Seems like ....

Hank Fletcher said:

Hi all,
I'm new to this forum and I have some projects I need help with:
- build an fm receiver
- design a lie detector
- resolve the conflct within and between at least two or three nations
- stun gun (just a fun project)

All these projects are due by the end of next week, so any help would be appreciated ASAP! Thanks.

Click to expand...

I can help you with the third one. The rest are beyond my capabilities.
Be aware that we don't do homework here. Show us what you've done so far, and we'll provide feedback.

Ron H said:

I can help you with the third one. The rest are beyond my capabilities.
Be aware that we don't do homework here. Show us what you've done so far, and we'll provide feedback.

Click to expand...

Well that's just about it in a nutshell - it's easier (that's to say, more obvious) to be a critic than to actually do something. I'm not knocking doing something, far from it. Being able to demonstrate what you do, how you do it, and the ultimate effect it has on making the world a better place is less apparent the further away you get from a lie detector project and the closer you get to understanding your place in a global community.

I'm a little surprised at how heavy this discussion became - I thought I was putting forth some light satire and a friendly invitation - but I guess we each have our liberty to take what we want as seriously as we want to, and to express ourselves accordingly. Seeing as there are some people in this world that still don't have that liberty, we ought to put value in ours, and make the best of it.

To work successfully, my third project needs about 6 billion or more people . Do you know where I can get those? Join me in the quiet revolution, brothers. Set aside your hatred, be a model of virtue, and assist those who are least able to help themselves. Isn't that what's happening on this forum (and thousands of others) already? Think about, it's happening already, every time you connect with someone, help someone, pushing the world ever so slightly in the direction you know we all want it to go, towards peace, towards civility. We're much more capable as a collaborative rather than competitive species. It's not about some people taking advantage of handouts, or other people taking advantage of less fortunate people, it's about building a net of people. A neighbourhood, where you don't need to buy a router, because Mr. America's got one to lend you when he wants to borrow your boat, and Mr. Britain will help you roof your house if you give him a hand with his car, and so on. I mean, at what point does the congenial relationship I have with the people on my street have to stop? When I leave the street? The city? The province? My country? You can go to that frontline, but ultimately you have to go with an understanding for peaceful resolution - that's not going to happen if you TP your neighbour's tree because his dog pooped on your lawn. You have to have a clear sense of what you want to accomplish (living well), and how you're going to get it (getting along with the people around you).

That's all I've been able to do so far. Sorry, maybe I'll be a magic-fairy-philanthropic-billionaire in my next life, and sort all the world's problems myself then. Till then, I'll need your help.

AllVol said:

Of the 53 gun attacks reported in 2006, two-thirds - 36 - were blamed on organized crime groups

Click to expand...

So only 53 gun attacks in a nation of 127,433,494 or one for every 2.4 million people.
So to be better, the USA would have to have less than 125 gun attacks in a nation of 301,139,947 people.
Looks like Japan's gun laws are working to me.

That dosen't take into acount the culture itself.

Sceadwian said:

That dosen't take into acount the culture itself.

Click to expand...

Very true. I was waiting on someone to skew the figures as kcristie has done.

The report from Japan illustrated how one group, in this case the mob, was responsible for most of the statistics. Sad to say, the same is true in America, but that fact is never presented. Like Japan's, our problem primarily stems from one group manifesting its violence against itself, usually because of the use of, sale of, or control of drugs.

Hank Fletcher's utopian world doesn't exist in the ghetto.

True, we have the occasional events carried out by an apparent madman, but that goes on in any society, in some fashion. I read recently where police in one of the SE Asian countries gunned down about 50 citizens for, gasp!, stating their opinion.

Don't get me wrong. I am too old to hunt, so I no longer own rifles and shotguns. I live in a secure community, so I do not need a handgun for protection. But in the half-century I did own guns, I never pointed one at anybody, nor did I have to. And when you come up with a plan, not talk, that will effectively keep guns out of the hands of the criminals who use them, I'll be your biggest cheerleader.

And when you come up with a plan, not talk, that will effectively keep guns out of the hands of the criminals who use them, I'll be your biggest cheerleader.

Click to expand...

Fine. From this day forth, no private company can make new firearms for any purpose. That's a big step in the right direction right there.

I don't follow you: how did you having a gun keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

AllVol, I understand what is needed for Congress to ammend the Constitution and it's a darn good thing that it requires something on par of Divine intervention to change it or the original text would have been meaningless by the last century! But you have to admit that lobbyists and judges are biting away at it with intent.

Hank, I think you went wrong in stating your comments without the ability for some of us to visually see your facial expression or vocal tone, often necessary to indicate that a comment is said in jest or being cynical. I think what is important to remember here, for all of us, is that certain social programs and laws may work in one country while in another one they end up as a sham and failure. It all comes down to how they are set up, managed or executed, and received.

Speaking of Canada, I regularly watch the program titled: How It's Made
Quite interesting and educational, and sheds new light on industry and product development in Canada. And to think all along, I just figured Canada to be better known for hockey pucks, maple syrp, the Guess Who, the Red Green Show, and snow geese!

Hank Fletcher said:

Fine. From this day forth, no private company can make new firearms for any purpose. That's a big step in the right direction right there.

I don't follow you: how did you having a gun keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

Click to expand...

And the internet will be full of do-it-yourself posts.

The second part is gibberish.... I don't follow your question.

It's not gibberish, you're just incapable of understanding it, or more likely declining to understand it and attempting to discredit the merits of the question by calling it gibberish. I see this all the time in the worst of my students: they don't understand something, therefore it's nonsense. If that were true (and it's not), there'd be no growth in understanding. It could go either way with you given your apparent inability (or is it intentional self-denial?) above, to understand statistics properly. You're ignorant either way, whether you're choosing to be or not. Choose to not be, and you'll eventually get there.

Your inference was that by having a gun you helped to keep gun crime down, even though you never used it. I was wondering how you arrived that conclusion.

...indicate that a comment is said in jest or being cynical...

Click to expand...

They weren't in jest, but perhaps foolish in a classical literature sense. In a lot of Shakespeare the court fool (or jester) is not to be confused with a comical clown. The fool usually provides the most insightful commentary on what's really going down, informing the king about things that the latter, tragically, can't see for himself.

The term cynical is used all too often, to the fault of it not having obvious, specific meaning. Literally, it means to bark like a dog. I have a much more mild-mannered way about me than that. Maybe I was cutting, critical, poignant, but strictly speaking, not cynical.

Regardless, point taken.

Hank Fletcher said:

Your inference was that by having a gun you helped to keep gun crime down, even though you never used it. I was wondering how you arrived that conclusion.

Click to expand...

That ws not the inference at all. Learn to read, prof. The fact I do not own guns was to establish that I am not one of the gun nuts. The rest was a challenge to you liberals. Come up with a plan.

Ah, I see. You owned guns, but only for hunting. When you meant that you never pointed one at someone, you meant that you never "Cheneyed" while on the hunt. Nor did you need to use your guns for any other purpose than hunting. That's cool, and reassuring in that you refer to them as guns (i.e. tools), not weapons.

You sound like the sporting type, so I'm guessing that you were content with a tool for the job that made it a challenge, yet got the job done. I won't pretend that I know anything about what that tool might be, but I'd wager fully-automatic guns would be, well, just not sporting (that seems to be supported in part by U.S. legislation limiting the sale of fully-automatic rifles). I also know that there are still people in the U.S. who don't hunt for sport, but rather as a means to put dinner on the table. Respect.

Statistically, I've heard there are about the same amount of guns per person in Canada as the U.S. When moose hunting season comes around where I live, the whole province practically takes off work to head into the woods. But the gun related crime also seems to be lower on average here than in the U.S., and I guess people are inclined to believe our stricter gun control laws (the extreme case being Japan) are the reason. Surely you'd have to admit that the convenience of being able to get a gun in the U.S. is playing a part in facilitating their use by the criminally inclined?

What's a liberal, and why is the challenge only for them?

Hank Fletcher said:

Ah, I see. You owned guns, but only for hunting. When you meant that you never pointed one at someone, you meant that you never "Cheneyed" while on the hunt. Nor did you need to use your guns for any other purpose than hunting. That's cool, and reassuring in that you refer to them as guns (i.e. tools), not weapons.

You sound like the sporting type, so I'm guessing that you were content with a tool for the job that made it a challenge, yet got the job done. I won't pretend that I know anything about what that tool might be, but I'd wager fully-automatic guns would be, well, just not sporting (that seems to be supported in part by U.S. legislation limiting the sale of fully-automatic rifles). I also know that there are still people in the U.S. who don't hunt for sport, but rather as a means to put dinner on the table. Respect.

Statistically, I've heard there are about the same amount of guns per person in Canada as the U.S. When moose hunting season comes around where I live, the whole province practically takes off work to head into the woods. But the gun related crime also seems to be lower on average here than in the U.S., and I guess people are inclined to believe our stricter gun control laws (the extreme case being Japan) are the reason. Surely you'd have to admit that the convenience of being able to get a gun in the U.S. is playing a part in facilitating their use by the criminally inclined?

What's a liberal, and why is the challenge only for them?

Click to expand...

Ok I'll try. A liberal is one that thinks solutions to problems can only be effectivly implemented by goverment, usually at the expensive of many that aren't part of the problem?

Lefty

AllVol said:

Very true. I was waiting on someone to skew the figures as kcristie has done.

Click to expand...

They were your figures. I just put them in perspective in regards to population size.
Guns are designed to kill. Some, such as hunting rifles, are designed to kill animals. Handguns, AK47's, M16's, etc are designed to kill people and shouldn't be available to the general public in the same way nuclear weapons shouldn't be available to rogue states.
As a right winger, you'll appreciate the rule of law. Laws are designed to protect the innocent. That's why we have tougher gun laws where I live. The safety of the majority overrules the dangerous "pleasures" of a minority.

Ok I'll try. A liberal is one that thinks solutions to problems can only be effectivly implemented by goverment, usually at the expensive of many that aren't part of the problem?

Click to expand...

If you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution.

Hank, baby, lookit.... we're not talking about you and me and kcristie and lefty et al when we talk about gun problems and control. We're talking about an already lawless element that has unlimited access to any kind of weapon they want, despite what you or governments or the press want to say.

I used my "arms" legally, and *legitimately. But I can go this afternoon and buy any automatic "weapon", hand-gun or long-gun, with no questions asked. I guarantee it will be "hot", but who cares. Some law-abiding chump's name is on the registration slip. The price will be right, too. Less than 50 bucks for a handgun, maybe more for long guns because they're harder to conceal in cargo pants and hoods.

Do you get my drift now?

edit: *couldn't spell that sucker first time. B>)

kchriste said:

Guns are designed to kill. But by themselves, and without the involvement of humans, they are an inanimate object. So, people kill people, nut guns. Guns are the tool, amongst the many other objects wielded as weapons.

Some, such as hunting rifles, are designed to kill animals. Handguns, AK47's, M16's, etc are designed to kill people and shouldn't be available to the general public in the same way nuclear weapons shouldn't be available to rogue states. Ownership of assault weapons is outlawed, unless the individual has a special Federal Firearms License, which is not handed out like penny candy is! If I were one of those Virginia Tech students under fire, I rather take my chances of a non-sharpshooting, demented student with a handgun, than that of the same individual using a sawed off shotgun loaded with buckshot. Remove the pistols and the sawed-off shotgun will be the criminal's next favorite choice. Remove the magazine plug and you can fire no less than 5 rounds, often more.

As a right winger, you'll appreciate the rule of law. Laws are designed to protect the innocent. That's why we have tougher gun laws where I live. The safety of the majority overrules the dangerous "pleasures" of a minority. But most studies show that tougher gun laws indeed do just the opposite... exposing the innocent victim to a deadly situation of them holding a club or a knife versus a thug brandishing an illegaly obtained firearm. Obviously, criminals operate outside the law.... that's how they wreak their havoc.

Click to expand...

What America needs to do is mandate gun safety and education classes before a gun sale is completed. It's required before receiving a valid driver's license, so at the very least, the same idea should be applied to firearms. The problem right now is that there are millions of firearms that are grandfathered into existence and use that are unregistered (mainly long guns). It's those guns that need accounted for.

HiTech said:

What America needs to do is mandate gun safety and education classes before a gun sale is completed. It's required before receiving a valid driver's license, so at the very least, the same idea should be applied to firearms. The problem right now is that there are millions of firearms that are grandfathered into existence and use that are unregistered (mainly long guns). It's those guns that need accounted for.

Click to expand...

That sounds like a good idea. Believe it or not, unregistered long guns is also a big problem and contentious issue in Canada.

AllVol said:

But I can go this afternoon and buy any automatic "weapon", hand-gun or long-gun, with no questions asked.

Click to expand...

I think part of the point I'm making is that I wouldn't have the foggiest idea where to start doing that where I live. To give you some perspective, where I initially moved to on the East coast, my girlfriend and I had an apartment in one of the worst areas of the city (it was cheap, available, and we knew it would be temporary). One night I must of accidentally triggered the trunk release of my car, and as it happened on that particular day I had thousands of dollars worth of gear in the trunk. Well, when I saw the open trunk of my car in the parking lot the next morning, I just about had a heart attack. A quick check and I discovered that not one thing was missing. It just wouldn't occur to people around here to take advantage of someone like that. I know that sounds ideallic, but that's just me recognizing the difference between here and Ontario (where some jerk stole my bike on a sunny afternoon when I turned my back for five minutes... I will find you...).

Having grown up in a border town, I'm acutely aware of the difference in attitudes between Americans and Canadians. It's almost bizarre how immediate the change is when you cross the St. Clair or Detroit River - you'd think there'd be a kind of geographic hysteresis, but that's not the case. The national boundaries and the members of each nation display (and I'll admit that there are some generalizations here) obvious character identifiers. For instance, at a jazz festival in Detroit or Toronto, it's easy to spot the American or Canadian fans, because generally you won't see American black or white fans associating in integrated groups. Don't take that as a racism slight, it's just an observation of that particular situation that I know has been shared by jazz fans on all sides of the equation.

I can't for the life of me believe that I'm paraphrasing the NRA here, but I think what we're getting to is that guns (and their relative availability) aren't the only part of the problem: people are part of the problem, too. But it's easier to focus, de-personalize and objectify the problem by calling it a gun problem, rather than a people problem.

Every gun should be outfitted with a Lie Detector. When buying a gun you are asked if you intend to use it to commit a crime. If say "No" and are lying, a simple shocker will incapacitate you, and a small FM transmitter will alert the Canadian Mounties to take you away.

Hank Fletcher said:

I can't for the life of me believe that I'm paraphrasing the NRA here, but I think what we're getting to is that guns (and their relative availability) aren't the only part of the problem: people are part of the problem, too. But it's easier to focus, de-personalize and objectify the problem by calling it a gun problem, rather than a people problem.

Click to expand...

The more you talk, the more I like you.

What you just said is exactly what I have been trying to say in my inept way... too many folks outside the US think we all run around with six-shooters strapped to our hips, ready to draw down on each other at any moment.

You and I both know that is not true.

What is true is the criminal problem... and that is not so much a gun thing as it is a major problem with our judicial system and its often lax treatment of that part of society. Why does someone need three strikes before he is out? But that's grist for another mill someday.

For now, I've enjoyed the debate. Hope we haven't generated more heat than light.

Regards