And did you seriously just reference John Lott, and then use the phrase "well researched" in the same sentence? You dumbass: That's like citing Senator Inhofe as your source for global warming data.
If you would reference Lott, you should a bit about him first:
Lott’s work is filled with bizarre results that are inconsistent with established facts in criminology.
According to Lott’s data, for example, rural areas are more dangerous than cities. FBI data clearly shows this is not the case. Lott’s model finds that both increasing unemployment and decreasing the number of middle-aged and elderly black women would produce substantial decreases in the homicide rate, conclusions that are so bizarre that they should cast doubt on the entire study.
Only 20% of permits were issued to women, but the male and female homi- cides rate went down by the same amount and the reduction in the rape rate was similar to the decrease in assaults. Lott speculates that guns are four times as effective for females. While this is not impossible it seems more likely that the decreases were caused by some other factor that applied to males and females equally.
Or from my favorite:
The empirical studies of right-to-carry laws preceding Lott and Mustard’s study may be flawed,2" but if these studies have any value, they suggest that right-to-carry laws and high gun ownership levels either have no significant effect on crime or else increase it Both Ludwig and Black and Nagin conclude that no credible empirical evidence supports the judgment that right-to-carry laws deter crime. At this point, there is essentially no reason for an intelligent consumer of social science research to accept the Lott and Mustard findings.
Of course the right-to-carry cure for violence worked for the Hatfields and McCoys. It worked for Bernhard Goetz. It worked on the American frontier. It is being copied in Rwanda today. According to John Lott and David Mustard, right-to-carry can work for us too.
People also need to get the idea that just cause X was a good law 100 years ago, doesn't mean it doesnt need an update to account for changes in technology, society, etc.
For example: long ago guns were created individually by a craftsman, a gunsmith. It took a while, so output was low. And they held only one shot, that took awhile to reload. There were few rules involved at any stage, on both the manufacturing side and ownership side. There didn't need to be.
But progress marched on. Manufacturing became more efficient. Output increased, particularly with assembly lines. The guns themselves gained multiple shots. The amount of firepower available, and hte number of guns, increased over time dramatically. To the classic bank robbers and their Thompsons. At that point rules began to be adopted, and rightly so: large scale manufacturing needed serial numbers and sales records, while ownership of certain classes (such as the Thompson) was restricted or controlled.
Times changed, and so did the laws. That's how it SHOULD be.
Hell, we talk about it enough on this site when it comes to copyrights and the expansion of the digital medium, or the anti-hacking laws from the 70s and 80s, and how outdated laws are being misapplied and need updated.
So now we're at the next step in gun tech progress: 3D printing. If it's small scale production, I see it no different from the gunsmith or DIY making for personal use. Larger scale production, I could see the rules that apply to large manufactures coming into play; not much different. There are potential concerns at "undetectable guns" (ie, no metal)....that's largely a thing from bad tv at the moment, but never underestimate materials science. But such a thing could logically call for once again updating law to account for it, as previous security practices taken for granted (metal detectors, etc) would no longer be relevant.
But again that's how it should be: laws regularly updated for the current needs of society, rather than assuming a bunch of farmers and lawyers from 200 years ago running a country of 2.5 million* largely uneducated folks got it 100% right the first time, and knew all there was know about running a country of 350 million folks who even in the worst conditions live like a king compared to those farmers. After all...aint that why they gave us the mechanisms to update the law, up to and including the founding document itself?
(*Just think about that: there 21 major cities (metros) in this country with more people in them now than were in the entire US when the Constitution was written.)
We won because of the help of French, along with the BIG FUCKING OCEAN between us and England. England had other concerns in Europe that also demand its attention, and were a lot closer to home.
Guns are the reason we survived long enough to win (and didn't get roflstomped by the best military in the world), but they aren't the reason for the win itself. Logistics and allies are the real reason we won.
We essentially created the insurgent playbook that's been used against us these past 14 years.
Well, not illegal, but there are restrictions and regulations on the practice. IE, you need a license, and the products needs to be serialized, and you need certains record kept, etc. At least as far as the Feds are concerned.
But States vary and I only know the few I've lived in (and that knowledge could be outdated by now). Mostly...they had few or none, being good ol boy states. But in Cali, you can make it for your own use. But you cannot sell that gun you made for yourself down the road, unless it's sale is permitted by and in compliance with the current Cali laws regarding gun sales when you go to sell it. Essentially in this case it's "manufactured date", as far as regulation compliance is concerned, is considered to be the date you tried to sell it.
62 mass shootings over the past 30+ years, and not one location was chosen because it banned guns.
These shooters aren't choosing locations based on whether guns are or aren't allowed. Most are choosing locations because it's where they got pissed off, such as 20 workplace shootings. Even at the schools where shootings occurred, only in 1 of the 12 school incidents did the shoot not have personal ties to the school.
Also let's consider that most of these shootings weren't just rampages, but Murder-Suicides. These shooters were not people picking locations based on their chance of survival or retaliation.
The answer is very few, on the order of ~5-10%, because most non-gun suicide attempts are not successful. In fact most suicide attempts in general are not successful. But the majority of successful suicides are carried out with a gun.
The difference is that other methods aren't as final and decisive as a gun, and still have a chance of being treated with medical attention, whether because of regret on the part of the person attempting suicide, or someone else calling for help.
Firearm suicides on the other hand aren't as forgiving.
The cost of LEDs is dropping rapidly, and the lifetime costs are already lower than Incandescent. At this point saying they cost "10x more" is no longer factual.
Livestock production, including the animals themselves, ARE a significant portion of human gas emissions and environmental impact, both methane and CO2. Livestock responsible for roughly 10-14% of our CO2 emissions, 35% of our methane, and 65% of the nitrous oxide. In addition they require tremendous amounts of land area and resources. In areas such as the plains, that land is already well adapted to grazers like cows. But of course, that isn't the only place we raise them. We force land into being productive, by siphoning water, by cutting down forests, and other geoengineering methods. Each pound of beef you eat took 500 gallons of water produce. The amount of food provided to cattle alone in this country could feed 800 million people. It takes more than 4 lbs of feed to make a pound of beat. Not to mention changes in water quality and riverbeds from changes in erosion patterns, and the ripple effect that has every critter along the way. And this isnt even touching pigs (even higher methane production) or chickens. (Oblig XKCD)
It's not about seeking power over you. We don't care about you. It has a little more to do with caring about the survival of the species as a whole. Humans aren't very tolerant of higher CO2 concentrations, or higher temperatures. We are still very dependent on the natural world, even if we have rudimentary methods of harnessing it to feed ourselves. And if nature collapses, so do we. But reducing our impact on the planet doesn't require reverting to the stoneage. Civilization can survive just fine. Nor does it require forcing behavior. A tremendous amount of change has already occurred and will continue to occur through simple market forces, as not everyone is as obstinate or blind as you. "OH I have to give up burning dead dinos to drive from my mcmansion to work".... cry me a river. All the free energy humanity could ever want lands on the planet's surface every hour. Transitioning from burning oil to harnessing just a fraction of the sun's power is only a burden if your paycheck depends on the oil industry.
Last time I checked paying customers don't board airliners expecting to enter combat along with its associated high risk of damage/injury.
When riding a rocket into space has the kind of safety record as air travel, then your ridiculous extrapolation will have merit. But as of now, it has none.
Similarly over the course of several million military aircraft flights the ejection seat has rarely been used, somewhere around 0.000001% of the time. Since it is used so rarely, I fail to see it's importance, so let's get rid of it. I mean, who cares if we lose the pilot/astronaut, amiright?...
Hey, where are you going? Get back here! What do you mean you don't want to fly for us anymore?
1) They aren't "giving" anyone anything. They sell it for profit. 2) No one hates them. That is a far different thing statement than not liking business practices that could be considered abusive or undesirable. Wanting companies that have the potential to contaminate the water supply to not contaminate the water supply is not "hating" the company.
You make it sound like they deserve our unequivocal support and deference to any decisions they make.
you saw the reaction the morning after the president stated in that interview that it was dumb to not get vaccinated. they did a pretty good job squelching the kneejerks, but more than a few still slipped through. can only imagine how many people got phone calls on the way to find a microphone.
Oh the delicious irony of your statements. You're so blind you cant even see that you are not only been duped by the very thing you claim to hate, but you are willfully propagating further myths.
depends on the well and where you live. new wells are often tested when dug, especially if an area is known for said microbial problems. but rock is a pretty good filter, and most wells are pretty safe in my own experience. my grandparents well has been in operation for close to 45 years, and it just runs right to the house, pure as....water. no softening or filters needed. tastes pretty good too. but that's the norm where they live.
Malice doesn't need to be part of the motivation in order for harm to be done. Simple negligence suffices.
The purpose of the report was only and simply to state "hey, we detected some of the stuff in the water supply". It's a first step, but an important one as the biggest refrain we hear from the fracking companies is "it wont get in the water supply", "it's too deep", "we're taking precautions", etc.
this paper, while not alarmist itself, rather pointedly proves that the companies are wrong, knowingly or not.
and since they are wrong, further study will be warranted. particularly into the effects their chemicals can have, since most of them haven't been tested (most industrial chemicals aren't required to be tested for human safety), and are even considered trade secrets and thus in many instances its not even known (to the public) what chemicals are even being used.
Slashdot Mirror
I look forward to seeing that evidence.
Well then you aren't you lucky I provided a link to the research for you.
None of the rest of your comment bears reading, as its A) bullshit, and B) all countered by research that you still haven't yet, have you? Hmmm?
Ah yes.
The Elephant Whistle defense.
And did you seriously just reference John Lott, and then use the phrase "well researched" in the same sentence? You dumbass: That's like citing Senator Inhofe as your source for global warming data.
If you would reference Lott, you should a bit about him first:
From ( http://www.armedwithreason.com... ):
Lott’s work is filled with bizarre results that are inconsistent with established facts in criminology.
According to Lott’s data, for example, rural areas are more dangerous than cities. FBI data clearly shows this is not the case. Lott’s model finds that both increasing unemployment and decreasing the number of middle-aged and elderly black women would produce substantial decreases in the homicide rate, conclusions that are so bizarre that they should cast doubt on the entire study.
From ( http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~la... , basically 47 pages of why "correlation is not causation"):
Only 20% of permits were issued to women, but the male and female homi-
cides rate went down by the same amount and the reduction in the rape rate
was similar to the decrease in assaults. Lott speculates that guns are four
times as effective for females. While this is not impossible it seems more
likely that the decreases were caused by some other factor that applied to
males and females equally.
Or from my favorite:
The empirical studies of right-to-carry laws preceding Lott and Mustard’s study may be flawed,2" but if these studies have any value, they suggest that right-to-carry laws and high gun ownership levels either have no significant effect on crime or else increase it Both Ludwig and Black and Nagin conclude that no credible empirical evidence supports the judgment that right-to-carry laws deter crime. At this point, there is essentially no reason for an intelligent consumer of social science research to accept the Lott and Mustard findings.
Of course the right-to-carry cure for violence worked for the Hatfields and McCoys. It worked for Bernhard Goetz. It worked on the American frontier. It is being copied in Rwanda today. According to John Lott and David Mustard, right-to-carry can work for us too.
http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/v...
Although let's be honest, you didn't look into shit, and you never actually read Lott's research either. (Helpful link: http://www.johnlott.org/ )
You just picked up the name from the NRA or some other group of idiots.
I look forward to seeing that evidence.
Well then you aren't you lucky I provided a link to the research for you.
None of the rest of your comment bears reading, as its A) bullshit, and B) all countered by research that you still havent yet, have you?
People also need to get the idea that just cause X was a good law 100 years ago, doesn't mean it doesnt need an update to account for changes in technology, society, etc.
For example: long ago guns were created individually by a craftsman, a gunsmith. It took a while, so output was low. And they held only one shot, that took awhile to reload. There were few rules involved at any stage, on both the manufacturing side and ownership side. There didn't need to be.
But progress marched on. Manufacturing became more efficient. Output increased, particularly with assembly lines. The guns themselves gained multiple shots. The amount of firepower available, and hte number of guns, increased over time dramatically. To the classic bank robbers and their Thompsons. At that point rules began to be adopted, and rightly so: large scale manufacturing needed serial numbers and sales records, while ownership of certain classes (such as the Thompson) was restricted or controlled.
Times changed, and so did the laws.
That's how it SHOULD be.
Hell, we talk about it enough on this site when it comes to copyrights and the expansion of the digital medium, or the anti-hacking laws from the 70s and 80s, and how outdated laws are being misapplied and need updated.
So now we're at the next step in gun tech progress: 3D printing. If it's small scale production, I see it no different from the gunsmith or DIY making for personal use. Larger scale production, I could see the rules that apply to large manufactures coming into play; not much different. There are potential concerns at "undetectable guns" (ie, no metal)....that's largely a thing from bad tv at the moment, but never underestimate materials science. But such a thing could logically call for once again updating law to account for it, as previous security practices taken for granted (metal detectors, etc) would no longer be relevant.
But again that's how it should be: laws regularly updated for the current needs of society, rather than assuming a bunch of farmers and lawyers from 200 years ago running a country of 2.5 million* largely uneducated folks got it 100% right the first time, and knew all there was know about running a country of 350 million folks who even in the worst conditions live like a king compared to those farmers. After all...aint that why they gave us the mechanisms to update the law, up to and including the founding document itself?
(*Just think about that: there 21 major cities (metros) in this country with more people in them now than were in the entire US when the Constitution was written.)
We won because of the help of French, along with the BIG FUCKING OCEAN between us and England.
England had other concerns in Europe that also demand its attention, and were a lot closer to home.
Guns are the reason we survived long enough to win (and didn't get roflstomped by the best military in the world),
but they aren't the reason for the win itself.
Logistics and allies are the real reason we won.
We essentially created the insurgent playbook that's been used against us these past 14 years.
Technically it was the rich landowners and politicians of our colonies and their opposition to paying taxes that resulted in us being Americans.
Plus, you say that like there are no gun owners in England or Canada.
You really should try to correct your perception on that.
Well, not illegal, but there are restrictions and regulations on the practice. IE, you need a license, and the products needs to be serialized, and you need certains record kept, etc. At least as far as the Feds are concerned.
But States vary and I only know the few I've lived in (and that knowledge could be outdated by now).
Mostly...they had few or none, being good ol boy states.
But in Cali, you can make it for your own use. But you cannot sell that gun you made for yourself down the road, unless it's sale is permitted by and in compliance with the current Cali laws regarding gun sales when you go to sell it. Essentially in this case it's "manufactured date", as far as regulation compliance is concerned, is considered to be the date you tried to sell it.
Blatant bullshit myth.
62 mass shootings over the past 30+ years, and not one location was chosen because it banned guns.
These shooters aren't choosing locations based on whether guns are or aren't allowed.
Most are choosing locations because it's where they got pissed off, such as 20 workplace shootings.
Even at the schools where shootings occurred, only in 1 of the 12 school incidents did the shoot not have personal ties to the school.
Also let's consider that most of these shootings weren't just rampages, but Murder-Suicides.
These shooters were not people picking locations based on their chance of survival or retaliation.
Some reading so that you might become better informed: http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
Red herring.
The answer is very few, on the order of ~5-10%, because most non-gun suicide attempts are not successful.
In fact most suicide attempts in general are not successful.
But the majority of successful suicides are carried out with a gun.
The difference is that other methods aren't as final and decisive as a gun, and still have a chance of being treated with medical attention, whether because of regret on the part of the person attempting suicide, or someone else calling for help.
Firearm suicides on the other hand aren't as forgiving.
Oh, has it already been ratified by the Senate then?
I was under the impression it was still being negotiated.
The cost of LEDs is dropping rapidly, and the lifetime costs are already lower than Incandescent. At this point saying they cost "10x more" is no longer factual.
Livestock production, including the animals themselves, ARE a significant portion of human gas emissions and environmental impact, both methane and CO2. Livestock responsible for roughly 10-14% of our CO2 emissions, 35% of our methane, and 65% of the nitrous oxide. In addition they require tremendous amounts of land area and resources. In areas such as the plains, that land is already well adapted to grazers like cows. But of course, that isn't the only place we raise them. We force land into being productive, by siphoning water, by cutting down forests, and other geoengineering methods. Each pound of beef you eat took 500 gallons of water produce. The amount of food provided to cattle alone in this country could feed 800 million people. It takes more than 4 lbs of feed to make a pound of beat. Not to mention changes in water quality and riverbeds from changes in erosion patterns, and the ripple effect that has every critter along the way. And this isnt even touching pigs (even higher methane production) or chickens. (Oblig XKCD)
It's not about seeking power over you. We don't care about you. It has a little more to do with caring about the survival of the species as a whole. Humans aren't very tolerant of higher CO2 concentrations, or higher temperatures. We are still very dependent on the natural world, even if we have rudimentary methods of harnessing it to feed ourselves. And if nature collapses, so do we. But reducing our impact on the planet doesn't require reverting to the stoneage. Civilization can survive just fine. Nor does it require forcing behavior. A tremendous amount of change has already occurred and will continue to occur through simple market forces, as not everyone is as obstinate or blind as you. "OH I have to give up burning dead dinos to drive from my mcmansion to work".... cry me a river. All the free energy humanity could ever want lands on the planet's surface every hour. Transitioning from burning oil to harnessing just a fraction of the sun's power is only a burden if your paycheck depends on the oil industry.
Last time I checked paying customers don't board airliners expecting to enter combat along with its associated high risk of damage/injury.
When riding a rocket into space has the kind of safety record as air travel, then your ridiculous extrapolation will have merit. But as of now, it has none.
It's not a law.
It's a trade deal.
Similarly over the course of several million military aircraft flights the ejection seat has rarely been used, somewhere around 0.000001% of the time. Since it is used so rarely, I fail to see it's importance, so let's get rid of it. I mean, who cares if we lose the pilot/astronaut, amiright? ...
Hey, where are you going? Get back here!
What do you mean you don't want to fly for us anymore?
1) They aren't "giving" anyone anything. They sell it for profit.
2) No one hates them. That is a far different thing statement than not liking business practices that could be considered abusive or undesirable. Wanting companies that have the potential to contaminate the water supply to not contaminate the water supply is not "hating" the company.
You make it sound like they deserve our unequivocal support and deference to any decisions they make.
sadly, that would probably be the GOP solution.
after all, they thought we could bomb Iraq and Afghanistan into freedom loving democracies.
you saw the reaction the morning after the president stated in that interview that it was dumb to not get vaccinated.
they did a pretty good job squelching the kneejerks, but more than a few still slipped through.
can only imagine how many people got phone calls on the way to find a microphone.
for some reason you insist on conflating global averages and trends with local ones.
Before you go believing all the hype about OA, you need to do some research with an objective mind.
Really need to take your own advice.
says the flambaiting troll
Oh the delicious irony of your statements.
You're so blind you cant even see that you are not only been duped by the very thing you claim to hate, but you are willfully propagating further myths.
depends on the well and where you live. new wells are often tested when dug, especially if an area is known for said microbial problems. but rock is a pretty good filter, and most wells are pretty safe in my own experience. my grandparents well has been in operation for close to 45 years, and it just runs right to the house, pure as....water. no softening or filters needed. tastes pretty good too. but that's the norm where they live.
Malice doesn't need to be part of the motivation in order for harm to be done. Simple negligence suffices.
The purpose of the report was only and simply to state "hey, we detected some of the stuff in the water supply". It's a first step, but an important one as the biggest refrain we hear from the fracking companies is "it wont get in the water supply", "it's too deep", "we're taking precautions", etc.
this paper, while not alarmist itself, rather pointedly proves that the companies are wrong, knowingly or not.
and since they are wrong, further study will be warranted. particularly into the effects their chemicals can have, since most of them haven't been tested (most industrial chemicals aren't required to be tested for human safety), and are even considered trade secrets and thus in many instances its not even known (to the public) what chemicals are even being used.
Thanks for the tip, sounds like an interesting story.
I'll have to look that one up.
doh. I used greater and less than signs and it dropped half that sentence.
should say "minor citizen and adult citizen".