People have continued sailing since the invention of the ICE not because of ecological concerns but because sailing is awesome. If you've never, I highly recommend.

I think the idea might be that someone killing a civilian may or may not be dangerous to others (often ppl kill, e.g., family members and 99.9% of the time aren't out on a "spree"), but someone who is armed enough and prepared-for-engagement-with-anyone enough to be taking on trained killing machines is someone to really be reckoned with and genuinely afraid of.

The problem withthis whole argument online is that 95% of people don't understand what the word "science" means, on either side. "Science" certainly includes "skepticism", which one side of the argument seems to have gotten correct. "Science" also involves "evidence". Since the days of earth-centrism and humorism scientists have become much better at the meticulous methodologies required to weigh evidence. This whole portion of the equation is missing from the skeptical side in these arguments: "Maybe the scientists are wrong and maybe [my hypothesis]!"... okay, valid so far. "[anecdotal evidence], therefore scientists definitely wrong and definitely [my hypothesis]!". THIS is the error. Telling people that they are wrong to be skeptical just shows them that you are at least as ignorant as they are.

You seem to be assuming that Intel owns any of itself to sell you. It is sometimes true, but not generally the case that a company can give/sell you stock because it simply doesn't have any.