zapatos

Yes. Everyone knows that. No one is arguing against that. You are arguing against no one, and I am unsure why you keep repeating it. Every time someone buys a bowling ball instead of skis they don't lead to someone dying in a ski accident. Or perhaps they thought "it won't happen to me"; but everyone whose kid dies in a ski accident bought the skis thinking "it won't happen to me" - but it did. The way to avoid ski accidents is to not have skis.

You seem to be dismissive of my point, which makes me think you missed it. Obviously those bad things happen with guns; I read the papers too. But for MOST people, their guns are not used to kill people. And I believe that has a lot to do with why there is no 'culture of fear' in the US. As far as I can tell, that difference went to the heart of ajb's question.

I am middle to upper middle class and live in a suburb of St. Louis, which has a pretty high murder rate compared to most cities in the US. I own about a dozen guns, both handguns and long guns. I also have a license to carry concealed weapons. I am not the least bit afraid either in my home or when moving about the metropolitan area, but the lack of fear has nothing to do with my guns. I never carry them, and while having a gun in the house fits with my "be prepared" type of personality, I'd feel perfectly at ease not having any guns in the house. I also don't know anyone who is generally afraid, although I imagine there are plenty of people who live in 'bad' neighborhoods who may feel differently. My experience has been that most violent crime is committed by bad people against other bad people, and as long as I'm not doing things like dealing drugs I imagine that my lifelong streak of never being burgled, assaulted, or robbed will continue. I believe most people who have guns generally own them because they are something that is available to them, and are a form of recreation, either hunting or target shooting. Not much different than owning skis or a gaming system or a meat smoker. Most people are not criminals or 'preppers' preparing for the zombie apocalypse. I know there are plenty of people who are fearful and are at risk of assault and don't want to minimize that, but I don't find a general fear permeating the population at all. I also believe the people who are at most risk tend to be poor. I would be no more fearful traveling in New York City than I would traveling in London or Amsterdam.

Unless things have just changed, Mallinckrodt imports their medical isotopes from The Netherlands.

I don't know their reasoning, but perhaps it is because it is a complicated issue and they are simply doing the best they can reconciling religious, personal, and scientific issues. I think they have made it clear that while they are not dismissive of science, they will not simply simply "trust scientists to do the right thing". And I cannot find fault with that stance. I don't believe that ANY group of people should simply be trusted to do the right thing. Perhaps 'trust but verify'. Too many examples of people NOT doing the right thing.

Are you a member of the Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod? If not, why is it important to you where they draw the line on what is and what is not human life? Not everyone believes life begins at conception. Given that science cannot say with certainty when human life begins, it seems rather progressive to me that these Lutherans are not pretending like they do know.

Which churches allow birth control that involves the destruction of the "embryo" but do not allow stem cell research?

A recent healthcare trend is remote technology to allow seniors stay at home longer before requiring assisted living, and allowing family to monitor from a distance. Examples include wearable devices that transmit health data, track the location of people, and even whether or not they have fallen. There are also small devices which can tell you if door are being opened, and even if someone has opened their pill box. http://www.hl7standards.com/blog/2014/09/18/trends-aging-wearable-tech/

I usually try to keep my comments here a little more dignified, but I'm going to make an exception in this case. SUCK IT, HATERS! Ah, that felt good.

"Psychopath" has a very specific meaning. Unless you are qualified to judge psychopathy and have done the proper studies yourself, the only way to know who are psychopaths is to get the information from others.

I think you are confusing hunting for pleasure and killing for pleasure. Your typical hunter is not someone who used to torture cats when he was 9 1/2 years old. Yes, you really have to.

Is there really a consensus for that? I've been having sex for 40 years and in that entire time, there were exactly two occasions when it was done for procreation.

In my opinion the only way we can follow the British model of unarmed officers is if we follow the British model of unarmed citizenry. Unfortunately I don't see that happening either.

Which part? Someone with a gun? Being in a bad part of town? Having something of value on me? I guess I don't get the distinction you are making between an imminent threat of harm (what a reasonable person would think) and 'fear, suspicion, or possibility of harm'. Can you please expand on this a bit?

Then per Ten oz I can either hope that when he raises his gun at me he won't actually shoot, or I can shoot him first and risk breaking the law if he didn't have any bullets in the gun. Sounds rather unfair to me.

Okay. So that means that after I shoot the guy, you are going to check his gun for bullets and if the gun was loaded it was self defense, and if not then I am guilty of murder. That seems rather harsh considering I couldn't really ask the guy to let me check his gun before I made the decision whether to shoot him or not. Which is of course where I am going with this. What you describe sounds to me like the only real way to judge this matter. What Ten oz is suggesting, that I somehow should know if danger is 'imminent' or only a 'possibility', is IMO not a reasonable expectation.

Okay, so let's look at a specific example. I am walking with my wife down the street at night in the 'wrong' part of town, and a large fellow approaches us with an angry look on his face and a gun in his hand. He is dressed in jeans and a t-shirt. I am wearing expensive clothes, have a Rolex on my wrist, and am carrying a satchel. I am pretty sure I am going to get robbed, and in fact he begins to run toward us as we quicken our pace. In this case, how do know if I am moments away from 'imminent harm' or only the 'possibility of harm'? Since you've made it clear that killing is permissible in the first case but not the second, I would like to know how you are going to judge the outcome if I pull out my gun and shoot him as he starts to raise his gun? How do I determine if he was about to shoot me (imminent harm) or if he was about to point his gun at me and tell me to give him my watch and wallet (possibility of harm)? If after the fact I can be either released on the grounds of self defense, or can be sent to prison for murder, I think it only fair that you tell me ahead of time the criteria you are going to use to judge me.

If someone is approaching you with a weapon and an angry look on his face, how do you know if you are moments away from 'imminent harm' or only the 'possibility of harm'? I don't really think that 'mind control' is a likely cause of very many murder for hire situations. Or any other murders for that matter. Do you have any evidence other than the Discovery Channel (Home of 'Texas Car Wars' and 'Moonshiners')?

So are rules about washing your hands after using the bathroom. Just because two groups share a rule doesn't imply the two groups are similar in other ways.

Here is another view of what was occurring near the end of the war: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-stone/the-us-and-japan-partners_b_3902034.html

Those are interesting links but from my reading of them they don't seem to support the assertion that the death toll would have likely been in the millions. While that was certainly a possibility if the population at large was able to fight, many of the estimates suggested fatalities in the hundreds of thousands.

Citation please?

Into Africa: The Epic Adventures of Stanley and Livingstone by Martin Dugard

I don't think there is any practical way implement world peace. Since conflict that prevents global peace comes from groups, such as countries or religious groups, perhaps we could work toward preventing people from being able to join large groups.

I beg to differ: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/10/25/u-s-once-had-air-pollution-to-match-chinas-today/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River