KelliJ

The data used in the article was based on the average change each year. Your data is overall change. Not the same thing. I've noticed that you support the 2nd Amendment, yet you seem to have an issue with those who want to carry a concealed firearm. Am I making an accurate assumption?

Absolutely. But then, would you want to tell this little gal she can't have her rifle?

Seems pretty darned cheap to me. http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/browse/Browse.aspx?c=96&s=953 Those prices are decent enough, though almost 3 times the $74.95 per 1000 I paid when I bought my Yugo SKS about 5 years ago.

Of course, the madman may get you first. If guns are the answer, then street gang territory should be the safest place in the USA. Or a gun store.. The owner of our local gun store and range, and his son, were shot dead in their store, Sept. 1998. A customer was also shot but not fatally. The perps were looking to steal guns. Now you are comparing an apple to a mango. In the instance you first mentioned, that of a gang-infested street corner, and the competitions I mentioned, all were many people each armed with a single gun. A few may have more than one. In the case of a gun store being robbed it was relatively few people with a lot of guns. I think there are enough cases from each side to show that the number of guns present is not a reliable indicator of the relative safety of the situation, rather it is the mindset of those holding the weapons.

Of course, the madman may get you first. If guns are the answer, then street gang territory should be the safest place in the USA. Or a gun store. Better yet, any major sanctioned shooting event such as The Grand American Trap Shoot and Camp Perry. Enough guns at either of these to make "gangland" look like Disney World yet both are among the safest places to be in the U.S. I have to agree, Professor, that your analogy is quite a ways out there.

The background checks are a good idea, they just need tweaking to make them more effective. To my understanding, if a dealer has not received a reply to a background check within 3 days they can sell the gun. I don't like that provision since it leave the chance a felon may slip though, but I'm not sure what to do there without increasing the chances of civil rights being violated. Maybe increase to 5 days? Those who buy guns on a regular basis for legal purposes should be able to get a card that is updated every 3-6 months that shows they have passed a chack and can legally purchase. As is now a person must undergo a check each time a purchase is made. A card would save time and effort for all concerned. Severe and mandatory penalties should be in order for those who knowingly sell to a felon who later uses the gun in a crime, penalties that rival those of the actual perpetrator. I feel jail sentences do the most good when the response is, "HOLY SHIT! x years for THAT??" In short, buy as many guns as you want. have fun with them. Sell them to others who respect the law. But break the law and you will pay out the wazoo!

Depends on the "arms". Firearms? No. Swords? No. Baseball bats? Sure. Same with knives and archery equipment. The lines can get blurred, such as where is the line between a short sword and a long knife? The 2nd applies to much more than just guns.

My "Yugo" routinely shoots 5-shot groups under 1.5" @ 100 yds. this using factory sights. I only use it for fun target shooting. No hunting or competition, just plinking, so power and velocity are moot. I don't shoot more than 100-200 rounds per session, a few times a year, so cost difference is negligible. Plus the bayonet looks really cool.

Take the same handful of cash and buy a Yugo made SKS. With the money left over buy some ammo and a tank of gas.

Very true. The problem would be finding a compromise between "enough" and "too much". All one has to do is read through some old threads here to see how much disparity there is among people over something as simple and easy as showing a sales receipt when leaving a store. Some see it as a complete violation of a person's rights, others see it as a simple solution to help keep theft to a minimum. I, for one, would be unwilling to have a limit placed on how many firearms I could purchase in any given time frame. I have no problem with background checks and fully support them. I absolutely would support limits on the number of guns a person could SELL in a given time frame without notifying local authorities. (Notice I said "notify", not "get permission from") and extremely harsh sentences for those who do not abide by those laws.

What is entrapment? John DeLorean. Guilty as Hell but the jury felt the government was way out of bounds in catching him. "DeLorean Motorcars, how may I help you?" "I just picked up my new DeLorean and while going over the paperwork at home I noticed there was no rebate mentioned. The advertisements on the radio promised a rebate." "Ma'am, your rebate is in the trunk. In a Ziplock bag."

That is an interesting scenario, one that I have contemplated before. One thing I'm not sure of, though, is whether those signals would be strong enough to interpret after traveling millions of light years. I guess it would depend mostly on the strength they were transmitted with and what interference they encountered along the way. It would be cool though.

It is my understanding that Russell's paradox is an artifact of naive set theory and that it vanishes under ZFC set theory. Kelli's Paradox

Good one! Best reply yet! Now, for a scientific/philosophical question. Assuming several things here... That the duration between mass extinctions on earth and similar planets is roughly 65 million years... That it is impossible to travel faster than or at the speed of light.... There are other planets similar to ours with life similar to ours. If the only such planet (other than ours), and it's last mass extinction coincided with ours, and intelligent life has also developed there, and it is 100 million light years away....are we, for all intents and purposes, "alone"? After all there would be no chance we would ever know they existed, nor they us, let alone communicate and exchange information.

How big IS the universe? What is outside the universe? If there is something-or nothing-how far does it go? Does .999... equal 1? How many licks DOES it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Roll Tootsie-Pop?

Several years ago my friend's father was not afraid to go unarmed to a lunch with a business partner. Nice restaurant in an upscale part of town and all. Too bad the guy who murdered him as they ate their lunch thought otherwise.

Yes. No wonder the stock price of aspirin companies jumps at the start of each semester.

Jeez, my headache keeps getting worse. 1/9=.111... .111...X9=.999... 1/9x9=9/9=1 Are both right?

I guess infinities are an abstract I'll never grasp. I remember from calculus class a subject called, if I remember right, Gabriel's Horn. It was integrating to find the surface area of a horn of infinite length. The surface area was infinite, yet the volume was finite. Though, at the time I understood the math behind it, I still got headaches thinking of the paradox.

If I write a short computer program that starts at 0 and adds, in succession, 9x10^-1, 9x10^-2, 9x10^-3, etc., and would continue until the sum equaled 1, when would the program stop?

Not to steal the Professors chance to respond, but I just need to get clarification. Is what you are saying something along these lines... x=.999... 10x=9.999... 10x-9x=x=? To solve we must multiply .999... by 9 Hmmmm....this stuff can make your head hurt. But the debate is fun.

Surely an educated person knows better than that, Professor. I'll assume that statement was an intentional exaggeration since guns have been made for hundreds of years with simple hand tools. Where there is a will, there is a way. http://ease.com/~randyj/pakfoto1.htm#darra

I'm not a math wiz but I still don't buy it. .999... always has been and always will be an infinitely small amount away from 1. 1 can be substituted since any error would also be infinitely small. Look at it this way. 1 is finite, it is defined with no error. .999... is not finite, it continues on and as such any error resulting from its rounding up to one, though infinitely small, is also very real.

The spindly little twit has made enough money on her own that she doesn't need her family fortune. I am sure she will miss it though.

Sorry to bring this thread back to the front but my mind wouldn't let me stop pondering the question. I have to change my vote. .999... comes infinitely close but never equals 1. If x=.999... then 10x=9.999... and 10x-x=9x. If x=.99 then 9x=8.91 If x=.999 then 9x=8.991 If x=.9999 then 9x=8.9991 Since, regardless of how many decimal places you give x, 9x would always be less than 9. It therefore stands to reason that x would never be equal to 1. Infinitely close, close enough that 1 could be used in place of .999... , but not equal.