Ghost of Electricity

i seem to remember reading somewhere that AGIB was written/composed/arranged on pro tools at the loft cutting and pasting extensively, then when it was "done" they learned how to play what they'd constructed on the computer, went to another studio and recorded it more or less live.

Yup. I think we need a constitutinal amendment. edit: damn that's some atroshus spelling. sorry.

Why stop there? I wouldn't ming seeing every gun and ammo manufacturer participate in a sales boycott in every state.

Probably would have ignored this but it seems sadly appropriate to post here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21455453

And it is my sincere hope that he doesn't become a statistic. But let's remember this isn't about hixter, it's about policy. and this argument: may work for him, but does not serve as a strong enough foundation on which to build an entire policy. wish i could discuss this with you further over a brew at solid sound (especially as you won't be packing there-i'd feel safer), but alas, i'm unable to attend:(

I agree we should enforce the laws, but punishment as a deterrent has never worked on any issue and won't work here.

yes by all means enforce the laws that exist, but they will do nothing to prevent gun crime from happening in the first place.

No, it isn't. I've stated before I can understand that it does make you feel safer. But apparently it IS difficult for you to understand that it actually puts you at greater risk. Before backing that up with the statistics above, I argued it in this post, which you conveniently ignored: And i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't ignored or forgotten my question about how to prevent gun violence from happening in the first place.

When you said this: I refrained from using statistics and kept to logic (which has gone unrefuted). But now that you've done this: in addition to introducing yet another inconsistency to your position, you have freed me to do this: But let's keep it domestic, at least for now: which if you do the math comes out to about 800 unintentional gun fatalities a year in the US So if you have a gun in the house you are about 20 times as likely to kill someone accidentally (probably a guest, loved one, or yourself) than to kill an intruder.

Incorrect. This is the fundamental philosophical question at stake here. Your inability to answer a simple yes or no question speaks volumes about the fact that your arguments are built on a foundation which is neither solid nor consistent. The fact this it is only one of several questions that have gone unanswered does the same.

If I had asked that question I would be satisfied with your answer. But that's not the question I asked. The question is (hopefully I'll avoid the typos this time) "Do the rights of the individual trump the rights of the community?" Again, I ask for a simple answer: "Yes" or "No." I'd also like to say thank you (no irony intended) for writing to your representatives. We need more serious debate and more people participating in the democratic process.

Backfire, misfire. I openly admit to being ignorant of the terminology. I think you know what I mean. I fully agree with you that the existing laws should be more strictly enforced. But I don't see it as a solution. The old addage- an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Even the strictest enforcement of existing laws would be no more than a few ounces of cure. How do you suggest preventing gun crime? I don't break laws. I don't hurt people. All I want to do is be able to protect myself. That's the second time you've avoided my question. Do you believe that the rights of th

No, if the ammunition is unavailable the weapons become irrelevant. My own reason for engaging in the debate is not to convert the other side, who are (broadly speaking at least) dogmatically entrenched in theor views. My hope is that, by showing the inherent weakness and illogicality of the pro-gun stance, and pointing out that this same line of thinking dictates the current gun laws, people who agree with me in a passive sense are encouraged to become more active. If I can "convert" someone along the way, that's just a bonus. I'll say it again: write your elected officials and tell

So you do in fact believe that the rights of an individual trump the rights of the community? So you believe that societies like Japan and the UK deny their citizens the most fundamental human right?

Incorrect. There are two axes that this hinges on --you having or not having a gun, and the intruder having or not having a gun. Let's consider your safety. If neither you nor the intruder are armed, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be hurt or killed by gunfire. There could be a random shot froma a domestic dispute at a neighbour's which comes through your window and hits you, but the odds of this are obviously infintesimally small. If you are armed and the intruder isn't, the likelihood of you being injured by gunfire goes up. The intruder could wrestle the gun from you and use

I suggest that the 2nd Amenment historically made sense. It was written fresh after the War for Independence, which was fought mainly by militia--farmers with guns. The founding fathers wanted a sort of insurance policy to prevent tyranny, guns in the hands of the citizenry had recently done just that. The secondary function was personal security, which made sense in the frontier lands which could not practicably support any police force. That was the 18th century, a century which accepted slavery and the subjugation of women as a matter of course. Thankfully, on those issues we managed

Sure Make up your mind- are we including suicide in this conversation or not? I'm a good listener- tell me if an intruder breaks into your home what scenari would place it outside the four listed below? 1) both you and the intruder are unarmed 2)you are armed and the intruder is not 3)the intruder is armed and you are not 4)both you and the intruder are armed. Not a problem.

In Japan there is plenty of organized crime. And the 2nd Amendment is exactly what needs to be repealed. If the intruder enters with intent to harm, it is likely that he will harm you regardless of whether you have a weapon or not, as he will have the element of surprise. Do you watch t.v. holding your gun? do you sleep with your gun? does it sit on the bathroom counter when you are in the shower? If the intruder enters with any other intent, such as intent to rob, it's unlikely that he will hurt you. And incidentally, the four possible scenarios you said were incorrect are incont

I assume you're talking about the info in the link. You didn't respond to the Japan reference. here's another link which deals directly with that: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/ regarding personal security, i don't don't that it makes you FEEL safer, but when put to the test of logic, we can see that it does not, in fact, make us safer. . Let's say an intruder eners your home. There are four possible variations to this scenario. 1) both you and the intruder are unarmed 2)you are armed

I must spend too much time on Facebook because i was looking for the "like" button.

gee there's a statistic to be proud of. takes japan what, ten years to reach that noble number. get a grip. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/20/more-americans-have-died-from-domestic-gunfire-than-all-wars-in-u-s-history-is-that-true/ i liken the struggle to the civil rights struggle. No, it won't be achieved over night. These might be days of slavery, so to speak, but eventually it will happen. The truth will eventually prevail, it always does.

If your revolution will be bloody it will be my blood and it will be on your hands.

Write your representatives in Washington and tell them that. We need the 2nd Amendment repealers to come out of the closet.

Would you give them up if they became illegal? Would you sell them to the government as part of a buyback scheme if they did? Anyway, it's no use preaching to the unconvertable on this issue. I would advise those of you who DO think rationally to save your breath for people who agree in theory but can't be motivated to get off their butts to do anything about it. here's a link to an online petitionsponsored by "The Nation" to suppport the bill: http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50923/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9267

The Feinstein law includes some good common sense measures (like universal background checks) but it does not go nearly far enough One problem with it is that it bans certain assault weapons by name, not by the characteristics that make them dangerous (such as how rapidly they can fire). So a manufacturer only has to change the name, and the gun is once again legal. We need to look at some of the models of other countries who have a fraction of a fraction of the gun crime we have. In Britain, they have introduced measures making it virtually impossible to get ammunition for assault weapon