StarDestroyer.Net BBS

General Zod wrote:

Formless wrote: So, lets hear it. What information do you have that doesn't boil down to a conviction that guns are dangerous?

Exactly what metric are you using to define "dangerous" anyway?

Causes a danger to yourself or others perhaps.

What one would you suggest?

It's also ignoring the possiblity that criminals are using guns because they are the better weapon. If knifes were better, professional criminals would use them instead. So you ignored the evidence I linked to before. Way to go, it just makes you look daft rather than proving any point you may have...

For Aleyska and HDS - Actually I was talking about gun clubs, as that's how it's mainly done over here (that cultural bias creeping in I'm afraid). That said I hadn't really considered the whole 'wide open spaces' problem. But I have no problem with them being properly and securely stored. My main p...

And why buy a machete when the average kitchen has a variety of knives, all of them more than adequate for mayhem and death? Knives are ubiquitous. Knives are much more easily obtained than guns, so it's not lack of access to knives that make them less likely weapons than guns. I personally think i...

Personal weapons 2........................... 5.9 5.6 6.7 6.9 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.5 6.1 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.9 6.1 6.4 6.7 I've dealt with the table itself in answer to another post, but can I just say how funny I found it that personal weapons are defined as 'Hands, fists, feet, etc.' :lol:

Edit: a good control would be to look at statistical data from a country that isn't the US, or to compare the likelihood of death from a stabbing VS a shooting. Something like this you mean. in the UK where guns are harder to get. knives are the weapons of choice. Well gosh it's almost as if what I...

How the hell can anyone argue that it's not easier to kill a person with a gun than with a knife? If a kid went around with a knife trying to do a school shooting, but with a knife instead of a gun, someone could just grab a chair to defend himself with against a knife-wielding nut because the knif...

In all probability he could have still done a lot of damage . And that's just one example. If someone wants to kill people, just taking away guns won't stop them, or necessarily limit the number of potential deaths. It'll prevent deaths over range, but how many shootings have happened beyond 5m+ ? ...

I am not blaming guns for all of the murders or the reasons for it. In fact, I am going to come right out and say that owning a gun does not prove one is a murderer. However, given all of the other factors including poverty, drugs, crime etc., why give people a deadly option? Why should people have...

fgalkin wrote:I thought the correct proclamation was "Yo, chef! Where's my steak?"

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I never made it as far as Steak Chef. Just trusted not to burn toast, chips and the occasional vegetable.

Holy shit it's Rob Wilson! I think you'll find the correct proclaimation is "LO! The Sun hath risen in mine world! Let men cheer in triumph and women scream in ecstacy! It is the great and noble Rob Wilson!" But I'll let you off, it's been a while since anyone's had to proclaim it... I be...

It's Wilson! Congratulations! Yes. Yes it is. Looking as dashing as always I'm sure I can bribe you to agree. :) Lonestar, perhaps the child in you left. :P I like the stormtrooper shirt. He swore he was on the pill, I should never have trusted him. Got himself down to his pre-pregnancy weight quic...

Lonestar wrote:I know it was said in The Mess, but I feel it needs repeating:


You look good in white Rob.

I always knew I could pull off the bare-shouldered look.

So I got married in 2009, then spent a great deal of time being busy Here's me and my beautiful wife Hazel http://www.robertwilson12.webspace.virginmedia.com/Photos/HR-1090a.JPG And here's us enjoying non-alchoholic bubbly drinks next to the vintage Rolls Royce. http://www.robertwilson12.webspace.vi...

Rob! You're back! Are you going to be around for a bit or are you going to disappear for another few years? I'm kinda surprised no one has figured this out yet, but Rob does not actually exist. He's a creature generated by the imagination of the Mess. Yeah, it's a drag taking a turn as Rob, but it ...

J wrote:Rob! You're back!

Are you going to be around for a bit or are you going to disappear for another few years?

Disappearing until december.

My wife declined to come. Do have a shot of Rob's date. Didn't get a shot of Wilkens's wife. Not going to put up the pic unless Rob okays it though. Go for it, I'm sure others have pics of us as well from the quick trip to new york. Now if you'll excuse me *throws down smoke bomb* ROB AWAY. *Newbie...

The idea behind this has merit, there is however an obvious solution. Rather than create a new post, why not simply have the person that starts a vote Pm everyone else to let them know it's happening?

This would of course mean finding a way to do mass PM's efficiently.

I would also whole-heartedly approve of the second proposal, though I'm rather more reserved about the first. The PM system seems to be working just fine. Starship also PMed me, and I like the sound of the second (to a degree), but can't really find any merit to the first as a seperate Forum, the B...

OK then, this'll get put in now. *sigh* you realise this now means I have to come up with a punny title for the entry... the work I do for you people, no appreciation.*mutter* *mumble* *grumble* :P Done, it's now the new rule 3, the rest following have been renumbered. Also I changed the punny titl...

OK then, this'll get put in now.

*sigh* you realise this now means I have to come up with a punny title for the entry... the work I do for you people, no appreciation.*mutter* *mumble* *grumble*

I'm in general agreement with the 90 day temporary hold on consideration for either member to avoid any chance of confusion or appearence of influence. Personally I think just a senate review of that persons suitability would do the job. But then I never considered the 'Martyr' scenario that chuck ...

It might be well at some point to put up the list of those permanently barred from nomination to the Senate, as it would be easy (given enough time) to forget just who isn't qualified on the basis of a previous rule violation. I know such a roll is probably kept by the moderators of this forum but ...

OK guys, this was decided in July and yet the relevant part hasn't been changed... I know governments are slow, but this is silly. You made a decision, how about implementing it? :P I should also point out that the rule was written that way to removve the Appearance of cronyism in the Senate. So no ...

No one has to explain why they voted the way they did. If they felt the reason why was only of consequence to themselves (eg. that the rule was fine, or previous objections covered their own) then why should they be asked to explain their vote? There is an inherent expectation of Privacy in an anony...