Whats special about Uzi's?

Why the Uzi?
What is your point?
My point was very clear, are you trying to shift the topic? Can you address my point?

All of these recent shooting have been semi automatic weapons . . if you are trying to bring automatic or select fire weapons into the discussion then you are shifting the goal posts and being dishonest.
To directly answer your question, yes, in the same way I said you should. I have experienced tactical situations where my ability to take out the other guy was either equal or not and that directly effected my ability to win (both paint ball and video games) Tactically it is NOT different than reality and that is why the military uses the same methods of training. But I don't think that is really what you meant and was not your motive for asking that question. . . .

All your saying here is that you don't care about a lack of ownership because it doesn't effect your decisions . . . yet.

msharmony, you should go buy a first person shooter video game, learn to play the game. Get a friend to bust in to an area with a rifle with 30 round magazine and you have a single shot rifle. We will see out of 100 times how many times you win, or your friend wins and then we can come back and have this conversation again.

Or do it with paint ball . . . . I think maybe some pain might teach you the lesson faster . . .

What are the ramifications of that fact?

Does ownership mean I can take my own life?
Does it mean I can do risky things with my life?
What does it mean and what does it not mean?

So you don't understand why having the same capability evens the playing field?

Clearly you have no clue what it would take in any real world situation. Fairly typical ignorant person who has probably never shot a rifle before, and most especially has never thought of what it would mean to have someone shooting back.

When you own something that has no rights . . . like a hammer, can you throw it away, can you destroy it, what if someone could use it? What if society did not have enough hammers? What if the productivity of society would be harmed by you throwing away your hammer?

How is any object that can be owned different from another object which can be owned, and how does the effect on others change your authority over ownership?

Post the link . . .

I do not agree with this. I support the 2A, and the right to bear arms, but killing when your life is not in danger is NOT the law of the land . . . even texas.

Either she will be charged at a later date, or someone is treating this women with privilege.

The reason is the OP of this post!

And yes there are those who wish an all out ban.

So you are wrong and wrong again.

If anyone at that temple had an AK-47 sitting in a closet ready to rock and could have brought it to bear against this creep he would have been prevented from doing so much damage and it would have been a lesson to other such creeps, but because he found nothing but sheep he and every other creep is encouraged to continue these kinds of stunts.

When someone says there is no legal purpose for such a rifle they clearly have no clue what tactical advantage means, and how a criminal bringing to bear a tactical advantage is not a good thing, and how having such a weapon evens the playing field. Sad really as it is long standing facts of reality which cannot go away no matter how bad you want to legislate safety.

In WWII bicycle shops were converted to manufacture fully automatic sten guns within a week they were pumping them out left and right. Between black markets and 100 year old tech that is easily affordable by 50+ % of the worlds individuals there is no way to prevent people from gaining a tactical advantage if they really want one . . .. . drum roll please . . . except to have one yourself and even the playing field.

Paper protectionists and statists cannot except personal responsibility enough to take those steps any ways so they have rationalized away the illogic of paper protection and the police state mentality of just enforcing law after the fact and leaving such incidents as PR for more restrictive gun laws.

Simple question with far reaching ramifications. Do we own our own bodies, our health, our lives? Or does the government?

~ 0.14 % of the suns mass is iron, ie very little.

Ok, ill give it a shot. The more we know about hot_engine620's dementia the less we know about particle physics! Did I do it right??!

bump

Classic peter. Equivocating the meanings of words to suit his narrative.

Yep, right now we have a patch work quilt of particle physics.

We may learn why the predictions where off in much the same way we learned about carbon resonance (and then just modify the SM), but who knows, hopefully time will tell.

The journalists have to make it sound exciting to someone other than a physicists.

I made no mistake except expecting you to work with me vs against me regardless of the scope of the topic.

Math is not real in the sense that you break open an atom and find equations.

Math is used representationally.

Far more than the universe can be represented mathematically and for that reason it is easy to see that math is not real in the sense that you or I are real.

Relationships exist in nature.

The fact that relationships exist in nature makes math useful for expressing those relationships.

This thread was over in the first few pages, but because of spiteful interactions we have 40+pages.

You can know a lie when you know the context of another persons knowledge, and catch them misrepresenting their own knowledge.

I set up a logical presentation, initially without enough clarity assuming others would play nice, and it works just fine.

Nothing more needed to be done, but creative thinks he can reason with peter, IMHO the biggest mistake creative has ever made.

The OP seems to be saying that curing such sexually transmitted diseases is just going to encourage people to fornicate more . . . which he sees as bad.

OP Let me guess you are religious?

The whole notion of free will is confused at the very start. Why?

Because it is framed from the perspective of cause and effect, and that the free part means not determined by prior causal factors. Nonsense from the get go.

Its a non-starter.

I prefer the idea of free wont vs free will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E

In fact the word instinct is also a non-starter, but for the opposite reason, because we dismiss all higher level cognition we may miss the fact that many different layers of cognition are involved in all kinds of behavioral responses.

The better term is autonomic response, but even these can be effected by higher cognition so it illustrates how the idea of instincts glosses over the complexity of higher cognition.

Free will framed from at the level of causation is too specific to be useful, and instinct framed in such a generalized way leaves out any possibility of a mixed channel response with some elements being conscious, and others being subconscious.

The brain uses parallel processing, and is a neural network, not a single function device. Speaking in terms of causal interaction is far too complex to discuss, and speaking in terms of one kind of neural function (subconscious) is not enough.

Science is descriptive, not proscriptive. I see this mistake of focus occurring often when laymen discuss science. We observe choices being made by animals with larger brains. What influences these choices is a complex topic NOT broken down into the binary of free or not free, trying to frame it from this perspective gains you NOTHING.

Determinism is part of the problem. Physicists are really to blame for this confusion. Even smart people are easy to fool into making poor arguments.

The better way to frame this is to ask, do we get to make choices? Are these choices personal? Can we NOT do something?

Free wont in a nutshell.
We are good avoiders, we have evolved to avoid things. We cannot know every single thing that may or may not happen to us, so we evolve some autonomic responses to certain kinds of stimulus.

ex. If I throw a brick at your head, your reflexive response is to duck.

Can you not duck? If you knew the gent throwing the brick was loaded, and a person holding a video recorder was on the other side of the street could you NOT duck because you have reasoned that a law suit would better benefit your bank account?

We have evolved to be good avoiders, but we have also evolved reasoned responses to reflexive behaviors.

This is far more granular than any discussion about free will vs determinism. We can also learn something from it when we abandon the nonsense of acausal choice, and instead focus on ideas such as fuzzy logic, or observe the brains responses and overrides to such situations described above.