Yes,. but since our society is violent and guns are an easy tool to access and hard to tell if someone is planning to kill someone with, restricting them is the logical answer.
That said, I am unaware of any country that has less crime and less strict gun laws.
I can't help but notice you don't bother to mention how many people are killed by guns.
Hint, you could have had 3 more 9/11s and it would still have been fewer.
12,000 people were killed in 2008. About 15,000 Suicides.
Most people who kill with firearms do so at the spur of the moment becasue it is handy. Most people who commit suicide with hand guns aren't likely to have commit suicide through other means.
Most people saved, rescues, or heal from attempt suicides don't know why they did it and never go on to try again. Its weird.
Every other country the deaths went down when strict law were enacted. Look at the drop in crime since 1982, when Chicago started implements strict hand guns. IT dropped every year.
Regardless of what you fell in your gut, regardless of what your echo chamebers tells you, there is piles and piles of evidence and data regarding this subject. IT all point to Strict guns controls mean few people killed. Every. Single. Industrialized. Country.
really, one case against the piles and piles of data in other countries that show, overall a clear reduction?
You are nothing but a cherry picking bastard. not that I expect much more since no data support your position. 2004:
* 16,750 suicides (56% of all U.S. gun deaths) no, they wouldn't have found another way. Some may have, but probably about 25%. Most suicide deal wth the moment.
* 11,624 homicides (40%)
* 649 unintentional shootings, 311 from legal intervention and 235 from undetermined intent (4%).
Stop selling guns and ammo except to people who get a strict liscens. i.e. people need it for hunting. Then it would only be a rifle. with time the number would diminish.
"and those that ignore laws will always have guns." yes, but with time they will get caught for one reason or another. Unless the bury it and never talk about it.
Most likely, they will post a picture of them self holing it on facebook~
history clearly sows reduction in hand gun equal a reduction in crime. Yes, yes it's counter intuitive.
2) Being a criminal does not equate to getting a gun.
3) Gun laws make it harder for criminal to get guns,. And it keeps getting harder.
4) Crime drops when gun laws are enacted.
5) If having a gun was illegal, you would have an opportunity to know someone was going to kill people when you found them with a gun.
6) Same thing if someone was getting Ammo.
7) teacher firing a someone one in a panic situation means more people would have been likely to die.
8) How many gun deaths are their in Japan?
All the evidence shows, overall, people are safer with very strict gun laws. You can make trite logical fallacy all you want, becasue that's all you have.
"There is no need for an HOA for single-family homes in a city. " bu might neighbor might paint his house a color I don't approve of.. and his lawn is.5 inches longer then I feel it should be~
"because they can get more for the houses if they do so." not true. PLUS, fro every dollar saved return 20 dollars when the house is sold, AND solar homes sell a lot more quickly then homes without solar.
"Which suggests that the majority of home buyers prefer buying into a development with an HOA " no it doesn't, and it misses the first powers point: You don't always HAVE a choice becasue they are all that's available.
" Also the storm that knocks out power is entirely likely to damage your panels anyway" no. in fact in most cases it wouldn't. After Sandy, most homes without power but the roofs were fine.
You do know the power grid is a grid, right? and that a problem in city A can case outages in cities B.C.D
1 panels a month? wtf did that come in? panels last 25+ years. Unless they are ripped of your roof. OTOH, if the storm is strong enough to rip them off you roof, then it was strong enough to rip your roof apart as well, making you home uninhabitable.
"Kinda like the $60 light bulbs. The dog can knock over an incandescent lamp and cost me $1.50 or one with a new bulb and cost me $60...." no,it's nothing like that.
Plus, there is more to it then money. So maybe you should stop genuflecting to the dollar and think bigger?
'Forever' I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Solar panels last 25+ years. And even if you didn't have batteries and only generate electricity during the day, that's still 12 hours a day(avg, year, blah) You re getting power.
And that assumes no rise in the cost of other power.
Personal Solar Thermal could be done, but not like large industrial solar thermal like you describe.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes,. but since our society is violent and guns are an easy tool to access and hard to tell if someone is planning to kill someone with, restricting them is the logical answer.
That said, I am unaware of any country that has less crime and less strict gun laws.
I can't help but notice you don't bother to mention how many people are killed by guns.
Hint, you could have had 3 more 9/11s and it would still have been fewer.
12,000 people were killed in 2008.
About 15,000 Suicides.
Most people who kill with firearms do so at the spur of the moment becasue it is handy.
Most people who commit suicide with hand guns aren't likely to have commit suicide through other means.
Most people saved, rescues, or heal from attempt suicides don't know why they did it and never go on to try again. Its weird.
Every other country the deaths went down when strict law were enacted. Look at the drop in crime since 1982, when Chicago started implements strict hand guns. IT dropped every year.
Regardless of what you fell in your gut, regardless of what your echo chamebers tells you, there is piles and piles of evidence and data regarding this subject. IT all point to Strict guns controls mean few people killed. Every. Single. Industrialized. Country.
All those thing are extremely tough to do, much to do or make.
really, one case against the piles and piles of data in other countries that show, overall a clear reduction?
You are nothing but a cherry picking bastard. not that I expect much more since no data support your position.
2004:
* 16,750 suicides (56% of all U.S. gun deaths)
no, they wouldn't have found another way. Some may have, but probably about 25%. Most suicide deal wth the moment.
* 11,624 homicides (40%)
* 649 unintentional shootings, 311 from legal intervention and 235 from undetermined intent (4%).
~80 people a day die from guns
long term? yes.
Stop selling guns and ammo except to people who get a strict liscens. i.e. people need it for hunting. Then it would only be a rifle.
with time the number would diminish.
"and those that ignore laws will always have guns."
yes, but with time they will get caught for one reason or another. Unless the bury it and never talk about it.
Most likely, they will post a picture of them self holing it on facebook~
history clearly sows reduction in hand gun equal a reduction in crime. Yes, yes it's counter intuitive.
All those methods are much harder to use then a gun.
the number of people killed by gun FAR out number the number of people who may have been saved becasue they have one.
Too bad every fucking country with strict gun control proves you wrong.
No, a knife has many uses. Cutting doesn't mean killing.
You open a letter with a gun? cut rope with a gun? open packages with a gun? does a surgeon shoot you with a gun in order to do surgery?
A knife has one primary purpose: to cut things. yes, some times that's people. But a gun is only for killing.
"protection of livestock"
by killing.
" hunting food"
killing.
"The argument is that they're not intended to kill children."
they are intended to kill anything they are pointed at.
The are preparing to use the gun as best they can for the guns primary purpose: To Kill.
A keyboard isn't a computer. Shame on you for not doing that.
And I tell you what, you attack soneon with the keyboard in a mall or school, lets see how many people you can kill.
They don't need hand guns and semi-automatic weapons to do it though, nor do they need it in a city.
Nice attempt at evasion. The gun nhaas ONE primary purpose: TO Kill.
Hand guns, automatic weapon, and ammunition design to go through anything tougher then animal skin have ONE Primary purpose: To kill people.
See: EVERY FUCKING COUNTRY WITH STRICT GUN LAWS.
Also, look at the decrease in crime in Chicago since 1982. When the started enacting tough gun laws.
People make police, but we can't make good policy buy ignoring data.
fallacy.
1) Gun laws aren't an oxymoron by any definition.
2) Being a criminal does not equate to getting a gun.
3) Gun laws make it harder for criminal to get guns,. And it keeps getting harder.
4) Crime drops when gun laws are enacted.
5) If having a gun was illegal, you would have an opportunity to know someone was going to kill people when you found them with a gun.
6) Same thing if someone was getting Ammo.
7) teacher firing a someone one in a panic situation means more people would have been likely to die.
8) How many gun deaths are their in Japan?
All the evidence shows, overall, people are safer with very strict gun laws. You can make trite logical fallacy all you want, becasue that's all you have.
Yeah, more people firing weapons with panicky children running around, what could go wrong?
It also assume teacher wold be able to hit there target ad not accidental kill someone else.
It's like the Batman thing. Everyone saying if the audience had been armed there would ave been fewer deaths. Simply, stupid.\
That's why Where my emergency batteries go I have several bricks and a map to various auto stores...
"There is no need for an HOA for single-family homes in a city. " .5 inches longer then I feel it should be~
bu might neighbor might paint his house a color I don't approve of.. and his lawn is
"because they can get more for the houses if they do so."
not true.
PLUS, fro every dollar saved return 20 dollars when the house is sold, AND solar homes sell a lot more quickly then homes without solar.
"Which suggests that the majority of home buyers prefer buying into a development with an HOA "
no it doesn't, and it misses the first powers point: You don't always HAVE a choice becasue they are all that's available.
" Also the storm that knocks out power is entirely likely to damage your panels anyway"
no. in fact in most cases it wouldn't. After Sandy, most homes without power but the roofs were fine.
You do know the power grid is a grid, right? and that a problem in city A can case outages in cities B.C.D
You thinking certainly lacks complexity.
1 panels a month? wtf did that come in? panels last 25+ years. Unless they are ripped of your roof. OTOH, if the storm is strong enough to rip them off you roof, then it was strong enough to rip your roof apart as well, making you home uninhabitable.
"Kinda like the $60 light bulbs. The dog can knock over an incandescent lamp and cost me $1.50 or one with a new bulb and cost me $60...."
no,it's nothing like that.
Plus, there is more to it then money. So maybe you should stop genuflecting to the dollar and think bigger?
'Forever' I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Solar panels last 25+ years.
And even if you didn't have batteries and only generate electricity during the day, that's still 12 hours a day(avg, year, blah) You re getting power.
And that assumes no rise in the cost of other power.
Personal Solar Thermal could be done, but not like large industrial solar thermal like you describe.
because 2 days later you are out of gas.
And you could get solar panels the you store and bring out in an emergency.
Or better, both.
Also a small windmill. BTW, did you know you can build an windmill to generate electricity from parts in you car?