venomai

My post was directed at Zierro's statements. Zierro argued that it is safer for society to eliminate such convicts (murderers, etc) rather than let them "go free" (i.e. be released) as to ensure that they can no longer re-offend in a way that directly harms society. Obviously, if Zierro was referring only to true life in prison, there would be no problem of recividism (except in the extremely rare cases of escape) and thus his argument would be moot. What?

Zierro: After releasing any serious offender, whether it be a murderer or a simple car thief, there is always the possibility that they will re-offend. Killing these convicts to ensure that they do not re-offend, however, is not a very reasonable solution to the problem of recidivism. This is a blunt and primitive tool; it brushes the problem under the carpet. We would inevitably end up killing hundreds of thousands of people who would not have otherwise re-offended. If capital punishment was shown to be effective at reducing murder rates, I may support it, but this is not the case.[1]

Something you could try that would still keep the text interesting: 1. Remove the blue strips 2. Make the white part taller so that January isn't getting so cut off. 3. Make "2009" white and move it up so that it looks like it's part of the white strip (like what you have now, but attached to the white instead of the blue). Also, don't cut it off so much. Even if this is done, I can still see the piece looking rather boring. Minimalist work should still have something of interest to look at.

Is this a joke? :lol:

All persons of age should have the freedom to smoke cigarettes in their own home as well as in open places. The government is not our nanny -- if an adult wishes to, say, eat fatty foods -- even after the health risks are made clear to them -- we should allow them to do so without any sort of legal consequences. Birth after a certain age greatly increases "defects." Ought that to be illegal as well?

Those drinking a couple glasses a day would say the same about their habit. It is a desire to them, not a need. They desire a beer to reduce their stress just as you desire a beer to increase fun. Both are habitual activities that may or may not include a "psychological dependence." I know some people who show irritability, stress and other 'withdrawal symptoms' after abstaining from getting drunk/high over the week. Here is another link with plenty of info: http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholAndHealth.html This goes for all types of alcohol, but wine in particular (red and white).[1]

I don't think he meant people who self-medicate their stress everyday when he said "binge drinkers". Those are your partiers who drink in aims to have a night-to[-not]-remember, not in aims to calm their nerves and chill out which can be done naturally instead. I guess you can argue that partying could be a form of self-medicating your stress though. And aiming to black out by overdosing on alcohol is much better? I'm not sure I see Ginger's logic. Binge drinking and self-medicating with alcohol are both "bad habits" that have the potential to create problems in the long-run, but a drink or two a day is actually benefitial to your health and longevity, whereas frequent binge drinking is not.

I frequently drink for taste alone -- beer and wine at dinner is not uncommon in my family. A cold Canadian or European beer is probably one of my favourite beverages. Bars host a wide selection of alcoholic drinks for a reason. Most people aren't choosing their drink on the basis of eeny-meeny-miny-moe. ;) For most who are somewhat experienced with alcohol, taste is an important factor even when drinking to get drunk. This is the primary reason why people are drinking 10 pints of Stella over, say, buck-a-beers or box wine. Stella is delicious but also expensive. While I agree that self-medicating stress with a drink or two is not a good thing, how can it be worse than self-medicating your stress with several drinks over the same period of time? What's wrong with orange slices? I've had Sleeman Cream Ale served to me with orange. It's a great Canadian beer and the orange adds a nice touch (just like lime with coke). I agree with your earlier statement, though. "I've also tried tons of micro-brewery beers and imports (Corona & Labatt Blue to drop a couple names)." :lol:

The presentation of a piece is just important as its production. Get off your high horse -- your clients shouldn't have to resize the image themselves just to properly view your work in their browser/monitor. Also, why is the silhouette so aliased? It looks great, though. :thumbup: Very professional.

The composition is pretty poor. Needs work on focal point, depth, 'flow' (eye movement), colour, organization. As a whole, the sig is uninteresting. My advice would be to learn the elements of design, colour theory, etc. Random brushing will only get you so far.

Awesome first. :thumbup: I'd say: - Increase contrast with more highlights and shadows - Use bigger brushes when smoothing (flatten and simplify) - Spice up the lighting with 'radiosity' and light bounces from the environment[1] - Don't forget to clean your edges and such (even if it's just a quick cleanup)

Yep. Probably using Java Web Start.

About to start programming the beast. I've decided to write it in Java, using JMonkeyEngine. Here's a (very) basic start to the 'grid', with shadows turned on and without anti-aliasing.

Thanks guys. Added licensing information. :) 1. This is just a pitch, so there's no code yet. 2. Like I said, I'm planning on using Python and OGRE. For GUI I would be using Flash and ActionScript. But I may end up writing the game in Java instead. 3. The screenshot depicts what it looks like in real-time, i.e. "in game."

Sure, if it ever gets to that point. :lol:

PIRACY: THE GAME (working title) Design The game is set in the near future, where illegal peer-to-peer sharing, or "piracy," has become a widespread problem for copyright holders. Some of the larger corporations have created bots, known as 'freebots' (play on freebooter), to harvest hundreds of shared files from secured locations across the web. In PIRACY, you lead the life of a young freebot, fighting your way past secured network channels, "copyright police," and many dangerous traps (e.g. firewalls) in order to acquire the "loot" (the files). The game will be in third-person and will be mostly focused on ranged combat (pistols). Enemies will consist of wall turrets, network traps and the slow-witted "copyright police." Rendering will be cartoonish, perhaps even cel-shaded. The environment will be extremely simple, consisting of little more than a maze of gray cubes (the "network channels"). Subtle quirks will be added to create an element of humour. Instead of a life bar, for example, the user will be concerned with their "Connection Strength." Enemies will attempt to disconnect you from the channel by weakening your signal strength. In later levels you will be able to improve your signal strength by signing on with better wireless providers. The game will be programmed in Python. GUI will be created with Flash and ActionScript. OGRE will be used for the rendering engine. Concept Art Some of the sketches that started the idea. Background and logo are temporary placeholders. Clean reference for character modeling. (With Polly The Dead Parrot?) Modeling A real-time screenshot of a simple knife (skinned). Still trying to figure out the lighting for the real-time viewport... Level Design The game's level editor will be very easy to work with. Users will be able to create their own levels and share them with others. Although the levels will be maze-like, an "objective trail" will be (optionally) visible to guide you to the finish point (aka. "X marks the spot"). Dead-ends can be skipped, but they are useful for acquiring bonus points, unlockable content, pickups, etc. Here is a quick sketch to give you a feel of a miniature level: Legend: License The source code will be provided under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 license. Feel free to leave comments, ideas, suggestions, criticism, etc. EDIT: Progress Currently working on a simple level editor: Currently done: [*:25rgoemv]Camera work [*:25rgoemv]Marker movement, selecting different tiles [*:25rgoemv]Top-down view that can be toggled [*:25rgoemv]An editor window for camera elevation, offset, etc.

Heh, this has gone on a lot longer than it should have. Probably for the best that we put an end to it. :lol:

Unlicensed private sale of firearms is permitted by law in many states (including transfer between friends and family). Even in states where this is not technically permitted, the gun lobby tends to still call such people "law-abiding citizens." The 1996 study shows a significant effect (reduced supply in the secondary market) over a span of two years. This isn't decades we're talking about. Yes, there's more to intimidation than just lethality. But generally, people will be more intimidated by the threat of a gunshot wound than a stab wound because the former is so much more lethal. Thus, generally, a more lethal weapon is a more intimidating weapon. Sure, but this has nothing to do with our earlier argument. Yes, more effort is inevitable, such as having to swing your whole arm instead of just pulling a trigger. However, this doesn't refute the claim that knife crime tends to be less lethal than gun crime. Again, this is irrelevant to the argument in question. The argument is that gun crime leads to more lethal outcomes, and so a reduction of gun crime, even if it is substituted by an increase in knife crime, would lead to less homicides. Stating this and that about self-defense does not address my claims. (And yes, in most countries, criminals, terrorists, etc. tend to use more lethal and more destructive weapons than citizens.) As well as hunting, recreational shooting, military training, use in security forces, etc. The problem with this logic is that: a) Full prohibition, as you've pointed out yourself with the American Prohibition, is often counterproductive. B) The effects of stricter control, while not "immediate," take effect quite quickly (see above study). But these are the types of crimes that I'm talking about; crimes that would have very different outcomes had they been committed with a less lethal weapon. These types of crimes comprise of a significant portion of all homicides. While it may not be the criminal's original intent to kill or harm the victim, he certainly does have intent to harm/kill at the moment the trigger is pulled. (See below.) Your argument has never said anything about the "success" of the shot. Your argument has always assumed that, if a criminal shoots a loaded gun at a person -- regardless of the outcome -- the criminal must have an intent to kill. This understanding is based on what you've been writing over the past several pages. You've even repeated this same notion in the quote above. Like I've been saying for pages now, I agree with you for the most part. If somebody aims a loaded gun at somebody and pulls the trigger, it seems reasonable to conclude that, in doing so, they intended to seriously harm and perhaps even kill their target. This is true in both of the carjacking examples I've presented to you.

First; many if not most of the secondary market users are "law-abiding citizens." Secondary market includes any unregulated transfer of firearms, from retail outlets to flea shops to gun shows. Second; the supply of the secondary market is dependent on the primary market. Guns are manufactured and sold in the primary market, and then, over time, many of them are transferred to the secondary market. If supply in the primary market is cut (e.g. less guns are manufactured and sold), then less guns will be transferred to the secondary market, and thus the supply in the secondary market will be reduced. This is what happened in the 1996 study I linked to. You're ignoring one crucial aspect of gun control; the fact that it aims to remove guns from criminals. As I've explained above, and as the study points out, if we enforce stricter control of the primary market, the secondary market has no choice but to follow. Firearm self-defense may be desirable, but that doesn't always make it worthwhile. Most people do not fear guns. We see police officers carrying them all the time. However, we do fear guns when they are pointed at us. Likewise, we do not fear trucks, but we may fear a truck if it was driving toward us. I sure hope grandma isn't near-sighted. :lol: Since the elderly are not used as the sample group in these studies, this point is irrelevant. (a) Care to elaborate? (B) This is irrelevant to the argument in question. Umm... No. You'd have to be a fool to think that full prohibition of all firearms equates to a mere removal of the right for citizens to own handguns and assault rifles. How many times must I say this? I'm not proposing full prohibition. It depends entirely on the distance and obstacles (e.g. car window) between the victim and assailant. But that isn't the point. The point is: even after the criminal hits the victim, he generally won't continue to if the goods have been secured. For the past several pages we have been talking about homicides (murders) that were not premeditated. For example, if the victim in example B was to die before paramedics arrived, which is more often the case in gunshot wounds, the crime would be considered a "murder" (or homicide), but not a "premeditated murder." Not according to your earlier claims. And I really don't see what you're arguing. The intent at the moment the criminal pulls the trigger will be the same regardless of whether the shot "suceeds." Obviously, this is because, at that moment in time, the criminal doesn't know whether or not the shot will "succeed." This too contradicts your earlier statement. "Obviously they didn't have the intent to kill in that situation since the guy with the gun doesn't try to ensure death..." The situations in which death is not ensured (i.e. non-premeditated murders) are the situations we are discussing.

Lower supply in the primary market will lead to lower supply in the secondary. Demand in the secondary market may rise significantly if the attitude of law-abiding citizens is unchanged, but even so, high demand in the secondary market will not lead to higher supply. For example, a 1996 study by Weil and Knox concluded that restricting handgun purchases to 1 per month (in the primary market) was an "effective means" of disrupting trafficking and supply in the secondary market.[1] There is a very fundamental difference between wanting strict regulation and wanting immediate prohibition. I am arguing for both a change in laws as well as a change in attitude (brought about by changes in education, media, etc). Eventually, once the demand (and supply) of handguns and assault rifles is low enough, full prohibition of private ownership of such firearms may be applicable. But, at this point, it would be foolish to propose full prohibition. Like I said, criminals "generally pick the most lethal weapon that is readily available to them." This is often because the most lethal weapon (a gun) tends to be the most intimidating. That you bring up children in your "these groups need self-defense the most" argument seems to imply that you wish to arm them. You're missing my point, though. These two groups are among the easiest for criminals to physically disarm, i.e. take the weapon from. Guns are more lethal than knives and generally lead to more lethal outcomes. Whether or not "that's all there is to it," from it we can infer that a reduction in gun crime, even if it is substituted by an increase in knife crime (which has not shown to be the case[2, Appendix C]), would lead to a reduction in homicide rate. "That's not all there is to it" is a weak evasion to my points. If there are specific factors that directly contradict the above argument, I'd like to hear them. What a stretch. Removing firearm self-defense from citizens does not equate to full prohibition of firearms. You're missing the point, though. The reason I brought up these prohibitions (DUI, drugs, stabbings) was because you claimed that "you don't see them banning those things," which, obviously, is incorrect. This is not arguing semantics, this is refuting your claim directly. I'm not surprised. They didn't come to kill the victim, they came to steal the goods. Sure it did. Let's say we use a knife instead... In example A, the criminal swings his knife and misses, but it's enough to scare off the victim. Does he then chase after the victim and stab him to death? No, not usually. In example B, the criminal swings his knife and hits. The victim, injured and submissive, is pulled out of the car. Does he continue to stab the victim to death? No, not usually. He gets in the car and drives away. Which happens all the time... You're contradicting your earlier claims: shooting a loaded weapon at a person equates to intent kill. See the knife examples above. It's easy to replace guns with knives, but that doesn't mean the outcome will necessarily be as fatal. The exceptions, of course, are cases like premeditated murder, where death usually is ensured.

Control the primary (regulated) market and the secondary (unregulated) market will have no choice but to follow. Changes in the primary market will lead to changes in the secondary market. And I am not proposing a mere prohibition of all guns akin to, say, the failures of the American Prohibition or the Drug War. In what way? --- I'm the one arguing semantics? :lol: It's a very simple concept: criminals prefer to use guns to intimidate because they are seen as more intimidating weapons by the vast majority of their victims. Children and the elderly defending themselves with guns? So much for your "strict testing." :lol: These two groups are among those easiest to disarm. Like I said, we may as well be handing guns directly to the criminals. Although there will always be factors that can influence outcomes, and although there are always going to be exceptions, guns are generally much more lethal weapons than knives. What part of this don't you understand? Really? I wouldn't have guessed. :roll: It seems you've already forgotten your last argument (which my earlier statement was directed at). "Yeah but you don't see them banning those things..." I'm not proposing a prohibition of guns in the style of the American Prohibition of Alcohol. We've covered this pages ago. Often, the reason many criminals "give up" trying to kill their victim is because murder isn't what they came for. Also, it generally isn't in their interest to have a civilian death on their hands. As an example, say a carjacker shoots his gun with the intention of seriously harming (perhaps even killing) his victim. The shot misses, but it's enough to scare the victim off, leaving the car free to be taken. Does the carjacker then chase after the victim and shoot him down? No, not usually. He's there for the car, not the victim. Now let's say the victim was hit by the bullet. The victim, injured, becomes submissive and falls out of the car and onto the ground, leaving the car free to be taken. Does the carjacker then shoot and kill the incapacitated victim now lying on the ground? No, not usually. The carjacker gets in the car and drives away. The car, not the victim, is what he came for. See above. Pulling the trigger may be "going through" with an intent to harm/kill, but rarely do we see the criminal ensuring that this intent is carried through to the fullest (i.e. ensuring the victim's death).

In the vast majority of cases, guns are seen as more intimidating than knives. Whether there exists a small minority of people who are more intimidated by knives is irrelevant. And you propose we arm these groups with firearms? We may as well be handing the firearms directly to the criminals... Although there are always many factors to consider, on average, guns are more lethal than knives in that they lead to more lethal outcomes. Even with factors such as noise and concealment differences, which would likely contribute to an increase in knife crime mortality, knife crime still generally leads to less lethal outcomes than gun crime. Hard drug possession, wreckless driving, and stabbings are all prohibited (banned) by law. I've said it many times. I'm not in favour of a mere prohibition of all guns. I am in favour of stricter attitude and stricter control, part of which includes a removal of guns from their current position of a "necessary and right-given means of self-defense." Good example. Demand was not reduced, and neither was availability. In fact, demand and subsequent consumption increased during the prohibition. An argument with no rational support at all, and one which ignores all statistics on the subject. And, like I've said, the few that "go through with it," in the sense of ensuring the death of their victims, tend to be the exception (i.e. premeditated murders). Hooray for twisting my words, ignoring my points and making yourself look like a fool.

Now you're arguing in favour of gun control. I too would like to see stricter measures on who gets handguns and who doesn't, even in the police force. (a) Intimidation is almost entirely psychological. I don't know why you think I'm arguing otherwise. (B) Not really. They could want your wallet, or they could want to kill you, or they could want to get information out of you. © I would probably try to talk them out of it, and if that didn't work, I would probably run like hell. (d) I'd obviously be much less intimidated, but I'd still do the same as in ©. Like I said: swap a pen for a pipe, baseball bat or even a knife and my argument remains the same. Although guns and knives are both "lethal weapons," guns tend to be far more lethal than knives, which, in turn, leads to their higher rate of mortality. For example, in the study I linked to earlier, stab wounds to the heart were not fatal the majority of the time, whereas gunshot wounds to the heart were fatal the vast majority of the time. This article cites that "Missile injuries to the heart ... are more lethal [than stab wounds], with 11% of victims arriving at the trauma center alive compared to 40% of cardiac stab wound victims arriving alive (20). No. Many drug, car and knife related deaths are also considered "preventable." And, as such, there are many movements attempting to reduce their numbers, often successfully. We're talking about America here. Although there are a number of factors that can affect demand and availability, lower demand of a product in America generally leads lower availability of that product in America. This is the nature of a capitalist-driven market. I agree that criminals may "try harder" with less lethal weapons, but this doesn't mean that the outcomes will be the same. (a) No. Simply because a murder wasn't premeditated doesn't mean it was accidental. (B) I do, fully. © Most robbers don't walk into a store and shoot the clerk. With that said, it doesn't matter what thoughts are running through the criminal's head at the moment they pull the trigger. The point is: rarely are they following through with their intentions. Often they will shoot or stab their victim to ensure incapacitation, but rarely will they do so to ensure death. Murder is not in the interest of most criminals. Here's a brilliant idea: how about you use something other than a handgun for defense? :idea: Just like, you know, the rest of the industrialized world... I want to see the most effective means of self-defense that is not detrimental to the rest of society.

Just because I am against firearm self-defense for citizens doesn't mean I wish to remove firearms from security forces. Note the emphasis. Compared to a gun, knives tend to be far less lethal weapons. Why would an anti-tobacco campaign target cigarettes if people die from tobacco-related diseases (e.g. lung cancer) without their use? Quite simply, because tobacco-related deaths are preventable. Exactly -- they generally pick the most lethal weapon that is readily available to them. Thanks for stating the obvious, but this doesn't refute anything. Regardless of differences between societies, reduced demand for firearms in America will lead to reduced availability. This is simple economics. In other words: knives are more lethal than baseball bats. Likewise, since guns are more lethal than knives (due to, among other things, their range, ease-of-use, speed and severe damage to vital organs), their use generally leads to more lethal outcomes. Although the robbery may be premeditated, a resulting murder rarely is. Of course. The same can be said against, say, marijuana law reform. These are obstacles that we will have to overcome. And until those ideas arise, we should continue fighting problems like racism, drug addiction and drunk driving as we are now; through changes in society and law. Sitting around on our [wagon] all day waiting for "something big" to come up will get us nowhere.

Correct. I don't view it as an effective means of countering the problem. Compared to a gun, a knife is also a "crappy weapon." Again, you've ignored my points and given me something completely unrelated. I've acknowledged many times now that murder occurs without guns. The majority of criminals using knives over guns do so not because they "pick and choose" the less lethal weapon, but because the less lethal weapon is more readily available to them (or, simply, more suited to the crime). I agree -- it is commonsense -- this is the "substitution effect" that we have been discussing for the past several pages. It's also commonsense that, with less lethal weapons, the outcomes of the crimes will generally be less lethal, even if the criminals are "trying harder" (which may not always be the case). A number of statistics presented in this thread go against your claims, if that is what you mean. Most of your claims, though, such as "criminals will always get guns," can be refuted without resorting to statistics. I'm getting the feeling you have no idea what analogy means. Give a robber a baseball bat instead of a gun. Although he may use more force in an attack, perhaps even hitting the victim multiple times (i.e. "trying harder"), in neither case will he "meet the ends" by ensuring the victim's death (even when there is a clear opportunity to do so). Robberies, domestic violence, etc. have a lot to do with the homicide problem. While this may be true in premeditated murder, it isn't necessarily true in robberies, self-defense (justified and unjustified), assault, etc. Regarding the Swiss: [hide=]Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization. Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities. As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on carrying handguns. Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world. A review of the statistics...[/hide] Source: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm The same site has a great essay explaining the relation between gun ownership and America's high homicide rate[1]. It highlights many of the points that I've argued over the past several pages, and examines plenty of statistics. Well worth a read. Reduced availability is not revolutionary or unrealistic. In fact, we've already seen it happen in various states across the United States, not to mention other nations. Guns certainly can be effective for self-defense. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean they are worth implementing for self-defense.