Moontanman

John, do you really think your experience with one mugger is significant?

Being interested is not the same as doing it...

No not really... No evidently not... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett You really didn't read this one did you?

Well for that to be significant you would first have to establish that alien space ships actually exist but to travel between stars can be accomplished by generational slow ships... Evidence please... Evidence please...

Semjase, i suggest you read the rules, even in speculations you have to back up your claims and you are not providing anything but unsupported claims as evidence, such claims are not evidence...

No, eye witnesses are not empirical evidence... No neanderthals exist.... It is rare but occasionally things do pop up, mostly small creatures, but no trace of neanderthals have been found for 28,000 years, I don't expect to see one show up in the pacific northwest any time soon... King, yes i will admit that a few neanderthals could hide someplace like the pacific northwest... but not a breeding population. A breeding population would have to consist of thousands of individuals, just a few would not be able to maintain their numbers over time...

Agreed, it is just a name, doesn't mean they have to used that way, mostly it refers to the gun being designed for use in close combat which makes them "ideal" for use indoors... all except for that pesky killing someone next door due to bullets going through walls thingy. They are fun to shoot I have to admit that...

Exactly what has the gun been smoking?

And your point would be what?

I thought your name looked familiar... Semjase, this stuff was horse feathers 40 years ago (when i was really into UFOs), it is horse feathers now, and 40 years from now it will still be horse feathers... It smacks of racism, tries to elevate Caucasians above everyone else on the earth, makes the impossible assertion that humans and life forms from another world can interbreed, that in of it's self falsifies the entire idea, it's an outdated hoax that tried to appeal to the idea that white people are somehow special, nearer to the angels, and the old guy who took the pics was hoaxer, his space ships were clunky and not very realistic...

"Trillions" of animals do it in freshwater rivers and lakes too but we still have to filter and process it before we pump it back in. Near shore habitats in many areas are already so polluted from run off water that swimming has to be suspended and shell fishing had to stop. Near shore marine habitats are the source of much of our seafood and easily polluted. Another problem that would be a deal breaker as well is the larvae of various fouling organisms that would soon fill up the pipes unless you filtered the sea water very finely and even then a few would almost certainly get through, pipes full of sponges and sea squirts would be a problem. Intake pipes in the ocean foul even quicker as well. So such water would have to be filtered before it was used. Chlorinating sea water is of course possible but that adds yet another layer of expense that would make it no better than freshwater.

Yup, the salt is what you are missing. once you "use" the water what do you do with it? If you are going to pump it back into the ocean you will have to filter it just like they do freshwater sewage...

If you can get a sheet of polycarbonate, 1/4" thick should do it, the polycarbonate is opaque to UV, it will cast an almost solid shadow with a black light UV.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... What you present as evidence is horse feathers...

Yes, I will state that the USA has used it's nuclear arsenal to deter attack by other nations many many times over, why is this difficult to understand? I might get laughed out of the room if I threatened a gun and didn't have one. You don't pull a gun until you have no other choice, once you pull a gun a sequence of events is set in play that can be unstoppable... I wouldn't laugh at someone who used the threat of a gun to prevent the necessity of pulling one out, it's the mark of a cautious man... I have very little patience for John Wayne wannabes who want to wave their piece around at the slightest provocation... John, real guard dogs are difficult to raise, keep, and can be dangerous, my dogs are not guard dogs, they are pets, but they can and will intimidate strangers just because they bark so boisterously when they see strangers... and friends too for that matter but I can tell from the tone of their bark who or what they are barking at. I think of my dogs as pets first and warning dogs second... Again i would like to state that I do not keep automatic military style weapons, i see no reason to have one and I think hand guns, if allowed at all should be very difficult to get and carry. Since this is a totally subjective statement I have no problem disagreeing with you on this and this does point to the root of the problem, it is a totally subjective subject. When you pick up your kids in the family car after school they are literally many orders of magnitude in more danger than they are from a lone crazy shooting them at school. If someone suggested that eliminating personal vehicles would save the lives of hundreds if not thousands of children every year would you give up your car? Hell i can't do anything to ya as long as your outside... so come on in!

PeterJ, if you have special information pertaining to this don't let Immortal intimidate you, he is failing miserably to support his assertions so far...

As I said in another post I looked into it further and found the study to be less than objective. But I do know that anti gun people are less than objective as well. This entire thread pretty much shows that to be true, emotions run high on this issue, real proof of either point of view will have to be over whelming and take into account various "beliefs" I disagree, in fact I would point out that this is obviously mistaken. I've got a gun is indeed the first step a reasonable person uses before actually using his gun if at all possible. Simply stating I have a gun can defuse a situation, the next step of course is to show your gun, then draw it, then fire it. The steps may not always be so clear cut but the threat of a gun is indeed using a gun...

It looks like a lot of ideology and statistical manipulation to me from both sides. I'm not sure there is a clear cut conclusion from what I've found so far. But the guy I quoted is clearly not objective... It seems to be an emotionally charged issue, pro gun people would rather die than admit that guns aren't the savior they want guns to be and anti gun people would rather die than admit that guns might not be the evil they want them to be. When i get the time I'll look for more information...

The author is somewhat less than objective http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck More on this http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html This seems to be a finger pointing problem... I'm right/your wrong with the statistics being manipulated to support both sides http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/peer.html This is a quagmire of opinions and different representations of data... http://rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2009winter/cover01_a.asp

I see no evidence for any god or gods much less any intervention by them. That makes any god a monster not worthy of anything but my contempt... Please give some examples of a god or gods intervening throughout history...

What is the deal with Adam Lanza's mother? Was she really a gun enthusiast? Or did she just buy guns for her son to keep him happy?

It's more likely evidence that if a god or gods exists he ignores every one equally...

That is quite an assertion, can you show some evidence that is true?

Actually you are the one making the positive assertion, the burden of proof is on you.

So in other words to my question of Have these sciences added anything to sum total on human knowledge? Your answer is No...