Vapymid

I totally agree. Regarding the rest of "there may be incredible stuff in the Universe which we know nothing about" - that is also true but my main point about that was that any creature that developed/evolved inside this Universe, no matter how powerful or advanced it might be, would not be God but just an ET. Regards

No, I'm just saying that the evidence she presented was not convincing. Regards

I have a number of problems with this: The Universe may be infinite (or not) but that does not mean the number of elementary particles remaining after the Big Bang is infinite. The number of possible combination of particles is definitely not infinite and is limited by the constraints of the fundamental physical laws and constants in the Universe. To date there is no evidence that these may differ in different locations, at least within the observed Universe. Finally, any God, which is a product of this Universe cannot be God in true sense of the meaning - he/she/it will simply be an organism possessing powers appearing supernatural to humans (just as our ability to launch space rockets may appear supernatural to frogs) Regards

You are mixing objective and subjective notions together. My problem with the statistical arguments presented by that poor girl is that she fell into a typical "correlation = causation" fallacy - a well known mistake. This is objective, in as much as it is a part of the established body of knowledge of a scientific discipline - statistics. If she'd done something to properly analyse her data, like a Granger causality test, for example, and her findings supported her implication that strict gun laws are causing high gun crime rates in Chicago - it might have convinced me. Statistics used in political context are almost always messed up and one should distrust any number-quoting seen on TV as a matter of course. Regards

It doesn't work like that. I don't necessarily need to believe your arguments just because I don't intend to prove an alternative. You are also entitled to your opinion, but if your arguments are not convincing - they are not convincing, regardless if there are alternative theories or not. Regards

No! I said - I listened! I was not convinced - that's all... Actually, let me tell you my working theory or hypotheses, rather. I think the relationship between gun crime (I mean both crime with intent and accidents due to negligence etc.) and gun controls is as follows: - No gun controls, wide distribution of fire arms among general population = maximum gun crime (the Wild West scenario); - As controls are introduced, initially, the stricter they are, the lower the gun crime; - Until the crime level reaches a certain minimum value (determined by prevailing socio-economic factors); - Further tightening of gun controls will not decrease the gun crime; - Until the gun controls become so strict that people, who would otherwise get a legal weapon, resort to black market sources; - Once that point is reached the gun crime will be increasing somewhat. I am not going to waste my time gathering and analysing data to see if this is true or not - no one's going to pay me for that, after all. But my gut feeling is that if someone were to study the issue objectively and thoroughly, that's what they would find. Regards

True. I would not trust any of that lot. Remind me, where do I find them now? Oh, sorry, I forgot, silly me... Regards

r5If816MhoU Regards

Yeah, better trust the US Government - that well known paragon of honesty, trustworthiness and humanity. LOL Regards

Well, you asked for holes - I gave you holes. In the video, it's her proposition, so she should be the one proving her argument. So far, she has not done so. If it is was a scientific peer review, she would have had to go and address the issue of causality in her arguments and then either concede or further prove her theory. However, this is a political theatre and not a scientific process and the purpose of this is not to find the truth but to generate some emotional tools to bash their opponents with. Such political debates go a bit like this: "Hey, her argument does not make sense!" - "What!? She is an innocent child, you are taking her only pride and joy away - you are not thinking about children!" - "Look, he is a heartless monster - he wants to leave our girls vulnerable and without means to defend themselves!" - Next moment the argument is turned into "If you are not with us - you're a paedo, praying on defenceless children!" This is very common now everywhere - children are being used as a political weapon just like in USSR people would use Grampa Lenin if they are stuck in an argument... Regards

Lunacy? Maybe... or perhaps pragmatism. As for the holes - - The use of correlations without investigating causality: Chicago, IL, strictest gun laws, highest gun crime, committed with unregistered guns - we already discussed this. More likely, adding more guns to Chicago slums will just increase the gun crime. Also, the UK example you quoted earlier - one of the strictest gun laws in the world, one of the lowest rates of gun crime - her conclusions are inconsistent with that. - Guns will be too expensive for the poor to legally buy - that can only be a good thing, really... - Guns are needed to put pressure on the Government - as we discussed there is no evidence the US Government gives a damn about that. - Stricter gun laws would mean no "decent" education opportunities for her or children like her - oh, dear, my heart bleeds! Regards

Nah, I listened to all of it but I'm immune to this kind of propaganda and it's full of holes anyway. There is only one point she got right - you can't eliminate crime caused by systemic economic and social problems by gun control laws. Makarov one of the worst pistols? Yes, definitely. But also one of the cheapest and the Soviet military doctrine considered it very unlikely that a front line officer will survive on the battlefield long enough to actually need his sidearm Regards

I would have hidden and denied any knowledge of it if I knew - I like rain! But one can always go and live in Dubai if they want to avoid the rain... Anyway, rain/umbrella is not a direct analogy to gun/crime (but is a good illustration of causality) Your gun is nice. Way more upmarket than the one I used to practice my shooting (here is a typical example): A bit rough in the finish, isn't it? The girl did not impress me, though - bla, bla, bla, reading a canned speech written by a squad of lawyers, all the arguments already beaten to death and the usual "won't you think of the children" and "if you take my guns away I will have nothing else to do" emotional blackmail thrown in for good measure. Regards

Yes, but umbrellas don't deter rain from falling, do they? Regards

Correlation is not the same as causation. For instance, there is a high correlation between the number of people with umbrellas and rain in London. That does not mean that umbrellas cause rain. If you do a more detailed analysis of the statistics you will probably find that states with lower homicide rates are also those with the higher income per capita and education levels, which are much more credible causes of lower murder rates. It is logical to assume that when there are less drivers for people to kill each other, the more relaxed gun rules will not be harmful. On the other hand, if the population is angry and aggressive due to greater deprivation/poverty levels, adding more guns to the mixture will be like putting oil into fire. So, what I am trying to say is that the gun laws may be stricter in some states because of the higher crime levels, rather than the crime levels in the other states lower due to relaxed gun laws. Regards

Often, experience can be replaced by knowledge. You don't require every medical student to have their legs broken before they get their medical licences, or only let doctors who have had cancer to treat cancer patients - they learn on examples and thoughts of others. Experience can also be irrelevant. Experience in firing or stripping guns, for example, is irrelevant to making a political decision about their use. Experience in living in gangs-infested slums, on the other hand, may be very relevant, even if you never actually fired a gun in your life, but few of the potential decision-makers would have it... Sometimes, experience is counter-productive. Experience in operating one type of aeroplane can kill you if you instinctively apply it to a different type, for instance. I don't understand why do you think I don't understand - I said several times that I am in favour of legalised private gun ownership, subject to certain [strict] rules and regulations. Regards

Here are some links: here, here and here. The sources are quite credible and I myself clearly remember the BBC coverage of some of these cases at the time when they happened. Regards

Don't know what you mean by "riot" but after 9/11 in the US there were scores of redneck idiots roaming the country and shooting or beating up people wearing turbans, the majority of which, of course, were sikhs and not muslims at all. You seem to have a bit of a memory drop-out on that... Anyway, if this turns into some kind of former-colonials v their-former-masters one-up contest, I don't think it will lead us anywhere. Well, that will disqualify most people in the developed world unless you have a cunning plan for installing NRA enthusiasts into every ministerial post in Europe which has something to do with guns. I'm not sure that will be a wise or a well-received strategy. Her family is clearly an example of guns being put in the wrong hands. I guess she realises it but is overwhelmed by guilt and is blaming herself to an exclusion of everything else. If you can't keep your gun safely away from a 3-year old you should not be allowed to keep a gun. Well, she is from one f*cked up neighbourhood it seems... My response to her position is that my opinion still stands: gun distribution must be stringently controlled but I don't support total ban on them. Regards

Or maybe Vermontians just don't see enough of each other for long enough to get crossed, take aim and pull the trigger before their quarry disappears behind the trees - given the population density there Regards

I don't know about Vermontians but the Brits here haven't changed since the middle ages - give them guns and ale and they WILL shoot. Regards

I haven't said it because I'm not sure it's the case. Give guns to everyone and instead of a drunken punch up in a pub they will be having drunken shoot outs. Not my idea of quiet life Regards

Yeah, the power of selective quoting... From the same Bloomberg article: Of course we have - it's not possible to vet out 100% of mentally unstable people and there is always the black market. Just fewer people die from firearms than what would happen otherwise. Regards

How? Because the risk of an attack (by burglars or bears or aliens or whoever) in a remote area is *supposed* to be higher than in public places. If you have to carry a gun in a city on daily basis - that's a bad place to live in. It shouldn't be like that in any place that claims to be "developed" or "civilised". Here in the UK even cops on the beat don't carry firearms and I definitely prefer it that way. Well, don't expect a walk in the park, even without guns But if I wanted to attack you and knew you might have a gun, what is to stop me from bringing a bigger gun with me and still attack you? Regards

So it's more about the sound of the instruments rather than the musical metrics and structure? For example, would you consider this within "electronic" or this? The last one actually has an analogue synth built into the drum kit, but it sounds pretty 8-bit to me Speaking about that drum kit - the drums were made of stainless steel 0.25" thick and it weighed some 2,500kg - no wonder the group went bust soon after! http://www.brain-salad-surgery.de/carl_palmers_gear.html Regards

There is a big difference between keeping a shotgun at home if you live in a remote area and having to carry a hand gun with you at all times. The former is a reasonable precaution while the latter is a clear sign of a totally disfunctional society. As I said earlier, I personally think that private gun ownership is not a bad thing per se but you must be very careful in who you give the guns to. @BTGBullseye - that was funny but not convincing. It clearly is an opinion shared by a lot of people in your country but I saw no cogent arguments substantiating it. And, unfortunately, the main argument - that you need guns to keep your government in check - is demonstrably weak. You already have so many guns yet you, Americans, always complain how your government is f*cking you over all the time. Guns didn't seem to have helped at all... Regards