Omar

I will never understand why this stuff bothers people. There's nothing to worry about unless you're committing crimes. [bleep]. You. Yeah, we're just gonna randomly search your house. Don't worry, there's nothing to worry about unless you're actually committing a crime. You look funny. We're taking you down to the station and searching you. Don't worry, unless there's nothing to worry about unless you actually commit a crime. Following your logic, that's also acceptable. "Any society willing to give up a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither and lose both." I like this quote too. Now, granted, providing studies there are studies that show that video cameras prevent crime, I'm ok with cameras. Although, it does make me wonder - are there studies on how effective video cameras are at crime prevention, and if so, what do they say? Putting cameras in public places does not impede on your rights or liberties. Every store in the world has security cameras but people hardly notice those. What makes this any different? Store owners have property rights on their store, so they do whatever they want with it. The state has no such rights--all its property is taxed, i.e. stolen or taken under threat of imprisonment.

I'd rather things like this bombing simply go unreported as well since it does nothing but spread fear and irrationality. Finally! Somebody gets it! If you think of the media as a business, it doesn't make any sense not to do these--it's an appeal to charity. He's right, of course. The best you can do is tune out and not support those news sources that do this.

Compromise is when both parties leave disappointed.

I would expect a 3D printer to be far more versatile than a hacksaw. I don't have one of those, but I imagine it won't be long before I have a 3D printer--not necessarily to print guns with, but maybe guitar picks or Lego.

^Thinking of getting a bachelor's after I finish my Ph. D. in economics.

Do you suppose that shop tools couldn't be similarly produced using shop tools? You could, if by similarly you mean notwithstanding the fact that I have none of the necessary human capital, let alone the time. I'm looking at the RepRap wiki right now, and I can't tell if all the parts can be printed or not.

You can have a printer paradox if you go back in time.

The production process isn't different per se, but it's a lot harder to regulate considering you can print a printer.

It's certainly not there yet. That being said, the printing technology is getting better rapidly. This isn't coming out tomorrow, but can you see this happening in say, 20 years?

How do you regulate guns made with 3D printers? I doubt the political sphere will catch on nearly quick enough (too much focus on the short term). [Edit] I'm an anarchist and I'm still a bit chilled by the video. It's like a cyberpunk film, except it's not a fiction.

We're not being very helpful, sorry bedman :lol:

Challenge her dad to a Yu-Gi-Oh! duel.

That's all to much pursuing, muggi--the net should be trying to go under/over/around you.

I question this myself sometimes. I put the ball in her court to call me back. She didn't. I could have left it at that, but I ended up calling her to apologize for being so mad all the time. I don't think I'll be hanging around her or talking to her again though. At least that's what I'm trying for. I really don't need the triggers she sets off all the time. The window of happiness I had with her seems to have locked shut. That's not how cutting contact works. There is no ball. And if you put the ball in her court (something you do when you don't want to cut contact but want to affirm authority) and she doesn't hit it back, you don't go under the net, grab the ball and try again. It just makes you look flip-floppity.

Rpg why are you still in contact with her?

I won't bother clarifying. Call me a fool or whatever you will, but I know exactly what's happening for me and I wouldn't change a damn thing. He's not questioning what you're doing I think, just asking a general question out of curiosity. @Lang: So I imagine you've found your answers for every section of that list, correct?

As a matter of fact, our store of natural resources is increasing. The way I understand the word, a resource is a means to an end. In this sense, the definition of a resource is not related to its physical properties but to its integration in the purposeful action of humans. Bitumen is not, intrinsically, a resource; it is the fact that a subject believes it can be used as a means to some end that makes it a resource. In this sense, we had oil prior to 1900, but it was no resource at the time; it was only when we learned how to extract it, use it, and economize other resources (such as labour) that it itself became a resource.

No, you haven't. You haven't controlled for other factors and you can't prove the decrease in gun crime wouldn't have been steeper hadn't it been for this law. Neither did Berenice. Why are you applying this to one side of the argument only, and not the other? If we go by what you say, then we should just skip the last two pages and stop the thread now because technically, none of it has been absolutely and categorically proven to true. We could also assume good faith for argument's sake. I specifically told both of you to ditch the empirical evidence unless you wanted to dig into econometric studies on the matter earlier.

No, you haven't. You haven't controlled for other factors and you can't prove the decrease in gun crime wouldn't have been steeper hadn't it been for this law.

Correlation isn't causation, ditch the empirical evidence or argue with John Lott's model (if you're pro-control) or Black and Nagin's (if you're anti).

That's more of challenging the idea of community, which I would disagree with. We need community to survive. But do you need a relationship to have a community?

Ginger, my point was that when the police is present, they are implicitly threatening the use of force on anyone who breaks the law (which isn't wrong in and of itself). Of course, the police are no deterrent when they're not there. I hope this clarifies things but this is as good a stab in the dark as I can make...

Ginger, I have no idea what you're trying to say...

Okay, I'll be more specific and then we can drop this: the police draws their strength from the use of force, direct or indirect. They're constantly using that threat. I don't see how this is a controversial claim, and in any case I was responding to Lang's claim that they only used guns (provided they have some) in cases of emergency.

I wasn't making an argument for or against gun control at all, just saying it wasn't true that the police very rarely use their guns. They're using them all the time. That's what makes them the police.