H W Copeland

The Earth is close to being a sphere. If one dug a hole 100 feet deep and stood at the bottom of the hole, would he not, in effect, be inside a sphere? Are you saying that there is no gravity at the bottom of a hole in the ground?

As do I.

How about failing to keep someone from killing you or others? Wouldn't that weigh on your consience if you failed to do so because of your sense of morality?

Never the less, if he was dead, he would kill no more.....

He certainly does. He may kill another prisoner or a guard or he may be paroled at a future date.

Do you think that is is justifiable to kill in self defense?

I see nothing in this post that refutes the position that if murderers were all executed, there would be less loss of innocent life. But that is not the question...... The question is - as I stated in the post that you quoted - is there a moral equivalency between executing someone for murder and the murder(s) that he committed? For the sake of the discussion, please assume that the executee is in fact guilty as charged.

Don't you think it is possible to establish for a fact that someone was indeed guilty of a murder? Keep in mind, I am not advocating the DP on any willy nilly basis, As a matter of fact, I myself am opposed to the DP, but when one is guilty, one is guilty. Actually what I am looking for is a discussion regarding the moral aspects of executing a murderer.

:D You know, I wondered how long it would take for someone to point out that it was Bush's fault.

So that others will see that society kills people who kill people and, not wanting to be killed themselves, will refrain from killing people?

I see that the guy that murdered 4 people 25 years ago was finally brought to justice. Arnie said "hasta la vista baby" to his appeal for clemency. There have been statements of "moral equivilency" regarding the death penalty and the murders that this guy committed. Thoughts?

To me this proposition appears to depend to some degree on the dimensions of the sphere. If the sphere were 1 million miles in diameter and the thickness of the walls were 3000 miles, then wouldn't the walls have enough mass to attract any smaller mass to it? Wouldn't a person be able to walk around on the inside of this sphere just as if he were on the outside of it? Isn't the opposite side is far enough away so that it attracts less than the near side?

You hope he is out in the next election? Either this statement was badly mangled, or you are unaware that Bush is inelegible to run again because of a constitutional amendment limiting presidents to two terms. Either way, your critique of political affairs is severely compromised.....

looking at your diagram, it appears that all of the pistons would go down at once.

The last one of these I got, I told him to take his fee out and give the rest to the DNC in the name of Osama Bin Ladin.

The 3 main reasons are; self defense, hunting and sport shooting. The other reason - a reason that I consider unlikely - is that I may someday need a gun to resist a tyranical government.

It kind of scares me because what is legislated in the UK is often cited as a good idea for the US. We, thanks to the efforts of the NRA, are still allowed fairly liberal access to firearms. I guess I am getting a little off-topic though, aren't I?

I am intrigued by the 12 lb. limit of pellet guns in the UK. What is the purpose of this? I know that the UK is down on gun ownership, but the way I figure it, if a man can swing a 1 pound ball peen hammer 100 fps, and I think most good men can, that would generate 155 ft. lbs. of energy. They don't regulate hammers, axes and chainsaws -- do they?