beowulf

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims

I posted a link, not too bright?

So you don't care about the higher crime

Yes. That is why we have 4x the homicide rate of the UK. That is why we have so many people 'milking' the system. Etc. Etc. Personal responsibility is in fact, long gone. As such, we need some grown ups to tell people what is OK and what is not OK. Surprisingly we are one of the last 1st world countries to have this issue still outstanding. Europe, Japan, etc have already addressed this problem, and greatly reduced it. Nice Fantasy...

nice try, but that wasn't my point. That just makes you a liar.

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/18-little-known-gun-facts-that-prove-that-guns-make-us-safer_082013 http://www.click2houston.com/news/woman-opens-fire-on-group-of-robbers-at-dennys/-/1735978/21394538/-/3f3c2c/-/index.html

You couldn't be more wrong with this statement. If no one had guns then the physically weak would be subject to the physically strong. That is because the weaponry available would knives, swords, bludgeoning weapons and bow and arrows. Other then the bow and arrow or crossbow, the others require physical strength and agility. The firearm doesn't. Although the bow and arrow or the crossbow do require more strength then a firearm. Many bows require quite a bit of upper body strength as do crossbows. Agreed. Thank god for guns, now hardly anyone takes advantage of the weak. Back when all they had was Bow and Arrow, lots more weak people got taken advantage of. What a salient point. P.S Has anyone seen my 300 Megaton Nuke, I have it you know....to protect myself against the strong! Just watched a really interesting documentary about the Nuke race. Funny most of the arguments you guys use to justify why more/bigger/deadlier weapons are 'needed' is the same reason they have for building more/bigger/deadlier bombs. You guys must be right. I know the consensus is that thousands of nuclear weapons makes the world safer. There are plenty of stories of firearms being used by physically weak people to defend themselves.

You couldn't be more wrong with this statement. If no one had guns then the physically weak would be subject to the physically strong. That is because the weaponry available would knives, swords, bludgeoning weapons and bow and arrows. Other then the bow and arrow or crossbow, the others require physical strength and agility. The firearm doesn't. Although the bow and arrow or the crossbow do require more strength then a firearm. Many bows require quite a bit of upper body strength as do crossbows.

Sliders are real! Lot's of restaurants have them. Taste good too.

How do you know that? None of the mass murders were done with a fully automatic weapon. Do you have any experience with firearms?

FYI, the AR15 is a semi automatic weapon. Fully automatic weapons are very expensive to legally purchase here in the US. The Newtown murders were done with a semi automatic AR 15. There have not been any recent crimes committed with a legally owned fully automatic weapon. "Who needs an AR-15?" Well the AR 15 is the most popular semi automatic rifle in the US. So lots of people have decided they need it for various reasons. It's been used for self defense, hunting and sporting reasons. As far as murders are concerned it's the least used fire arm, less then one percent. Banning it would not be likely to have any affect on crime. The thing with banning things is it doesn't make them go away. The criminals don't care if you ban them.

Elon Musk's "success" with Tesla is due to his political connections more then anything. If he didn't have that he wouldn't be building electric cars. They aren't economically viable.

The subsidies for electric cars are an attempt get people to buy something that isn't economically viable in the first place. That's a far cry from engineering bridges to handle heavy loads, which are necessary for industry. "free air traffic control for air travel", it isn't free. Our taxes pay for that. Tax breaks for SUV's is a bad idea and isn't near as much as the subsidies for electric cars. It doesn't compare.

Avoiding addressing my point! Great choice!

Normiss's point here was regarding the subsidies provided for electric cars and bilvon pretended to not understand that.

snark = doesn't like to have a dishonest answer pointed out Content = pretending to not understand normiss's point when formulating your answer. there I spelled it out for you, happy now?

Nice intellectually dishonest answer.

I wouldn't consider Tesla cars to be successful products till they can be sold at a profit with out government subsidies. The electric car idea still has a long way to go.

No I don't think it's worth it. The Tesla story isn't all rosy. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/tesla-would-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money

It wasn't much of a fight. By the time he blew the whistle nothing was really happening. I think it was a bad call. It could have been a bad fight but watching it multiple times it didn't look like it was going that way.

I have family in Elgin so it will be convenient for me.

Empty promises and veiled threats! You have as much credibility as if you were playing Dungeons and Dragons.

Then you would find it interesting.

How much do you trust them? http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-05-14/5-reasons-both-mainstream-media-%E2%80%93-and-gatekeeper-%E2%80%9Calternative%E2%80%9D-websites-%E2%80%93-are

See my earlier post.