Your child is your problem. My child does not have access to firearms and I'm not paying for your child to be taught some bullshit about guns. If you want to teach your kid, go ahead and do it yourself.
, or B) someone cries "Won't someone please think of the children" and we all lose our rights.
And teaching kids about guns is supposed to prevent this... how, exactly?
The thing is that one person (heck, even one country) can't make enough impact, because, as I mentioned, there is no single major polluter.
To make enough impact, everybody has to be onboard, which I don't believe will ever happen. Especially given the fact that there is a (financial in most cases) initiative not to do that in the first place and if I do this and you don't, my business is at disadvantage.
If 97% of scientists essentially claiming that we need to do something about the problem is not enough for us to actually start doing something, then we totally deserve to go fucking extinct.
One of the major problems with CO2 emissions is that there is no single solution to it. There is no single contributing factor (or country) that, if dealt with, will solve the problem.
We have to cut everywhere and everybody has to do it.
This is also the reason why nobody will actually do anything about it. It is so easy to point finger at somebody and say: "hey! He's polluting more than me, why should I cut?
I personally accepted that either global warming or oil shortage will totally destroy our civilization. With GW having a potential to make our specie go extinct. Of course, provided meteorite does not put an end to our suffering before.
One of the important attributes of life as we know it, is that every creature is strives to survive. Will the replica of my brain, fully detached from my body try to survive? What will it treat as a threat to itself?
All other bodily functions will be gone, which means no hunger, no boredom, no pain, no fatigue, no anything. Even if that thing starts as a replica of my brain, it will develop into completely different creature very quickly. Most likely it will not be afraid to die, because the concept of death will be totally alien to it: no pain, so it can't extrapolate. And come to think of it, most of our ideas of ethics come exactly from the fact that we value life.
If this was some serious spy, this is not how FSB would have cashed on the catch. This thing would have been quietly dealt with between agencies or they would have just kept an eye on him as on a "known spy" to use for spreading misinformation or something.
Since he is some entry position diplomat, the only thing this catch is good for, is to get some anti-US outrage inside the country going.
The counter-argument is that it is absolutely impossible to have intelligent discussion about this (or anything, really) and thus impossible to get any valuable results if people are going to use phrases like "eco-marxist" to push their point.
My last point was not about murders. The point was, most americans want stricter gun laws. Regarding of your personal position, this means that elected officials have to (i.e. it is their job) to do something about it.
What if somebody convincingly lying to you, trying to scare you into buying or supporting guns? Pure bullshit like 'scary government will take away all your freedoms'?
Think a car enthusiast would cry if a beautifully restored muscle car was slagged to buy a Ford Focus during that whole "Cash for Clunkers" thing? That a craftsman would cry if he heard of a spouse selling tens of thousands of dollars worth of tools for a pittance?
They may cry all they want, but if it is not their stuff to begin with, it is not up to them to decide what owners do with them. Freedom also means you have to live with other people's choices no matter how wrong you think they are.
First, that point would be valid only if *all* or at least *most* of the destroyed guns were antique.
Second, the point of the political campaign is not to destroy antiques, it is the decision of an individual owner to destroy them, which has nothing to do with the buy-back campaign. Looks like somebody is trying to use "antique" argument for a political gain.
Third, if you are worried about antiques being destroyed, you may petition campaign leaders not to destroy them, but preserve in the museum or something. Trying to stop the campaign, because antiques might get destroyed looks more like trying to use some loophole to push your agenda.
And finally, what if enough of us want tougher gun laws? Don't you think those elected representatives should do something about it too?
Slashdot Mirror
Some links to peer reviewed studies would be really nice.
So, now you do want some help from nanny state with that?
Its a non issue till A) its your child
Your child is your problem. My child does not have access to firearms and I'm not paying for your child to be taught some bullshit about guns. If you want to teach your kid, go ahead and do it yourself.
, or B) someone cries "Won't someone please think of the children" and we all lose our rights.
And teaching kids about guns is supposed to prevent this... how, exactly?
And how teaching people who do not have access to firearms about firearm safety is supposed to help?
Sure! Every gun owner should teach their kids that. Problem solved.
There are far too many stories about kids thinking they have a toy and killing a sibling.
Pretty sure that compared to the number of all other cases of death by a gunshot this is a non-issue.
Why exactly do you have problems with being among the first ones to adopt it?
The thing is that one person (heck, even one country) can't make enough impact, because, as I mentioned, there is no single major polluter.
To make enough impact, everybody has to be onboard, which I don't believe will ever happen. Especially given the fact that there is a (financial in most cases) initiative not to do that in the first place and if I do this and you don't, my business is at disadvantage.
If you publish an article that questions AGW, you'll never get another research project funded.
Pretty sure a whole bunch of oil companies will be more than happy to fund that.
If 97% of scientists essentially claiming that we need to do something about the problem is not enough for us to actually start doing something, then we totally deserve to go fucking extinct.
One of the major problems with CO2 emissions is that there is no single solution to it. There is no single contributing factor (or country) that, if dealt with, will solve the problem.
We have to cut everywhere and everybody has to do it.
This is also the reason why nobody will actually do anything about it. It is so easy to point finger at somebody and say: "hey! He's polluting more than me, why should I cut?
I personally accepted that either global warming or oil shortage will totally destroy our civilization. With GW having a potential to make our specie go extinct. Of course, provided meteorite does not put an end to our suffering before.
One of the important attributes of life as we know it, is that every creature is strives to survive. Will the replica of my brain, fully detached from my body try to survive? What will it treat as a threat to itself?
All other bodily functions will be gone, which means no hunger, no boredom, no pain, no fatigue, no anything. Even if that thing starts as a replica of my brain, it will develop into completely different creature very quickly. Most likely it will not be afraid to die, because the concept of death will be totally alien to it: no pain, so it can't extrapolate. And come to think of it, most of our ideas of ethics come exactly from the fact that we value life.
If this was some serious spy, this is not how FSB would have cashed on the catch. This thing would have been quietly dealt with between agencies or they would have just kept an eye on him as on a "known spy" to use for spreading misinformation or something.
Since he is some entry position diplomat, the only thing this catch is good for, is to get some anti-US outrage inside the country going.
No biggie, really.
The counter-argument is that it is absolutely impossible to have intelligent discussion about this (or anything, really) and thus impossible to get any valuable results if people are going to use phrases like "eco-marxist" to push their point.
Be especially wary of the ones who use global warming as an excuse to take your money for their pet projects. Those people are out there.
And thank god nobody actually makes money on polluting the hell out of environment.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
My last point was not about murders. The point was, most americans want stricter gun laws. Regarding of your personal position, this means that elected officials have to (i.e. it is their job) to do something about it.
Please point to where I was lying or stop your fear mongering.
What if somebody convincingly lying to you, trying to scare you into buying or supporting guns? Pure bullshit like 'scary government will take away all your freedoms'?
Oh, but I'm sure THAT never happens.
What are we paying the price of "higher suicide rates" for then?
Think a car enthusiast would cry if a beautifully restored muscle car was slagged to buy a Ford Focus during that whole "Cash for Clunkers" thing? That a craftsman would cry if he heard of a spouse selling tens of thousands of dollars worth of tools for a pittance?
They may cry all they want, but if it is not their stuff to begin with, it is not up to them to decide what owners do with them. Freedom also means you have to live with other people's choices no matter how wrong you think they are.
First, that point would be valid only if *all* or at least *most* of the destroyed guns were antique.
Second, the point of the political campaign is not to destroy antiques, it is the decision of an individual owner to destroy them, which has nothing to do with the buy-back campaign. Looks like somebody is trying to use "antique" argument for a political gain.
Third, if you are worried about antiques being destroyed, you may petition campaign leaders not to destroy them, but preserve in the museum or something. Trying to stop the campaign, because antiques might get destroyed looks more like trying to use some loophole to push your agenda.
And finally, what if enough of us want tougher gun laws? Don't you think those elected representatives should do something about it too?
Well, GP did have something in mind when he said "free society" and I was interested in his definition and his thoughts on the subject.
There are a lot of baseless assumptions about other people's motivations you are making there.
They are not yours and it is not up to you to decide what owners do with them.
Yeah, may be some antiques get destroyed. I guess this is the price you have to pay for living in a free society.