MigL

I know you can be sent off to war at the ripe old age of 18, but Raider has mentioned how many 10 yr olds he knows that own a gun. And while I realize it is best to train youngsters in their use , if they're going to have a gun, is there any justification in letting children have guns ? Why not wait till we consider them mature enough, like drinking, driving, and all sorts of other activities ? It would at least, cut down on the number of school shootings perpetrated by children/young adults.

Interesting that both Raider and Zapatos list the lawlessness after a natural disaster as a reason for self protection guns. In the society I come from, the natural order of things would be to help your fellow citizens through a tough time, not protect yourself from their doing you harm. Yet I've spent a lot of time in Western New York ( mostly bars and clubs ) and always found Americans and Canadians very similar. So I'm not sure where the idea that they'd be intent on doing you harm comes from. Usually we have this type of discussion about politics. One side does their best to 'demonize' the other side, and all discussion bogs down. The only way we can move the discussion forward, is by trying to understand the other side's viewpoint; not by assigning blame.

Full disclosure... I just remembered, yes I do own a gun. A side by side Beretta shotgun. It has been confiscated for safekeeping by the Municipality in my home town in Italy, as it belonged to my grandfather, and no-one is living in the house currently. And I have fired handguns, 22s as well as a friend's 357 and 44 magnums ( recoil almost smacks you in the forehead ) at a local gun range. Have also fired assault rifles and a 50 cal sniper rifle ( bolted down ) at another club. I understand the lure and fascination, but still have no desire to own. Edit : As you are the only one who has mentioned self-defense as a justification for owning guns, Zapatos, could you elaborate on this ? Unless of course, its something personal, and you'd rather not.

You're right Raider, collecting guns doesn't cause mass murder. The correlation is there, however, because both activities require guns to be readily available to all. I appreciate your point of view, and your call for stricter regulations, although I don't see the point of semi-auto weapons, or unlimited numbers of them. I am basing this on your previously stated reasons for owning guns, and rate of fire, or magazine capacity make no difference to any of your reasons, other than 'bragging rights'. That is what I meant when I mentioned the differences between rate of fire, Zapatos. I know full well it makes a difference on the battlefield, but what use do you put your guns to ( other than the ones Raider mentioned ) that require those rates of fire ?

I collect automatic watches, Raider. I would give it up instantly if someone were to draw a correlation between watch collecting and endangering human life. You seem to think there is a distinction between 30 rpm, 60 rpm, or even 700-950 rpm. Which of the reasons for owning a gun ( aside from 'bragging rights' ) require that rate of fire ? The mentality that it is OK to have a 'hobby' that endangers others, is what's gotta change.

For the record... The majority of us decided long ago that this argument was based on semantics and incomplete definitions. Eise, the only one who thought to properly define the terms and take some of the ambiguity out of the definitions, is being pilloried and called a 'dick'. Come'on guys, we're better than that.

I agree with you that its your right, Moony, to own one, or many guns, under your current laws and Constitution. And you seem like a fairly well balanced guy, so your opinion matters to most of us. What exactly is the purpose of you owning guns ? You mentioned you don't need them for personal protection. Are you a hunter, target shooter, collector ? I, personally have never owned a gun, and see no need for one. ( although the Franchi SPAS shotgun looks wicked ) Help us understand the reasons for owning one.

I think its done like dinner.

Boiled ? Are you guys nuts ? Baked in a pie shell, with eggs, sugar/molasses, and fall spices. nothing beats a good sweet potato pie.

Oh well, everything is fine then. Global warming isn't going to reduce the available arable land for food crops. Nor the amount of fresh potable water. And the global population will suddenly start to decrease, and make conditions hunky-dory for everyone. Or maybe the dip in the last few decades is an anomaly, as opposed to the increases over the hundreds and thousands of years of history. Seriously Strange, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I've said that things are improving. But they haven't improved enough, all over the world, that we can necessarily consider a 'world government' yet. We still have a long way to go.

Yeah, but they taste so good...

The only advantage water has, is that its solid state is less dense than its liquid state. Water tends to freeze from the top down, giving life a chance to survive at depth, even when the surface is frozen solid. How big an advantage to primordial life this would be, I have no clue.

You're right CharonY, my definition sucked. Should have read, the classical definition of enlightenment as exemplified by the period leading up to the revolution in France. As to whether violent deaths ( is starvation violent ? ) are increasing or decreasing, I suggest it matters little to those killed. And the OP is still unworkable.

The classical definition of 'enlightenment'; Humanistic as opposed to materialistic. all the dictators I mentioned in previous posts did very little to improve the human condition of the people they killed. And none of it was too long ago. And you're absolutely right, the OP's premise is flawed.

Maybe you'd better elaborate, Dimreepr, as I don't have a clue what you mean.

Are we in the same thread here? This OP is not about how much improvement there has been, but whether the nations ( or city states ? ) of the world are on equal footing in terms of improvement. Are all nations sufficiently democratic, sufficiently 'enlightened', to value people more than wealth/economy ? At last count there were 49 dictatorships in the world. I'm sure they'll agree to give it all up and play nice with the rest of us.

Because I brought it up in my first post. To which you replied that things must be getting better, because beheadings and stonings are looked on unfavorably, but still practiced. That we attempt to stop genocides ( where politically expedient ), and punish those responsible, but you can only punish leaders, not a whole nation. That out of the approx. 3.5 billion women in the world, the half billion living in the Western world have it pretty good. What of the other 3 billion ? And if things were that good you would not need to mention the ethnicity/skin color of a President or mayor. Just because something isn't pertinent to your argument doesn't mean its not pertinent to mine. I agree some progress has been made, but the rest of the world ( or even certain parts of the Western world ) are a long way from the utopia some imagine.

Aside from MarkE's confusion about Kaluza-Klein theory and ( gravitational ? ) dimensions... Gravitational change information ( or any information, for that matter ) is subject to the same dilation as light or EM radiation, to a far-away observer.

Don't 'label' my arguments because you have no rebuttal. The fact that things are better in some parts of the world, where we can worry about things like animal rights, whereas in other parts ( the majority ) people worry about whether they should eat their pet for lack of food, is the biggest drawback to a 'world' government. Everyone is for bringing the rest of the world up to our standard of living. But how many are willing to give up that lifestyle ( unimaginable to medieval kings ) to help the rest of the world ? Kaiser Willhelm, Joe Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, Mao Ze Dung, Pol Pot and the Kim family of N Korea certainly weren't.

We have made progress Area54. So you would think the last century would be immeasurably better than the previous 10 centuries. Yet 100 yrs ago, WW1 killed over 20 million people. 20 yrs later, J Stalin, tries to 'modernize' Russia by selling Ukrainian wheat abroad, and starves 10 million Ukrainians. Shortly thereafter, WW2 killed over 50 million people. In Communist China, 20 yrs later, Mao tries to outdo Stalin, with the 'great leap forward' and starves at least another 10 million. There were also millions killed by Cambodia's Pol Pot, and North Korea is also repeating Stalin's and Mao's mistakes in trying to become a military power at the expense of her people. Yeah, we have made great progress at killing people.

I'm the last guy who would infringe on someone's right to any belief system they choose for themselves. However, the rules are, that even speculations must be backed up. And I don't see how any notion of 'heaven' can ever be backed up.

Really ? People are still being beheaded and stoned to death in certain parts of the world. Genocides have occurred in relatively advanced countries like Yugoslavia ( former ). Women ( and daughters ) are chattel to be used for furthering your economic status. Your skin color still determines your status in life. I could go on all day...

Since the 1970s, F-111s of the USAF could carry the AGM-69 SRAM tactical nuclear missile. A small 'theater' , battlefield nuke, with a 50 mi range. Small, of course is a relative term with nukes, and the warhead yield was about 15 kt ( fission ) and 200 kt ( fusion ).

Barbarians ? You think people have changed ?

Italy, from medieval times until unification in the 1800s, was composed of a large number of city states. They hired mercenary armies and fought against each other incessantly, ruling families rose to power through corruption and scheming ( read N Machiavelli, "the Prince' ). Certainly not the utopia you envision.