4 posts • joined 1 Apr 2008
I note that...
The sensible, logical, and calm well-thought-out arguments are put forth by people who own and carry firearms (or would like to) for protection of themselves and loved ones, and the emotive rants with exclamation marks that pick up on nonexistent flaws and flail at them with reasoning that doesn't stand up to one second of rational thought are the people scared of firearms. Hmmm.
For example. You have a gun about your person. As reasoned above, that means no-one can approach you by any level of force for they face an equal amount of force in return. So the argument against that, apparently, is "ahahaaaaa, but but but, the mugger will immediately shoot you in the back!!!!111one". The presupposition there though is that if you weren't carrying a firearm, the mugger would what, exactly? Your own rule, *your own example you typed in* shows that they are psycho enough to shoot at an *obviously armed* person with no provocation just to get an MP3 player, thus _risking their own life_ for cheap consumer tat. So what 100% they aren't going to do for someone obviously unarmed is switch from someone so dysfunctional and psychotic that they would pretty much randomly shoot anyone in the back for no reason, to someone who'll ask nicely for your iPod and maybe push you over a hedge and run off if you said no. Good grief, give me strength.
What they'd most likely do is avoid the armed person like the plague and go shoot someone unarmed - easy life.
And a million people marching on Westminster means the police have to get out of their APCs and not use guns? Christ, have you heard of China? Tianemen square? And indeed British Apathy? Millions indeed, how I cynically snort. Nope, you'd tut about it and get back to your surveilled 24/7 front room (hey - if it saves one life, think of the children, if you have nothing to hide...) I could go on but I suppose I'm either preaching to the converted or trying to use reason and logic against closed-mind emotionalism (pretty much how Blair got into power on the back of dead kids, you lovely anti-gun people you, I hope you're proud).
Honestly I wonder what planet some people live on sometimes. Think your argument through first, or you just sound like someone who believes guns are the root of all evil and just by touching them you turn into a killer or something. If you recall there are armed police and armed forces and somehow they avoid going on the rampage at the drop of a safety catch. Oh no wait - the shining examples of "the only people who need guns" are actually quite prominent in the "shooting people they shouldn't" stakes. Gosh, another poorly thought through statement shot down in flames, this job's too easy.
Is it just me...
... That, much as I dislike big companies muscling in, thinks Hasbro were completely in their rights to clobber these two? They *stole* scrabble lock, stock, and triple word score. The rules, layout, design, everything. And then made money off it through advertising.
Not sure how anyone can defend that, imagine if they scanned in a book you wrote, put it online, and made money off advertising surrounding it? The idea that they should enter a "revenue share" scheme is like someone nicking stuff out your shop to sell on the street in front of you and you decide it's OK if they give you half the profit?
Bless you, console kids
I love seeing console fanboi's fight :D It's like "who's got the least-shit crippled games machine". One day you'll grow up and play games that aren't built for the lowest common denominator with ADD ;) Until then, fight amongst yourselves (online only, using autoaim of course, and your "maximum 14 buttons" user interfaces ho ho ho bless) over which toy shows the prettiest pictures.
I mean you must know they are preeeetty limited or you wouldn't jump up and be in the face of people as soon as some imaginary slight is percieved. You know, like the short bloke down the pub who's got a problem with everyone because he's short. And thick.
Isn't this like
BT having someone listen in to all your calls, taking notes - in case, say, you ask dear old dad what kind of garden shed you should buy? So they can inundate you with adverts for garden centres? I'm sure if that was forwarded as a legitimate business plan it'd get laughed out the office due to being incredibly illegal...
Plus what is the security ramifications? Like online banking? They intercept your username and password, and which memorable information selections you made? Credit card details entered in online shops? Chat text on MSN et al? Could divulge all sorts of snippets on there... OK it is encrypted but that's not the same as "100% safe" is it. And if it is recorded you've got all the time you need to crack it.
Ghastly situation, someone needs a right kicking over this.
- Comment Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
- Useless 'computer engineer' Barbie FIRED in three-way fsck row
- Game Theory Dragon Age Inquisition: Our chief weapons are...
- 'How a censorious and moralistic blogger ruined my evening'
- Amazon warming up 'cheapo web video' cannon to SINK Netflix