Elizabeth Smart

[AznParaTrooper]

In my opinion this girl gets way too much publicity. There are thousand of children missing every year ,but this girl is really special for some reason. My theory is that she is white and rich. Just imagine if she is poor and not white.
BTW, her family lives a few blocks from where i'm from.

[Wa11y]

Not to shoot a hole through your "too much publicity" theory, but...

Who?

[SteveI]

This rips into the security of the classic American family. A girl in a nice neighborhood is allegedly abducted from her own home, with her entire family sleeping near by.

If you think about it, if a child is not safe in her own bed, in her own home in a good neighborhood.... where is safe??

I do not think the additional press has to do with the economic status or race directly... It worries me too.

[Wa11y]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

An armed populace is a safe populace.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Wa11y
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

An armed populace is a safe populace.

Pah! No populace is a safe populace.

[Wa11y]

Originally posted by Superman53142
Pah! No populace is a safe populace.

Would you perpetrate a crime on someone you knew was armed, and most likey knew how to use their armaments? I wouldn't.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Wa11y


Would you perpetrate a crime on someone you knew was armed, and most likey knew how to use their armaments? I wouldn't.

I wouldn't perpetrate a crime on anyone, but if when you say "you," you really mean "one," then I would say that the "benefits" of conceiled carry are outwayed by the problems.

If one is in a bar and gets mad at someone, in today's society it is quite likely they will smash a beer bottle over the other person's head. With conceiled carry, what's to say a drunk dude won't pull out his gun and shoot the other person.

Using guns as a deterrent only increases the number of people that have the power to kill at a distance. The less guns, the safer the entire populace is.

All IMHO, of course.

[Wa11y]

Originally posted by Superman53142
I wouldn't perpetrate a crime on anyone, but if when you say "you," you really mean "one," then I would say that the "benefits" of conceiled carry are outwayed by the problems.

If one is in a bar and gets mad at someone, in today's society it is quite likely they will smash a beer bottle over the other person's head. With conceiled carry, what's to say a drunk dude won't pull out his gun and shoot the other person.

Using guns as a deterrent only increases the number of people that have the power to kill at a distance. The less guns, the safer the entire populace is.

All IMHO, of course.

You are so going to disagree with me!

I'm not talking about a safe society as in no one perpetrates any crimes on anyone, I'm talking safe as in a whole bunch of stupid people are going to die really quickly. I'm coming at you from a nihilistic standpoint. Cleaning out the deadweight.

[Southern Man]

This situation is not unlike the Polly Klause deal where the girl is taken from her own bedroom in the middle of the night. It to got a large amount of press. I do believe it is somewhat hyped because of the circumstances of the child being in her own home. Playing on the idea of if you aren't safe in your own home then where are you safe.

I do have a hard time thinking a complete stranger knew which bedroom she was in and that the alarm system was inadequate. I personally think there is more to this story than is being told. For all we know this could be a little rich girl's plan for getting away from her parents. You never know.

Being a parent I can image the loss the parents are feeling right now. Not knowing if their child is alive or what she is being subjected to.

As for the media hype..... It may be that the officials in charge are perpetuating the media coverage, as it is the only communication they have with the abductor right now. They have no other way to pressure him and are probably using the media as a tool.

[Pinky]

Originally posted by Wa11y
I'm talking safe as in a whole bunch of stupid people are going to die really quickly. I'm coming at you from a nihilistic standpoint. Cleaning out the deadweight.

We think too much alike.

Didn't some Darwin dude refer to that as "Natural selection"??

[Wa11y]

Originally posted by Pinky
We think too much alike.

Didn't some Darwin dude refer to that as "Natural selection"??

Well, with humans there is no such thing as "natural." But technically, yeah. Weeding out the weak.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Wa11y


Well, with humans there is no such thing as "natural." But technically, yeah. Weeding out the weak.

That's all well, until you're one of the weak.

[Wa11y]

Originally posted by Superman53142
That's all well, until you're one of the weak.

Not really. Because if I'm one of the weak, I'll be dead. And I won't have to care any more. Simple as that.

[Pinky]

Originally posted by Superman53142


That's all well, until you're one of the weak.

Weakness isn't so bad, I let others take care of me so I can sit around and chat on this BBS

[SteveI]

Originally posted by Wa11y
Well, with humans there is no such thing as "natural." But technically, yeah. Weeding out the weak.

Ah come on guys!! let this one drop... this arguement is senseless. It's not "survival of the fittest". The best analogy is survival of the most aggressive, if you want to equate it to guns. And you don't have to be very smart, or "fit" or strong to pull a trigger. In fact, it does just the opposite... it permits the weak and frail and "less fit" to have "equal footing".

(I'm not criticizing one side or the other, I'm criticizing the line of reasoning.)

[Pinky]

Originally posted by SteveI


Ah come on guys!! let this one drop... this arguement is senseless. It's not "survival of the fittest". The best analogy is survival of the most aggressive, if you want to equate it to guns. And you don't have to be very smart, or "fit" or strong to pull a trigger.

Not all creatures that survive need to be smart or fit, they only need survive until something better comes along to whipe it out .

[SteveI]

Originally posted by Pinky


Not all creatures that survive need to be smart or fit, they only need survive until something better comes along to whipe it out .

In nature, luck works just as good as anything else.

[Pinky]

Originally posted by SteveI


In nature, luck works just as good as anything else.

Right along with my point

oh, and actually, you missed the point... we were saying the weak would kill each other off, leaving the stronger "minded" (who didn't partake in such barbaristic behavior)...

[Wa11y]

Originally posted by SteveI
Ah come on guys!! let this one drop... this arguement is senseless. It's not "survival of the fittest". The best analogy is survival of the most aggressive, if you want to equate it to guns. And you don't have to be very smart, or "fit" or strong to pull a trigger. In fact, it does just the opposite... it permits the weak and frail and "less fit" to have "equal footing".

(I'm not criticizing one side or the other, I'm criticizing the line of reasoning.)

Hence I'm a bigger fan of swords.

But yes, it is a stupid line of reasoning. And Pinky understands where I'm coming from. His post proves that. Athough it is a bit faulty, because the "strong" who are smart enough not to engage in such actions may also be killed.

I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying it's good, but let's face it: we're long overdue for a thorough cleaning of the gene pool. It's a rough plan, and a lot of people are going to die.

[SteveI]

Originally posted by Wa11y

... because the "strong" who are smart enough not to engage in such actions may also be killed....

Exactly what I was thinking... In fact, there is a greater likelihood, that those who do not carry arms, would fall victim to those that do. There would be no "being above" the rabble so to speak.