Yes, that’s why I said “a tiny percentage”. Only around a quarter of U.S consumption is even reliant on imports, and of that almost half came from Canada. Saudi Arabia alone produces more than 10 million barrels a day, and the Persian Gulf produces more than 23 million barrels a day. So, the U.S. imports roughly a day…

But it’ll be a sub-continent of angry, under-educated people without all that oil money to let them actually do something about it. Plenty of angry, under-educated people in Africa. Lot less effect because they don’t have the resources to direct that against the west.

We already don’t buy any oil from the Middle East (or at least a tiny percentage), but usage here increases the global prices of oil, which supports Middle Eastern sales to countries that do rely on Middle Eastern oil.

Oh, and I want to add you are talking about outdated models of tasers, which rely on causing pain. Modern tasers don’t rely on that exclusively, and disrupt electrical signals to muscles. This is a physiological response, and causes the tasered person to lose control of their muscles. This would actually be far more…

I know tasers are not perfect yet, which is why I said we should just be beginning the conversation, and taser technology will have to be perfected. The same thing goes for handguns, especially smaller caliber. As you said yourself earlier, in some situations people can and do fight through gunshots, at least for a…

Are you responding to the right comment? I said absolutely nothing about nuclear not being clean. As I said, I consider nuclear to be a cleaner way of creating energy (no method is truly clean, i.e. making solar panels, batteries, still create tons of pollution). And, as I said, we should be using more from it. That…

While I agree that nuclear energy should be utilized more, that doesn’t mean there are not benefits to developing more different technologies and diversifying. That’s like saying, we have highways and cars, why bother with developing planes.

You’re arguing against a strawman there. Nobody thinks that removing guns will reduce violence. Reducing violence is not the point of reducing gun ownership. Reducing the casualty rate of that violence - is. Replacing guns with less-lethal weaponry will reduce the amount of actual death when that violence occurs. It…

Yes, I understand how self-defense works - I’m an attorney. Maybe taser/stun gun technology isn’t quite there yet, but once it further develops until it is as reliable and easy to use as a gun (I think the main thing nowadays is the number of shots you can get off)- I think the justification for personal ownership of…

1. Vigilantism always involves someone who feels “morally justified” because they feel that “The state is unable or unwilling to provide justice.” That’s pretty much the definition of Vigilantism. But in a modern, civilized society, it doesn’t matter whether a private civilian feels that the state is not providing…

It’s not logic being applied differently to different issues. The logic is that all products have varying scales of potential danger to society, purpose, and importance of functionality to society. Licensing requirements, and potentially even bans, depend on the assessment of relative benefit and risks.

It is. But a necessary part of that function of society is that it be delegated to the government, to be used when necessary to protect everyone, not for every civilian to decide for themselves when killing is necessary (i.e. vigilantism).

That’s true, and I think there are plenty of advocates for stricter licensing standards. And again, with the amount of shootings in American and crazy psychos in the news, you’d question the current regime of gun licensing too.

1. Don’t know why it’s insane that Police officers carry weapons intended only to kill, but ordinary civilians should not. That’s the point of organized society. There’s too much instability, danger, and violence, if the ability to use violence belongs to everybody - so as a society, we all voluntarily give up the…

Well, first of all - cars are regulated - ever hear of driver’s licenses? And cars also have important functionality for society, and does not have a primary purpose as a weapon for killing other people.

“More reliable” is not a perfect term, but catches the ideas. Computers will be better at avoiding crashes due to driver inattentiveness, miscalculations of speed/distance, slow human reaction time. Humans will be better at recognizing and reacting to novel situations, and rare unexpected occurrences like, I don’t…

Ah I was assuming we were basing off that multi car pile up scenario in your OP you know with like 50 cars piled up, and no way to go.

I’m not saying that computers don’t mistakes, but just a lot less than any human. And yes, telling objects apart maybe a problem - but my point is that your original example (dealing with approaching a multi-car pileup) is probably the worse example. A multi-car pileup is precisely the situation where a computer would…

Human drivers can behave in ways other drivers cannot predict either, like freezing up in a crash when it’s safe to swerve, or instinctively swerving into traffic. You’re pointing out “flaws” in automated driving, but these “Flaws” are still a lot better than humans driving. And furthermore, automated cars generally…

Yes, that’s true humans can do something things (such as read and react to emotions, certain kinds of logic, etc.) that computers cannot match. But at the same time, computers outclass humans in many things too.