SH3RL0CK

I'm not ok with "big mother" government, where did I say I was? I want as few rules and regulations as is possible, in all areas including gun control. However, it is not possible to do without some rules and regulations. Therefore some (even with regards to guns) are necessary - a necessary evil if you will.

I think you do have a few misconceptions that play into significant differences... what legal restrictions are there on ownership? I don't think there are any at all. Some very rich people have dozens of cars. Some of which they might never drive. No. That is to use them on public roads. You can use them on private land all you want without a license. Do they have to be registered and licensed if they are never, ever driven on public roads (IIRC, registration but not licensing is required because the law allows no exceptions to registration, but again should it be in these cases)? What about cars in musuems? Again, on public roads. On private property, none of this applies as you can plainly tell by NASCAR and Monster trucks. Still, the legal restrictions on cars is a good starting point for further discussions. For start, considering the distances some bullets can fly, how far does the "private" property apply? Should this be different for different types of guns (shotgun pellets do not travel nearly as far as rifle bullets). And should it apply at all to guns that are for display only and will never be shot?

No double standard at all. Responsible citizens would do none of the examples you provided. But since not everyone is responsible, the government must intervene to protect everyone else. Since in the real world, there will always be irresponsible people, some restrictions are necessary. The question, as I see it, is given the current (and unmeasurable) responsibility level of the people, what restrictions (laws and regulations) are reasonable? In the case of gun ownership, I think the current laws are really overly restrictive based upon my personal experiences. I've had things stolen from me many times (my airconditioner last week ) but never at gunpoint. I've not known anyone robbed at gunpoint; but I have known someone who intentionally shot himself to commit suidice. The current laws, and even all the proposed gun control laws I've heard about would have done nothing to prevent this. Guns, however, are necessary in the rural locations I have lived at as there are animals which seek to eat the farmers livestock. There are also mountain lions and my father no longer goes out without a gun for self-defense (he used to before they moved back into the area he lives). Now, were I to live in an inner city slum, the circumstances might be different with more irresponsible gang members around (although we already have plenty), so we are getting back to a more local determination of what is appropriate.

I don't completely agree or disagree. If you are robbed at gunpoint, but the robber leaves only taking your cash I think you are better off than if you are robbed at knifepoint, but having been brutally slashed in the process. But then I suppose assualt charges can be added. Also, we get back to a loose legal term. What exactly is responsible storage? Who has the burden of proof, the prosecutor or the former gun owner? How much is the gun owner going to have to pay a lawyer to defend himself (after having suffered the financial loss of the gun)? How much are the taxpayers going to pay so that the prosecutor can go after the former gun owner, who is guilty of no crime except perhaps carelessness? I tend to look at this issue in terms of personal responsibility. People should responsible for their actions. It should not be the governments (big "mother") job to "teach" people to be responsible via specific legislation and regulation which is always imperfect and inadequate to address what responsible people would do of their own accord. To me, doing this necessitates a loss of freedom (such as what is called out in the second amendment of the US constitution).

Very good point. In the United States, at least, firearms should absolutely not be completely outlawed until there is a constitutional amendment revoking the second amendment to the consitution. Until this happens, there is a constitutional right to bear arms. Whatever your opinion of guns, the constitution shouldn't be disregarded.

Well leaving aside the pointless question of which party is worse, democrat or republican (they both seem very corrupt), I am sorry for the family and for the citizens of South Carolina.

Talk to me after you have been mugged because some drug addict needed $50 to go buy his drugs and get his fix. Or better still, go talk to a close family member of a drug addict. Ask them how torn up they are inside because their loved one died from an overdose. Or how they felt when said family member stole from them to get their drug money. Or ask a father how he feels about his daughter pimping herself out because she needs the money for her drug habit. There are lots of other victims...

Well John, that is your opinion, I have mine. Its a moot point really, we are arguing about the shades of black between the pot and the kettle. Easy access to a gun is generally a bad idea. Easy access to drugs is also a bad idea.

Of course it was a serious question. Why would you think it was not? Just because I see the world differently than you do, does not mean I am not being serious. It isn't at all difficult to kill someone with drugs either. Simply apply sufficient dosage. In fact, why not get them addicted? Then they slowly die while giving you all their money (and all the money they can beg, borrow, or steal from others) and/or other "favors" at the same time. The destruction to society is far greater with drugs, IMO, than with guns. Children who find unsecured guns often go to the hospital (or worse) when they use them. Children who find unsecured cocaine often go to the hospital (or worse) when they consume. Irresponsible and/or vicious people are the criminals here.

Upstate New York is quite different than New York City. As is downstate Illinois from Chicago. Perhaps it should be dealt with on a much more local level? But then NYC or Chicago or whomever will complain about guns being bought in a rural area and brought into their city. They do so now anyway; as does Canada and Mexico (IIRC). What would define irresponsible? For example, how much tougher a sentence should be given for 1) a person giving a gun to a felon knowing they were abouit to commit a crime; 2) carelessly leaving a gun in a dresser drawer; and 3) having the guns stolen out of a locked gun safe. A good lawyer (for both the prosecutor and defense) can exploit the massive grey areas associated with a loose term like "irresponsible". Why is easy access to a gun much worse than easy access to drugs? I don't understand the distinction. Please enlighten me.

What about "dark matter"? and "dark energy"? Most of the mass in the universe if dark matter; although we don't know what that is. I'm not sure we can call it "matter" at this point. And we know even less about dark energy.

Corn is addictive? and causes cancer? and should be regulated by the FDA? Wow, thanks for the heads up on this, I will be sure to watch what I eat... Seriously, I agree the agricultural lobby is quite strong and for good reason. But the comparison is apples to oranges as corn is very much different than tobacco. Back to the topic at hand, all I have to say is that its about time. Still, considering the vast tax money cigarettes bring to the governments, I really question if the government is really at all serious about reducing smoking. At some point (and maybe this revenue isn't high enough...yet), I would think that curbing smoking would become unaffordable by the government.

This seems to have been kind of a fad during the 1970's with quite a bit of "research" performed. Even today there are "legitimate" jobs in these fields. See for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology From the article:

That is true. However, I am more concerned with the actions that will be taken by various individuals rather than rhetoric. Ahmadinejad speaks loudly, and his actions (such as their alleged missile and nuclear weapons programs) are concerning, but otherwise is keeping a fairly low profile (i.e. not invading Kuwait). Mousavi might be someone who speaks quietly, but will do more to cause problems for everyone else once in office. But I can't really predict his future actions, so I have to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. That said, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei isn't going anywhere anytime soon that I am aware of.

Isn't that what was once said about Sadaam Hussein?

For that matter, the presence (or absence) of the photon itself could be the information. When I send the photon, it cannot know whether I am just sending it and not expecting someone to see it, or if there is an observer waiting for it as his signal to go do something.

You can't be serious here. I think using the natural fall of the sewer lines to generate a miniscule amount of energy is a "good" idea. [/sarcasm] Until these turbines plug up the works (how good are you at plumbing? With this you will probably get a lot of practice). Or until these turbines cause a leak (keep in mind raw sewage is a health hazard). There are better ways to generate energy; why do something hard for so little return. For much less work (and less raw sewage you have to clean up) you could simply install a small windmill or solar panel on your roof. I'll wager either of these will generate many, many times the energy that a sewage turbine would. The maintenance costs for these would be very considerably less (plumbers are expensive you know) as well. But maybe I am mistaken on the energy potential from this idea. You should prove me wrong. The equations for calculating the energy that can be generated are in this thread (post # 33). Do the math and show us please.

I'm surprised you are able to still get E-0. Notice that in recent legislation something else is required: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005 Your second reference is from 2007...due to the above legislation, perhaps things have changed since then? Nevertheless, as you say it is probably true that bio-ethanol blended into our fuel is somewhat less than 10% of the total today...that said, I don't see why bio-fuels will not eventually replace fossil fuels for our liquid fuel needs.

Ethanol is alcohol. Therefore the E10 gasoline you are buying is 10% ethanol...therefore 10% of our gasoline supply is ethanol. As far as where the ethanol comes from, only 5% of all ethanol comes from petroleum; basically it comes from sugar cane, corn, or other plant material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#Production

I've always been a big proponent of bio-ethanol. Considering we already produce very nearly 10% of our gasoline this way (and we aren't trying all that hard at it...yet), I agree this can probably be acheived. In a previous thread, this issue was discussed: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28991&highlight=ethanol&page=4 While good points were brought by both sides, what I find encouraging (for corn; algae has even greater potential) is the following (if I may quote myself): Of course as POM later pointed out, this is potential, not a certainty. We will need to do a considerable amount of work before bio-ethanol will be able to replace our petro-generated gasoline.

These examples are nothing in comparison to the graft and corruption that occurs, and is even expected, in other parts of the world. While America has its weaknesses, I think one of its strengths (and that of many other Western nations as well) is a profound lack of corruption.

Ok, iNow we clearly disagree, so let me restate my cost arguement. $25,000 in extra cost buys a lot of gasoline. Lets say $5 per gallon (twice the price now) as an average over the life of the car. (This assumes that at the current price of $2.50 per gallon, the price triples to $7.50 per gallon in a linear fashion by the end life of the car...a very conservative assumption.) This yeilds 5,000 gallons of gasoline that could be bought instead of buying the car. Now 5,000 gallons of gasoline will result a milage of: SUV (20 mpg) = 100,000 miles. Car (30 mpg) = 150,000 miles. Hybrid (50 mpg) = 250,000 miles. This isn't a comparison between the relative price of gasoline or electricity. I'm assuming here the electricity is free (which it isn't and neither will the battery swap be free. Nor for that matter will your solar panel installation be free.). This means you could have bought for your car and all the gas you need. Period. Or instead you simply bought an electric car. And now you must still buy the electricity/battery swaps. So I'm saying no matter how you slice it, the gasoline option is cheaper. And a car, I might add, which has some potentially serious drawbacks (e.g. can't go further than 300 miles without a battery swap or charge for example). This car simply doesn't make financial sense to me. However if the above math doesn't add up to your liking, go ahead and buy this car based upon your assumptions. Or go ahead and buy it to save the environment if you'd like; I have no objection to you buying whatever car you want.

I question your methodology. First, I prefer to use miles per gallon estimates rather than miles per tankful. Miles per gallon estimates are better established. Also, just for kicks, lets compare apples to apples; a SUV is not comparable to the tesla. Although they will both "seat" seven, you could do the same with a regular car or hybrid by tricking out the trunk as tesla has done. I very seriously doubt the tesla can carry the equivalent weight that a SUV can (it can't; the suspension isn't big enough). The tesla to a standard car and to a hybrid car. Cost of electricity = ? Certainly less than gas, but how much less? And how much will be charged for a battery swap when it is needed? I'm not sure why you are calculating based on a full tank, rather than the better established miles per gallon estimates in my previous posts... Taking a standard car of 30 mpg; this gets 150,000 miles. Taking a typical hybrid of 50 mpg; this gets you 250,000 miles. As long as the price of gas is less than $5 per gallon, you will do even better. See the above calculations based on better established mpg estimates note that the car has exceeded its normal life before the price differential (even at $5 per gallon) is covered environmental concerns are important. Do you realize that hazardous heavy metals and other noxious chemicals are used in the batteries? What happens to the environment in the inevitable car crashes? I disagree. See the math above.

Kids in the trunk, interesting concept. I thought we had stopped doing that in the 70's. Has this car passed all the required collision tests? I guess I have to assume it has. That said, interesting.

You are right, but now I'm confused. I only see a maximum of five seats for the model S the best image showing the interior is http://www.teslamotors.com/media/image_library.php?catId=72157615861202561 . How can it possibly seat seven people comfortably? Are we putting the two children in the trunk? Is that safe (how could it be during a rear collision)? I'm not sure I like that idea... sounds more like an exagerated sales pitch. Safety concerns aside, it still cannot carry as much as a SUV; or even perhaps other cars. Nor can it do so (for $50,000) at a clear economic advantage over a SUV, and clearly at a disadvantage to a hybrid.