If people were always rational and clear headed, there would be no problems with gun ownership. But that is not the case.
And it is when the line has been crossed, you cannot tell until it is to late.
Or, in your case, cannot do anything against it until it is to late. (i.e. legal guns but did nothing wrong so that they could be taken away)

The problems with guns: they are massive enablers.
Yes, you could kill people with other items as well, but guns make it SO much easier.

Some other notes:
Comparing to other deaths like accidents or whatnot are simply stupid straw men. Water kills more people, should we ban it?
And other people wearing guns to 'protect themselves' is not only a mute case because the negative occurrences far outweigh the positive ones, but also those are the kind of people that should not wear them (a little paranoid, are we?). Not to mention if they even use it. That governor was surrounded by body guards yet was still shot.

How often have guns been used for good?
Lincoln, MLK, Malcom X, Kennedy, that governor.

Finally I will say this:
If you, regardless of the evidence that the solutions to your problems are visible, continue to ignore them, you get what you deserve.
So if you do not want to change anything, then don't. But don't come crying when another crazy shoots up a school.

Look at all the 'traditional foods' around the world and you will notice one thing: it is all poor people's food.

I think you are correct about the overpopulation, and it could be that they are manipulating the numbers a bit.
They could simply be comparing the number of lobsters to the number of other sea life and thus they seem inflated.
But if you look at the number of TOTAL sea life, it would look disastrous.

Sadly like so many others, they care not for the sustainability of our ecosystem but for their pocket book. When will people realize that when we try to conserve nature we are trying to conserve OUR habitat. Planet Earth does not care for us. It has been through worse and when we are gone, it will simply move on.

A resolution for a problem they otherwise do not know how to fix. Tells me more about the people in the government.
(mind you, it is not 'the government' but the people in the government, aka the people you voted in)

Though in a strange twist such a move does point out how certain ethnic and regional groups value education.
Yes, asians do put a lot of emphasis on education, blacks/latinos not so much. While these are blanket statements, there are undoubtedly numbers that back them up.
Though I do also see problems in the social realm. The number of people that think they do not need an education because they will be a pro sportsman/musician or self-made millionaire (without doing anything) has certainly increased thanks to the influx of such theme shows (at least for the latter 2).
This does not only apply to people but for their children as well. Honey Boo Boo? Nuff said!
People do not realize that becoming such is a horribly slim chance and you are actually better off playing the lottery.

Not to mention look at all the emphasis that is being put on these 'dream jobs'. Sports and music have really become a focus in our societies. Constant bombardment with information about who done what with whom for how many $. Sports and music are things you enjoy in your free time and should not be the focus of day to day life.

Though sadly I think it is the escape vector people seek to enrich their own lives. Hence why commercials focus on certain groups during this time. Why do we only see alcohol/fast food/tech/military themed spots? And who does the coin-toss, half-time show or whatever?

Is it than any wonder that being 'educated' has gained a negative context in the US?

One thing my parents said was: you can try to reach all your dreams but we will only support you if you get an education FIRST.
We should go back to focusing on what is really important and not being sidetracked by such nonsense.

Wrong! (people read up on history)
The US recognised the Taliban as the ruing power of Afghanistan and actually helped them in gaining it after the Mujaheddin/Soviet war.
They even had 'positive' diplomatic relations and the former First Lady inviting representatives from the Taliban to the US.
When questioned about what the Taliban do in Afghanistan, she simply said 'it is their way of life'.

Oh, how hollow are your words when you now oppose that what you once supported.

1. Learn what jihad means -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
2. try to understand what he actually said

Yep, was recoreded. But the tapes were 'lost' somehow. Well 'lost' until they would be useful to the Government and then they are 'found' again.

@ 1) actually not. The US government did not commit itself to the revolution until it was absolutely clear Mubarek would be totally ousted.
Because you cannot forget that Mubarek was a US ally and if the US had rushed supporting the revolution to early and Mubarek would have won, they relations would have soured.
(remember Saddam, same thing, different dictator)

What some people outside of the US are wondering about the Presidential election is: Are you friggn serious?
Looking at US television and news one must wonder if this is some elaborate joke.
The crap some of these people are spitting is either soooo uber-Colbert that we are not getting or (and this is what we cannot believe) their 'official' heartfelt honest opinion.
Mitt Romney? Are you voting for the biggest bunch of douchbags or your president?

And that is what scares us. Everyone has their share of crazies and we share a laugh and a head-shake when they rant off, but we mostly ignore them or move them to the side.
Not so in the US.

We'd expect something like this from a banana republic or Italy, but the US?

One thing I feel people forget is the ONLY reason the beheadings do not happen in the West is because the crazies are not in power.
Whereas in Afghanistan and other countries these crazy people have the power (and we helped them attain that strange hold btw).

And the only way they will stop is if WE stop supporting these people.

Remember the last time the crazies in the West were in power? We called it the 'Dark Ages'. Yeah, compared to some of the stuff our 'advanced civilizations' did back then, beheadings are quite tame.

Oh and for all that do not get the equations: [us] supporting [bad people] hurting [people] = [us] hurting [people] = [people] hate [us] for supporting [bad people]

Please do not forget the abortion clinic bombers! Would this not also equate to Taliban-esque tactics?

The DEA is only a subset of 'the government', not in charge of it.
Think about how much real power 'the government' has over its branches. They might manage the bosses, but what goes on inside is not monitored by 'the government'.

And how often do you hear of branches doing stuff they should not? Do you honestly think it is always 'an order from them man himself'? Don't kid yourself.

Problem is, they are all in the same boat so they will be very cautious to beat themselves for any wrong doing.
If a branch gets caught doing something they should not, a few token fall-men will take the blame and get moved over.

Thing is, this also happens in the private sector.

Think about it from a different perspective: How many employees rip off their employers? Now think about a company the size of the government.
Do you think every time a stapler is stolen, it is by decree? Do you think every time a bent cop plants evidence, it is done by order of the government?

People are people. And the government, just like the private sectors, are made out of people. If they think they can get away with things, they will try to do so. They are just as corruptible and as honest as other people.

Only difference between private and public is that the big heads in charge are voted in by the people. So if someone in the government is corrupt, well you put the person there.

Think about that next time you vote. Do you think the person will do a good job because he is 'likeable'? The boss of Amazon, Steve Jobs and others could be ar$3holes, but they did do good jobs.

One thing people always forget is that such systems cost money to install and operate.

Today the DEA wants to use it against drug trafficking. But let's be realistic, they won't catch many (criminals are not idiots), but the system will continue to cost money. So they extend the goal to include other crimes as well. Perhaps even mistermeaners. All just to justify the costs. And to fight crime o/c.

This is basically the chicken-egg problem that will wind up costing a lot of money but only bring little actual value.
Except to the people selling and/or running such systems.

You can look to the UK to see how great it works. Instead of catching the bombers, they use it to catch people littering or urinating/humping in corners.

I think we all have to come to the realization that OUR governments are puppets for corporates. Whenever politicians talk about fixing things, they only want to 'increase the economy' i.e. help the corporations, never fixing social needs.

I look at Germany's booming economy, yet we have totally slashed and gutted our social systems. We can spend trillions on banks and Greece, yet cut our funding for schools and other projects.

And when they want to 'invest in the country' they fix/build roads. Now who the fark gains anything from that, besides the road building companies and the politicians themselves, because it gives the smokescreen of them actually doing something for once?

Our politicians live on the whim of corporations. If the politicians think about doing something the corporations do not like, the corporations threaten to fire people &| close plants and move them to Cheapistan or simply start a media campaign to denounce them. Every tax cut, every 'reduction of bureaucracy' comes at the advantage of corporations.

How else do you think the banks got the trillion dollar bailout in a few days, yet our governments cannot even find 1/100 of that for teachers or meals in schools or whatever?

Don't vote established parties. They have lost their ways and are simply corporate drones.

For the record, yeah I am pissed and what pisses me off more is that we all would rather complain then actually do something about it.

Perhaps because we try to find the golden hammer that will replace all our energy problems with one decisive sweep.
That won't work. Just solar or wind or whatever power cannot compare.

IMHO, we should not find one, but rather take them all (as far as possible). f.i. If you only chose solar, what do you do on a rainy day?

So I would go all out. Even personally for my own house.
Solar, wind and a geo-thermal heat pump.
Keep the isolation of you house up to date and conserve energy (not energy abstinence, just try not to use as much)
And I think that is something we all have to do.

One other semi-pseudo argument I often hear is how we need to create this huge infrastructure for power transportation (i.e. backbones to transport large amounts).
Yet at the same time we want to decentralize the power creation with a large number of small plants.

Now I might be confused, but if I really do decentralize the creation with massive amounts of small plants, why do I need a huge infrastructure? Wasn't the large infrastructure needed due to the centralized nature of the old system? And if I have multiple smaller power plans all close by, why do I need to get my energy from farther away?
Also, would a distributed net (similar to the www) not also be able to transport smaller amounts, but over multiple paths from A to Z?

Probably one of the few that would be problematic are the industries that consume a lot of energy. But there I would consider creating a special grid for their massive needs.
Kinda like backbones.

Reminds me of a telecom joke where two techs are talking about the new mobile antenna they installed and that people were complaining about headaces and whatnot.
Upon which the other replies: Wait until we turn it on!

Back to the topic. I have read a lot about people in Germany complaining about the noise (range about 50m) and the shadow casts if the sun crosses the turbines path.

But I do find them questionable at best. Most of these turbines do not stand next to houses and the shadow is only for a short period of time.

How about other 'dramatic' problems:
Solar panels: sun/light reflections
Bio-Gas: smell
ground pumps: the drilling

Yes, they all have their downsides, but I would ALWAYS prefer them to a coal burning plant or a nuclear facility whos waist will still be around far after all of us have fallen to dust.

Thing is, people do not care about what you do as long as it is not in their back yard.