venomai

If this were the case, criminals would simply shoot all their victims after having robbed them. Fortunately, this doesn't happen. Just because somebody buys a loaded gun for whatever reason (including sport, collection and self-defense) doesn't mean they intend to kill people. Keep in mind; the reason crazies can get guns so easily is because they are so widely available in America. This is the heart of the problem. Throwing more guns into the equation is no way to resolve it. Call me optimistic, but I now see a black man as your president. A century ago it would have been considered fantasy. Culture tends to change over time. :)

In pixel art, anti-aliasing is used to minimize the "jaggies" and similar artifacts by applying some simple smoothing. http://www.natomic.com/hosted/marks/mpat/aa.html Dithering isn't necessary to create a pixel art gradient, but it uses less colours, so it's usually the preferred technique (in other words, you were right to use dithering in the sky). In your sky, though, it's a little to noticeable. You should either tone down the colours so that they don't contrast so harshly (particularly the cyan), or add in another tone to create a smooth effect. It sort of looks like its driving over an aquarium. It's pretty cool (great technique for glass) but probably not what you intended. Snow doesn't reflect so easily, and at that perspective the horizon would be much lower. The road wouldn't be visible at all. Great start, though. :thumbup: I agree with Thru, looks very retro! Focus on perspective in your next one. PS: Love the car. Looks like a sweet low-rider.

I'll be as clear and explicit as I can be: Guns are, in the opinion of the vast majority of the population, seen as more intimidating weapons than knives; often for the simple reason that they are more lethal (although, I will admit, not always for that reason). A criminal that intends to intimidate his victim will seek what is 'most effective at intimidating' -- that is to say, what will be intimidating to the majority of victims. While I recognize that these are all "just opinions," it is these opinions which drive the choice for the criminal to use the most intimidating weapons they can acquire. Guns are seen as more effective at intimidating than a knife because of this majority view. My argument is not that "guns intimidate humans because the majority consider them intimidating" (ad populum). Rather, I'm arguing that "guns are seen as 'more intimidating' because the majority of people are more intimidated by them" and, therefore, that "criminals would rather use guns than knives because they are seen as more intimidating." And just because a husband buys a gun for self-defense doesn't mean he intends to use it on his wife a year later, even if that's how it turns out. If a robber walks into a store with a loaded gun, being a robber, his intention is to get money (not to kill the clerk). Because the clerk dies doesn't mean that the criminal's mission was to kill him (rather, as we already noted, it was to get more money). Part of my argument is that, since many of the homicides were not the original intention of the criminal (including such things as ricochets and domestic violence), there would be far fewer deaths had these cases involved less lethal weapons. ... Only if we assume that the goal of all gun crime is to kill the victim (which clearly is not the case). Who cares about how much murder we hear about in the media? It's an awful representation of the relative homicide rates per capita. A change in perspective that involves, among other things, less emphasis on guns as a means of self-defense and, more generally, far less emphasis on owning a firearm in the first place. Changes in law will naturally follow, and over time the availability of firearms will drop. In a democratic society, laws change due to a change in public opinion.

Right.. it's "just my opinion," as well as the opinion of the vast majority. More importantly, it's also "just" the opinion of the criminals: they choose guns over knives because they believe them to be more effective at intimidating their victims. What is your point? You asked why a criminal would kill somebody if it wasn't their original intention. An accidental homicide is, by definition, an unintended homicide. You've gotta be bloody kidding me... We just discussed this. [hide=] It doesn't. I've been explicitly clear in many of my posts: murder is not a "new thing." "I feel like a broken record. Yes, people kill people. Yes, people kill people without using guns." Then why do you seem to think guns are mostly to blame for this? / snip / Like I said numerous times, even without something as lethal as guns, murders will still be very widespread. [/hide] What part of my posts do you not understand? Let me spell it out for you. 1. Assaults resulting in victim death (i.e. homicide) will occur with or without guns. In other words, I acknowledge that "murder will always be around," even without guns. 2. My point? When a gun is used in an assault, rather than a less lethal weapon (i.e. a knife), the chances of the assualt resulting in death are higher due to guns being more lethal. In other words, a decrease in gun crime would result in less deaths (i.e. homicides) even when this decrease is replaced by an increase in other (less lethal) weapons. And as I've made clear, my proposal is not some simple 'rule' that criminals 'probably won't even listen to' (which sounds a lot like written law). Yep... any proposal that comes short of creating world peace has nothing of use to our society. :roll:

You're arguing semantics. 1. Just imagine how hard the criminal would have to work to kill you with a butter knife or some safety scissors! Does that make these weapons more intimidating than a gun? No. 2. And some knives break apart, while others are dull... Just because a gun can jam or run out of ammo doesn't make it a less lethal or less intimidating weapon. 3. A butter knife... That man must really mean business. Obviously, though, we aren't about to argue that butter knives are "more effective at intimidating victims than a gun" on the sole grounds that a few select people think this way. You've never heard of ricochets? Bar fights? Domestic violence? Then why do you seem to think guns are mostly to blame for this? Because, when they are used, they tend to be more lethal. I've said it so many times now that I'm beginning to wonder if you even understand the term. Lethailty is the "quality of being lethal" -- the more lethal something is, the more likely it will cause death. The less lethal something is, the less likely it will cause death. This is a very simple concept. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lethality As it stands, firearm self-defense in no way balances out the above mentioned increase in homicides. It wasn't until recently that marijuana law reform has been gaining the support of the majority. This isn't a process that happens overnight. Mind you, we have been seeing change in many U.S. jurisdictions (decriminalization, reduced arrests, prioritization of police efforts, etc). http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5052 http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6322 http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old ... nada.shtml I'm not asking for a change in policy akin to "We are not to use guns." Obviously stating that in law will do nothing to improve the current situation. How many times do I need to say this? I'm not suggesting a change in law. How do we stop murder world-wide and influence every individual to to make a huge moral advancement? I have no f***ing clue. I'm not proposing anything of the sort.

Right... That's the whole idea. Mortality rate is far higher when a gun is used than when a knife is used: people are far more likely to survive a stab wound to the heart or chest than a gunshot wound to the heart or chest.[2][3] That, and the fact that guns can be used effectively at a distance, is what makes them "more lethal weapons" than knives and, therefore, more intimidating weapons. This is not "just my opinion," the vast majority would agree that a loaded gun is a "more lethal weapon" than a knife. This, on the other hand, is just your own opinion. It doesn't. I've been explicitly clear in my posts: murder is not a "new thing." "I feel like a broken record. Yes, people kill people. Yes, people kill people without using guns." Again... I'm not arguing otherwise. Change the mind of society and, in time, the government will change as well. Either as a response to society's wishes (i.e. not wanting to lose votes) or as a direct result of new politicians. And until everybody agrees on equality to gays, blacks and women, it too must be a useless cause... Cut the crap, please. :wall:

The more lethal a weapon is, the more effective it will also be for intimidation. This is a very simple concept. Many criminals will go to the extent of using their weapon to get what they want, but the vast majority do not approach their victims with the intent to kill them. In this case I'm using the term "crime" in direct response to your earlier post: "If you are given a less lethal weapon, and you still want to commit a crime, it will just take more effort. Look at the people hundreds of years ago who pulled it off when guns were unheard of." Even today, non-firearms (like knives) are used in many robberies and muggings throughout the industrialized world. However, there's nothing to suggest that those using knives to rob somebody will "try harder to kill their victim" than those using firearms. Pointing out that there were plenty of homicides in the pre-firearm age does nothing to weaken my argument. I'm not talking about a change in legislature. I'm talking about a change in culture. If you can't understand the difference between those two simple statements then I'm afraid this debate will go nowhere. Self-defense is very much possible without owning a firearm.

And because guns are more lethal, they are more intimidating, and thus more effective in robberies, muggings, etc. I thought this much was obvious in my last post. Yes, I'm talking about homicide rates (killing), but just because a gunshot or stab wound kills a store clerk doesn't mean the robber's mission was to kill the store clerk. And by examples of the past you mean "Before the time of guns, lots of people still managed to pull off crimes"? :lol: And why, exactly, is America's gun culture is immune to change? Uhh.. No. My first statement is that guns are easy to acquire in America. My second statement is that in a situation unlike the high gun availability in America, gun crime is still going to be "something to worry about," but there will be far less of it. I've already addressed this point a number of times throughout the last few pages. In short, guns are easy to acquire in America because they are so widely available, and their wide availability is primarily due to their high demand. That "anyone can get a gun" in current America is why so many of us are arguing for a change in gun culture.

In America, guns are easy to acquire. Guns are also more effective for robbing, mugging, etc. somebody than a knife would be. Homicide (murder, more specifically) is one type of violent crime. Obviously, for this reason, an increase in homicide rate leads to an increase in violent crime; but it doesn't mean that all violent crime is increased. A killing spree is "unrealistic" in the sense that it is so irregular; as with "crazies" stabbing random people on the streets. These things do happen, and when they do they are considered homicide, but these homicides are in the vast minority. And, as I've said a million times, I'm not arguing that guns cause more killing sprees to happen. I'm arguing that using a gun (more lethal) would result in more deaths than a knife (less lethal). Not because the criminal "isn't trying hard enough" but because, quite simply, knife wounds are less destructive than gunshot wounds. In America, maybe... But that's the problem. Hell, even if we were in a situation which you consider as "unrealistic" as Norway, gun crime would still be "something to worry about" -- but there would be far less of it.

He said that he wouldn't wear it, not that he doesn't like it. An artist doesn't always need to like the designs they make -- it's usually more important that the target audience to like the designs. Pride in a work of art isn't important so long as you realize your mistakes and move forward. Realizing and understanding my own faults is what motivates me to improve on them. :)

Can we get details on your light box? #1-6 look nice, but there isn't much focus on composition (or originality). The fruit is overwhelming in all of them, and it seems to throw off the balance of the photos. Of them, #3 has the most potential; a wider shot with slightly better placement would have looked great. Also, the bubbles look more crisp than the fruit -- IMO this creates a distraction since size, placement and colour all suggest that the fruit is the focal point. Lastly, when pouring the stream of water it's probably better to use an extended depth of field. Right now the blurry stream of water looks out of place and distracting. #7 and on look more like stock-purpose photos than deliberate works of art, if you ask me. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing. :) Cool photography, keep it coming. :thumbup:

Your misunderstanding of straw man aside... I'm not suggesting that America is Norway, or that whatever happens in Norway will "definitely work here." I'm suggesting that, unlike the idealistic notions of removing all hunger and violence, a change in gun culture is something that has been demonstrated in both our own culture as well as other cultures. And so it's reasonable to suggest that it is something that can be changed. My argument assumes nothing about the relative 'success' of their crime (except perhaps in the case of premeditated murder). The "job" or intent of most criminals is not to kill their victims. Murder is far and wide the least prevalent type of violent crime in the United States[1]. If all criminals intended to kill their victims, I may agree with you in that they would probably 'try harder' when using less lethal weapons. But, since the vast majority of criminals do not intend to kill their victims, your argument is moot. My argument is that more guns leads to higher homicide rates -- not that more guns creates more violent crime. Effective self-defense isn't reliant on increased lethal force. That, in response to your post, victims already can and do defend themselves with firearms, and that, even if the majority of citizens used firearms for self-defense, gun crime would still be "something to worry about." As I've explained above, this is not my point. But since you bring it up; yes, those seeking firearms for lawful pruposes (sport, collection and self-defense) are primarily responsible for the increase in the abundance of firearms in the United States. Right... and we've since established that using these atypical hypothetical situations doesn't help either of our arguments. Why you continue to use them is beyond me.

Gun crime, just like any other feature of a particular culture, is something that we certainly can influence. We know this because we have observed changes in other cultures (e.g. Norway) as well as our own (i.e. the West). Once again, you've missed my point entirely. Assuming that a decrease in gun crime results in the increase of other (less lethal) weapon crime, I'm arguing that, "even if attempted homicide rates remain the same, overall homicide rates will generally decline due to the substituted weapons being 'less lethal.'" The opposite would also be true: an increase in (more lethal) gun crime would result in an increase in homicide rates. Guns are the most prevalent weapon of choice in America because of their availability. In countries where the demand (and subsequent availability) is relatively low, guns are used far less often in violent crime. We already went over this. First; potential victims do have the opportunity to defend themselves without a firearm. We've already discussed a number of different methods of self-defense that do not rely on firearms. These methods are -- in average violent crime scenarios -- often equally as effective if not more effective than using one's own firearm. Second; in America, victims can and do defend themselves with a firearm: about 0.83% of violent crimes involve firearm as a means of self-defense.[1] Guns are used in crime far more often than they are used in self-defense[2], but even if the opposite were true, gun crime would still be an important issue. Unless you think that an increase in gun crime is acceptable so long as everybody has the 'opportunity' to defend themself... :| Lastly, and most importantly, I'm arguing that, regardless of the efficacy of firearm self-defense, higher rates of gun crime result in higher overall homicide rates (due to the mere lethality of the weapon). PS: Why persist in using irregular and unrealistic scenarios (killing sprees) if we've already established that there is little to be gained from discussing them?

Looks great! :) Glad to see some more gamedev interest. When did you get into OpenGL, and with what languages?

Here's a start: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html Science tells us both how something works, and why it works. More importantly, it does so without using untestable and unreliable supernatural explanations.

I am "kind" (if you really want to call it that) for a reason. I respect the views of others in a debate, even if they differ from my own, and I do not want to see them leave on the grounds of childish and pointless flame wars. Debates are boring without a basic difference in opinion. You might not care to debate, but I do. [in short, if your only intention here is to irritate other members, please GTFO.] I think it really depends on who's doing the thinking. :)

Homicide rate (aka. murder rate) does not include kills that were justified by an act of self-defense. In simpler terms, homicide rate shows the rate of "criminals" killing "innocents," not vice versa. In the 'convenient scenario' in which I've been trained in gun combat... In the 'convenient scneario' in which I've been trained in martial arts... This is going nowhere. Aside from the minor obstacle of 'people like you,' I see no reason to suspect that this is any more unrealistic than others changes in culture that have occurred throughout history. Unrealistic in the next couple of years? Sure. Unrealistic over the course of many years? Not at all. How many times do I need to repeat myself? "And I'm not saying we shouldn't worry about defense." "Homicide is uncommon in the sense that most people aren't directly affected by it. Along the same vein, it's likely that you're not going to die from a drunk driver, but this obviously doesn't mean we 'shouldn't worry about drunk drivers.'" "I'm not suggesting that we don't have a need for self-defense. I'm suggesting that we don't need to go to the extent of equipping civilians with weapons, particularly if doing so results in an increase of overall homicide rates."

Great origami, it all looks very carefully folded. But it's a little too primitive and repetitive, for my tastes. I find origami a lot more interesting when it attempts to replicate life (objects, animals, etc). I recently bought a small pack of origami paper that I'm thinking of using on a lazy day. :D

Hell, I'd rather a bazooka, if I could. But I'm not about to go to such an extent to 'protect' myself if the overall effect (of increased availability of bazookas) is an increase in homicide rate (i.e. decreased safety for citizens). Um... What? :wall: Are you sure you understand the meaning of 'homicide rate'? I too am in favour of saving innocent lives... Which is why I would like to see an overall decrease in homicide rate, rather than an increase. I don't even know where the safety is on a gun. So yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that the criminal has a much higher chance of hitting me than I do of hitting him. Hell, I'd be surprised if I can even get a shot off before he's unloaded his entire clip.

I want change (more comprehensive sex education) just like Jeb wants change (more abstinence education). Just because the idea of women's rights has been around for hundreds of thousands of years doesn't mean we haven't been seeing an 'advance' in women's rights in the last one hundred years. Whether or not you see the current women's rights situation as "more advanced" than it was two hundred years ago, though, is another debate altogether. If the desired effect is to reduce teen sex, pregnancies and STDs, current research suggests that abstinence and zero-tolerance policies are far less effective (and in some cases counterproductive) than comprehensive sex education. Abstinence does not require any further emphasis in American schools, but that is not to say that it should be erradicated from education. More funding will not resolve the failure of the war on drugs. At the time of his election, he was also seen as a 'moderate' in his racial policies. [hide=][Thurman] supported a minimum wage and maximum hour law, consistently urged abolition of the state's poll tax, advocated legislation to provide secret ballots in the general election, and championed the creation of a merit system for state government employment. In 1947, when a brutal lynching in upstate South Carolina shocked the nation, Thurmond quickly mobilized the state constabulary to apprehend the lynchers. Like other moderates in the 1940s and 1950s, Thurmond focused on modernization, undertaking an intense campaign to promote industrial development and economic growth in the state. Thurmond heartily believed that the South's racial dilemma would be solved through economic growth and development, not through federal interference. Thurmond's assumption of the Dixiecrat mantle shocked South Carolina's small but active liberal community, which had great hopes when Thurmond was elected in 1946. In a letter to Thurmond, one African-American activist claimed he would have voted for Thurmond in the 1946 primary "were I not disfranchised" because "not once did you raise the race issue for political purposes."[/hide] Source: http://hnn.us/articles/1166.html His later campaigns sent a different message to the public. [hide=]For many years, there's been a cherished Washington lie about Strom Thurmond. The lie is that Thurmond, though once a leading segregationist, later renounced that view as morally wrong. Trent Lott repeated the lie at his Dec. 13 press conference. Thurmond, he said, "came to understand the evil of segregation and the wrongness of his own views. And to his credit, he's said as much himself. By the time I came to know Strom Thurmond, some 40 years after he ran for president he had long since renounced many of the views of the past, the repugnant views he had had." It isn't just conservatives who believe this fairy tale about sin, remorse, and redemption. The New York Times buys into it, too. ... Thurmond's much-hyped "reconciliation" with the black community over the years has come about not because Thurmond became a civil rights supporterhe clearly isn'tbut because Thurmond bought off a few key blacks with pork-barrel spending, political appointments, and the like. (Thurmond was always the kind of conservative who believed in the aggressive redistribution of wealth to his home state from the other 49.) It hardly made Thurmond the candidate of choice among South Carolina's African-Americans, but it muted black opposition sufficiently to keep him from being voted out of the Senate.[/hide] Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2075453/ At present time, the results would be very different if a clear advocate for black slavery was to run for office. If a candidate publicly advocates for racial segregation, it can be assumed that (s)he will involve that belief in their political work. This is exactly what Thurmond did. I'd be against his policies whether or not he was related to Bush.

In a hypothetical situation... Jim vehemently opposes equal rights for blacks and advocates for black slavery, but will vote neutrally on any such policies. Is it wrong for us to not want to see Jim in a position of power? It's not that we simply disagree with Jim's views; it's that we consider his views -- particularly when in a position of power -- to be detrimental to the advancement of society as a whole. More importantly, change will not occur if we all simply vote neutrally on topics of controversy. EDIT: Not saying I don't want to see Jeb in office just because, say, he is pro-life or believes in God. I'm more concerned about his emphasis on teaching abstinence in schools, increased funding toward the drug war, etc.

Jeb is an advocate of the death penalty, is against abortions, wants to see more federal funding for all aspects of the Drug War, more focus on abstinence in schools, concealed carry of firearms, etc...[1] Personally, I think we've seen enough of the Bush family. :thumbdown:

I feel like a broken record. Yes, people kill people. Yes, people kill people without using guns. Yes, a reduction of gun crime may lead to an increase in crime of other weapons. Now that we have that cleared up; perhaps you can read the rest of my posts? I don't feel like repeating it all over again. The Castle Law does not translate to "the best defense is a strong offense." I don't doubt that there are numerous situations in which use of deadly force is justified in an act of self-defense. Of course, this is highly dependent on the situation as well as whether or not the individual is experienced with guns or martial arts. Since the average person (except maybe in America) is not trained in either, the best defense would be flight. Not particularly. Martial arts teaches you to be aware at most times, and prepared to defend yourself if ever the need arises. I'd rather not a gun. Pulling it out would probably get me shot, and even if it doesn't, I would probably miss and still get shot. My chances are much better if I run. Best of all would be to just give the guy my wallet and let him go on his way. And I'm not saying we shouldn't worry about defense. Read my post again... I've made myself explicitly clear. I'd go as far as suggesting basic defensive martial arts training as a part of school systems. It would be a lot more useful than some of the crap we learn now. You've answered your own question. So you could care less how many more people die as a result of this improved "protection"? :lol: Great. I'm not doing that. Protesting, lobbying, discourse, prominent figures speaking to the public, changes in education and in the constitution, etc. Culture is always changing (capital punishment, black slavery, woman's rights, etc). Gun culture is a feature that can be changed just like any other.

We're not talking about an outright ban on guns, just like those who strive to reduce alcohol abuse aren't suggesting outright prohibition. My comment was directed at Barihawk's earlier statement: "a reduction in gun crime only leads to an increase in others." I think we've all established that people can murder without the use of guns. A phrase that applies to hockey, maybe, but not self-defense. Try using that one in court. How am I being lenient? Martial arts and flight are two excellent methods of self-defense. Giving a person a knife and expecting them to use it properly, on the other hand, is a very poor method of self-defense. I'm not suggesting that we don't have a need for self-defense. I'm suggesting that we don't need to go to the extent of equipping civilians with weapons, particularly if doing so results in an increase of overall homicide rates. Just because all criminals aren't out to get you and your dog doesn't mean criminals aren't killing people. Homicide is uncommon in the sense that most people aren't directly affected by it. Along the same vein, it's likely that you're not going to die from a drunk driver, but this obviously doesn't mean we "shouldn't worry about drunk drivers." You've ignored my point completely and given me something totally unrelated. I'm not suggesting that extinction of demand is possible (in fact, I explicitly agreed that demand will always exist among criminals). Reduction of demand, on the other hand, is possible through a change of culture.

Sure, demand will always be high among criminals. This doesn't necessarily mean that the demand will be high enough for any average-Joe to acquire a gun, though. Keep in mind that most gun crimes are not committed by Hollywood-like masterminds with military-grade suppliers. The black market isn't an underground eBay. It's a term that loosely wraps up all illegal dealings and 'suppliers', from your neighbour selling you a pistol under the table, to a high-end supplier for the Yakuza. It's ridiculous to assume that every criminal can acquire any weapon they want just because "it exists in the black market."