Thought the same thing around the comment "3600 average-sized backyard pools". That's absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. There are 10 million residential pools in the U.S alone. And the Winter Olympics is held once every four years.

And let's talk about pollution for a moment. People complain about the cost of managing pollution coming from a nuclear plant, or even the fallot from one of the few significant failures over the years. Those efforts and costs are still absolutely trivial compared to the cost of _cleaning up_ after fossil fuels. Deepwater Horizon alone was $71.4 Billion in cost to BP. And that's for a pretty shabby cleanup, lots of that oil is still contaminating nature. For a single disaster. Of which there are many.

How about if natural gas, oil or coal had to pay for de-contaminating the atmosphere? Collecting all the sulfur, carbon mono- and dioxides, NoXes? That would add quite a few zeroes to the "cleanup" bill.

Fission, and fusion, have a huge advantage of being able to localize and contain all pollution. No other energy source can do that effectively. Windmills are spreading huge amounts of toxins and microplastics into our environment already. And the big wind farms are not profitable either. Plus, they don't provide a stable, or plannable source of electricity.

Yea, did a bit of googling: From an insurance company:

Not quite. If this method works (buying X playstations at retail price, then selling them for more on ebay) it simply means that the retail price is artificially low (lower than what the market is willing to pay). The reason this phenomena exists is simple - supply is lower than demand. Some people are willing to pay a higher than standard price to get it. And these "scalpers" are profiting by redistributing the goods towards where the price is high. Which is a "service" for those who are willing to pay more, and would otherwise not get one.

If you eat meat, hunting (when done right) is the most ethical way to get that meat. It is also the most sustainable way, as it automatically encourages biodiversity. And being vegetarian kills around 25x more sentient beings than being a meat eater. Large-scale farming is horrible for biodiversity.

As for pest control, it is usually a mix of alternating methods that prove successful. Feral hogs, coyotes etc quickly learn and you have to shift to new locations, new methods. Large-scale poisoning is clearly not good etc.

There are plenty and plenty and plenty of examples of armed citizens protecting their homes using their firearms. It is just not widely reported on. But there is research. Here's one example: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

(no-one is questioning that criminals use firearms committing crimes frequenty. Just making a point that there are a lot of cases when people do use firearms in self defence. As for the statistics, running away is a better option in protecting your person. But not protecting your property, or someone elses person, who can't run)

Sorry, seems like I answered two posts in one. While I can't answer for the OP, I can answer for myself.

I own several firearms, for various purposes. Most of it is for hunting purposes. Different firearms are good for different types of hunting. The ability to take a fast second and sometimes third shot is valuable when hunting. Semi-autos do that far better than traditional bolt actions, as you don't have to take your right hand off the handle/trigger. Doing so usually means losing sight picture. And even if you don't have to take that follow-up shot, you always want a new round in the chamber IF you need it. It supports ethical hunting.

I want to use similar rifles for hunting, target practice and sport shooting. Using the same physical layout promotes muscle memory, which is crucial - for accuracy as well as for security.

Military ammo is (unless it is anti-materiel) what is called full metal jacket. That means the whole bullet (the part that flies and hits something) has a hard metal shell. When it hits something soft, it retains its shape (it does not deform/expand).

If you compare this to bullets made for hunting, you will see a stark difference. These bullets are made to kill quickly, by causing massive bleeding and hydrostatic chock. They expand rapidly upon impact, mushrooming up to 2x the original diameter. This in turn means most or all of the energy they carry will be delivered into the animal in a very short amount of time. An FMJ on the other hand will likely pass through with much of its energy retained as it leaves the body. Less lethal (still often lethal though)

The Geneva convention specify that military shall use non-expanding bullets. It is the humane thing.. so to speak.

The problem - as presented - is not that cartels with deep wallets cannot buy and assemble a workshop and start their own armory. The stated problem is that Joe the mugger can get a cheap printer at home, and print a gun.

Last time I read about California and ghost guns, the problem statement was different. It was that companies online were selling pre-made parts very closely resembling the final product. All without serial numbers. All it takes for Joe the Mugger to complete it is to drill a hole somewhere. This way the manufacturer and online retailer don't sell a finalized lower, and thus don't have to register and serialize it. And Joe the Mugger does not care he's committing a crime when he finalizes the lower. He is already a criminal.

Many people confuse the "want" with "need". This is a classic one.

You could ask the exact same question about almost anyone buying a motorbike. Or a sports car. Or a fancy suit. Or an outdoor grill. Or many other items we all buy because we want one - not because we need one.

You ask why HE WANTED one, because YOU never saw the NEED for one. It is the wrong way to ask the question, and you will not get a meaningful answer.

Also, you bring up the military aspect. Many people get confused there. Most classic hunting rifles are ALSO military rifles, including most of the common/popular hunting calibers. The AR platform rifles are simply the next generation. And militaries around the world, just like civilians, like to use the latest stuff.

There are many reasons to want one. (fun, sporting, hunting, collecting and so on), And fortunately, some of us live in a society where we are allowed to get things because we want them, not because we need them.

Because while that is true, there are a lot of people who are losing big money every day as well.

Science disagrees with you. In fact, nuclear power is saving close to 80.000 lives a year worldwide, compared to that energy being produced using fossil fuels.

"Using historical electricity production data and mortality and emission factors from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, we found that despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009 (see Fig. 1). This amounts to at least hundreds and more likely thousands of times more deaths than it caused. An average of 76,000 deaths per year were avoided annually between 2000-2009 (see Fig. 2), with a range of 19,000-300,000 per year."

Correct- title should say Electricity, not energy. This is a quote from scot.gov:

"Oil and gas (i.e. hydrocarbons) makes up 78.0% of all energy consumption, and hydrocarbons meet 90.5% of all heat demand and almost all energy consumption in transport. "

and

"51.7% of electricity generated in Scotland was generated by renewable technologies, compared to just 29.3% for the UK as a whole (or 25.6% for the rest of the UK, excluding Scotland)."

The numbers are quite far off from gizmodo...