@Yogi Way to miss the point. I wasn't comparing cars and guns, I was comparing laws regulating cars and guns. That's all I'm going to say to you. You've already told me in another discussion that you're going to refuse any evidence that doesn't agree with your narrow minded beliefs, so having a discussion with you is pointless.

@RedSky

1) I'm not implying that the US is more violent. I already pointed out that the US has lower violent crime rates than the US and UK despite the higher murder rate.


2) I'd say people in rural areas are most likely own guns for hunting and also self defense as there are no police patrols out in the country.

I also wouldn't blame the availability of guns to criminals on gun enthusiasts. Criminals generally don't legally buy their guns. One way to cut down on illegall gun sales is to charge the sellers as accomplices to the crimes committed with the weapons they sell illegally.


3) Maybe punishment was not the right word I should have chosen. My point is that to cut down on driving fatalities, the laws enacted didn't put any inconveniences on responsible drivers.

Your back of the envelope calculation isn't quite so clear cut. Sam Harris discusses this in his article.

It is also worth noting that relatively gun-free countries are not as peaceful as many think. Here are some recent crime data comparing the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and Sweden. Although the U.S. has a higher rate of homicide, the problem of assaults in these other countries is much worse...

So, while the U.S. has many more murders, the U.K., Australia, and Sweden have much higher levels of assault. One might think that having a few more murders per 100,000 persons each year is still much worse than having many hundreds more assaults. Perhaps it is. (One could also argue, as several readers have, that differences in proportion are all we should care about.) But there should be no doubt that the term “assault” often conceals some extraordinary instances of physical and psychological suffering.

It's possible that the reason the US has lower assault, robbery and rape is that armed citizens are able to defend themselves from such crimes.

I'm seeing a lot of people saying the US should look to the UK and Australia on how to handle gun control. Both UK and Australia already had low murder and violent crime rates at the time of their "bans." After Australia's National Firearms Act and forced gun buyback, homicide fell by 9%, but assault went up 40% and rape went up 20%. In the years before the NFA, homicides had been on a steady decline, and a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found the NFA's impact on homicide was "relatively small."

After the UK's "gun ban" in 1997, gun crime actually increased [1] [2]. Gun crimes in 1997-1998 were 2,648. The Office for National Statistics shows that 5,507 firearm offenses were reported 2011-2012.


4) Yes cars do provide a benefit to society. Their regulation and restrictions are reasonable, and I already said I'm not opposed to any reasonable gun laws. But cars are the leading cause of accidental death each year. There are lots of things that can be done to make cars and drivers safer. Cars could be limited to 70 MPH. The national speed limit on highways is 70 MPH, why do you need a car capable of going faster? Cars can be fitted with a GPS and a "black box" that records your driving activities. Each year when you renew your inspection, the black box data is downloaded and analyzed. If it's discovered you've broken any traffic laws, you will be fined, and if it's determined you aren't a safe driver, your license is revoked. Prohibit personal sales of vehicles between individuals, because you can't know if the person your selling to is a safe driver or if their license is valid (see below about the "gun show exemption"). Sounds crazy, but those aren't nearly as bad as some of the things being proposed for new gun laws.

I doubt any of those would be acceptable to the majority of drivers, but it would make driving safer and save lives.

As for your suggestions "not yet tried."

- We already have rigorous background checks for purchasing firearms. They're done by the FBI's NICS, I don't know how it can be more rigorous.
- There is no "gun show exemption" or "loophole," that is more media buzzword BS. Private sale and transfer of anything (not just firearms) can not regulated by congress. It's another constitutional issue dealing with the regulation of commerce. It is still illegal for a person to sell a firearm to someone that they have reason to believe may not be legally able to own one. This is another issue that I'm not opposed to fixing though. It could be as simple as requiring the transaction to be witnessed by a licensed gun dealer and perform a background check.
- Assault weapons are already restricted. Real assault weapons that is, not what the media and lawmakers keep calling assault weapons. Once again I ask, why such fuss over the weapon type least used in crime? These "assault weapons" are expensive to acquire, and most criminals go for cheap, small caliber, concealable pistols and revolvers. [source] For more on what an assault weapon is and their use in crime, just head on over to this Wikipedia page.
- Restricting ammunition would be something that would effect responsible gun owners and likely have little effect on crime. Responsible gun owners are the ones that buy more ammo, go to gun ranges and practice.


5) You mean the steadily high murder rate that has been steadily declining for over two decades, by 50% since 1992? [source]

nice overview.

For those of us who don't have access to Google, can you provide a brief overview of the show?

A very neutral overview of Swiss democracy. How typically Swiss.

A great product.This video will be an overview of the mobile products.
Buy all products through website [url redacted]

A great product.This video will be an overview of the mobile products .
Buy all products through best online shopping

Excellent overview! *promote

>> ^KnivesOut:

@ReverendTed You're incorrect about what happens in 2014. Here's a good overview of what the mandate actually means: http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2012/06/a
ffordable_care_acts_mandate_d.html
Thanks for the link, KO. That's an excellent synopsis of the individual mandate provisions that I hadn't seen or read elsewhere.



That said, I'm not convinced it makes my statement incorrect.
My employees are not American Indians, prisoners, Old Order Amish, covered by Medicare\Medicaid or undocumented immigrants. They will be required to purchase insurance or pay the penalty tax.
Depending on their salary, even with taxpayer subsidies they will be responsible for devoting (probably) 6.3% or 9.5% of their income to insurance, or be taxed at or around 1%-2.5% of their income.
As I mentioned, we've investigated state-subsidized policies before (which weren't terrible, but weren't "Cadillac" policies by any stretch) and my employees determined it wasn't feasible for them.

One provision I don't understand is the exclusion of "those who earn so little that health insurance premiums, after federal subsidies and employer contributions, would total more than 8 percent of their income." How is it determined that premiums would total more than 8% of income? Doesn't that depend on the type of policy?

(Yes, I appreciate that my comments come across as biased against ACA. I'll admit that I am skeptical and that it runs counter to my personal ideology, but I am genuinely interested in learning more about what it means from a practical standpoint.)

@ReverendTed You're incorrect about what happens in 2014. Here's a good overview of what the mandate actually means: http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2012/06/affordable_care_acts_mandate_d.html

That's not what progressive means, in this context. A progressive tax system is one where you pay a (progressively) higher rate when you have more income. What you have is a regressive tax system.

Do you happen to know what percentage of U.S. companies actually pay tax at the stated high rate? How does that compare to other countries? I know that quite a few of your companies weasel their way out of paying any tax at all, but I don't know how many overall manage this.

The ancient Roman empire also had social welfare, of a sort, increased after 122 B.C. See http://www.roman-empire.net/society/society.html for an overview. Then, as now, it was expensive to run.

The comparison is actually quite fair, except that in ancient Rome it was expected that wealthy citizens would give back to society and the idea of unbounded avarice as a virtue would have been quite foreign to them... so in a sense it's back to front.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Not quite sure how comparing that to the US economy makes any sense. The US has the highest corporate tax rate on Planet Earth now. We have very high capital gains taxes (compared to global averages). Our income tax is so "Progressive" right now that the bottom 50% of taxpayers only pay 5% of the taxes. Over 75% of the Federal Government's 1.6 trillion dollar budget is dedicated to social programs for the poor.
Only way comparing it to the vid makes sense if if you contextualize it by stating that it is the GOVERNMENT that is deciding the screw the poor by the process of its own incredible incompetence, malfeasence, and mismanagement. Since only about 20 cents on the dollar comes 'out' of government versus what goes in, then yes - the U.S. Federal Government is entirely oriented around screwing the poor.
But of course, that's not what Prog-Lib-Dytes mean. To a leftist, the video means "tax breaks for the rich" ... (insert liberal talking point) et al.

Hurray! Canada gets rid of the penny!

- We also got rid of 19,200 jobs! (1)
- Increased the retirement age to 67 years old for eligibility to receive pensioners. (2)
- Slashed funding to the elections Canada (on the eve of investigations into election fraud!) /Source.
- Scaled back of youth programs including the elimination of the Katimavik work exchange program.
- The news organization most capable of reporting on government actions and fraud is severely cut. (3)

And, it spite of all the cuts due to overspending, we're still committed to purchasing several F-35 JSF "White Elephants" from war profiteers, Lockheed Martin. Link.
Canadians taxpayers are still paying 31 Billion to serve the INTEREST on outstanding debt to private banks. (4)
Universities continue to be so underfunded that 200,000 students protested in the streets of Montreal last month. (5)


(1) This would be equivalent of Obama suddenly eliminating about 180,000 public servant jobs in the United States if scaled for population.
(2) Except for politicians, who can still begin to receive their pension as early as 55 until after the next election. info!
(3) The CBC takes budget nosedive on the chin. Link.
(4) And who benefits from that interest payment? Surely not the same people who contribute to political campaigns!! Harper unwilling to actually cut spending.
(5) http://videosift.com/video/Montreal-Students-Protest-Timelapse-March-22-2012

But, hey, at least we got rid of the penny!!
Focus on the shiny coin!

LOL FAIL

Fact is Wikipedia is better by far for checking most things , where its inaccurate or wrong you can simply check other sources which are all linked in and out of the site ( which you should do for all information) . and because of the way Wikipedia is edited it will be much more up todate. Its also the case that Britannica has errors in it but it takes them longer to update due to there 15th century method of editing.

if britanica want to not be useless as a company then they should focus on making a on-line Encyclopaedia that's specifcaly for scientific papers and documents or focus on a very very very small subset of things but make them far more in depth and more media rich.

The way Britannica tries to act as a mature service with the guy saying "oh jah wiki is good for factoids " is a joke.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

The single reason why Wikipedia PISSES on Britannica is that its so accisable you can get up an artical on ANYTHING and then from that artical you can get a good overview of the subject ( maybe with some things wrong). You can then Google very specific things ( using your overview knowlage from Wikipedia) or go on Amazon and know what to type to get very specific books on a subject.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Nice links. I like this particular section very much:

As for accountability of teachers and administrators, Sahlberg shrugs. "There's no word for accountability in Finnish," he later told an audience at the Teachers College of Columbia University. "Accountability is something that is left when responsibility has been subtracted."

For Sahlberg what matters is that in Finland all teachers and administrators are given prestige, decent pay, and a lot of responsibility. A master's degree is required to enter the profession, and teacher training programs are among the most selective professional schools in the country. If a teacher is bad, it is the principal's responsibility to notice and deal with it.

FTR I went to massive American public high school - and it was just awful. Something to survive, not integrate into. Most of my friends dropped out. I stuck it out, but left pretty scarred. I don't want that experience for my kids. They've been home schooled some and are now attending a Steiner/Waldorf school.


>> ^SDGundamX:

@smooman
Yeah, I think the way you worded your first post led me to believe you were advocating just doing things the way they've always been done until now and that you didn't consider it that big of a problem. I think though that bullying is much more complex than just the parental/family issues you mentioned. Certainly I'm sure you going to find something there, but I think @dag has pointed out that institutional learning as it is currently carried out in most Western countries carries part of the blame as well. My question is, do things have to be this way? Do we have to be complacent with the current level of bullying? Is it beyond our control (i.e. we can't change what is happening in the homes after kids get out of school). I don't believe so, and I think Finland's school system is pointing the way for how we'll get there.
You and @dag might want to take a look at Finland's educational system, in particular their anti-bullying measures, which have been shown to a statistically significant degree to reduce self and peer-reported bullying. For an overview, check out this website: http://www.kivakoulu.fi/there-is-no-bullying-in-kiva-school I googled some of the articles cited and found them online if you want more specific information about their program and how they defined and measured bullying.
Of course, Finland's education system has introduced some other radical changes which no doubt are also contributing to the decline in bullying. See this article for more informations: http://www.theatlantic.c
om/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
My point is this--I agree with you that we can't eliminate bullying (within schools) entirely. But I think we reduce the frequency of its occurrence and deal with it in much better ways than we currently do when it does happen. Like you said, we need to address the causes--psychological, social, institutional, etc.--rather than put out fires after they've already been started.

@smooman

Yeah, I think the way you worded your first post led me to believe you were advocating just doing things the way they've always been done until now and that you didn't consider it that big of a problem. I think though that bullying is much more complex than just the parental/family issues you mentioned. Certainly I'm sure you going to find something there, but I think @dag has pointed out that institutional learning as it is currently carried out in most Western countries carries part of the blame as well. My question is, do things have to be this way? Do we have to be complacent with the current level of bullying? Is it beyond our control (i.e. we can't change what is happening in the homes after kids get out of school). I don't believe so, and I think Finland's school system is pointing the way for how we'll get there.

You and @dag might want to take a look at Finland's educational system, in particular their anti-bullying measures, which have been shown to a statistically significant degree to reduce self and peer-reported bullying. For an overview, check out this website: http://www.kivakoulu.fi/there-is-no-bullying-in-kiva-school I googled some of the articles cited and found them online if you want more specific information about their program and how they defined and measured bullying.

Of course, Finland's education system has introduced some other radical changes which no doubt are also contributing to the decline in bullying. See this article for more informations: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/

My point is this--I agree with you that we can't eliminate bullying (within schools) entirely. But I think we reduce the frequency of its occurrence and deal with it in much better ways than we currently do when it does happen. Like you said, we need to address the causes--psychological, social, institutional, etc.--rather than put out fires after they've already been started.

>> ^oritteropo:

Does he touch on what led to the gathering arms and subsequent storming of the Bastille? I read a book on the forbidden literature of pre-revolutionary France, and one of the opinions on the Revolution passed on by the author was that at the decision to storm the Bastille, the terror was already a foregone conclusion.
>> ^Ornthoron:
I just finished this book about the French Revolution. [...] lays out the important events during the 12 year period between the fall of the Bastille and [...]



I expressed myself a bit unclear: The book starts of course with some background and overview of the general condition of french society before 1789. The first big event described is not the fall of the Bastille, but the Day Of The Tennis Court Oath at Versaille, one month earlier. What struck me as I read the book was how it was not really a people's revolution, but a conflict between the bourgoise on one side and the nobility and clergy on the other.

Like so many other events during the revolution, the storming of the Bastille was not really one decision; it was merely a modest confrontation that escalated out of control due to miscommunication. As such it is a good metaphor for the revolution as a whole, which started out relatively moderate and in cooperation with the king, and subsequently was taken over by more and more radical voices culminating in the Days of Terror, after which there was a backlash to more conservative policies again. I wouldn't say The Terror was a foregone conclusion, but it did seem to me that the revolution took on some kind of life of its own and started on a slippery slide outside of any one person's imagination.