Iggy

Yes, I pass on answering your strawman. You said "license or insurance" and I emasculated your comment's barely existent reasoning by addressing the former. Would you like to pass on the question of which "place" my claim (firearms must be purchased with license in many places) contains the word insurance?

I don't know what you're trying to imply with the first burst. I didn't mention insurance in post 511, nor when I proposed the idea back in post 271, which I'll quote for your ease: Nonetheless, if you want to discuss insurance as Moontanman brought it up, and overtone objected, I'm more than willing. It wouldn't be a constitutional problem to have mandatory firearm insurance as was implied. This article explains. I would be opposed to it for practical reasons. Those for whom insurance would be the most expensive (high risk) would be far more likely to obtain and keep unlicensed firearms because they couldn't afford it. Irresponsible people would have an incentive to hide their arsenal which would be a very unfortunate result and extremely difficult if not impossible to avoid. Thank you for giving a proper link to the title of the wikipedia article I gave. To understand why the CDC zombie apocalypse joke was funny you can watch this (starting at 1:00): CDC Zombie Apocalypse Statement

Uh... yes. You are right. Halving volume and doubling pressure isn't adiabatic, and adiabatic expansion does lower temp. I think.... Yes. Because the big bang is adiabatic and obviously the temp of the universe is getting lower. I misspoke / sleepwalked through that post. Nevertheless, the equation I gave works and the conclusions are the same. If amount stays the same you need to know change in two of three (pressure, volume, temp) to solve the other one. It can't be sidestepped.

I reread it and it was even more endearing. A list of which states require purchase permit / owner's license / registration for firearms is on the wikipedia page 'gun laws in the US by state'. Without looking I can tell you that DC is an example. They are brutal with their gun laws.

Oh sweety, The fact that you don't know that firearms must be purchased with license in many places is so cute. You're arguing against something that is already established, but only needs more competent control with such blissfulness. It's endearing.

It was right. Depends on volume. Let me get clearly across: temp. pressure, and volume are a menage a trois for which one cannot hope to solve one without dealing with the other two. If the amount stays the same then you have to know the other two to guess the third. Yes. To be a violation of that case would be, as you suggest, a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. You don't get perpetual heat from the temperature of a constantly expanding and contracting gas. The heat you get is from friction. An adiabatic process doesn't change temp, as the learned would say. EDIT::: By the way, John is making an extraordinary amount of sense.

Clearly the Center for Disease Control's gun budget needs spent on the upcoming zombie apocalypse. Otherwise, there is a vast conspiracy aimed at labeling gun ownership a disease and thus probably willing to fund this study in the first place. I wouldn't doubt that both could be true, but I'd be extremely reluctant to accept a third option.

'The Hitch' had a good line on that. He would ask Israel Shakak how things were going in Israel and the Dr. would say "there are encouraging signs of polarization". Justice Sotomayor on the daily show a few nights ago had a good line too. Let me look it up so not to botch it..."If you want to be a part of history, then you know that the force of your ideas and the strength of your expression is what lasts". That was her line on a polarized supreme court. I don't think polarization is the problem. If Piers Morgan thinks assault weapons are the cause then he has every right (and duty) to scream 'bloody murder' immediately after, or indeed before, the Newtown massacre. Likewise if Rigney wants to protest hundreds of years of tradition and law being threatened when DC bans handguns, or whatever the case may be. And don't even get me started quoting Mr. Miyagi, "Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later, SQUISH". Yeah, polarization isn't the evil it's looked down on as.

No, I agree they're dangerous, and often equally so. That's why I think it is a red herring. Banning assault rifles wouldn't do it I'm quite sure.and very sad to say.

If you double the volume and half the pressure then there would be no change in temp. The equation is p*v/t = P*V/T where lowercase are the initial values and uppercase are final values. The final temperature equals the initial temperature times the final pressure times the final volume divided by the initial pressure divided by the initial volume. T=t*P*V/(p*v)

I suppose it could in principle help, but it feels like a red herring. People have and could effectively use different weapons. But compare a 30.06 to an AR10. Hard to draw the line.

No, you can't assume that doubling the volume cuts the pressure in half. It depends on the strength of the spring. Imagine a strong spring that admits no air at all. The temperature would drop drastically. Imagine then a soft spring that lets in any air. The temperature wouldn't change. It depends entirely on the strength of the spring. The change in pressure can't be avoided. Without it you can't solve.

So you imagine that massacres with small guns and small clips are acceptable? You're all for them? "If you're gonna take out a bunch of people, at least use a shotgun" is your line? That doesn't work for me. The people need regulated. The guns are dangerous regardless.

How many people have committed a massacre with an ar15 when they just as easily could have used a different gun? Who can't play this game?

I figured as much. The final temperature will equal the final pressure times the final volume and temperature divided by the initial pressure and volume. If you don't know any one of those things then you can't solve. Like I said before: depends on how strong the spring is.

If that is correct then you are correct. The temp. in the cylinder will be less than ambient. The amount by which it is less depends on the volume and pressure both before and after the cylinder expands. The stronger the spring the lower the temp. Is that what you're after?

why does the piston move? Is it because of anything that happens in the cylinder? The reason I ask is because your question can't be answered unless the pressure in the cylinder is known before and after it moves.

Yes, if the cylinder expands by some external force.. The temperature by which it drops is proportional to the volume by which it expands. Further detail requires numbers. edit... I think I got what you're thinking. Let me just ask (then I think I can give you a definitive answer) why does the cylinder marked "45, 41, 25" expand? What makes it expand?

I did get that. My point is that the inexact values given would only lead to inexact answers. It's hardly worth asking then, eh? What really do you want to know?

Chang in volume, change in pressure, change in temperature, change in amount. If you can say in a single sentence what three of those things are then anyone here could happily solve the fourth. That's pv=nrt.

Also, to double down, 'better, never to get divorced', is non sequitur. How many Catholic and Islamic women have been beaten to death under that presumption? It's nonsense that shouldn't be presumed. Complete non sequitur.

Whoever told you that was assuming that divorce is bad. I've met a lot of married people, and I'd recommend divorce to a fair number of them, and premarital sex to anyone else.

Illiteracy is nothing to be ashamed of.

I'm positive that's exactly what a theist would say had they the intelligence, but its fault is obvious. Saying "we don't know the cause" (as in the case of the big bang) is very different from saying "cause and effect can be suspended for my benefit if I pray about it". Apples and oranges. My point is that cause and effect is a principle without which one cannot live their life. If you don't understand that the tiger charging at you is about to kill you then you're dead already. Religion holds no such explanatory power. It rather disagrees with it.

I only watched the first 28 seconds of the clip, but I can tell you you're entirely wrong. The debate ended when Newt asked "how many people have you had on that have successfully defended themselves with firearms?". Piers immediately said "never mind that purposeful biased mistake on my part... look over there!". Then Piers asked the stupidest question yet imaginable: "How many people have successfully defended themselves with an ar15?". Never mind that if the answer were "one" then Piers would have no business telling that person that they should have better off been dead, he completely ignores the future. How many people will successfully defend themselves with an ar15 if they aren't deprived of having one? Let's hear you, or Piers, or anyone else answer that.