Total posts: 3,383
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Could Trump (or any president) be indicted after leaving office? Mueller, legal experts say yes
which is exactly what I said
Dems moved on not because trump didn't commit crimes, but because a large chunk of the american population just didn't care that trump had committed crimes.
LOL they don't need any portion of the American population to care to enforce laws, that's not how the legal system works, it's not mob rule, not in the U.S. anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
it's amazing of the proof they have only to never show it, or the "witnesses" who didn't actually witness anything but rather heard something, some people said somethings.....
thinking back....the market will crash if he's elected, he will get us into a war/nuclear war. He is ( )ist. the list is much longer than I can pull from memory but they have been out to get him since day 1
didn't Madcow say something like "we got him!" because of the Mueller report lol which no one is talking about anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Unfortunately, the justice department memo does not allow it.
Doesn't allow what exactly? They can find him guilty but not punish him until after he was out of office I believe, so why haven't they done that if the facts are so concrete?
would be charged if it were possible.
it is possible, no idea why you don't think it isn't, they just couldn't do anything punitive until he was out of office right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
which court of law found him guilty?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
hmm never heard of that, very interesting, so in short you are responsible for your actions and the repercussions of, makes sense. In the Florida case, I think the verdict was appropriate, the sentence, well I'm not sure what is an appropriate sentence for taking another life.
it's a very tricky thing, self defense, stand your ground etc, those are shields not swords.
had the guy turned and shot the other guy as he was charging at him, he'd probably not have faced charges. Now some will argue he could have pulled the gun to scare him into stopping or something like that. We may have had this discussion before, but that's not how it works. If you are in fear enough that you pull a gun you'd better use it, otherwise you weren't really in fear for your life. If you have time to debate it or think a lot about it, that's not an immediate threat. Brandishing a gun gets YOU arrested. Moral of the story, often, violence begets violence.
Now back to your topic
(IFF) abortion = murder (THEN) miscarriage = manslaughter
voluntary abortion is an act, caused by someone, adverb or verb depending on how it's used, intentional, willful, un-natural (non medically necessary is what I'm specifically talking about)
miscarriage = natural death, not willful, intentional or cause by someone, medical condition
miscarriage is no different then a fatal heart attack, stroke, other medical condition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
yes I have seen the movie and some of the series
Can you imagine the implications if "the big guy's" death was ruled a suicide?
that would have only happened if he worked for the Clintons and might testify against them (zziiiinggggg!!!!)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
These are all well established facts.
then why the need for subpoenas or investigations? if they are "well established facts" then the case is closed, end of story, so why is everyone still talking about it and why is it still in the news?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
However this doesn't really negate the efficacy of a screening and some sort of a gun license for gun possession
how does a license for a gun prevent crime?
you haven't articulated what this "screening" is
How effective is this screening (whatever that is)
What would be the criteria for denial because of this screening?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the guy in Florida got 20 years for killing the big guy who shoved him to the ground, I'm not so sure the laws are as loose as you are describing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
isn't that true with any self defense claim and or claims made by police?IT BASICALLY LETS YOU SHOOT ANYONE YOU'RE AFRAID OF, AS LONG AS A JURY AGREES THAT YOUR FEAR WAS "REASONABLE".
why isn't it logical if you can use deadly force to protect yourself (in accordance with law) inside your home, that being outside it should be the same, is there any difference?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
think I figured something out, thought it was common knowledge but maybe not. Trump pushing boundaries, buttons and walks lines. Has any of that crossed over into provable crimes? Not that I have seen yet. But my eyes are not blinded by TDS. TBH I'd rather have Pence as president so I'm rather ambivalent about the whole thing except what will happen to the economy, foreign relations etc.
If it were to happen the domino effect will be very ugly imo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
The issue seems to be that you disagree with me that gun control is a solution for gun violence, which is why seemingly only gun control is ever discussed
it's very possible I confuse you with others but the only arguments I recall are bans or things like registrations (which wouldn't do anything) and or other things that would essentially void or make useless the 2A
If you could demonstrate with solid evidence how such programs could be effective without backfiring sure.
the Boy Scouts have been doing gun safety and education probably since it's inception. Schools also have done similar. While my school has hunter safety as an elective it also included archery, boating, farm tractors and trapping. I took archery again in college and yeah we actually shot targets with arrows. If we can just save one life by educating kids on safety isn't it worth it? (see what I did there ;) )
Are drivers licenses not a screening for the ability to drive a car? Are pilot licenses not a screening for the ability to pilot an airplane?
they are not constitutional rights for starters. There is no sanity screening required before you get a driver's licence that I know of.
The whole point of gun control is minimization not elimination.
minimize it to what? what's the acceptable cut off limit?
are there other ways to minimize without additional gun control that haven't been attempted or implemented yet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The right is specifically the right to not incriminate yourself. If answering the question would not show evidence you have participated in a crime, then you would not be incriminating yourself.
I'm just repeating myself at this point, it's not within my skill to explain it in such a way as you can understand it would seem.
look up some videos and do searches for things like "should I talk to cops" "should I answer questions from cops (lawyers)" things of that nature. Many attorneys have videos on the subject and explain their reasoning.
The subpoena's you are talking about are not part of an impeachment inquiry.
doesn't matter they can still make legal challenges to them, that is how it's always been and always will be, both parties do it, don't you think challenges were issued when Clinton was impeached? Nixon tried to challenge the subpoena for the tapes, he lost but that just shows you can try. Subpoenas are not all powerful in the U.S.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I can't answer the question without revealing information that would incriminate me. Therefore, there is grounds for charges against you.
again that's NOT how the U.S. laws and rights work, I don't have time to give you a basic civics or legal education. You need to learn it on your own.
There is no valid way to say that is illegal.
again you are lost in the woods, Trump has challenged subpoenas asking for his tax returns etc, some of the subpoenas have been dismissed, you are woefully uninformed about these matters it seems, please read up on them more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
This goes back to the point that HistoryBuff made. Sitting on your hands and ignoring a problem just because you don't like the solution isn't actually a solution to the problem.
when there is only tunnel vision for one "solution" you'll understand my skepticism
How do you plan to get guns out of criminal's hands? by attrition?
If all of that group understood gun safety measures and all of that group were actually screened to not be a psycho
safety is a great thing, something that could even be offered in schools and or at no cost, yet.....(insert cricket sounds here)
we just minority report people when the come of age? is that the plan? or prove yourself before we allow you to have your rights? I don't see anyway a screening could work in the U.S. sure in some fascist, socialist country, but not in the U.S.
Do you need believe in the 4th amendment? presumption of innocence?
walks into a walmart
that was exceedingly stupid, but we have the right to be exceedingly stupid without breaking any actual laws so.....price you pay for freedoms, but I wish people wouldn't do things like that, it's counter productive.
there are illegal drugs which law abiding citizens don't have yet the demand is still filled in various ways including from outside the U.S. What plans or steps could be taken to ensure this doesn't happen with guns? Right now there is little to no demand and profit to bring in guns from other countries so it's not so much of a problem, but I think that could change with a ban.
If we can't stop illegal drugs, convince me guns could be stopped.
We all agree, I think, we don't want guns in the hands of people who would do harm/crime with them. How do we realistically keep them from the hands of criminals in any meaningful way without turning into a military state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you didn't do anything wrong, then how would your answer incriminate yourself?
seriously? lawyers don't bend or twist the truth, take things out of context, ask leading questions? you are being idealistic about this.
But the vast majority of people who use this are guilty of a crime.
I understand your opinion, no need to keep repeating it because it doesn't apply to the reality of U.S. law and rights.
The 5th does not mean you can refuse to show up.
correct
The white house ordering people to refuse to obey a subpoena is impeding a congressional impeachment inquiry, which is an impeachable offense.
not if the subpoenas are without merit or illegal which I believe is the reason they are being told not to comply with them.
They are legally allowed to lock people up in jail if they refuse to appear when subpoenaed.
and yet they haven't, maybe cause they know it's b.s.? that the subpoenas aren't valid? I guess we'll find out.
If the White House stonewalls, Congress can seek enforcement of the subpoena in court.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I can understand why you'd say that, however I would also ask because the population is increasing (more people) and yet the murder rate is decreasing one would think with more people should mean more unstable murderers right? And yet that doesn't seem to be the case does it?
everyone who wants a gun to commit crimes already has a gun
I would say that's been true for a very, very long time. Which more gun control will have NO effect on, not in many decades anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You refuse to answer a question because you may incriminate yourself. You can't incriminate yourself if haven't committed any crimes. Completely innocent people do not use that defense.
you are entitled to your opinion even if factually wrong, that's not how things work in the U.S.
even you have to admit innocent people go to jail and have even been executed via death penalty.
You refuse to answer a judge and you sit in jail for contempt of court. You refuse to answer the IRS and you go to jail.
again that is wrong, they can enter a judgement against you based on the information they have, but you are NOT required to say a word, nor can you be forced to via threat of penalty.
These are rights that are confusing to people who don't have them, but that is how it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It also acknowledges that you have committed criminal acts.
lol no it doesn't wow that statement is just way way out there.
You do not have the same rights in an impeachment inquiry as you have in a court.
rights are not conditional or subjective in the U.S. in the context you have laid out.
Refusing to show up for questioning is contempt of congress and is punishable by fines or jail.
are they refusing or challenging the subpoenas? Huge difference isn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The Right to Remain Silent
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from being compelled to give testimony that could incriminate them.
much like the police, what good can come from talking to authorities, their purpose is to convict, you don't have to prove your innocence they have to prove your guilt, in the U.S. anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
don't get caught up in the b.s. attempted comparisons with other countries.
the U.S. is unique in so many ways, how it was founded, age, demographics, population etc etc, apples and oranges.
search The ‘Other Country’ Fallacy for further reading.
it's the same old argument "but country X has done Y and it worked" blah blah blah like that is some sort of argument.
When compared to itself the crime/murder rate isn't going up (and has trended down) yet the number of guns is going up.
If more guns = more murders this shouldn't be so, the rate should be going up drastically, yet it is not. Must be something other than guns that is the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
imagine what it will do to the stock market and China trade or even jobs. They seem to be really trying hard to judge this in the court of public opinion rather than any formal fact finding. No surprise there.
Created:
-->
@Graccus
they clearly do not have a right to speech or guns. I believe their rights are granted by government rather than recognized as inalienable. Thus what is given can also be taken away.
Created:
-->
@Vader
so you don't believe in due process?
there's already a system to determine if someone is too mentally unstable to own firearms etc, mentally incompetent, it's actually on the NICS form.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
In which state and in which circumstances? In some states you can legally buy a gun with little to no oversight.
which state can ignore the federal N.I.C.S. check, aka background check.
They still need proper training and to pass a test proving they are capable of using the tool. Most states have nothing like that for guns.
I have no problem with reasonable training requirements for anyone wishing to take their firearm outside their home. That could only happen if they weren't banned however.....
There are alot of 15 year olds who are more careful with their driving than some 40 year olds are with their guns.
um I think the accident rate of both objects will show that isn't true, at all.
get a license, register any gun they buy etc.
can you name one, just one instance where a license or registration would have prevented a crime?
Making guns less easily available will also help to dry up the readily available black market guns.
how do you make them "less easily available"? You do know Kate Steinle was shot with a law enforcement officer's gun right?
I disagree what will happen in increased and new black markets for the reasons and examples I have already given.
The longer you do nothing the more people will die before you start to fix it.
hasn't the murder rate been going down or at the very least stagnant by doing nothing? How do you explain that?
There is a reason why you don't see many people using automatic weapons to carry out crimes. Because getting caught with one will automatically land you in prison for 10 years.
LOL that's not why, not the reason at all. Even real military rifles can be switched to semi auto, and for good reasons.
If a gun might marginally increase your odds of successfully carrying out a crime but significantly increase you potential jail time, that is a pretty good deterrent to using one even if you can get one illegally.
I believe using a gun to commit a crime carries more of a sentence than committing the same crime without one. Apparently that is not a deterrent. Regardless the penalties can be increases without any kind of ban or constitutional challenge. So why haven't they done that?
those guns are terrible.
that's because there is little to no demand for them, do you want to increase the demand for them because that's the best way to increase their quality (rapidly) and decrease costs.
A criminal who wants to do a break in/robbery is not going to know if the person he is robbing has a gun.
I thought you were advocating for a ban, so you aren't in favor of a ban?
that still isn't an argument against trying to solve the problem.
oh? don't I have a right to life? it can't be a right if you can't protect it.
No matter what rules a state or city put in place, the next state over will have laxer rules.
Nope, look at how NY tried to ban cosmetic features on guns and how they were redesigned to essentially do the same thing but comply with the laws.
How could you think that this is a real argument? Some people might find ways around the law so we shouldn't have a law?
you would essentially punish non criminal citizens and or make them criminals with your "proposals" We have laws which aren't enforced, too lax and too light a punishment. How about fixing what is broken w/o re-inventing the wheel?
Are you going to send armed people door to door confiscating guns? what if they don't comply? throw them all in jail so they lose their jobs, homes etc or better yet the police execute them on sight for resisting. That sound like a good idea?
you want to reduce the number of guns but haven't really articulated how that would be accomplished.
So if there's 14000 gun murders and let's say only one person is killed per gun, how difficult would it be to supply a black market with 60000 guns? 5x the number of individuals murdered.
Of the stolen guns recovered they are on the street an average of 14 years.
I still can't see how you wouldn't create an unarmed population at the mercy of armed criminals. And then think crime would go down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
We have strict laws about who can drive a car. You need to take tests to prove you can handle the responsibility. You need to have a driver's license. You need to license your car so people know who owns what cars and how many. i think having those kinds of laws would be great for guns as well.
what are the gun laws then compared to what you just described? Have you gone through the process to purchase a firearm?
"strict laws about who can drive a car." In some states 15 year olds can drive cars, might even be as low as 14 in some states, do you consider that "strict" compared to the age limitations of firearms?
Tobacco and alcohol, for the most part, only kill the person who buys them. Therefore if people want to kill themselves they should be able to. Guns are designed to kill other people.
I would refer you to the CDC website etc and research the effects of 2nd hand smoke and d.u.i. deaths (of people other than the driver).
Objects only have the a purpose of which someone uses them. Guns are designed to expel a projectile that is all. How people use them is another matter.
But if they need to be bought on the black market, that makes them expensive and hard to get.
guess you didn't watch video? , d.i.y. guns have been a thing for a very long time, technology just makes it easier, better, faster and cheaper.
If I understand you correctly, you think if law abiding citizens are disarmed that eventually that will have an impact on the ability for criminals to get guns. Is that how you see it working because I can't see any other way.
How long would that take before any real change could be seen?
How many guns are stolen from law enforcement or military bases? Wouldn't that go up or would they be disarmed as well?
Don't you think the diy technology would advance much much faster?
Search for videos about the homemade guns, blackmarket in the Philippines as one example. I could see that happening or increasing in Mexico/S.America.
Consider the guy who created the 3d printed gun and gave out the files for free, don't you think that will happen but on a huge scale? I mean there's already TONS of videos.
Once law abiding citizens have been disarmed don't think that crime like break ins, robberies etc would go up?
What pandora's box are you talking about?
consider the restrictions some states tried to place but people being as creative as they are found ways around them, bump stock is a pretty good example. More restrictions and or bans will drive that even more along with diy. Then whatever controls there are now will no longer exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If something is killing that many people, then it seems pretty toxic to me.
like cars, tobacco, alcohol, swimming pools......ban those too right?
You could save thousands of lives per year by enacting stricter car, tobacco, swimming pool laws.
Hey let's outlaw drugs to save lives! man can't believe I never thought of that before..... hahaha
you are barking up the wrong tree imo you'll create a bigger black market, unintended consequences and markets.
I picked this video because it's old, imagine the improvements made since then, what will be and the costs going down
you can mold your own from aluminum cans melted down, then there's resin and other composite materials. Do you really want to open pandora's box?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
that's true, no one I have read or listen to has said that and neither have I, if I did that was an error on my part. Though for me it's more plausible given we almost have the technology and ability to do it, so it seems more possible that some older/advanced being(s) or whatever, started life here. One of the talks mentioned the movie Prometheus (which sucked imo). But then where did the intelligent designer come from....another infinite regression perhaps. It's fascinating to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
they actually pump in extra CO2 into greenhouses which increases plant growth and yields. Whatever "extra" there is will be consumed/used by plants provided they have the space grown in.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Using the FBI numbers, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2017. Using the BJS data, the rate fell 74% during that span.
Despite a significant increase in the sales of firearms since 1994, the US has seen a drop in the annual rate of homicides using a firearm from 7.0 per 100,000 population in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000.
According to the FBI's data, the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place.
1. More police officers on the beat
2. Police using computers
3. Less booze
4. Less lead
5. A better economy
3. Less booze
4. Less lead
5. A better economy
so gun sales have gone up and depending on the year you look at you could say skyrocketed and yet the murder rate goes down....hmmm
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
yes "tried" with all the purest of compounds in large enough quantities, environmental controls etc how successful have they been? As exceedingly difficult it is to intelligently create these precursors, you can understand why the idea of it happening randomly seems rather impossible, improbable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
doesn't all property start out as an idea?
The law of intellectual property is commonly understood as providing an incentive to authors and inventors to produce works for the benefit of the public by regulating the public's use of such works in order to ensure that authors and inventors are compensated for their efforts.
(what made you think of this topic?)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
"We have been able to synthesize RNA in the laboratory, lending credence to the idea that it could arise naturally."
except that IS intelligent design lol
"Although self-replicating systems of RNA molecules have not been found in nature, scientists are hopeful that they can be constructed in the laboratory. While this demonstration would not prove that self-replicating RNA molecules were essential in the origin of life on Earth, it would certainly suggest that such a scenario is possible."
"Although RNA seems well suited to form the basis for a self-replicating set of biochemical catalysts, it is unlikely that RNA was the first kind of molecule to do so."
“RNA-like polymers”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
I'm asking because I don't really know, but it seems it is generally thought the "origin" was a strand of DNA? From which everything else came?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
no, but I searched it up.
"Cellular automata can simulate a variety of real-world systems, including biological and chemical ones."
I don't know enough about it to see how it applies, you'll have to explain :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I have no idea what that means, how does that explain how "life" got the information to create, replicate and survive?
Created:
Posted in:
In the beginning there was......
from my limited understanding, perhaps someone can fill in the blanks.
From what I remember the four bases of DNA are Guanine, Cytosine, Adenine and Thymine. Depending on what order they are placed they do different things. Like a computer code, when written correctly they mean something, do something ,when they are not they don't.
DNA must be arranged in such a manner as to do something.
But how does it know what to do?
While DNA has physical properties it also has information, where does that come from in not a designer?
the computer language appears on a screen and perhaps a C.A.D. program where a "designer" uses it to create or perform a task.
If abiogenesis happened where did the information come from that tells the DNA how to replicate, what to produce etc all those things needed for "life"?
If life's only purpose is to self replicate, where did that come from, how did that come to be?
Simplests answer that I know of (until I learn otherwise) is it was designed that way.
We don't know one way or the other yet, perhaps no one ever will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
roof top gardens in cities help, green spaces etc, perhaps that could be a focus rather than "climate change"? who isn't going to agree we should have the cleanest air and water practical? there's constant forest fires in California which could be prevented or minimized but they'd rather build houses on sides of mountains then cry when the mudslides wipe them out and all the plants along with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
NASA Says Earth Is Greener Today Than 20 Years Ago Thanks To China, India
maybe it's not all gloom and doom after all.
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
"carbon dioxide fertilization isn’t the only cause of increased plant growth—nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight changes all contribute to the greening effect. "
plants do need carbon dioxide after all
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
the findings seem logical enough
decrease global temperatures? hmm I'm not sure, why should we? This doesn't mean I don't think we should have cleaner air and water, but I haven't seen any real evidence or negative impact of the increase which may be 1 degree or 2 I think. Consider the fact that organisms thrive in warmer, moist climates. At some point the increase in temp could be a problem, but I don't know what that number would be or if we'd actually reach it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
the quotes were from your link in post #24, I'm not understanding how I confused you.
"It's reasonable to assume that changes in the Sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the Sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system."
I agree with that
"ndeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity coupled with an increase in volcanic activity is thought to have helped trigger the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland cooled from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps."
ok
"The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years."
sure
and?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I've quoted from your link why I said the fires in the U.K. were conjecture, I'm not sure what else to say but I'll try again
your article
Barbeques and arson
“Both the fires in February and over this Easter weekend coincided with long warm dry periods with steady easterly winds – fire weather – and also with ignition risk from school holidays,” says Smith.
(so the fires could have been man made, accidental etc, nothing to do with climate change, more people out due to holidays.)
then there's a link to a paper "2017 was the fifth warmest year for the UK in a series from 1910, but the summer was closer to average so that the year overall was not a notable year for high temperature indices."
The highest rainfall accumulation over five days during the most recent decade(2008-2017) is 4 % higher than 1961-1990. The amount of rain from extremely wet days has increased by 17% when comparing the same periods.
(it wasn't drier than usual, in fact it was wetter than usual so again doesn't fit the climate change for fires because of abnormal dry conditions)
There is a slight increase in the longest sequence of consecutive wet days for the UK. There has been a general decline in the longest sequence of consecutive dry days.
(again abnormally long dry conditions were not present)
these fires were man made and or anomalies, there is no link that I can see to climate change given the facts THEY themselves have presented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
not all plants do, while some have certain health benefits they can also be harmful. Spinach for instance has oxalates which can cause kidney stones. Plants don't want to be eaten so they have developed toxins, allergens etc. The ones known to cause inflammation should be avoided which is the real cause of heart disease from what I have read. The carnivore diet does work for some people. I'm not sure it would work for everyone.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
man that would be so fascinating to see it all play out, very thought provoking. Seem meme of her and Candice Ownes for president, though I think Ownes was in for v.p.
I'd vote for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
sure, but with the many lies "scientist" have puportrated over the many years, and even on this subject, is it any wonder why there's distrust?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I see but it's not stupid to just include gun murders instead of all murders, gotcha, the old double standard.
For instance, suicide rates have been linked to ease of accessibility to lethal methods of suicide.
really, so some mind readers know that if the person didn't have a gun they wouldn't have found another method, amazing.
the op "they make serious crimes deadly crimes" which is true however it's mostly kept to certain cities, certain areas, gangs etc so to make it sound like tourist should be scared proper context is needed which doesn't include suicides.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I was just going to post something similar.
2017 gun deaths 39,773
Sixty percent of gun deaths last year were self-inflicted. While the rate of gun homicides has fluctuated over the last decade, the rate of gun suicides has steadily increased.
39773 x 60% = 23864 self inflicted gun deaths
39773 - 23864 = 15909 non self inflicted gun deaths.
Chicago gun murders 2017 653
Washington D.C. 116
Detroit 267
well you get the point, take the top 10 https://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlj45jggj/1-detroit/#5fbf5dff69d9 out of the 15909 and the actual number is much smaller.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Conjecture.
yes as I pointed out tying the U.K. fires to climate change is conjecture.
Worse than any-other.
weather/seasons etc are not static, new extremes should be expected regardless of what anyone thinks the cause is. The melting of the ice age was pretty extreme, but not man made right?
All records are meant to be broken, doesn't mean a thing unless you can show a trend, even then correlation does not imply causation.
predictions of what will happen if climate change is real, those science people you keep referring to, what other predictions do they have?
who gives a f*** wgaf :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
your article
Barbeques and arson
“Both the fires in February and over this Easter weekend coincided with long warm dry periods with steady easterly winds – fire weather – and also with ignition risk from school holidays,” says Smith.
then there's a link to a paper "2017 was the fifth warmest year for the UK in a series from 1910, but the summerwas closer to average so that the year overall was not a notable year for hightemperature indices."
The highest rainfall accumulation over five days during the most recent decade(2008-2017) is 4 % higher than 1961-1990. The amount of rain from extremely wetdays has increased by 17% when comparing the same periods.
There is a slight increase in the longest sequence of consecutive wet days for theUK. There has been a general decline in the longest sequence of consecutive drydays.
so......
just because they had a bad year doesn't mean anything, 1 of something is just that, not a trend or evidence.
any other "predictions"?
don't get me wrong I remember the hole in the ozone but there's not much we are going to do to fix whatever they think bad will happen, unless we severely limit the human population. As more land is developed and stripped that will most likely have some effect and I would even say a negative one.
consider an all vegan human population, the amount of farm land, fertilizers, pesticides and trucks to haul it all over the place, that doesn't sound any better. Not to mention importing even more from other countries with no real standards or regulations. Supplemental watering would be impossible. So a weather pattern which has a negative impact on crops in a given area could be catastrophic.
what is the solution to the problem? if there isn't one wgaf?
Created: