Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-18-2008, 12:22 PM   #161 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
How would YOU, as someone who doesn't own a gun and is most likely unfamiliar with regular usage of one, expect to know how to tell others who ARE experienced in the ways of being safe with that gun?
I don't fly planes either, but I have no qualms requiring pilots to get proper training before flying over my house.

I'm not asking to be the instructor, just that people be properly trained before someone gives them a weapon that can so easily kill.
Willravel is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 12:50 PM   #162 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I don't fly planes either, but I have no qualms requiring pilots to get proper training before flying over my house.

I'm not asking to be the instructor, just that people be properly trained before someone gives them a weapon that can so easily kill.
//claps//
Hain is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 12:52 PM   #163 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Why? Why can't we change?
why should we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I'm not asking to be the instructor, just that people be properly trained before someone gives them a weapon that can so easily kill.
training like your average police officer is given?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Last edited by dksuddeth; 02-18-2008 at 12:54 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 12:56 PM   #164 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
[1] why should we?
[2] training like your average police officer is given?
1 - It's going to happen eventually, whether we like it or not.
2 - Given what was said earlier, I hope firearms licenses require more than that.
Hain is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 01:02 PM   #165 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
why should we?
So as to avoid the NUMEROUS gun related accidental deaths every year. Or do you like that this right that you so valiantly defend kills so many innocent people accidentally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
training like your average police officer is given?
No one here is talking about the police but you. I have absolutely no clue why they would be the bar, and I'm not sure what they have to do with anything.

http://www.frontsight.com/
These programs are very successful and I would imagine that requiring someone to take a basic firearms safety and training program before issuing them such dangerous weapons would be more than prudent, it would be downright responsible.
Willravel is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 01:18 PM   #166 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
So as to avoid the NUMEROUS gun related accidental deaths every year. Or do you like that this right that you so valiantly defend kills so many innocent people accidentally?
what other rules and regulations should be made because people refuse to be responsible for their actions? There are only two reasons why people want training classes and licensing requirements for people to have guns.
1. They don't like/carry guns themselves so they want to make it as difficult as possible for everyone else to carry them
2. they want some sort of 'feel good' insurance policy in the head to help them make it through the day thinking 'if someone is carrying a gun, they at least know how to use it.

nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
No one here is talking about the police but you. I have absolutely no clue why they would be the bar, and I'm not sure what they have to do with anything.
I'm not the only person here talking about them, but it's been said numerous times that 'common folk' don't have the training to effectively use guns, like cops or the military do. So if that's the common belief, why shouldn't they be the bar?

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
http://www.frontsight.com/
These programs are very successful and I would imagine that requiring someone to take a basic firearms safety and training program before issuing them such dangerous weapons would be more than prudent, it would be downright responsible.
requiring classes and licenses to exercise a right, kinda defeats the purpose of it being a right, don't ya think? Not only that, but I believe there is a supreme court case that said no state can charge a license fee or tax for the exercise of a right that is federally protected.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 01:31 PM   #167 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
what other rules and regulations should be made because people refuse to be responsible for their actions?
...
requiring classes and licenses to exercise a right, kinda defeats the purpose of it being a right, don't ya think? Not only that, but I believe there is a supreme court case that said no state can charge a license fee or tax for the exercise of a right that is federally protected.
It will be interesting to see the USSC ruling on the DC gun ban. The author of the Appeals Court decision that ruled it unconstitutional also wrote in the decision:
Quote:
Judge Silberman, writing for the majority yesterday, said the decision’s reasoning still allowed “reasonable restrictions” on the ownership and use of guns, and he gave some examples. It is “presumably reasonable,” he wrote, to prohibit drunks from carrying weapons and to ban guns in churches and polling places.
No right is absolute.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 01:32 PM   #168 (permalink)
 
abaya's Avatar
 
Location: Iceland
Don't you guys ever get tired of the gun control debate?... seriously. Don't make me insert another abaya_suddeth photo in here to lighten things up!! (DK, I don't know if you saw the first one in Playground, but it was a hit).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Most boys are drawn to guns as well. We played solider almost daily as a kid, and my son already turns pretty much every stick like object into a gun and thats just from seeing a few video games.
Just a sidenote about this boys vs. girls thing... Ustwo, you'd have been hard-pressed to find more of a tomboy than I was, as a kid. I tore dolls apart or used them as chemistry-set experiments when anyone was thoughtless enough to give them to me as a gift. My toys of choice were my dad's real hammer and nails, a drill if my dad would let me get to it (I loved power tools), and trees and blocks of wood. I loved playing with bows and arrows, pretend swords, etc... but just never was attracted to the idea of guns, for whatever reason. When my dad gave me the BB gun for target practice, I just remember feeling awkward and bored... not fearful or abhoring the weapon, but just disinterested. I don't know what that says, but I just wanted to throw it in there since I wasn't your typical "girl," and I don't think attitudes towards weapons are always necessarily gender-based.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Much like its your nature to abhor weapons, I am drawn to them, not in a 'unhealthy' way, I currently don't own a weapon more dangerous than a K-Bar, but there is something about them that carrying them seems natural.
So, as I said, it took me a long time to develop a more negative attitude towards weapons. I wouldn't say it was in my "nature" to abhor them, but since I was so disinterested, it didn't take much observation of people and their guns around me (e.g. my crazy wanna-be militia relatives) to shift my feelings towards the negative end of the spectrum. And now, I really just do not like them. I love the idea of being able to defend myself, and when I took a self-defense course, I was very much into the various ways that I could harm someone... whatever it took, I would do it. But not with a gun, I know that.

Hope we can get this thread of the very unenlightening merry-go-round that it's currently on...
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

--Khalil Gibran
abaya is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 01:46 PM   #169 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
It will be interesting to see the USSC ruling on the DC gun ban. The author of the Appeals Court decision that ruled it unconstitutional also wrote in the decision:

reasonable restrictions” on the ownership and use of guns, and he gave some examples. It is “presumably reasonable,” he wrote, to prohibit drunks from carrying weapons and to ban guns in churches and polling places.

No right is absolute.
In the example of silbermans decision, licensing doesn't appear to be brought up. Would that be because of Murdock v. commonwealth of PA??

Quote:
Originally Posted by abaya
Don't make me insert another abaya_suddeth photo in here to lighten things up!! (DK, I don't know if you saw the first one in Playground, but it was a hit).
No, I hadn't, but now you've got me intrigued.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Last edited by dksuddeth; 02-18-2008 at 01:48 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 01:53 PM   #170 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
In the example of silbermans decision, licensing doesn't appear to be brought up. Would that be because of Murdock v. commonwealth of PA??
I agree on licensing. My point was that but the Appeals Court ruled that 2nd amendment right is not absolute and that "reasonable restrictions" would not violate that right.

Enough said. We shall see this spring when the USSC rules on the case.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 01:56 PM   #171 (permalink)
 
abaya's Avatar
 
Location: Iceland
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
No, I hadn't, but now you've got me intrigued.
Just look for the photos in the threads below... there is a world outside of gun control debates, my friend!!
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...=abaya_suddeth
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...=abaya_suddeth
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

--Khalil Gibran
abaya is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 02:07 PM   #172 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by abaya
Just look for the photos in the threads below... there is a world outside of gun control debates, my friend!!
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...=abaya_suddeth
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...=abaya_suddeth
oh god, those rock
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 02:15 PM   #173 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
what other rules and regulations should be made because people refuse to be responsible for their actions? There are only two reasons why people want training classes and licensing requirements for people to have guns.
1. They don't like/carry guns themselves so they want to make it as difficult as possible for everyone else to carry them
2. they want some sort of 'feel good' insurance policy in the head to help them make it through the day thinking 'if someone is carrying a gun, they at least know how to use it.

nothing more, nothing less.
There are two general ways to respond to crime problems: prevention and reaction. Prevention is about removing the opportunity to commit a crime. Reaction is about punishment and deterrence via punishment. Either way the problem is addressing and stopping crime. The problem with reaction is that the crime has already occurred, and someone has already been victimized. Things like "give em guns and if they commit crime, then punish the shit out of them" are perfect examples of reactive measures to crime. They may prevent crime by deterrence, but they're mainly punishment and don't protect the victims. My way, prevention, is about preventing the victimization in the first place.

I'll illustrate each of our philosophies using the travesty in the OP as an example.
DK's world: A gunman who was easily able to get a hold of guns despite the fact he may have had warning signs as to mental illness opens fire in a school. Several armed students return fire. The gunman is killed, and one of the students who pulled a gun to respond is killed, and another injured. Before the armed students returned fire, the madman was still able to kill a half a dozen students and injure an additional sixteen.

Willravel's world: A potential gunman applies for a gun license, but is turned down due to a history of emotional problems. He attempts to get a gun illegally, but fails. No one is injured and no one dies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I'm not the only person here talking about them, but it's been said numerous times that 'common folk' don't have the training to effectively use guns, like cops or the military do. So if that's the common belief, why shouldn't they be the bar?

requiring classes and licenses to exercise a right, kinda defeats the purpose of it being a right, don't ya think? Not only that, but I believe there is a supreme court case that said no state can charge a license fee or tax for the exercise of a right that is federally protected.
You act like "right" has one definition. It doesn't.

Last edited by Willravel; 02-18-2008 at 02:21 PM..
Willravel is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 02:16 PM   #174 (permalink)
 
abaya's Avatar
 
Location: Iceland
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
oh god, those rock
hehe. Good to know we agree on something, eh? Thanks to Crompsin in the first place for coming up with such an insane combination...

/back to The Usual Gun Control Debating Thread...
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

--Khalil Gibran
abaya is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 02:23 PM   #175 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
There are two general ways to respond to crime problems: prevention and [/I]reaction[/I]. Prevention is about removing the opportunity to commit a crime. Reaction is about punishment and deterrence via punishment. Either way the problem is addressing and stopping crime. The problem with reaction is that the crime has already occurred, and someone has already been victimized. Things like "give em guns and if they commit crime, then punish the shit out of them" are perfect examples of reactive measures to crime. They may prevent crime by deterrence, but they're mainly punishment and don't protect the victims. My way, prevention, is about preventing the victimization in the first place.

I'll illustrate each of our philosophies using the travesty in the OP as an example.
DK's world: A gunman who was easily able to get a hold of guns despite the fact he may have had warning signs as to mental illness opens fire in a school. Several armed students return fire. The gunman is killed, and one of the students who pulled a gun to respond is killed, and another injured. Before the armed students returned fire, the madman was still able to kill a half a dozen students and injure an additional sixteen.

Willravel's world: A potential gunman applies for a gun license, but is turned down due to a history of emotional problems. He attempts to get a gun illegally, but fails. No one is injured and no one dies.
why is it that in your world, everything turns out peachy keen, yet in my world, the only thing that changed is another student died? bias? I think so. Especially considering the other possibilities, like a student with a gun stopping said gunman before 6 died or 16 were injured.....or wanna be gunman gets even more pissed because he can't find a gun so he straps on 10 pounds of homemade dynamite? It's all conjecture. The only difference is my scenario creates the possibility of defense in the face of failure while yours is hoping for success and no plans for failure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
You act like "right" has one definition. It doesn't.
how many do you think there are?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 02:31 PM   #176 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
why is it that in your world, everything turns out peachy keen, yet in my world, the only thing that changed is another student died? bias? I think so. Especially considering the other possibilities, like a student with a gun stopping said gunman before 6 died or 16 were injured.....or wanna be gunman gets even more pissed because he can't find a gun so he straps on 10 pounds of homemade dynamite? It's all conjecture. The only difference is my scenario creates the possibility of defense in the face of failure while yours is hoping for success and no plans for failure.
The point: Prevention vs. reaction. And... Go!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
how many do you think there are?
Obviously there are more than one.
Willravel is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 03:13 PM   #177 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Infinite_Loser's Avatar
 
Location: Lake Mary, FL
Ah... The obligatory gun control argument.

It's always nice to note that people kill people. It'd be just as easy to mow plow into a large crowd of people with a car as it would to be to open fire on a group of people (Actually, it'd be easier).
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.
Infinite_Loser is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 03:26 PM   #178 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
1. They don't like/carry guns themselves so they want to make it as difficult as possible for everyone else to carry them
2. they want some sort of 'feel good' insurance policy in the head to help them make it through the day thinking 'if someone is carrying a gun, they at least know how to use it.
Thank you for numerating your points. Saves me the trouble.
1 - I still would not mind to take a class to own a gun.
2 - Yeah, so? What happened to better safe than sorry?


Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I'm not the only person here talking about them, but it's been said numerous times that 'common folk' don't have the training to effectively use guns, like cops or the military do. So if that's the common belief, why shouldn't they be the bar?
That was before you and others unwittingly popped my bubble universe that cops had actual engagement training.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
requiring classes and licenses to exercise a right, kinda defeats the purpose of it being a right, don't ya think? Not only that, but I believe there is a supreme court case that said no state can charge a license fee or tax for the exercise of a right that is federally protected.
Maybe this was all ready tackled by the linguistic artists. If not, I will sleep on this one.


@ Willravel:

While your way seems squeaky clean, dksuddeth is right, and ties back to my concerns in the OP. If it were not for guns, the killer would make or buy explosives. Guns are only tools. Just like bombs. Just like screwdrivers.
Hain is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 03:31 PM   #179 (permalink)
©
 
StanT's Avatar
 
Location: Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Ah... The obligatory gun control argument.

It's always nice to note that people kill people. It'd be just as easy to mow plow into a large crowd of people with a car as it would to be to open fire on a group of people (Actually, it'd be easier).
But a whole lot harder to be selective about your target or get past 4-5 victims (human speed bumps and all).

Note that the NIU shooter, the VA Tech shooter, and the CO Springs shooter all obtained their guns legally. Heaven forbid we make sanity a requirement for legal gun ownership (like it is for a driver's license).
StanT is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 03:56 PM   #180 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augi
@ Willravel:

While your way seems squeaky clean, dksuddeth is right, and ties back to my concerns in the OP. If it were not for guns, the killer would make or buy explosives. Guns are only tools. Just like bombs. Just like screwdrivers.
Not really. When you look in places that have a lot less guns you don't see school bombings. It's still shootings.
Willravel is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 04:00 PM   #181 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Not really. When you look in places that have a lot less guns you don't see school bombings. It's still shootings.
Correlation does not equate causality. Again we are ignoring the sociocultural aspects as to why today's American generation is going to hell, steering with its own hands.
Hain is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 04:13 PM   #182 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augi
Correlation does not equate causality. Again we are ignoring the sociocultural aspects as to why today's American generation is going to hell, steering with its own hands.
Correlation is more than a lack of any evidence whatsoever.
Willravel is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 04:22 PM   #183 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Correlation is more than a lack of any evidence whatsoever.
Hain is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 04:32 PM   #184 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
the medication part is something that should be discussed. how does society MAKE/FORCE a person to not discontinue their meds?
I'm going to threadjack back to motive

Does anyone else think that maybe anti-depressants are actually the problem? In almost every case of these mass shootings and attempted mass shootings or weird stabbing 75 times or the mother drowning her kids and what not, it seems the person was on anti-depressants then abrubtly stops taking them.

After reading about these drugs in my opinion they are extremely over prescribed. Plus the whole system seems to reward doctors and the people taking these pills (like the happy pill commercials on tv). These drugs should really only be given to the extremely mentally ill schizophrenic or manic depressive type people. Even on the labels now they say things like 'increases suicidal tendencies.'

The doctors should be telling people to get more sunshine and exercise and eating correctly rather than prescribing these pills.

My understanding some people taking them start to have diminishing returns and have to up the dose to get the good feeling. Then some decide to stop taking them for one reason or another. Wouldn't that cause a day after exstasy type depression, except for weeks instead of a couple days. I guess that might cause someone to flip out on society.

I admit I don't know a lot about anti-depressants, it's just a thought.
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.
samcol is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 04:39 PM   #185 (permalink)
has a plan
 
Hain's Avatar
 
Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere
No, I am glad that someone brings this back to sociocultural reasons this day's American generation is burning out. I have always felt that medication is over prescribed, whether it is for depression of ADHD. From what I have seen, people don't need it to function. Yes I have seen those that really really should stay on their medication... but I have seen parents that just a quick fix so they don't have to deal with their kid.



@ Willravel:
You had to see that one coming.
Hain is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 05:54 PM   #186 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crompsin
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. I will PAY for you to take a concealed carry class.

This kind of ignorance is perpetuated by non-gunners and the media.

"Oh, just shoot out a leg. Shoot the gun out of his hand. It's easy."

Complete hogwash.

...

You use a firearm when there is no other option of force available. It is the absolute last resort after harsh language and other physical implements fail.

When you pull the trigger on a firearm that is pointed at someone else...your intent is to destroy them. You shoot to kill, you don't shoot to wound.

You focus your front sight over the bad guy's sternum (center mass) and squeeze in short successions until he goes down.

This is both a philosophical and legal principle. Regardless of the outcome of your shot, the intent is, was, and should always be to kill.

If you have to unholster a firearm and point it at someone because of a life-threatening situation (the only viable reason)... you should be in the mindset that you are going to shoot your weapon with the purpose of killing them. There is no wounding, there is no grazing... the righteous use of firearms goes: "I am defending my life by taking yours." Serious shit.

We don't have any Star Trek "Set phasers to stun!" technology yet.

Firearms are lethal weapons and should be treated as such.

That is what my dad told me...when you take a shooting class isn't the main objective to shoot in the midsection? Or am I wrong?
Thanks for confirming Cromp.
surferlove007 is offline  
Old 02-18-2008, 05:58 PM   #187 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
It will be interesting to see the USSC ruling on the DC gun ban. The author of the Appeals Court decision that ruled it unconstitutional also wrote in the decision:
It won't matter because DC isn't a state and therefore the decision won't result in the incorporation of the Second Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
Does anyone else think that maybe anti-depressants are actually the problem? In almost every case of these mass shootings and attempted mass shootings or weird stabbing 75 times or the mother drowning her kids and what not, it seems the person was on anti-depressants then abrubtly stops taking them.
The core problem is that mental illness is a taboo in our society and people aren't free to discuss it. People see it as being the problem or fault of those who suffer from it rather than having sympathy, they avoid it and are afraid of it, and those who are mentally ill become outcasts as a result.
MSD is offline  
 

Tags
dead, niu, shooting


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:00 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360