🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <38F49F23.57AD9510@Disney.com>,
Colossal the Undignified  <ThePitsofHell@Disney.com> wrote:
>C8H18 wrote:
>> Ahh.. Our good old Nazi friend from the cursed north.  Good to see 
>the troll still lives under the bridge.
>
>He never said guns were a bad thing, he just pointed out the whole irony
>of maintaining safety around a tool that was designed for warfare and
>killing.

However, in the past he has held such a smallminded view on the subject
that I have begun to disregard all things he has said on the subject.

>He's not necessarily from the north either.  I've lived in the south all
>my life (and always hated the close minded conservatism that seems to
>permeate it) and the same irony came to my mind.

I realize this, but also in the past he has made comments that back the 
statements I have made up.  *I* for one would love to live in some of the
more rural areas of the north.

-- 
Matt 'Comatose Raspberry' Hufstetler - gt2778a@prism.gatech.edu
-- Preacher - 0     ||    Darwin 1    --

C8H18 wrote:

> I realize this, but also in the past he has made comments that back the
> statements I have made up.  *I* for one would love to live in some of the
> more rural areas of the north.

I agree.  After all, the North tends to more tolerant -- example:  Vermont.
Certain things are not issues up there -- they are accepting of them and
don't have massive debates on the legislation of morality.
-Eric

In article <38F4D5C1.1F18DEEA@prism.gatech.edu>,
Eric Woods  <gte165j@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>C8H18 wrote:
>
>> I realize this, but also in the past he has made comments that back the
>> statements I have made up.  *I* for one would love to live in some of the
>> more rural areas of the north.
>I agree.  After all, the North tends to more tolerant -- example:  Vermont.
>Certain things are not issues up there -- they are accepting of them and
>don't have massive debates on the legislation of morality.

I wouldn't go as far to say that the North as a whole tends to be more 
tolerant.  But Vermont is definantly is one of the cooler places.

MH
-- 
Matt 'Comatose Raspberry' Hufstetler - gt2778a@prism.gatech.edu
-- Preacher - 0     ||    Darwin 1    --

In git.general Colossal the Undignified <ThePitsofHell@disney.com> wrote:

> C8H18 wrote:
>> Ahh.. Our good old Nazi friend from the cursed north.  Good to see >the troll still lives under the bridge.

> He never said guns were a bad thing, he just pointed out the whole irony
> of maintaining safety around a tool that was designed for warfare and
> killing.

Nah, I really was fishing for trolls. :)  However, you are right that the
reason for me writing that phrase was the irony of it all. As Rodney
pointed out, guns are meant to kill.  There is no other use.  I am not
advocating gun control either.  Just point out the obvious.

> He's not necessarily from the north either.  I've lived in the south all
> my life (and always hated the close minded conservatism that seems to
> permeate it) and the same irony came to my mind.

You're new, aren't you?  Of course I am from the North, damn straight.  In
fact, I am writing this post from the fucked-up state of Massachusetts. At
least here in the North we have open minded liberal girls (never, *ever*,
go out with a Southern bapist!) :)

Ivan

-- 
why would you need my info?

Question, who is teaching the class, what are their cretdentials?
What's the $20 for, it is the fee which keeps me from attending.  
Too bad, I'd love to push the "self-destruct" button on a beretta (yes
they have one, they fall apart when it is pushed) it is that worthless
firearms only nice feature.  And there a couple of rifles I'd have liked
to have checked the scopes on, getting them would have entailed a long
drive anyway.

I've taken a couple of firearms safety classes anyway.  I would advise
anyone reguardless of their views on gun control, to take this or a
similar class at some point.  Weather you have your own armory or never
plan to so much as fire a gun in your life, there is no harm in knowing
proper safety procedures.

Now in one of the many replys to the initial thread someone stated
something about "Guns are designed to kill".  Guns are tools designed to
rapidly accelerate a small mass to high speeds, in a set direction.  This
basic design is refined to sereve a several roles.  Some such as the
Browning M2 are infact designed only to take human life.  Others such as
the Ruger M77 series are purely for for sport hunting (Ruger, possibly the
best firearm manufacture in thw world, great tech support).  Some are for
competive shooting, example the sig hammerli. Still others are
multipurpose such as the Ithaca Model 37 can fill more than 1 role.  


Now to address why humans are better hunters then tigers, boy did this
thread decay went from a public service to this,  humans have por hearing,
bad eyesight, and a near worthless sense of smell relative to most other
animals.  What has alouded us to survive is out ability to adapt and
divise methods to counter act our shortcommings.  A human hunter with
say,.. a remington 700 BDL (stainless steel) chambered to 7mm Rem. Mag.,
made by humans, can take say a deer sized creature at a range of 500
yards, up hill, without the prey even knowing the human's there (based on
a shoot I witnessed).  Where as the tiger must 1 sneak up on its prey,
chase its prey down and kill it.  Advantage:  Slow, poor sensory equipted,
weak human.  The human mind it what makes possible for us to survive,
lets face it, without our intellect were just walking pizzas for any
large preditor out there that wants a meal.   

Kieran
gt8419b
I really would have loved to see the reaction at the range, where everyone
is plinking away with 9mm's (worthless round), and 38' when I start
sighting in a 300 Win. Mag.. 



In git.general College Republicans <dsadmcr@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
: The College Republicans are holding a Gun Safety Class and Fun Shoot this
: Saturday (April 15th) at 10:00am in the Microelectronics Research Building.
: This event is open to all students.  The purpose of the class in to teach
: students how to handle, store, and operate firearms safely.  We will have a
: variety of guns for people to use as well.  The class will last about an
: hour and a half after which we will break for lunch and head over to an
: outdoor range.  Carpools can be arranged.  The only thing you need to
: provide is some kind of eye protection such as a pair of sunglasses.  The
: guns, ammuntion, targets, and hearing protection will be provided by the
: club but you can bring your own guns if you have them.  There is a $20
: charge for the class.

: If you wish to sign up or you have any further questions you can email
: Jon Magid at gt3807a@prism.gatech.edu








-- 
"Small people, causal remarks, and little things very often
shape our lives more powerfully then the deliberate, solemn advice
of great people at critical moments."   -Sir Winston Churchill

Kieran Edward Fletcher
Internet: gt8419b@prism.gatech.edu		
				

Ivan Brusic wrote:

> You're new, aren't you?  Of course I am from the North, damn straight.  In
> fact, I am writing this post from the fucked-up state of Massachusetts. At
> least here in the North we have open minded liberal girls (never, *ever*,
> go out with a Southern bapist!) :)

Amen!  At the risk of being branded a traitor and a heretic, this Southerner agrees that Northern women are much
better, and are very open-minded and fun.

Eric Woods wrote:
> Amen!  At the risk of being branded a traitor and a heretic, this 
>Southerner agrees that Northern women are much better, and are very 
>open-minded and fun.

You won't get an argument out of me on that point.

-- 
"The Lord kicks ass in mysterious ways"  -Good vs. Evil

On 12 Apr 2000 21:17:42 GMT, Capablanca
<Mikhail.Tal@young.grandmaster.com> wrote:


> Guns were designed
>for the purposes of war, and they are still used in that context
>ONLY.

How does shooting a paper target or clay pigeon fit into the context
of war?

> Well, I am being innaccurate: they are also used for hunting. But
>since there is no real danger when you're hunting of accidentally killing
>anyone, the gun safety lessons wouldn't be necessary, would they?
>
You obviously do not know much about hunting and some of the yahoos
you could encounter in the woods who regularly kill themselves or
their hunting partners.

Firearms safety lessons are necessary to insure that you only shoot at
the target that you intend to hit.  Practice insures that you hit it.

Alan T.

Kieran Edward Fletcher wrote:

> A human hunter with say,.. a remington 700 BDL (stainless steel) chambered to
> 7mm Rem. Mag., made by humans, can take say a deer sized creature at a range of
> 500 yards, up hill, without the prey even knowing the human's there (based on
> a shoot I witnessed).  Where as the tiger must 1 sneak up on its prey,
> chase its prey down and kill it.  Advantage:  Slow, poor sensory equipted,
> weak human.  The human mind it what makes possible for us to survive,
> lets face it, without our intellect were just walking pizzas for any
> large preditor out there that wants a meal.

I would very much like to see somebody shoot a deer at 500 yards.  That is a very
irresponsible and unethical thing to do.  Nobody should ever take a shot at an
animal more than 300 yards away.  Most people do not know the long range
ballistics involed; such as the the average 40" drop of the round when it is
sighted in at 200 yards, or the amount of downrange energy that it as at 500
yards (though I am sure it is more than ample) or 18" in drift that a 10mph wind
woud have.  Surely no person should ever ethically shoot at an animal beyond 300
yards, the capability of most people in hunting situations with hunting rifles.
I have been shooting for 18+ years and know the implications here.  The margin of
error on the vitals on a deer at 500 yards is huge, who would want to track that
animal for possible days, especially since the 7mm mag will more than likely pass
straight through and not even expand on the animal, 7mm mag is not something for
deer sized game, especially tiny 120# deer here in GA, that moron should take
this class.

> Kieran
> gt8419b
> I really would have loved to see the reaction at the range, where everyone
> is plinking away with 9mm's (worthless round), and 38' when I start
> sighting in a 300 Win. Mag..

> And now the 9mm round is worthless.  That is why it is one of the most popular
> rounds in the world and has been through countless wars, police use, and self
> defense situations.  The 9mm is an excellent round.  I doubt you even know the
> difference between a FMJ and a hollow point round.  Many debates have been made
> over the 9mm round, it is by far one of the most popular to drug dealers,
> criminals and thieves, who can buy cheap "saturday night specials" chambered in
> 9mm, then buy the cheapest ammunition that they can buy, FMJ rounds (which with
> a 9mm normally just pass through the body causing no damage that is why people
> unload theirs on others) making people call it "worthless".  A JHP 9mm 115
> grain round made by Cor-Bon loaded with +P ammunition is one of the most
> effective cartridges out there for police and self defense with an approximate
> 92% effectiveness with a one shot stop, and rates right up there with .40 S&W
> .45 ACP and .357 SIG, nor only that the 9mm loaded right is right up there with
> a .357 mag ballistically.  The military is limited FMJ rounds because of
> various conventions and treaties, besides why kill a man in combat when you can
> incapacitate him and then have 2 or 3 other soldiers remove him from the
> battlefield so that he can be treated for his wounds.  You have no idea what
> you're even talking about.  I'd like to see you shoot a .300 mag load, then go
> home and cry to mommy because you're shoulder hurts after firing a few rounds,
> I bet you know mere names and have never even shot one.

>

>
> In git.general College Republicans <dsadmcr@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> : The College Republicans are holding a Gun Safety Class and Fun Shoot this
> : Saturday (April 15th) at 10:00am in the Microelectronics Research Building.
> : This event is open to all students.  The purpose of the class in to teach
> : students how to handle, store, and operate firearms safely.  We will have a
> : variety of guns for people to use as well.  The class will last about an
> : hour and a half after which we will break for lunch and head over to an
> : outdoor range.  Carpools can be arranged.  The only thing you need to
> : provide is some kind of eye protection such as a pair of sunglasses.  The
> : guns, ammuntion, targets, and hearing protection will be provided by the
> : club but you can bring your own guns if you have them.  There is a $20
> : charge for the class.
>
> : If you wish to sign up or you have any further questions you can email
> : Jon Magid at gt3807a@prism.gatech.edu
>
> --
> "Small people, causal remarks, and little things very often
> shape our lives more powerfully then the deliberate, solemn advice
> of great people at critical moments."   -Sir Winston Churchill
>
> Kieran Edward Fletcher
> Internet: gt8419b@prism.gatech.edu
>

Kieran Edward Fletcher (gt8419b@prism.gatech.edu) said something kinda like:
> Question, who is teaching the class, what are their cretdentials?
> What's the $20 for, it is the fee which keeps me from attending.  

I'd imagine that a large portion of the fee goes towards ammo and 
range fees....


Mike

In article <8d2p5m$q1h@catapult.gatech.edu>,
Capablanca  <Mikhail.Tal@young.grandmaster.com> wrote:
>But
>since there is no real danger when you're hunting of accidentally killing
>anyone, the gun safety lessons wouldn't be necessary, would they?

.grin
A hunter safety course is required to get a hunting license.

MH

-- 
Matt 'Comatose Raspberry' Hufstetler - gt2778a@prism.gatech.edu
-- Preacher - 0     ||    Darwin 1    --

Folowups fixed

In article <8d21v8$lqb@catapult.gatech.edu>,
Capablanca  <Mikhail.Tal@young.grandmaster.com> wrote:
>
[...humans are designed to kill...]
>
>We are? I don't think so. If we really were better killers than tigers, we should be
>able to take on a tiger in a closed room with no weapons. Note the *no weapons*
>part. 

We designed the weapons, made the weapons, did we not?   Besides the
silliness of this little comparison (locked in a room and whatnot) in the
real world we have at our disposal what we have created.  The fact that
we're better at creating killing devices than the tiger doesn't mean we
shouldn't have them at our disposal.  That wouldn't be a fair fight...

Not that I'm advocating killing tigers.

>We have learned to survive. That doesn't mean that we were designed to
kill. We
>were designed to think. Deal with *that*.

To the extent that we were designed to do anything, we were designed to
think about how to survive.  A big part of that is thinking about how to
kill.  Thinking is a means to an end wrt what we were "designed" for.  

Of course, there's nothing saying we have to do what we were "designed"
for.

-- 
-R. Adam Moore   Hopeful Romantic   _     "Let me kiss your mind,
 ram@havoc.gtf.org              |\/|_)     bathe your soul..."
                                |  |-\      -Me'Shell N'deg�Ocello
 "I guess that's arousing." --Tha (Todd), to Nate

In article <8d2p5m$q1h@catapult.gatech.edu>,
Capablanca  <Mikhail.Tal@young.grandmaster.com> wrote:
>
>purposes of war, and are now used in other contexts. Guns were designed
>for the purposes of war, 

That's debatable, but not terribly important

>and they are still used in that context
>ONLY. Well, I am being innaccurate: 

Yes, you are.

>they are also used for hunting. 

And self-defense.  And sport. Perhaps we can think of others, although
these are sufficient.

>But
>since there is no real danger when you're hunting of accidentally killing
>anyone, 

Are you mental?

>So, yes, we are better killers. 

FTR, your original claim was that we were not better killers.

-- 
-R. Adam Moore   Hopeful Romantic   _     "Let me kiss your mind,
 ram@havoc.gtf.org              |\/|_)     bathe your soul..."
                                |  |-\      -Me'Shell N'deg�Ocello
 "I guess that's arousing." --Tha (Todd), to Nate

again with the follow-ups...

>Colossal the Undignified wrote:
>> He's not necessarily from the north either.  I've lived in the south all

well, except that he _is_ from the North...

-- 
-R. Adam Moore   Hopeful Romantic   _     "Let me kiss your mind,
 ram@havoc.gtf.org              |\/|_)     bathe your soul..."
                                |  |-\      -Me'Shell N'deg�Ocello
 "I guess that's arousing." --Tha (Todd), to Nate

In git.events Kieran Edward Fletcher <gt8419b@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
: Now to address why humans are better hunters then tigers, boy did this
: thread decay went from a public service to this,  humans have por hearing,
: bad eyesight, and a near worthless sense of smell relative to most other
: animals.  What has alouded us to survive is out ability to adapt and
: divise methods to counter act our shortcommings.  

So, where did this view that humans were lesser ever come in. The fact
that humans are bred and trained to completely ignore all senses but their
sight is not something that has / had to be the case. People are capable
of some very impressive stuff. The human is a very capable hunting machine
without all sorts of tools. Admittedly, it is not designed to hunt large
animals... On the other hand, pit a tiger (why tigers by the by? there
are certainly beast which could outhunt a tiger) and a tick against each
other and find out who outhunts the other first. I guarantee that the tick
strikes first blood... ;-) But the point is that a skill factor
(especially in killing) depends upon the scale which is being referred
to... Humans are very adept at killing meals which are a great meal size
for them.... (fish come to mind immediately) basically what i am saying is
that if you take away a human's technology base, they are still very adept
at killing just on a different scale than a tiger. on the other hand i
think there can be no question that humans with thecnology are the most
efficient killing machine ever, (this includes viruses and bacteria) and i
would say this was manifested in the atomic bomb and its descendants...


lalala

--
Matthew Simmons
Email: gte850h@prism.gatech.edu

"Michael Phillips" <gt5773b@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in message

> I would very much like to see somebody shoot a deer at 500 yards.  That is
a very
> irresponsible and unethical thing to do.  Nobody should ever take a shot
at an
> animal more than 300 yards away.  Most people do not know the long range

 I argue that there aren't many deer in GA you'll see at 500 yards (or
further) to drop. How many wooded areas have you been to that have open
spaces a half mile long? Shooting elk, however, is a different matter
entirely. Sometimes you can't get within 200 yards, so 4 and 5 hundred yard
shots are much more common. (out on the tundra)

> woud have.  Surely no person should ever ethically shoot at an animal
beyond 300
> yards, the capability of most people in hunting situations with hunting
rifles.

I'd feel safer downrange at 500 yards than standing behind most people with
most rifles. When you're shooting at a target 500 yards away, forget timing
shots between breaths- you're timing shots between heartbeats.

> I have been shooting for 18+ years and know the implications here.  The
margin of
> error on the vitals on a deer at 500 yards is huge, who would want to
track that
> animal for possible days, especially since the 7mm mag will more than
likely pass
> straight through and not even expand on the animal, 7mm mag is not
something for
> deer sized game, especially tiny 120# deer here in GA, that moron should
take
> this class.

 I agree completely. However, you and I both know that anyone out killing
deer in GA with a 7mm mag or a .300 win mag is killing a fly with a 50 pound
sledge. (as a side note, I'm quote partial to my .270 for deer and a .45-70
gov't for everything else.)

Capablanca <Mikhail.Tal@young.grandmaster.com> wrote in message
news:8d2p5m$q1h@catapult.gatech.edu...
> Guns were designed
> for the purposes of war, and they are still used in that context
> ONLY.

Wrong.

> Well, I am being innaccurate: they are also used for hunting.

Hunting. Of course. It's interesting that gun grabbers always emphasize
recreational use of guns, as if it were the only legitimate reason for
private ownership. If I were cynical, I'd suspect that the reason you do
this is to give yourselves an excuse to ban private ownership of all
guns not specifically designed for hunting. This rules out most (all?)
easily concealable handguns. Once they're gone, the government is free
to commence seizing wealth (not that it doesn't do it already, but on a
larger scale), implementing a socialist "paradise," and in general
riding roughshod over inidividual rights. I'm sure that you'd never want
to do that, though.

Never mind that most people who own guns own them in part or exclusively
for self defense. The police are there to protect us. Never mind that a
criminal won't wait for the police to arrive, and never mind that the
time when guns are most urgently needed is when the police themselves
are the threat. Everyone knows that guns are used only for war, crime,
and hunting.

> But
> since there is no real danger when you're hunting of accidentally
killing
> anyone, the gun safety lessons wouldn't be necessary, would they?

There most certainly is; that's exactly why we have gun safety lessons.

--
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Brandon Berg $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
             Capitalist Pig and Godless Heretic

Armed people are free. No state can control those who have
the machinery and the will to resist; no mob can take their
liberty and property. --L. Neil Smith

Am 13 Apr 2000 19:03:10 GMT schrieb sol:
>What's he going to do, ... Go hunting? 

You're not from South Georgia, are you? :)

-- 
Stevie Strickland                    |  325912 Georgia Tech Station
sstrickl@angband.org                 |  Georgia Institute of Technology
http://angband.org/~sstrickl         |  Atlanta, GA 30332
Official Debian GNU/Linux Developer  |  CS 233[01] TA

In git.general Gedankenpolizist <sstrickl@angband.org> wrote:
> Am 13 Apr 2000 19:03:10 GMT schrieb sol:
>>What's he going to do, ... Go hunting? 

> You're not from South Georgia, are you? :)

Nope.  Boston.  :)  

-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2330 TA | It meant the world to hold a
Georgia Institute of Technology | Bruising faith.
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | Now it's just a matter of grace.
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | - Smashing Pumpkins

In git.general A young Drew Barrymore <ram@havoc.gtf.org> wrote:
> In article <8d2p5m$q1h@catapult.gatech.edu>,
> Capablanca  <Mikhail.Tal@young.grandmaster.com> wrote:
>>purposes of war, and are now used in other contexts. Guns were designed
>>for the purposes of war, 
> That's debatable, but not terribly important

War...not terribly important?  Whatever floats your boat...

>>and they are still used in that context
>>ONLY. Well, I am being innaccurate: 
> Yes, you are.

Ah, more of that newsgroup patience I keep hearing so much about...

>>they are also used for hunting. 
> And self-defense.  And sport. Perhaps we can think of others, although
> these are sufficient.

>>But
>>since there is no real danger when you're hunting of accidentally killing
>>anyone, 
> Are you mental?

#define sarcasm

Alright, everybody aboard the logic train.  Yes, _everybody_.  Now, what can we
use guns for?
War.
Hunting.
Sport.
Self-defense.
Target practice.

Great.  We've found some uses for it.  Hold on.  War, hunting, sport, and
self-defense all lead to killing things.  That's not that good...And target
practice...well, there's the old adage "Practice makes perfect."  The more time
you spend shooting a gun, the more efficient you'll be when it comes time
to...kill...something.  Oh.  Oops.  Well, damn.  I think we've discovered the
purpose of guns, haven't we?  Guns cause pain, suffering and death.  The only
way that they do any good still requires someone else to get hurt.  Am I
advocating the banning of guns?  No.  If you think so, you should learn to
read.  But I'm not a fan of ignorance.  And closed minded thinking.  Everyone
needs to remember what the sole purpose of a gun is.  The hurting of another,
whether it be human, or otherwise.

-- 
"Hey Pickle!  Want to come out here in the hallway and help me giftwrap a 
vibrator?"
	-Data Vortex

In git.general pickle@vortex.psiu.cx wrote:

> That's not that good...And target
> practice...well, there's the old adage "Practice makes perfect."  The more time
> you spend shooting a gun, the more efficient you'll be when it comes time
> to...kill...something.  

Not true. I don't hunt, and don't have any guns for self-protection, yet I
shot competitively for many years.  Target shooting is about developing
self-control and timing, not getting ready to kill something.


-- 
It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in
our air and water that are doing it.

		-- Dan Quayle

In git.general Affordable Firepower <dan@angband.org> wrote:
> In git.general pickle@vortex.psiu.cx wrote:

>> That's not that good...And target
>> practice...well, there's the old adage "Practice makes perfect."  The more time
>> you spend shooting a gun, the more efficient you'll be when it comes time
>> to...kill...something.  

> Not true. I don't hunt, and don't have any guns for self-protection, yet I
> shot competitively for many years.  Target shooting is about developing
> self-control and timing, not getting ready to kill something.

A valiant use of your firearms.  Trouble is, I've never really understood what
the point of competitive shooting is.  Shooting just to show proficiency.  And
nothing else?  A part of me feels that's a little ineffecient in the use of
your talents, but to each his own, I guess.  

-- 
"Hey Pickle!  Want to come out here in the hallway and help me giftwrap a 
vibrator?"
	-Data Vortex

In git.general pickle@vortex.psiu.cx wrote:

> A valiant use of your firearms.  Trouble is, I've never really understood what
> the point of competitive shooting is.  Shooting just to show proficiency.  And
> nothing else?  A part of me feels that's a little ineffecient in the use of
> your talents, but to each his own, I guess.  

As opposed to say, Basketball, golf or soccer, right? What's the point of
ANY sport?

DAn


-- 
War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.

Then maybe later on he could run for president or something.... that
would work out just great!!

> >> I would rather that my son be in college during a draft.
> 
> > just one thing to point out,  you can no longer get out of the draft by
> > being in college.
> 
> In that case, I would rather that my son be in Canada during a draft.
-- 
ICQ#: 3897666   | A conclusion is the place 
IM:   peace3i9  | where you got tired of thinking.

In git.general sol <solomon@angband.org> wrote:

:> : Why on earth does a child that young need a gun?

:> To change the channel?

: Only if he's Elvis and that damn Robert Goulet comes on.

I was thinking more along the lines of Homer Simpson, but that works too.

-G

-- 
Grant T. Michalski
- Senior - School of Chemical Engineering
- Georgia Institute of Technology
- grant@angband.org

In article <8d4jil$8c$1@news-int.gatech.edu>, sol  <solomon@angband.org> wrote:
:In git.general TRVolk <gt2623a@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
:> I was 8 years old when I received my first rifle from my father, 10 when I
:> received my first shotgun, and 11 when I received my first handgun.  Each
:> time I was drilled in the proper use of the weapon and flicking the safety
:> off and on became second nature.  I will pass the same knowledge to my son
:> as he grows as well.
:Why on earth does a child that young need a gun?

Why not?  Unless he does something illegal with it there shouldn't be a 
problem.

MH

-- 
Matt 'Comatose Raspberry' Hufstetler - gt2778a@prism.gatech.edu
-- Preacher - 0     ||    Darwin 1    --

In git.general TRVolk <gt2623a@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> In article Bruce Labbate <8d4jil$8c$1@news-int.gatech.edu>, sol
> <solomon@angband.org> wrote:
>>
>>Why on earth does a child that young need a gun?

> Safety training!  What do you think the subject of this thread is?  

One does not need to own a gun in order to learn safety training.  

> Since my son will probably start hunting when he is 12, I want him to have
> as much experience handling weapons as he can get, not to mention shooting
> on his high school's rifle team if he is so inclined (and there still is a
> team).  When a boy turns 8, he is old enough to put away the kiddy toys
> and start learning to use the tools of a grown man.

Ah yes, the mature and wizened age of 8.  When a man truly becomes a
man.  Hell, I'm surprised he'd have time to learn to use a gun.  After
all, he should have had a full-time job for at least a year or two at
that point.  

And believe it or not, a huge number of grown men don't use guns.  They
don't consider them to be "tools."  Tools to do what?  Kill?  That's all
that guns are used for.  That's all they're designed for.  I'd rather be
the type of grown man who doesn't always have an implement of death
around at all times.  

What if your son doesn't want to start hunting when he's 12?  I
certainly didn't.  

> Further, just in case the draft is reinstated at some time in the future
> and my boy is involved, I definitely want him to be as experienced with
> weapons as he can be.

I would rather that my son be in college during a draft.  

> My son was 3 when I taught him to use a computer.  Why on earth does a
> child that young need one of those?

3 might be a bit young for a computer, but probably not.  Depends what
you're teaching him on it.  A computer can teach a child many many
wonderful things.  

A gun teaches a child how to kill.  

-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2330 TA | A dream of soft-focused sunsets 
Georgia Institute of Technology | Filters through the din
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | We are losing contact
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | As she dials it in - Smashing Pumpkins

In git.general C8H18 <octane@shaft.shaftnet.org> wrote:
> In article <8d4jil$8c$1@news-int.gatech.edu>, sol  <solomon@angband.org> wrote:
> :In git.general TRVolk <gt2623a@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> :> I was 8 years old when I received my first rifle from my father, 10 when I
> :> received my first shotgun, and 11 when I received my first handgun.  Each
> :> time I was drilled in the proper use of the weapon and flicking the safety
> :> off and on became second nature.  I will pass the same knowledge to my son
> :> as he grows as well.
> :Why on earth does a child that young need a gun?

> Why not?  Unless he does something illegal with it there shouldn't be a 
> problem.

Kinda hard for him to do anything illegal with it if he doesn't have
one.

-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2330 TA | Although you threw away my name
Georgia Institute of Technology | From your mind I have to try
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | Although my heart is bruised by 
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | Your words sometimes - Sunny Day

In git.announce sol <solomon@angband.org> wrote:
> Kinda hard for him to do anything illegal with it if he doesn't have
> one.

still doesn't change the fact that as long as he's not doing anything
illegal it doesn't make a damn bit of diffrence why he has the gun..

marvin
-- 
byron thibodeaux jr.
 marvin@shaftnet.org                             CS Junior, Georgia Tech

In git.general marvin <marvin@shaftnet.org> wrote:
> In git.announce sol <solomon@angband.org> wrote:
>> Kinda hard for him to do anything illegal with it if he doesn't have
>> one.

> still doesn't change the fact that as long as he's not doing anything
> illegal it doesn't make a damn bit of diffrence why he has the gun..

Nor does it change the fact that an 8 year old with a gun is much more
liable to accidentally hurt someone than a grown man with a gun.  

-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2330 TA | It meant the world to hold a
Georgia Institute of Technology | Bruising faith.
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | Now it's just a matter of grace.
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | - Smashing Pumpkins

Realize that some people don't lead sheltered lives, such as many of you do.
People are raised differently, my father taught me how to respect firearms and
what they can do at the young age of 4.  But then again I grew up the son of a
Naval Officer, not some sheltered little boy that couldn't wipe his own ass
until he was 12.

sol wrote:

> In git.general TRVolk <gt2623a@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > In article Bruce Labbate <8d4jil$8c$1@news-int.gatech.edu>, sol
> > <solomon@angband.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>Why on earth does a child that young need a gun?
>
> > Safety training!  What do you think the subject of this thread is?
>
> One does not need to own a gun in order to learn safety training.
>
> > Since my son will probably start hunting when he is 12, I want him to have
> > as much experience handling weapons as he can get, not to mention shooting
> > on his high school's rifle team if he is so inclined (and there still is a
> > team).  When a boy turns 8, he is old enough to put away the kiddy toys
> > and start learning to use the tools of a grown man.
>
> Ah yes, the mature and wizened age of 8.  When a man truly becomes a
> man.  Hell, I'm surprised he'd have time to learn to use a gun.  After
> all, he should have had a full-time job for at least a year or two at
> that point.
>
> And believe it or not, a huge number of grown men don't use guns.  They
> don't consider them to be "tools."  Tools to do what?  Kill?  That's all
> that guns are used for.  That's all they're designed for.  I'd rather be
> the type of grown man who doesn't always have an implement of death
> around at all times.
>
> What if your son doesn't want to start hunting when he's 12?  I
> certainly didn't.
>
> > Further, just in case the draft is reinstated at some time in the future
> > and my boy is involved, I definitely want him to be as experienced with
> > weapons as he can be.
>
> I would rather that my son be in college during a draft.
>
> > My son was 3 when I taught him to use a computer.  Why on earth does a
> > child that young need one of those?
>
> 3 might be a bit young for a computer, but probably not.  Depends what
> you're teaching him on it.  A computer can teach a child many many
> wonderful things.
>
> A gun teaches a child how to kill.
>
> --
> Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2330 TA | A dream of soft-focused sunsets
> Georgia Institute of Technology | Filters through the din
> Phone:  (404)206-4210           | We are losing contact
> Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | As she dials it in - Smashing Pumpkins

In git.general Michael Phillips <gt5773b@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> Realize that some people don't lead sheltered lives, such as many of you do.

Realize that not having a gun at age 8 doesn't make you sheltered, and
having one doesn't make you a man.  

I completely agree with your father teaching you respect and safety
regarding firearms at an early age.  4 may be a bit too young, but you
could obviously handle it.  I just don't agree with a child that young
having general access to any sort of gun beyond the lessons.  

Some children do not learn well, and some parents do not teach well.
Either of those things can lead to a very unpleasant accident.

> People are raised differently, my father taught me how to respect firearms and
> what they can do at the young age of 4.  But then again I grew up the son of a
> Naval Officer, not some sheltered little boy that couldn't wipe his own ass
> until he was 12.

Now then, don't get uppity cause you're the son of a naval officer.  The
armed forces, in general, are far from comprehensive or openminded about
their teachings and ideals.  That's the way we, as a country, want it
(whether we admit it or not).  But that means that there are a _lot_ of
things that you can't learn in the Navy.  

I understand you know virtually nothing about me, but don't make the
mistake of thinking I've led a sheltered life.  ;)

-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2330 TA | Although you threw away my name
Georgia Institute of Technology | From your mind I have to try
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | Although my heart is bruised by 
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | Your words sometimes - Sunny Day

Why did sol say in git.general:
) Some children do not learn well, and some parents do not teach well.
) Either of those things can lead to a very unpleasant accident.

Such as the time the neighborhood kid with the bb gun aimed it at my
brother's head, saying, "oh, it's okay, it's not loaded."

Then fired aross the yard, and put a hole in his mother's laundry.

("Well, Mom and Dad told me _never_ to aim it at a person, but it doesn't
matter if it's not loaded!")

Yes, I agree with the importantce of gun safety--but some kids aren't to
be trusted around sharp spoons, much less guns of any sort.

gzb
-- 
	Moving right along, in search of good times and good news...
	With good friends you can't lose--this could become a habit.	
				--from the _Muppet_Movie_

In article <8d4v4k$6an$4@news-int.gatech.edu>,
sol  <solomon@angband.org> wrote:
>> still doesn't change the fact that as long as he's not doing anything
>> illegal it doesn't make a damn bit of diffrence why he has the gun..
>Nor does it change the fact that an 8 year old with a gun is much more
>liable to accidentally hurt someone than a grown man with a gun.  

Again.  I claim that it doesn't matter.

MH
-- 
Matt 'Comatose Raspberry' Hufstetler - gt2778a@prism.gatech.edu
-- Preacher - 0     ||    Darwin 1    --

In git.general C8H18 <octane@shaft.shaftnet.org> wrote:
> In article <8d4v4k$6an$4@news-int.gatech.edu>,
> sol  <solomon@angband.org> wrote:
>>> still doesn't change the fact that as long as he's not doing anything
>>> illegal it doesn't make a damn bit of diffrence why he has the gun..
>>Nor does it change the fact that an 8 year old with a gun is much more
>>liable to accidentally hurt someone than a grown man with a gun.  

> Again.  I claim that it doesn't matter.

And again, you don't give a good reason.    "It's not illegal" is not a
good reason.  There are plenty of things that aren't illegal that should
be, and that are but shoudn't be.
-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2330 TA | For the first time, I'm telling you
Georgia Institute of Technology | How much I need and bleed for 
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | Your every move and waking sound.
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | - Smashing Pumpkins

In article <8d53dk$8mo$2@news-int.gatech.edu>,
sol  <solomon@angband.org> wrote:
:And again, you don't give a good reason.    "It's not illegal" is not a
:good reason.  There are plenty of things that aren't illegal that should
:be, and that are but shoudn't be.

?? How does this reasoning go?  If he isn't harming anyone or destroying
property that isn't his, why should he not have a gun?  There isn't a
good reason to proscribe his liberty, and until there is, he should be
free to do as he wants.

I'm interested in hearing what you think should be illegal but isn't.

MH

-- 
Matt 'Comatose Raspberry' Hufstetler - gt2778a@prism.gatech.edu
-- Preacher - 0     ||    Darwin 1    --

sol <solomon@angband.org> wrote in message
news:8d4tvc$5u8$1@news-int.gatech.edu...

> > Further, just in case the draft is reinstated at some time in the future
> > and my boy is involved, I definitely want him to be as experienced with
> > weapons as he can be.
>
> I would rather that my son be in college during a draft.

just one thing to point out,  you can no longer get out of the draft by
being in college.

-Dan

In git.general Dan Bennett <gte606p@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> sol <solomon@angband.org> wrote in message
> news:8d4tvc$5u8$1@news-int.gatech.edu...

>> > Further, just in case the draft is reinstated at some time in the future
>> > and my boy is involved, I definitely want him to be as experienced with
>> > weapons as he can be.
>>
>> I would rather that my son be in college during a draft.

> just one thing to point out,  you can no longer get out of the draft by
> being in college.

In that case, I would rather that my son be in Canada during a draft.

-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2330 TA | Look ma, the sun is shining on me 
Georgia Institute of Technology | Impatient, in love, and aching to be
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | Could you believe in heaven if
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | Heaven was all you had? - Smashing Pumpkins

In git.general C8H18 <octane@shaft.shaftnet.org> wrote:
> In article <8d53dk$8mo$2@news-int.gatech.edu>,
> sol  <solomon@angband.org> wrote:
> :And again, you don't give a good reason.    "It's not illegal" is not a
> :good reason.  There are plenty of things that aren't illegal that should
> :be, and that are but shoudn't be.

> ?? How does this reasoning go?  If he isn't harming anyone or destroying
> property that isn't his, why should he not have a gun?  There isn't a
> good reason to proscribe his liberty, and until there is, he should be
> free to do as he wants.

Because the probability of him hurting another person is great enough
that it outweighs whatever practical reason there might be for an 8 year
old to have a gun.  

What's he going to do, protect his family during a break-in?  Go
hunting?  I have no problem with a responsible adult having a gun, but
an 8 year old simply should not have access to one.  Oh wait, I know.
He needs the gun so that he can be part of a properly maintained
militia, right?
 
> I'm interested in hearing what you think should be illegal but isn't.

Ideally?  Well, 8 year olds having access to guns.  Actually, civilian
ownership of any sort of firearm at all, until our country grows up.  

-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2330 TA | She had a suitcase
Georgia Institute of Technology | Full of fumbles and near-misses
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | She was swinging through a jungle of
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | Last calls and first kisses - Ani

In git.announce Dan Bennett <gte606p@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> I would rather that my son be in college during a draft.
> just one thing to point out,  you can no longer get out of the draft by
> being in college.

even as of the last draft the only thing being in college bought you was
the ability to claim a deferment, whereby you could not be drafted untill
after you graduated, but at the point you were required to enter the armed
forces and serve.

marvin
-- 
byron thibodeaux jr.
 marvin@shaftnet.org                             CS Junior, Georgia Tech

In git.announce Capablanca <Mikhail.Tal@young.grandmaster.com> wrote:
> We are? I don't think so. If we really were better killers than tigers, we should be
> able to take on a tiger in a closed room with no weapons. Note the *no weapons*
> part. We have learned to survive. That doesn't mean that we were designed to kill. We
> were designed to think. Deal with *that*.

dominant preditaor != dominant bare hand fighter...to take away our
intelegance/innovation in such a manner would be akin to declawing the
tiger... 

marvin
-- 
byron thibodeaux jr.
 marvin@shaftnet.org                             CS Junior, Georgia Tech

In git.announce Capablanca <Mikhail.Tal@young.grandmaster.com> wrote:
> ONLY. Well, I am being innaccurate: they are also used for hunting. But
> since there is no real danger when you're hunting of accidentally killing
> anyone, the gun safety lessons wouldn't be necessary, would they?

you haven't been hunting much, have you?

there is very real danger of accidentally hurting someone while hunting,
especially if you are not hunting alone...

marvin
-- 
byron thibodeaux jr.
 marvin@shaftnet.org                             CS Junior, Georgia Tech

In git.announce Colossal the Undignified <ThePitsofHell@disney.com> wrote:
> He never said guns were a bad thing, he just pointed out the whole irony
> of maintaining safety around a tool that was designed for warfare and
> killing.

are you dense? the whole point of gun safety training is that you only
hit(kill) what you are intending to hit(kill). The lethality of a gun to
me makes it all the more necacary that one be trained on properly using a
gun...

marvin
-- 
byron thibodeaux jr.
 marvin@shaftnet.org                             CS Junior, Georgia Tech

In git.general marvin <marvin@shaftnet.org> wrote:
> In git.announce Capablanca <Mikhail.Tal@young.grandmaster.com> wrote:
>> We are? I don't think so. If we really were better killers than tigers, we should be
>> able to take on a tiger in a closed room with no weapons. Note the *no weapons*
>> part. We have learned to survive. That doesn't mean that we were designed to kill. We
>> were designed to think. Deal with *that*.

> dominant preditaor != dominant bare hand fighter...to take away our
> intelegance/innovation in such a manner would be akin to declawing the
> tiger... 

But then again, look at the definition of predator.  That's not what we
are anymore.  Or rather, I should amend that.  By the technical
definition of predator, we fit the bill.  We plunder/pillage/kill/eat
other species and cultures.  But I don't think we fit the connotation of
the word.  
We don't hunt and kill (with some individual exeptions).  On an
individual basis, we are not predators, we are not built for killing.
As an entire species?  I have to admit that yes, we are.  We, as a
species, slaughter and eat huge amounts of prey.  Our culture is built
for killing.  Armies, guns, slaughterhouses ...

I'm rambling.
-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2330 TA | Those days are gone now and we must
Georgia Institute of Technology | Move forward still. But I will
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | Not forget the things I understood 
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | At your windowsill - Mineral

In git.general Colossal the Undignified <ThePitsofHell@disney.com> wrote:


> C8H18 wrote:
>> Ahh.. Our good old Nazi friend from the cursed north.  Good to see >the troll still lives under the bridge.

> He never said guns were a bad thing, he just pointed out the whole irony
> of maintaining safety around a tool that was designed for warfare and
> killing.

Somebody doesn't understand the definition of irony.  Irony would be
having a long series of classes on the topic of maintaining proper
safety around a non-flammable pillow.  

Personally, I think that people who own guns should not be trained in
regards to their safety.  They should be allowed to haphazardly mess
around and learn for themselves.  In crowded public places, if possible.

-- 
Bruce Labbate  CS Jr  cs2330 TA | Into the flower the cryptic movement
Georgia Institute of Technology | Slipback kills the ancient remnants 
Phone:  (404)206-4210           | That try to hold on.
Email:  bruce@cc.gatech.edu     | - Smashing Pumpkins

In git.announce Capablanca <Mikhail.Tal@young.grandmaster.com> alleged:

-> 1. I have no idea what the second paragraph had to do with
-> anything. However, I'll mention that computers were designed for the
-> purposes of war, and are now used in other contexts. Guns were designed
-> for the purposes of war, and they are still used in that context
-> ONLY. Well, I am being innaccurate: they are also used for hunting. But
-> since there is no real danger when you're hunting of accidentally killing
-> anyone, the gun safety lessons wouldn't be necessary, would they?

The last statement you made is among the very stupidest I have ever seen
in writing.  Of course there is a danger when hunting of accidentally
killing someone.  In fact, it happens far too frequently.

-> 2. The first paragraph, on the other hand, is more intersting. You are
-> right, strength of body is not the only thing to be taken into
-> account. However, if you think about it, we really have *no* natural
-> weapons (offensive, or defensive --a skunk comes to mind--). The only
-> thing we have is our brain and our hands, which allow us to *create what
-> we need*. We were designed to create. That we applied that power towards
-> killing each other is another story. So, yes, we are better killers. But
-> not because we were designed as such, but because we became such.

The design of our brain makes us better killers.  Therefore, we are designed
to be better killers.  Have you ever watched other animals (from microbes
on up)?  They often eat each other.  In order to truly thrive, you need
to become so powerful that you don't fear the other predators unduly.  There
are a number of ways to do this, but man's method was to become the dominant
predator on the planet.  We became such because we were designed to.

-- 
John Cronin

In git.announce Matthew Simmons <gte850h@prism.gatech.edu> alleged:
-> In git.events Kieran Edward Fletcher <gt8419b@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
-> : Now to address why humans are better hunters then tigers, boy did this
-> : thread decay went from a public service to this,  humans have por hearing,
-> : bad eyesight, and a near worthless sense of smell relative to most other
-> : animals.  What has alouded us to survive is out ability to adapt and
-> : divise methods to counter act our shortcommings.  

-> So, where did this view that humans were lesser ever come in. The fact
-> that humans are bred and trained to completely ignore all senses but their
-> sight is not something that has / had to be the case. People are capable
-> of some very impressive stuff. The human is a very capable hunting machine
-> without all sorts of tools. Admittedly, it is not designed to hunt large
-> animals... On the other hand, pit a tiger (why tigers by the by? there
-> are certainly beast which could outhunt a tiger)

Because everybody knows what one is, agrees it is a decent hunter, would
be alarmed to be hunted by one, etc.  Because a tiger, unlike a tick, ends
it's hunt with a fairly quick death.  Because it was useful for my argument.

-> and a tick against each
-> other and find out who outhunts the other first. I guarantee that the tick
-> strikes first blood... ;-) But the point is that a skill factor
-> (especially in killing) depends upon the scale which is being referred
-> to... Humans are very adept at killing meals which are a great meal size
-> for them.... (fish come to mind immediately) basically what i am saying is
-> that if you take away a human's technology base, they are still very adept
-> at killing just on a different scale than a tiger. on the other hand i
-> think there can be no question that humans with thecnology are the most
-> efficient killing machine ever, (this includes viruses and bacteria) and i
-> would say this was manifested in the atomic bomb and its descendants...

And the use of chemicals, virii and bacteria as well, the latter of which,
with genetic engineering, are in many ways more frightening than any bomb...

-- 
John Cronin

jsc3@dontspamme.havoc.gtf.gatech.edu wrote:
> 
> The last statement you made is among the very stupidest I have ever seen
> in writing.  Of course there is a danger when hunting of accidentally
> killing someone.  In fact, it happens far too frequently.

  I can top it...
  Flashing lights and sirens are noticed in the Armstrong parking lot.
Oh my.. someone is getting towed.  Oh wonderful, they're finally going
to get whoever parks illegally in the yellow lines in the middle of
the lot, thereby making it a pain in the butt to get around in the lot.

  Right?

  Nope... parking goes and toes someone parked in a spot.  Maybe that
person didn't have a permit, but at least he was parked in a LEGAL SPOT.

  Oooh... that REALLY REALLY ticked me off.  I know.. sure, maybe the
guy parked illegally had a permit and the guy who was towed didn't, 
but come on... either get both or back off.

  Chris

-- 
Out the 10Base-T, through the router, down the T1, over the leased line,
off the bridge, past the firewall...nothing but Net.

Chris Holmes <cholmes@surfsouth.com> wrote
> Flashing lights and sirens are noticed in the Armstrong
> parking lot.

Parking uses sirens? That is a direct contravention of OCGA 40-8-70(b)

In article <8d2a5n$i5s$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
 John Cronin <jsc3@dontspamme.havoc.gtf.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>A tool for killing is the kind of thing I would most seek to maintain
>safety around.


This is why guns are equipped with a SAFETY, a small switch that can
prevent the inadvertant firing of the weapon.

Firearms safety courses teach that the SAFETY should not be disengaged
until just before firing and then reset immediately after firing.

I was 8 years old when I received my first rifle from my father, 10 when I
received my first shotgun, and 11 when I received my first handgun.  Each
time I was drilled in the proper use of the weapon and flicking the safety
off and on became second nature.  I will pass the same knowledge to my son
as he grows as well.


-- 
trvolk@mail.com