SH3RL0CK

I think you may have missed my point. I was suggesting that you are okay with various regulations on other things, as you yourself conceded and readily admit, yet you're not crying out about the removals of your freedoms about that stuff. So, what makes guns any different?

 

My question is, why is it that you are okay with government "big mother" in some areas, but when it comes to guns you take a much more ideological/extreme stance? Would not regulations and "big mother" government also serve the populace positively on the subject of guns? After all, you don't seem to mind their intervention and regulation with lots of other things.

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...

You're free to own and use a wide variety of vehicles, though not without restrictions.

To use them, you need to prove to the state that you can do so safely and be issued a license.

All individual vehicles are also all individually registered and licensed.

And if you use them in a reckless manner, even if there's no harm done, there are penalties, sometimes as severe as confiscation, loss of license, or jail time.

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?

 

Why the double standard?

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 think guns should be banned, but with great power comes great responsibility. If a gun is used in a crime, then the sentencing should be greater. If you own a gun that is used in a crime and it can be shown that you did not reasonably keep it safe, then you should be held partially to blame.

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?

Its just a slope from fists to bombs - as you increase that slope of death potential, more control is needed, either in outright bans(bombs, anti-aircraft guns) to registration and punishment.

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).

These gun threads can get rather lengthy rather quickly. Let's stay focused and on-topic. And remember, the OP asked if guns should be *completely* outlawed, so your general stances on control have not been requested.

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.

But drugs only harm oneself - and most don't harm at all unless abused...

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.

Re "Why is easy access to a gun much worse than easy access to drugs? "

Because, while I may find it rather easy to kill myself with drugs, it's rather difficult to kill someone else. This inequality does not apply to guns.

Was that really a serious question?

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.

I see gun ownership as a state issue. Not that a state should ban guns, but we live in a large country with very different demographics and geography. What works in Montana may not apply as well in New York.

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).

I would also like tougher sentencing on irresponsible gun ownership. Allowing easy access to a gun is much worse than having drugs, IMO.

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.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/19/tobacco.lobby/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

Now if only we could do something about corn...

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:

Since the 1970s, contemporary parapsychological research has waned considerably in the United States...Two universities in the United States still have academic parapsychology laboratories: the Division of Perceptual Studies, a unit at the University of Virginia's Department of Psychiatric Medicine, studies the possibility of survival of consciousness after bodily death; the University of Arizona's Veritas Laboratory conducts laboratory investigations of mediums. Several private institutions, including the Institute of Noetic Sciences, conduct and promote parapsychological research. Britain leads parapsychological study in Europe, with privately funded laboratories at the universities of Edinburgh, Northampton, and Liverpool Hope, among others

Ok, but do you see how you can say that in any situation? It invalidates nothing. Mousavi campaigned on ending government monopoly on the media, disbanding the "morality police," codifying absolute equal rights for women, and trying to establish friendly relations with Europe and the United States. Oh, and not only does he admit the Holocaust actually happened, but he says it was a bad thing! So yes, even if in every other respect he's no better, he's still a much better choice for Iran and for the world, even if "that was once said about Saddam Hussein."

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.

Good point. But Mousavi doesn't need to be a good guy to be a much better choice, and a good sign for what Iranians want.

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.

i allready know that there would not be much power be i had put 10000 leters of water into drains in a year with 4 other people i live with that has to turn the trubins a little bit and even slitly cut down on the gas prices

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 don't know about you, but I can still buy E0 gasoline.

 

2007 US motor gasoline consumption: 9,286,000 barrels/day

(Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html)

 

2007 US alcohol fuel consumption: 4,748,395,000 gasoline-equivalent gallons/year

(Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/atftables/attf_c1.html;

the above number is the sum of the "Ethanol in Gasohol" and "E85" lines)

 

This is 3.3%, not 10%, of the total motor gasoline consumption. There is still some fudging of numbers. Not all of the alcohol added to gasoline is biofuel. Some comes from coal, for example.

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

This law (Energy Policy Act of 2005) will require all auto fuel to contain at least 10% ethanol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005

General provisions

...

Increases the amount of biofuel (usually ethanol) that must be mixed with gasoline sold in the United States to 4 billion gallons by 2006, 6.1 billion gallons by 2009 and 7.5 billion gallons by 2012[1]...

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.

Citation needed, please. This looks like cooking of the books, and doubly so. E10 gasoline, for example, contains 10% alcohol. The 90% of E10 that is gasoline does not count as alcohol. It counts as gasoline. Not all of the alcohol added to gasoline is bioalcohol. Some (I don't know the proportion) of that alcohol is produced from fossil fuels.

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

Creation of ethanol starts with photosynthesis causing a feedstock, such as sugar cane or corn, to grow. These feedstocks are processed into ethanol.

 

About 5% of the ethanol produced in the world in 2003 was actually a petroleum product.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#Production

Ethanol for use in alcoholic beverages, and the vast majority of ethanol for use as fuel, is produced by fermentation. When certain species of yeast (e.g., Saccharomyces cerevisiae) metabolize sugar they produce ethanol and carbon dioxide.

Sounds doable...

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):

Here is a study on the potential within the USA:

 

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headl...ependence.html

 

 

90 billion gallons of ethanol could be sustainably achieved by 2030 within real-world economic and environmental parameters.

 

Note the word "sustainable." In the context of the paper, this means the production does not interfere greatly with food production or the like. Now 90B gallons equates to something like 246 million gallons a day.

 

It is interesting to note that today the USA consumes about 230M gallons of gasoline daily (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_g...rica_use_daily) , so assuming cars become efficient enough to overcome the natural demand growth in gasoline (should be easily acheivable as hybrid-electric vechicles alone DOUBLES the efficiency) then biofuels is a sufficient answer to our liquid fuel requirements. Keep in mind an engine specifically designed for ethanol is as fuel efficient as todays engines designed for gasoline (that and we can also create bio-butanol instead of ethanol).

 

The other uses for crude oil will require other solutions however.

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.

I can't help but to pose a bit of a question when it comes to ethics... at least in our social view of each other as Americans, how many of us feel our normal, regular fellow Americans would choose the "high road" and turn down a (sure fire, not going to get caught) little benefit through a lucky connection, such as:

 

1) Insider trading - would you take a tip from a friend that had insider information, if it couldn't be traced?

 

2) Tax sheltering advice from an IRS agent friend - dodge paying what others would have to, thanks to a good connection?

 

3) Allow a councilman to "favor" your company in a city bid?

 

Regardless of being asked if you would engage in such activity - even knowing you couldn't be caught, how much would you trust your fellow Americans not to engage in such activities, if the opportunity arose?

How much do you think the average American trusts the average American not to engage in such activities?

 

I don't know if we really have enough faith in each other to believe we wouldn't use such advantages if they came up - elected people are powerful, connected people with a lot of such opportunities. We may see each other as more honest as a result of assuming "normal" people just don't have the same opportunities to abuse.

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.

You're taking a slightly myopic view of the economics. Up front cost, you're right... there's a $25K difference. However, let's run some numbers.

 

 

Telsa Motor Electric vehicle... Cost of gas = $0.

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?

Standard SUV... Has a fuel tank which holds about 20 gallons... gets (let's be generous here) 20mpg. Current cost of gas (let's go conservative) $2.50. So, each time you fill up, it costs you (again, on the conservative side) $50. You get about 400 miles per tank.

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...

At a conservative $5 per gallon, this ($25k price difference) can buy 5k gallons; at a conservative 20 mpg milage this is equivalent to an 100,000 miles of travel.

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.

To make up the up-front cost difference in the vehicles ($25K), all you'd need to do is fill up the SUV ~500 times. That translates to 20,000 miles worth of fuel based on calculations above. So, in less than two years (traveling about 200 miles per week), you've paid for the difference. For you, it would go faster, as you suggested you travel up to 300 miles in shorter trips/more frequently. In which case, you'd pay the difference in one year taking an average of 400 miles per week.

 

Note that, you'll have to pay for gas forever with your SUV, and the price of gas keeps going up.

On top of that is the environmental impact, which comes with its own set of economic concerns.

The point being, the difference in price for the Tesla is actually FAR lower when you extend your economic considerations past the front end payment.

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.

Ermm... The specific car GDG referenced seats seven (7) people.

 

 

http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/buyshowroom.php

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.