John Cuthber

That's what they all say. And yet 20 kids are shot each day. Do you understand that there is a discontinuity there? "The people serving in the US army, navy, and air force are not going to enter their home towns and start fighting the people they grew up around" OK, so there's no need for a militia then is there? If, for example, Mr Trump gets to be president and decides to enslave the US citizenry they won't need to rely on their own pea-shooters- because- as you point out they will have teh whole population including the army on their side. ​So there's no need for the private citizens to have guns. The formatting is botched, but I'm still waiting for Watiforufo to explain to me how those 20 kids who got shot are so much safer because the US doesn't restrict gun ownership. Btw http://news.groopspeak.com/army-chief-of-staff-republicans-are-wrong-about-guns-keeping-us-safer-video/

Still waiting for a response to this waitforufo, on 07 Apr 2016 - 2:24 PM, said: Indeed, and now tell those 20 kids a day how they are so safe.

It's likely that some of the carbon at the "edges" of the graphite molecules is present as carboxylic acid or phenol groups which are acidic.

My argument would be silly if all the world was ruled by tyrants. But the population of Europe isn't- and yet they mostly understand that America has got it wrong. I wonder if you understand that bad things happening in Korea are not a justification for letting bad things happen in America. Kim Jong Un is very much in your camp- he keeps the population uninformed and scared of a largely imaginary enemy.

How? Any law that forbids me doing something also saves someone from having me do that to them. Damn, now if only I could find an example of a former colony that did not (at the time) have a law ensuring the right to bear arms, but which overthrew a tyrannical leadership. Because it's not clear that it it a "natural" right. There are two problems with your claim; the first is that it is made without evidence (and can therefore be discarded without evidence). The second is that it it were a "natural" right it would be recognised universally, and it isn't.

I never said you did. You seem to distinguish that somehow from the fact that I have never had a desire to bear arms. OK, so you don't think your country is collectively bright enough not to elect a dictator well...OK, I certainly can't prove you wrong. Have you noticed that many countries, for example, the UK haven't elected one either- and it's not because we have guns. Are you saying we are just a lot brighter or something?

What do you mean by "phenyl acid" and "phenyl anhydride"?

Indeed, and now tell those 20 kids a day how they are so safe. Explain to them that their safety is protected because unlike, say the UK or Spain, people haven't lost the liberty to carry a gun. All laws are, broadly, a trade off between safety and liberty. Because the law denies you the liberty to kill people, you have the safety of not being murdered. Would you like to abolish that state of affairs- just to honour Franklin?

So, let me get this straight- you don'rt think it has anything to do with the citizens- armed or otherwise- not being dumb enough to elect a tyrant in the first place?

Yes. But in many or most cases that doesn't include the right to bear arms. So the US is the one being weird here. Countries don't enshrine the right to do everything. It's all very well to call it liberal to allow guns. But it's not a recognition of reality. All laws restrict behaviour; they generally do it to maintain or protect liberty. In particular, it is not very liberal to allow people to shoot children, because that infringes on their rights. Sureley the right to survive childhood out-weighs the right to carry something dangerous and nearly pointless?

What is natural about maintaining the ability to kill others easily and at little or no personal risk? Why is this a right?

Is it possible to use a superconductor without it storing energy?

All the components of gasoline are heavier than air, and flammable. Was this law put in place to try to promote the use of hydrogen?

It's difficult to imagine that something which is nearly universal is all that harmful.

Yep; a ZX81 Of the 1k of memory you had to allow for something like 300 bytes used by the screen. I guess I must be a little younger (I was born Dec 1956) than you since I had access to a whopping 128K of space when I was typing up university reports. amstrad CPC6128. The first thing I ever programmed was a TRS80- at school in 1978 I think. in those days, compact code was the important thing and, at a pinch, you had to write in machine code to do it (the machines were also something like 10,000 times slower than today's). http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-09-08

Nice words. What do they actually mean in concrete terms. i.e. what good are is "spiritual truth"?

What can you put in 4 KB (4096 bytes) data? 4 times as much as you could put in the whole of the 1st computer I built.

Do you know the frequency response of the microphone? Is there anything, apart from pressure equalisation, that limits the low frequency end of the range?

Octane that "is heavier than air; thus, it can pool in low places, which makes it dangerous. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Povidone-iodine

Have you met octane?

OK, so what I said was that justifiable homicides are vastly outnumbered by unjustifiable ones. And that's simply true; in 2012 there were 259 vs 8342 So that's part of the "gridlock of irrationality." On the other hand, the other side's view is that it's reasonable to say that correcting someone's grammatical/ spelling and logical errors is as bad as killing children. Well, yes, there is a "gridlock of irrationality" - but it's all on one side.

"Scientists have found that people who constantly get bothered by grammatical errors online have "less agreeable" personalities than those who just let them slide." To get that back on topic, are they found more agreeable than those prepared to let the deaths of children slide, or less so? Or did you not check?

"It seem odd because you're using screwed up lodgic." Learn to spell. "By this statement, you imply that people buy guns for the purpose of killing underpivaledged kids." (BTW, learn to spell) No I didn't. "Guns are tools to be used for hunting, target shooting, and defense of home, family, self and country. " (BTW, learn to spell) Which of those uses kills kids? Are there other tools available that don't do so? Are you aware that the number of people "legitimately" killed- i.e. a good man with a gun stops a bad man with a gun- is vastly smaller than the number of illegitimate deaths? "Any responsible gun owner would say the same." The death toll among kids is largely due to guns owned by what were (up to the point where they shot someone) thought of as "Responsible gun owners". "Check your use of lodgic here!! " Check your use of logic, of facts, of grammar, and of punctuation. http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Multiple_exclamation_marks

Why is someone talking about peeing on the floor? Is this a linguistics issue?