Bill Would Put Serial Numbers on Bullets
- Thread starter MountainPro
- Start date
jaguar75 said:
I do have evidence to support my claim that legalising guns makes it more likely that you will be a victim of gun-crime. You just ignore it, like you do with everything that I have said that doesn't fit your prejudices. The figures are there in black and white, the DOJ and Home Office publish them. Last time I checked (18 months ago) you were still more likely to suffer from violent crime in the US than the UK too.
This is despite the US locking up 3x more people per head of population...
jaguar75 said:
Saying I am wrong does not make it so.
jaguar75 said:
That is blatantly false. Airliners are still called airliners.
www.dictionary.com said:
You are correct to argue that a knife can be called a weapon within a specific context. Guns on the other hand are weapons by definition, not context.
jaguar75 said:
I am tired of hearing the same hackneyed **** from you tbh. Change the record and argue with facts and reasoning instead of opinion.
jaguar75 said:
That is no argument.
jaguar75 said:And you know enough about it to tell me how little I know?
I know that Chemical Fertilisers are *not* essential because I grew up on a farm, grew my own vegetables and saw that livestock do fine on well-managed grazing. That is the entire point of that Organic thing that is so wildly popular (and rightly so on the basis of quality).
Hasn't that old-fashioned mode of farming made any impact around your neck of the woods yet ? It is transforming British Agriculture for the better IMO.
jaguar75 said:
Quite probably not because I very much doubt that I will ever have any influence on the US legislature.
jaguar75 said:
Actually they already do have the right to ask you and lock you up indefinitely without charge.
jaguar75 said:
That is the 3rd time you have said that. What evidence do you have for it exactly ? Strong gun controls have been in place and enforced in the UK and there are far fewer guns on the street than the US. There is some direct evidence for you.
jaguar75 said:
ROTFL...
"An assembly in which a chain reaction is possible is called critical, and is said to have obtained criticality. In a larger assembly, the reaction will increase at an exponential rate, and this is termed supercritical."
Supercritical = bang. Reactors are carefully balanced to be as close to critical as possible. Examples of reactors that went supercritical and made a large bang : Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. That can and quite probably will happen with poorly managed waste management sites, and the likelihood of it happening will increase dramatically as more waste is generated.
jaguar75 said:
Indeed, your contradiction was plain stupid on so many levels.
See http://www.corwm.org.uk/ for some details and learn why it was stupid. Keep in mind that those guys appear to have very strong vested interests in the Nuclear industry.
Some info from the Real World where Nuclear Waste Management is very difficult, dangerous and expensive : Sellafield has been spending lots of money on trying to find a better way to stop waste achieving critical mass. IIRC Drigg's rated capacity was drastically reduced because the much vaunted Vitrification process didn't actually work as well as hoped (the resulting gunk was unstable, and didn't absorb enough radiation to meet the storage requirements).
I take an interest in Sellafield and Drigg because if they went bang a (large) part of the country that I love very much would become a no-man's land for a few hundred or maybe thousand years. That would suck tbh.
You need to read the article that you quoted above a little more deeply and learn why those two plants had explosions. You are correct about criticality. When uranium rods are completely exposed to each other the reaction hits a criticality. The only point that the reaction can not be stopped is if the "housing" that contains the rods has become destorted and the "control rods" can not be re-inserted to stop the reaction. An uncontrolled supercritical reaction from exposed Uranium rods is not what causes the "explosion" it is the rapid and tremendous build up of radioactive steam and superheated water that ultimately casuses the containment vessel to "explode". What makes it ultimately so dangerous is that the open loop or uncontaminated loop ruptures as well and this loop is what is conected to the natural water supply of a river, lake, resevoir, etc...
You might want to read a little furthur in your article before you start ROTFL.
As for the "discussion" about guns...you live in your little world in the UK and think that the way the UK exists is the way everyone should because you have made several references to the fact that the UK does not have a problem with weapons well I would say that the British Army's fight with the IRA would prove other wise. It is your mentality of British supremecy that makes my skin crawl. Why don't you live in this country for a little while and stop rading biased BBC articles about what you think is really happeneing here before standing on your podium and trying to tell me that I should not own a gun. As for your argument that the government has the right to ask me what I intend to use my gun for...no they don't...I just purchased a new gun the other day, as a matter of fact, and no where on the form did it ask me that question...and when I went to go shoot it no one asked me either. In fact I went with my best friend, who is a New Orleans Police Officer.
jaguar75 said:
Superheated coolant. Stuff goes bang when you convert it to a gas very quickly. Duh. The the case of storing nuclear fuel water is a common feature of the surrounding area, as documented by the website I gave you. There is a pretty strong risk of stuff going bang whether you like it or not.
jaguar75 said:
It is the root cause of the explosion. Steam boilers "explode" on occasion too.
jaguar75 said:
No, I'll carry on laughing matey.
jaguar75 said:
It goes someway towards proving your point about illegal weapon smuggling. US citizens shipped lots of firearms to the IRA, and those folks were allowed to operate openly in the US for many years.
jaguar75 said:
Hmm, I can't say that I feel the British are "Supreme" tbh. Our governemnt takes orders from the Whitehouse for starters.
jaguar75 said:
No way do I want to live in a country where I am 1000x more likely to be a victim of gun-crime. The figures behind that are UK Home Office & US DoJ crime-statistics, not a BBC article.
jaguar75 said:
My opinion is that it is possible to have citizens owning firearms and keep gun crime low. Look at Norway and Finland for an example. The primary difference between those countries and the US appears to be in the severe restrictions placed on ownership, handling and storage.
jaguar75 said:As for your argument that the government has the right to ask me what I intend to use my gun for...no they don't...I just purchased a new gun the other day, as a matter of fact, and no where on the form did it ask me that question...and when I went to go shoot it no one asked me either. In fact I went with my best friend, who is a New Orleans Police Officer.
Bully for you. Perhaps you could ask that officer whether the authorities can in fact ask you about your gun under the PATRIOT Act. You may also want to pay careful attention to the revisions being made to the PATRIOT Act as we rant at each other.
New Orleans - neat place, I wanted to spend more time around there. Not just the city either, there are some neat towns around there.
I came across a little snippet about the raid on Haditha in Iraq from the highly biased BBC :
British Bias Corporation said:
On the strength of that incident I can see why you wouldn't want your government implementing and enforcing stricter gun-controls. Seems a bit rough to face the prospect of being soddomised and beaten to death by some interrogators for arming yourself so you can protect your family...
darkboong said:
One of the major reasons is that we believe that Israel has the right to exist.
Another is, that our ever pervasive pop-culture is a direct threat to the Imams.
And of course, there's always that envious streak that runs thru the human heart.
Quotes from : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html
I figured I'd use FOX News because although they have zero credibility as far as fair and balanced reporting goes, they are trusted by Whitehouse lovers.
That does not mesh with what Bin Laden has said on the matter.
"God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," he said.
Unfortunately he has a point there. The Palestinians have suffered a sustained program of extra-judicial killings, dispossession, mass-murder, ethnic cleansing and destruction of property for over half a century now. What the Israelis did in Lebanon was horrific, check out the Shatila/Sabra massacres.
"While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women," he said.
Do you have any direct evidence to support that ? AFAIK the only people to have said that have been the Whitehouse and their sycophants, and they don't count as credible, independant or direct sources. Those were the guys who were telling you that Iraq "undoubtedly" had WMDs, when in fact they knew full well there was plenty of doubt. In fact there was so much doubt they bypassed their intelligence agencies and quoted sources already red-flagged and rejected by those agencies...
You have also missed out a whole aspect to Bin Laden's motivations for Jihad, namely the Arab States themselves.
Referring to Bush Snr :
"He wound up being impressed by the royal and military regimes and envied them for staying decades in their positions and embezzling the nation's money with no supervision," bin Laden said.
Bin Laden reminds me a bit of the IRA. I don't agree with much of what the IRA says and virtually nothing of what they do. By and large they are a detestable bunch but they have made some valid complaints. There was a need for change and justice in Ireland.
Likewise Bin Laden does have a valid point about the way Arabs have been treated by the West over the centuries. On the upside some progress has been made, at least people recognise there is a problem now. The downside is that a vocal and significant minority reject any fault on their side and think that the solution to the problem is the systematic destruction of Arab self-rule and Islam.
Beware of Christians promoting Crusades.
I figured I'd use FOX News because although they have zero credibility as far as fair and balanced reporting goes, they are trusted by Whitehouse lovers.
coolworx said:
That does not mesh with what Bin Laden has said on the matter.
"God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," he said.
Unfortunately he has a point there. The Palestinians have suffered a sustained program of extra-judicial killings, dispossession, mass-murder, ethnic cleansing and destruction of property for over half a century now. What the Israelis did in Lebanon was horrific, check out the Shatila/Sabra massacres.
"While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women," he said.
coolworx said:
Do you have any direct evidence to support that ? AFAIK the only people to have said that have been the Whitehouse and their sycophants, and they don't count as credible, independant or direct sources. Those were the guys who were telling you that Iraq "undoubtedly" had WMDs, when in fact they knew full well there was plenty of doubt. In fact there was so much doubt they bypassed their intelligence agencies and quoted sources already red-flagged and rejected by those agencies...
You have also missed out a whole aspect to Bin Laden's motivations for Jihad, namely the Arab States themselves.
Referring to Bush Snr :
"He wound up being impressed by the royal and military regimes and envied them for staying decades in their positions and embezzling the nation's money with no supervision," bin Laden said.
Bin Laden reminds me a bit of the IRA. I don't agree with much of what the IRA says and virtually nothing of what they do. By and large they are a detestable bunch but they have made some valid complaints. There was a need for change and justice in Ireland.
Likewise Bin Laden does have a valid point about the way Arabs have been treated by the West over the centuries. On the upside some progress has been made, at least people recognise there is a problem now. The downside is that a vocal and significant minority reject any fault on their side and think that the solution to the problem is the systematic destruction of Arab self-rule and Islam.
Beware of Christians promoting Crusades.
darkboong said:
Well Gee... Binny sure loved us Merkins when we were providing material and tactical support to the Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan war...
As for the Saudis, take the ****ers out I say! The mob of "princes" are self-indulgent thugs and thieves who are playing both sides against the middle by fostering this radical Wahhabism.
Don't get me started...
If it were up to me, I'd build 4 dozen nuclear power plants - get the US grid out of the hydrocarbon-to-electric loop (and use some of the electricity to produce H2), and start telling the Saudis to drown in their damn oil.
coolworx said:
They were supported in doing that by America. Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, as you alluded to in the first paragraph.
coolworx said:
I give some credence to the peak-oil theory, so I doubt the Saudis will have enough oil to drown in...
Would you volunteer to have the Nuclear plants and waste storage facilities in your backyard ?
Would you volunteer to pay extra taxes to make up for the higher costs of Nuclear ?
Would you be able to persuede your SUV loving American neighbours to switch over to Electric cars ?
Would you be prepared to pay the extra healthcare bills for the folks suffering from higher rates of cancers and immune system dysfunction ?
You don't seem to be very aware of the downsides of running a Nuclear Power plant. I lived down-wind from one for 18 years. I have known lots of people who worked at Nuclear Power plants, I even met a couple of physicists and a chemical engineer who worked on the Fast Breeder reactor at Sellafield. Of course a Fast Breeder isn't really a power plant, but it's a useful thing to have if you are going nuclear. Hell, I even worked with a guy who had a hand in doing the automation of the THORP at Sellafield. I used to drink with a kid who monitored gas leakage at Oldbury. You get a *very* different picture of the Nuclear industry when you spend a lot of time with folks who worked within it. Maybe the American Nuclear Industry is somehow magically different, but I doubt it. The practical constraints and operating conditions are pretty universal.
What has France got to do with you living with Nuclear Reactors, hmm ?
FWIW I do not "Love" France. I do like visiting France though, had some great times there. Can't say I'm a big fan of Paris though, I think there are better places to see in France. I prefer rural towns like Pont-Avon, Chinon and Josselin for example.
Poltically France has a pretty bad rep in my view : I remain deeply critical of how France dealt with North Africa, they massacred the place. I really hate how they took an active part in spreading nuclear reactors around the globe, including building them in Israel and Iraq. They didn't exactly endear themselves to the Vietnamese either.
I live in hope that some day you might discover that the world is quite different to how the Whitehouse tells it.
coolworx said:
FWIW I do not "Love" France. I do like visiting France though, had some great times there. Can't say I'm a big fan of Paris though, I think there are better places to see in France. I prefer rural towns like Pont-Avon, Chinon and Josselin for example.
Poltically France has a pretty bad rep in my view : I remain deeply critical of how France dealt with North Africa, they massacred the place. I really hate how they took an active part in spreading nuclear reactors around the globe, including building them in Israel and Iraq. They didn't exactly endear themselves to the Vietnamese either.
I live in hope that some day you might discover that the world is quite different to how the Whitehouse tells it.
darkboong said:
Just as I wrongly assumed you were a Francophile, you are mistaken in thinking that I am in lockstep with the Whitehouse.
When it comes to energy independence, I think it is ridiculous that we have abandoned CAFE standards. Here's a simple way to make a substantial reduction in our need for fossil fuels, and all it takes is 1980 technology.
As for nuclear - it's the future.
coolworx said:
I won't agree that Nuclear Power is the solution to the world's energy needs. It creates bigger problems than it solves and it is very expensive. If they find a practical, economic, reliable and safe way to dispose (not store, dispose) of Nuclear Power station waste (including decommissioned plants) then I will re-evaluate my position. There is not much sign of that happening anytime soon though. AFAIK the large-scale Fusion projects all generate radioactive waste, so they pose decommissioning and waste management issues just like the Fission plants.
My feeling is that first and foremost we cut energy consumption by at least 80% and convert the remaining 20% to renewable sources. To do that will require a suspension of the "Planned Obselence" thing that is so essential to capitalist growth, so I don't see that being on the table for discussion in the corporate sponsored halls of power.
The Bill most likely won't pass. The sheer number of bullets produced each year would make this a nearly impossible task, what with printing the marker on the bullet, cataloguing it, keeping track where each bullet goes, which box, which state, which store, etc. . . . you know, when you can buy a box of 525 count .22lr Golden Bullets for roughly $10.
The only thing it would do would be to cause a HUGE leap in prices for bullets to cover the cost of all these steps. Then who would pay for the upkeep of the records, . . . how long do you keep the records, . . . how LONG of a serial number would it have to be with all the MANY number of bullets produced?
It's not going to happen.
The only thing it would do would be to cause a HUGE leap in prices for bullets to cover the cost of all these steps. Then who would pay for the upkeep of the records, . . . how long do you keep the records, . . . how LONG of a serial number would it have to be with all the MANY number of bullets produced?
It's not going to happen.
Similar threads
