rob

Rad! Looks like a pretty great day in the video. I was riding my bike in the basement on saturday

Meh. I'm actually not that in love with the guy, but whatev You vote for him....you love him. Do you love gasoline and petroleum products, kevbone? I mean, you probably use them everyday. Or what about plastics? You're voting for this stuff with your dollars. Life is full of hard choices, isn't it?

Well, at least you're open-minded about it. Yep....just like you are about Obama. Meh. I'm actually not that in love with the guy, but whatev

Well, at least you're open-minded about it.

Dude, you can't wait until someone gets prostate cancer? Kinda fucked up

Science is hard! Getting a flu shot involves getting a mini flu to prevent a mega flu. Ask the experts. This is not my area of expertise but I know that much. I'm pretty sure this is not an accurate statement.

OMG! LOTS???? Ya.....Lots. But if it is only one person....still makes no sense. Why is that? Can anyone explain this? I'm sure Joseph can explain it more technically than me, but basically the flu vaccine is rapidly mutating. This is why you need a new vaccine every year (for this virus). The vaccine is created each year to cover a few basic strains that they think will hit that following season, but there are other strains that are not covered, and sometimes the basic strains they accounted for have changed, so the vaccine has reduced effectiveness when this happens. Also, some people get the vaccine after they've already been infected (but not symptomatic yet). Or they get infected before the vaccine becomes effective (it takes about 2 weeks for the immunity to form).

OMG! LOTS????

VACCINES DON'T EVEN WORK!!!

It's all moot 'cause nothing that's ever worked anywhere else will ever work here -- we're too different.

But do revolvers? I mean as opposed to say, a semi-automatic Glock? It would be nice to know, but in 1996 Republicans in congress successfully removed the budget line item that used to pay for exactly this kind of federal research, and then passed legislation blocking it from returning. You can thank then-Congressman Jay Dickey and the NRA for that. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470

Anyway, tobacco and obesity kill way more than guns, so I don't even see what the big deal is.

You're right, we should continue to completely ignore solutions our peers have already found for this problem. they obviously won't work here, we're different. The answer is obviously MOAR GUNS!!! All those other countries, they were just lucky that crime didn't increase after restricting gun ownership. 'Cause that's totally what would happen here. It would be like chaos, the only reason I'm not being killed in my sleep right now is because all the bad guys are scared I might have a gun. USA! USA!

ah, the old "things are different here" argument.

handguns account for the vast majority of gun homicides. I think any attempt at a solution that doesn't improve regulations regarding WHO can own a gun is doomed to failure. What we need is a strong registration framework and transfer-of-title system for guns, so that we know who has them, and we know that the title transfers cleanly. You should have to renew your gun license like a driver's license, and prove current ownership of the weapons you have registered. You should also have to prove a valid and current gun license to buy ammunition. Rules of gun ownership should include keeping them out of the hands of anyone without a valid and current gun license, with certain exceptions made for minor children. If your gun is stolen due to negligence, or sold illegally, you should go to jail. Limiting things to revolvers and shotguns won't do much good if you still allow them to be freely sold and purchased, without any mechanism for restricting ownership. Switzerland has mandatory registration.

The NRA should change their slogan: "The U.S. -- still better than Mexico." USA! USA! USA!

You should compare the U.S. to other developed nations, not third-world countries embroiled in government corruption and drug wars. If you compare every other developed nation on the planet, they have stricter gun laws and fewer gun crimes (even switzerland). This discussion about car deaths is just a distraction. Are you saying we should ignore homicides unless it's the number 1 killer? I'm all for stricter driving laws, too. But that's another conversation, I don't know why so many people try to distract the argument with useless charts about tobacco deaths and drunk driving. WTF, it's the logical equivalent of "hey look, over there!" Just distraction from the uncomfortable truth -- we have more guns than ANY of our peers, and more gun crime. Our peers have successfully restricted guns and reduced gun crime. Do cars ALSO kill people? Yes. One thing at a time, eh? Imagine how many more people would die in cars if they were as unregulated as guns. what a jerk-off session this is turning into. This isn't fucking rocket science.

Tunisia has very, very low private gun ownership due to strict gun control laws, and yet managed to have a very successful revolution.

If we don't legalize nukes, then the slippery slope will eventually take away your pocket knife.

Anyone up for a ski on Sat? Thinking something like Early - 3pm-ish -- back to the car by dark, home before traffic starts. Snocrummy is probably bad, maybe stevens? I'm up for anything, though.

You'll be officially old yourself soon enough. Chronos is a motherfucker. :-) My plan is to avoid old age via a hefty diet of sex and skiing.

SCOTUS has ruled many times on gun control, and gun control by itself is not unconstitutional. You should educate yourself. (http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/supreme_cases.html) Regarding "willingly giving up your rights" -- there are very few people who are seriously advocating an outright ban, since that sort of legislation is unlikely to pass. So I don't know what you're crying about. Mandatory registrations and background checks are not a violation of the 2nd amendment, not are limits on what type of gun you can purchase, and who can purchase them. Even the D.C. vs. Heller ruling re-iterated the acceptability of limiting the type and audience of gun ownership (pretty clearly, actually: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose") So I don't know what you're belly-aching. Exactly what right do you think you are likely to lose? The right to buy guns without a background check? Probably. The right to buy guns? Unlikely. The right to buy certain military-grade weaponry? Maybe. But that's already happened many times. Just try to buy a cruise missile, for example. What a bunch of old-man belly-aching. Try to think more rationally.

Another "responsible gun owner" fails to secure his weapon.

I blame Obama