knife attack in China
20 dead in knife attack. You want to compare body counts, is that it? Proving that gun bans won't eliminate crazies killing people isn't enough for you? lots of bodies here. 168 dead, including 19 children under the age of 6.
lots here too. 52 dead, don't know how many were children.
Maybe you'd like to know how Australia's gun ban is working out?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The only people affected by a gun ban are the victims.
you're arguing a logical fallacy with a logical fallacy? Nice. How about this:
What's the percentage of car crashes that result in child fatalities vs. the number of cars on the road?
vs
What's the percentage of guns used by pshychopaths that result in child fatalities vs. the number of legally owned guns in the US?
They don't have these crimes, they have subway gas attacks, poisonings, bombings, knife attacks, vehicle attacks, and more. I'd rather risk being shot at then risk being car bombed! When will you people realize that the only people that obey a gun ban are the victims?
No, it's not an issue of loose gun laws or the prevalence of them. If some crazy has decided he's going to kill people, he's going to do it no matter what. Ever heard of the Unibomber or Timothy McVeigh? Guns don't make people violent. Guns don't make people snap. Guns don't make people want to kill others. Take away all the guns, and you'll have just as many people intent on doing harm. They'll find something other than a gun. Some will build explosives. Some will use knives. The big problem with taking away all the guns, is you will only be taking away the guns owned by law abiding citizens. And the criminals out there will now have a huge advantage, knowing that regular citizens are now unarmed.
March 2010 8 children killed in knife attack on school in China.
May 2010 7 children 2 adults killed in cleaver attack on kindergarten school in China.
August 2010 3 children 1 teacher killed in knife attack on kindergarten school in China
September 2011 child and 3 adults killed in axe attack while taking their children to school in China.
incorrect....“Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns. The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals.”
“Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns. The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals.”
citation for what dumbass? The fact that fossil fuels heat our homes, generate electricity, power our transportation systems, etc? I don't need to cite that, it's obvious.
And, in fact, the greatest damage moderates and right-wing could do to the left wing extremists is to invite them to freely speak their minds. The resulting spew of sexist, anti-Semitic, elitist, racist, and hate filled non-sequiturs would likely shift most people just a bit to the right.
yes, just like drinking alcohol has resulted in brains that are better able to function when exposed to it. In fact, the more I drink, the smarter I become!
You're an idiot. Fossil fuels heat our homes, power our farm equipment, generate electricity, power the transportation system that gets the food to the stores, heats the greenhouses that allow us to grow food in climates and seasons where we normally couldn't, and so much more. Do you think we can just stop using them? If you do, you're delusional. We might be able to phase them out over time, but that's going to require some huge capital investment in nuclear. And it will HAVE to be nuclear, there's no way you can replace our energy requirements with wind and solar.
that's easy. His requirements to make the "good" list are so unrealistic, he doesn't have to make any deliveries. Guilty parents then buy gifts for their brats, and Santa collects the glory!
This is NOT an Insightful comment! You can't "release a stable fault". Faults are active or inactive. Faults can become inactive due to the movements of the tectonic plates that occur slowly over millions of years. They can also become active due to these same slow processes. But 'lubing' an inactive fault will NOT cause it to suddenly start moving again. The tremendous forces exerted by our earth's mantle on the crust above it dwarf the force of friction that can be found between the surfaces of the fault. If the fault line is experiencing any force in opposing directions, then the fault will slip at some point. Some active faults take thousands of years to build up enough force to slip. But eventually, they WILL slip!
I don't think you get the point. Their theory states that by lubricating the fault lines with the pumped in waste water, the fault lines are able to slip earlier than they would have without the water. The fault lines already exist, and they already have pressure being exerted as tectonic plates shift. But by lubricating them, they're able to slip with less of a pressure build up. Therefore, the earthquakes will be smaller and more frequent, thus relieving the build up of pressure that results in large magnitude quakes. And for the record, the discussion is about the correlation between fracking and earthquakes. It is not about a conspiracy theory of tap water igniting.
yes, he's definitely a flight risk. With the entire Muslim world itching to behead him, I'm sure he'd rather flee the extremely dangerous confines of the US for a much safer destination, such as Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Albania, Kosovo, Spain, France, Thailand........
tax is dumb too. Fluorescent lighting is linked to poor health ie headaches. CCFL's contain some nasty chemicals (mercury), and their manufacture is destroying the local environment (China). The fact that they're manufactured in China means they need to be transported worldwide, which means exhaust from burning fossil fuels. In Canada, where average temperatures require heating to be used for more than 6 months per year, the heat produced by incandescent bulbs isn't wasted, and the bulbs were manufactured locally. LED lighting seems to hold much better promise, but who knows what environmental impact their manufacture has?
Or maybe it's because they dedicate so much more time and effort to make a top notch product, it really pisses them off to see a dozen cheap knockoff's shipping the next month for half the price.
Slashdot Mirror
knife attack in China
20 dead in knife attack. You want to compare body counts, is that it? Proving that gun bans won't eliminate crazies killing people isn't enough for you?
lots of bodies here. 168 dead, including 19 children under the age of 6. lots here too. 52 dead, don't know how many were children. Maybe you'd like to know how Australia's gun ban is working out?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The only people affected by a gun ban are the victims.
you're arguing a logical fallacy with a logical fallacy? Nice. How about this:
What's the percentage of car crashes that result in child fatalities vs. the number of cars on the road?
vs
What's the percentage of guns used by pshychopaths that result in child fatalities vs. the number of legally owned guns in the US?
They don't have these crimes, they have subway gas attacks, poisonings, bombings, knife attacks, vehicle attacks, and more. I'd rather risk being shot at then risk being car bombed! When will you people realize that the only people that obey a gun ban are the victims?
No, it's not an issue of loose gun laws or the prevalence of them. If some crazy has decided he's going to kill people, he's going to do it no matter what. Ever heard of the Unibomber or Timothy McVeigh? Guns don't make people violent. Guns don't make people snap. Guns don't make people want to kill others. Take away all the guns, and you'll have just as many people intent on doing harm. They'll find something other than a gun. Some will build explosives. Some will use knives. The big problem with taking away all the guns, is you will only be taking away the guns owned by law abiding citizens. And the criminals out there will now have a huge advantage, knowing that regular citizens are now unarmed.
March 2010 8 children killed in knife attack on school in China.
May 2010 7 children 2 adults killed in cleaver attack on kindergarten school in China.
August 2010 3 children 1 teacher killed in knife attack on kindergarten school in China
September 2011 child and 3 adults killed in axe attack while taking their children to school in China.
incorrect....“Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns. The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals.”
“Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns. The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals.”
citation for what dumbass? The fact that fossil fuels heat our homes, generate electricity, power our transportation systems, etc? I don't need to cite that, it's obvious.
Gene Simmons they're talking about....
And, in fact, the greatest damage moderates and right-wing could do to the left wing extremists is to invite them to freely speak their minds. The resulting spew of sexist, anti-Semitic, elitist, racist, and hate filled non-sequiturs would likely shift most people just a bit to the right.
shut up troll
yes, just like drinking alcohol has resulted in brains that are better able to function when exposed to it. In fact, the more I drink, the smarter I become!
You're an idiot. Fossil fuels heat our homes, power our farm equipment, generate electricity, power the transportation system that gets the food to the stores, heats the greenhouses that allow us to grow food in climates and seasons where we normally couldn't, and so much more. Do you think we can just stop using them? If you do, you're delusional. We might be able to phase them out over time, but that's going to require some huge capital investment in nuclear. And it will HAVE to be nuclear, there's no way you can replace our energy requirements with wind and solar.
sorry, just to clarify, you support killing unborn babies, but you're against killing murderers and rapists?
I like how you're getting modded down by the Googleheads just because you happened to speak some truth to one of their cheerleader's statements.
they're so 2008
Pull your kid, and find a private school that will teach what you want him to learn. Or home school him. Otherwise, STFU
that's easy. His requirements to make the "good" list are so unrealistic, he doesn't have to make any deliveries. Guilty parents then buy gifts for their brats, and Santa collects the glory!
This is NOT an Insightful comment! You can't "release a stable fault". Faults are active or inactive. Faults can become inactive due to the movements of the tectonic plates that occur slowly over millions of years. They can also become active due to these same slow processes. But 'lubing' an inactive fault will NOT cause it to suddenly start moving again. The tremendous forces exerted by our earth's mantle on the crust above it dwarf the force of friction that can be found between the surfaces of the fault. If the fault line is experiencing any force in opposing directions, then the fault will slip at some point. Some active faults take thousands of years to build up enough force to slip. But eventually, they WILL slip!
I don't think you get the point. Their theory states that by lubricating the fault lines with the pumped in waste water, the fault lines are able to slip earlier than they would have without the water. The fault lines already exist, and they already have pressure being exerted as tectonic plates shift. But by lubricating them, they're able to slip with less of a pressure build up. Therefore, the earthquakes will be smaller and more frequent, thus relieving the build up of pressure that results in large magnitude quakes. And for the record, the discussion is about the correlation between fracking and earthquakes. It is not about a conspiracy theory of tap water igniting.
So, a $100,000 bond wouldn't be a pretty safe guarantee of him not fleeing?
yes, he's definitely a flight risk. With the entire Muslim world itching to behead him, I'm sure he'd rather flee the extremely dangerous confines of the US for a much safer destination, such as Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Albania, Kosovo, Spain, France, Thailand........
tax is dumb too. Fluorescent lighting is linked to poor health ie headaches. CCFL's contain some nasty chemicals (mercury), and their manufacture is destroying the local environment (China). The fact that they're manufactured in China means they need to be transported worldwide, which means exhaust from burning fossil fuels. In Canada, where average temperatures require heating to be used for more than 6 months per year, the heat produced by incandescent bulbs isn't wasted, and the bulbs were manufactured locally. LED lighting seems to hold much better promise, but who knows what environmental impact their manufacture has?
Or maybe it's because they dedicate so much more time and effort to make a top notch product, it really pisses them off to see a dozen cheap knockoff's shipping the next month for half the price.
yes, he's dangerous. Silence him! And find all those that have visited his site, and have them silenced too!