During the oil crisis in the early 80's they worked on this. I'm fairly sure one company did add sails to a ship or two and did see a reduction in fuel consumption.
Also Popular Mechanics ran an article on this like 4 months ago. In fact it was on the cover of that issue.
The worst part, Americans will buy a car or home without haggling or negotiating. Come on people, that car can move by $500.00 without effort and homes can move by $5000 to $20,000 in todays market. (except for lunatic places like california or DC where idiots bid UP on the homes.)
Say what? Everyone I know who has bought a house has always haggled. The only time you pay asking price or more is if you get into a bidding war. Which well there are stupid people everywhere, so I doubt this is only happening in the US. The same goes for cars; the vast majority of people walk in there and haggle on the new car and the trade. Heck depending on the car you can move it by 3-5k. The last new car I bought I talked the dealer down about $3,500. It's not that difficult if you know your stuff and go in with a plan.
Is this why they asked for a phone number last time I made a purchase (in cash)? I had to refuse several times, and then since I'd obviously caught the attention of security, had to refuse their search of my bags at the door as well. Not a very pleasant experience.
This reminds me of when I went to Worst Buy to buy a Vonage router/voip dealie and the cashier insisted I had to give her my phone number. I asked why they needed my phone number and her reply was, "because we just do." I politely refused and told her that I would just go across the street to Circuit Shitty or any one of the other half a dozen stores within spitting distance I could buy it from. Needless to say Circuit City was out of stock, but Office Despot had them in stock and didn't ask any sort of question. They took my money like a good retailer should and wished me a good day.
Of course, folks would just think of a new way to kill, but the period of downtime (if any - let's face it, we're a murderous lot) would be an interesting change of pace.
Right, it would take people a long time to figure out knives, clubs, cars, ice picks, etc. Lots of downtime there.
Oh sure, I know people who make 120k+ per year, but thats working 12-16 hours per day, 7 days a week. They can keep the money as far as I'm concerned. Do you mind if I ask which plant you work at?
They are good people. It is sad to see their company falling apart, but on the other hand, any company that pays its lawn-mowers more than its PhDs is going to come un-glued.
Delphi and GM are really betting on fuel cells as the future. It is a tough problem, though, as fuel cells work much better in producing slow, steady power as compared to the high-output bursts that are required by automobiles. I have done some research on fuel cell membranes in the past (which is the primary show-stopper right now). It is a tough problem. FCs are not being held back by any form of corporate greed. They are being held back because they simply cannot be produced with the reliability, performance and price required.
Eh? The only way someone mowing the lawn (or any hourly employee) is making more than an engineer at Delphi or GM is by working a ton of overtime (like 80 hour work weeks). I know at my old plant front line supervisors made something like 20% over the highest paid hourly employee under them (this may have changed; it's been two years since I worked for them). Working a straight 40 hours per week there is no hourly employee that will make more than his boss (let alone an engineer). With overtime it's an entirely different story though.
When my father retired in '99 he was making ~75k as an engineer. At that time hourly workers were making ~44k/year with no overtime. Do hourly employees get paid a lot of money for the jobs they do? Absolutely, but it's not as much as the media likes to make it out to be. I love how the USA Today, CNN, Fox like to spout off this $75/hour number. I wish I made that much. What they don't mention is that $75/hour covers wages, health, dental, vision insurance, all other benefits (such as tuition assistance) AND it includes retiree benefits. The retiree stuff alone is good for at least 1/3 of that $75. Both Delphi and GM have treated me fairly well.
Well my knowledge is mostly about Delphi's fuel cell and last I heard (again two years ago) they had it working great; the biggest problem was cost and they were also working on shrinking it down. When I left I believe they were on the 4th generation of a working design already.
You clearly have a view from the inside. I get pretty tired of all the "big evil corporations are holding back THE MAN" posts around this place.
By and large, corporations are full of good people who understand that making money ultimately comes from pleasing your customers. If GM dropped the electric car idea, it is not for some nefarious reason, but because the things just couldn't provide a competitive balance of brice and performance at the time. It is also ludicrious to claim that "Big Oil" and the car companies are not pouring tons of R&D into alternative fuels and transporation. On the contrary, they are putting in as much as anyone. I think this myth comes from the mistaken belief that companies only think about the short-term.
Well I have a limited view, but I guess you could call it an inside view. Many of the things can be found by doing some fairly easy googling. The only thing you really won't find much info on is Delphi's Fuel Cell; they're kind of cagey about it, but it really is very neat.
The problem is people don't tend to do any research before running off at the mouth about how some company isn't doing anything about XYZ or how they're part of some vast compiracy. Sure every company will do what it can to protect it's interests (read lobbyists). That's just "good" business.
People don't realize how much into long term thought the automotive industry is. If anything they rely too much upon it and oddly enough it leads to them taking too long to get things to market.
People also don't seem the understand the amount of engineering, testing, and refining that go into any product, but especially an automobile. Many times there is so much on an engineers plate that fairly simple things get overlooked and that leads to problems (like recalls, TSB's, etc.) This is all while working on things that have been done for decades, let alone a new untested product!
There was a show about that on PBS, and the release of the movie, and supposedly they were never for sale, only for lease. At the end of the lease many people wanted to buy the cars but they were not alowed to and they the cars were shreaded. So they never were given a chance to see if they could make it in the market.
Never got a chance? The program started in 1996 and was axed in 2003. Lets see here ~7 years isn't long enough to see if they could make it on the market? Exactly what planet are you from? Also there is no supposedly about it. The EV1 was for lease only because it was an experimental project and GM wanted to keep ownership of the vehicles for what I'll assume is a number of reasons.
Well actually GM kept quite a few of the EV1's. Just outside of Rochester, NY in Honeoye Falls GM has a research center. What do they research there you ask? Hydrogen fuel cells. Some people who live in Rochester may have noticed some EV1's running around town. Guess whats powering them? The answer isn't batteries. Delphi also has it's Fuel cell research center just outside of Rochester in Henrietta. The Delphi fuel cell is actually really neat, but unfortunately I really can't get into specifics. Lets just say Delphi for all it's faults, thought outside the box on fuel cells and came up with some really good ideas and technology.
People think that Detroit isn't working on alternatives to gasonline, but you're entirely wrong. Unfortunately these technologies just aren't ready for the type of mass production needed to supply the entire US. Honda has made one fuel cell vehicle out there right now being tested by some family in California. They'll probably be the first to market with them too, but watch how many cars are actually sold. And keep an eye on the huge number of problems they're bound to have with them the first few years.
Detroit is notorious for not taking leaps like that without knowing it will work properly. I'm surprised the EV1 and the electric S-10/Sonoma actually went to market at all given GM's track record on taking risks. GM took a big chance with the EV1 project and no one really gave them any credit. Now that it's been dead a few years and suddenly gas prices are a "huge" problem (yeah right; gas is still dirt cheap here) people are attacking GM for axing a program that was costing them ridiculous amounts of money per year.
I always find it amusing to see people who really don't know whats going on in the automotive industry chime in and act like they're experts on the subject. People seem to forget a lot of things go on behind the scenes. Some things get press, but not a lot of press since it doesn't involve Brad and Angelina. Other things are kept under wraps.
Am I the only one who thinks HD-DVD is a bit premature? Existing DVD products fail to add compelling extra features in most cases with well done bonus features being few and far between. What do they hope to accomplish with all that freakin SPACE!? (saddled along with all that extra COST no less)
Well one thing I do think we'll see is TV shows, movie compilations and whatnot that used to span 5+ discs down onto one or two (or however may be appropriate for a particular product).
We're the MPAA. Our profits are slipping. What's the problem?
Maybe $10 for a movie ticket, $7 for a tub of popcorn, $5 for a soda or candy bar is a little much. Nah, couldn't be it. Maybe laser pointers, cell phones and chatty kathies are ruining the experience. Nah, couldn't be it. Maybe big-screen TVs make watching movies at home more enjoyable. Nah, couldn't be it. Maybe showing 15 commercials before the movie starts is a little obnoxious. Nah, couldn't be it. Maybe we're putting out absolute drivel that no one in their right mind would sit through. Nah, couldn't be it. Maybe it's the online pirates, sucking down our profits over high-speed Internet connections. Yes, that's it! That's why no one goes to the movies anymore!
Well you can really only blame "Hollywood" for the ticket price and the shite movies they put out.
The rest is the fault of either the theater or the idiots attending the movie.
The article is sort of vague on that. They say: "Every two months he was going for blood tests and checks on his liver, heart and immune system."
Blood tests doesn't mean HIV tests. Especially sinde they follow up with: "So in October 2003 he was offered a repeat HIV test -- and the result came back negative."
That makes it sound as if that was his first HIV test since he tested positive.
Given that he continued to have intercourse with his partner who was known to be infected (maybe he should be rechecked too if they went to the same clinic!) then I'd guess he really did have it and just might have beaten it in some way.
Regardless it was bound to happen. There are always people who are immune (or their immune system is better equipped to fight) any given disease, virus, etc.
---------- I'd take that one step further. DO NOT point a firearm at someone unless it has already escalated and you have every intention of shooting. The old rule still applies, "don't point a gun at anything you're not willing to destroy immediately and irrevocably". I'm sorry, but if someone points a firearm at me, then my life is in danger, and I will not stop shooting until the threat is gone. ----------
I know a number of people who can strip down and then reassemble many different fire arms without thinking twice about it, but know jack shit about computers.
A persons knowledge or ignorance of one field has NOTHING to do with their knowledge or ignorance of another field.
And most power buttons on computers aren't labeled "power".
You are correct. If the number is indeed per capita; which after poking around a bit it seems it is.
Hrm, I like how you add in there "when it comes to gun violence." And it seems you're absolutely right about gun violence. The criminals supposedly have less guns now, so they're using other means. Do gun laws stop gun related crime? Yes, to some extent. Do gun laws stop the same crimes from being commited without a gun? Nope.
I'm still of the belief that educating a population about something is better route to reducing things like accidental gun deaths (which is all gun control affects for the most part) than telling them, "You're too stupid to know whats good for you!" Perhaps the general populace is too ignorant to own a gun, but thats because we don't bother educating our population.
As for Florida polls. If you dig you'll find that the recounts indeed showed Gore winning, but Bush had the recounts stopped by the surpeme court before they were finally done. So when it comes down to it sure the votes said Gore won, but Bush showed some tenacity and ended up with the presidency.
And no I didn't vote for Gore, but I'm not voting for Bush again either. I do wish there were a better alternative than Kerry though.
Well that still proves my point. I asked that question before I had finished forming my statements in my head and never removed it. I did a bit of googling, but I didn't look for that as either way my statement is valid.
I'll agree with populations density, but I'll disagree on less crime in Canada. Perhaps straight up numbers because Canada has sush a smaller population, but I'll imagine per capita crime in general is probably about even.
I really see no real evidence about the violence and temperature link. In my personal experience of traveling throughout the US I'd have to say the warmer it gets the nicer folks are.
See Louisiana is an interesting place. Originally settled by... yep Canadians and these descendants of canucks love their guns!
But now we're on the issue of violence and crime in general and not the original topic of guns.
It's a truth when people say, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Does the gun make it easier? Absolutely, but if someone wants to kill another person they're going to do it whether or not they have a gun.
Guns were invented for one reason and one reason only: To kill people, but as time has gone by they've been used for other more useful things (hunting game for food) and now more recreational things (target shooting, hunting, etc..). They're still used to kill people of course, but taking the guns out of the hands of the people who are using them in a responsible way does absolutely NOTHING to solve the problem with gun related crime.
Think about it; if you were a criminal and going to lets say murder someone.
Would you: A. Go to the store and buy a gun that perhaps can be traced to you. Or B. Buy or steal a weapon that's not going to be tracable to you?
Oh sure there are those who have even less brain cells than your average thug and would buy one through legitimate means to commit the crime, but I'd say there's not too many of those types when compared to the whole.
Ha! I dunno having just moved from Western NY to Northern Louisiana I can say people down here are much more layed back than people up north! And it's pretty damned hot down here! During the summer it's 80F at midnight!
------------- Asnwer this then: 1/5th the gun deaths in Canada compared to the US. We watch your shows, we listen to your music, we buy the same cars, food, etc. Except we have very strict handgun laws, and you don't. We even have the same % of rifle ownership as the US per capita, its just the limited access to handguns and assualt-style semi-automatics that makes up the difference. --------------
You're a bit vague here. Are you talking per capita or using real numbers?
Canada has ~10% the poluation of the US. So by your own arguments it's actually more dangerous in Canada than in the US!
Example:
US Population: ~294.2 million Canada Population: ~32 million
That makes the Canadian popluation ~10.8% of US population.
Lets says there are 100 deaths per year in the US caused by handguns in the hands of criminals or law abiding citizens. That would mean there are 20 deaths under the same circumstances in Canada (using your statement), but the population of Canada is only ~11% of the US population. That would mean there are more gun deaths in Canada per capita than in the US if I were to use your argument.
All these arguments are a load of crap though. The problem you run into with the misuse of guns or accidents is caused by people not being educated about guns. Based on my experience people who are brought up around firearms and know what they can and can't do are more likely to have a healthy respect for them than those who don't (not that there aren't exceptions).
If you don't want to own a handgun that's your choice and more power to you, but if I choose to own one and handle is properly and safely then you should have no worries about it at all.
It all boils down to as has been said before: Gun's are the problem, people are the problem. I'm of the belief that you DO NOT point a firearm at someone unless you are being threatend and intend to shoot that person if matters escalate.
In a perfect world there'd be no need for firearms for self protection, but as we all know we don't live in a perfect world. I know a handful of people that are alive today because they had their pistol with them and ended up in a situation they didn't start nor want to be in.
There seems to be this demonization of "pro-gun" people by many anti-gun people. Just because I support my right to own a firearm doesn't mean I'm some whack job who's going to run around waving it at people!
I'm sure I've made plenty of typoed and that my grammar is horrid, so any comments on that subject will be ignored.
However if you have something constructive to add I will read and absorb it.
Slashdot Mirror
During the oil crisis in the early 80's they worked on this. I'm fairly sure one company did add sails to a ship or two and did see a reduction in fuel consumption.
Also Popular Mechanics ran an article on this like 4 months ago. In fact it was on the cover of that issue.
The worst part, Americans will buy a car or home without haggling or negotiating. Come on people, that car can move by $500.00 without effort and homes can move by $5000 to $20,000 in todays market. (except for lunatic places like california or DC where idiots bid UP on the homes.)
Say what? Everyone I know who has bought a house has always haggled. The only time you pay asking price or more is if you get into a bidding war. Which well there are stupid people everywhere, so I doubt this is only happening in the US. The same goes for cars; the vast majority of people walk in there and haggle on the new car and the trade. Heck depending on the car you can move it by 3-5k. The last new car I bought I talked the dealer down about $3,500. It's not that difficult if you know your stuff and go in with a plan.
Is this why they asked for a phone number last time I made a purchase (in cash)? I had to refuse several times, and then since I'd obviously caught the attention of security, had to refuse their search of my bags at the door as well. Not a very pleasant experience.
This reminds me of when I went to Worst Buy to buy a Vonage router/voip dealie and the cashier insisted I had to give her my phone number. I asked why they needed my phone number and her reply was, "because we just do." I politely refused and told her that I would just go across the street to Circuit Shitty or any one of the other half a dozen stores within spitting distance I could buy it from. Needless to say Circuit City was out of stock, but Office Despot had them in stock and didn't ask any sort of question. They took my money like a good retailer should and wished me a good day.
Of course, folks would just think of a new way to kill, but the period of downtime (if any - let's face it, we're a murderous lot) would be an interesting change of pace.
Right, it would take people a long time to figure out knives, clubs, cars, ice picks, etc. Lots of downtime there.
Oh sure, I know people who make 120k+ per year, but thats working 12-16 hours per day, 7 days a week. They can keep the money as far as I'm concerned. Do you mind if I ask which plant you work at?
They are good people. It is sad to see their company falling apart, but on the other hand, any company that pays its lawn-mowers more than its PhDs is going to come un-glued.
Delphi and GM are really betting on fuel cells as the future. It is a tough problem, though, as fuel cells work much better in producing slow, steady power as compared to the high-output bursts that are required by automobiles. I have done some research on fuel cell membranes in the past (which is the primary show-stopper right now). It is a tough problem. FCs are not being held back by any form of corporate greed. They are being held back because they simply cannot be produced with the reliability, performance and price required.
Eh? The only way someone mowing the lawn (or any hourly employee) is making more than an engineer at Delphi or GM is by working a ton of overtime (like 80 hour work weeks). I know at my old plant front line supervisors made something like 20% over the highest paid hourly employee under them (this may have changed; it's been two years since I worked for them). Working a straight 40 hours per week there is no hourly employee that will make more than his boss (let alone an engineer). With overtime it's an entirely different story though.
When my father retired in '99 he was making ~75k as an engineer. At that time hourly workers were making ~44k/year with no overtime. Do hourly employees get paid a lot of money for the jobs they do? Absolutely, but it's not as much as the media likes to make it out to be. I love how the USA Today, CNN, Fox like to spout off this $75/hour number. I wish I made that much. What they don't mention is that $75/hour covers wages, health, dental, vision insurance, all other benefits (such as tuition assistance) AND it includes retiree benefits. The retiree stuff alone is good for at least 1/3 of that $75. Both Delphi and GM have treated me fairly well.
Well my knowledge is mostly about Delphi's fuel cell and last I heard (again two years ago) they had it working great; the biggest problem was cost and they were also working on shrinking it down. When I left I believe they were on the 4th generation of a working design already.
You clearly have a view from the inside. I get pretty tired of all the "big evil corporations are holding back THE MAN" posts around this place.
By and large, corporations are full of good people who understand that making money ultimately comes from pleasing your customers. If GM dropped the electric car idea, it is not for some nefarious reason, but because the things just couldn't provide a competitive balance of brice and performance at the time. It is also ludicrious to claim that "Big Oil" and the car companies are not pouring tons of R&D into alternative fuels and transporation. On the contrary, they are putting in as much as anyone. I think this myth comes from the mistaken belief that companies only think about the short-term.
Well I have a limited view, but I guess you could call it an inside view. Many of the things can be found by doing some fairly easy googling. The only thing you really won't find much info on is Delphi's Fuel Cell; they're kind of cagey about it, but it really is very neat.
The problem is people don't tend to do any research before running off at the mouth about how some company isn't doing anything about XYZ or how they're part of some vast compiracy. Sure every company will do what it can to protect it's interests (read lobbyists). That's just "good" business.
People don't realize how much into long term thought the automotive industry is. If anything they rely too much upon it and oddly enough it leads to them taking too long to get things to market.
People also don't seem the understand the amount of engineering, testing, and refining that go into any product, but especially an automobile. Many times there is so much on an engineers plate that fairly simple things get overlooked and that leads to problems (like recalls, TSB's, etc.) This is all while working on things that have been done for decades, let alone a new untested product!
There was a show about that on PBS, and the release of the movie, and supposedly they were never for sale, only for lease. At the end of the lease many people wanted to buy the cars but they were not alowed to and they the cars were shreaded. So they never were given a chance to see if they could make it in the market.
Never got a chance? The program started in 1996 and was axed in 2003. Lets see here ~7 years isn't long enough to see if they could make it on the market? Exactly what planet are you from? Also there is no supposedly about it. The EV1 was for lease only because it was an experimental project and GM wanted to keep ownership of the vehicles for what I'll assume is a number of reasons.
Well actually GM kept quite a few of the EV1's. Just outside of Rochester, NY in Honeoye Falls GM has a research center. What do they research there you ask? Hydrogen fuel cells. Some people who live in Rochester may have noticed some EV1's running around town. Guess whats powering them? The answer isn't batteries. Delphi also has it's Fuel cell research center just outside of Rochester in Henrietta. The Delphi fuel cell is actually really neat, but unfortunately I really can't get into specifics. Lets just say Delphi for all it's faults, thought outside the box on fuel cells and came up with some really good ideas and technology.
People think that Detroit isn't working on alternatives to gasonline, but you're entirely wrong. Unfortunately these technologies just aren't ready for the type of mass production needed to supply the entire US. Honda has made one fuel cell vehicle out there right now being tested by some family in California. They'll probably be the first to market with them too, but watch how many cars are actually sold. And keep an eye on the huge number of problems they're bound to have with them the first few years.
Detroit is notorious for not taking leaps like that without knowing it will work properly. I'm surprised the EV1 and the electric S-10/Sonoma actually went to market at all given GM's track record on taking risks. GM took a big chance with the EV1 project and no one really gave them any credit. Now that it's been dead a few years and suddenly gas prices are a "huge" problem (yeah right; gas is still dirt cheap here) people are attacking GM for axing a program that was costing them ridiculous amounts of money per year.
I always find it amusing to see people who really don't know whats going on in the automotive industry chime in and act like they're experts on the subject. People seem to forget a lot of things go on behind the scenes. Some things get press, but not a lot of press since it doesn't involve Brad and Angelina. Other things are kept under wraps.
Am I the only one who thinks HD-DVD is a bit premature? Existing DVD products fail to add compelling extra features in most cases with well done bonus features being few and far between. What do they hope to accomplish with all that freakin SPACE!? (saddled along with all that extra COST no less)
Well one thing I do think we'll see is TV shows, movie compilations and whatnot that used to span 5+ discs down onto one or two (or however may be appropriate for a particular product).
We're the MPAA. Our profits are slipping. What's the problem?
Maybe $10 for a movie ticket, $7 for a tub of popcorn, $5 for a soda or candy bar is a little much. Nah, couldn't be it.
Maybe laser pointers, cell phones and chatty kathies are ruining the experience. Nah, couldn't be it.
Maybe big-screen TVs make watching movies at home more enjoyable. Nah, couldn't be it.
Maybe showing 15 commercials before the movie starts is a little obnoxious. Nah, couldn't be it.
Maybe we're putting out absolute drivel that no one in their right mind would sit through. Nah, couldn't be it.
Maybe it's the online pirates, sucking down our profits over high-speed Internet connections. Yes, that's it! That's why no one goes to the movies anymore!
Well you can really only blame "Hollywood" for the ticket price and the shite movies they put out.
The rest is the fault of either the theater or the idiots attending the movie.
I'll bet you money the reading on a sound meter at one meter wouldn't be 115db if it was 115db at the source.
The article is sort of vague on that. They say:
"Every two months he was going for blood tests and checks on his liver, heart and immune system."
Blood tests doesn't mean HIV tests. Especially sinde they follow up with:
"So in October 2003 he was offered a repeat HIV test -- and the result came back negative."
That makes it sound as if that was his first HIV test since he tested positive.
Given that he continued to have intercourse with his partner who was known to be infected (maybe he should be rechecked too if they went to the same clinic!) then I'd guess he really did have it and just might have beaten it in some way.
Regardless it was bound to happen. There are always people who are immune (or their immune system is better equipped to fight) any given disease, virus, etc.
>Monogomamy is an evolutionary dead end (humans are the only animals that seem to practice it).
This is untrue. While it is somewhat of a rarity on the grand scale of things other species practice monogamy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy
All officers. It isn't the military. 8)
latex paint is water based, and it's used outdoors...
Exactly. Water Based does not mean Water SOLUBLE.
I know I'm very happy with my 46" Samsung DLP. It has a few issues; like the fact that crappy analog cable looks like exactly that, crap.
DVD's look great, and a reasonable Digital Cable or Sat signal look decent.
Not to mention it's less than 15" deep and weighs less than 70lbs. My 27" flat CRT weighs more than that.
---------
and another who was almost killed when a gun he was looking at accidentally discharged.
---------
This is a prime example of survival of the fittest. You friend was stupid enough to be pointing a loaded gun at himself.
This all goes back to what I also said that you apparently decided to ignore.
Education is a very important part of owning a gun.
----------
I'd take that one step further. DO NOT point a firearm at someone unless it has already escalated and you have every intention of shooting. The old rule still applies, "don't point a gun at anything you're not willing to destroy immediately and irrevocably". I'm sorry, but if someone points a firearm at me, then my life is in danger, and I will not stop shooting until the threat is gone.
----------
That was my point.
Don't point it unless you're going to use it.
I know a number of people who can strip down and then reassemble many different fire arms without thinking twice about it, but know jack shit about computers.
A persons knowledge or ignorance of one field has NOTHING to do with their knowledge or ignorance of another field.
And most power buttons on computers aren't labeled "power".
You are correct. If the number is indeed per capita; which after poking around a bit it seems it is.
Hrm, I like how you add in there "when it comes to gun violence." And it seems you're absolutely right about gun violence. The criminals supposedly have less guns now, so they're using other means. Do gun laws stop gun related crime? Yes, to some extent. Do gun laws stop the same crimes from being commited without a gun? Nope.
I'm still of the belief that educating a population about something is better route to reducing things like accidental gun deaths (which is all gun control affects for the most part) than telling them, "You're too stupid to know whats good for you!" Perhaps the general populace is too ignorant to own a gun, but thats because we don't bother educating our population.
As for Florida polls. If you dig you'll find that the recounts indeed showed Gore winning, but Bush had the recounts stopped by the surpeme court before they were finally done. So when it comes down to it sure the votes said Gore won, but Bush showed some tenacity and ended up with the presidency.
And no I didn't vote for Gore, but I'm not voting for Bush again either. I do wish there were a better alternative than Kerry though.
Well that still proves my point. I asked that question before I had finished forming my statements in my head and never removed it. I did a bit of googling, but I didn't look for that as either way my statement is valid.
I'll agree with populations density, but I'll disagree on less crime in Canada. Perhaps straight up numbers because Canada has sush a smaller population, but I'll imagine per capita crime in general is probably about even.
I really see no real evidence about the violence and temperature link. In my personal experience of traveling throughout the US I'd have to say the warmer it gets the nicer folks are.
See Louisiana is an interesting place. Originally settled by... yep Canadians and these descendants of canucks love their guns!
But now we're on the issue of violence and crime in general and not the original topic of guns.
It's a truth when people say, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Does the gun make it easier? Absolutely, but if someone wants to kill another person they're going to do it whether or not they have a gun.
Guns were invented for one reason and one reason only: To kill people, but as time has gone by they've been used for other more useful things (hunting game for food) and now more recreational things (target shooting, hunting, etc..). They're still used to kill people of course, but taking the guns out of the hands of the people who are using them in a responsible way does absolutely NOTHING to solve the problem with gun related crime.
Think about it; if you were a criminal and going to lets say murder someone.
Would you: A. Go to the store and buy a gun that perhaps can be traced to you.
Or
B. Buy or steal a weapon that's not going to be tracable to you?
Oh sure there are those who have even less brain cells than your average thug and would buy one through legitimate means to commit the crime, but I'd say there's not too many of those types when compared to the whole.
Ha! I dunno having just moved from Western NY to Northern Louisiana I can say people down here are much more layed back than people up north! And it's pretty damned hot down here! During the summer it's 80F at midnight!
DOH!
Gun's are the problem, people are the problem.
Should obviously be:
Gun's aren't the problem, people are the problem.
-------------
Asnwer this then: 1/5th the gun deaths in Canada compared to the US. We watch your shows, we listen to your music, we buy the same cars, food, etc. Except we have very strict handgun laws, and you don't. We even have the same % of rifle ownership as the US per capita, its just the limited access to handguns and assualt-style semi-automatics that makes up the difference.
--------------
You're a bit vague here. Are you talking per capita or using real numbers?
Canada has ~10% the poluation of the US. So by your own arguments it's actually more dangerous in Canada than in the US!
Example:
US Population: ~294.2 million
Canada Population: ~32 million
That makes the Canadian popluation ~10.8% of US population.
Lets says there are 100 deaths per year in the US caused by handguns in the hands of criminals or law abiding citizens. That would mean there are 20 deaths under the same circumstances in Canada (using your statement), but the population of Canada is only ~11% of the US population. That would mean there are more gun deaths in Canada per capita than in the US if I were to use your argument.
All these arguments are a load of crap though. The problem you run into with the misuse of guns or accidents is caused by people not being educated about guns. Based on my experience people who are brought up around firearms and know what they can and can't do are more likely to have a healthy respect for them than those who don't (not that there aren't exceptions).
If you don't want to own a handgun that's your choice and more power to you, but if I choose to own one and handle is properly and safely then you should have no worries about it at all.
It all boils down to as has been said before: Gun's are the problem, people are the problem. I'm of the belief that you DO NOT point a firearm at someone unless you are being threatend and intend to shoot that person if matters escalate.
In a perfect world there'd be no need for firearms for self protection, but as we all know we don't live in a perfect world. I know a handful of people that are alive today because they had their pistol with them and ended up in a situation they didn't start nor want to be in.
There seems to be this demonization of "pro-gun" people by many anti-gun people. Just because I support my right to own a firearm doesn't mean I'm some whack job who's going to run around waving it at people!
I'm sure I've made plenty of typoed and that my grammar is horrid, so any comments on that subject will be ignored.
However if you have something constructive to add I will read and absorb it.