that source, huh? Okay.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20020114/wl/antarctica_cooling_2.html
It's not in our power to stop global ANYTHING. It's crazy to even try.
How arrogant to think that mankind is possessed of Godlike powers to
change the very temperature of the planet at will. For pity's sake, the
weatherman can't even predict the temperature within 3 degrees of
accuracy for TOMORROW, but we're supposed to just believe scientists when
they say it's going to warm up by one degree in 100 years? Not only that,
but panic about it to the point of changing our lifestyles to try and
prevent it? That's just silly. It got up to 72 Degrees (22 C) yesterday.
Think I'd care if it got up to 73 in 2102?
<snip>
> > That's silly. Greenhouse gases don't last 20-30 years.
>
> Where are you getting this from? These are facts that I'm writing.
Carbon is easily seperated from oxygen. A common houseplant can do it.
It doesn't last any 20-30 years at that rate.
> > > It isn't only limited to greenhouse emitions but these are a contributor
> > > along ith deforestation etc. There is also the increase in the rates of
> skin
> > > cancer to think about.
> >
> > The increased in skin cancer (and ALL types of cancer) is because people
> are
> > living longer. People didn't used to live long enough to worry about
> that.
>
> No, in the past 20-30 years skin cancer has increased dramatically, due to
> increases in UV light reaching the Earth's surface. That is due to depletion
> of (or hole in) the Ozone layer.
Which is probably a natural occurance. We're in a high sunspot cycle, after
all, which does increase Solar UV radiation. Maybe we should get the Sun
to sign the stupid Kyoto Treaty to cut down on UV, huh?
Of course, that ignores the fact that plants LIKE UV; they use it for their
photosynthesis. That means more robust plants=more Oxygen=more O3(aka Ozone).
Plus, it'll make less carbon in the atmosphere.
So, let nature take care of it. It will.
<snip>
> > That is ridiculous on the face of it. Who's carrying it up there? Does
> > it catch a train? There's no public transit to the upper atmosphere.
>
> Its less dense than the air so it rises. Its simple science.
Too simple. The atmospheric pressure is what causes density, and there's
very little (almost none) up there. Even a helium balloon will only rise
so high before it stops.
<snip>
> > Researcher Peter Doran says "We've sort of hit a point where we're a
> > little confused". Hehehe. There's no global warming. Never was,
> > never will be.
>
> The hole in the Ozone layer is in the Northern Hemisphere and the northern
> polar ice cap is the one melting.
The hole in the Ozone layer is over the pole because you need sunlight
to make Ozone out of oxygen and it's nighttime for weeks at a stretch
there. Besides, ice is supposed to melt. It's not very useful as ice
anyway.
> There is proven global warming, you go by
> averages not just the coldest point. The 0.1 degree rise includes the 1.2
> degree drop so the climate is getting warmer and there is a RISE. It says in
> the link you posted.
The drop is more than ten times the supposed rise, which shows that it's
just a bunch of hooey and junk science. That's what happens when science
relies on gov't funding. They sound the chicken-little alarms for money.
<snip>
> > What a load of hooey. You want to cut down on CO2 emissions? Stop
> > breathing. The more carbon-based life forms that stop breathing, the
> > less CO2 will be produced and the less greenhouse gases there will be.
> > Nevermind that trees and plants kinda need that CO2 for photosynthesis;
> > you'll be doing the right thing for the planet and environment if you
> > just give up breathing.
>
> Any form of combustion releases CO2. People can't stop breathing, (unless
> they are shot -wink-) but they can cut down on emissions into the
> atmosphere.
Not appreciably. One volcanic eruption (like Mt. Pinatubo) will put out
more greenhouse gasses than all of humanity can or will in a decade.
Look at the planet Venus. Not one single human being on it, and talk
about a greenhouse effect! Surface temp = 900 Degrees (480 C). Maybe
we should send a copy of the Kyoto treaty over there too.
HW
where gun owners have to be registered in some sort of registry before they
can buy guns. This still doesn't stop gun-related deaths.
A gun is just a tool. It's the weilder of the tool that decides what he/she
will do with it.
Besides, I think alcohol is more destructive to people and causes more
deaths than guns.
Elaine (HUnewearl Lv145)
"RedFox" <red...@firenet.ws> wrote in message
news:a2agtd$vvsaq$1...@ID-111763.news.dfncis.de...