Home Page link

Re: You know what they say....

Home| Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Page 3 of 3       << first < 1 2 3 Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Re: You know what they say.... Warm Worm 12-06-2007
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Warm Worm on December 23, 2007, 2:31 pm
Don wrote:
>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>> .....Don't go to a gunfight with a knife.
>>>>>> Without guns, there are no gunfights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But thats what Sean Taylor did and he surrendered his life for that
>>>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>>> He attempted to defend himself and his family with a machete
>>>>>>> against 4 or 5 ne'er do wells that had no respect of the law or
>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>> I've heard that resisting an attack may be worse than not resisting
>>>>>> one. If true, resisting an attack with a gun will still pose a
>>>>>> certain level of risk beyond not resisting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Sean had had a firearm there's a good chance this story would
>>>>>>> have turned out differently.
>>>>>> Maybe.
>>>>> A maybe is better than being dead.
>>>> In that particular anecdote, sure, but that doesn't take into account
>>>> the big picture. Your picture is too little to support your apparent
>>>> point.
>>> Just a few days ago, a repeat felon with a history of violent crime tried
>>> to break into a house, in the late afternoon, and where the family was
>>> obviously at home. THe surprised homeowner had time to tell his wife an
>>> dchild to leave the room, and then grab hiistol and shoot the intruder -
>>> who, given his history and apparent desperation, would almost certainly
>>> have harmed the family.
>>>
>>> I've heard a lot of anti-gun stuff from poeple who have never been
>>> attacked and/or in fear of thier lives, and/or the lives of their loved
>>> ones. SInce i haven't had the priviledge of that insulated a life, I
>>> personally like havin gboth the means, and the legal right (here in Texas
>>> at least) to defend myself. IMO that is a personal choice - if someone
>>> else wants to be potential fodder, it's completely up to them, btu they
>>> have not right whatsoever to **ORDER** be to make the same choice. As
>>> for criminals, well, even in countries where guns a re banned/outlawed,
>>> criminals still find ways to get them. Gun restrictions end up
>>> restricting people who actually obey the law, because people who don't
>>> give a damn about the law (or about their victims) will simply get them
>>> on the black market. Wasn't there just the other day a mass shooting in
>>> Finland of all places? You cannot magically cure social ills or personal
>>> disfuntion by simply making it illegal to own/use certain objects.
>>>
>>>>>>> The shooter is 17 years old and justice as it is there's the
>>>>>>> liklihood he'll be back on the streets harming others in the
>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>> That seems a different, if related, issue.
>>>>>> Here's yet another:
>>>>>> Have cost-benefit analyses been done with regard to free-for-alls
>>>>>> for guns, versus certain forms of gun-control?
>>>>> Gun control for who, criminals?
>>>>> Sure, why not?
>>>> Cough it up, then. Let's see the research beyond the glib. Put on your
>>>> fucking combat boots, pack your iron. You wanna talk about
>>>> pussification?
>>>>>> I mean, while Sean may have been spared had he had a gun-- a
>>>>>> "hole/leak in the boat plugged-up"-- what other holes might open up
>>>>>> as a result, and would they be bigger and/or more numerous.
>>>>> Such as?
>>>> You tell me. It's your thread... or do you just have a knife? Is your
>>>> gun too heavy to take out of it's holster? (takes glove off, slaps Don
>>>> in face with it)
>>>> Wanna shoot yourself if the foot? Happy to just piss in the wind?
>>> THat's inane. I dunno abou Don, but I'm over 50, arthritic, and
>>> therefore out of shape. I'd have Zero chance of defending myself against
>>> a knife attack, even is I had a bigger knife. And no, my guns are not
>>> too heavy to lift - it's mroe sensible to use a smaller gun which one can
>>> wield effectively. If you load your .22 with hollow-points, you're
>>> better off hitting an attacker five times with the smaller load, than you
>>> are if you shoot a .357 once and miss, and can't regain control after the
>>> kickback in time before the attacker nails you.
>>>
>>> And sorry, but not all people who own guns are idiots with no concept of
>>> gun safety, i.e. likely to shoot themselves in the foot or whatever. My
>>> grandfather had been a forest warden in the old Chechoslovakia before he
>>> came here, and after that, never bought meat in the store; my father was
>>> a championship marksman as well as an occasional hunter (andnyes, "one
>>> shot", as in that movie "The Deer Hunter"). All I've ever done is shred
>>> paper now and then, but shooting is part of my family and cultural
>>> history, and it's rather irksome that you choose to imply that these
>>> traditions are ONLY the realm of idiots - frankly, that says mroe about
>>> you than it says about all people who enjoy shooting or even hunting.
>> I'm neither for nor against "gun-control"-- whatever that means.
>>
>> Odd effects can happen when you do things, even with good intentions,
>> whether it's controlling guns, not controlling guns.
>> And while we're looking at gun-control, maybe we're missing other related
>> sociological dynamics along the way-- perhaps the ones that have a greater
>> bearing on how and why, etc., people kill with guns.
>>
>> Think of people as your enemies and they'll become your enemies.
>>
>> Arm everyone with guns, stand back and see what happens.
>>
>> Bring your clipboards and take notes.
>
> When they make a law pertaining to guns the intention is for ALL citizens to
> obey it.
> But, criminals by their very nature do not obey laws, so who is left to obey
> them?
> The non-criminals of course.
> So what is the point of a law that does not effect one group of people, the
> law abiding, and is ignored by the other group, the criminals?
> As long as criminals exist non-criminals should be able to protect
> themselves.
> And yes (Michael,) as long as nitwits like Bush have access to your worst
> nightmare then everyone else should too.

Then why have laws at all? Again, as a thought-experiment, delete all
laws, pack your clipboards and see what happens.

Posted by Warm Worm on December 24, 2007, 11:54 am
Don wrote:
>> Don wrote:
>>>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>> .....Don't go to a gunfight with a knife.
>>>>>>>> Without guns, there are no gunfights.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But thats what Sean Taylor did and he surrendered his life for that
>>>>>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>>>>> He attempted to defend himself and his family with a machete
>>>>>>>>> against 4 or 5 ne'er do wells that had no respect of the law or
>>>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>>> I've heard that resisting an attack may be worse than not resisting
>>>>>>>> one. If true, resisting an attack with a gun will still pose a
>>>>>>>> certain level of risk beyond not resisting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If Sean had had a firearm there's a good chance this story would
>>>>>>>>> have turned out differently.
>>>>>>>> Maybe.
>>>>>>> A maybe is better than being dead.
>>>>>> In that particular anecdote, sure, but that doesn't take into account
>>>>>> the big picture. Your picture is too little to support your apparent
>>>>>> point.
>>>>> Just a few days ago, a repeat felon with a history of violent crime
>>>>> tried to break into a house, in the late afternoon, and where the
>>>>> family was obviously at home. THe surprised homeowner had time to tell
>>>>> his wife an dchild to leave the room, and then grab hiistol and shoot
>>>>> the intruder - who, given his history and apparent desperation, would
>>>>> almost certainly have harmed the family.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've heard a lot of anti-gun stuff from poeple who have never been
>>>>> attacked and/or in fear of thier lives, and/or the lives of their loved
>>>>> ones. SInce i haven't had the priviledge of that insulated a life, I
>>>>> personally like havin gboth the means, and the legal right (here in
>>>>> Texas at least) to defend myself. IMO that is a personal choice - if
>>>>> someone else wants to be potential fodder, it's completely up to them,
>>>>> btu they have not right whatsoever to **ORDER** be to make the same
>>>>> choice. As for criminals, well, even in countries where guns a re
>>>>> banned/outlawed, criminals still find ways to get them. Gun
>>>>> restrictions end up restricting people who actually obey the law,
>>>>> because people who don't give a damn about the law (or about their
>>>>> victims) will simply get them on the black market. Wasn't there just
>>>>> the other day a mass shooting in Finland of all places? You cannot
>>>>> magically cure social ills or personal disfuntion by simply making it
>>>>> illegal to own/use certain objects.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The shooter is 17 years old and justice as it is there's the
>>>>>>>>> liklihood he'll be back on the streets harming others in the
>>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>> That seems a different, if related, issue.
>>>>>>>> Here's yet another:
>>>>>>>> Have cost-benefit analyses been done with regard to free-for-alls
>>>>>>>> for guns, versus certain forms of gun-control?
>>>>>>> Gun control for who, criminals?
>>>>>>> Sure, why not?
>>>>>> Cough it up, then. Let's see the research beyond the glib. Put on your
>>>>>> fucking combat boots, pack your iron. You wanna talk about
>>>>>> pussification?
>>>>>>>> I mean, while Sean may have been spared had he had a gun-- a
>>>>>>>> "hole/leak in the boat plugged-up"-- what other holes might open up
>>>>>>>> as a result, and would they be bigger and/or more numerous.
>>>>>>> Such as?
>>>>>> You tell me. It's your thread... or do you just have a knife? Is your
>>>>>> gun too heavy to take out of it's holster? (takes glove off, slaps Don
>>>>>> in face with it)
>>>>>> Wanna shoot yourself if the foot? Happy to just piss in the wind?
>>>>> THat's inane. I dunno abou Don, but I'm over 50, arthritic, and
>>>>> therefore out of shape. I'd have Zero chance of defending myself
>>>>> against a knife attack, even is I had a bigger knife. And no, my guns
>>>>> are not too heavy to lift - it's mroe sensible to use a smaller gun
>>>>> which one can wield effectively. If you load your .22 with
>>>>> hollow-points, you're better off hitting an attacker five times with
>>>>> the smaller load, than you are if you shoot a .357 once and miss, and
>>>>> can't regain control after the kickback in time before the attacker
>>>>> nails you.
>>>>>
>>>>> And sorry, but not all people who own guns are idiots with no concept
>>>>> of gun safety, i.e. likely to shoot themselves in the foot or whatever.
>>>>> My grandfather had been a forest warden in the old Chechoslovakia
>>>>> before he came here, and after that, never bought meat in the store; my
>>>>> father was a championship marksman as well as an occasional hunter
>>>>> (andnyes, "one shot", as in that movie "The Deer Hunter"). All I've
>>>>> ever done is shred paper now and then, but shooting is part of my
>>>>> family and cultural history, and it's rather irksome that you choose to
>>>>> imply that these traditions are ONLY the realm of idiots - frankly,
>>>>> that says mroe about you than it says about all people who enjoy
>>>>> shooting or even hunting.
>>>> I'm neither for nor against "gun-control"-- whatever that means.
>>>>
>>>> Odd effects can happen when you do things, even with good intentions,
>>>> whether it's controlling guns, not controlling guns.
>>>> And while we're looking at gun-control, maybe we're missing other
>>>> related sociological dynamics along the way-- perhaps the ones that have
>>>> a greater bearing on how and why, etc., people kill with guns.
>>>>
>>>> Think of people as your enemies and they'll become your enemies.
>>>>
>>>> Arm everyone with guns, stand back and see what happens.
>>>>
>>>> Bring your clipboards and take notes.
>>> When they make a law pertaining to guns the intention is for ALL citizens
>>> to obey it.
>>> But, criminals by their very nature do not obey laws, so who is left to
>>> obey them?
>>> The non-criminals of course.
>>> So what is the point of a law that does not effect one group of people,
>>> the law abiding, and is ignored by the other group, the criminals?
>>> As long as criminals exist non-criminals should be able to protect
>>> themselves.
>>> And yes (Michael,) as long as nitwits like Bush have access to your worst
>>> nightmare then everyone else should too.
>> Then why have laws at all?
>
> So that the state has a *legitimate* means of extracting revenue from the
> citizenry?
> Obviously laws are not about justice.
> They are not about making victims *whole*.
> They are not about punishment.
>
> Again, as a thought-experiment, delete all
>> laws, pack your clipboards and see what happens.
>
> The only laws I have ever violated were not violations against people, but
> simply *rules* meant to create revenue for the state.
> Laws the pertain to stuff like murder, stealing, and in general harming
> other people are irrelevent to me.
> I don't do that stuff.
>
> Trade in justice and laws for arbitration and restitution because the former
> doesn't work and never has.

You might have something there, and if it would work-- especially better
than what we have now-- I'd be all for it.

Posted by Kris Krieger on December 26, 2007, 12:37 am

> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>
>>> Don wrote:
>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>> .....Don't go to a gunfight with a knife.
>>>>> Without guns, there are no gunfights.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But thats what Sean Taylor did and he surrendered his life for
>>>>>> that mistake.
>>>>>> He attempted to defend himself and his family with a machete
>>>>>> against 4 or 5 ne'er do wells that had no respect of the law or
>>>>>> life.
>>>>> I've heard that resisting an attack may be worse than not
>>>>> resisting one. If true, resisting an attack with a gun will still
>>>>> pose a certain level of risk beyond not resisting.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If Sean had had a firearm there's a good chance this story would
>>>>>> have turned out differently.
>>>>> Maybe.
>>>> A maybe is better than being dead.
>>> In that particular anecdote, sure, but that doesn't take into
>>> account the big picture. Your picture is too little to support your
>>> apparent point.
>>
>> Just a few days ago, a repeat felon with a history of violent crime
>> tried to break into a house, in the late afternoon, and where the
>> family was obviously at home. THe surprised homeowner had time to
>> tell his wife an dchild to leave the room, and then grab hiistol and
>> shoot the intruder - who, given his history and apparent desperation,
>> would almost certainly have harmed the family.
>>
>> I've heard a lot of anti-gun stuff from poeple who have never been
>> attacked and/or in fear of thier lives, and/or the lives of their
>> loved ones. SInce i haven't had the priviledge of that insulated a
>> life, I personally like havin gboth the means, and the legal right
>> (here in Texas at least) to defend myself. IMO that is a personal
>> choice - if someone else wants to be potential fodder, it's
>> completely up to them, btu they have not right whatsoever to
>> **ORDER** be to make the same choice. As for criminals, well, even
>> in countries where guns a re banned/outlawed, criminals still find
>> ways to get them. Gun restrictions end up restricting people who
>> actually obey the law, because people who don't give a damn about the
>> law (or about their victims) will simply get them on the black
>> market. Wasn't there just the other day a mass shooting in Finland
>> of all places? You cannot magically cure social ills or personal
>> disfuntion by simply making it illegal to own/use certain objects.
> >
>>>>>> The shooter is 17 years old and justice as it is there's the
>>>>>> liklihood he'll be back on the streets harming others in the
>>>>>> future.
>>>>> That seems a different, if related, issue.
>>>>> Here's yet another:
>>>>> Have cost-benefit analyses been done with regard to free-for-alls
>>>>> for guns, versus certain forms of gun-control?
>>>> Gun control for who, criminals?
>>>> Sure, why not?
>>> Cough it up, then. Let's see the research beyond the glib. Put on
>>> your fucking combat boots, pack your iron. You wanna talk about
>>> pussification?
>>>
>>>>> I mean, while Sean may have been spared had he had a gun-- a
>>>>> "hole/leak in the boat plugged-up"-- what other holes might open
>>>>> up as a result, and would they be bigger and/or more numerous.
>>>> Such as?
>>> You tell me. It's your thread... or do you just have a knife? Is
>>> your gun too heavy to take out of it's holster? (takes glove off,
>>> slaps Don in face with it)
>>> Wanna shoot yourself if the foot? Happy to just piss in the wind?
>>
>> THat's inane. I dunno abou Don, but I'm over 50, arthritic, and
>> therefore out of shape. I'd have Zero chance of defending myself
>> against a knife attack, even is I had a bigger knife. And no, my
>> guns are not too heavy to lift - it's mroe sensible to use a smaller
>> gun which one can wield effectively. If you load your .22 with
>> hollow-points, you're better off hitting an attacker five times with
>> the smaller load, than you are if you shoot a .357 once and miss, and
>> can't regain control after the kickback in time before the attacker
>> nails you.
> >
>> And sorry, but not all people who own guns are idiots with no concept
>> of gun safety, i.e. likely to shoot themselves in the foot or
>> whatever. My grandfather had been a forest warden in the old
>> Chechoslovakia before he came here, and after that, never bought meat
>> in the store; my father was a championship marksman as well as an
>> occasional hunter (andnyes, "one shot", as in that movie "The Deer
>> Hunter"). All I've ever done is shred paper now and then, but
>> shooting is part of my family and cultural history, and it's rather
>> irksome that you choose to imply that these traditions are ONLY the
>> realm of idiots - frankly, that says mroe about you than it says
>> about all people who enjoy shooting or even hunting.
>
> I'm neither for nor against "gun-control"-- whatever that means.

THe problem is that the definition changes a bit depending upon who is
talking. A lot of peopl ewant to completely ban all legal gun ownership.
I say "legal", because yes, if someone is a criminal, he or she isn't
goingto give a hoot that a gun is illegal, only that a gun is power, a
way of getting others to submit.

>
> Odd effects can happen when you do things, even with good intentions,
> whether it's controlling guns, not controlling guns.
> And while we're looking at gun-control, maybe we're missing other
> related sociological dynamics along the way-- perhaps the ones that
> have
> a greater bearing on how and why, etc., people kill with guns.

THat's been part of my point. People talk about the thing, but not *why*
th ething is used as it is.

The same is true of drug useage. Making drugs illegal hasn't done much
at all to curb drug use, but it *has* created drug cartels and drug
dealers and all of the violence that comes when one group of drug dealers
fights anoter for "territory", the way Prohibition created the Mafia.

Until the "whys" are addressed *honestly*, however, high crime levels
will propagate like waves across the ocean.

>
> Think of people as your enemies and they'll become your enemies.

Thinking of all other people as enemies is very different from knowing
that some people are capable of doing bad things, of flashing into
violent action. I have no way of knowing whether, the next time I go to
the mall, some nut is going to march in with a weapon (gun, machete,
whatever) and start killing people.

Some folks prefer to remain oblivious to the possibility. But choosing
to *not* be oblivious to it is no at all the same thing as viewing
everybody else as an "enemy". I don't think "everyone is out to get me",
but at the same time, I also don't have some cutsey disneyesque delusion
that everybody is sweet and wonderful and marvelous and reasonable.


>
> Arm everyone with guns, stand back and see what happens.
>
> Bring your clipboards and take notes.
>


Posted by Warm Worm on December 22, 2007, 6:30 pm
Don wrote:
>>
>>> Don wrote:
>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>> .....Don't go to a gunfight with a knife.
>>>>> Without guns, there are no gunfights.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But thats what Sean Taylor did and he surrendered his life for that
>>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>> He attempted to defend himself and his family with a machete
>>>>>> against 4 or 5 ne'er do wells that had no respect of the law or
>>>>>> life.
>>>>> I've heard that resisting an attack may be worse than not resisting
>>>>> one. If true, resisting an attack with a gun will still pose a
>>>>> certain level of risk beyond not resisting.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If Sean had had a firearm there's a good chance this story would
>>>>>> have turned out differently.
>>>>> Maybe.
>>>> A maybe is better than being dead.
>>> In that particular anecdote, sure, but that doesn't take into account
>>> the big picture. Your picture is too little to support your apparent
>>> point.
>> Just a few days ago, a repeat felon with a history of violent crime tried
>> to break into a house, in the late afternoon, and where the family was
>> obviously at home. THe surprised homeowner had time to tell his wife an
>> dchild to leave the room, and then grab hiistol and shoot the intruder -
>> who, given his history and apparent desperation, would almost certainly
>> have harmed the family.
>>
>> I've heard a lot of anti-gun stuff from poeple who have never been
>> attacked and/or in fear of thier lives, and/or the lives of their loved
>> ones. SInce i haven't had the priviledge of that insulated a life, I
>> personally like havin gboth the means, and the legal right (here in Texas
>> at least) to defend myself. IMO that is a personal choice - if someone
>> else wants to be potential fodder, it's completely up to them, btu they
>> have not right whatsoever to **ORDER** be to make the same choice. As
>> for criminals, well, even in countries where guns a re banned/outlawed,
>> criminals still find ways to get them. Gun restrictions end up
>> restricting people who actually obey the law, because people who don't
>> give a damn about the law (or about their victims) will simply get them
>> on the black market. Wasn't there just the other day a mass shooting in
>> Finland of all places? You cannot magically cure social ills or personal
>> disfuntion by simply making it illegal to own/use certain objects.
>>
>>
>>>>>> The shooter is 17 years old and justice as it is there's the
>>>>>> liklihood he'll be back on the streets harming others in the
>>>>>> future.
>>>>> That seems a different, if related, issue.
>>>>> Here's yet another:
>>>>> Have cost-benefit analyses been done with regard to free-for-alls
>>>>> for guns, versus certain forms of gun-control?
>>>> Gun control for who, criminals?
>>>> Sure, why not?
>>> Cough it up, then. Let's see the research beyond the glib. Put on your
>>> fucking combat boots, pack your iron. You wanna talk about
>>> pussification?
>>>
>>>>> I mean, while Sean may have been spared had he had a gun-- a
>>>>> "hole/leak in the boat plugged-up"-- what other holes might open up
>>>>> as a result, and would they be bigger and/or more numerous.
>>>> Such as?
>>> You tell me. It's your thread... or do you just have a knife? Is your
>>> gun too heavy to take out of it's holster? (takes glove off, slaps Don
>>> in face with it)
>>> Wanna shoot yourself if the foot? Happy to just piss in the wind?
>> THat's inane. I dunno abou Don, but I'm over 50, arthritic, and
>> therefore out of shape. I'd have Zero chance of defending myself against
>> a knife attack, even is I had a bigger knife.
>
> Yeah you would, anybody would.
> It starts with an attitude.
> 'tood.
> Gotta a few barstools sitting around?
> A lamp?
> Coffee cup?
> Is anything at all lying around.
> When push comes to shove everything is expendable and everything is a
> weapon, you can buy more stuff later, right now you have a job to do, and
> that is to dispatch a villain with whatever *tools* are instantly available.
> I'm too old for all that beatin and poundin, now, so if the *opportunity*
> arises I'll just mangle the MF's eyeballs and be done with it.
>
> **They have to come across about 80' of noisy gravel, traverse a slippery
> 16' long bridge, open a rickety gate, cross a creaky wooden deck and then
> break through TWO front doors and by that time I'll have the gauge out of
> the closet and from the top of the stairs I'll *open* the front doors for
> them-him.

--Which begs the question as to whether architects and builders really
need to be concerned with making wood floors silent.

> For *in house* defense, especially if the residence is occupied by other
> people, a shotgun is better.

How about they just snipe you from the road?
I mean, if they know that gun-control is history, why not make sure
you're good and dead before they are.
How much for a good snipe-gun with a good scope?
...Might be handy in a mall or school setting too.

Posted by gruhn on December 16, 2007, 4:41 pm
> Otherwise, you might as well be pissing in the wind while you're
> standing down-wind...

Most people just write "pissing into the wind".

Page 3 of 3       << first < 1 2 3

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap