Hanaguma

One of the biggest negatives about renewable power, besides storage, is simple land usage. Depending on the study, it takes 100 times more land to produce wind/solar energy as compared to a nuclear plant. In crowded Europe, this is a big problem.

This is true. If you are hanging out in/near the fleshpots of Pattaya or some other "entertainment district" is may colour your impressions.

That is the tragedy of governing by virtue signal. Germany can tout being non-nuclear, yet still burns coal by the boatload. And buys nuclear produced energy from other countries. Surplus of energy is the hallmark of a growing and modernizing civilization. The explosion of energy sources in the 20th century dragged untold millions out of poverty. It also liberated women from onerous labor- refrigerators, washing machines, and the like were key components of womens liberation.

This is a bombshell. The walls are closing in on the President and his clan. It is the beginning of the end for his Presidency.

Using that logic, the right to put a swimming pool in your back yard is not worth a child's life. If you can't go to a municipal pool or private gym, perhaps you shouldn't swim. The slaughter is done with handguns, not long guns.

Koper notes often that it is hard to distinguish between shootings with assault weapons and those with other weapons using large capacity magazines. He also notes on page 8 that assault weapons of all types account for only 2% of gun crime, and most of those were assault pistols rather than assault rifles. Since mass shootings (especially involving assault rifles) are such a small subset of all crimes, getting accurate data is impossible. So he spends more time on crime/murder in general. Which is logical when discussing policy. In his conclusion on page 112, he states "there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence". And on the next page, "the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.".

Interesting opinion piece, mostly a response to another journalist doubting their story. Koper's research, which I cited, was sponsored by the US Department of Justice. He found there was not enough evidence to substantiate the claim that the ban was responsible for the decrease in mass shootings, and similarly that there was no correlation between the ban and gun crime in general. Not surprising, given that only 2% of murders are committed with long guns of ANY kind (shotgun, bolt action/lever action rifle, semi auto rifle). To change that number to a smaller one would require a level of confiscation and enforcement that would not be accepted in America. So, it is folly to think it is a valid solution.

Feinstein was wrong. Trump is right. It is a people problem, not a gun problem. To answer your "question you should be asking", the research is agnostic. No evidence either way.

Such a law would not pass constitutional challenge, especially with the current composition of the Supreme Court. And I think millions of Americans would feel themselves to be still law abiding if they were to engage in an act of civil disobedience by refusing to surrender their constitutional rights.

Sorry, forgot the link... https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

But what happened to the overall murder rate? The definitive study was done by Christopher Koper in 2004. He concluded that: Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs [Assault Weapons], any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs [large-capacity magazines], which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs. The ban was not a ban at all. It was a politically motivated bandaid with no chance of success. But if you actually want a ban that includes confiscating weapons from 25 million law abiding Americans, best of luck.

Accuracy and power mean little at close range, which is where most mass shootings happen. But as usual the problem in America is so much larger than mass shootings. Why is so much energy and political capital expended on such a small part of the overall issue of gun violence, and violent crime in general? Particularly when the standard solution of "just ban the big bad guns" will not ever happen.

There is no evidence that banning AR15s and similar weapons will save any lives. Those few people who use them in crimes will simply use another firearm. You can carry three handguns just as easily as one rifle. 25 million Americans own these weapons, and they are only used in 2% of murders. You can thank the Democrats for that, the AR platform wasnt that popular until 1994 when the Assault Weapons Ban was passed. If you want to make something popular, try and ban it!

Looking fine for being 50 and having 3 kids!

Fetterman's interview was sliced and diced more than a Chinese stir fry. It was 7 minutes of fluff and 2 minutes of selected footage with that well known hard questioner, Jane Pauley. Biden doesn't have the strength to make threats, legitimate or otherwise. Look at his interactions with the press, or lack thereof. He is the least accessable President in recent memory. It is painfully obvious that his handlers (rightly) do not trust him to be alone in front of the press. He is in decline and anyone who has eyes can see it.

Joe stopped "making gaffes" a while ago. He now has lapses of memory and difficulty speaking that can't be explained away by being a stutter or just "Joe being Joe". I am looking forward to a fresh set of faces in BOTH parties for the next election. I am thinking a Christie/Kristi ticket for the GOP would be fab- Chris Christie for President and Kristi Noem for VP. Classic beauty and the beast.

Good. Why should the government fund them? The money they get from govt grants just goes into a big pot, there is no way to distinguish which dollars go to which procedure or usage. Howzabout dedicated pro abortion people pony up the cash to make up for the shortfall? Should be easy if so many people support their mission.

There is no reason for women to suffer that fate. They can choose not to have unsafe sex, can choose to abort their pregnancy within 6 weeks, can choose to put their baby up for adoption. Nobody is forcing poverty on anyone.

Such as? I think Crow said that he collects some things to remind himself how abhorrent communism and fascism are. So amongst the hundreds (if not thousands) of historical documents and artifacts that the man has collected, you think it is important to focus on 3 or 4 of them? And to assume a person's beliefs based on them? I think your political obsessions are clouding your intellect.

If you noticed, I was more concerned with the careless innuendo about Thomas`` friend Crow being some kind of a secret Nazi sympathizer. As a (very) amateur historian who also dabbles in collecting, it was abhorrent that a man could be smeared like that. It is sad but all too common for that kind of BS to happen. About Thomas himself, I am agnostic.

Not at all. But a person cant pretend to be concerned about, and knowledgeable about, every issue on the planet. This one I think isnt worth that much time or energy. Let the process play out amd see where it goes. Ignorant would be pontificating about it without knowing anything about the subject.

Perhaps this law will make people a bit more careful about their sexual activity then. Have unprotected sex, use the morning after pill. Not sure? Take a pregnancy test at the first sign of a missed period. Pro abortion folks? Get moving and set up networks in Florida for women to have quick access to transportation if necessary, testing if necessary, etc. Ball is in your court now. TBH, I think it is a bit of a tight window, but this is what the Florida legislature wants. People can vote them out if they want in the next election.

You keep using the word "punish", but that is not what is happening. Nobody is being punished. However, they ARE being forced to be responsible for their actions. No woman in Florida can be made to carry a pregnancy if she doesn't want to. She has 6 weeks to decide. The men in the equation are the ones with no power. They have no say in whether or not the abortion happens, and also no say after the baby is born.

You're welcome! Glad to help.

To be honest, I am not that familiar with the laws and ethics rules that govern his behavior. I have heard everything from "he's a dirty dog criminal" to "hey, just hanging out with his buddy", depending on which political partisan is talking. Gonna wait a bit and see how things shake out.