A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Other Topics / Nuns, Nuns, Nuns

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Swithin
User ID: 0289604 Mar 5th 7:28 PM
Well, it looks like Guns, Guns, Guns will fill up within the next day. I just wanted to make sure the follow up topic got the right name...

Swithin
User ID: 0289604 Mar 8th 5:22 AM
First a few obligatory nun jokes. Ok, maybe not.

I'd like anyone who posted in the Guns, Guns, Guns, topic and can hear me to post

ONLY HOW YOUR OPINIONS HAVE CHANGED IN THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN THAT TOPIC.

Tell us which thoughts won you over, or which of your own positions you discovered were untenable through your own meandering logics. I want to see if people can actually ever change their minds on this issue.

Swithin
User ID: 0289604 Mar 8th 5:32 AM
Ok, I'll start. When I came over to post on GGG I felt that guns were simply an extension of any personal weapon of yore. I believed (and still believe quite strongly) that they should be registered with the government for the good of the community, but I felt that the right to own a physical extension of your will alone validated a citizen's right to own a gun, even if the thought of such a cowardly weapon being a point of pride disgusted me. Now, I am unhappy in joining the debate because my conclusions are necessarily the same but for different reasons, and the idea that civilians can be civilized about owning fire-arms is now destroyed for me. I now concede that guns must be accomodated in a society because they will proliferate anyways, but I frown upon the notion of buying one because that act would perpetuate an evil of negligence to the well being of others which must nonetheless be guaranteed to citizens, and since so many people resort to death-sticks for 'personal protection' or 'sport' (HA!) I cannot add myself to the overly high number of gun owning citizens with a clear conscience, whereas had I not joined the debate I would have fewer qualms and I imagine enjoy shooting at a range immensely.

What GGG meant for me is that because I wish to be responsible I must abstain from a pleasure and security in which others will thoughtlessly partake, because I cannot add the weight of my gun to the threat already posed to our society. I am selfishly unhappy with the debate for this reason, but I feel that everyone's posts were quite intelligent and we have all begun to recognize the motivations of the 'enemy camp' much more clearly, which made it a worthwhile venture.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Mar 8th 8:17 AM
This is an issue I've followed and thought about for awhile so I'm not sure if any of my substantive opinions have changed. The one thing the debate did do was impress upon me the depth of some of the opposition to private ownership of weapons. I do see at least the internal logic of the need to ban all private ownership of weapons if we wish to prevent future shootings such as Columbine, etc. I don't think that's a good or workable solution but I do understand the logic of the argument. In fact, its one of the only gun control arguments I think has that internal consistency. Registration, etc. simply won't accomplish the goals that gun-control advocates seek.

Which, unfortunately, probably leads to a "hardening" of my opposition to registration. When the most logical anti-gun argument is confiscation, it makes sense for pro-gun folks to oppose the steps that make future confiscation possible.

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Mar 8th 9:08 AM
Well, as non-American, I have not personally engaged much in gun debates before (although I have observed some arguments).

What this debate eventually gave me, was some sort of resignation. I have been convinced that guns in the US will not go away, neither as drugs in the US (or in Norway, for that matter) will go away.

OTOH, this works both ways - I do not think putting out more weapons will fix the problem either.
I looked at the Lott report and the other stats that were provided - it indicated that concealed guns would not be increase violence levels - but that is not the same as really _fixing_ the problem.

I was convinced focusing on guns is rather pointless - Norway is full of guns, yet we do not have the same level of gun-related violence by far. I remember asking what set Norway apart from the US, since there was not a notable difference in gun proliferation. I did not get an answer then, but I think I have one now.

There's at least one notable thing that sets Norway and the US apart - here in the old world, we still have that despised thing that is called the 'welfare state' - and a big one too (although in decline of late).

If you want less criminality, you must give people something to lose. I suppose Americans in general
will not like this solution at all, and it certainly won't be cost-efficient or anything. So I guess this is a solution even _less_ likely than gun-control to be carried out in the US.

Which suggests that you better get used to violence in the US. I don't think it'll go away.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Mar 8th 9:28 AM
I agree that the "why" is really the big question, Kay-Arne. The really weird thing is why we're having all these bizarre shooting incidents now. Guns used to be even more prevelant 40 years ago, yet we didn't see these types of incidents. Or maybe they just weren't as publicized, I don't know. I don't think it can be explained by economics because things like the Columbine shooting don't appear to be economically motivated. Plus, we are in the midst of a boom economy. And the incidents that seem to strike an emotional core are the random ones for which there is no rational explanation. Rightly or wrongly, I don't think the average American is _as_ concerned about criminals blowing each other away. What really concerns us are these incidents in schools, etc.

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Mar 8th 1:51 PM
Jeff;

Is it your argument that most gun-related killings in the US are 'criminals blowing each other away'? Any statistics on that?

The booming US economy may be the very cause of declining criminality of late...or it may not.

It's a complex question, since the definition of wealth hinges equally as much on changes in the _relative_ wealth as in the _absolute_ wealth. I.e. - if you have a 1% real increase in your wages, you might not consider your self richer than before, if everyone else has experienced a 50% increase in their wages.
Capitalism is the most effective creator of wealth - but it distributes it unevenly, and hence some might in fact get 'poorer' from it.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Mar 8th 3:10 PM
Nope, that's not my argument. My argument is that _some_ of the deaths are criminals blowing each other away. Specifically, many drug-related murders. My point is that drug-related, gangland murder generally don't generate the emotional response of other murders. The one that have generated that response are things like the school shootings, child killings, etc, that have nothing to do with economics.

Your point about absolute wealth versus relative welath is well taken. However, if someone's excuse for murder is "you have a Lexus and I only have a Chevy", I don't thing its much of an excuse or an imbalance the state should try to rectify.

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Mar 8th 3:46 PM
Of course it's not an excuse...it's a simple fact.

Spite and envy is, however little we like it, integral in human nature.

Let's make a little thought experiment, Jeff.

Let's say that I get a deal from Bill Gates.

He offers me 10.000 bucks, on the condition that I offer you some portion of these ten thousand bucks, and that you accept this offer. (it's a one-time thing - if you refuse the first offer, the whole deal is called off)

I offer you one cent. Would you take the offer?

It would be the economically rational thing to do, for me to offer a cent, and for you to take the offer - because we both would be better off than we were before.

Of course, if the roles were reversed, and you had offered me a cent, I would certainly decline, just on spite. Seeing your long face as you missed your $9999.99, would weigh up the loss of my cent many, many times over.

This experiment has been tried a number of times, and an equilibrium was reached at somewhere between 30 and 40% of the total sum was offered to the third party (I think it differs somewhat with the total amount of money in question).

The Lott report suggested that concealed guns would heighten costs for the criminals to enter into certain types of crime - especially those who
could possible lead to encountering their victim while in flagranti. Resulting in them substituting
into other types of crime, which were less likely to make them end up dead.
(as an aside, this suggests some sort of evolution or altering of behavior among criminals that I once suggested on another board a while ago, and which you refused to believe in)

In other words - there are ways to incur costs for the criminals.
Question remains if this is done cost-efficiently. I.e., at some point, the marginal investment in crime-reducing through other means (for instance the police, or prisons, or whatever) than economical redistribution, will yield less than the marginal benefit of a dollar invested in the latter.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Mar 8th 4:10 PM
IIRC, I may have doubted that all criminals respond rationally to the environment. Some surely do, and the degree of response might depend upon how obvious the causal connections are in a "micro" sense. Even a stupid criminal knows to run if he hears a pump-action shotgun chambering a round.

I think the analysis in your bottom paragraph is correct on a theoretical level, but I'm not sure how much practical use it would be. First, I think accurate measurement of the marginal costs and marginal benefit would be almost impossible to obtain because there are too many other variables.

Second, I've some doubt that a substantial amount of criminal activity, particularly murders, is due to economic reasons that could addressed via any reasonable program of redistributions. For example, most of the murders in the inner cities are drug-related. Either turf wars or supporting habits. Turf wars usually involve drug dealers who make more money than most city folk, so I don't think redistribution helps there. As for addicts, I don't think giving them a few hundred extra bucks a month would help at all.

Third, redistribution does _nothing_ about crimes of passion, school shootings, mass murderers, etc. I think the result would be throwing money at a problem where money isn't the real solution.

Kevin
User ID: 0053014 Mar 8th 4:48 PM
When I started reading that GGG thread, I was neutral to gun ownership. Through the course of the discussion, I believe that became much more anti-gun and much more depressed. There is a real problem that nobody is addressing. The gun lobby sure isn't. The anti-gun lobby sure isn't. I have come to realize that both sides are so entrenched in their views that they justify arguments to support their views. I did not get this from just this thread. I've been listening to G. Gordon Liddy (pro gun) and Clinton (anti gun). Both of their arguments seems hollow. I have become very bothered by the state of political debate. It seems that both sides can find/create whatever statistics they need to support their view. Basically all you get if you are trying to find a solution is a bunch of crap. I am honestly disgusted. That is what the GGG thread did for me. Maybe I'll go buy a gun so I can take out my frustrations. Or maybe I'll just move - Germany sounds nice.

Swithin
User ID: 0289604 Mar 8th 10:54 PM
Kevin - thanks for posting as you have.

KAH, Jeff, you know I love both you guys, right? We cool, right? I'm glad you found this topic, but the whole reason I started the damn thing was so that *everyone* who posted on GGG can talk about it without being intimidated by pro or anti gun rhetoric. GGG lost something important when we got into these long point/counterpoint arguments. It stopped attracting infrequent or first time posters. If you want to keep debating this, please start a new topic, maybe "Jeff and KAH discuss guns". I want everyone to feel free to post here, and the argument really kills that.

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Mar 9th 2:35 AM
Point taken. :P

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Mar 9th 8:50 AM
I'll make a comment related to Kevin's point, and its not really even a gun related comment. Then I'll bow out of future political discussions because this just doesn't seem to be the right forum.

I think there are a lot of problems in society that many feel should be addressed in some fashion. Guns, teenage pregnancy, chronic poverty, budget deficits, taxes, racism, etc. At least here in the U.S., there is a general feeling that "the system" is screwed up because it fails to address these problems. People just feel that there "must be" a solution and that "politics" is the only reason we haven't implemented that solution. That was sort of the appeal of Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996. He would just "open up the hood and fix it".

To me, the reason we haven't found solutions to many of these problems is simple -- they are very tough problems that don't have obvious solutions. There may not even _be_ a "solution" for some of these problems. We hear things like "if we can put a man on the moon we should be able to [fill in the blank]. I'm not sure this reasoning has much validity.

Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 Mar 9th 1:12 PM
Jeff, Kay, don't go! Whilst I can understand, Swithin, what you're saying about long posts, but 'everyone' being free to post includes Jeff and Kay. I'm probably guilty of posting long, and maybe it would help make things easier if we cut down on the length some, but just because Kay and Jeff look at the board a lot and get the chance to post a lot, doesn't mean they should refrain. Guys, all three of you make some great points intelligently and interestingly. That's what I come here for.

Father Claidhaim
User ID: 8590713 Mar 9th 1:50 PM
Despite many people not agreeing with me, everyone should have a nun. Nuns are good for the soul. They help you when you're not feeling well spiritually, and can ease the anxiety of everyday life.

To me, having a nun around really makes life more interesting. Safer too. I can't begin to tell you the tales of how having a nun scared of numerous potential burglers, scoundrels, scalawags, and mountebanks. Why the mere sound of the ruler hitting the palm of the hand sends them running.

"If nuns are outlawed, only criminals will have nuns."

"I'll give up my nun when you pry my cold dead fingers from around her."

"This property protected by Sister Mary-Catherine."

Oh, I could go on all day........

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Mar 9th 2:14 PM
Very nice, Father Claidhaim. But I am intimidated by your wit and would request that, henceforth, you demonstrate neither cleverness nor humor, as it may make some of the "cleverness and humor" impaired feel uncomfortable.

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Mar 9th 2:41 PM
Dammit, Jeff, as a lawyer you should see the profit in this - why give requests when you just can sue his ass off, eh?

I can always claim irrepairable traumas, if you'll
make sure the millions come pouring in.

*goes off to plan how to best live a life in a heap of filthy richness*

Swithin
User ID: 0840444 Apr 25th 2:17 PM
New gun story. A 66 year old woman thought she could get away with packing ger guns into her suitcase, without informing the airline (Alaska, from Seattle to Anchorage). Not only that, but she kept her two Rugers in her suitcase *loaded*. When the baggage handlers threw her bag into the hold, one of the guns went off... the bullet entered the cabin and was lodged in a baby's diaper bag. A few inches in the wrong direction and it might have killed the baby, the mother, or the father.

Well, I suppose it's possible that this story really doesn't bring anything new to light. I'm not saying that gun owners are on the whole more stupid the regular populace (well, I believe that of *many* gun owners, but I won't say it), just that if a great deal of the populace is stupid, isn't supplying them with guns equally (if not more) stupid?

Swithin
User ID: 0840444 Apr 25th 2:42 PM
The flight was from Portland, not Seattle.

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Swithin User ID: 0289604	Mar 5th 7:28 PM Well, it looks like Guns, Guns, Guns will fill up within the next day. I just wanted to make sure the follow up topic got the right name...
Swithin User ID: 0289604	Mar 8th 5:22 AM First a few obligatory nun jokes. Ok, maybe not. I'd like anyone who posted in the Guns, Guns, Guns, topic and can hear me to post ONLY HOW YOUR OPINIONS HAVE CHANGED IN THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN THAT TOPIC. Tell us which thoughts won you over, or which of your own positions you discovered were untenable through your own meandering logics. I want to see if people can actually ever change their minds on this issue.
Swithin User ID: 0289604	Mar 8th 5:32 AM Ok, I'll start. When I came over to post on GGG I felt that guns were simply an extension of any personal weapon of yore. I believed (and still believe quite strongly) that they should be registered with the government for the good of the community, but I felt that the right to own a physical extension of your will alone validated a citizen's right to own a gun, even if the thought of such a cowardly weapon being a point of pride disgusted me. Now, I am unhappy in joining the debate because my conclusions are necessarily the same but for different reasons, and the idea that civilians can be civilized about owning fire-arms is now destroyed for me. I now concede that guns must be accomodated in a society because they will proliferate anyways, but I frown upon the notion of buying one because that act would perpetuate an evil of negligence to the well being of others which must nonetheless be guaranteed to citizens, and since so many people resort to death-sticks for 'personal protection' or 'sport' (HA!) I cannot add myself to the overly high number of gun owning citizens with a clear conscience, whereas had I not joined the debate I would have fewer qualms and I imagine enjoy shooting at a range immensely. What GGG meant for me is that because I wish to be responsible I must abstain from a pleasure and security in which others will thoughtlessly partake, because I cannot add the weight of my gun to the threat already posed to our society. I am selfishly unhappy with the debate for this reason, but I feel that everyone's posts were quite intelligent and we have all begun to recognize the motivations of the 'enemy camp' much more clearly, which made it a worthwhile venture.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Mar 8th 8:17 AM This is an issue I've followed and thought about for awhile so I'm not sure if any of my substantive opinions have changed. The one thing the debate did do was impress upon me the depth of some of the opposition to private ownership of weapons. I do see at least the internal logic of the need to ban all private ownership of weapons if we wish to prevent future shootings such as Columbine, etc. I don't think that's a good or workable solution but I do understand the logic of the argument. In fact, its one of the only gun control arguments I think has that internal consistency. Registration, etc. simply won't accomplish the goals that gun-control advocates seek. Which, unfortunately, probably leads to a "hardening" of my opposition to registration. When the most logical anti-gun argument is confiscation, it makes sense for pro-gun folks to oppose the steps that make future confiscation possible.
KAH User ID: 0541004	Mar 8th 9:08 AM Well, as non-American, I have not personally engaged much in gun debates before (although I have observed some arguments). What this debate eventually gave me, was some sort of resignation. I have been convinced that guns in the US will not go away, neither as drugs in the US (or in Norway, for that matter) will go away. OTOH, this works both ways - I do not think putting out more weapons will fix the problem either. I looked at the Lott report and the other stats that were provided - it indicated that concealed guns would not be increase violence levels - but that is not the same as really _fixing_ the problem. I was convinced focusing on guns is rather pointless - Norway is full of guns, yet we do not have the same level of gun-related violence by far. I remember asking what set Norway apart from the US, since there was not a notable difference in gun proliferation. I did not get an answer then, but I think I have one now. There's at least one notable thing that sets Norway and the US apart - here in the old world, we still have that despised thing that is called the 'welfare state' - and a big one too (although in decline of late). If you want less criminality, you must give people something to lose. I suppose Americans in general will not like this solution at all, and it certainly won't be cost-efficient or anything. So I guess this is a solution even _less_ likely than gun-control to be carried out in the US. Which suggests that you better get used to violence in the US. I don't think it'll go away.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Mar 8th 9:28 AM I agree that the "why" is really the big question, Kay-Arne. The really weird thing is why we're having all these bizarre shooting incidents now. Guns used to be even more prevelant 40 years ago, yet we didn't see these types of incidents. Or maybe they just weren't as publicized, I don't know. I don't think it can be explained by economics because things like the Columbine shooting don't appear to be economically motivated. Plus, we are in the midst of a boom economy. And the incidents that seem to strike an emotional core are the random ones for which there is no rational explanation. Rightly or wrongly, I don't think the average American is _as_ concerned about criminals blowing each other away. What really concerns us are these incidents in schools, etc.
KAH User ID: 0541004	Mar 8th 1:51 PM Jeff; Is it your argument that most gun-related killings in the US are 'criminals blowing each other away'? Any statistics on that? The booming US economy may be the very cause of declining criminality of late...or it may not. It's a complex question, since the definition of wealth hinges equally as much on changes in the _relative_ wealth as in the _absolute_ wealth. I.e. - if you have a 1% real increase in your wages, you might not consider your self richer than before, if everyone else has experienced a 50% increase in their wages. Capitalism is the most effective creator of wealth - but it distributes it unevenly, and hence some might in fact get 'poorer' from it.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Mar 8th 3:10 PM Nope, that's not my argument. My argument is that _some_ of the deaths are criminals blowing each other away. Specifically, many drug-related murders. My point is that drug-related, gangland murder generally don't generate the emotional response of other murders. The one that have generated that response are things like the school shootings, child killings, etc, that have nothing to do with economics. Your point about absolute wealth versus relative welath is well taken. However, if someone's excuse for murder is "you have a Lexus and I only have a Chevy", I don't thing its much of an excuse or an imbalance the state should try to rectify.
KAH User ID: 0541004	Mar 8th 3:46 PM Of course it's not an excuse...it's a simple fact. Spite and envy is, however little we like it, integral in human nature. Let's make a little thought experiment, Jeff. Let's say that I get a deal from Bill Gates. He offers me 10.000 bucks, on the condition that I offer you some portion of these ten thousand bucks, and that you accept this offer. (it's a one-time thing - if you refuse the first offer, the whole deal is called off) I offer you one cent. Would you take the offer? It would be the economically rational thing to do, for me to offer a cent, and for you to take the offer - because we both would be better off than we were before. Of course, if the roles were reversed, and you had offered me a cent, I would certainly decline, just on spite. Seeing your long face as you missed your $9999.99, would weigh up the loss of my cent many, many times over. This experiment has been tried a number of times, and an equilibrium was reached at somewhere between 30 and 40% of the total sum was offered to the third party (I think it differs somewhat with the total amount of money in question). The Lott report suggested that concealed guns would heighten costs for the criminals to enter into certain types of crime - especially those who could possible lead to encountering their victim while in flagranti. Resulting in them substituting into other types of crime, which were less likely to make them end up dead. (as an aside, this suggests some sort of evolution or altering of behavior among criminals that I once suggested on another board a while ago, and which you refused to believe in) In other words - there are ways to incur costs for the criminals. Question remains if this is done cost-efficiently. I.e., at some point, the marginal investment in crime-reducing through other means (for instance the police, or prisons, or whatever) than economical redistribution, will yield less than the marginal benefit of a dollar invested in the latter.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Mar 8th 4:10 PM IIRC, I may have doubted that all criminals respond rationally to the environment. Some surely do, and the degree of response might depend upon how obvious the causal connections are in a "micro" sense. Even a stupid criminal knows to run if he hears a pump-action shotgun chambering a round. I think the analysis in your bottom paragraph is correct on a theoretical level, but I'm not sure how much practical use it would be. First, I think accurate measurement of the marginal costs and marginal benefit would be almost impossible to obtain because there are too many other variables. Second, I've some doubt that a substantial amount of criminal activity, particularly murders, is due to economic reasons that could addressed via any reasonable program of redistributions. For example, most of the murders in the inner cities are drug-related. Either turf wars or supporting habits. Turf wars usually involve drug dealers who make more money than most city folk, so I don't think redistribution helps there. As for addicts, I don't think giving them a few hundred extra bucks a month would help at all. Third, redistribution does _nothing_ about crimes of passion, school shootings, mass murderers, etc. I think the result would be throwing money at a problem where money isn't the real solution.
Kevin User ID: 0053014	Mar 8th 4:48 PM When I started reading that GGG thread, I was neutral to gun ownership. Through the course of the discussion, I believe that became much more anti-gun and much more depressed. There is a real problem that nobody is addressing. The gun lobby sure isn't. The anti-gun lobby sure isn't. I have come to realize that both sides are so entrenched in their views that they justify arguments to support their views. I did not get this from just this thread. I've been listening to G. Gordon Liddy (pro gun) and Clinton (anti gun). Both of their arguments seems hollow. I have become very bothered by the state of political debate. It seems that both sides can find/create whatever statistics they need to support their view. Basically all you get if you are trying to find a solution is a bunch of crap. I am honestly disgusted. That is what the GGG thread did for me. Maybe I'll go buy a gun so I can take out my frustrations. Or maybe I'll just move - Germany sounds nice.
Swithin User ID: 0289604	Mar 8th 10:54 PM Kevin - thanks for posting as you have. KAH, Jeff, you know I love both you guys, right? We cool, right? I'm glad you found this topic, but the whole reason I started the damn thing was so that everyone who posted on GGG can talk about it without being intimidated by pro or anti gun rhetoric. GGG lost something important when we got into these long point/counterpoint arguments. It stopped attracting infrequent or first time posters. If you want to keep debating this, please start a new topic, maybe "Jeff and KAH discuss guns". I want everyone to feel free to post here, and the argument really kills that.
KAH User ID: 0541004	Mar 9th 2:35 AM Point taken. :P
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Mar 9th 8:50 AM I'll make a comment related to Kevin's point, and its not really even a gun related comment. Then I'll bow out of future political discussions because this just doesn't seem to be the right forum. I think there are a lot of problems in society that many feel should be addressed in some fashion. Guns, teenage pregnancy, chronic poverty, budget deficits, taxes, racism, etc. At least here in the U.S., there is a general feeling that "the system" is screwed up because it fails to address these problems. People just feel that there "must be" a solution and that "politics" is the only reason we haven't implemented that solution. That was sort of the appeal of Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996. He would just "open up the hood and fix it". To me, the reason we haven't found solutions to many of these problems is simple -- they are very tough problems that don't have obvious solutions. There may not even _be_ a "solution" for some of these problems. We hear things like "if we can put a man on the moon we should be able to [fill in the blank]. I'm not sure this reasoning has much validity.
Sphinx User ID: 8882983	Mar 9th 1:12 PM Jeff, Kay, don't go! Whilst I can understand, Swithin, what you're saying about long posts, but 'everyone' being free to post includes Jeff and Kay. I'm probably guilty of posting long, and maybe it would help make things easier if we cut down on the length some, but just because Kay and Jeff look at the board a lot and get the chance to post a lot, doesn't mean they should refrain. Guys, all three of you make some great points intelligently and interestingly. That's what I come here for.
Father Claidhaim User ID: 8590713	Mar 9th 1:50 PM Despite many people not agreeing with me, everyone should have a nun. Nuns are good for the soul. They help you when you're not feeling well spiritually, and can ease the anxiety of everyday life. To me, having a nun around really makes life more interesting. Safer too. I can't begin to tell you the tales of how having a nun scared of numerous potential burglers, scoundrels, scalawags, and mountebanks. Why the mere sound of the ruler hitting the palm of the hand sends them running. "If nuns are outlawed, only criminals will have nuns." "I'll give up my nun when you pry my cold dead fingers from around her." "This property protected by Sister Mary-Catherine." Oh, I could go on all day........
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Mar 9th 2:14 PM Very nice, Father Claidhaim. But I am intimidated by your wit and would request that, henceforth, you demonstrate neither cleverness nor humor, as it may make some of the "cleverness and humor" impaired feel uncomfortable.
KAH User ID: 0541004	Mar 9th 2:41 PM Dammit, Jeff, as a lawyer you should see the profit in this - why give requests when you just can sue his ass off, eh? I can always claim irrepairable traumas, if you'll make sure the millions come pouring in. goes off to plan how to best live a life in a heap of filthy richness
Swithin User ID: 0840444	Apr 25th 2:17 PM New gun story. A 66 year old woman thought she could get away with packing ger guns into her suitcase, without informing the airline (Alaska, from Seattle to Anchorage). Not only that, but she kept her two Rugers in her suitcase loaded. When the baggage handlers threw her bag into the hold, one of the guns went off... the bullet entered the cabin and was lodged in a baby's diaper bag. A few inches in the wrong direction and it might have killed the baby, the mother, or the father. Well, I suppose it's possible that this story really doesn't bring anything new to light. I'm not saying that gun owners are on the whole more stupid the regular populace (well, I believe that of many gun owners, but I won't say it), just that if a great deal of the populace is stupid, isn't supplying them with guns equally (if not more) stupid?
Swithin User ID: 0840444	Apr 25th 2:42 PM The flight was from Portland, not Seattle.