In my opinion, the fact that the Volt has an IC engine removes the range objection of EV-only cars. The Volt uses no gasoline while there is usable charge left in its battery. When the battery is fully depleted the ICE averages around 40 MPG. If these are the two operating extremes, owners of the Volt should be pretty happy.

Now, when I try to calculate MPG for EV-mode I get a "divide by zero error", suggesting MPG may not be meaningful until you need to run the engine. I don't understand why GM doesn't just tout the low cost per mile that the Volt promises, rather than a very user dependant average MPG number: http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=...

Perhaps GM doesn't want the subject of cost mentioned, because the total cost of ownership doesn't appeal to anyone but rich snobs who want to appear green. For my own sub 5,000 miles per year average, the 32 MPG average of a Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris makes much more sense.

simple blanket "solutions" such as banning more guns. This is a laudable suggestion.

The reason for the few words is that most who post here fall into one of two camps: Those that believe reports such as in the OP constitute proof that gun ownership needs more regulation; and those that believe law abiding individuals should not be unreasonably restricted in obtaining the means to defend their lives from the reality of violent crime. Many of the first group think it immoral or uncivilized to use deadly force in terminating a potentially lethal criminal attack on one's person, while the second group believe they are responsible for their own safety.

I fall into the camp that believe, when it comes to violent crime, prohibiting gun ownership to be as ineffective as prohibiting drugs or alcohol. In fact, illegal drugs and fighting for turf to trade them is what motivates much of the violence in the US. People who are desperate for their next fix, and who are willing to take stupid risks to feed their addictions certainly don't help either.

I am all for being humane and not being overly harsh with addicts, but when they use violence to extract money from the innocent, my sympathy dries up for them. Likewise, gangs that shoot it out and injure innocent bystanders do not evoke much sympathy for the crooks. Rather than enact feel-good laws such as banning more types of guns, I would rather de-criminalize the drugs they sell so that prices fall, thereby reducing competition between criminals.

An outright ban on guns will have the same effect as the outright ban on alcohol had during prohibition in the 1920s - organized crime flourishes as trade in illegal goods goes underground - prices rise as legal supply is restricted - where there is a boatload of illegal cash, worse criminals try to take the money from those that "earned" it.

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-03-wa...

"1. The bill lets CO2 continue to rise until 2026. See, International Rivers report on this, posted on their website.

2. A cap is in no way a "permit" that prevents pollution. In fact, it let's polluters keep polluting, all they have to do is trade away their emissions, or buy offsets, mostly in a third world country, where EPA will never be able to track what they are doing. In fact, the bill ALSO takes away EPA's ability to regulate GHG from smokestacks. While the U.S. Supreme Court ordered EPA to regulate GHG from tailpipes of cars, this bill in an industry give away, takes away EPA's authority to regulate GHG from smokestacks, and lets the industry "cap and trade" and offset its pollution under a scheme that is unenforceable.

3. The derivatives market that this bill sets up for trading of the "carbon credits" is EXACTLY like the sub-prime mortgage derivative market. It was modeled after that, in the days when it sounded like a good idea. The carbon trading derivative market set up under this bill presents a real and serious threat to our economy.



4. You missed a serious problem with this bill: It defines "renewable energy" as burning our forests, trash, and landfill gas as renewable."


Any truth in this?

How many people on these watch lists aren't real terrorists and don't belong on the list? How many people on watch lists are truly dangerous and don't belong "loose" in the street or in the country? Why are they not arrested or deported immediately? If there is insufficient evidence to charge them, what evidence does it take to get on a watch list? Membership to a political discussion forum such as DU?

As if a real terrorist would be interrupted by being denied access to guns through legal channels. As if a real terrorist would draw attention to himself by buying guns at a regular gun shop.

If you do "good" under duress then you are NOT doing good; you are avoiding punishment. Generosity is giving more than can be expected or is legally required, without any expectation of return.

I must not be human because I enjoy helping others. Whether this involves donating my money, time or skills I derive great satisfaction in helping out when the recipients show no expectation that they would receive this. As soon as someone shows an attitude suggesting that I am obliged to help them, my generosity wanes.

You cannot force good behavior by means of law. Making drugs and guns illegal won't stop gang bangers from hurting others to enrich themselves. If gangs are the only roll models some kids grow up with, and crime related to selling drugs is the easiest way to make a living, those problems should be dealt with first. Instead, poverty is ignored and more gun control laws are passed for criminals to ignore.

Inflammatory language intended to persuade the public that regulations are intended for their benefit; meanwhile lawmakers are just creating new ways to empower and enrich their friends.

Any questioning of the idea that global warming is a problem that must be dealt with by reducing fossil fuel consumption is labeled the regurgitation of Republican talking points; any hint that gun ownership is not shameful is labeled right wing propaganda.

These political comebacks suggest that the panic over global warming and the drive to reduce civilian gun ownership are indeed motivated more by politics than science.

Any politician that starts a speech with "we must act now before it is too late" is suspect, in my opinion. The last time the US "acted now" got us into Iraq, with a legacy that will go on forever.

Signing international treaties, be-it to control guns or gasses must not be entered into lightly because there will be no going back once the horse has left the barn.

It is interesting to me that politicians who are eager to sign gun control laws that limit and punish law abiding gun owners without any hope of reducing crime are also eager to sign laws into being that would raise the cost of energy for the average person in the name of saving the planet. Even if the Kyoto protocol had been fully implemented as originally written, it would have reduced global temperatures by only a fraction of one degree. Why so much cost and effort to achieve so little; both with guns and gasses? I smell a rat.

They are not part of an organized militia that takes orders from some leader. In fact, they don't take orders from anybody - that is the whole point!

If there are attempts to disarm the populace each "gun guy" will make up their own mind as to what the appropriate action is. One thing is certain, only a small number would be foolish enough to face the superior equipment of the disarming forces and "go out in style". Some would give up their guns without any noise while other would vote from the rooftops. The majority would probably just bide their time; unless their gun were registered, in which case they are more likely to just give up or actively resist.

This is why lawful means are applied to peacefully resist registration and other "gun control" intended to disarm the otherwise law abiding population. What you read here are reflections of that political process.

I don't know about you, but apart from trying to influence the voting public, I have not seen any "gun guys" on DU promoting the idea of taking on government forces with their guns drawn?

http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/iss...

INTRODUCTION
Gun control in the United States generally has meant some type
of supply regulation. Some rules are uncontroversial like usertargeted
restrictions that define the untrustworthy and prohibit
them from accessing the legitimate supply.1 Some have been very
controversial like the District of Columbia’s recently overturned law
prohibiting essentially the entire population from possessing
firearms.2 Other contentious restrictions have focused on particular
types of guns—e.g., the now expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban.3
Some laws, like one-gun-a-month,4 target straw purchases but also
constrict overall supply. Various other supply restrictions operate
at the state and local level. Proposals for stricter gun control
typically involve expansion of supply controls toward the goal of
bringing the U.S. rate of gun crime down to the levels of other first tier
industrialized nations—places where background conditions
along with supply-side restrictions have resulted in dramatically
lower inventories of guns than in the United States.

None of these measures have been particularly successful and,
upon reflection, have been somewhat peculiar. We have pressed
supply-side rules at the margin—e.g., with prospective limits on
supply and restrictions on obscure categories of guns—all while
denying that disarmament is the ultimate goal.5 This recipe for gun
control has yielded disappointing results.
Stringent de jure supply restrictions actually have correlated
with higher levels of gun crime.6 This is not surprising. De jure
supply restrictions are not the same as de facto supply reduction.
Effective supply-side regulation requires earnest pursuit and
eventual achievement of an environment where the civilian gun
inventory, both legitimate and contraband, is very small (“the
supply-side ideal”). In the handful of municipalities that have
attempted true gun bans, supply has continued to meet demand
primarily because the existing inventory of guns is vast, and people
have real world incentives to defy gun bans.7 These two phenomena,
elaborated here as the “remainder problem” and the “defiance
impulse,” have confounded supply restrictions for decades.

....

II. CHALLENGES TO THE SUPPLY-SIDE IDEAL
Erring on the high side, there are around 13,000 gun homicides
in the United States each year.19 Suicides with a firearm add
another 17,000 deaths.20 If there were only 30,000 private guns in
America, and we knew where they were, it would be easy to imagine
mustering the political will to confiscate those guns and ban new
ones. If our borders were reasonably secure against illegal imports
and contraband guns could not be manufactured domestically, we
would expect dramatic reductions in gun crimes, accidents, and
suicides.
But our problem is different. The guns used in our roughly
30,000 annual gun deaths are drawn from an inventory approaching
300 million.21 This is far more guns than the countries in any of the
cross-cultural comparisons—22 far more private guns than any other
country ever.23 Americans own close to half the private firearms on
the planet.24 Plus, our borders are permeable, and guns and
ammunition are relatively easy to manufacture. So achieving the
supply-side ideal is not just a matter of channeling enough outrage
to finally get the right words enacted into law.

....

CONCLUSION
Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the
existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and
regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to
acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust our
gun control regulations and goals to that reality. Policymakers who
continue to press legislation grounded on the supply-side ideal while
disclaiming the goal of prohibition are deluded or pandering

If Columbus hadn't discovered America it would still be inhabited by its rightful native owners, rather than the thieving colonizers from Europe. The colonizers brought in slaves to replace the natives they had killed off and everything went downhill from there.

How can you happily benefit from a historical foundation of events and then selectively wish away only those that offend your sensibilities?

The only thing that is certain, is those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

the results don't seem self-evident outside these studies:

The US has very high percentage of circumcised men, compared to Norway, yet the US has a much larger proportion of the population infected with AIDS.

The South African Xhosa and Zulu tribes have similarly high rates of AIDS infection. Xhosas are 99% circumcised while Zulus are 99% uncircumcised.

This suggests that irresponsible behavior within an already infected population is what spreads AIDS - circumcision status has very little to do with it.

How will the govt identify those that qualify for kindness awards? How does one prevent me from nominating you and us from sharing the reward?

If I had my way, all politicians would be working for the people as acts of charity with no expectation of material rewards - true public service. As soon as politicians decide who qualifies for a special reward, corruption is not far behind.

After being briefed on new company policy for making products greener, I suggested this: If we really believed in green initiatives such as drastic reductions in CO2 emissions and lower consumption of natural resources, we should stop developing, manufacturing and selling products that nobody really needs. Of course, there are huge revenues, profit and taxes that flow from the creation and consumption of such goods, so the emphasis is on appearing green to score points and not alienating the market segments that might discriminate against us.

The current US money crunch has real teeth because our manufacturing capability has fled overseas - the idea that we can survive with just a service economy seems nonsensical to me: If I take in your washing and you take in my washing, there is no net gain in productivity or wealth creation – I might as well do my own washing and you might as well do yours, rather than paying each other the same amount for equivalent services.

We really do need to produce useful products that are valued by a world market or we will not make any headway. Yet, I see acceleration in the trend to outsource not only manufacturing, but more and more engineering jobs – the very people who would have been the customer base for products such as cameras and printers, are being laid off and can no longer afford to buy such goods.

Companies don’t think of their employees as their customers, but when you pool all goods made in the US, the employees are the customers. Get rid of one and you are getting rid of the other. Outsourcing all engineering and manufacturing may allow US companies to lower product costs on the short term, but they are collectively killing a large segment of their customer base in the long term.

Perhaps green jobs will help stimulate the economy. Not by paying an army of people to spend research dollars, but by actually producing useful products that have a greater value on the world market than they cost to produce.

I predict that green will catalyze the next investment bubble, and that money will seem to be created out of thin air in a flurry of pyramid schemes, just like the dot.com stocks did in the nineties and then housing market after that. However, until I see a wind turbine factory powered by wind turbines, I predict green industries will eventually crash like all pyramid schemes must.

Yes, you can get a tax rebate for a hybrid car and solar panels, but only because someone else is paying for it. If we all bought hybrids and solar panels we will have to pay the full cost ourselves and that doesn't look nearly as attractive.

If I sound completely down on green, I believe in efficiency and in appropriate application of technology. For instance, regenerative braking on hybrid city buses makes a lot of sense because such vehicles are heavy and make multiple stops that would ordinarily just waste fuel energy as heat in the brakes.

That said, I don’t understand why hybrid SUVs are allowed to use the highway commuter lane without passengers when a small car with higher MPG is not allowed the same privilege – I frown on green as a religion where hybrid or electric vehicles are badges of honor and everything else is “part of the problem”.

The emphasis has to return to manufacturing useful products in the US for the world market. Wealth cannot be created for all in a service economy, only redistributed. While certain connected individuals will benefit financially from green mandates, I don’t see green energy creation and consumption reducing the cost of living for the average person.