Dangers of Global Warming

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 08:06:28 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 10:39:41 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 07:07:37 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

A better way of looking at it is to recognize that even in the most
crime-ridden parts of the U.S., the risk of violent crime (outside of
domestic abuse) is very low.

Especially in areas and situations where the likelihood is high that a potential victim has a gun.

Nope. There is very little evidence suggesting that armed citizens
reduces crime.

Incorrect. Criminals look for soft targets.

You can make all the assertions you want, but they don't stand up to
actual evidence.

wrote:
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 3:45:03 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 9:34:29 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In both cases the risk is significantly reduced even through it's not
completely eliminated. And that's something valuable.

But do gun controls reduce the risk of crime?

They guarantee that criminals who prey on law-abiding citizens will have
helpless victims.

Vermont = few gun laws
Vermont = low crime rate


Vermont's murder rate is about the same as the UK. However it has a
ridiculously low population density as have all the other lowish murder
rate states.

The safest place in the UK is Broadland just up the road from me. The
murder rate is at least an order of magnitude below Vermont but it has 10
times the population density.





Brazil = strict gun laws
Brazil = high crime rate

Brazil has favelas. Do you think the gun laws are enforced there?



Former USSR = strict gun laws
Former USSR = socialism/communism
Former USSR = purges and genocides

They ensure that should the army and the police stay on the side of a
government which fails to remain loyal to democratic ideals, not much can be
done about it.

Socialists are not loyal to individual freedoms (for others, that is.)

"Democratic ideals" is open to interpretation and probably have little to
do with individual freedoms.

On 14/11/2015 01:10, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 4:44:39 PM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 12:32:44 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

Man uses cannabis then picks up a handgun and shoots his family.Good case
for banning handguns.

Or someone uses handgun to defend herself from drug-crazed attacker.

Stop clutching at straws. No handgun, no death.

This isn't a straw.

Example: Dunblane.

Cannabis is already banned, one might point out, in respect of your scenario.

Actually in the UK they don't enforce it much for small amounts.

Britain has very strict gun laws, and yet people do get hold of guns anyways.
So a ban on guns wouldn't eliminate the risk people face from violent crime.

No but it reduces the suicide and murder rate involving firearms by more
than an order of magnitude (and also the frequency of innocent
schoolchildren being massacred by deranged former pupils which happens
with monotonous regularity in the USA). Dunblane was two decades ago.

How many mass casualty school shootups has the USA had this year?
The most serious being only last month in Oregon.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:
On 14/11/2015 01:10, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 4:44:39 PM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 12:32:44 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

Man uses cannabis then picks up a handgun and shoots his family.Good case
for banning handguns.

Or someone uses handgun to defend herself from drug-crazed attacker.

Stop clutching at straws. No handgun, no death.

This isn't a straw.

Example: Dunblane.

Cannabis is already banned, one might point out, in respect of your scenario.

Actually in the UK they don't enforce it much for small amounts.

Britain has very strict gun laws, and yet people do get hold of guns anyways.
So a ban on guns wouldn't eliminate the risk people face from violent crime.

No but it reduces the suicide and murder rate involving firearms by more
than an order of magnitude (and also the frequency of innocent
schoolchildren being massacred by deranged former pupils which happens
with monotonous regularity in the USA). Dunblane was two decades ago.

How many mass casualty school shootups has the USA had this year?
The most serious being only last month in Oregon.


Yes 18 people were killed at Dunblane in 1996, No school shootings since in
UK.
But since Dunblane 136 have died in school shootings in the USA.

On Monday, 16 November 2015 18:19:35 UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

Yes 18 people were killed at Dunblane in 1996, No school shootings since in
UK.
But since Dunblane 136 have died in school shootings in the USA.

The good ol' US of A:
Where they rise at gun up and go to bed at gun down.
Where the freedom to die early is enshrined in and by the law.
Where the ambulance chasers can keep execution appeals going for decades.
But a [black] child can be gunned down for jaywalking.

Have you ever wondered why gun crimes are so one-sided?
Nobody ever brings more guns to share around, hoping to make it a fair fight.
The problem with all guns is that you can't easily remove the ****wit.
If the ****wit was removable there would be no gun crime and no massacres.
The ****wit is always the most unreliable component in every gun.
Yet the manufacturers keep installing new ****wits like there's no tomorrow.
Let's stop trying to ban guns and just ban the ****wits.
You know it makes [no] sense.

[Default] On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:03:07 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:45:42 -0500, wrote:

Torture is wrong.

Nonsense. I just read a book on torture. If you knew that a
terrorist was going to realease a bomb with a deadly pathogen in a
subway that would kill thousands of people would you NOT want to
torture him to find the location?

It's not a question of what anybody wants. It's a question of whether
it's good policy.

Why does that matter? Results are the main thing.

Does it work? Would it result in finding the
location? Would the willingness to use torture in some situations
alter the entire landscape of terrorism in ways that result in more
harms than benefits? What are the social costs?

That doesn't matter. Results are the main thing. Torture works,
that's why it's been used for thousands of years.

The moral case is a matter of opinion. Depending on viewpoint, torture
can be seen as either "right" or "wrong", when in fact it is neither
outside the context of culture. But torture can also be analyzed
objectively, in terms of effectiveness and harm vs. benefit. And
there's a pretty solid consensus among experts that it produces
extremely unreliable information and is not a useful tool.

That part is debatable. Information obtained under duress is often
unreliable. The Romans would not allow confessions in the courtroom.
Confessions were assumed to be obtained under torture, and they
realized that anything obtained under torture was unreliable.

This signature is now the
ultimate power in the universe.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:25:44 -0500, wrote:

It's not a question of what anybody wants. It's a question of whether
it's good policy.

Why does that matter? Results are the main thing.

That's what defines good policy.

That doesn't matter. Results are the main thing. Torture works,
that's why it's been used for thousands of years.

Most experts disagree with your opinion.

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 12:19:35 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

Yes 18 people were killed at Dunblane in 1996, No school shootings since in
UK.
But since Dunblane 136 have died in school shootings in the USA.

Paris = gun free zone.

wrote:
On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 12:19:35 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

Yes 18 people were killed at Dunblane in 1996, No school shootings since in
UK.
But since Dunblane 136 have died in school shootings in the USA.

Paris = gun free zone.



Do your homework



In France, to buy a firearm, a hunting licence or a shooting sport license
is necessary. All semi-automatic rifles with a capacity greater than 3
rounds, all handguns and all rifles chambered in 'military' calibres,
including bolt action, require permits. These are known as B1, B2 and B4
type permits. Firearms are divided into eight categories that determine the
regulations that apply to their possession and use. France also sets limits
on the number of cartridges that can be kept at home (1000 rounds per gun).
The total number of firearms owned by an individual is also subject to
limits (not possible to have more than 12 authorizations/permits on B1, B2
and B4 type firearms).[95] As of September, 2013, France has a capacity
limit of 20 rounds for handguns;[96] one needs a permit for category
one[clarification needed] semi-automatics that have a capacity greater than
3 rounds. Fully automatic firearms are illegal for civilian ownership.

Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 12:19:35 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

Yes 18 people were killed at Dunblane in 1996, No school shootings since in
UK.
But since Dunblane 136 have died in school shootings in the USA.

Paris = gun free zone.



Do your homework



In France, to buy a firearm, a hunting licence or a shooting sport license
is necessary. All semi-automatic rifles with a capacity greater than 3
rounds, all handguns and all rifles chambered in 'military' calibres,
including bolt action, require permits. These are known as B1, B2 and B4
type permits. Firearms are divided into eight categories that determine the
regulations that apply to their possession and use. France also sets limits
on the number of cartridges that can be kept at home (1000 rounds per gun).
The total number of firearms owned by an individual is also subject to
limits (not possible to have more than 12 authorizations/permits on B1, B2
and B4 type firearms).[95] As of September, 2013, France has a capacity
limit of 20 rounds for handguns;[96] one needs a permit for category
one[clarification needed] semi-automatics that have a capacity greater than
3 rounds. Fully automatic firearms are illegal for civilian ownership.



This above is from Wikipedia

Terrorism in Britain was mainly in Northern Ireland where gun laws are less
draconian and pistols are not banned.

Of course a large part of the IRA's funds came from the USA, Extradition
was also made difficult by US courts defining murder and terrorism as
political crimes.