Jump to content

to add your 300x250 banner, pay ad zone 5
Airsoft Atlanta is your source for quality airsoft guns and rifle parts
to add your Text Link here, pay ad zone 3

AirsoftAtlanta.com AirsoftNMore.com Airsplat.com AirsoftRC.com
Vote for us to add your 180x30 banner here, pay ad zone 2

If you appreciate this website, please ASF Donation or Check Out the ASF Store. If you can not help us financially,
then at least help us by telling a friend: Share us on your favorite social networking website Bookmark and Share

Python890

Authorized Seller Elite
  • Content Count

    223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    100%

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Python890

  • Rank
    ASF Citizen
  • Birthday 11/30/1989

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Madison, WI
  1. Can we pin this thread? I think we need more pinned threads.
  2. Did you just assume his sister's gender?
  3. lolzasf<AT>howitzer:/tmp$ whois airsoftforum.com | egrep '^Domain Status|Expiry' Registry Expiry Date: 2020-06-02T18:32:12Z Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/epp-status-codes-2014-06-16-en#clientRenewProhibited If ASF is doomed in June, maybe we should set the over/under at May 1? I'll take the over
  4. Who are you calling a nerd?
  5. I don't think you're reading (or understanding) my posts. It's interesting to me that you dismiss things you don't understand because you're so confident in your intuition. I generally recommend understanding both ideas before proclaiming one as more correct than the other. I'm not that petty. I argue with points that are either poorly supported or wrongfully supported, regardless of the my personal opinion on the matter. It just turns out that you're spectacularly bad at supporting your points (and also at understanding mine).
  6. I don't think you're reading anyone's posts if that's your perception of what people think of you. Why do you think that? This doesn't make any sense at all. What kind of "DB link" is it? The only kind I can think of that could potentially be a problem would be a foreign key constraint, but that wouldn't make any sense for single people. It would also suggest that they're keeping male and female records in separate tables, which makes no sense. And even if they were using foreign keys (which would be dumb to the point where it's downright harmful in this context), you could fairly easily do a dump of the database and rebuild it without that constraint, and then go and re-add marriages however they decide to implement it. But really, nobody would use a name for this sort of thing. Names are terrible database keys; a primary key for a table must be unique - think about just how many "John Smith"s are in the US. If anything, the key (which is what you would "link" on) would be a social security number, and guess what: that's gender free. So really, there is no technical problem. And even if there were- you would not have to sacrifice any of the current marriage records in order to implement this. To put it simply: I think this is a BS excuse someone came up with, and it propagates because most people don't understand how databases work. Terrible question- even for playing devil's advocate, as explained above.
  7. Well said. TacticalAK47, I'm not telling you that your religious beliefs are wrong. My question for you (which I have asked you multiple times and is still unanswered) is the same as I said in this post: "Why do you want to control the legal definition of marriage, when nobody wants to control your religious definition of marriage? Why don't you want to let people do what makes them happy, when it comes at no additional cost to you or anyone else?"
  8. One day I hope you learn to think critically.
  9. I understand that you're only listing arguments others have used, but I would like to say: they are all terrible.
  10. If your reasons are tied to your religion, then you don't have much ground to stand on. Religious views should not dominate the legal system. If you really have no logical or rational reasoning behind your opinion that a subset of the population should be denied rights the rest of the population has, then in no uncertain terms: you are part of the problem.
  11. I don't think you're understanding the concept by any means, so I'm going to put some numbers to it to make this as simple to understand as possible. Let's say that right now, there are 500 guns, relatively evenly distributed among 1000 people. If you're a criminal and you break into 10 houses, you'll be able to acquire 5 guns (on average). You sell these guns, and like a reasonable person, you sell them based on the risk required to get them. Let's say you associate a risk of $100 per house, and you therefore sell the guns at $200 each because you had to break into 2 houses per gun. Your criminal friend has $400 to spend on guns, so he is able to buy 2. Now let's look at the same situation, except there are 200 guns distributed among 1000 people. If you break into 10 houses, you'll be able to acquire 2 guns on average. You still have the same risk for breaking into a house. But at a risk of $100 per house, you had to break into 5 houses per gun. So you sell each gun at $500. Your friend therefore can't even afford 1 gun- he has to really decide if the gun is worth it, and if he does and spends extra money, he is only able to buy 1. This is an insanely simplistic demonstration, but this is how economics works in general. The smaller pool of guns available results in more inconvenience for gun thieves. They need to sell the guns for a higher price to account for the fact that they're harder to get. Yes, your criminals can still get guns- and they may be able to introduce another source. But either way it will drive the price up in the illegal arms market, resulting in fewer guns in that market. The other key point is that all of these stolen guns start out as legally purchased guns- So with less legally purchased guns, you affect the illegal arms market. To those of you not TacticalAK47 (especially Shutaro): You and I know this isn't anywhere near an accurate picture of reality, so please don't bother noting its pitfalls. I'm just trying to relay a very general idea to TacticalAK47 because I think he honestly doesn't understand the economics behind it. This is akin to saying "We shouldn't prevent countries from having nuclear weapons, because it might drive them to create something even more devastating." The problem with that statement is, obviously, that nothing is stopping you from regulating whatever comes next. You could apply the same laws to ray guns as you could to firearms. Also, nobody said the first step has to be drastic. It could be gradual, as it has been over the past century. Prohibition would be a good argument for why you wouldn't want to pass a law tomorrow that says "Nobody can own any guns ever again, and by the way, the ones you own right now are illegal." This isn't really an argument to say that gun control wouldn't work, it's to say that people wouldn't support it. This is a completely different argument. Just because the current political climate in the US doesn't support universal health care doesn't mean that UHC doesn't work based on some overly simplified principle- it does work. There are plenty of countries that show this. Whether or not it's easy to implement in the US is another story altogether. Same with gun control- Europe is ripe with examples of gun control working reasonably well. Gun control isn't inherently flawed because "people will always kill people" or "guns don't kill people" or some other naive reasoning. I completely agree that gun control is impractical, unlikely to pass in an effective form, meets diminishing returns before achieving satisfactory results, and on and on and on. I don't support gun control. But to say "gun control is stupid because people will always kill people and guns are inanimate" is entirely naive, and that's the argument I take issue with.
×
×
  • Create New...