Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on November 23, 2002, 09:30:41 AM
-
Some of you may have read my Bridge thread, in which I observed certain game protocols and discipline. I've recently signed up with an online Bridge club, and as part of the welcome email that came today, I was alerted to one strict rule that they have in the gaming arena. I reproduce it here in blue text.
IMPORTANT WARNING:
-----------------
We value our reputation for providing a friendly but disciplined
environment for the maximum enjoyment of bridge.
You may occasionally feel tempted to abandon a hand before its
completion - e.g. wrong contract (through no fault of your own).
Such QUITTING is completely FORBIDDEN and if reported will end
your playing rights immediately! (It is therefore important to
apologise as soon as possible to opponents, if you fail to
complete a hand through a lost connection. particularly if you
were about to get a poor score.)
ROFL!!!!! Can you imagine if the equivalent rule were to be implemented in Aces High? How would the all the gottawins and Alt+F4 crybabies handle that!
-
I think that you will be better seved by bridge than by AH... just as I believe that you are better served by living in england than here. I am thankful that you can't vote here. Now if we could just end womens sufferage things would get better instead of worse here.
lazs
-
Lazs -
I think that you will be better seved by bridge than by AH...
In some circumstances I agree with you. I will be the antithesis of the Pizza-Map whiners. Those are the guys who say things like "Logged on, saw the pizza map, logged off". Or "I got a full 8 hours sleep last night - thanks to the pizza map being up". Now, I shall be able to say "Logged on, saw the pizza map was gone, went to play Bridge". Or "Logged on, saw the Tiffie suiciders/LA7 vulchers/P51 gangbangers, logged off and went to play Bridge".
-
bridge references = strike 1
8 page multi colored signature = strike 2
-
don't see how playing bridge is any better than getting 8 hours of sleep.... or... how it is any better to talk about.
lazs
-
mrfish... it is actually strike three... the third strike is content... the content for the sig ranges from the insipid to the missleading to the outright dumb..... in that order... a possible fourth strike exists if repetitive is in the least anoying to you.
lazs
-
Are there strikes in cricket? If so, how many do you get?
-
Holden
Cricket is very different from Baseball. Each batsman has only ONE life. It's not like Aces High or baseball, where you can re-up. The side has 11 players, and the act of eliminating a batsman is known as "taking a wicket". A wicket can be taken in one of the following ways: [list=1]- Bowled - the bowler bowls to the batsman and succeeds in hitting the wicket (those three stumps) AND removing at least one of the bails - those bits of wood which lie horizontally on top of the stumps.
- Caught - the batsman strikes the ball, which is caught by one of the fielders before it touches the ground.
- LBW (Leg Before Wicket) - The batsman's leg obstructs the ball, which would otherwise have hit the wicket.
- Run Out - The batsmen try for a run, but do not make it to the opposite crease in time. If the ball can be thrown to hit the wicket (and remove a bail) before the batsman makes it to the crease, the batsman is dismissed.
- Stumped - my favourite! The batsman steps out of his crease to play a stroke, but misses. If the wicket keeper can retrieve the ball and with the ball still in his hands strikes the wicket (and removes at least one bail) while the batsman is still out of his crease, the batsman is dismissed. I was damn impressed by the Australian wicket keeper, Ian Healy. That guy had the reflexes of a mongoose. The batsman had only to be 1cm. out of his crease, and if Healy got his hands on that ball, the batsman was inevitably dismissed. Healy did it in the blink of an eye. Best wicket keeper since Alan Knott.
When 10 batsmen have been dismissed, the 11th has to retire because two are needed - one at each end of the wicket. (The "wicket" can also mean the 22 yards of grass between the two sets of stumps)
Yes I know there are strikes in baseball. The last one was in 1994, and resulted in cancellation of the World Series - ROFL!
-
Imagine a game where the developer provided the toys and all the kids in the sandbox were free to make their own choices about what constituted "fun".
For some of us, that'd be heaven.
For others, freedom of choice like that is scary or disappointing or "unfair" or something a nanny should do for them.
-
Mr. Toad -
Imagine a game where the developer provided the toys and all the kids in the sandbox were free to make their own choices about what constituted "fun".
For some of us, that'd be heaven.
And for others, it would be Anarchy.
Goodnight, Mr. Toad.
-
given a choice between your rules and anarchy.... anarchy sounds very inviting. One only has to look at your prissy, lengthy and dishonest sig to understand why.... but then... maybe ya gotta be an American to understand?
lazs
-
beet1e,
Please post the rules of AH. You seem to make references to some rules but I haven't seen them yet. Maybe if there aren't any official rules of AH perhaps you can post your rules of AH so we can see if anyone might be breaking any rules.
Thank you in advance.
Regards.
-
Well, maybe bridge will turn out to be your game. Good luck.
After all, it's pretty clear you seek a well-defined structure in gaming and bridge certainly offers that.
Might as well let the rest of us Anarchists Unite! :p
-
Originally posted by Toad
Imagine a game where the developer provided the toys and all the kids in the sandbox were free to make their own choices about what constituted "fun".
For some of us, that'd be heaven.
For others, freedom of choice like that is scary or disappointing or "unfair" or something a nanny should do for them.
I've seen this done. I've played it.
It ******* rules.
There is a game called jumpgate. Currently it's in it's death spiral. But a year ago, it was one of a kind. It's a space trading/combat game, with virtuallly no "content". There are a few AI monsters to shoot at, but back then there was a large segment of players who were totally anti-AI, so it was kept light.
For some players, this was horrible. There was no "single-player" way to play the game and enjoy it. To have fun you needed to actuallly interact.
The game was set up so as to lightly punish players for "pking", but also so that hiding from those trying to kill you was difficult. Grief killers were hunted out of the game more than once.
So what was set up, was an otherwise empty universe. Added were ships, guns, cargo vessels, and equipment and commodities to move around. Different stations produce different commodities, which are used to produce other commodities and equipment.
Then the fun began.
Peacefull trader squads, small powerfull mercenaries, bands of pirates, smugglers, spies, and everything in between. Politics was a stronger weapon as any gun, and a threat of force meant something. Piracy had the potential of working(though it took a long time for the pirates to figure it out). And unlike other online games, the ideal outcome from a pirate encounter left both pilots alive, and simply cut a bit into the merchants profit margin. RP and rabid pking went hand in hand, the carebears and quake-ers played together, being forced to deal with each other, and coming out of it, an awesome game.
Blah, it was beautiful.
Then things started to go wrong. Someone created a cheat(a sickeningly easy one that had been reported long ago, and was ignored.) And it spread. The developers decided that it would be better to let the cheating continue untill they got a chance to patch the game. The economy was hopelessly simplistic, and was being constantly exploited to print large sums of money, which by this time meant absolutly nothing, there was no longer any penealty for dying. Instead of fixing the small problems with the game's systems, the systems were changed. The community which was a mixture of all types of players, polarized into the carebears and the quake-ers. It became players whining about getting killed when they got caught in between one of the never-ending, and pointless wars.
For some reason, it seems like no online game ever just dies. The developers have to screw the game up first. But I'll never forget the only truely NEW game I've ever seen. There hasn't been, nor will there likely be anything like it soon. All of the new games coming out can be summed up as "a mix of everquest an an here twist."
-
SaburoS - I never said there were any rules in AH. Where did I make a reference that says there are any rules? I quoted a rule that exists for an online bridge game. I was not talking about AH, hence this thread is in the O'Club forum.
The only rule I am aware of in AH is a ruling against profanity. Even the AH server is programmed to filter out some words. But take a look at this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70522) in which tronski attempts to discuss the profanity issue, and see how it ended up. Funny how skuzzy is the last person to post in so many threads. The BBS situation looks to me as being the same free for all as the game itself, in which many people show no respect for others. The BBS material in General Discussion is derived from events and experiences in the AH game issues, and clearly a great many people are upset. Why? No rules. Nothing to stop a bunch mass switching to the other side to reset a map they don't like. Nothing to stop a high ranking player from moving the CV, or another player from changing sides purely as a means of controlling the enemy CV, and sailing it to a place unfavourable to that country. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if some guys have two accounts (and I know many do) just so they can be logged in one one account on the enemy side to sail their CV to a place where it can't be defended, and then use their other account to launch a mass jabo attack to wipe it off the map. Yep, no rules. And see what happens when there are no rules? People get very upset and post in GD about their dissatisfaction about game issues. That's what happens when there are no rules, and that's why feelings get overheated to such an extent that Skuzzy has his work cut out padlocking so many threads. It occasionally happens in AGW, but I never saw it happen to the extent it happens here.
OK Saburo - name me any other game that has no rules. We know Bridge has rules. How about Chess? Monopoly? Tennis? Baseball? Football? Golf? Soccer? Hockey? Croquet? Cribbage? Formula 1 Motor Racing? Nope, they all have rules. Why? Because without rules, all games suck, and many would be downright dangerous. That's the reason for having rules in the first place. Otherwise you just get an uncontrolled rabble ruining the game for everyone. They might not be breaking a rule, but that does not mean they're not spoiling the game. BTW AKIron says Hi.
Ah, Mr. Toad! I see that on the one hand you claim to be an anarchist, but at the same time in the bad language thread, you clearly support the ruling against profanity. BTW, if you ever see a 13th pilot getting vulgar on text or on vox, please bring it to the attention of either Rude or myself. That's perhaps the biggest "no-no" we have.
Only the biggest no-no you have? You mean there are others? What, you mean to say that you belong to a squad that has RULES? :eek:
Well, I am surprised. Perhaps your anarchist stance is really your inner self harking back to the days of flower power, and pot smoking at Haight & Ashbury. :D America used to be a society without rules - the Wild West I believe it was called. And then people wised up. That's why you have laws - and heavily armed police to enforce them. Here in Britain, we are more civilised, and that's why there's never been a need to arm our police. <<< lazs bait :D
And finally, my dear Lazs. :) Gawd, I wish I could quote excerpts from that email I received from the American who agreed with my sig to such an extent... can't say any more than that because I'm not even going to hint at his identity. That's a RULE I have. A personal one. I don't quote things said to me personally, without permission. I don't think my sig. is dishonest. It's an opinion based on facts that I have researched. I knew that many people might think I was making it up, so I quoted my source. Of course, that makes the overall sig. length even greater, so then you whine about that - as well as earlier criticising the content of the Home Office document as a British Government conspiracy!!!given a choice between your rules and anarchy....
...and what rules would they be, Lazs? I haven't quoted any AH rules because I don't know of any - except profanity. I mentioned the Bridge rule. Are you saying that American Bridge players walk away from the table when they're losing?
-
Here in Britain, we are more civilised, and that's why there's never been a need to arm our police
Se how civilized you are when Britain gets invaded again.....
Maybe you would get lucky and America will send arms to you again, to save you from your pacifist, hide from reality, enemy-trusting selves.
Britain and France assured WWII would happen do to Liberal pacifists. At least they where "civilized" though, my hat's off to them.
-
Just like AH, a person that chooses to associate himself with the 13th TAS makes a personal decision. IE to join or not to join.
Just like AH, (whether you realize it or not) 13th has a few requirements. Rules, if it makes you feel so much more righteous. The requirement to show a little class in one's communication is one of those, just like the requirement to send HTC $15/month in order to play.
If one finds the very few requirements of membership in the 13th not to his liking or too onerous, one can simply leave.
In like manner, if a player finds the free-for-all nature of AH not to his liking he can go play bridge, where every move and every play is severely structured and has unassailable written instructions. (although rules arguments at bridge tables are very entertaining and very often heated)
Some may feel much more comfortable in such an environment. Enjoy. Why torture yourself here when such nirvana awaits at the bridge table? :p
Were HTC, in some moment of insanity, to structure AH in the way you desire, I think you'd soon be playing in near-empty arenas. This board endured a veritable blizzard of postings about the need for a "more realistic" arena with "historical matchups", reduced radar and icons. There was a small but very vocal group. (not as small as your group of one but more vocal than you, even). Needless to say, the vast majority of posters disagreed, commenting that they liked AH the way it was presently designed.
HTC, being the open-minded, generous type gave them their chance to "put up or shut up" and thus the CT was born. Players had the power to make the historical matchups and maps and vary radar and icons within the existing parameters. Predictions of huge success proved extremely optimistic. The numbers tell the story. They were, and still are, a very small minority.
Just like you.
-
Imo, the nature of the internet makes online gaming "rule proof." This game, (AH), is a new game, and not traditional, such as cards games, dominoes, chess, etc. So, the rules must be made up as we go along. Internet lag, CTDs, host connection lost, all serve to interrupt and frustrate game play. So, it's not the same as a card game, where everyone sits at the table drinking beer.
From what I can see, the condition of a CoC (code of conduct) exists in the CT. The CT players who come into the Main Arena bring this with them. I'm sure this same CoC will follow over to the Mission Arena when it becomes a reality.
As far as the MA goes Beet1e, it's incumbent on the players to police their own arena. Ask yourself one question, what can you do as an AH player to improve the game. And this goes for everyone.
1) Don't complain in a negative manner. Offer constructive criticism.
2) Never taunt or belitttle another player, even when provoked. Let your guns do your talking.
3) Have respect for others, they will respect you in return.
4) Never accuse another player of cheating without contacting HTC first.
5) Always ask for permission, or get a sitrep before taking command of a CV.
6) Fly a bomber formation and learn about bombing. Make a mission and bring along escorts.
7) Fly more goons, and respond to a goon when they call for a sitrep.
These are the rules, and they are not all easy to follow. What you get from the game is directly proportional to what you put into it.
Les
-
Se how civilized you are when Britain gets invaded again.....
Hmmm... Britain hasn't been invaded for a thousand years.
BTW, how's the statistics classes going. Still having trouble with the concept of averages?
Britain and France assured WWII would happen do to Liberal pacifists.
Those very same 'liberal pacifists' fought in WW1. And watched millions die in a filthy, blood soaked, pointless hell-hole. No-one wanted a repeat of that, no-one. How can you blame them for not wanting a conflict?
WWII was guaranteed to happen because of two things:
a) Treaty of Versailles
b) The Wall Street Crash
Without both factors, Hitler would never have gotten in a position of power. Before the Middle classes lost all their money and savings due to the crash, Hitler was regarded as lunatic. Afterwards, he seemed to be their only way out.
-
Hmmm... Britain hasn't been invaded for a thousand years.
I should have said Europe, and the threat of invasion when Britain was " apart from the Air and Navy", "almost an un-armed people" according to Churchill.
-
AH has rules.
The FM is the "rules", and we argue about them without end...
-
British and French Liberal, Pacifist, Enemy Trusting, Hide-from-reality Officials did nothing to prevent WWII.
They simply turned a frightened eye away from the events they didn't have the guts to confront. They allowed WWII to happen, no doubt about it.
Germany was illegally re-arming, so France responded by agreeing to cut troops from 500,000 to 200,000 and allow Germany to reach 200,000 and parity.
Chamberlain, in true Liberal fashion, helped by having Hitler sign a peace of paper.
Liberals are the same today: Trust the enemy, dis-arm, sign treaties and adhear to them as the enemy breaks them, etc
Above all, "make sure we stay weak, blind and unprepaired" seems to be a Liberal hallmark
-
I should have said Europe...
So Geography can be added to Mathematics as subjects you struggle with?
Germany was illegally re-arming, so France responded by agreeing to cut troops from 500,000 to 200,000 and allow Germany to reach 200,000 and parity.
Chamberlain, in true Liberal fashion, helped by having Hitler sign a peace of paper.
There was no will in either France or Britain to enforce the terms of Versailles. If you'd lived through WW1, I think the idea of conflict barely 20 years later would fill you with horror. In addition, Europe was terrified of the Red Menace and were thankful Hitler wasn't a communist - he seemed to be doing great things for Germany and Versailles was seen as a shameful injustice. Indeed Hitler might be an ally against Stalin.
With hindsight, they were naiive and unrealistic in their approach to Hitler - but 20/20 hindsight is such a wonderful thing 70 years later, isn't it?
BTW, Chamberlain wasn't a liberal. He was a conservative.
-
With hindsight, they were naiive and unrealistic in their approach to Hitler - but 20/20 hindsight is such a wonderful thing 70 years later, isn't it?
Funny thing is, people like Churchill saw the writing on the wall, but nobody wanted to hear the truth, because they where too busy hiding their heads in the sand.
Same goes for Liberals today, they hope for the best and leave the rest up to their love of the enemy and their belief that all will be ok if they just show compassion to everyone who wants to kill them.
-
beetle... I have no doubt that one of our allmost 300,000,000 million American citizens agrees with you.... I know a person here who insists that he seen Elvis 2 years ago in a quik stop market buying twinkies. I wouldn't even doubt that they are the same one.
and a lot of your police most certainlyu are armed and they will become more so every year not less.
still.... even though your countries effeminate nerosis against an inatimate object like a firearm is causing thousnds of it's law abiding citizens to be helpless from englands criminal class.... I don't feel obligated to use that fact as a lecture in every sig. I mean... If yu wanna be sheep that's your affair.
lazs
-
Mr. Toad -
Were HTC, in some moment of insanity, to structure AH in the way you desire, I think you'd soon be playing in near-empty arenas.
Well, people whine when it's Pizza time. And yet in the small hours of the morning (peak time US) I still see 400 or more players online. Maybe the Pizza whiners are a minority? As to your remark, quoted above, I guess we'll just have to wait to see how 1.11 and the Mission Arena works out.
-
Lazs! Sorry, I almost didn't see you there. You must have replied just as I was adding my post above. hehe, my sig has really got you going, hasn't it, mi old China? :D Well, guess you'll just have to go bleating to HTC for them to implement a rule about length and content of sigs. My sig contains no profanity, is not insulting, and is even supported by factual data supplied by the Home Office - that group of British Government "conspirators" which you despise, because they provide data about how many Americans have been killed by guns. As far as I can tell, Skuzzy has no objection to my sig. He would have told me by now. Of course, I'm not saying he necessarily agrees with it himself. But you're going to have to take the rough with the smooth. If you support a stance of no rules in the AH gaming arenas, you can't come here and start telling people what they can and cannot say in their sigs.
Just to add a bit of salt, I have just received an email from an AH friend in Europe who said he thought I was absolutely right in that gun thread. Not sure which - there have been many.
-
where have i advocated using some "rule" to have your sig removed? If common sense won't do it then go ahead... look (more) foolish... Oh... to rub salt in the wound.... I got another email from someone in your neck of the woods who is loving every minute of your humiliation.. Sorry tho, can't say who it is this time either ... private email.
Oh... and england does not have 15 times less homicides per capita than the U.S. so your sig is indeed missleading... your personal comment about gun pointing is just plain stupid.
lazs
"I can understand your perception of your somewhat non-gun culture England to our somewhat pro-gun culture USA.
Understand that the chances of getting shot at in the US is far less than what you perceive it to be. I have never been shot at or ever had a gun pointed at me. In 4 occasions in my life I've had to point my firearm at individuals to prevent violence. They decided it was better to stop and leave rather than getting shot. I used my firearm to prevent violence and no one got hurt. Had I not had a firearm at those times, I probably would be injured, or killed. In a couple of instances I would of lost my valuables also. The police would have not been able to save me in those instances.
I have been shooting off and on for over 33 of my 40 years. I am a good shot at both pistol and rifle. I was on my high school rifle team (had to qualify as US Army expert to get on the team). My present firearms include:
1) SigSauer P220-45 (tritium night sights) w/ Barstow stainless comp barrel.
2) SigSauer P230 in .380
3) Remington 700 PSS .308 barrel has been Cryomaxed and will shoot down to 1/4" center to center 3-shot groups with factory match ammo at 100 meters.
4) L1A1 that has been legally modified (meets both Federal and California laws), will shoot down to 1" center to center 3-shot groups with factory match ammo at 100 meters.
I don't go around waiting to shoot at people. I've never shot anyone. Neither has any of my friends. Actually I've known several cops and none of them has actually shot anyone (San Francisco, Burlingame, San Mateo, San Bruno, Belmont).
I own my guns mainly for target shooting. Self defense is a secondary reason for me. Peace of mind. Am I for private ownership of firearms here in the US? Damn straight.
Am I for England to pass and keep whatever gun restriction laws they wish to for English citizens? Yes sir.
Regards. "
-
AH will always continue to expand and change. That was the plan from the very beginning. However, I seriously doubt that the MA will ever have the structure and "rules" you espouse.
The Mission Arena? Only HTC knows what's coming there and it won't be in 1.11 so we're all in for a wait. We'll see if it proves as overwhelmingly popular as the CT turned out to be. Even so, there'll still be the MA, won't there? Best of both worlds perhaps.
And from the Pizza discontent I take this: The map that apparently draws the most criticism still draws a 400+ crowd in the "ruleless" MA that seems to play Moby Dick to your Captain Ahab. So IF there really is major discontent over the Pizza map, apparently the lawless atmosphere of the MA provides more than enough compensation to enchant the player base.
I personally believe {Disclaimer: Personal opinion follows. Feel free to Disagree} that your essentially one man crusade to "organize" the MA to your liking is just another facet of your apparent need to remold US society into the English image.
For all the oft posted commentary on American arrogance, it seems to me that many of you Euros need to look in a mirror. The vast majority of complaints about HO's, about chute shooting, about the need for "rules" in the MA, the various "perk" debates, the crying about "porked" FM data seem to originate on the far side of the Atlantic. Yes, there's a a few guys over here but the majority seem to be over there.
Is there some intrinsic Euro need to continually meddle in other folks' fun?
We had our little disagreement about the divine right of kings a few centuries back. We're pretty happy with the way it turned out and, indeed, the King's word is no longer unquestionable where you live either. Seems you finally came around to our way of thinking on that one.
So let's not try to turn back the clock, eh? Just play the game. If you don't like the game, there's an obvious, painless solution available to all of us with the simple click of the mouse.
-
Just play the game. If you don't like the game, there's an obvious, painless solution available to all of us with the simple click of the mouse.
I really couldn't agree more
And NUKE, your earnest wittering on th e origins of WWII is a great cause of hilarity amongst the list i reposted your message to.
-
Mr. Toad
the King's word is no longer unquestionable where you live either.
Quite correct, as we don't have a King. So let's not try to turn back the clock, eh?
Well, we have to turn it back 50 years to get to the point where we had a King. :rolleyes: If we turn it back further - say 150 years, we could get back to the lawlessness of the wild west, which you seem to espouse.
-
Our particular difference was with a King of yours.
Your present Queen is a figurehead as well. Her word isn't unchallengable law either.
Delight in disingenuously dancing about the issues all you like.
Espouse the Wild West? Well, if that means I never want to see a guy like you making up "rules" for the AH MA... you're absolutely right.
Otherwise, you're way off target yet again.
-
User CP > Edit Options > Show User's Signature = NO
Really speeds things up too.
bowser
-
Seems you finally came around to our way of thinking on that one.
Not really Toad. We had a constitutional monarch in place long before the US was even an established colony. I believe the differences the colonists had, were with British government policy.
Funny thing is, people like Churchill saw the writing on the wall, but nobody wanted to hear the truth, because they where too busy hiding their heads in the sand.
Same goes for Liberals today, they hope for the best and leave the rest up to their love of the enemy and their belief that all will be ok if they just show compassion to everyone who wants to kill them.
Nuke - you do know that Chamberlain, the PM at the time, was a Conservative. A CONSERVATIVE. YES, THAT'S RIGHT HE WASN'T A LIBERAL, BUT A.... CONSERVATIVE.
So you see, your argument falls flat on its face.
Lastly. Beatle - why do you care so much about US gun ownership? Whether it's a primary cause for their high murder rates or not, I wouldn't be that concerned about it. It's not worth losing sleep over, mate. ;)
- Dowding
-
George III (http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon55.html)
George III succeeded his grandfather, George II, in 1760 (Frederick, Prince of Wales, had died in 1751 having never ruled). George was determined to recover the prerogative lost to the ministerial council by the first two Georges; in the first two decades of the reign, he methodically weakened the Whig party through bribery, coercion and patronage. Prime Minister, William Pitt the Elder was toppled by Whigs after the Peace of Paris, and men of mediocre talent and servile minds were hand-picked by George as Cabinet members, acting as little more than yes-men. Bouts with madness and the way he handled the American Revolution eroded his support and the power of the Crown was granted again to the Prime Minister.....
England thrived under peacetime conditions, but George's commitment to taxing the American colonies to pay for military protection led to hostilities in 1775.
And that's from Britannia.com, not a US website.
Jefferson: "[T]he mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."
Jeez, I just love TJ.
-
hmm ALT+F4... isn't a problem in AH.. and never was.. even now though you get credit if the guy does do it...
so what was the point again?
SKurj
-
OK Saburo - name me any other game that has no rules. We know Bridge has rules. How about Chess? Monopoly? Tennis? Baseball? Football? Golf? Soccer? Hockey? Croquet? Cribbage? Formula 1 Motor Racing? Nope, they all have rules. Why? Because without rules, all games suck, and many would be downright dangerous. That's the reason for having rules in the first place. Otherwise you just get an uncontrolled rabble ruining the game for everyone. They might not be breaking a rule, but that does not mean they're not spoiling the game. BTW AKIron says Hi.
Well unlike your continued apples to oranges comparisons, I'll give you some apples to apples comparisons.
AirWarrior
Warbirds
Dawn of Aces
All MMOGs that didn't have specific rules. Do Chess, Monopoly, Tennis, etc need their rules? Yes they do. When I play Chess, Golf, Poker, etc., I play by the rules as I know them to be.
Because AH and other MMOG don't have stated 'rules', I continue to play by my rules of real life: Try to treat others as I would like to be treated. I play the game for fun. Sometimes I play for the strategy of trying to help win a reset, other times just for the sheer joy of fighting highly skilled opponents in a dogfight. I like the rules (or lack there of) as they are. I really like AH. I guess that is why I am playing it and not other MMOGs.
Just out of curiosity, what rules would you like instituted in AH that you feel would make the game more fun for you?
Would your rules be able to be enforced?
If so, how?
I fly for the Rooks. Everytime I have been on, the Rooks have been outnumbered each by the Bishops and Knights. My former squad left the Rooks (they have since returned as the grass wasn't greener on the other side) to join the Bishops. vVapor and I stayed with the Rooks (we knew the grass wasn't greener on the other side). We knew that it probably would get tougher. We were on the side that lost a lot of resets. But, we love the challenge. That is what makes this game. I am not inferring that any one side has the best, most mature, most skilled, people. There are plenty of players on all sides I enjoy playing with and against as well as respect. I guess it does boil down to how one plays a game that they've paid their $14.95/month on. Me? I like the game as it is and look forward to the improvements the AH team add as time goes on.
Regards
-
Mr. Toad - George 3 was King from 1760-1820 - longest reigning monarch until the length of his reign was superseded by that of Victoria, 1837-1901. He was a successful King. The British computer firm, International Conputers Limited (ICL) even created an operating system named after him. :D That's right, George 3. I never worked with that one, but computer operators loved it.
Your Thomas Jefferson quote was lost on me, as I do not believe in God(s).
The Queen is above the law. In theory, she could murder one of the butlers at Windsor Castle using a sharp instrument, such as a guitar whose strings had been overtightened, and would not face criminal proceedings.
-
Sab - the rules you play by sound fine - gentlemanly conduct. I think I can best exemplify my feelings by quoting this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64854) in which Furious says this:
If I bring ordinance to a field, I am gonna drop it.
I don't care about "your" war.
Before everyone leaps to the keyboard to point out that Furious pays his $14.95 yap-yap-yap etc., I already know that. But this attitude, for me, sums up everything that is wrong with Aces High. In WB, we sometimes got crap, but I never saw anything which so trashed the team spirit and ground it into the mud. The thread itself deals with verbal abuse meted out between players on the same side. Again, I've never seen anything like it. I made some good friends at WB, and many are in AH now. Those friendships were often founded as a result of working together in some WB campaign. Can you imagine that happening with the attitude displayed above? Do you think that the above attitude improves the game? Most of the folks in that thread seem pretty angry to me.
I once said that the AH community sometimes resembles a crowded train platform. Everyone has the same objective - to get on the same train - but no-one is communicating with anyone else and the fighting breaks out as everyone tries to grab a seat.
I'm sure that Furious is not alone in feeling the way he does, and that's why I'm not singling him out for criticism - my O'Club fan club is big enough! But if anyone thinks that the attitude displayed in the above quote actually improves the game, and that the rights of those paying $14.95/mo should be preserved in order to allow attitudes like that to prevail, don't bother posting back to me as we are clearly not on the same page of the script.
-
i don't see how everyone bowing and excusing and pleasing and asking if it's ok to shoot each other down makes a better model of war.
the fact that this game leaves so many people feeling angry and violated and huffy suggests to me that it's modeling war pretty well.
-
I allways thought WWII was confusion... A lot of little fights everywhere in the world with some being sensless with poor objectives..
AH has rules... beetle just want's it to have more rules... he claims to like WB but he left WB. He claims to like more rules but doesn't play in the CT... no one does.. we will have to wait and see on the "missun arean".
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Mr. Toad - George 3 was King from 1760-1820 - longest reigning monarch until the length of his reign was superseded by that of Victoria, 1837-1901. He was a successful King.
Well, let's see. He totally P.O.'d the American colonials, resulting in the loss of what would have been the richest part of the Empire.
He had a particularly severe form of porphyria. His first attack occurred in 1765. Further signs of the disease showed up in 1788-1789. From 1811 to the time of his death in 1820 the royal patient became progressively insane and blind. He was nursed in isolation, and kept in straight jackets and behind bars in his private apartments at Windsor Castle.
So, yes, perhaps a long run as king if you count the 9 years at the end where he became progressively insane. But the loss of us colonials? Well, WE'RE certainly glad you regard that as "success". :D
And I guess TJ is tough to understand, from a "subjects" point of view. :p
-
It's too bad Monty Python isn't around anymore. I think they could do a great "getting on the AH train" skit with Beetle scrambling around trying to get a bunch of normal people to board the train exactly the way he wants them to do it.
-
Lazs - I liked WB in 1998-1999 especially. And so did you. We flew together as Purple, remember? But things change. There was the 2.6 debacle that forced me out (because I was the wrong side of the 300MHz wall). Things were never the same after the servers went to NC, and you left somewhere along the way. I left because of the WW2A. I'm sending you a copy of my original quit post - you are mentioned in it as one of the guys I enjoyed flying with. I'll also send you my WB resignation letter. (never did a quit post second time round. what was the point? Unlike HTC, iEN never listened)
LOL Mr. Toad-in-the-Hole! Hooked you with that G3 thing. ;) OK, he was crap, but he was monarch throughout the agricultural and industrial revolutions, French Revolution, Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. You already know about the US stuff.
As for getting on the train, you are quite correct and there is a set way of getting on the train - and of folding your broadsheet newspaper when you get on. The Monty Python excerpt relevant to this would be the Ministry of Silly Walks (NOT part of the Home Office!) Enjoy this...
-
Toad...
It has been my experience, that those who are afraid are the ones so badly desire structure and rules.
Just a thought.
-
Hooked me?
You made an intentionally misleading or totally ill-informed statement to see if I would point out your error?
Gee. I've been doing that since you've been posting in the O-Club. Nothing new there.
CC, Rude. Maybe we better call 1-800- Get-Nanny
-
damn you guys just won't stop will ya's....
beetle stop talking or posting facts about the U.S.
as you see LAZ doesn't like em...even if they are true.....he's an american with an opinion....he won't stop till you say America WON ww2:D (its there vision of things)
to give you an idea...most americans hate the French....but yet the French where the 1st to reconize america as an independent country....giving them the strenght and assurances to defy the English. In those days France was Englands nemesis.
1 of america's best known symbols of freedom they like so much was a GIFT from the French. And yet the french suck if you ask LAZ.
here's another vision for laz......
If the Inspections do not go right with Irak....america will need friends.....
those friends are going to fight SIDE by SIDE...and maybe DIE side by side.
just remember that:)
-
Mr. Toad. I wish that instead of all this mutual masturbation, you would actually have replied to what I said at 09:05 this morning. I quote one guy who clearly holds his virtual countrymen in contempt, and yet I'm the only one to be appalled. Yes, you do some good hooks sometimes, but if the catch from my sig. was any heavier, the line would snap.
Maybe the absence of a lucid reply to what I said at 09:05 this morning is actually the reply itself. :( Geez, things are worse than I thought.
Swoopy - contrary to what the pro-gun folks would have you believe, I do have numerous friends in the US. To give you some idea, I did a 30 day trip starting in CA, continuing in CO and finishing in NY - and I only had to hotel it on 9 nights out of 30. I lived there for a total of about 3 years. I believed the pro-gun stuff as being part of American life - and half expected to see guys coming to work with a gun in a holster, but none ever did. At that time (1980) the crime in the Chicago housing project known as Cabrini Greeen became so bad (11 murders in 9 weeks in that one housing project) that the then mayor, Jane Byrne, decided to move in. And a columnist in the Chicago Sun Times produced a series of articles about gun crime, and stats. The one I remember was the homicide rate by guns - 10552 that year I think it was. And I was shocked and appalled. The rest you know. And I am disturbed by it, just as the whole world was disturbed by the tragedy of 11th Sept., 2001 - apart from Islamic extremists, of course. Still, you're a Yorkshireman (?) and Yorkshiremen are usually right...
-
Christ beetle can you at least uncheck the 'show signature' option so we dont have to scroll down forever trying to skip it over and over again? :rolleyes:
-
slo.... when have i ever said anything about the U.S. winning WWII... singlehandedly or otherwise? when have I ever said that I hated the french? when have I ever said anything about guns that wasn't backed up by fact? Are you stupid or a liar or do you just have me mixed up with someone else?
lazs
-
Guns are a means of population control.
Humans are just like any other wild animal.. too dumb to stop breeding, over populates, food/water supply diminish, countdown to extinction commences.
-SW
-
woow there laz...calm down:rolleyes:
I was just giving an over all view...relax your panties they seem bunched up:D
j/k bud
next time I'll use some other name, sowwy:(
-
SLO!
J'avais manqé ta poste la première fois. Tu as raison, mon ami. Content de te voir par ici. :)
-
sooo... slo... which is it then? have me mixed up with someone else or stupid or a liar? or maybe you were just generalizing? Maybe I am the generic boogey man to you? Perhaps if you had said something truthful you wouldn't have to explain? The only thing I recognized in your entire post was my handle and you used it a lot... You attributed things to me that weren't true... how should I take that?
lazs
-
I'm stupid, mixed up and a liar.....and yes I was generalizing.
get over it I said I was sorry.
looks like i touched a sensitive chord:D
salut beet:p
-
This is the quote to which you refer?
If I bring ordinance to a field, I am gonna drop it.
I don't care about "your" war.
1. Mutual masturbation? I'm certain there's no sound of "one hand clapping" in my computer room. Of course, what you do in the privacy of your home doesn't concern me in the least.
2. I quote one guy who clearly holds his virtual countrymen in contempt, and yet I'm the only one to be appalled.
Well, to a normal person that occasionally does a little self-evaluation, this would probably raise a red flag. Apparently, the fact that you are indeed the only one hasn't caused any introspection.
To reassure you, I am not appalled in the least. In fact, I totally understand his sentiment. It's his choice after all.
This isn't some highly structured game like... say bridge for instance.
You do find it irritating when folks don't conform to your vision of perfection, don't you?
The one I remember was the homicide rate by guns - 10552 that year I think it was. And I was shocked and appalled.... And I am disturbed by it, ...[/B]
However, it appears that you're not too shocked, appalled or cocerned about the England/Wales/Scotland homicide rate by "sharp weapons". Which, in '97 was ~3X that of gun homicide and remained almost exactly there in the '00-'01 Home Office report.
So you cheerfully engage in leaning over the back yard fence and lecturing, insulting and demeaning the US for it's shocking and appalling gun homicide rate while you totally ignore your own shocking and appalling sharp instrument homicide rate which is 3X your gun homicide rate.
But, like most common scolds, it would appear you don't like it when others point out failings on your side of the fence.
-
Well Mr. Toad,
I think many people were angry - if you read that "are you deaf" thread. But if you think that all is roses, that's YOUR choice. On this matter, we have nothing further to discuss. So you cheerfully engage in leaning over the back yard fence and lecturing, insulting and demeaning the US for it's shocking and appalling gun homicide rate while you totally ignore your own shocking and appalling sharp instrument homicide rate which is 3X your gun homicide rate.
- which is currently about one tenth of the US firearms related homicide rate.
-
Originally posted by mrfish
i don't see how everyone bowing and excusing and pleasing and asking if it's ok to shoot each other down makes a better model of war.
the fact that this game leaves so many people feeling angry and violated and huffy suggests to me that it's modeling war pretty well.
LOL! Bods on the same side, angry and huffy with each other is OK? Surest way for the opposition to clean up, surely? Anyway, imagine if the French mucked up an Iraq offensive organised by Bush - while declaring, "I don't care about "your" war"! :D
It seems to me that bods on the same side in war need to have similar objectives - if they stand any chance of achieving them. Allied forces might differ in overall objective, but a real war without co-operation of allies is just plain daft! Didn't the Russians find that out when they fought the Germans? Unfocused, untrained rabble versus an organised, like-goaled army?
Perhaps the mission arena will be best for all - those who don't like it, don't have to use it. Yes?
Tomato
-
I am Dowding, using Swoopy's computer. He is my brother. I have temporarily moved back in with my parents while my new apartment is built to save money. My computer has no internet connect and I can't remember my 'Dowding' password, so 'm stuck with nicking his computer or using 'Dowding (Work)'.
We are both Yorkshiremen and always right.
Toad - George III was a nutcase and as your source states, an abberation in the British monarchy's timeline. Prior to him, the evolution of Parliamentary democracy had long since been set in motion. My original statements still stands.
BTW, the period 1799-1815 could be regarded as one of Britain's finest hours - the destruction of Napolean's fleets, his armies and the liberation of Spain.
-
Dowd/Swoop
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems you finally came around to our way of thinking on that one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really Toad. We had a constitutional monarch in place long before the US was even an established colony. I believe the differences the colonists had, were with British government policy.
So you're making the case that the split between the colonies and the Crown that led to the American Revolution can be laid at the feet of Parliament rather than G3?
Is that your point?
My point is that your King at the time, G3, essentially got what he demanded from his Ministries and his Parliament. Exercising his lofty kingship unhindered as it were.
Turned out us poor colonials found a way we liked better....... and still do. And eventually, your Kings and Queens became total figureheads... as they shoud be, bless 'em....... But it took quite a while, didn't it?
-
Beetle
At this risk of further hijacking this "lost in space" thread, I find your concern for OUR homicide problems touching.
Especially since you apparently have no concern whatsover for the REAL homicide problem in England/UK/Wales... which is, of course, "sharp instruments".
As you mentioned before, even one life is too many right? So where's that attitude when it comes to finely honed Sheffield steel?
You'll prescribe solutions for us quite vociferously and readily but you seem quite oblivious to your own problems.
Easy to critique the neighbors, isn't it? I take it you find it rather tough to tend your own knitting, however.
All of a piece I think. Your prescribing for AH is really of the same cloth as your prescribing for other countries problems.
Interestingly you get the same reaction on both subjects.
Oh, and maybe the absence of a lucid reply to what I said at 11-25-2002 02:03 PM is actually the reply itself?
-
Originally posted by Toad
...the REAL homicide problem in England/UK/Wales... which is, of course, "sharp instruments".
Is this a verifiable fact?
Tomato
-
Dowd/Swoop
So you're making the case that the split between the colonies and the Crown that led to the American Revolution can be laid at the feet of Parliament rather than G3?
Is that your point?
I thought my point was obvious, but I don't moind reiterating it. The loss of the American colony was due to a King, who reduced the powers of parliament and re-empowered himself in the role of absolute monarch. This was an aberration, undoing the work that had been done in the centuries previous to his ascension, and counter to the reforms in the years following his death. By Queen Victoria's reign, for instance, it was Parliament making the key decisions.
King George III was a nutcase for much of his reign - he's hardly representative of a constitutional monarchy.
-
Mr. Toad -
Where is my prescription for AH gameplay? I've never said that. What I have observed is enmity between people on the same side which seems to exceed that between players of different virtual countries! And that does not seem right. I was saddened by what Furious had said in the "are you deaf" thread (as well as the fact that such an incident had led to that thread in the first place), but did not castigate him and did not post in that thread in order to make people change their ways.
A sharp instrument is not likely to hurt me at a range of 10 yards, and is unlikely to blow a hole in my front door. Besides, many sharp instruments come from Sheffield, where Dowding and swoopy come from, and that's in Yorkshire. And Yorkshiremen are always right. :D
I don't see doctors prescribing cyanide to deal with Depression, so why should we furnish people with the means to kill eachother.
BTW dowding & swoopy - and bounder & hammy if you're listening - Definition of a Yorkshireman: Someone who can buy something from a Jew and sell it to a Scotsman, and still make a profit. hehe - I think you should be flattered.
-
Originally posted by tomato
Is this a verifiable fact?
Tomato
Well Tomato, the official Home Office reports say:
"In 1997 around 8% of homicides involved firearms and almost one third a sharp weapon."
and
"Method of killing
4.6 Table 4.3 shows that, overall, the most common method of killing in 2000/01 was with a sharp instrument (26 per cent). Nine per cent of homicide victims were shot."
My interpretation of that is that in England and Wales approximately three people are the victims of homicide by "sharp instrument" for each victim of firearm homicide. It has remained at that ratio for quite some time.
So yes, I'd say "sharp instruments" are the biggest problem with respect to homicides for you folks.
However, since I'm not a citizen of your country, it's really none of my business how you folks address or "solve" that problem. I've posted on it here in this BBS to "mirror" the behavior of some other folks that can't seem to tend their own knitting. Perhaps they'll one day see themselves in that mirror.
;)
-
Dowding:
Well, have it this way.... you finally came back to our way of thinking.
By your own admission G3 took near absolute power; the colonials simply pointed the way back to the correct relationship for you folks.
You can't deny though that English monarchs had far, far more influence and authority in any pre-Revolution years than the American President ever had.
But enough of arguing over niggles. On to Beetle's protestations of innocence!
-
tomato... AH has no leaders and each person flying is an individual with his own goals. The scoring system even rewards ALL types of flying so... while a person may not be helping his "country" he will be helping his personal scor/stats/goal. This is as it is meant to be. If this were an organized game with common goals we would probly not even need things like killshooter.
reward... the reward for "winning the war" is 25 perk points... a reset takes from hours to days and I have actually only been online for 2 or 3 of them.. I can earn 25 perk points flying the way I like in an hour with no problem... I have about 8000 of the (to me) worthless things. The downside to "winning the war" is...those who enjoy air combat will see very little of it if they participate. If they were foirced to participate in winning the war they would log off.
in short... this is a game of individuals with individual personalities and goals. I wouldn't have it any other way... Oh... I don't play card games or team sports.
lazs
-
If your royalty are figureheads for the tourists to gawk at then ... and... The U.S. got rid of its royalty 200 odd years ago then yes... you are coming around to our way of thinking in regards to royalty.
lazs
-
Beetle, General Discussion is virtually littered with your sermons on how the game should be played and the overall poor quality of the AH community.
Sharp instruments are a threat up close, indeed. In fact the Home Office says they are the ultimate threat in England and Wales, with a ratio of 3 Sharp Instrument Homicides for every Firearms Homicide. It's apparently worse in Scotland.
So it would seem that far more sharp instruments are easily bridging the 10 yard gap over there. Yet you remain unconcerned, unmotivated to act to save these lives. Doesn't fit with your concern over US homicide statistics.
I don't see doctors prescribing cyanide to deal with Depression, so why should we furnish people with the means to kill each other.
Indeed? Then hadn't you folks best get cracking on registration, licensing, bans and "supervised knife clubs" to get your Home Office: most common method of killing
under control?
Let's not have folks furnished with bayonets, kukris, broadswords, chef's knives and paring knives now!
After all, they're far and away the most common method of killing in England and the UK.
-
sheesh beetle... I was in london... you can't get 5 feet away from people anywhere. I coulda stabbed dozens... men women and children.
can't we just have some sensible knife restrictions in the uk? do it for the children.... if it save just one life it will be worth it..
lazs
-
Well, have it this way.... you finally came back to our way of thinking.
More like, Britain moved away from Parliament-over-Monarchy, the American colonies rebelled against the absolute rule of a King in reaction, and Britain moved back to Parliament-over-Monarchy on said King's death.
I think that would be more accurate. Had the King not been a nutcase and had not Napolean decided to conquer mainland Europe, perhaps things would have turned out completely different.
Now you can go back to your silly debate about tools for the propagation of death and cooking utensils. ;)
-
Mr. Toad -
You need to understand the difference between having an idea, and expressing it on the BBS - versus issuing a diktat. I might do the former, but never the latter. I have only rarely even troubled to steer a CV.
Well Tomato, your own Home Office reports say:
Erm, Mr. Toad - when I learned to fly, the most cherished of Golden Rules I learned was NEVER Assume. I am sure that Tomato will not mind my pointing out that she is not British. Hehe, some people assume they will never be targeted with a computer virus. :D
-
How absolutely WONDERFUL for Tomato! Edited to reflect her good fortune.
Beetle, view your diatribes through any colored glasses you choose; you seem to like rose. The posts remain in General Discussion and stand on their own.
-
Mr. Toad,
I don't have any rose coloured spectacles, so I was wondering if I might borrow yours so that I can reread all your pro-gun threads.
As to the comment regarding nationality, I'll leave that to Tomato to deal with.
-
Wow beet1e, and you're a racist as well.
Just one question, why do you pretend to be a woman named Tomato?
-
Sorry, Beetle, I don't have any rose colored glasses. You'll have to continue to use that distorted pair you're currently using.
As I said, your history/philosophy is on display in the General Discussion for any/all to review. It needs no commentary from a poor scribe like myself.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
U.S. got rid of its royalty 200 odd years ago then yes... you are coming around to our way of thinking in regards to royalty.
lazs
i thought the mafia/cia/aliens got rid of our royalty back in the 60's????
-
Thrawn - not a racist! (lived with 2 black guys when on assignment in Springfield,IL - not that it proves anything, but I don't think a racist would do that. I'm Caucasian BTW)
To answer your question, I don't.
-
Originally posted by Toad
"In 1997 around 8% of homicides involved firearms and almost one third a sharp weapon."
A 1997 snapsnot, using Home Office figures, looks something like this:
USA, with overall population of approx 250,000,000, had 7.3 homicides per 100,000. So, US homicides in 1997 = 250,000,000 / 100,000 x 7.3 = 18,250 (approx).
England and Wales, (E&W) with overall population of aprox 50,000,000, had 1.4 homicides per 100,000. So E&W homicides in 1997 = 50,000,000 / 100,000 x 1.4 = 700 (approx). If nearly a third (26% in 2001) of those are by sharp objects, then E&W suffered 180 homicides by sharp objects.
Which means that the US is more than 26 times as murderous as E&W.
Puts things into perspective, doncha think? :D
I refer you to: http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/htius.pdf, which states that US homicides are most often committed with guns - and that homicides involving all other weapons have declined.
Approx 22% of US homicides in 1997 were by sharp objects - not too dissimilar to E&W's 26%. Still, it tallies to about 4,100 homicides by sharp instruments. So the ratio of sharp object homicides between USA and E&W in 1997, is 4,100:180.
Let's put that into perspective ... While the USA has approx 5 times the population of E&W:
- there are over 20 times the number of sharp instrument homicides in the USA than there are in E&W. i.e., the US is 4 times as murderous with its sharp objects than E&W.
- there are over 26 times the number of homicides overall in the US, than in E&W, per capita (see above).
Hence the concern. ;)
Tomato
-
don't run with scissors and lock up your guns
isn't that what we all leanred ?
-
Doesn't change the fact that for every Englishman killed in a Homicide using firearms there are THREE lying dead from Homicide perpetrated with a sharp instrument.
And while some proud peanoodles are bleating about the "success" of their gun registration/licensing/confiscation schemes, they make no comment about solving their "sharp instrument" problems at all. After all..... if only one life were saved.... as they continually remind the US.
Seems hypocritical to me. After all, they're pretty free with the advice with respect to the US "most common method of killing" but strangely silent when it comes to the E/W/S "most common method of killing."
Further, US firearms homicides statistics have been coming down rather steadily WITHOUT utilizing the draconian measures against law-abiding citizens that are touted as the "solution" in the UK. This despite the fact that the pre-ban and post-ban E/W/S firearms homicide statistics have been essentially stable. IE: no really statistically significant change. Same basic situation in Australia. (and we've all bandied about the stats)
So, US firearms homicide rates in decline without draconian restrictions. E/W/S & Australia are essentially stable both pre and post-ban.
Therefore, an open-minded person could conclude that the draconian measures are not necessarily "the answer". And indeed, "official" documents from those countries often include statements to that effect.
Common sense dictates that criminals, by definition, ignore laws. An FBI study shows that 87% (plus another ~8-10% committed by juveniles who's records are sealed) of homicides are committed by known felons with previous records of violent crime.
So where should the emphasis be placed? On the inanimate objects that are the tools of known felons? Or perhaps on the felons themselves?
The "sharp instrument" stats for E/W/S merely underline the obvious. It isn't the inanimate object that's the problem; it never was. It's the human that will use ANY object to achieve his goal.
Until that truth is realized and dealt with, there will always be problems in both countries. The modern trend to blame the object and absolve the human is at the core of the problem in both countries.
The registration/licensing/banning/confiscation mindset merely perpetuates the problem by ignoring the real source of homicide: the criminal.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tomato... AH has no leaders and each person flying is an individual with his own goals.
Lazs, MrFish asserted that AH was like a real war, due to the anger, etc. I am not saying that AH has leaders, goals, or anything else. I wasn't even talking about AH, per se. My dispute was with MrFish's assertion that AH is "modeling war pretty well" - I don't think so. Armies have strategies. Countries have armies. Countries have allies. They work together. I'm saying that AH does not model this.
TBH, I can see both sides of the argument. But I don't see that any one side is necessarily 'right' - just that each side has its views and preferences. My point was that the MA is potentially a way to give each side what he wants. And why not? You're each paying your $14.?? Yes? :)
Tomato
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Thrawn - not a racist!
Of course you are. Let me spell it out to you. Who tells racists jokes? Racists or non-racists? That's right, the answer is racists.
Definition of a Yorkshireman: Someone who can buy something from a Jew and sell it to a Scotsman, and still make a profit. hehe - I think you should be flattered.
(lived with 2 black guys when on assignment in Springfield,IL - not that it proves anything, but I don't think a racist would do that.
You're right that doesn't prove anything, Shalom.
-
You're each paying your $14.?? Yes?
whaaa???? you're still paying 14.95/months ?!?!?
now see if you had a gun...
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
whaaa???? you're still paying 14.95/months ?!?!?
now see if you had a gun...
LOL! Dunno how much it is, but whatever it is, you're all paying it.
Tomato
-
But Mr. Toad -
Doesn't change the fact that for every Englishman killed in a Homicide using firearms there are THREE lying dead from Homicide perpetrated with a sharp instrument.
That interpretation is a nonsense, and I think you know it. ;) It's a bit like your "deaths per gun stat". If we WERE able to command all guns out of existence such that one gun remained, then in a year like 1998 instead of seeing 750 homicides of which 59 were firearms related, we might have seen 740 homicides, only 1 committed with a gun, but 48 more with sharp objects. Thus the deaths by sharp objects has risen from 691 to 739. The overall number of homicides would be reduced because, let's face it, the handgun is oh-so-convenient a homicide tool. But Oh! 740 homicides (down from 750) with a sharp objects ratio of 740:1!!! Oh no, we can't have that, so let's furnish people with guns so that they can shoot eachother, and we can improve the stats for sharp objects! Time to stop digging, Mr. Toad-in-the-Hole. Oooh, that's made me feel hungry - time to head to Waitrose.
-
Thrawn - I had a Jewish girlfriend for 5 years. She doesn't think I'm a racist. I had a Scottish girlie about 25 years ago - same.
And I told THIS joke to the two black guys I spoke of - just for a larf. - Q. Why is a bikini girl like a rost chicken?
- A. Because the white parts are always the best.
They thought it was funny, well, the fact that I was telling it to them anyway. :) No racist overtones, just a joke.
-
When you have the same government department as in the movie "Battlefield Earth", you have already lost every argument.
-SW
-
The downfall of UBB quality can be observed with the increase of ww2ol / CS style signatures in posts. People stuff more meaningless toejam in their sig than what they write in their posts.
The community decades. The game decades.
-
decays.....
-
Right \/\/ulfe - I'll get on to Elstree Studios, and get 'em started on a set for a movie that will be called Capitol Hill, and then we'll have a level playing field.
-
Well, the movie will have to be called "Evil Empire" and it will have to be set in 2003... the year when the US begins to invade your small island.
Where Germany failed, we shall succeed!
-SW
-
Originally posted by Toad
Doesn't change the fact that for every Englishman killed in a Homicide using firearms there are THREE lying dead from Homicide perpetrated with a sharp instrument.
You're right, it doesn't. Just as it doesn't change the fact that for every American killed by sharp instruments, there are FIVE lying dead from Homicide by firearms. ;)
To which causes have the decline in US firearms homicide rates been officially attributed?
... criminals, by definition, ignore laws ... So where should the emphasis be placed? On the inanimate objects that are the tools of known felons? Or perhaps on the felons themselves?
The registration/licensing/banning/confiscation mindset merely perpetuates the problem by ignoring the real source of homicide: the criminal.
That's the trouble with stats. We don't see all the links between the multitudes of possible causes and effects. So we simplify. From my own POV, it does seem that where there are guns, there is more crime. But then some people deduce that because drug usage stats and crime stats tend to keep pace with each other, that one is the cause of the other. Whereas, other studies have 'shown' that drug-usage and crime merely have the same causes. The argument here, is find the cause (or set of causes) and tackle that.
Is the criminal himself really the cause? Does that mean that the USA has proportionately more criminally-minded people than E&W? If so, why is that?
-
Thrawn - not a racist! (lived with 2 black guys when on assignment in Springfield,IL - not that it proves anything, but I don't think a racist would do that. I'm Caucasian BTW)
you're right.. doesn't prove a thing.
oh and Tomato...
thanks for not having pages of babble/signature, especially in color.
-
Originally posted by tomato
My dispute was with MrFish's assertion that AH is "modeling war pretty well" - I don't think so. Armies have strategies. Countries have armies. Countries have allies. They work together. I'm saying that AH does not model this.
Tomato
perhaps you should consider the reference frame?
-
How does the reference frame change things?
-
AH is a war between 3 countries that are staffed part time by gamers in a world where people reincarnate the second they die and there is endless steel for weaponry etc etc.
for a bit-for-bit simulation you'd need a great deal more complexity. AH manages to still catch the competitive nature of war without all the misery. some people fight like cowards some brave some organized some disorganized etc etc
what kind of complex alliances and strategy do you want from a three country flat planet?
besides you're a girl, what do you know about war? why don't you go make daddy some biscuits.
-
tomato... I think you know that murder rates are higher per capita in the U.S. and that the U.S. is nothing like england. You will note that over 40% of all homicides are committed by blacks in this country... If we were to move all of our blacks to england then england would have a higher per capita murder rate than the U.S. So....
what to do? ban blacks? maybe just make it illegal for blacks to have firearms? Or.... maybe just accept that part of the cost for our success is that some people will become disenfrachised and war among themselves for a piece of the pie. I couldn't care less what solution is used or even... if any is used but.... i certainly do not feel that taking my guns away is going to help that situation. All it will do is leave me with less options and take away one of my constitutional rights... and for what? our white murder rate is about the same as yours per capita. Our white population murders at about the rate yours does.
even at the worst of about 7 murders per 100,000 mixed white and black.... it's no big deal.... way less chance of being murdered than drowning or any myriad of things... certainly not worth giving up such a vital right as the right to bear arms. even if it would help... there is no proofthat it would... in fact... with like populations (white U.S. and white U.K.) it makes not a bit of differenc.... both countries have about the same per capita rate with or without guns. you are asking us to give em up for no good reason. in fact.... guns in the U.S are used 750,000 to 3,000,000 times a year to prevent crime injury and even death... our crime rate would increase.
stats show that a woman resisting crime with a gun is 4 times less likely to be injured as one who doesn't resist at all. perhaps the weak and the helpless deserve to be assaulted?
lazs
-
MrFish - I reiterate - I wasn't talking about AH, per se. I simply disagree with your statement that AH is "modeling war pretty well" As you say, some aspects of war can't be modelled, but I would've thought that strategy would be an important part of fighting any war - particularly a simulated war. Just as important as shooting targets.
Are you my new daddy? :)
-
Sorry Lazs, but I gotta say you are being at the very least misleading. There is NO correlation between murder rates and race. It has to do with the economic wellbeing of the group in question.
In other words, shipping our Black population to England would not necessarily raise GB's murder rates unless those Blacks were treated the same there as they have been here.
-
Originally posted by tomato
MrFish - I reiterate - I wasn't talking about AH, per se. I simply disagree with your statement that AH is "modeling war pretty well" As you say, some aspects of war can't be modelled, but I would've thought that strategy would be an important part of fighting any war - particularly a simulated war. Just as important as shooting targets.
Are you my new daddy? :)
ah i see - well then i guess it comes down to which part of the war experience you play AH for - to me it's the battles, the 'cut to the chase' parts, that's the part i want modelled well not the paperwork.
- oh and touche' ;)
-
Lazs,
Originally posted by midnight Target
In other words, shipping our Black population to England would not necessarily raise GB's murder rates unless those Blacks were treated the same there as they have been here.
Wot he said. :)
-
Originally posted by mrfish
to me it's the battles, the 'cut to the chase' parts
Every war needs its cannon-fodder. Nice of you to volunteer for the job. ;)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
But Mr. Toad - That interpretation is a nonsense,
Au contraire. It is simple fact. For every firearms homicide death in E/W, there are THREE homicide deaths from "sharp instruments."
Yet you seem oblivious to the Home Office pointing out that "the most common method of killing in 2000/01 was with a sharp instrument." Just like it was in 1997. (And probably most other years as well. I haven't checked.)
so let's furnish people with guns so that they can shoot each other, and we can improve the stats for sharp objects!
Just the opposite, according to your suggestions for the US. After all, the means to fewer homicide deaths is to remove the inanimate objects used to accomplish the homicide from public reach. You've said essentially that many, many times.
So where's your plea to register/license/ban/confiscate those sharp instruments that are E/W/S "most common method of killing?" After all, that's what you continually suggest we do with our "most common method of killing".
Not going to take your own advice?
-
Tomato:
The argument here, is find the cause (or set of causes) and tackle that.
Is the criminal himself really the cause? Does that mean that the USA has proportionately more criminally-minded people than E&W? If so, why is that?
Well, it's clear to any open minded person that the inanimate objects are not a "cause". Inanimate objects are just that. Knives don't jump up and stab anyone anymore than guns pull their own triggers.
Is the criminal the cause? Who else eviscerates the victim? Responsibility and accountability. All of us are responsible for our actions.
Clearly, the US generates more homicides than E/W/S. OTOH, E/W/S are ahead of the US in many (if not most) other violent crime categories.
Why is that? I surely don't know. Do you?
The societies, their histories and their mores are vastly different. To some extent that causes a "apples to oranges" situation. We tend to view these two societies as somewhat similar but I don't really believe that to be the case.
In any event, since all agree the US has a higher homicide rate, the questions that pop up are:
"Why?" and "What to do about it?"
I don't know why. As you pointed out, there are a myriad of factors that influence the mindset and actions of any society. I don't think any one here on this BBS has even tried to explain that situation, nor offer any cogent analysis of why it is so. We all just seem to accept it as fact. Beyond that, no one would question that E/W/S is a very different society than the US.
So we come to "what to do?"
Some, like Beetle, propose licensing/registration/banning/confiscation of firearms. Unfortunately for that approach, there are some obvious inconsistencies.
1. The two countries that have tried it E/W/S and Australia have had (at very best) indifferent results. One can argue the details of non-standardized statistics but one cannot argue that by ANY accounting there has been little change when comparing pre and post-ban homicide rates in both nations. Some say homicides went up a bit. Some say they went down a bit. No one makes the case that there was a MAJOR, statistically significant change. The official Australian reports even point out that the ban has had no provable effect.
Further, the US has experienced much larger drops in its firearms homicide rates during the same periods WITHOUT any of the draconian measures imposed by E/W/S and Australia.
So why embark on a costly, onerous to law-abiding citizens program that hasn't significantly changed the homicide rate where it's been used? Especially since rates have dropped faster here in the US where it HASN'T been used?
2. As I mentioned, there's an FBI report that points out that the overwhelming majority of US homicides are committed by known felons. It seems obivious that felons have little regard for the laws, so legal restrictions on firearms would probably have little if any effect. Another supposition supported by what happened in E/W/S and Australia.
On a positive note, three programs that directly address the root cause of firearms homicides... the criminal..... have had great success in reducing homicide rates.
Project Exile (http://www.vahv.org/Exile/)
Most importantly, these efforts appear to be stemming the tide of violence, with homicides for the period November 1997 through July 1998, running more than 65% below the same period one year ago.
Much better than the ambivalent results posted in E/W/S and Australia, no?
Operation Ceasefire - Philadelphia (http://www.citypaper.net/articles/040600/cs.coverstory1.shtml)
Since January 1999, the federally funded Operation Cease Fire program has hauled more than 300 of Philadelphia’s most egregious gun offenders off the streets and into federal court....
Philadelphia’s rates of shootings and killings have been dropping steadily since Cease Fire’s launch 15 months ago.
Once again results that are clearly positive. (Interesting article btw; I suggest reviewing all of it.)
Boston - Operation Cease Fire (http://www.ncpc.org/boston.htm)
Operation Cease Fire
This program is a problem-solving approach to tackle youth firearm violence with a wide range of partners. Compliance meetings are used in detected hot spots where officials meet with gang members who are told to cease the violence or face serious consequences (e.g., federal prosecution).
Operation Night Light ensures gang-involved youth comply with the terms of probation orders. In addition, the U.S. Attorney's Office, in close collaboration with state and local officials, has broken several weapons trafficking operations and gained stiff federal sentences for key gang leaders.
Statistics reveal the impact: 1997 homicide victimization among those 24 years of age and younger has fallen 70% from the means of the years 1991-1995; and among juveniles, firearm homicides were down 90% in 1997 compared to 1990.
Once again, rather stellar results from addressing the true cause of firearms homicide..... the criminals. Especially when compared to the basically unchanged firearms homicides in E/W/S & Australia after trying to place the blame on inanimate objects.
And so it is with Beetle. He'll defend his pointless, unsuccessful program ad infinitum, blaming guns for the problem. He'll proudly ignore the other inanimate items, sharp instruments, that are used in three times as many homicides as guns in E/W/S. One would think, for consistency, that if he'd ban guns to save one life, he'd realize the much larger potential of saving lives that banning "sharp instruments" would offer.
I suspect the true case is that he knows it wouldn't work... just as the gun ban doesn't work.
So, to close this lengthy piece, why bother with a program that doesn't work?
Especially when there are programs that DO work and do not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens?
It isn't the inamimate objects; it's the criminals wielding them.
Until THAT is addressed, you'll see basically no change in rates.
-
Toad:
It's too bad Monty Python isn't around anymore. I think they could do a great "getting on the AH train" skit with Beetle scrambling around trying to get a bunch of normal people to board the train exactly the way he wants them to do it.
Thanks Toad, that's the first laugh I've had tonight. :D
PS... beet1e if you want my gun, you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
-
Originally posted by tomato
Which means that the US is more than 26 times as murderous as E&W.
Puts things into perspective, doncha think? :D
I refer you to: http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/htius.pdf, which states that US homicides are most often committed with guns - and that homicides involving all other weapons have declined.
Approx 22% of US homicides in 1997 were by sharp objects - not too dissimilar to E&W's 26%. Still, it tallies to about 4,100 homicides by sharp instruments. So the ratio of sharp object homicides between USA and E&W in 1997, is 4,100:180.
Let's put that into perspective ... While the USA has approx 5 times the population of E&W:
- there are over 20 times the number of sharp instrument homicides in the USA than there are in E&W. i.e., the US is 4 times as murderous with its sharp objects than E&W.
- there are over 26 times the number of homicides overall in the US, than in E&W, per capita (see above).
Hence the concern. ;)
Tomato [/B]
All the more reason law abiding US citizens should be able to choose to own firearms for self-defense if we are so inclined.
I am and do.
Regards.
-
BTW, Tomato, it seems incidents/100,000 population have become the standard of comparison for stats like you've been posting. Have to do something like that when comparing a country with ~290 million folks to much smaller ones.
-
I do believe the latest population figures of the US is around 285,733,095...and growing.
Amazing that such a terribly violent country such as the United States keeps attracting immigrants from all over the world.
-
Mr. Toad!
Thank you for your lengthy post. I read every word, and followed up on the links you supplied. I know it’s a time consuming business to compose posts like this, so I appreciate your time and effort. On a minor point – Some, like Beetle, propose licensing/registration/banning/confiscation of firearms.
I don’t think I ever said that. Indeed I distinctly remember saying to Lazs that I wasn’t trying to take away his guns. But I am at least allowed to hold an opinion.
US crime is down on what it was, but it has to be said that the US crime rate had further to fall. Whereas the firearms related homicide statistic in E&W has never been more than a double digit value, in the US for many years it was a 5 digit value.
We are agreed that crime has fallen sharply in the US. I have pointed out the example in New York. Originally you said “New York has nothing to do with it”, until I pointed out that the NYC population is about 8% of the population nationwide.
The difficulty in Britain is that we have overcrowded, 19th century jails. There is pressure on the powers that be to avoid custodial sentencing for serious but relatively minor crimes so that prison accommodation can be reserved for even more serious cases. As Dowding pointed out some weeks ago now, Britain has become too soft on criminals. Even some murderers have been released after an outrageously brief sentence. This policy is dangerous for two reasons: Violent criminals end up back on the streets, and prospective criminals see no deterrent to their wrongdoings. If there has been any increase in crime in recent years in Britain, I believe it is because of this, and not because of more/less firearms or changes in gun control laws.
In the US, you have a death penalty in most states, longer sentencing for serious crimes, and a more modern prison system. If only Britain could have these things, I believe our own crime rate would plummet.
To keep this as brief as possible, I would just like to focus on Philadelphia’s Operation Cease Fire. The particular passage which caught my eye was this. Since January 1999, the federally funded Operation Cease Fire program has hauled more than 300 of Philadelphia’s most egregious gun offenders off the streets and into federal court. In 1999 alone, gun possession indictments by the U.S. Attorney’s Office here more than quintupled from 1998. Out of 173 gun cases disposed of, only one defendant was acquitted, while 149 others simply pleaded guilty and went straight to federal prison.
We are already agreed that it’s not gun ownership by guys like yourself and Lazs that presents a risk. The main areas of crime are the poor ethnic communities – the sort of places that the subject, Gerald Smith, would hang out. Clearly what has had the most dramatic effect on Philadelphia gun crime is the quintupling of gun possession indictments 1998-1999. One assumes that not only is the offender banged up in federal prison, but his guns are taken off the street. In other words, a gun-toting nut is disarmed, banged up, and the result is fewer guns on the street and less crime. Isn’t this what I’ve been saying all along? What would have been the effect on the level of crime if Philadelphia City Hall had simply shrugged, and advised ordinary law abiding citizens to go out and buy guns? That would have been much cheaper for the City to implement, but they didn’t do that because they knew that was not the answer and would not have reduced crime in the problem areas. No, crime has been reduced by the correct deployment of law enforcement, with very tough sentences on offenders. Same thing in New York. Wait a minute... it IS what I’ve been saying all along! Mr. Toad, if the Philadelphia article is a reflection of your opinion, then I think we’re in agreement, even if we’ve come at this situation from opposite sides. The question remains: What travesty of gun control/licensing ever allowed Gerald Smith (and thousands like him) to be in possession of guns in the first place? :confused: And *THAT* is the problem that needs to be addressed.
To Mr. Toad, Lazs, BBM, GTO, Saburo et al, read my lips! Your country allows you to have guns – so be it. Keep your guns. You are not the problem. But for John & Jane Doe to buy a gun to store in a cupboard accumulating cobwebs is not the solution to a problem which in all probability exists many miles away, and needs to be tackled by law enforcement, as in Philadelphia, New York and other major US cities.
-
"Sorry Lazs, but I gotta say you are being at the very least misleading. There is NO correlation between murder rates and race. It has to do with the economic wellbeing of the group in question.
In other words, shipping our Black population to England would not necessarily raise GB's murder rates unless those Blacks were treated the same there as they have been here.
__________________
Tah Gut
Midnight Tahgut
VMF-101 Nightmares"
hmm.... so... first there is a direct correlation... blacks commit more than 40% of murders in the U.S. probly a greater percent of the "unknown" (race wise) since most happen to blacks in black areas. but...
if they were removed... our rate would go down to about that of england.. we would have the same homicide rate... with perhaps more murders by guns than in england but total about the same...
you seem to be saying that... if you move the problem to england.... because it is a different country... you won't get a direct correlation... possibly... perhaps removing guns in the U.S. would not reduce homicides either since it is indded the people who commit the murder and not the guns?
in any case... homicide rates in the U.S. seems to be unrelated to firearms. We could test it by making it illegal for blacks to own guns and see how things shook out. Minus the black population scewing the rates....
our rate (minus the black population) is about that of england and england seems quite content with their rate... so much so that they can ignore their sharp instrument problem and focus on the U.S. Certainly... the U.S., minus armed blacks would still have ythe same rate as england and... more would be killed by guns than in england but... knives give me the creeps anyway. and....
by keeping our firearms we would continue to prevent allmost 3,000,000 crimes a year. seems win/win.... unless you are a black person who wants equal rights and protection under the law... still.... it would be for their own good . do it for the children.
or heck... maybe just leave things as they are and work on the underlying problems instead of blaming an inanimate object.
lazs
-
There are some incorrect statements concerning my views in all of that but for now we can ignore that.
This post seems a rather seminal event, a stunning reversal if you will.
Do I understand you correctly? Are you agreeing with the common sense approach that criminals are the real problem? That gun bans are simply "feelgood" measures that don't really accomplish anything?
No, crime has been reduced by the correct deployment of law enforcement, with very tough sentences on offenders. Same thing in New York. Wait a minute... it IS what I’ve been saying all along!
And just think...... Rudy Giuliani never worked in Philadelphia!
Exhibit A: Your signature block
America’s constitutional right to bear arms is an anachronism dating back to the 18th century. In modern times, it is an unmitigated disaster which has given rise to many millions of privately owned guns and an alarming homicide rate, with a tally of more than 300,000 firearms related homicides in the past 25 years. While no law can be 100% effective, Britain has no “gun culture”, and much stricter firearms controls which have contained the annual tally of gun related homicides to a double digit value - fewer than one fiftieth of the American gun-related homicide rate per 100,000 population.
But now you think it's OK for us to have guns? Might want to change that wall o' text sig block then.
Oh wait...... it's OK for Laz and I et al but John and Jane Doe, also American citizens and living under the same Constitution?
To Mr. Toad, Lazs, BBM, GTO, Saburo et al, read my lips! Your country allows you to have guns – so be it. Keep your guns. You are not the problem. But for John & Jane Doe to buy a gun to store in a cupboard accumulating cobwebs is not the solution
So you're for selective coverage by the Constitution? Hmmmmm... will this concept extend to the First Amendment as well?
Wow. What a concept. A Constitution that only applies to certain individuals in certain situations. Is that an English thing, like a gun ban? Because I don't think either of those ideas will be too popular over here.
-
well... also... minus the social problem related to black hoimicides... england and the U.S. would then have the same homicide rates and The U.S. would probly have a slightly lower crime rate overall...
We would then be arguing over which type of death was better... that of sharp instruments or that by gun. The only difference at that point would be that sharp instruments don't prevent any crime while firearms demostrably do..
beetle has a point... large cities need more restrictive laws of all kinds... the more humans you jam into a space the more laws you need.. I would and allways have avoided this... I see no problem with a city passing it's own laws on firearms within it's boundries... you are free to leave.
beetle claims that he feels toad and I can own guns.. thanks.. I also believe that the vast majority of people in the U.S. can own guns safely and... by owning them be of service to themselves, their families and their neighbors... This is not conjecture... this is fact... the upwards to 3,000,000 crimes stopped by firearms far outweigh any criminal use or accidents.
castro emptied his prisons into fla. our borders are porous and our country attracts the criminal as well (maybe more so) as the productive person seeking to better his family. Will the crack dealers stop killing rivals if guns are harder to get?
Those porous borders have armed citizens... fla and soutwest states have the most lax and free gun laws and... they have the best crime rates... More guns does indeed equal less crime. most criminals don't want to kill you... they want to force you to give them your goods... they are also stupid and cowardly and don't want to face an armed victim.. they also do not want to spend a whole lot longer time in jail by using a firearm in the commission of a crime. higher penalties for gun crime do reduce gun crime.
Those who advocate banning firearms and desrtroying the second amendment are not so much trying to prevent homicides as they are hiding from truth... they are unwillijng to face the black crime fighures as a social problem and not a gun problem... they don't even want to discuss it. They would rather look good than actually do some good... in fact.. in light of the stats on how guns prevent crime and help the helpless... they seem willing to sacrafice the freedom and quality of life for millions so long as they can seem to be compassionate. appearance over substance.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, it's clear to any open minded person that the inanimate objects are not a "cause".
So anyone who disagrees with your statement is not open-minded? LOL! Inanimate objects are bound to be one cause amongst many. E.g., low-self-esteem plus lousy childhood plus gun availability. It would be simplistic to say that gun-ownership alone is responsible for homicides. But it is also simplistic to discount gun-ownership as a cause, simply because it is not the only cause.
How do you figure that E&W is ahead of the US for other violent crime categories?
Contrary to your assertion, gun bans have had a remarkable effect in Australia - click here (http://www.iansa.org/documents/research/2000/aussie_guns.htm) to see.
On a positive note, three programs that directly address the root cause of firearms homicides... the criminal..... have had great success in reducing homicide rates. Project Exile (http://www.vahv.org/Exile/)
[/b]
Bearing in mind that the FBI couldn't confiscate people's guns, it had to get creative - hence Project Exile's methods. Note, though, that its objective was to "remove armed criminals from Richmond streets" - not simply remove criminals from Richmond streets. Reducing gun-ownership would undoubtedly reduce homicides further. ;)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Amazing that such a terribly violent country such as the United States keeps attracting immigrants from all over the world.
As does Britain.
-
being a trained gun-owner myself I have to say that most gun owners I know are very responsible people.
In fact, the legal gun owners tend to attend classes, practice safe handling, etc.
As opposed to having guns illegaly which usually means word-of-mouth training and handling.. I.E. you man.. just cap the sucker like this...
It's lack of knowledge and understanding, along with fear that cause problems with guns. The average law abiding citizen doesn't go around blowing people away.
It's the crimianal and do you think they worry about gun laws/controls ?
What good do laws do towards people that ignore laws?
-
Mr. Toad!
This post seems a rather seminal event, a stunning reversal if you will.
No stunning reversal. If look to the third post on this page (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68492&perpage=50&pagenumber=3) you will see that on the 1st of this month, at 7:27pm, which is now more than THREE WEEKS AGO, I said to Lazs: "By all means, keep your guns. I'm not trying to take them away from you and neither is your government." Do try to keep up! Read that whole paragraph where I said that, and you'll see that what I've said today is virtually unchanged. Stunning reversal, my arse. :rolleyes:
The trouble is with the American method of deciding who gets a gun is that you have to give everyone credit for being an honest citizen until they demonstrate otherwise. At one point in his life, Gerald Smith had no criminal record. Now he's doing time in a federal prison. The trouble is, there are lots of Gerald Smiths, and a lot of dead people lie in their wake. It sounds to me as if the Constitutional right to bear arms is sacrosanct, and the people who are paying the price for the sanctity of the 2nd amendment are the ones who found themselves at the wrong end of Gerald Smith's gun. Some might say that the number of people killed in this way is a small price to pay for the freedom to bear arms, but I don't call 10,000+ a small price. And that's almost exactly what I said to Lazs that day, more than three weeks ago.
Here's a true story, but one which may seem anecdotal in a discussion about guns and crime, but you'll like it as it's a story about sharp objects. Two kids in my first year junior school class (ages 7/8) were the stepsiblings, John & Elizabeth. They had problems at home as John's father had been in and out of prison. Those problems sometimes got carried over into the classroom. One day we had an arts and crafts lesson, in which we had to cut out cardboard shapes. At some point, John stabbed his stepsister Elizabeth in the arm. I don't think she was badly hurt, but John got a caning from the headmaster - the only first year boy I ever knew to be punished in that way. Now because we have no constitutional right to bear scissors, and because we have no National Scissors Association to protect that right, there was no pro-scissors organisation to pour money into the local education authority coffers. Otherwise, the teachers might have had to hand out MORE scissors so that everyone had a pair instead of one between two. That way, Elizabeth would have been armed with her own scissors, and that might have deterred John from making a scissors attack. One could say, more scissors = less crime.
Well funnily enough, the teachers didn't see it like that. Instead, they put a stop to craft lessons involving scissors, and we had to do something else - balsa wood or clay modelling. The point is that NO-ONE was allowed to have scissors. It was decided that we were too young to carry the responsibility of using a potentially dangerous implement. And you know what? It worked. The scissor attacks stopped completely after that.
-
No... beetle... there most certainly are not a lot of gerald smiths.... statisticly, those who commit firearms crimes are not "law abiding citizens" those who commit murders with firearms as a first offence are statisticly insignificant... certainly not a large enough group to justify draconian gun laws or destroy law abiding citizens rights.. The law in the U.S. is "innocent until proven guilty." this may cause us some small increase in crime but I would venture to say that the vast majority of Americans are content to have it this way and to suffer any consequences that may ensue....
maybe we have wronged you.... understandable considering the content of your sig so... I will give you the opportunity to express exactly what you would have us do about our homicide rate... specificly, as it applies to the second amendment and firearms in particular....
so far.... it appears that you would allow saburo, toad and myself to continue on in the manner that we have been in regards to firearms (so far so good and no arguement from me) but.... perhaps you could enlighten us as to how you would deal with the rest of America?
lazs
-
oh and beetle... your classroom example proves my point more than yours... My guess is that everyone in the crafts class WAS armed with scissors and that the person who did the stabbing was the aberation and.... statisticly insignificant.... the two ways to stop further incidents would have been your way.... ban scissors except in scissors clubs and make it impossible for the average citizen to posses and carry scissors or.... my way of simply creating tougher punishments for those who would commit crimes using scissors.
To accomplish your goal (and lack of positive results) all that would be needed was a one sided media blitz on the horror and trajic maiming of children because of lax scissors laws.... tax free organizations with highly paid executives forming "scissors control incorporated" and hordes of lawyers chomping at the bit to dig into the deep pockets of scissors manufacturers for supplying said scissors.
lazs
-
Bottom line for me is that irregardless of what the world may think, our Constitution serves AMERICANS quite well.
Our government will never take away our guns...if you disagree, then you obviously have never lived in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, etc.:)
-
Lazs - the Operation Ceasefire article says this: "Out of 173 gun cases disposed of, only one defendant was acquitted, while 149 others simply pleaded guilty and went straight to federal prison." It is those 149-173 (the figure is not quite clear) who I am calling the Gerald Smiths. And that's just in one city.
As to where you go from here. Well, Australia went about it their way, and had success with that, we are led to believe. Either you stop the issue of all new gun permits, which would lead to cries of anguish from those people citing their constitutional rights, or you keep the status quo, and learn to live with a very high firearms related homicide rate. America has chosen the latter, but as New York, Philadelphia etc. demonstrate, the authorities are now trying to steer a middle course - more Police to clean up the mess created by a laissez faire policy on gun ownership.
-
beetle... those "gerald smiths' are the anomoly... no matter how you slice it... people with no criminal records who commit murder are not a factor... banning guns has about the same effect as making gun crime more risky with bigger penalties... guns are not unavailable in australia but commiting a crime with one is punishable by a much more severe sentance..
in the case of the U.S. when we make tougher penalties... Project exile... we get reductions in gun crime... in england and austalia when you make tougher penalties for gun crimes you get reductions in gun crime... the difference is that without the deterance of guns and the ability for law abiding (the vast majority) you get a rise in armed assault (not armed with firearms) of 20% like that of australia... in the U.S. crime continues to drop with armed citizens stopping uppwards to 3,000,000 crimes a year... so...
it would seem that the best of all worlds would be to allow free gun ownership and at the same time..... dramaticly increase the penalties for gun crimes.
now... you know what I would do but.... you still haven't answered the question as to what you would do.... we know that you would allow me, toad and saburo to continue owning firearms just as we allway have but you have not said what YOU think would be a solution for Americans.
I laid it on the table why won't you?
lazs
-
matters not what beetle or tomoto think.
I'll keep my guns.
ban scissors except in scissors clubs
damn that was funny.
-
wow toad looks like you now have competition for long and tedious posts. ;)
-
Tomato,
I try pretty hard not to unintentionally insult people through a poor choice of words. Open-minded is an "intelligence neutral" comment don't you think?
But yes, I think any open-minded person would agree that inanimate objects cause nothing. An inanimate object has no will, no volition, no desire, no intent.
Does a bottle of whiskey sitting on a table "cause" a drunk driver to hit and kill someone?
Does a lock pick "cause" a burglar to break and enter?
Obviously not. For any of these things to happen, there has to be a human involved. Said human must make a decision, must take action, must use the inanimate object in an inappropriate way. One cannot "blame" the object for the deed of the human.
Accountability. Responsibility. Two issues that always seemed to be overlooked when dealing with crime. It's not the bad man... it's the bad object.
Seems pretty obvious that this simply cannot be the case, doesn't it? And indeed, action against criminals has been far more successful in reducing crime than action against inanimate objects.
Gun ownership is not "responsible" for any homicide, nor is it a "cause" of any homicide.
IE: I've owned handguns and other guns for over 37 years now. Numerous guns, in fact. In all those 37 years, those guns have not "caused" me to commit any homicide, nor have they been "responsible" for anyone else using them in a homicide. Those guns have never been involved in any homicide at all.
Now, why is this so? Did the guns themselves have anything to do with that situation? No, of course they didn't. They haven't been involved in any homicides because no person ever used them in that manner. The human, not the inanimate object.
At worst, like a bottle of whiskey, a gun can only be mis-used by a PERSON. Accountability. Responsibility. Of the Person.. not the object.
Originally posted by tomato
How do you figure that E&W is ahead of the US for other violent crime categories?
By referencing the International Crime Victimisation Survey. Here's a quick summation. Please note that Australia, another "gun ban" paradise is another "leader" in this regard.
England and Wales top crime league (http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,441810,00.html)
England and Wales have one of the worst crime records in the industrialised world - even worse than America - according to the findings of an official survey published yesterday which compares the experience of victims across 17 countries.
The study, coordinated by the Dutch ministry of justice, shows England and Wales at the top of the world league with Australia as the countries where you are most likely to become a victim of crime. These countries face an annual rate of 58 crimes for every 100 inhabitants.
Again, I recommend reading the entire article, but the gist of it is in the opening that I have clipped.
You can also find the actual 2000 International Cime Victimisation Survey on the web.
Contrary to your assertion, gun bans have had a remarkable effect in Australia
[/b]
Don't believe me? Well, ask the Aussies then.
Australian Institute of Criminology (http://www.aic.gov.au/media/990211.html)
Rates of victimisation from 1 July 1989 - 30 June 1998 have remained quite stable, fluctuating between 1.7 and 2.0 per 100 000 population, with 1996/97 and 1997/98 recording the lowest victimisation rate of 1.7 per 100 000 population
No real change over all the years before and after the ban. Quite stable, in fact.
.....and from a "pro-ban site"
Gun lobby lies (http://www.ntu.edu.au/faculties/lba/schools/Law/apl/blog/stories/liberties/12.htm)
In 1995-96 the proportion of homicides committed with a firearm was 21 per cent, a figure much lower than that which prevailed twenty years ago (the proportion then was around 40 per cent). The proportion has continued at that rate ever since. Thus, the post-Port Arthur gun laws were clearly not the sole cause of falling gun homicides;
Seems the Australians don't agree with you.
Bearing in mind that the FBI couldn't confiscate people's guns, it had to get creative - hence Project Exile's methods. Note, though, that its objective was to "remove armed criminals from Richmond streets" - not simply remove criminals from Richmond streets. Reducing gun-ownership would undoubtedly reduce homicides further. ;)
Well, it wasn't the FBI. It was a cooperative DOJ program with local authorities.
Confiscation was indeed out because of that pesky Constitution/Bill of Rights.
Indeed, the idea was to remove armed criminals. They were trying to reduce the number of homicides. Who do you think commits the firearms/weapons homicides? The "bad check writing" criminals?
It seems easy to say that "Reducing gun-ownership would undoubtedly reduce homicides further" but again, the proof of that statement simply can't be found. Not in E/W/S or in Australia, countries which have tried it.
In contrast, during that same period, homicide rates decreased significantly in the US without any registration/licensing/ban/confiscation actions by the government.
So far, the ONLY thing that has significantly lowered homicide rates is..... you guessed it....... focusing on the criminals themselves.
And if you're thinking about the "even one life" rebuttal, I'll have to ask again why E/W/S isn't banning "sharp instruments" to save even 3X as many "one lifes".
It's simply because inanimate objects aren't the problem. The problem, like it always has been since Cain whacked Able with a rock, is man's inhumanity to man.
-
Never fear, MrFish. :)
-
Beetle,
Before I reply.. and MrFish, rest assured I shall......
I'll have to ask you to finally settle on your position.
Do you support/approve the England/Wales/Scotland ban/confiscation method of controlling guns?
Do you support/approve the Australian ban/confiscation method of controlling guns?
Do you suggest that the US follow a similar course?
Just want to make sure I know where you stand on these before I reply. Don't want to waste length and tedium on MrFish, you know.
-
Toad, we can be forever bandying back and forth our views, and our responses to each other's views. Possibly best agree to differ. Both sides have valid arguments. Both sides are backed up by solid experience. The difference is in our interpretations. Let's agree to differ.
-
Toad,
Well spoken and all, but not quite accurate. Inanimate objects have been controlled for many years and with good reason.
I can't go down to the local land mine store and pick up a Claymore. Why not? No Claymore ever made the decision to cause murder.
"But a Claymore is solely designed to kill" you might say. So is a handgun, or any gun for that matter.
By the logic you have proposed, we should legalize Claymore mines, and have strict penalties for their use. Make sense to you? Me either.
-
Much ado, Mr Toad, about p*** little. The same arguments are being paraded as new.
You are obviously an intelligent man, (with more than a touch of spin-doctoritis) ;) Let's agree to differ.
I will agree that the US has the government, status quo and rules that it wants and deserves, and you can agree the same of the UK. Yes?
-
Canada has more firearms per family then the US does.
The problem isn't the guns.
-
Mr. Toad, I think you're being a bit silly with your bottle of whisky analogy. And we've already had this debate once, just before you went on your hunting trip. So why are we having it again here?
Clearly the issue is who should be allowed to have guns, and who should not. Britain has a ban, and no-one cares about that because no-one wants guns anyway. I have never needed a gun. Right now, the US Constitution allows just about ANYONE to have a gun. That's a bit daft. And that's also the problem. Too many Gerald Smiths have guns, and get them too easily, and there are many Gerald Smiths. OK, let me keep this brief. I want to answer Lazs.
Well Lazs, if I could come up with an answer single-handed, I'd get a job at the White House! But let's make a start on gun control. Raww (AGW) and Mr. Toad and yourself are always telling me that gun owners are law abiding - raww maintains that a gun owner is a better citizen (!) I have no criminal record, and neither does anyone I know. So I don't think it's too much to ask for a gun licence applicant to have a clean criminal record. That's no crimes at all! Not even minor ones, because as NYC found out, people who commit small crimes might commit more major ones later on.
If a gun licensee were to commit any sort of crime, then it's reasonable to revoke his gun owning privileges - do you agree? And that should be for a minimum of 5 years, longer for more serious crimes or if the gun was actually fired, and a lifetime ban for anyone who commits a drugs related offence. The revocation ought to apply for certain driving offences, but not for piffling stuff - like doing 60mph on the Oakland Bay Bridge. ;)
Another area I would like to look at is the length of time a gun licensee applicant has resided at a particular address before being eligible to apply for a gun permit. Here in Limeyland, we have the Electoral Roll - we sign up - every person living at an address is listed, and the form sent back to the council. Hell, you even have to be on the Electoral Roll to get a Bank Loan, so I don't think that's too steep a requirement to get a gun licence. If someone moves house, that's OK as long as they've lived at the previous address for a minimum length of time - just looking at ways to deal with transients here. I don't know what the US equivalent of our Electoral Roll is. That thing seems to come around once or twice a year over here.
Penalties! There have to be penalties, and they have to bite hard. In Mr. Toad's Operation Ceasefire document, Gerald Smith thought he was going to be arraigned and then get home in time for dinner, but he was wrong. For carrying a gun in defiance of gun permit revocation, there should be a stiff jail term - 15 years, by which I mean15 years. And if the gun has actually been fired by a person whose permit privileges have been revoked, the tariff should be even more sever - perhaps double - 30 years. That's what Gerald Smith got.
Another penalty would be needed for those people who demonstrate a cavalier attitude to guns, and allow their own gun to get into the wrong hands. If negligence can be proved, that should carry a severe penalty - 10 years, and a lifetime ban from owning guns.
OK, Lazs - it's late here and I've been drinking some aircraft fuel (Finlandia Vodka) and the above is not set in tablets of stone. But what I'm trying to do here is to look at ways in which the law abiding gun owners like yourself and Mr. Toad can continue to own guns, but by which the Gerald Smiths never get the chance to get their hands on them in the first place. OK?
-
Sorry, Beetle. No point in continuing until you clear up your ideology.
Just where exactly do you stand. Simple "yes" or "no", if you please.
Do you support/approve the England/Wales/Scotland ban/confiscation method of controlling guns?
Do you support/approve the Australian ban/confiscation method of controlling guns?
Do you suggest that the US follow a similar course?
After I know where you stand on these, I'll read and respond to your posts. Otherwise, there's absolutely no point. You abandon and return to "positions" too often.
-
Originally posted by tomato
The same arguments are being paraded as new.
Have you read the other two or three recent "gun control" threads?
If I had known you had, I wouldn't have bothered. Because a lot of it is often repeated. Rightly so. Truth doesn't change. :)
I'll agree to differ. That doesn't bother me a bit. Won't change the fact that gun bans don't accomplish anything.
Interesting that you dismiss the Australian Institute of Criminology assessment so blithely. They at least admit the rates didn't move in any significant manner. And they're on your side!
No comment either on E/W/S & Australia leading in many/most forms of violent crime? Still wondering how I figured that? The ICVS is a pretty well respected piece of research; it's earned that over the years. Funny that the countries with gun bans lead in other forms of violence, don't you think? Ah, no... I guess you don't see any linkage there?
So, indeed. Let's disagree. But you'll still be wrong if you think gun bans accomplish any thing and I'll still be glad the Founders had the foresight to put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights directly after the First to protect me from folks that think like that.
:D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I can't go down to the local land mine store and pick up a Claymore. Why not?
Sorry, MT, in a Thanksgiving rush. The reason you can't get a Claymore is because the 2nd doesn't cover them as "arms".
Two references:The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html)
Arms
In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
... and the offsite essay they mention:
The Right to Keep and Bear . . . What? (http://www.cga94.com/contributors/stuff/arms/ii.htm)
Claymores are in fact just like a lock pick, a golf club or a Smith & Wesson. It still takes a human with volition and intent to do any damage.
The reason you can't get them, however, is that they are regulated and not covered under the definition/understanding of arms in the Second.
Gotta run.
Leaving for the weekend.
-
Mr. Toad
I knew it was you as soon as my PC went "ding-dong" - new message.
I don't have any feelings to the UK gun control laws. Hell, I don't even know what they are. Guns are of absolutely no consequence out here where I live. I've never met anyone who has one.
It's a bit like me asking you how you would feel if sales of Taylor's Yorkshire Tea from Harrogate were to be banned in Arkansas.
It's late, but I'm going to sit up and watch Boyz N the Hood - again.
If you have anything to say, put it in the anti-gun thread. This one was about Bridge!
Besides, whatever I say is only going to govern the parameters of your next wall of text. The same stuff, the same stats, the same quotes from the (left wing/Liberal) Guardian newspaper. We've done it to death, and then you went on your hunting trip.
Welcome back, and don't forget to bring your scissors next time you're in England.
-
Exactly what I thought. You won't define your position. Helps in dodging and changing the subject, eh, wot?
Like discarding the information in the Guardian because you don't care for the politics of the Guardian. No comment on the fact that the same data is available in the actual ICVS which is available on the net? I had my choice of dozens of sources.. .that one was just at the top and a fair summation. How typical; if you don't agree with the data, either attack the publisher or deny, deny, deny.
Still doesn't change the ICVS facts though.
Same with the Australian Institute of Criminology, right? You don't agree with their assessment, so you just discard the data.
Australian Institute of Criminology (http://www.aic.gov.au/institute/)
The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), a Commonwealth statutory authority, was established in 1973, and operates under the Criminology Research Act 1971. The Director reports to the Minister for Justice and to a Board of Management comprising distinguished criminal justice practitioners from around Australia.
How curious, since the AIC is a governmental agency that evaluates how well the Australian policies are working. And they see no statistically significant change after the gun ban. Ah, well.. they don't agree with you and Tomato.. so they must be wrong. :D
Nice of you to admit that you don't have clue about firearms and their uses. Does that make you eminently qualified to decide what to do about them?
Toodle-pip, as they say Beetle. A man that won't state his position (while continually changing it), a man that deliberately trolls and then disingenuously denies it when caught with rod and reel in hand really isn't worth debating.
I'll leave you with this to ponder:
Beetle: The trouble is with the American method of deciding who gets a gun is that you have to give everyone credit for being an honest citizen until they demonstrate otherwise.
1. It's that old "innocent until proven guilty" concept. You've heard of it, I'm sure.
2. You must have missed a lot in the Project Exile article. People like Gerald Smith are prohibited by law from having firearms. It's been that way for an amazingly long time. Yet Mr. Smith had a firearm. Ponder that one for a while, too.
AMF.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Canada has more firearms per family then the US does.
The problem isn't the guns.
Interesting.
The estimate is that their are something like 230 million firearms in the US and about 290 million people. Never seen a stat "by family".
You folks have more than that?
For you "inanimate object blamers": what's 230 million divided by say 12,000? Not a very large percentage misused is there? Well, we still better punish everyone, right?
-
Like I said Toad, We've done all this. We discussed all this what - three weeks ago? And what I said then is exactly what I said today. But here you come again, spouting the same old, same old... We had the whole thing banged to rights, but oh - you went on your hunting trip, and that was that. Now you come in here and have the temerity to accuse me of changing the subject. Heck, this was a thread about Bridge - my thread - but you had to turn it into (yet another) gun thread. Like we don't have enough already.
Why should I "define my position" especially for you? For cripe's sake, Toad, I've been doing that this past month. If you can't be bothered to read what I said until I've "defined my position" that's your problem. I'm not about to kow-tow to your demands to "define my position" yet again. Whose thread is this anyway? Yeah, that's right, mine.
We've done the stats till we're sick of it. You don't like it when I comment on the Guardian - so - some people don't like the "Home Office".
If you've got anything to say, say it. Just don't sit there dictating the terms under which I shall be privileged to read another of your discourses. But before we hear from you again, don't ask me to "define my position". I've done that. Look back to Ripsnort's thread - 254 posts - and many of them were mine. I've written thousands of words on this. I don't see why I should now have to accede to reproducing my stance on this issue. We dealt with it the day you went hunting. Why should I write another post "definining my position"? You clearly haven't read what I've already written - hence your "stunning reversal" faux pas further up this thread.
Yes, Gerald Smith should not have had a gun. But he did. So why do you think that is? He must have got it from somewhere. Hmm - I wonder where that was. :confused:
Well, I haven't changed my views, and you haven't changed your views, so...
... the sig stays. :D
Goodnight, Mr. Toad, and don't get your tongue caught in the bedroom door tonight.
-
Heck, this was a thread about Bridge - my thread - but you had to turn it into (yet another) gun thread. Like we don't have enough already.
Beet1e, all of your posts state your view on guns in the US, so you are open game for response.
Your signature is part of your post by your design.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Heck, this was a thread about Bridge - my thread - but you had to turn it into (yet another) gun thread. Like we don't have enough already.
[/b]
Wrong again. Quite the habit with you. First of all, look at the thread title that YOU made. This thread is about games, rules and AH. Particularly about trying AH with more rules. Deny that too.. but it's right there for all to read.
Also, I didn't turn this into a gun thread. I believe the first mention of the gun issue in this thread would be in your signature block, would it not?
Laz was the first to point that out, not me. Further, I didn't even mention guns in this thread until after YOU did. Check your post of 11-25-2002 12:24 PM. I responded to THAT. So, check the mirror if you're looking for someone to blame for your "thread about bridge that's really about trying more rules in AH".
Why should I "define my position" especially for you?
Not for me; for everyone. Because it's totally unclear. It's hard to discuss anything with you when one moment you're telling Laz you're not against his keeping guns, you're just against the Constitutional provision for anyone keeping guns.
You think the Mr. Smiths of Philadelphia shouldn't be legally allowed to have guns and ignore that fact that legally he and his fellow felonius criminals NEVER were allowed to have guns. No wonder folks are confused about where you stand.
Couldn't care less what you think of the Guardian either. That paper is only the medium, not the message. However, you dismiss the ICVS because it's mentioned in the Guardian. It's also supported and used by the UN; check that site. The data is good but you dodge that issue with the "Guardian red herring".
So, it's pretty pointless to discuss this with you. You can't decide whether your for or against the provisions of the Second apparently. You can't accept that the ICVS finds E/W/S and Australia...... the places with the gun bans..... have the most violent crime overall and it looks like you have no clue about what gun laws are already on the books over here.
So, toodle-pip, as we say.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
or you're too busy shooting innocent animals,
Oh, yeah... are you a total vegan by the way?
If not, the last time you ate meat, of what crime was your animal guilty?
And what did you have to pay the abattoir assassins to kill it for you by stunning it with electric shock followed by throat slitting with a sharp instrument?
Did your animal have a chance to escape?
I know where I am in the food chain and, unlike you, I choose to do my own dirty work. I personally find that a much more honest approach than hiring assassins. At least the pheasant had an excellent chance of evading notice and if flushed, a chance to get away.
Could the chicken in your last curry say the same?
-
I do believe that anyone convicted of a felony where total time served by prison AND probation time totals to at least one year loses their right to purchase and own a firearm in the US.
-
Toad - OK, I'll let you have the last word - you already know my arguments. ;)
-
Skuzzy - I can see where this one is going to end up, and would rather not be around when it happens, so I have already unsubscribed as I don't want to be around when you come by with your box of padlocks.
Lazs - I owe you an email, can we carry on from there. I'll get back to you today.
Toad - I thought we were finally getting somewhere, and I wrote you a polite message at 12:40pm yesterday. But soon afterwards it became clear by your demands for me to "define my position" etc. that you hadn't bothered reading a lot of what I had to say weeks earlier. Or maybe you had but had forgotten. That's OK - memory fades as we get older, especially short term memory.
I thought we finally had some common ground, and I was all for debating an issue which allowed ther law abiding to keep guns in America but to tackle the problem where it really exists.
You were going to respond in the anti-gun thread, but we got started in here instead. Hehe, the "innocent animals" remark got you going, and I should not have used that because I am not vegetarian - so I will go back and amend that bit while you unknot your panties.
But you are getting a bit testy. Seems I've got your blood boiling - and I thought Toads were cold blooded creatures. :D LOL! I only have to talk about that Bridge course, and you think I'm berating AH. You never did tell me what it was in the post that made you think I was doing that ;) Yeah, that online Bridge club has rules and my initial post was to ponder over what might happen if a draconian rule of the type I pasted in were to be implemented in AH. ;) Then you said that were against rules, but then tripped yourself up by telling us that you belong to a squad that has a number of rules.
You think I keep changing, or are inconsistent, but I have already shown that I said to keep your guns - 27 days ago today - and it was you who failed to keep up in this debate. But that's OK, maybe you were getting ready for your hunting trip. By the same token, my last posting came at the end of the day, after some aircraft fuel, and I might not have been my usual meticulous self. :D
What are you like when you get really mad? :)
Yep, I still maintain that America's constitutional right to bear arms has been, and continues to be, an unmitigated disaster. It's a disaster for those who die by the thousands each year at the wrong end of a gun - more than 10,000 some years. Government and law enforcement are doing all they can with some new initiatives that we've talked about, but they've got their work cut out with guys like you on the electorate. All you care about is whether you can own YOUR guns for the next 37 years, and bugger the cost - the cost of lives lost as a result of a policy which ends up with Gerald Smith and thousands like him getting their hands on a gun. But you don't care about that, and oh! We cannot besmirch the sanctity of the Constitution. :rolleyes: But what the hell? Those dying by the thousands on your streets each year are irrelevant - a price worth paying for your right to bear arms - that's the message that comes across. So let's group 'em all together, put 'em in housing projects and let 'em have their guns too. After all, it's not happening in your neighbourhood, and you sound like you're a gun crime NIMBY. I hear you crow about your reduced crime rate. I guess you think it's OK to crow, as long as the majority of the gun crime victims are poor, and black.
And to think - I got called a racist for telling the Yorkshireman joke!
An odd style, Mr. Toad. Looks like your reason for posting is so you can bask in the adulation you receive from your admirers. Your debates involve a mass of quotes and you're a good mass debater, but I wish you could have used a little more of your own material, read what's already been written, and put in some thought - assuming there was any.
And my last word in this thread will be...
...Toodle-Pip!
-
Originally posted by tomato
Toad - OK, I'll let you have the last word - you already know my arguments. ;)
Well, I know some of them. Unfortunately they seem very strongly held opinions unsupported by fact.
Allow me a guess? Born and Raised East of the Mississippi, North of the Mason/Dixon, urban environment, family does not/did not own or uses firearms in any sporting manner, college/university in the Eastern part of the US (or California)?
Just humoring myself with a stereotype template. ;)
Toodles as we say here in the colonies!
-
Unsubscribed! Say it ain't so, Joe! I thought you Brits had a stiff upper lip or something that helped you through tough times like these.
OTOH, it might be a good idea to "reinvent" yourself in a new persona on this BBS. You may not be able to salvage this one you've ravaged.
Don't worry, Skuzzy isn't going to lock this one (yet). No one's calling anyone any names here and no one's been truly nasty.
I've read what you said (btw, interesting that you accuse me of repeating arguments but don't notice it in yourself, eh?) and you can't seem to decide about that 2nd amendment thing. You offer it's protections to some but not all based on? "tackle the problem where it really exists"? Based on where you live? Based on how much you make? Based on your race? Based on what? Whether your a Lord or a Commoner? Because we already have multitudes of laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But they don't work' just like the English/Aussie bans don't keep the guns out of the hands of criminals.
You also apparently fail to understand that we have an "innocent until proven guilty" culture here. It would be impossible/unAmerican to restrict firearms based on where folks live or how much they make. Additionally, we already have TONS of laws on the books that theoretically prevent felons like Smith from owning firearms. (Thanks for the crack about age and memory btw. Waaaaaah! Skuzzy! He's so mean!)
So decide if you support the 2nd and the "innocent until proven guilty" aspect that is the cornerstone of our legal system. Decide if you intend to restrict firearms based on wealth, area of residence, race, religion or sex. Decide if you do indeed support the gun bans in England and Australia and propose one for the US. Be prepared to support your positions with facts. THEN you might be able to hold up your end in a debate. (And I'm truly sorry if I provide links to documents/facts that support my positions. Must be tough on those that know nothing about firearms and just spout their personal opinons unfettered by fact.)
Again, YOU were the one the started talking about guns in here before I did. Try putting the blame where it lies. Accountability/Responsibility.
I see you're also still being disingenuous about your bridge/AH thread. I didn't respond for that reason. If you can't be honest about it, there's no point. Still isn't.
Also again, check the 13TAS website. Our few "rules" are posted there in the Charter and Mission Statement. Similarly, the few rules for AH are in the contract with HTC. There are no "how to play the game in the MA "rules" such as you continually suggest in either place. But I wager you can't see the difference.
I'm not in the least angry now, nor have I been in the last month. If I ever were to get really angry I'd probably actually use words like "moron" and "idiot" in a post and direct them at a specific person. I don't think I've ever done that on this BBS. I guess you assume anger when you get verbally slapped for making statements like "innocent animals" eh? Just reminding you of the hypocrisy of condemning one man's sporting lifestyle when your own isn't exactly free of bloodstains. And note that I did it with polite language. :D
Beetle:
Yep, I still maintain that America's constitutional right to bear arms has been, and continues to be, an unmitigated disaster.....
the cost of lives lost as a result of a policy which ends up with Gerald Smith and thousands like him getting their hands on a gun....
Those dying by the thousands on your streets each year are irrelevant - a price worth paying for your right to bear arms - .... So let's group 'em all together, put 'em in housing projects and let 'em have their guns too....
I guess you think it's OK to crow, as long as the majority of the gun crime victims are poor, and black.
Thanks for posting exactly what I'm talking about. You say you're against the 2nd but that'd you'd allow some to have guns. You have no suggestions on how this might be accomplished.
You won't, however, come out and say you favor a England/Australia type ban/confiscation here.
You ignore the fact that Smith is already prohibited from owning firearms here... much the same what that English criminals are prohibited. Yet you'll acknowledge that criminals in both countries always seem to be able to get guns. And you've got a ban/confiscation? Go figure. Can you say "doesn't work"?
Your angst at the thousands dying on our streets is tempered by your failure to support registration/licensing/bans/confiscation of English sharp instruments which are killing THREE TIMES as many of your countrymen as firearms do. Where's the sorrow there? Oh, wait... it's because sharp instruments are part of your personal lifestyle so there OK in responsible hands, right? And their part of your culture.... so . ... you know....... we've got to have them and all.
And lastly you paint me as a racist. Too good. It's those facts again, eh? The fact that our homicide rate FELL..... without bans/confiscation while yours remained statistically unchanged WITH bans/confiscation. That makes me racist? BTW, if I read you right, YOU'RE the one suggesting those black folks in the urban environments shouldn't have guns. And I'm racist?
There you are, chappie. Not a single link in there; I know how substantiating data upsets you, so I left it out.
BTW, was that the best insult you could come up with to finish? I'm so ....... wounded.
put in some thought - assuming there was any.
That's your legacy as you close the door on your persona and go off to reinvent yourself? Why even the lovely Tomato thinks I'm an "obviously an intelligent man". I'll just salve my wounds with her assessment, I guess.
Ta-ta and toodle-pip, old chap. Best of luck in your next persona, eh, wot? Perhaps you learned a bit on this spin of the wheel that will help you in the next one!
-
I have spent time with toad and he with me.. I think it is safe to say that neither of us has gotten his 'blood boiled" ... more like chuckling into the monitor..
tomato... you claim that toad is intelegent but a spin doctor and say "can't we just leave it at that?" I say... You are attractive, uninformed and unable to digest information that is presented to you but that you are entitled to your opinion and maybe we can just leave it at that so that there are no hard feelings? (i don't know if you are attractive..I'm just kissing your butt to be nice).
beetle... two things.. every one of your posts is a gun post. you say missleading and outright stupid things about guns in every post you make and then.... act upset when people reply... what is wrong with you? you know nothing about the subject that is dear enough for you to expound upon in every one of your posts yet... cryu fould when you are humiliated... you are leading with your face in this fight.... how can we resist?
You also seem to be saying... "you Americans need to.... do something that makes guns all disapear except for toad lazs and subaro's guns." I have absoluitely no idea on what you stand for... I think toad has valid questions... do you agree with england and australias gun laws and is that wht you believe that we should have in America? If not.... what do you want? It seems extremely fair to me to ask someone who has anti gun paragraphs in every post to explain what he believes.
lazs
-
MT... toad beat me to it on the ordinance issue. explosives are ordinance... explosives also endanger neighbors through natural disasters.... whereas guns will not grow liitle hands and feet and run through the neighborhood killng and maiming.... a store of claymores or rocket launchers would be dangerous to neighbors and fire/rescue people during disasters. We do have laws as to how much powder and primers a reloader may store in his home even tho smokeless powder is relatively harmless.
lazs
"England and Wales have one of the worst crime records in the industrialised world - even worse than America - according to the findings of an official survey published yesterday which compares the experience of victims across 17 countries.
The study, coordinated by the Dutch ministry of justice, shows England and Wales at the top of the world league with Australia as the countries where you are most likely to become a victim of crime. These countries face an annual rate of 58 crimes for every 100 inhabitants.
The findings, based on interviews with 35,000 people about their experience of crime across the 17 countries, were carried out last year. They are a blow to Labour's record and underline the challenge facing Tony Blair when he marks the launch of Labour's 10-year anti-crime plan next Monday by becoming the first serving prime minister to visit a prison. "
being victimized and helpless against criminals is not freedom
-
I don't need the following to defend myself, friends, or family:
Nukes.
Biological weapons.
Chemical weapons.
Mines.
Anti-tank weapons.
Anti-aircraft weapons.
Anti-ship weapons.
Etc.
I don't believe my fellow Americans need them either.
I don't believe criminals should be able to buy, own, and use any weapon.
Unfortunetly, the criminals don't follow the laws.
I guess that is why I and my fellow law-abiding American should be allowed to defend ourselves from those criminals with legally purchased firearms.
Glad I live in the US and not in a country that would take my means to possibly protect myself from potential harm.
Sorry, but I do not believe the police forces can always protect me. The criminal usually strike where the police are not. Realistically the police are a reactionary force that react to crimes that have been committed.
Does this mean that England, Japan, etc are not good places to live?
Hardly! They seem like wonderful places to live for the English, Japanese, etc.
The continued comparison between the United States and any other country is one of apples and oranges.
The United States has a very large population. The odds being that as you will find a larger number of generous, nice, and peaceful citizens, you'll also encounter a larger number of violent and/or crazy people.
Because I happen to reside in a country that has potentially more criminals (I don't give a squat what they could be armed with - firearms, knives or any sharp instrument, chains, baseball bat, etc. heck, they could just be bigger and stronger than I am.)
I will continue to exercise my right as a law-abiding American citizen to keep and bear arms. Notice that I do not care what gun laws are in any other country. That is for those citizens to decide and live and die by to decide. I will not care, comment, lose sleep, etc what England, Japan, France, Germany, etc. decide on for themselves.
Peace to you all.
Regards.
PS. May you all never be forced in an unfortunate situation of needing a firearm to protect yourself, your friends, and/or your family but not have one because your gov't 'knew' better.
-
while I agree with subaro 99%... I would say that extremely more severe punishment for violent criminal acts with firearms is the solution and... if a person is released from prison... he should have his rights restored... that includes voting and firearms.. if he is worth letting out then he is worth treating as a fellow member of our society.... if not.... why the hell did you turn him loose on us in the first place?
lazs
"Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Friday February 23, 2001
The Guardian
England and Wales have one of the worst crime records in the industrialised world - even worse than America - according to the findings of an official survey published yesterday which compares the experience of victims across 17 countries.
The study, coordinated by the Dutch ministry of justice, shows England and Wales at the top of the world league with Australia as the countries where you are most likely to become a victim of crime. These countries face an annual rate of 58 crimes for every 100 inhabitants.
The findings, based on interviews with 35,000 people about their experience of crime across the 17 countries, were carried out last year. They are a blow to Labour's record and underline the challenge facing Tony Blair when he marks the launch of Labour's 10-year anti-crime plan next Monday by becoming the first serving prime minister to visit a prison.
The 2000 International Crime Victimisation survey shows that the falls in crime recorded since the mid-1990s in England and Wales are part of a general pattern of falling crime across the industrialised world but, unlike America, crime levels in England and Wales are still higher than they were at the end of the 1980s. When the survey was last carried out in 1996, England and Wales also topped the league table with 61 offences per 100 inhabitants.
The survey does show, however, that Britain has the best services when it comes to looking after the victims of crime, but it also shows we have a tougher approach to punishing criminals. Asked what should be done with a burglar convicted of stealing a colour television for a second time, more than 50% in England and Wales said he or she should be sent to prison for two years. Only 7% in Spain and 12% in France thought he or she should be jailed at all.
People were asked whether they had been victims of a range of 11 different offences in the previous 12 months, including violent and sexual assault, car crime, burglary and consumer fraud.
The survey also shows that Scotland, with 43 offences per 100 inhabitants, ranks joint fifth alongside America in the international crime league behind England, Australia, the Netherlands and Sweden. Northern Ireland has the second best crime record of the countries surveyed, with 24 offences per 100 inhabitants - the same rate as Switzerland and only just above Japan where the biggest crime problem is bicycle thefts. The detailed findings of the ICVS survey showthat England and Wales are top of the international league for car thefts with 2.6% of all car owners suffering the loss of their vehicle in the previous 12 months. In other sorts of car crime, England was second only to Poland.
Australia and then England and Wales had the highest burglary rates and rates for violent crimes such as robbery, assault and sexual assault "
the result of the backward thinking of the home office is the brutalizing of its helpless citizens... helpless to defend themselves against the strong and the vicious... a trajic example of "form over substance"... "let them eat cake" The lawless run england... In America... 3,000,000 such crimes are prevented by firearms... citizens have freedom and dignity one good thing about englands crime rate.... they have, obviously by necessity, learned to care for the traumatized, humiliated and injured victims...guess that's something
-
IMO gun control laws do nothing except make it tougher for law-abiding citizens to get guns.
Criminals don't follow laws to begin with so making new and/or tougher ones does not affect them.
-
we don't need less guns... we need more severe penalties for acting badly with guns.. The result would be more unarmed criminals facing more armed ciizens.
lazs
"Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Friday February 23, 2001
The Guardian
England and Wales have one of the worst crime records in the industrialised world - even worse than America - according to the findings of an official survey published yesterday which compares the experience of victims across 17 countries.
The study, coordinated by the Dutch ministry of justice, shows England and Wales at the top of the world league with Australia as the countries where you are most likely to become a victim of crime. These countries face an annual rate of 58 crimes for every 100 inhabitants.
The findings, based on interviews with 35,000 people about their experience of crime across the 17 countries, were carried out last year. They are a blow to Labour's record and underline the challenge facing Tony Blair when he marks the launch of Labour's 10-year anti-crime plan next Monday by becoming the first serving prime minister to visit a prison.
The 2000 International Crime Victimisation survey shows that the falls in crime recorded since the mid-1990s in England and Wales are part of a general pattern of falling crime across the industrialised world but, unlike America, crime levels in England and Wales are still higher than they were at the end of the 1980s. When the survey was last carried out in 1996, England and Wales also topped the league table with 61 offences per 100 inhabitants.
The survey does show, however, that Britain has the best services when it comes to looking after the victims of crime, but it also shows we have a tougher approach to punishing criminals. Asked what should be done with a burglar convicted of stealing a colour television for a second time, more than 50% in England and Wales said he or she should be sent to prison for two years. Only 7% in Spain and 12% in France thought he or she should be jailed at all.
People were asked whether they had been victims of a range of 11 different offences in the previous 12 months, including violent and sexual assault, car crime, burglary and consumer fraud.
The survey also shows that Scotland, with 43 offences per 100 inhabitants, ranks joint fifth alongside America in the international crime league behind England, Australia, the Netherlands and Sweden. Northern Ireland has the second best crime record of the countries surveyed, with 24 offences per 100 inhabitants - the same rate as Switzerland and only just above Japan where the biggest crime problem is bicycle thefts. The detailed findings of the ICVS survey showthat England and Wales are top of the international league for car thefts with 2.6% of all car owners suffering the loss of their vehicle in the previous 12 months. In other sorts of car crime, England was second only to Poland.
Australia and then England and Wales had the highest burglary rates and rates for violent crimes such as robbery, assault and sexual assault "
the result of the backward thinking of the home office is the brutalizing of its helpless citizens... helpless to defend themselves against the strong and the vicious... a trajic example of "form over substance"... "let them eat cake" The lawless run england... In America... 3,000,000 such crimes are prevented by firearms... citizens have freedom and dignity one good thing about englands crime rate.... they have, obviously by necessity, learned to care for the traumatized, humiliated and injured victims...guess that's something
-
'zactly.. that and more immediate consequences .
-
Yep... make it a "one strike law"... mandatory 10 years added to any violent crime where a firearm is used. criminals would stop using guns at quik stop robberies and petty stuff... also.... make it easier to have a "right to carry" so that the criminals would have a higher chance of running into an armed citizen when they tried a strongarm on an ATM patron or when they attemted a rape. If they get caught with a gun they get screwed... if a citizen stops em with a gun... everyone applause... the way it should be.
lazs
"Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Friday February 23, 2001
The Guardian
England and Wales have one of the worst crime records in the industrialised world - even worse than America - according to the findings of an official survey published yesterday which compares the experience of victims across 17 countries.
The study, coordinated by the Dutch ministry of justice, shows England and Wales at the top of the world league with Australia as the countries where you are most likely to become a victim of crime. These countries face an annual rate of 58 crimes for every 100 inhabitants.
The findings, based on interviews with 35,000 people about their experience of crime across the 17 countries, were carried out last year. They are a blow to Labour's record and underline the challenge facing Tony Blair when he marks the launch of Labour's 10-year anti-crime plan next Monday by becoming the first serving prime minister to visit a prison.
The 2000 International Crime Victimisation survey shows that the falls in crime recorded since the mid-1990s in England and Wales are part of a general pattern of falling crime across the industrialised world but, unlike America, crime levels in England and Wales are still higher than they were at the end of the 1980s. When the survey was last carried out in 1996, England and Wales also topped the league table with 61 offences per 100 inhabitants.
The survey does show, however, that Britain has the best services when it comes to looking after the victims of crime, but it also shows we have a tougher approach to punishing criminals. Asked what should be done with a burglar convicted of stealing a colour television for a second time, more than 50% in England and Wales said he or she should be sent to prison for two years. Only 7% in Spain and 12% in France thought he or she should be jailed at all.
People were asked whether they had been victims of a range of 11 different offences in the previous 12 months, including violent and sexual assault, car crime, burglary and consumer fraud.
The survey also shows that Scotland, with 43 offences per 100 inhabitants, ranks joint fifth alongside America in the international crime league behind England, Australia, the Netherlands and Sweden. Northern Ireland has the second best crime record of the countries surveyed, with 24 offences per 100 inhabitants - the same rate as Switzerland and only just above Japan where the biggest crime problem is bicycle thefts. The detailed findings of the ICVS survey showthat England and Wales are top of the international league for car thefts with 2.6% of all car owners suffering the loss of their vehicle in the previous 12 months. In other sorts of car crime, England was second only to Poland.
Australia and then England and Wales had the highest burglary rates and rates for violent crimes such as robbery, assault and sexual assault "
the result of the backward thinking of the home office is the brutalizing of its helpless citizens... helpless to defend themselves against the strong and the vicious... a trajic example of "form over substance"... "let them eat cake" The lawless run england... In America... 3,000,000 such crimes are prevented by firearms each year... citizens have freedom and dignity one good thing about englands crime rate.... they have, obviously by necessity, learned to care for the traumatized, humiliated and injured victims...guess that's something