The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » 12 Killed in UK gun rampage (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
"Did I stutter" will never die, as it appeared in The Breakfast Club, which is immortal.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Destiny
View Profile
Inner circle
1429 Posts

Profile of Destiny
If guns are such wonderful protection against attack, why per capita, are so many more potentially armed Americans subject to violent assault, than the almost definitely unarmed Australians?
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5715 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
Let's ban Mosquitoes!

Malaria and dengue fever kill more people than guns.

Smile
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2010-06-21 08:36, Destiny wrote:
If guns are such wonderful protection against attack, why per capita, are so many more potentially armed Americans subject to violent assault, than the almost definitely unarmed Australians?


I did not research this or google it as many here do efore giving some sort of answer rather than their opinion or common sense.

My response is because they live in America. Maybe it is because of big cities and the vast difference in economic levels of population. Maybe it is the attitude of people here in America as many believe they have the right to have what more afflunet people have without working for it. Maybe it is the water we drink or the air we breathe. I don't know and neither do you. I do know that people from all over the world want to come here to live (not everyone but many more than any other country). I would also assume that many of the crimes commited with a gun are commited by a person who does not legally own it.

Also in answer to your above question I would assume that most assaults are to individuals that are not likely to have a firearm whether they are livinig in Austrila or America. Most 80 year old women do not carry firerms. Most young women do not carry firearms. Again remember the criminal preys on the weak and defenseless and not those that are likely carrying a firearm.

It is ones choice to carry firearm or not. Obviously you choose not too. Perhaps because it is very difficult to carry legally in your country or you are one of those people who fear guns and would probably harm yourself with one if you had one. Or you truly believe that owning a firearm will not help you in a home invasion or assault in the street. With owning and carrying a firearm comes awesome responsibility. You must learn how to use it, learn how to maintain it and learn how to discharge it when necessary.

This topic can go on endlessly and neither you nor I are going to change are position on it. It is a very volitle topic that obviously has arguements for both sides. I choose to arm myself legally and know my firearm and you don't. So be it.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Destiny
View Profile
Inner circle
1429 Posts

Profile of Destiny
Acesover - I agree with much of your answer - "I did not research this or google it as many here do efore giving some sort of answer rather than their opinion or common sense." That particular sentence has particular resonance - I couldn't agree more with your sentiment. Sometimes here I do feel compelled to google before stating something I generally feel to be true, because I know it will be challenged by someone demanding statistics and evidence.

I think a lot of the problem with guns in the US is chicken and egg stuff and to me it is simple logic that more guns in circulation will lead to more gun crime. Santa makes a good point that more people use guns against loved ones than against criminals. But I also think the genie is out of the bottle - there are far too many guns in circulation for any control to be effective.

Luckily for us in Australia the vast bulk of the population is in agreement that we don't want anyone 'carrying' but law enforcement, and that we do not want anyone but mentally stable people with no criminal history, and even then only those with very good reason, to possess weapons. Kids cannot come across the weapons and accidentally shoot themselves or friends, because the weapons must be securely stored when not in legal use. It works for us - but then we have a smaller population and fewer people possessed weapons when the decision was made to effect stricter control. The control has bipartisan support and our constitution contains no provision guaranteeing the right of citizens to be armed. I can't think of many places I would be afraid to go in Australia because I am not allowed to carry a gun.
Destiny
View Profile
Inner circle
1429 Posts

Profile of Destiny
"Let's ban Mosquitoes!

Malaria and dengue fever kill more people than guns."

Pakar, we don't have much problem with Malaria here but Dengue is a regular issue and Cairns, where I live, is an important centre for research into Dengue and the Egyptai Mosquito which carries it. Some very good progress has been made recently.
Ray Tupper.
View Profile
Special user
NG16.
750 Posts

Profile of Ray Tupper.
If you had guns you could shoot the mossies!
Everybody would be happy.
What do we want?
A cure for tourettes!
When do we want it?
C*nt!
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5715 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
Yes! Let's kill them ALL! Smile

Mosquitoes I mean...
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Sorry, if you murder misquitoes that would mean other insects, fish, and birds that eat misquitos would die. Then the insects, fish, and birds, and mammals that eat those would not have access to them and so forth. As an enviro I must say it is better those humanoids, which ruin the universe, die instead.
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5715 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
Ok then, let's just kill some of them...

Mosquitoes of course...
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Sorry, skeeters, and lets call them skeeters out of respect, have not caused global warming thus they deserve to live.

The reason on one cares about guns in Australia is cuz they wrestle crocs and you don't mess with a guy who wrestles crocs.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-06-21 09:32, acesover wrote:

I did not research this or google it as many here do efore giving some sort of answer rather than their opinion or common sense.

"Googling" may not be the best thing to do, because many sources on the web cannot be trusted, but doing serious research into a subject before forming an opinion is surely a good thing.

Opinions are not created equal, and informed opinions are of more value than uninformed opinions. And common sense is anything but common. What many people consider obvious on the basis of common sense isn't, because their own common sense is lacking.

Note, I'm not stating an opinion one way or the other about the Australian (or likewise the Canadian, British, etc.) situation. But there are facts available out there, and opinions people have formed using those facts shouldn't be dismissed or denigrated because they are informed opinions.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16031 Posts

Profile of tommy
And who may I ask is going to give this good info you speak of? The Government perhaps? The Government are the biggest liars and propagandists on earth. They are mind control experts. Yet people say look these are the official government figure and they say this and that as if what they say must be true. Oh yeh right! Informed opinions?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Quote:
Sorry, if you murder misquitoes that would mean other insects, fish, and birds that eat misquitos would die. Then the insects, fish, and birds, and mammals that eat those would not have access to them and so forth. As an enviro I must say it is better those humanoids, which ruin the universe, die instead.


After the misinformation in Rachel Carson's book, "Silent Spring," spread like wildfire, DDT was banned nearly worldwide. In the intervening years, it has been estimated that as many as 100,000,000 people (at least half of them children) died miserably and unnecessarily from malaria, which DDT would have prevented.

Is that what you had in mind?
Whit Haydn
View Profile
V.I.P.
5449 Posts

Profile of Whit Haydn
Silent Spring from wikipedia:

"The book argued that uncontrolled and unexamined pesticide use was harming and even killing not only animals and birds, but also humans. Its title was meant to evoke a spring season in which no bird songs could be heard, because they had all vanished as a result of pesticide abuse. Its title was inspired by a poem by John Keats, "La Belle Dame sans Merci", which contained the lines "The sedge is wither'd from the lake, And no birds sing."[12]

Support

History professor Gary Kroll commented, "Rachel Carson's Silent Spring played a large role in articulating ecology as a 'subversive subject'— as a perspective that cut against the grain of materialism, scientism, and the technologically engineered control of nature."[13]

According to Time magazine in 1999, within a year or so of its publication, "all but the most self-serving of Carson's attackers were backing rapidly toward safer ground. In their ugly campaign to reduce a brave scientist's protest to a matter of public relations, the chemical interests had only increased public awareness."

Carson had made it clear she was not advocating the banning or complete withdrawal of helpful pesticides, but was instead encouraging responsible and carefully managed use, with an awareness of the chemicals' impact on the entire ecosystem. However, some critics asserted that she was calling for the elimination of all pesticides.[14]

In response to the publication of Silent Spring and the uproar that ensued, U.S. President John F. Kennedy directed his Science Advisory Committee to investigate Carson's claims. Their investigation vindicated Carson's work, and led to an immediate strengthening of the regulation of chemical pesticides.[15][16]

Criticism

Even before Silent Spring was published by Houghton Mifflin in 1962, there was strong opposition to it. According to Time in 1999:

Carson was violently assailed by threats of lawsuits and derision, including suggestions that this meticulous scientist was a "hysterical woman" unqualified to write such a book. A huge counterattack was organized and led by Monsanto Company, Velsicol, American Cyanamid — indeed, the whole chemical industry — duly supported by the Agriculture Department as well as the more cautious in the media.[17]

In the 1960s, biochemist and former chemical industry spokesman Robert White-Stevens stated, "If man were to follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth."[18]

Industry and agribusiness advocates continue to criticize Silent Spring. In a 2005 essay, "The Harm That Pressure Groups Can Do", British politician Dick Taverne was ***ing in his criticism of Carson:

Carson didn't seem to take into account the vital role (DDT) played in controlling the transmission of malaria by killing the mosquitoes that carry the parasite (...) It is the single most effective agent ever developed for saving human life (...) Rachel Carson is a warning to us all of the dangers of neglecting the evidence-based approach and the need to weight potential risk against benefit: it can be argued that the anti-DDT campaign she inspired was responsible for almost as many deaths as some of the worst dictators of the last century.[19]

However, DDT has never been banned for anti-malarial use,[20] and Carson argued in Silent Spring that:

No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse. The world has heard much of the triumphant war against disease through the control of insect vectors of infection, but it has heard little of the other side of the story—the defeats, the short-lived triumphs that now strongly support the alarming view that the insect enemy has been made actually stronger by our efforts. Even worse, we may have destroyed our very means of fighting ... What is the measure of this setback? The list of resistant species now includes practically all of the insect groups of medical importance ... Malaria programmes are threatened by resistance among mosquitoes ... Practical advice should be 'Spray as little as you possibly can' rather than 'Spray to the limit of your capacity' ..., Pressure on the pest population should always be as slight as possible.

The widespread use of DDT in agriculture and other fields contributed to the selection of DDT-resistant mosquito populations. This threatened to reduce or eliminate its effectiveness as a weapon against mosquitoes and other disease vectors.[21]

In the 2000s, Carson and Silent Spring have come under increasing attack from authors who argue that restrictions placed on DDT have caused needless death, and more generally that environmental regulation unnecessarily restricts economic freedom.[22][23] For example, the conservative magazine, Human Events, gave Silent Spring an "honorable mention" in its list of the "Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries,"[24] and in 2002, to mark its 40 anniversary, Reason magazine published an essay by economist Ronald Bailey, a former fellow with the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.[25] Bailey argued that the book had a mixed legacy:

The book did point to problems that had not been adequately addressed, such as the effects of DDT on some wildlife. And given the state of the science at the time she wrote, one might even make the case that Carson's concerns about the effects of synthetic chemicals on human health were not completely unwarranted. Along with other researchers, she was simply ignorant of the facts. But after four decades in which tens of billions of dollars have been wasted chasing imaginary risks without measurably improving American health, her intellectual descendants don't have the same excuse.[26]

Some environmentalists consider this latter day criticism of Silent Spring and Rachel Carson and concomitant push for DDT to be an industry-sponsored strategy to discredit the environmental movement.[27][28][29][30] For example, Monica Moore of Pesticide Action Network has argued that "Renewed promotion of DDT and attacks on those who would limit its use isn’t about malaria, or even DDT. It is a cynical 'better living through chemistry' campaign intended to discredit the environmental health movement, with support from the Bush administration and others who seek nothing less than the dismantling of health and environmental protections."[31]."

I think the attacks on Rachel Carson are the result of a misinformation campaign from the multi-national corporations. It is the same type of fake science and manipulated data sponsered by the tobacco companies, and later the energy industries, and others who are trying to prevent governments from protecting people and the environment from the excesses of their predations. I am always surprised how easily bad science can be swallowed by those who distrust their own government more than the titans who are willing to destroy lives for the sake of profit.
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Exactly Woland! That is 100,000,000 people that would have grown up to light fires to cook with and caused pollution. They they would have breeded and then we'd have had 700,000,000 more people on the planet...that is just wrong. Thank you for proving my point Woland. Remember, enviromentalism means people pruning. I'll have you know I went to Rachel Carson Elementary in San Jose, Ca. for a couple years.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
WOW! Go back to the original post and read it. OK.. myself included...do you think this thread drifted off topic?

Got to love the internet and The Café.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16031 Posts

Profile of tommy
Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet.


Read his book; Ecocience.

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Beats me why any people would even think the governments or their scienists would want to save any lives?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Dreadnought
View Profile
Special user
Athens, Georgia
836 Posts

Profile of Dreadnought
DDT is good stuff. When people say this I cringe. I am from South Louisiana along what was once considered the petrochemical corridor, a span of some 90 or so miles between Baton Rouge and New Orleans where the biggest concentration of petroleum and chemical plants in the United States is found producing chemicals that are extremely dangerous, like chlorine and caustic soda. I've worked summers at Dow Chemical and off shore as an electrician's helper and I have been chlorinated and it isn't a pleasant feeling when the oxygen is rapidly depleted and your mouth, nose, throat and lungs start to burn. Gas driven vehicles cease running because the O2 is gone. And then there is the rapid corrosion of metal that is ever present even when the stuff is contained.

Since the mid 1980's this area has been know as Cancer Alley because along with the largest concentration of Petro-Chemical facilities in the U.S. is also found one of the highest cancer death rates. My father, an operator at Dow Chemical, one of Dow's largest facilities in the U.S., is a cancer victim.

The Louisiana facility produced agent orange in the 60's as well as napalm. Ciba-Geigy and Monsanto, also in the corridor, were producers of DDT. These chemicals along with many others have contributed to the high cancer rate. So,in my opinion, if a person thinks DDT is such a great thing then they are clearly mis-informed.

Peace and Godspeed.
Peace

"Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum..."

Scott

Would you do anything for the person you love?
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2010-06-22 00:58, Dreadnought wrote:
Gas driven vehicles cease running because the O2 is gone.

This is interesting. Most combustible materials - e.g., gasoline - do not need O2 to burn; they do need an oxidizing agent. Nitrous oxide (N2O), for example, is an excellent oxidizing agent, and gasoline burns quite well in N2O. Similarly, chlorine is an excellent oxidizing agent; indeed, acetylene burns spontaneously when it contacts chlorine gas (with a bright green flame).

I'd think that gasoline would burn well in chlorine.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » 12 Killed in UK gun rampage (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.24 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL