Gun laws do they work (1 Viewer)

@RainLover

American early warning technology can help you to identify the whereabouts of the intruder: http://www.noradsanta.org/
 
Col

Have you been to Scotland lately. Or do you class them as foreign.

Col thinks anybody living more than a few miles from him is foreign.

This thread seems to be losing direction.

Brian
 
As we are talking about Santa you might like this little light note.
My two and half year old grandson has been learning about Santa and his elves who make the toys. The other day he went with the childminders and other kids to visit Santa, when he was asked what he wanted for Christmas he replied "your elves"

Clever boy , why have one toy when you can have the toy makers.

Brian
 
Col thinks anybody living more than a few miles from him is foreign.

This thread seems to be losing direction.

Brian

If there was any direction then it went out the door a long time ago.
 
I also grow tired of the "correct" English debate. The truth of the matter is, the English language is a mess. If I was trying to learn English as a second language, I would lose my mind! We have far too many rules and contradictions. Most languages I have had the chance to learn, at least partially, are much better articulated.

The English Lesson (version one)

We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes;
But the plural of ox should be oxen not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.

You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
But the plural of house is houses, not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?

If I spoke of my foot and showed you my feet,
When I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?

If the singular is this, and the plural is these,
Why shouldn't the plural of kiss be kese?
Then one may be that, and three would be those,
Yet the plural of hat would never be hose.

We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.
So plurals in English, I think you'll agree,
Are indeed very tricky--singularly.

The English Lesson (version two)

Now if mouse in the plural should be, and is, mice,
Then house in the plural, of course, should be hice,
And grouse should be grice and spouse should be spice
And by the same token should blouse become blice.

And consider the goose with its plural of geese;
Then a double caboose should be called a cabeese,
And noose should be neese and moose should be meese
And if mama's papoose should be twins, it's papeese.

Then if one thing is that, while some more is called those,
Then more than one hat, I assume, would be hose,
And gnat would be gnose and pat would be pose,
And likewise the plural of rat would be rose.

Another favorite of mine is when I get to correct people who incorrectly say "octopi" for the plural of "octopus" because of the plural of "cactus" being "cacti." "Octopodes" is technically correct, although you'll be more likely to find "octopuses" in scientific papers.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/octopus

What about pronunciation?

Tough, Dough, cough, through - Why do these vary so much?

See more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_orthography

We draw so many contradicting rules from too many languages. The English language is just glued together wreck.
 
Actually, I quite like Johnny Foreigners, except the French of course. But then we do have French students living with us every summer, but they are teenage and haven't been brainwashed into hating the English yet.

Some of my best friends are foreign, I know someone from Newcastle, can't understand a bloody word mind you.

Col

my booth camp barracks half the people were from New England, and the other half was from the mid-west. First three days one half didn't understand the other half. I had a good time learning their words and even enjoyed them laughing at mine. Sadly some went thru the entire 9 weeks resenting it.
 
Meanwhile back on topic this link suggests that something needs to be done about gun control in the USA
 
Meanwhile back on topic this link suggests that something needs to be done about gun control in the USA

Does it? We don't know anything about the gunman or how he acquired the guns. I don't think it suggests anything yet on gun control.

What it does suggest is that there are some really screwed up people in the world. To lure volunteer firefighters to a fire and shoot at them. What a coward.
 
my booth camp barracks half the people were from New England, and the other half was from the mid-west. First three days one half didn't understand the other half. I had a good time learning their words and even enjoyed them laughing at mine. Sadly some went thru the entire 9 weeks resenting it.

What is "booth camp"?

Sound like some strange ceremony where people stand around in phone boxes, but for 9 weeks?

Actually, talking about foreigners, I am a foreigner, I was born in Bristol and live 180 miles away in Essex.
Yes, I have been to Scotland, I went to a conference in Stirling, spent a pleasant fortnight there for 5 days.

People from " oop north" may as well be foreign. There was talk about doing away with the north and calling it the south, then there won't be a north south divide.

Col
 
What is "booth camp"?

Sound like some strange ceremony where people stand around in phone boxes, but for 9 weeks?

Actually, talking about foreigners, I am a foreigner, I was born in Bristol and live 180 miles away in Essex.
Yes, I have been to Scotland, I went to a conference in Stirling, spent a pleasant fortnight there for 5 days.

People from " oop north" may as well be foreign. There was talk about doing away with the north and calling it the south, then there won't be a north south divide.

Col

boot camp, I sent that out on the fly, but so nice to see you are still on the job.
 
What is "booth camp"?

Sound like some strange ceremony where people stand around in phone boxes, but for 9 weeks?

Actually, talking about foreigners, I am a foreigner, I was born in Bristol and live 180 miles away in Essex.
Yes, I have been to Scotland, I went to a conference in Stirling, spent a pleasant fortnight there for 5 days.

People from " oop north" may as well be foreign. There was talk about doing away with the north and calling it the south, then there won't be a north south divide.

Col

come to think of it, our personal space wasn't much bigger than a phone booth.
 
...

... I think someone is trying to break into my neighbour's house via the chimney. ...

I guess he'll be wearing Mil. Spec. ballistic armour whilst he's doing his round in the US ;) for fear of being mistaken for an intruder :eek:
 
I guess he'll be wearing Mil. Spec. ballistic armour whilst he's doing his round in the US ;) for fear of being mistaken for an intruder :eek:
Thats why I got rid of my chimminey. I am not taking any chances. If a tree frog can get into my house so can a old fat white guy.
 
Doc post #635

>>I am "The Doc Man" because I have a Ph.D. in chemistry, which depends heavily on statistics. One of the big issues we learn early in our careers is that correlation comes in all shapes and sizes.<<

It appears to me that some people do not want real facts put forward and will do almost anything to stop the facts getting in the way of a good story, or in this case, a bad story.

A person does not need a qualification as a Ph.D. in chemistry to interpret statistics. A person might have a qualification in psychology, electrical engineering, meteorology, law, statistics or whatever. They may even have no formal qualifications at all but are still capable of thinking.

It would therefore seem to me that basing an ability to interpret statistics on qualifications in chemistry is little more than stating a qualification. It in no way proves a need for a qualification in chemistry to interpret statistics.




Then in post #635 you go on to ask these two questions:-
>>Do you have fewer murders because you have fewer guns? Or do you have fewer guns because you have fewer murders?<<

In post #636 Rain said this:-
>>The answer to this can only be yes.<<

I think that answer, in the very essence of the two questions, is absolutely correct.

Those two questions are logically incorrect. The first word of the second question is ‘Or’ and that is logically incorrect. ‘Or’ is not defined and could be either:-
IOR (Inclusive Or); one or the other or both.
XOR (Exclusive Or); one or the other but not both.

Strictly speaking, if we were asked these two questions without pre-judging the outcome they would have been:-
Do you have fewer murders because you have fewer guns?
Do you have fewer guns because you have fewer murders?

And if the logic was broken down to the Boolean True XOR False for each question then there would be a truth table with four possible entries:-
False False
False True
True False
True True

But the two questions were asked in a way to include the undefined singular differential of ‘Or’. They are either well designed emotive questions or poorly designed logical questions. One would have to assume that, with a Ph.D. in chemistry, and the experience gained from that training, the questions were designed to be emotive and not logical.

It is a simplistic view of cause and effect which would exclude a dog chasing its tail. The dog runs faster to catch its tail but the faster the dog runs the faster its tail moves.
It is a loop where cause and effect is almost indistinguishable. The loop continues until the dog gets tired. When the dog gets tired the loop is broken and the dog slows down. When the dog slows down so does its tail and when its tail slows down so does the dog.

Technically speaking, loop gain is either above 1 (one) or below 1. Above 1, loop behaviour expands, below 1 loop behaviour diminishes.

Outside influences can also modify loop gain. If the dog is in a quiescent state someone can grab its tail and shake it in front of its face. If that tail shaking exceeds the requirement for the dog’s quiescent behaviour then it will activate the dog’s behaviour towards the tail shake behaviour. That tail shake behaviour, once again, continues until other influences reduce the net loop gain to below 1.

To imply a Ph.D. in chemistry is required to interpret statistics is rubbish. It is an insult to anyone who has other qualifications and also to those who can think. I particularly doubt that such a Ph.D. in chemistry is required since all that is done in post #635 is to tear down posted facts without posting anything in their place.

So, as Rain said in post #636, the answer to those two questions becomes ‘Yes’.
We have fewer murders because we have fewer guns AND we have fewer guns because we have fewer murders.

That is the mentality of loop behaviour; reduce the loop gain to less than 1 and let the amplitude of behaviour diminish over time.

Who is the dog here and what is the tail? The NRA has its hand on the tail and they are shaking it like hell. The real question I see here for people in the USA is; do you want to be the dog?


Chris.
 
Last edited:
If there were fewer guns, there absolutely would be fewer murders. How could there not be? The problem is, it's too late. The US criminals have far too many guns. It's unlikely they would be willing to give them up, even if asked nicely.
 
If there were fewer guns, there absolutely would be fewer murders. How could there not be? The problem is, it's too late. The US criminals have far too many guns. It's unlikely they would be willing to give them up, even if asked nicely.

So true the criminals won' give them up. I feel however, it is too late to stop the law makers. We are going to have to live with more laws. Even if I have to give up my guns, I pray with all I am worth that it would help. I think it would make things worse. I pray also that I am wrong. I would rather be wrong than have more 6 years old, firefights, police officer, congress people, average citizen, my neighbors and many more die senseless deaths. I hope I am wrong.
 
Word association and "absolute" are key here it is not a math question.
Fewer guns = fewer murders. Your association of morality to an object reminders me of the old "Refer Madness" movie. That movie justified by concerned citizens to allow many horrible racist actions.

Does a brutal government sponsored mass actions against unarmed citizens not count as "murder"? There are religious types who still believe in the "divine rights of kings". So, they have a different answer than others for this same question. It is complicated.

This is what a newspaper on the east coast did as a reaction to the shooting:
http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-

This is a very slippery slope. In England, foster parents with the "wrong" political ideas were recently removed as foster parents. Wasn't that soley justified by the ruling majority to "protect" (fill in the blank)?

It is a very complex issue. Altering terms to justify actions is just part of the great game.
 
This is a very slippery slope. In England, foster parents with the "wrong" political ideas were recently removed as foster parents. Wasn't that soley justified by the ruling majority to "protect" (fill in the blank)?

.

The answer to this question is no. The action was roundly condemned not only by Parliament but by the people and the media, the action was not reversed as the foster parents did not want to confuse the children even more as they had settled with the new foster parents.

You need a better example.

Brian
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom