I know I am part of what got us distracted, let's try to keep this thread on topic. If you want to keep this conversation about guns going, create a thread. I'll participate if you make one
I am not a fan of the U.S. despite living here. I despise the collection of information without my knowledge of what is being collected and how it is being used. I am greatly against the whole "cut spending" sham, as I don't remember any time when it wasn't mentioned in politics since my conception and I still don't see this going down. I would post here how I would like the U.S. government to be reconstructed, but I will refrain from doing so since I want you all to sleep tonight. Maybe another time, eh?
While we have strayed off topic, the main goal of this thread was to expose as many people as possible to the OP's links, and all we are doing by continuing to post is achieve that goal. So our off topic-ness is not necessarily a bad thing.
We have been in "Global Warming", since we left the Ice Age! When the Planet go into another Ice Age. If people are around then. They will be running around Screaming Global Cooling! In the Time Line of this Planet, We're just a Speck on a Spoke of a Wheel! I don't like to say this... but I'm going to. People Are Parasites To Planets!
I know very little about the technicalities of guns, so I wouldn't be able to tell you. Most common guns would probably be able to be modified to keep within the categorical constraints, of only being used in nonlethal detainment and ethical hunting and sport.
The issue that I see most often come up in gun control debates is how individual guns are categorized. Those who support gun ownership often look at them from the hunting and sport perspective, while those looking to control them look at them as if they are all a threat. Then there is the purposeful manipulation of language/political rhetoric that is the term "Assault weapons", which is meant to cause confusion with "Assault rifles." Nearly all guns have a justifiable use here, most with multiple. So it wouldn't be as easy as getting rid of a few "problem" guns. Physical changes to guns wouldn't be feasible either. Adding extensive background checks would be helpful, but that isn't limiting guns. Controlling ammunition wouldn't work as well; handloading is not a terribly difficult process, just time consuming, and criminals generally have a lot of time. The point I am making is that guns aren't necessarily the problem. I feel as if those who are in gun restrictive countries (such as those in Europe) are too quick to correlate less crime with less guns. "Correlation does not lead to causation" is a basic concept of statistics. The problem is the people who use them for wrong, obviously. But restricting access to guns isn't going to solve that problem. I do not have much of a clue as to what the solution is, but I have one small idea. We (the US) should create programs in areas of great poverty aimed at essentially rehabilitating citizens for the "normal" working world. Let these people trade in guns (legal or illegal) for social training. Help them build resumes, get their GED, partner up with local business that need lower educated workers, etc. The gun "problem" can be fixed without blanket tactics.
In the us the most avid gunownership rights activists do not care about guns for sport or for hunting but as a means of self defense as our constitution protects them. I am curious though where there is any data that would validate a claim that areas with less guns have less crime. I know my experience and most of the data I have seen would refute that completely. There is a facebook page called revolution news where they show activism all over the world. They don't show activism where guns in the hands of the public happen though. Those protests as can be demonstrated all over the US always end the same, the g men and bankster thugs leave and find easier prey.
You are correct, gun manufacturers and owners have already done similar things to stay within "regulations" that were imposed in the early 2000's
Just to put a completely stupid comment: I know who the Illuminati are! The Illuminati IS Global Warming! Global Warming IS going to take over the world. The Illuminati are going to win! We must fight back!
This thread is completely off topic. It is about a petition. From the comments on climate change I can only see that nobody here has a glimps of an idea, what they are talking about. Sorry, but most of the comments are nonsense. It is a general problem in the debate about man made climate change, that everybody thinks they ought to have an opinion on it. Because everybody experiences weather, doesn't make us experts on the climate. Climate change is not a question of "believe" (s. above). If you don't read the scientific publications on it (the vast majority of them find climate to become warmer over the next 100 years due to raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere) or don't understand the simulation models. Edit: Here is something to read along http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7282/abs/nature08823.html http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5882/1444.short http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632070800387X These are examples of the best sources of information about climate change we have. If you don't have access to these publications go to your local or university library and request these articles.
Not even clicking those links, by the URL you can tell that your idea about how legit they are is laughable.
The best you can get is magazine and "nature" websites for scientific data? Your attitude of being absolutely certain of your opinion while saying that what many people are saying here is nonsense... well, its nonsense ;-)
Of course, how else would you gather knowledge about the climate? If you (edit: critically) read and understand enough of these articles, you can build one of the best informed opinions about the topic.
