What kind of Socialist is very important. Sweden-socialist, or Venezuela-socialist, or Great Leap Forward socialist, or Pol-Pot socialist? Only one of those four flavors can be claimed to work at all.
"and the country will finally achieve equity in its public school system."
As if the inequity was due to the books. When they figure out how to motivate the parents equally, then they might get somewhere on the equal results front.
Read E. C. Pielou, specifically After the Ice Age. It's a nice description of what happened last time we had climate change.
As of 1990, we were still not as warm as we were 10,000 years ago. The Milankovitch cycle still continues, and the next ice age approaches.
"Possibly more interesting to know which foods are free of DNA."
Distilled water and pure grain alcohol of course.
"There is virtually no competition on the content side, they set a price and demand it."
And I told them to pack sand. Them being Dish. There is no cable where I live, nor anything over the air. (I didn't check Direct TV, I saw no reason they would be better than Dish, so didn't bother.)
Don't miss it much either. I'm tired of people screeching BUY-BUY-BUY in my ear.
I ran your link, and rifles were 323, and shotguns were 356. Total is 679, so parent is correct. Bare hands (726) kill more than rifles and shotguns combined.
However, there are 1684 "undefined gun" homicides in the list. Not sure what is up with that. Never recovered the weapon, so couldn't say for sure?
Incidentally the homicide count for knives is 1694. So knives kill more people than assault rifles and assault shotguns combined by a two to one margin.
You didn't read the question;
""More people are killed by 'bare hands' than by rifles or shotguns." The rifles and shotguns are the important part. Previous poster was discussing the fraction of total firearm murders done with long guns vs handguns.
So, were more than 726 people killed with rifles and shotguns? It's probably buried somewhere in that same report.
"gradually moving toward restoration of something that resembles, at least faintly, the original lake trout and perch ecosystem"
The original ecosystem was a very large block of ice as of 25,000 years ago. The repopulation of the lakes after the glaciers melted back was very like the "freshly filled reservoir in the West." The upper Mississippi could repopulate from southern reaches, but how did the native (to humans) fish get back in the Lakes in the first place?
The electrical wires in your house are insulated in plastic. Fortunately it's PVC, not PE, but if the bacteria mutates again, things could get way too interesting.
The Fall of Cities in the Ringworld books comes to mind. At least ours are not levitating on superconductors.
"If everyone had their basic survival guaranteed through an unconditional minimum wage, the work market would be driven by individual initiatives to create pretty things and to improve from that basic status by pursuing luxury."
But the taxes needed to pay for the universal basic income would prevent anyone from improving from that basic status. Now Krugman stated a few years ago that the well-off were status-crazed workaholics who would keep on working even at 100% marginal rates. I don't agree, but then I am not a workaholic.
Another side effect is that you would have to shut the border to the point North Korea looks like a free trade area.
On the other side, as the robots take over, and I firmly believe that will keep happening, we will have to come up with something. Even on the right wing people are starting to mutter that it would be cheaper to have a universal basic income than 30 or 40 separate government programs doling out benefits. And there are voices on the Left who don't like it because (as usual) they don't trust people to be able to look out for themselves; they need government help to select what is in their own best interests (as determined by that ever benevolent government). See Bloomberg and his big soft drink ban. The overlapping government agencies ensure there is meticulous and continuous supervision of the rabble.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next 20 years.
"And the main reason for this is simply that there are not enough people who have enough money to become consumers."
True only to a point. Then diminishing returns sets in as well. For instance, I could buy a camper, but I have little free time I could use to go camping. I could buy a new TV, but it would be only marginally better than the old one. I am sitting on brand new chair, which was bought because the old one wore out. The same thing happened to the dishwasher last month.
As far as material goods go, I'm down to basic replacement, and the increasingly desperate screeching of "BUY! BUY! BUY!" is having ever less effect. Buy what? For what purpose? Large blocks of Time, which I actually could use, are not for sale at any price.
"We've been doing unintentional geoengineering for hundreds of years now, why would some intentional geoengineering be so bad?"
Sooner or later, we are going to have to start geoengineering. The ice age cycles are not over, and if you think the trouble from 4 C of warming is bad, you might want to look at a map reconstruction from 20,000 years ago. The ice goes down to Long Island, and sea level is 300 feet lower.
"(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm."
If you and the neighbor live in the country, this might cover you. But if you possess the firearm in a town anywhere along the way, you are in violation because it's not legal to hunt in town.
I merely read what is written in plain English.
Even under your interpretation, you would also not be covered the day before hunting season opened, or the day after the season ends, because the hunting is not legal at those times.
Either this bill is very badly drafted, OR it is intentionally designed to entrap as many people as possible. I'll accept either interpretation. But if the former, then I expect that you will support amendments in the legislature to clarify the intent of the temporary transfer section.
This would be an acceptable amendment.
(v) From one week before to one week after a hunting season appropriate for the transferred firearm provided the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or
This would also fix the problem in section 4 where you can loan your 17 year old a deer rifle, but you can't once she's 18. Although you could gift it to her, but if she gifts it right back at the end of the season was it a bona-fide gift? I wouldn't care to argue point that in court, but there may be precedent given the Potlatch culture.
"gun control means you don't get to own a gun if you have a criminal record" True in USA as well.
"you don't get to own a gun unless you first learned to use it properly," Proper safety classes are encouraged, but not required.
"you don't get to own a gun unless you have demonstrated knowledge of the relevant laws" Required for a hunting license (the course covers gun laws as well as hunting, and also required for a concealed carry permit in this state.
" you don't get to own a gun unless you have a certified firearms and ammo storage locker" Encouraged but not required. California has some such rules.
"you don't get to own an gun without registering it with the police" Now in effect in Washington state. Actually I think it was in effect before for handguns. There was a Federal form as well as a State form to fill out for those, but only the Federal form for rifles and shotguns. The state form went off somewhere, but I don't know where.
"you don't get to sell your gun without first informing the police." Also now in effect in WA.
Are you allowed to borrow a friend's shotgun to go duck hunting, or is having a gun not registered to you, even temporarily with a permission note a crime?
From the dictionary definitions, one would think that "liberal gun-control ideologies" would mean to encourage as wide as distribution of as many guns as possible. But this is not the case. But "liberal gun-control ideologies" actually means as few guns as possible to as few people as possible.
Just a random thought from a Blue State (WA) where another freedom of action was circumscribed despite the Red Wave that swept the rest of the country. See I-594, specifically the definition of transfers. No more borrowing a friend's shotgun.