So if you're confronted with an intruder who just smashed in your front door, would you prefer to have a gun (assuming you know HOW to use it - which is more than just pointing it and pulling the trigger) or would you rather have a cell phone? Me? I wanna have BOTH! Most people who make statements about how guns are not useful in self defense etc. are absolutely correct - FOR THEMSELVES since they are basically clueless as to how to use one in the first place. And naturally they project their own lack of knowledge onto everyone else and come to the "obvious" conclusion that one cannot effectively defend himself (herself) with a gun. A welding set is also USELESS to one who does not know how to use it. But to those of us who have gotten the proper training and practice in using one, it can be invaluable. Same thing with a gun. I agree that just buying a gun and "some bullets" and stuffing them in a drawer is useless at best and obviously can be dangerous - like the guy who lights up the welding torch without knowing what the hell he is doing with it. GET SOME TRAINING! It's readily available and can be - a blast! However, if you are not confident that you could take the life of another in defense of yourself and your family stick with the cell phone and leave the gun at the gunstore. Just don't presume that everyone else in the world shares or SHOULD share your convictions.
Finally it might interest you to know that a gun even in relatively inexperinced hands can often change the outcome of a confrontation with a BG ("Bad Guy"). In over 95% of cases where a victim uses a gun to defend himself (herself) in such a situation NO SHOTS are ever fired either by the BG or the victim. The sight of a gun pointed at you by someone who at least appears ready to use it, can be a real mind changing experience. Yeah, it's true that people often times survive gunshot wounds - particularly from handguns. Then there are quite a few who DON'T. Would you like to play the game and see how many times someone can shoot you without killing you? How many shots would you like to try? 3, 4, 5? What? Not even ONE!? Come on, where's your sporting spirit? Where did I pull that 95% figure above? Try the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics (available on line). Actually I beleive the real number is over 95%, but I am conservitive with this kind of thing. If all you know is what the "news" media packages and spoon feeds you, consider yourself to be basically ill informed. Oh and one last thing: I am among those 95% who at one time had to help a BG change his mind - which he did as he ran off into the darkness. The police arrested him 2 days later as he was screwing around someone elses home at 2:30 AM.
In your last question, about what causes global warming, how about THE SUN? Naw! The sun couldn't possobly do that now could it? Just doesn't make any sense. It's gotta be all those SUV's and such.
BTW: since about 2000 the average global temperature has remained nearly constant or if it has changed any at all, it may have actually dropped slightly, though probably not a statistically significant amount.
See http://icecap.us - probably not really an authoritative site though. It was only founded by John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel. I mean what the hell could he possibly know about global warming? I'm sure Algore is far more qualified than some dopy meterologist who founded the Weather Channel!
Agreed! Also spyderman apparently has not been around very long, nor has he apparently ever traveled outside of his tiny cacoon. Lower rise and tighter cut jeans on guys were commonplace in the US years ago, and are considerably more commonplace even today in parts of Europe and elsewhere. At one time the saggy, baggies of today were thought to be very strange looking. We used to call them "refugee pants" when I was a kid, since they reminded us of pictures of destitute, displaced refugees in Newsweek or Time magazine wearing whatever saggy, ill-fitting, hand-me-downs were donated by some charity.
One thing I am really missing from the old version of Mr. Poll is the fact that with the old system, a new instance of Internet Explorer was initiated when you clicked on one of the polls found in a "search" result. This allowed one to move around within that poll (e.g. from answering the poll questions, to looking at the results, to viewing the commnets, etc.) within that new instance of Explorer without losing the original instance containing the list of polls found by your search. This allowed one to quickly exit any given poll, return to the search results and look at a new poll. You could also have multiple, related (or even unrelated) polls open at once. I would very much appreciate the "new instance" option being made available. I dislike having to repeatedly "click back" through a bunch of pages to get back to my original search result.
How do you like getting wet? I like to get my tight Wranglers wet by peeing in them.