HeyYou

Ooops. Edited my first post. government's CAN'T turn a profit. Investors? My question would be, do they get any return on their investments? Or, do they lose their shirt because they invest in 'unwise' adventures? (Solyndra springs immediately to mind....) I haven't seen any numbers on returns from US government "investment" in anything, aside from a couple car companies, and those were loans, that were paid back early..... I don't even know what the terms of said loans were. If the government MAKES money on anything at all, I would be truly amazed... that is just so out of character for them...... :D

Government can't turn a profit. They produce nothing, and are financed with tax dollars. They don't make one thin dime of the money that they spend. It's all other peoples. (tax payers.) For some reason, I just can't get comfy with a private business maintaining/in control of nukes. This is the same company that charges 600 dollars for a hammer, etc.... I will grant, that these are likely the very same people that built the weapons, and designed the support hardware/software for them, so, they would have a bit of a leg up on the military, but, not like the folks that did the building, are going to be the same folks that do the watching...... the builders are off working on bigger and better ways to wipe out cities.... the folks actually doing the work here are going to be folks that are trained by the company to do so..... kinda like the military before them. Difference being, the military is a LOT less concerned about turning a profit on the job........ I am really not sure what the best course is here.

Everyone has their view. :) On that, I will most certainly agree. Lisnpuppy put it quite well. Evidently, I do not always get my point across as well as I would like. @Kendo: I agree with your solution. That would be really nice. But, human nature tends to interfere with that..... For the most part, the folks here are rather opinionated.... big surprise there huh.. and I haven't met too many people that will happily admit they are wrong, especially on the internet. Also, for a fair few of the discussions here, (as that is more what they are, rather than debates....) "wrong" is rather nebulous. Whether you are wrong or not, is entirely a matter of perspective. I am sure the proponents of gun control believe they are right, as do the opponents. Of course, that is one of the topics that I suspect neither side is ever going to convince the other of whose position has more merit. I have zero desire to exclude anyone that wants to participate. The more the merrier. ESPECIALLY those that can present themselves in coherent manner, and back up what they say with facts, or legal precedent, or whatever the situation calls for at the time. In all reality, I would LOVE to see MORE folks contributing here. We have an extremely wide selection of folks, from many different walks of life, all with one common denominator, we are all gamers to one degree or another. So, we all have at least one thing in common. Perhaps we should concentrate more on that?

Quod erat demonstrandum... And here was me thinking that Debates was open to everyone who cared to post. You appear to be suggesting that there is some kind of clique of "folks that post on the Debates Forum" and that others don't have the right to come in and participate. Which kind of proves exactly what Kendo was saying. Thank You for misinterpreting that. Kendo has not been that active in the debates section until lately, that I have noticed.... When I DO see him posting, it is in this thread, handing out judgements like candy at a parade. Condemning the whole lot of folks that post here, with blanket statements, offering nothing in return as to solutions, or ways to mitigate the current situation. So, I ask a question. Why. I don't see where I have denied anyone anything here. Please do not read more into my posts, than what is actually IN my posts.

I think one is a bit more scary in principal. I blame scifi movies. It IS Hollywood's fault!!!!! Ok, I can go with that. :D

I am just kinda curious what it is you are attempting to accomplish here? Aside from alienating most of the folks that post on the Debates forum...... I have seen a lot of complaints, some have merit, some are simply painting everyone here with the same brush. What I HAVEN'T seen is, do you offer any solutions? Or, are you just coming in here to vent? Or is there something else on your mind?

And that right there is the BEST reason to become a premium member. :D

Those that simply express opinions, are generally called on it. Granted, this is NOT what I would really consider a 'debate' forum..... more like the argument clinic..... So, my question becomes, if you can't win, and you don't care for the way things are going here, and offer no solutions, why participate at all?

Yep, 'right at any cost'. This point has been brought up before and it always ends with someone posting something like 'I think what I think and therefore you are WRONG because you don't think way I think'. At one time people actually did debate here. They made factual statements and posted links and sometimes it was very informative. Now it is just a giant pissing contest dominated by opinion posters, pseudo-intellectuals and logic Nazis. At one time I could pick a topic I was interested in, read the posts, verify the facts and then do my own research before I posted. It really was like that at one time. Now I don't bother. The facts don't matter and now it boils down to what yammering baboon is the loudest. There have been attempts in the past to steer this section back to the way it was. They never work. There are members here who actually like things the way they are. They rule the school yard so why would they want to it change? And that's too bad, because it has driven away the solid debaters and left us with what you see now, a few debaters and a lot of uninformed and hostile opinion posters. Wow. Nice generalizations there.... You will have to excuse me if I am just a bit offended.....

Drones are not autonomous. They are still controlled by a human, said human just isn't in the same location as the drone. The target doesn't really care if the missile that is incoming was fired from a drone, or, from an aircraft that has a human pilot sitting in the c*ckpit. Either way, things go BOOM, and people die. It's not like the terrorists have a fighting chance against either...... It just seems that there is a POLITICAL difference between sending a drone into a sovereign nations territory, and sending a manned aircraft into the same airspace.... one seems to be a bit more acceptable than the other.

Ghogiel brings up a good point. However, when debating publicly like this, those that have a strong opinion one way or the other will likely post. The people most-likely to be swayed one way or the other are the ones NOT making any posts and simply going off what is being said in the debate...which means those who can back up their opinion with the most believable facts, trustworthy articles, etc. will likely sway the unknown masses to their way of thinking. LHammonds You guys bring up an interesting point. While we may not have much influence on each other, how much influence are we having that we will never hear about? Intriguing.

Gun control IS a political issue. The dems want it, the repubbies don't. The whole "spray and pray'" thing is hollywood hype. I rarely, if ever, fired more than three rounds in a burst from my M-16. Even on the M-60 (light machinegun) it was six round bursts. There was no pull the trigger and wave it around and pretend you are Rambo...... Even the troops only pull that stunt when there are enough targets in the area to make it practical. (beach landing at Normandy anyone?)

Just what would you call a four year scholarship to Penn State? At $17,649 (Pa. residents) to $29,282 (non residents) per year which is the minimum free ride for the program, up to a full ride which is $78,560 / $117,128... that doesn't even deal with the elite housing that is gratis to the team members. Where I come from thats called payment. The question on whether Paterno 'may' or 'may not' have made a stupid mistake is fairly well documented by the FBI investigation, a short read might be in order for those in doubt as to what was not done would be advised. Just for the record, failing to report recurrent pedophile molestation isn't what I would call a simple stupid mistake. I would agree for the most part. I don't know if any students were complicit in the cover up though.... if they were, yeah, they should share the punishment. My take on it though is, anyone that was involved and sweeping these events under the rug should be prosecuted as an accessory to the crimes. Trouble is, I really don't see that happening. Ever.

Wow, enlightening, and not really what I expected. I am on the same page as A here..... Of the folks that are regular participants here, I don't think I have actually SEEN anyones views alter overmuch. Of course, I haven't been around here that long..... (I didn't even know this forum existed for the longest time.....) As most of you already know, I am a died-in-the-wool cynic, and stick-in-the-mud. I am opinionated in the extreme, and pretty well set in my ways. I don't think I have shifted my position much, if at all, on any of the topics that have come thru here....... I try not to take myself too seriously though, and neither should you. :)

In the US, you CAN hunt with semi-auto weapons, but, we restrict magazine size to around five rounds. A fair few hunting rifles are semi-autos, but, a fair percentage of hunters prefer non-auto weapons, as they tend to be more accurate. What you can hunt with is also restricted by seasons. You can't just wander out with your M-16, and shoot wildlife whenever you feel like it...... (well, like... never...) It opens with bow season, proceeds to black powder season (muzzle loaders) and then gun/shotgun season. Contrary to what some folks seem to believe, you can NOT take your assault weapon as a hunting rifle. Sure, in the US, we get the opportunity to go and vote.... but, the trouble is, who chooses whom we get to vote for? Ever watch a political campaign in the US? it isn't who the PEOPLE want that get to run, it's who has the most financial backing. Money decides elections. The whole voting thing is just a placebo at this point, to give the people the illusion that they have a voice in government. And it's only getting worse. I don't expect american citizens to 'rise up, and throw off the chains of (the current) tyranny", we have grown to fat, dumb, and lazy for such an exercise. From my observations, there are a rational few out there, who are shouted down by the rabid "my partyists". (both sides of the fence) We have become a nation divided right down political lines, and our government cultivates that divide, to keep themselves in the cat bird seat. I also don't expect folks that grew up in an environment were firearm ownership has been highly restricted, and also stigmatized, to agree with anything I have to say........ The whole mindset is different. I grew up with guns. There were always guns in the house. Some were even kept loaded. I was educated from a young age on gun safety, and use. I was given my first rifle ( a .22) when I was 10...... had bb guns before that... I was a cop in the US Air Force. (law enforcement for a bit, then, worked security. in my job, if I saw someone that did not belong in my area of responsibility, I was authorized to use deadly force to stop them, without having to ask for it. (should the need arise to act quickly) We even had signs posted that said as much. I have been working on my arms collection for quite some time, yet, I haven't gone on a shooting rampage. Nor am I ever likely to. What I DO expect for our future, is another collapse, that makes the recession of 2008 look like a garden party. Followed by a severe power vacuum... which will be filled by those I would LEAST want to see in power..... Do I expect that tomorrow? No, not really.... but, more than likely in the next five to ten years, unless something else changes DRAMATICALLY. We are on the road to ruin, and we have the pedal to the metal. When that comes about, I want to actually be able to defend myself, and my family, from those that are less scrupulous...... And no, I really don't expect anyone to change their views. I would be quite surprised if someone did switch sides on the issue. I really don't ever see that happening. Of course, that could be said for any topic here. This forum is more for mental exercise than anything else.

Trouble is, law enforcement is REACTIVE. They don't even head your direction until the crime is already in progress. A significant percentage of the time, by the time they actually arrive, assess the situation, and decide what to do, it is already way too late. On the other hand, an armed homeowner can confront/subdue/kill the intruder, and the cops just clean up the aftermath. I know if it were my family involved, I would much prefer the latter situation.

Should I not defend myself when someone tries to take away my constitutional rights? Handgun bans have been struck down in most locations here in the US where they were implemented, as unconstitutional, how is an assault weapons ban any different? Hand guns are used in more crimes by a HUGE factor, yet, bans are not legal. I don't own assault RIFLES, I own assault WEAPONS. Assault Rifle: Selective fire. Assault Weapon: Semi-auto version of Assault RIFLE. I use one my my SKS rifles for rodent control. Woodchucks are NOT the size of baseballs, they are the size of a small dog. With my scoped rifle, I can hit them at 100 yards every time. One shot, one kill. The slug does not expand appreciably. (until it hits anyway.....) I originally used a .22, but, it didn't have enough stopping power to penetrate the skull, they would just basically bounce off, and mr. woodchuck would run back into his hole. I don't sit around, just waiting for an opportunity to shoot one..... I don't have the patience for that..... However, when I DO see one, it is a simple matter to grab my rifle, open a window, and shoot him dead. I am going to guess that Vagrant isn't a hunter either...... (nor am I.) I don't sit around drinking beer, waiting for something to stick it's head out...... I agree that assault weapons aren't the best for home protection. Too much penetration. You are just as likely to kill your neighbor, (or someone in the next room...) as you are anyone breaking into your home. (unless you have ammo specifically suited to the purpose......) When I lived out in the boonies though, my nearest neighbor was well out of range. I probably could not have hit one, even if I were trying to. (which I had no reason to.....) I am working on getting a place out in the country once again, and from there, I can't even SEE my nearest neighbors house. I like it. :) That's one possibility. Of course, the guy with the arsenal, and body armor.... is going to be the most obvious threat, someone pulling a pistol and aiming it at the most obvious threat, would be seen as an ALLY, not an opponent. If you can't make that distinction in the heat of combat, then you have no business pulling your weapon in the first place. Better that you leave it in the holster, and do your best to get out.

Consider that he was in a PHD program for behavioral neuroscience, and worked with somewhat less than sane folks on a daily basis. He is faking, looking for an insanity plea.

There is no reason for folks to have more than one car, but, a fair few folks do. (individuals) There is no reason for folks to collect coins, or stamps, or greeting cards, or scenic photographs, or a host of other things either. But they do. Not everyone that owns an assault weapon wants it for home protection. (in most cases, that's a bad idea anyway, for a variety of reasons.) I have mine because I LIKE having them. I enjoy collecting various weapons. I also use them to control the woodchuck population on my property. (well, not currently, that, that was the idea then, and more than likely will be again in the not so distant future, hopefully....) Could I use something else? Sure. But, I don't WANT to. It is a tool very well suited to the task at hand. I am a firm believer in having the right tool for the job. That, and I don't particularly trust our government. Allow them to ban one type of weapon this week, and next week, they will try and ban something else. After all, the precedent has been set, we did it once, we can do it again. It's happened in the past, and quite frankly, the way the government is today, I trust them about as far as I can throw them. They do NOT have my best interests at heart. All the hoopla about 'gun control' is just a knee-jerk reaction to a truly unfortunate incident. In my view, they are going the wrong way with this. Had there been other, LEGALLY armed citizens there, the body count would have been significantly less, and we would be short one whack-job.

So, because of what someone MIGHT do, you would deprive me of my constitutional rights? I VEHEMENTLY disagree. And good luck attempting to collect my collection of assault weapons. I will not surrender them willingly. Sure, I will eventually lose, but, I know I won't be the first to refuse to give them up, nor will I be alone. How many folks do you think will die in that scenario, played out across the US? With your line of thinking, you had better be confiscating ALL guns then. If you are going to ban one class of weapon, that is used in .2% of all gun crimes, then you had better go after ALL guns, because EVERY OTHER CLASS of weapon is used in crimes far more often. Terribly sorry, that logic doesn't fly.

You have a constitutional right to bear arms? Oh very well, sorry to bother you. Just present proof that you're a member of the National Guard and we'll be on our way. That particular aspect has been well covered, and there is a legal decision that civilians have the right to keep and bear arms, WITHOUT being a member of the militia, or the armed forces. Go back a couple pages, I am sure you can find it.

So the hot ticket would be, taking over a scheduled flight TO London, When it is already near Heathrow. If the approach is from the east.... give you a target rich environment, and they aren't going to be real willing to shoot you down out of hand.

Well, that's the trouble. You aren't going to prevent this sort of thing from happening. All banning guns will do is change their weapon of choice. If it isn't a gun, it will be a bomb. I can whip up a batch of plastic explosive just from the chemicals I have laying around the house. And NONE of them are controlled, or, all that unusual to find in any home. (cleaning supplies.....) The knowledge for how to make 'improvised' weapons is out there freely available on the web. And that's only one type. Tim McVeigh used fertilzer, and diesel fuel. Both also freely available just about everywhere..... although, if you AREN'T a farmer, and start purchasing large amounts of fertilizer, the fed DOES pay attention to that..... solution? Steal it from a farmer. Either that, or just set your sites a bit lower than taking out a building. Simply tossing about small bombs inside that same theater would also yield a good body count. He HAD bombs with him, they just didn't work. Be thankful for that. What we need to do, is work on changing folks behavior. Incidents of this nature were extremely uncommon even 40 years ago, when there were hardly any restrictions on weapons purchases at all. Why is that? Maybe because in this day and age, we have become so touchy feely, and oh so concerned about the 'possible psychological impact' of telling a child "no", or damn near any other form of discipline... and "no one ever fails" being taught in schools.....when no one is surprised when yet another politician is caught with his hand (or some other portion of his body) in the cookie jar, is it any wonder our society is going to hell in a handbasket? Go back even further, when there were NO restrictions on guns. Anyone and their cousin could have one.... and most of them did. Yeah, there were some bad folks, that did crimes with guns, but, you didn't see folks going into theaters, and seeing how many people they could kill before the cops got 'em, or they suffered a weapons malfunction. (they just killed presidents in theaters.....) Now, some may think I have a pretty cavalier attitude about the whole thing. Let me assure you, that is NOT the case. I just STRENUOUSLY object to having MY constitutional rights curtail, because someone else couldn't resist the urge to go on a shooting rampage. Giving up your rights to pretend you are safer, won't make you any more free, or safe for that matter.

We aren't talking about all guns. We're talking about one specific type for which there is no good practical reason why there should be civilian access to them. Disagree? Name 10 reasons that aren't more true for handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns, or don't involve some sort of patriot fantasy, or aren't related to just wanting to shoot stuff with excessive firepower. Well, just for giggles, how about because they are used in less than one fifth of one percent of gun crimes? Pencils are used more often than that, should we ban pencils? Why don't you come up with 10 good reasons to deprive me of my constitutional rights?

I think you're missing something here... Nobody in their right mind is thinking that banning these sorts of weapons will reduce crime, or impact criminals who are already neck deep in the business. What it might do something about is the ability for some whack job who had a bad day to walk into a mall and just start opening fire on people just because those people are there. These sorts of people typically are not criminals before the event, nor are they likely to approach their local scumbag gun smuggler because your local scumbag gun smuggler isn't listed in the yellow pages and might just be tempted to report you to the police as soon as you walk away. So, because some whack job goes and buys a gun, and shoots up a theater, mall, whathaveyou, we should ban them for everyone?? Well, what about mr. Breivik? Seems that guns are extremely difficult to come by in Norway, yet, there he went, with 80+ dead. I would also point out, that it isn't just guns that are used by whack jobs to carry out there mass murders. Even cars have been used for such a cause. Do you think we should ban those as well? Alcohol kills tens of thousands every year, costs billions in damages, insurance rate hikes, medical costs, etc. Yet alcohol is legal... again..... It doesn't matter what legislation you pass, or what you take away from law abiding citizens, the whack jobs are STILL going to get what they want, and make use of it. Taking away my freedoms in the name of safety doesn't make me any freer, or safer.