There are aprox 280,000,000 guns in the US. Earlier somebody stated that there are 30,000 deaths per year (in the US?). Some people doubt that number is correct, but we will go with it for now.

Now the ratio of deaths per firearm is 0.01%.

That is an extreme minority. Especally when you consider that guns that commit murder are likely used for multiple murders (that percentage is actually lower).

Now lets look at benefits of gun rights. States and cities with fewer gun control laws have lower burglary rates in the US. Why? Interviews with criminals show their biggest fear, more than being caught by a cop, is being caught by an armed home-owner. This fear reduces the number of crimes committed. And an added bonus: You don't even need to own a gun to have the benefits! Criminals don't know if you have a gun or not. This is why cities like Chicago have increased crime rates when more strict gun laws are passed. Criminals have their fear of finding a gun owner reduced, so they are more likely to commit crimes.

And one more thing to add. The various reports of death by gun per year figures always include suicide. Now the suicide rates from areas with strict gun laws and lax gun laws are about the same, so those people killed wouldn't be 'saved' by more gun laws, they just shift those death totals to different methods of suicide.

Since you asked:

Deaths per terawatt hour (from nextbigfuture.com )

Coal – world average: 161
Coal – China: 278
Coal – USA: 15
Oil: 36
Natural Gas: 4
Biofuel/Biomass: 12
Peat: 12
Solar: 0.44
Wind: 0.15
Hydro: 0.10
Nuclear: 0.04

"Lives ruined" is kinda hard to track... kinda ambiguous.
Cost: Nuclear is normally in the middle for costs (long term). Solar and wind are "cheaper" but take up more property... As for property damage, check out the documentary "Windfall" on Netflix. It is about some unhappy people who agreed to have a windfarm move into their neighborhoods. Biggest complaint is noise and "flicker" caused by turning blades.

Plus I question the environmental damage wind-farms can cause. We are pulling energy out of the wind. That energy is used to create currents and is part of the ecosystem... by altering this by large wind farms, could we potentially prevent moisture from moving from offshore in land? Cause a dustbowl?

As for Nuclear: I really see that as the future. New LFT reactors, for example has waste with a half-life of, 30 years I believe... and have low pressure (no explosions) and the reaction will destabilize itself (no melt down).

But after Windows 9 Mobile is finished, it is going to be ported over to desktop PC's, so indirectly he will be in charge of the whole project.

Adam Lanza destroyed (or tried to) his computer. Why? There was evidence that showed he plotted this attack on it, and it would work against him if he was captured.

Now if Lanza did premeditate this attack, why would you think his mother being not having guns would have stopped him? He saw her guns as the quickest route to this goals. If she didn't have guns, he would have used another route. Even if all firearms were banned, he could have used Molotov cocktails in the class room. The worst mass killing in the US was not caused by guns, but by a bomb

Trying to stop crazy people by passing crazy laws... that's crazy.

8 6 7 5 3 o 9

The Second Amendment isn't for a militia. The government doesn't need permission to arm any military unit.

The Second Amendment states:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It does not say: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right of the people shall not be infringed. Why? Because the people who formed the government experienced a government that took away their firearms. The colonies were under the rule of King George and when the peasants were getting uppity, the first thing they did was to disarm them. It is easier to 'govern' an unarmed population. In fact look at the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments). Each one is a reaction to the over step of government under King George. Citizens starting to revolt? Ban their publications (1st), take their weapons (2nd), place soldiers in the homes of bigger trouble makers (3rd), Search people if you think they may be part of the trouble makers (4th), Skip trials for trouble makers (5th)... All of these things were fresh in the minds of the founders when they wrote the Bill of Rights, to ensure their new government would never be come as oppressive as the one they just left.

So the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the arming a government militia, but to arm people against a possible corrupt militia, or against any other tyrant that may come by (burglar, gang leader, ex-boyfriend that wants to 'teach her a lesson'... etc).

And while people love to compare gun crime in the US vs gun crime in countries with strong gun control... but also look at crimes without guns. How is breaking and entry, theft, rape, all compare? There was an article I read a while back that discussed why burglaries were higher in (I think the UK) vs the US and the research showed that burglars were afraid of running into a home owner with a gun. (don't have the article handy, was well over a year ago I saw that).

Penn & Teller in their 2nd Amendment BS show asked, "What would happen if we trained and issued a pink pistol to every woman when they turned 18. They can sell the gun, not carry it, their choice, but they get one. Lets say half give up their 'pinky' because they don't want it. What would happen to the rape cases when a rapist realizes that there is a 50% chance that Jamie has a gun...." I'd say that is a pretty big deterrent.

Guns have the same reaction as aircraft. 99.9% of the firearms in the US aren't used in crime. We have well over 280 million. Enough so if we distribute them 88% of the US would be armed. Statistically, you more likely to be beaten to death (or just wounded) by a bat, fists, or knives. But now and then we have the big airline crash that causes people to say "Hey! this is unsafe! who cares about the number, look at the death count at this one incident"

and for a disclaimer: I do not own a gun. Never have. My father had a couple of hunting rifles, but we only went target shooting. I don't see a need to change the first amendment (ban video games), or the second due to the actions of a very few (statistically speaking). I'd rather punish those few harshly.

Why to to all the trouble with making fake fingers when all you need are gummi bears

Bypass security. Tasty snack. It's the two-in-one product of modern technology!

CCP Grey had a good piece on this: Linky

Only merit I see is newspaper opinion pieces about fixing droughts/global warming by ending the "extra" hour of daylight.

I just had lunch at Subway and they still have $5 foot longs here (Minneapolis MN).

For people... safety nets from the government is a bad thing.

I know.... oh about a dozen people who are 'on the dole' who are very capable of working. They don't work (or work off the record) so they won't "lose" their aid. One person I know "can't" work due to chronic headaches (and on disability for it). What does he do with his time at home? World of Warcraft. Now he is comparing numbers, organizing/participating for raids, and managing a guild. Now if he can show up to a raid on time, why can't he show up for work on time? If he can stare at a monitor all day and enter data, why can't he work data entry?

Years ago when I got a my first 'real' job as an adult, my mother told me I should save 6 months of my income for a 'rainy day' fund. That way if I lose my job, I have 6 months of income I can use to find a new job. Now how many people do that? I doubt very many do because it's silly... we have a safety net.

Now if we take the social safety nets for people out of the hands of the government and return them to charities... That would do a lot. First, the safety net isn't a "right" but something you have to ask for. People still have their pride and will try *not* to use it. If they really need to they can still get help. The charities also have to run their books. They can't go over budget and shrug it off like government agencies can. This makes them more pro-active to kick people like my WoW-"Disabled" friend off the dole... and makes sure they do things to ensure the most bang for the charitable buck, like instead of handing out cash to people for food (that can be abused), provide a food-shelf for them to get food (less likely to be abused).

If the safety net is from the government.. it gives a "We need more money for the poor people!" card to the politicians... and how much of every dollar raised for the poor actually makes it to the poor? If you talk about cutting wasteful spending you get "Ohh you just want to cut funding from all the poor people" as the politicians build a bridge to nowhere. It is a strong emotional trump card.

Can you cite a case where a business went under and their competitors did as well... Unless the competitors were also doing poorly.

If GM went under, Ford and Chrysler would be higher in demand as they pick up the slack. If Johnson Controls (makers of car batteries) lost money due to GM going under, they will also have higher demand from GM and Chrysler... Plus they still provide batteries for existing cars. (in other words, the company should diversify, not provide products for only one business).

I use to support the "Safety Net" idea, but now... I don't. Safety Nets remove risk. Risk helps us avoid bad decisions. If a bank is told to make loans to people who are high-risk, The bank will protest. They know it's a bad idea. But if the government adds a safety net, say a promise to bail out bad loans... Why wouldn't the bank make the loan? If the loan works out: they get paid. If the loan fails: they get paid. Win-Win for the bank. Housing demand goes up, Home prices go up. Bank loans go up. You want to talk about making the economy suffer... it was just a matter of time before the bubble burst. And anybody who warned about the loans and tried to stop the bubble bursting was dismissed as "Hating the poor" or "Playing chicken little politics". *sigh*

The Second Amendment does *NOT* say:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It says "people"... Militia are not soldiers employed by the government, but everyday citizens. This country was founded by people who didn't trust the government... A government that distrusts government. The founders know how governments can trample on the rights of the people and two defenses for the people against over bearing governments are: The right to protest, and be heard (first amendment), and the right to protect yourself by force if needed (second amendment). Ice-T put it very well, The Second Amendment isn't to protect hunters.... It is the last line of defense against tyranny.

When a tragedy hits, we always feel a need to do something. Record setting Earthquake + Record tsunami + Nuclear reactor = Ban nuclear energy (despite it's extremely low death per Terawatt/hr). Plane crash? Is air travel safe (despite it being the safest way to travel). A nutjob kills a bunch of people? Must be guns fault (despite the hundreds of millions of guns in the US, vast majority not used illegally).

So lets not pass any knee-jerk laws at this. Lets mourn the fallen, take some time to collect ourselves and discuss reasonable actions that will target only those who do wrong, catching them before something bad happens, and leave those who do right alone.

City of Heroes went Free-to-Play months (maybe even a year) ago. F2P accounts were limited to number of characters and such (unlock more with micro-transactions). P2P accounts earned Vet rewards and and had much more unlocked.

Why can't stand your ground can't be used for Trayvon: He got away and went back. This is stated by both Zimmerman and Trayvon's girlfriend.

Zimmerman didn't go out to confront Trayvon. Zimmerman got out of his SUV to look for him. Zimmerman knew about many break-ins in the area, and saw a strange person wandering around in front of a house. What Zimmerman didn't know was Trayvon was talking to his girlfriend using a Bluetooth headset. All he saw was a guy pacing in front of a house. Zimmerman did the right thing and called the cops, and gave a description (which the news agencies edited to sound racist). While watching, and waiting for the cops, Zimmerman lost contact with Trayvon and got out to look for him. Zimmerman gave up the search and was on his way back to his SUV. Trayvon almost made it back to his father's girlfriend's house, when he told his (Tryvon's) girlfriend he was going to go back and confront Zimmerman. Trayvon's girlfriend told him not to, and to just go back to the house. Trayvon confronted Zimermman before Zimmerman made it back to his SUV. That's when the fight broke out (Evidence does suggest Trayvon did sucker-punch Zimmerman, and continued to beat him). Zimmerman states during the fight Trayvon saw Zimmerman's gun and said "You're gonna die!" while trying to grab the gun. This instance is where Zimmerman's "Stand your ground" defense comes into place. Zimmerman was able to get the gun first and shoot.

Now there should be an investigation... and there was. A trial comes if there is enough evidence to support it. Trials are expensive, even if you win. Everybody who looked at this case didn't support a trail because the evidence is that strong supporting Zimmerman. The media demanded a trial and now we have one. There isn't enough evidence to justify a murder charge in any level. There was no intent to kill from the beginning. You might be able to stretch a lower-level manslaughter (accidental death), but the jury would have to throw out the fight, or judge that Zimmerman started, or instigated the fight (against evidence otherwise, remember, the events were heard by Trayvon's girlfriend and she stated Zimmerman only asked "Why are you here?" before the fight broke out).

Like I said, there is a mountain of evidence that supports Zimmerman's self-defense case.

No that was the police, that were the first ones who took in the evidence, talked to witnesses, dealt with injuries.

Evidence overwhelmingly put Zimmerman in the clear. Trayvon had bruises on his knuckles that shows he was punching somebody. Zimmerman had no bruises on his fists, he wasn't, but he did have multiple wounds including a broken nose and bleeding from the back of the head. Eye witnesses saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, went to call the police - heard the gun shot and returned to see Trayvon on the ground. Interviews with Trayvon's girlfriend indicates Trayvon went back to confront Zimmerman, and what was said before (T: 'Why are you following me?" Z: "What are you doing here?" then a fight breaks out).

Liberal news agencies altered the 911 call to make Zimmerman sound racist (they apologized for this), filtered images to hide wounds on Zimmerman's head (after removing the filters they announced there were wounds...) They published a 6-7 year old picture of Trayvon as a 11 year old kid (helps draw sympathy), and an old mug shot of Zimmerman (Boy, helps the innocents there right? Didn't even mention all charges against him were dropped and he had a clear record).

All evidence collaborates with Zimmerman's story of self-defense. Trayvon did attack Zimmerman. Zimmerman's wounds were all self-defense style wounds.