Mike

Interesting. At 23.33.47 (using the time stamp on the video) on the first clip, when the subject turns around and the officer ducks, right before they drop him, you can see what appears to be a shell casing fly, possibly from the subject's gun or maybe from the officer's gun. Also, on the first clip, which had sound (I couldn't hear any sound in the second clip) it sounds like some doors slam, then a couple shots are fired, before the subject even enters the screen. These shots would have occured while all the people were outside the range of view of the second clip as well, so it seems to me like some shots were exchanged before the shooting we saw. I froze the view of the subject brandishing whatever it was, and from what I could see, it looked a lot like a gun. You can clearly see a shiny nickle-plated looking slide to a small automatic, and the subject was holding it just like someone would a gun, both when pointing it, and when walking away with it at his side (if you look closely, you can see something in his hand as he is walking away, before he spins on the officer, that looks like a gun) Even if it turned out not be in fact have been a gun, it looked enough like one, and the subject's behavior was such that any sane person would have to deem the officer's actions justifiable. In fact, I am impressed by the restraint of the officer on the right who had his gun out and was holding the subject's clothes from behind while the subject pointed the gun at the other officer for the first time. If he had pressed his own gun against the back of the subject's head right there and pulled the trigger, I still wouldn't think he had done anything wrong (though I am pretty certain that would violate many police rules). Mike.

The only U.S. coin made for circulation since the birth of this nation that was not made with any copper is a 1 cent coin, specifically, the 1943 steel cents made to save copper for the war effort. Mike.

You are right, if you cannot see yourself being willing to take a life in order to protect your own, no deadly weapon is right for you. Don't mistake that using deadly force is taking justice into your own hands, however. The point of a deadly weapon when used for self-defense, whether by the police or a private individual, is not to kill the attacker; it is simply to stop him. It is simply a coincidence that the force that is best at stopping an attacker is also often fatal. Remember that there is a reason that police carry pepper spray/batons/tazers AND guns; it is because the gun is more effective than the other options at stopping attackers. The police do not carry guns because they have a mandate to mete out justice, but rather they are the best things available to stop an attacker. If pepper spray was more effective than a firearm, I would carry that instead of a gun. I certainly have no desire to kill anyone, and have no interest in shooting anyone, unless that is my only choice to protect myself/a loved one. Pepper spray, tazers and the like all are less effective than a firearm, plain and simple. They often do work, and are better than nothing, but there are notable times when they do not, especially if the attacker is high or drunk, which isn't that uncommon for violent attackers. Again, you should not get a gun, or any deadly weapon, unless you are ready to accept that you may have to take a life to protect your own, but don't make the mistake of thinking that simply being willing to do that means you are trying to take justice into your own hands. Mike.

I too live in a quiet suburban area, have never been attacked, or really in fear of being attacked. I carry a gun with me everywhere it is legal to. Why? If you wait until you do need it before you get a weapon, you already waited too long. Bad things happen, and they can happen to you no matter where you live. How many times have you heard the story about the person attacked and maimed/raped/killed in "such a quite neighborhood"? Yes, it is much less likely to happen in some areas than in others, but it is never IMPOSSIBLE anywhere. I have a fire extinguisher in my home too, and it isn't because I keep having fires. It is because if I ever do have a fire, I would rather be prepared. It is better to have a gun and never need it than to need a gun and not have it. Now granted, in Boston it will be dang near impossible for you to get a permit to carry a gun, and might be almost impossible for you to even buy a pistol, but some type of weapon is much better than nothing at all. Mike.

Hello all, I have recently discovered this site, and have found it incredibly interesting and thought-provoking. While I cannot call myself an Objectivist, due in part to the fact that I do not yet understand all of the aspects of the philosophy, I am an admirer of most of its aspects I do understand. There is one thing that I have a question about, and I couldn't find any previous topic regarding it, though it very well might have been discussed before. That question is what exactly is the conflict between Libertarianism and Objectivism? Now, I would not consider myself a Libertarian as such, though there are parts of that ideology I agree with (and others I disagree with). My lack of understanding may stem from misconceptions regarding Libertarianism, or misconceptions regarding Objectivism, or a combination of the two. It seems to me however, that the Libertarian ideology is quite similar to Objectivist teachings, at least when looking at the points in their teachings that overlap. Now, just in case anyone gets the wrong idea, I am not trolling to create an argument, nor am I trying to push Libertarianism as a superior system to Objectivism, but I honestly would appreciate some feedback on what the actual points of conflict between the ideological system of Libertarianism and the philosophical system of Objectivism are. Thanks in advance. Mike.

I would be careful here on several fronts; first, you cannot always equate liberal with Democrat and conservative with Republican. Second, you have to be very careful about taking a specific example such as the PATRIOT act and judging reactions of the parties based on their responses to just that; the Democrats (and liberals more specifically) oppose it not because they value smaller federal government, but first, because they are not the party in power (and I don't kid myself that it is only the Dems that act this way). Second, because they are opposed not to big government, but the government doing the specific things that the PATRIOT act authorizes. Third, because liberals in general have historically been the party of giving as many freedoms as possible to criminals/enemies of the USA while putting as many restrictions as possible on law enforcement/protection of the United States (you can argue the reasons behind these trends, but as general trends they remain true). There are many in America today who call themselves conservatives, and in many issues are, but think the government should control everything, which directly opposes traditional conservative values. Likewise, there are many who call themselves liberals but think the government today should be smaller and more restricted, not because they believe in actually having a smaller government, but because the current government isn't doing what they want them to. Mike.

Exactly. I was just going to comment on this. What is there that proves the children's acts were altruistic? Altruism doesn't mean simply doing things that benefit others (at least from everything I have learned about the matter) but rather giving up something yourself to benefit someone else, without any benefit to yourself. The children in the study were helping; were they helping because they were sacraficing of themselves to help another human being, or were they helping because they gained some sense of satisfaction/pleasure from doing so? If the latter is the case, you could hardly call their actions altruistic. Mike.

Who said that the monitering of finances of known terrorists is only to track other known terrorists? The most important part of it as far as I can see is how tracking the finances of known terrorists (especially those in other countries that we cannot get to) can lead us to people here and abroad who we don't yet know are terrorists, but we can begin to investigate if we find out they are taking money from (or giving it to) known terrorists. The same is true of the NSA phone taps; we are monitoring the phone calls of people we know are connected to terrorists, not only to find out what they are planning, but also to discover yet-unknown terrorists and terror cells in our country or elsewhere. Mike.

I don't know, the EPA has standards such that any detectable level of mercury in a given water sample is unacceptable, which means if some tech who has silver fillings in his/her teeth (which contain mercury) breathes on a sample, the sample will register an unacceptable level of mercury. I think that is about equal to the nuclear power plant restrictions.

It is very true that you do not want to simply harm an attacker. The problem is that it is very difficult to guarantee a stop in time to save yourself from harm. There are cases (sorry, don't have links, but it has been discussed in many different places such as rec.guns newsgroup) where a person has taken a bullet through the heart and still had time to close the distance and stab the victim with a knife before his blood pressure dropped enough for his brain stopped working. The only CERTAIN way to stop someone right now is to hit them in the Central Nervous System, meaning the brain or spine. Needless to say, if someone is slashing at your with a knive or shooting at you, it would be extremely difficult to place a shot that precisely. Now, everyone reacts differently to high-stress situations. Some criminals might stop as soon as they see a gun, others will take multiple bullets without even noticing until they bleed out, others will think they have been shot even if you miss and drop instantly, etc. There is no formula for determining what will work for every situation. Many of the suggestions already given are very good; use the most powerful /largest caliber gun you can handle accurately, and practice as much as time and money allow. Avoid small caliber pistol rounds such as the .25 or .32, which have been known at times to fail to penetrate even the skull at point blank range. .22's are very lethal if properly placed, but are not as effective at immediate incapacitation, which is your goal. Remember, letality is not what you are going for, though that is often the common side effect of stopping someone's attack. Despite what the above quote says, killing the person will not help you avoid a lawsuit; even if your attacker is dead, their friends, relatives, etc. will almost certainly sue you if there are no laws in your locale preventing it, and even if the dead attacker has none of the above, there are always "civil rights" groups willing to sue on their behalf. If you have to defend yourself, count on being sued and spending a ton of money defending yourself, even if you are lucky enough that the prosecutor believes you were justified (which will NOT be the case in most areas that self-defense is a common need). The important thing is to make everything look like you had no choice but to use the force necessary to stop the threat, then use every means at your disposal to try to save the life of the man you were just forced to shoot. Think about it; what is a jury (which will probably consist of 12 people who think you have no right or need to have a gun in the first place) going to be more sympathetic towards... a crime scene photo of you standing calmly over the person you shot as he bleeds out, or a picture of you soaked in your attacker's blood from your trying to save his life? This in no way is meant to indicate whether I think the person deserves to live or die, but for simple self-preservation it is best to make it look as much as possible like you did NOT want the person to die, but only shot him because you had no other choice. Finally, while a shotgun is by far the best choice as far as simply stopping power, it may not be the practical choice regarding home defense. First, a handgun can be kept on you at all times, while a shotgun by its very design must be stored some place and cannot constantly be on your person. Second, depending on the layout of your home, a shotgun may be impractical in regards to the manuverability of the weapon. You can turn around corners/tight spaces etc. much more easily with a pistol than you can with a long gun such as a shotgun. Also, remember that you will be most likely not be expecting the encounter, so you will not have eye/ear protection on when and if you are forced to fire, and any firearm blast, expecially a shotgun will be very disorienting indoors without such protection. Other than that, it simply relies on what you feel comfortably with and have the time and money to practice with. Mike Owens.

Not at all. CO2 at levels reffered to has never been claimed by any reputable scientific group to be directly harmful to people (or other animals as far as I know...). The alleged harm caused by CO2 is that it increases the greenhouse effect, which is the natural effect of various gasses in our atmosphere trapping heat generated by the light from the sun hitting the Earth. Certain groups claim that human-produced CO2 emissions have raised the average temperature of the Earth appx. 1 degree Centigrade (Celcius) over the past 100 years. The problems with that claim are legion, including the failure to take into account the Earth's natural fluctuation of temperature, the margin of error in measuring temperature over the past century, and determining exactly how much of a rise in CO2 is necessary to actually raise the temperature of the Earth. Clearly, despite hype of certain media outlets and other groups, especially politically active groups (which have a great deal to gain if they can convince voters that there is an imminent problem that they can solve) the actual facts regarding human-caused Global Warming or Global Climate Change are far from proven. Mike Owens.