DescentBB

Sources HA!

He don't need no estinkin sources!

Spidey wrote:Someone is shot OMGOMGOMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

spare us the drama, please. It isn't that 'someONE' is shot, it's that thousands are, in daily incidents nationwide.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Someone is shot OMGOMGOMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

spare us the drama, please. It isn't that 'someONE' is shot, it's that thousands are, in daily incidents nationwide.

Well then someone should look into why all those people are being shot. That is the obvious effective response.

First, of course, they should continue to capitalize making as much political hay out of the fallacy of what kind of gun was used...scary looking guns...guns with the wrong length grip... guns that hold more than 15 rounds but not less than 16...
After all we have to keep our priorities in order!

Sure people are being murdered and dealing with what is driving others to murder them is paramount to reducing the death toll...absolutely essential to solving the problem, but we can't neglect the Party and the elections! If we only save one liberal incumbent or unseat a conservative one it will be worth it!

Thousands daily...

Spidey wrote:Thousands daily...

Yeah, that's an exaggeration, but not by much. Thousands weekly would be more accurate.

So exaggerating the number 25 fold is not much of an exaggeration?!?

Ok, if you want to say it we can't stop you.

To make slicks numbers truthfull there would be a minimum of 2000 per day, or, 730,000 incidents per year.
Your link says the 'number' is 30,000 per year.

And that is taking your 2009 numbers even though there has been significant reduction on gun related crime since then.

And don't forget half of your numbers are suicides!

So your '30,000' becomes 15,000 if you take suicide by gun out. Why do that?
Because for example, in Japan where the gun use is nill the suicide rate is DOUBLE...so from a "gun problem" perspective suicides need to be addressed separately. It doesn't happen more 'because the gun was available'. The we-don't-have-guns Japanese simply jump in front of trains or swallow poison. (I wonder if there is a market over there for a used misplaced blame campaign team? You know, something like Ban the train.org#...)

And half the 15,000 remainder is gang related shooting!
But even with keeping gang related injuries in the calculations slick is 490% wrong...yet 'not much of an exaggeration' according to you.

Well done!
Are you by chance the one who calculates Obama's other math figures when he gives speeches? It has a familiar spin to it.

But to get back on target (fun pun) and focus on the most prolific source of gun injuries...gang bangers....(instead of worrying about the weapon type) you will be able to correct the actual problem much more dramatically and quickly. Simply repurpose the anti-scary-gun-resources toward the actual perpetrators and you suddenly become far more effective at reducing the problem! You do want to save lives right?

Too bad the political fortunes aren't there to be harvested by addressing the root of the problem instead of from attacking the wrong target. But it's hard to keep the voters on the plantation when your rhetoric aims at them....

Yeah, slick tried bolstering his numbers that way in another thread a short while ago. Apparently every act of violence involving a gun has primarily the gun to blame... Get rid of the gun, and the violence suddenly disappears from society and there are no more deaths. I can't think of any other reason for including EVERY gun-related injury and death that takes place anywhere in the U.S.A. If the future looks bright at the end of the anti-gun tunnel, it's because someone swallowed a flashlight and they're encountering it on its way out...

I wonder why to fight Ebola virus from the budget of the United States have been allocated $ 750 million for the Department of Health and Human Services does not, and for Department of Defense?

Foil wrote:

sigma wrote:...the amount of illegal trade market in exotic animals in the United States in excess of $ 10 billion...

10 billion? Where are you getting that number? ...Ah, I see. You got it from the Wikipedia page or perhaps the Humane Society page.

That number is worldwide, sigma, not just the US. And back to my point, it certainly doesn't translate to 100,000,000 animals per year in the US (which again, would be more than one illegal animal per year for every single US family).

There is something to consider, zoonosis from animals that are indigenous to our own country, like rabies from bats and toxoplasmosis from house cats. That's on top of disease transmission from imported animals for food and pets.

http://io9.com/5913705/zoonosis-when-cuddling-can-kill

sigma wrote:I wonder why to fight Ebola virus from the budget of the United States have been allocated $ 750 million for the Department of Health and Human Services does not, and for Department of Defense?

If I'm reading you're translation right, the money really IS for the Department of Defense. Why else send over the military instead of knowledgeable medical doctors and researchers? I can guarantee you that the average soldier knows absolutely nothing about bio-safety procedures, unless they're from the bio-warfare arm of the military. Sure, the military has the logistics and manpower to set things up, but once they're there........

Will Robinson wrote:Your link says the 'number' is 30,000 per year.

Learn to read. It clearly says 76,100 ER visits with 29,100 needing a hospital stay.

Will Robinson wrote:And that is taking your 2009 numbers even though there has been significant reduction on gun related crime since then.

Neither slick nor I said anything about crime. This is about firearm incidents.

Will Robinson wrote:And don't forget half of your numbers are suicides!

Those still count. Why would you remove them? I think you falsely assume that suicidal people will kill themselves with or without a gun. That is only partially true. The availability of guns makes the decision to commit suicide easier since one of the main reasons people don't commit suicide is the risk of failure while doing so. A gun is the most efficient, available, and successful way to die. It is also why my friend's 53 year old dad blew his head off in the garage with a shotgun the day after Christmas. Don't get me started on suicide and guns because I'm pretty much an expert. Yes we need better mental health services in the US, but we should also reduce the guns too. It's called a holistic approach, ever heard of it?

Will Robinson wrote:Japan.

There are severe cultural differences pertaining to the acceptability of suicide. Comparing the US and Japan on this subject is apples and oranges. Remember, Japan is the place where hara-kari and kamikaze originated.

Will Robinson wrote:Gangs.

It doesn't matter what the cause is, the numbers don't change. Thousands of people get shot every week. This is the point that was made, the stats show it. You are just throwing ★■◆● in that isn't related to the claim, which by itself happens to be true.

Vision there are numerous flaws in your assertions and conclusions.
gun crime dropping implies, correctly, that gun injuries are dropping in correlation.
So my pointing out the drop in gun crime is every bit as relevant as I implied it was. The nature of the crimes are irrelevant to the point but 'gun crime' is a perfect moving target to track when watching the trending movement of gun injuries.

Second, since the half of the gun injuries outside of suicide are committed by a small subset of society it is absolutely proper to cite those people as a prime target of the efforts to reduce gun injuries as compared to the focus currently put, instead, on magazine capacity, etc...
Per capita they represent an extreme concentration of gun injurys!

You are grasping at straws that have fallen from the left wing straw man campaigns.

In response to gang shootings you said "it doesn't matter what the cause is" you implied the same number of people would be shot regardless.

LO F^<#ing L!!!

I have to ask, are you really that logically handicapped?
Or are you so devoted to a political tactic that you will embarrass yourself that badly on purpose?!?

In case it is the first let me hold your hand and assure you with much sincerity....if we stop gang bangers from shooting each other the gun injury numbers WILL drop significantly.
Why they do it isn't because the inanimate objects posses their minds.

The cause certainly DOES matter. It matters most.

Uh oh. A health care worker who had contact with Duncan in that Texas hospital has now tested positive for ebola. That worker was in full protective gear too. That bug is a hardy little bastard.

http://wpri.com/2014/10/12/texas-health ... cts-ebola/

Will Robinson wrote:So my pointing out the drop in gun crime is every bit as relevant as I implied it was.

Again, no one said anything about crime. The claim is that, today, right now, thousands of people are getting shot every week. This is true. No amount of word weaseling will change this fact. All your projections and false assumptions are just that.

vision wrote:[...The claim is that, today, right now, thousands of people are getting shot every week. ...

The claim was exaggerated by orders of magnitude, challenged, and you attempted to defend the lie by saying that it was "not much of an exaggeration".

But then you are the guy that also said the cause of those shooting was unimportant!

So the value of your assessments and comments are useless.

Your need to hold up the data in alarm while shouting down any examination of the implications is what makes you a dispicable tool of the people who demagogue the issues for personal gain and no genuine concern for the victims.

So have fun with your drive by statistics

Will Robinson wrote:

vision wrote:Your need to hold up the data in alarm while shouting down any examination of the implications is what makes you a dispicable [sic] tool of the people who demagogue the issues for personal gain and no genuine concern for the victims.

Alarm? Seriously? You are the one who injects exclamation points into virtually every post you make, all of which read like a crazed lunatic on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Where is my personal gain from pointing out this statistic? LOL it makes me "despicable?" So, you don't think >1000 people visiting an emergency room every week from firearm related injuries is a problem? That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact it happens, and that there are multiple causes, all of which need to be addressed. Doesn't a future where almost no one visits the emergency room because of guns sound nice?

Sounds ★■◆●ing awesome, but impossible.

And I’m not willing to give up what would be needed to give up to create this impossible world.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

vision wrote:Your need to hold up the data in alarm while shouting down any examination of the implications is what makes you a dispicable [sic] tool of the people who demagogue the issues for personal gain and no genuine concern for the victims.

Alarm? Seriously? You are the one who injects exclamation points into virtually every post you make, all of which read like a crazed lunatic on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Where is my personal gain from pointing out this statistic? LOL it makes me "despicable?" So, you don't think >1000 people visiting an emergency room every week from firearm related injuries is a problem? That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact it happens, and that there are multiple causes, all of which need to be addressed. Doesn't a future where almost no one visits the emergency room because of guns sound nice?

Are your reading comprehension skills really that weak or are you acting obtuse because you have no intelligent defense?

That was rhetorical. I'm not really interested in your response but go ahead and que up your knee jerk deflections if you need to.

Will Robinson wrote:That was rhetorical.

How can one possibly distinguish between your rhetorical comments and your regular posts? You are a terrible writer. You regurgitate spoon-fed talking points and use the same uncreative catch-phrases over and over again to try and tamp down the other people in the thread (like knee-jerk. everything is a "knee-jerk reaction" as if you are the only person capable of a measured response, which no one has ever seen from you, haha).

Spidey wrote:Sounds ★■◆●ing awesome, but impossible.

And I’m not willing to give up what would be needed to give up to create this impossible world.

No pain, no gain! Just kidding. But other countries are capable of it so we can be too if anyone actually cared about each other, which no one in the United States does. Caring about someone is now equated with political correctness and having an agenda. Nice huh?

I have yet to be convinced people are more than numbers to some of the folks on your side of this issue.

If you care about someone you don't strip them of their ability to defend themselves...

If you care about someone you don't let every drooling knuckle-dragger with two brain cells bouncing around in their skulls purchase a deadly weapon.

Top Gun wrote:If you care about someone you don't let every drooling knuckle-dragger with two brain cells bouncing around in their skulls purchase a deadly weapon.

Well when you get that toothpaste back in the tube THEN you can talk about crippling the right to self defense for the rest of us.

Will Robinson wrote:Well when you get that toothpaste back in the tube THEN you can talk about crippling the right to self defense for the rest of us.

I never understood that idiotic saying. It's easy to get toothpaste back in a tube. Only morons can't do it.

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:If you care about someone you don't let every drooling knuckle-dragger with two brain cells bouncing around in their skulls purchase a deadly weapon.

Well when you get that toothpaste back in the tube THEN you can talk about crippling the right to self defense for the rest of us.

That's absolutely right. Personally I wouldn't expect the kind of person who pulls the covers over their head if they suspect a break-in to understand...

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Well when you get that toothpaste back in the tube THEN you can talk about crippling the right to self defense for the rest of us.

I never understood that idiotic saying. It's easy to get toothpaste back in a tube. Only morons can't do it.

I hate to give audience to such an idiot line of nit-picking, but you can only put so much toothpaste back in the tube (a little bit). Beyond that you're just not going to get it back in, no matter how good your kung-fu. If taking advantage of the rigidity in the uncompressed portion of the tube to affect a slight degree of decompression before the force applied invariably leads again to compression goes to your head, maybe you should commit it to "dear diary" (or YouTube, or Facebook, if you need an audience) and move on to greater things, leaving a true and effective analogy be for the greater good of mankind.

Vision when you grow up it will make sense.
Right now you no doubt use that little kid toothpaste that comes in a pretty colored, stout plastic container that won't burst when you are playing pirates with it.

When you graduate to big boy tooth paste try it and you will understand.

On the subject of old sayings, I have developed an appreciation for the saying "I'm living in your head rent free' now.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If taking advantage of the rigidity in the uncompressed portion of the tube to affect a slight degree of decompression before the force applied invariably leads again to compression...

What moron would do that? Just use a syringe. I swear there are some simple-minded, deeply uncreative folks on this board.

The analogy is only good if you are feeble minded. Try thinking out of the box.

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If taking advantage of the rigidity in the uncompressed portion of the tube to affect a slight degree of decompression before the force applied invariably leads again to compression...

What moron would do that? Just use a syringe. I swear there are some simple-minded, deeply uncreative folks on this board.

The analogy is only good if you are feeble minded. Try thinking out of the box.

The analogy is what you have willfully ignored while playing a silly childish game.

vision wrote:... moron... I swear... simple-minded... deeply uncreative... feeble minded.

Who knew toothpaste was such a big deal! I'd just clean it up, use what's left in the tube and move on to the next tube with the determination not to do it again.

Will Robinson wrote:The analogy is what you have willfully ignored while playing a silly childish game.

Perhaps the analogy doesn't fit? Seems like more of the "can't do" attitude on this board.

here we go again.

My dick is bigger than yours

NO My dick is bigger.

NO Mine is.

NO Mine is.

It is generally considered bad form to engage in a contest wherein one has an unfair advantage.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The analogy is what you have willfully ignored while playing a silly childish game.

Perhaps the analogy doesn't fit? Seems like more of the "can't do" attitude on this board.

I'm curious if you are able to explain how it doesn't fit in the context it was used in relation to the removal of guns.
I think even you have made the very point the analogy was used to suggest just a week or so back...that you can't get rid of all the guns...

So it would be interesting to see you spin that one all just so you can justify your childish game.

Boys.

Will Robinson wrote:I think even you have made the very point the analogy was used to suggest just a week or so back...that you can't get rid of all the guns...

You are right, I have said you can't get rid of all the guns, but that doesn't mean you can't make a reasonable reduction in their numbers. A combination of education, incentive programs, policy changes, and security structures can accomplish such a thing over the long-term. It's not an impossible task like the toothpaste analogy implies. You just need the right tools for the job. It is also poor analogy because toothpaste is trivial. Firearms, as they relate to the safety of the citizens and security of the state, is not. As much as I think people have the right to self-defense* I also agree with TG that "every drooling knuckle-dragger with two brain cells" shouldn't own a long-range weapon. Guns are invaluable to you, right? If toothpaste cost $100 an ounce you would be damn sure to get any excess back in the tube (though no one should ever replace toothpaste because it is not hygienic, another reason the saying is idiotic). I would think gun advocates would be more enthusiastic about removing illegal guns since their very misuse tarnishes the shine of gun ownership. How does "whelp, nothin' we can do 'bout dem guns" help anything?

There is definitely a middle ground between reducing our absurdly high availability of guns down to a level that culls accidents and violence without infringing on self-defense. Other developed countries have already done this and they enjoy more freedom and less violence than in the United States. Why not learn from them? Got something against learning? (derrr, 'Murica!)

Also, I don't buy the argument that arming the citizens keeps the government in check. That's not how things actually work. In practice, an armed citizenry fights each other during a revolution, not "the government." Sure, all you conservative anarchists can stand up against our evil socialist dictator Obama, and maybe even fend off a good chunk of the military, but what about the US military combined with all the gun-owning liberal Democrats (and there are plenty of them)? That's a gamble I wouldn't make, haha.


* Self-defense as defined by me is a philosophy that stresses risk-assessment & avoidance, and as a last line of defense, physical intervention.

It's just a fricking figure of speech suggesting difficulty!
Not some analogy to gun control!

And it is also a really lame way to dodge the point, derail a conversation or to justify calling someone a moron...yet you pulled off the hat trick of lameness.
Go you!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:If you care about someone you don't let every drooling knuckle-dragger with two brain cells bouncing around in their skulls purchase a deadly weapon.

Well when you get that toothpaste back in the tube THEN you can talk about crippling the right to self defense for the rest of us.

That's absolutely right. Personally I wouldn't expect the kind of person who pulls the covers over their head if they suspect a break-in to understand...

Personally I wouldn't expect the sort of person who comes up with these sort of bizarre testosterone-fueled fantasies of scenarios which will almost certainly never happen to understand, either. But I guess I'm wrong because we're all secretly Dirty Harry at heart, right?

In the end it all boils down to whether or not you feel lucky...

Well do ya, punk?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:In the end it all boils down to whether or not you feel lucky...

Well do ya, punk?

Ostriches are predisposed to feeling unlucky.

tunnelcat wrote:Uh oh. A health care worker who had contact with Duncan in that Texas hospital has now tested positive for ebola. That worker was in full protective gear too. That bug is a hardy little bastard.

http://wpri.com/2014/10/12/texas-health ... cts-ebola/

Getting the topic back on track, the following study shows certain strains of ebola can live on solid surfaces. From the Journal of Applied Microbiology:

Conclusions:
Our study has shown that Lake Victoria marburgvirus (MARV)
and Zaire ebolavirus (ZEBOV) can survive for long periods in different liquid
media and can also be recovered from plastic and glass surfaces at low temper-
atures for over 3 weeks. The decay rates of ZEBOV and Reston ebolavirus
(REBOV) plus MARV within a dynamic aerosol were calculated. ZEBOV and
MARV had similar decay rates, whilst REBOV showed significantly better
survival within an aerosol.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 4778.x/pdf

Are you worried yet?