It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103292 comments on the Truthdig story from Apr 20, 2007, titled It's the Guns, Stupid. In it, Truthdig reports that:

“And that's the end of the issue”

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing? Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent ... via Truthdig

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Truthdig.

Goats milk

Randwick, Australia

#109367 Jun 21, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
Hydrogen production methods
Steam reforming
1. CO2 sequestration
Other production methods from fossil fuels
1. Partial oxidation
2. Plasma reforming
3. Coal
From water
1. Electrolysis
2. Thermolysis
3. Photobiological water splitting
4. Photocatalytic water splitting
5. Sulfur-iodine cycle
6. Biohydrogen routes
6.1 Fermentative hydrogen production
6.2 Enzymatic hydrogen generation
6.3 Biocatalysed electrolysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_product...
yeah sure, there are many methods of obtaining hydrogen, some cleaner than others.
Goats milk

Randwick, Australia

#109368 Jun 21, 2013
FYI wrote:
<quoted text>Was chemistry teacher hot? Pretty big bang? Busted rubber? KINKY, Regards
Haha well I did meet an American female classmate and it ended up being good times. But that teacher was actually an old man.
Goats milk

Randwick, Australia

#109369 Jun 21, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Take a look kid. You even said so yourself.
"Hydrogen exists combined to oxygen in the water molecule."
You ain't making it son. You're converting it to another form.
3 forms:
LIQUID
SOLID
GAS
You are simply converting the ALREADY EXISTING element known as hydrogen, from it's liquid state to it's gas state.
Now take your ridilin and take a nap.


No incorrect, Hydrogen is in it's liquid state at minus 252 degrees. Water is water, it contains hydrogen, but it is not hydrogen. Water is a covalently bonded compound containing hydrogen and oxygen, it behaves entirely differently and has different properties to hydrogen.

Water is a source of Hydrogen. You are not "converting it to another form" you are chemically extracting the components of water obtaining hydrogen and oxygen gas by electrolysis.

These are the common states of the compound water. steam(gas), liquid water(Liquid), ice (solid)

of course our zero degrees is based on the temperature that water becomes a solid.

Hydrogen has a whole different set of properties. For one, it is not in it's liquid form until it is cooled to -252 degrees.

No Aquarius-WY we are definitely obtaining hydrogen from water we are not creating it from thin air, no one is suggesting that, that is a ridiculous suggestion, we are obtaining hydrogen gas from a completely different substance water. And the method is electrolysis of water.

This is a chemical reaction.
Goats milk

Randwick, Australia

#109370 Jun 21, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> WOW what an idiot. Recombination of hydrogen and oxygen and have water come out the tail pipe is a fuel cell not a standard engine. The use of electrolysis to release hydrogen requires so much power it's not feasible. You would have to convert (a system small enough to carry in a car) for an hour to travel one mile. You would be better suited to use that electric power source to run the car than using it for electrolysis. Just how do you plan to make enough electric power to run a large enough electrolysis unit to run a car? This idea has been examined in the U.S for over 100 years and to date and is simply not feasible, plus the cost makes it prohibitive. Maybe you should listen to those more experienced and just sit down and shut up.
Quite incorrect Tray.

A car running on LPG works in much the same way that a hydrogen vehicle can operate. The only difference is you have a tank of hydrogen instead of LPG. Both fuels are combusted.

You are being confused with different technology.

If the source of the electricity for electrolysis is a renewable one such as wind or solar or geothermal, than even if the process is inefficient, it does not matter, the energy is ultimately free after you subtract the cost of manufacturing the panels and turbines. Solar panels don't turn into pumpkins after one year of use. The panel produces energy from the sun for ten years, that's all free, the panel is just sitting there.

The idea, and what will happen, is production costs to make wind turbines and solar panels will come down. They already are, and they will be used in more extensive applications.

The goal is clean technology, not nuclear waste and risks, pollution or any other drawbacks, utilizing clean technology. It can be done, absolutely, no question, the economics is the big arguing point, but that is changing, and will continue to improve.

The economics will be a non issue, and because it is a free and clean source of power, the efficiency is a non issue also, this is easily overcome with sheer number of panels/ turbines. The efficiency is improving also, You would actually be surprised how much power can be generated by a wind turbine or solar panel. The future is fully utilizing renewables on a larger scale and for local power sources such as hot water, electricity in homes, parking meters, cars, many applications.
Goats milk

Randwick, Australia

#109371 Jun 21, 2013
For the record "Tray" I do not care about the size of your penis.

In Australia we are not obsessed with penis size like some Americans seem to be.

You have no way at all to prove that you have a bigger penis than me, unless "Aquarius-WY" emails me a photo of your donga without your permission, how are you going to prove that to me?

Personally I don't care and I don't want to see your donga.

You can't prove that I have got a small penis, I'm quite frankly happy with the size of my donga.

So "Tray" if you have any evidence at all to suggest that you are a well endowed man, any evidence at all, apart from a clearly fake photo, than we are all waiting.
Goats milk

Randwick, Australia

#109372 Jun 21, 2013
I don' think we compare donga's in Australia, must be something that they do in your gun clubs aye.
Goats milk

Randwick, Australia

#109373 Jun 21, 2013
Comparing guns than at the urinal comparing dongas lol ok.

I'm glad I don't go to gun club!

What do they have pink rifles for homosexuals, purple ones for bisexuals?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#109374 Jun 21, 2013
Goats milk wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite incorrect Tray.
A car running on LPG works in much the same way that a hydrogen vehicle can operate. The only difference is you have a tank of hydrogen instead of LPG. Both fuels are combusted.
You are being confused with different technology.
If the source of the electricity for electrolysis is a renewable one such as wind or solar or geothermal, than even if the process is inefficient, it does not matter, the energy is ultimately free after you subtract the cost of manufacturing the panels and turbines. Solar panels don't turn into pumpkins after one year of use. The panel produces energy from the sun for ten years, that's all free, the panel is just sitting there.
The idea, and what will happen, is production costs to make wind turbines and solar panels will come down. They already are, and they will be used in more extensive applications.
The goal is clean technology, not nuclear waste and risks, pollution or any other drawbacks, utilizing clean technology. It can be done, absolutely, no question, the economics is the big arguing point, but that is changing, and will continue to improve.
The economics will be a non issue, and because it is a free and clean source of power, the efficiency is a non issue also, this is easily overcome with sheer number of panels/ turbines. The efficiency is improving also, You would actually be surprised how much power can be generated by a wind turbine or solar panel. The future is fully utilizing renewables on a larger scale and for local power sources such as hot water, electricity in homes, parking meters, cars, many applications.
What’s the difference between CNG, LNG, LPG and Hydrogen?

http://www.afsglobal.com/faq/gas-comparisons....
45Winchester

Australia

#109376 Jun 21, 2013
australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastardsaustralian men are ugly dumb bastards australian men are ugly dumb bastards
GoGoBar

Thailand

#109380 Jun 21, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
And quite rightly so.
Whoa, thought it was a nightmare, low, it's all so true
They told me, don't go walkin' slow, the devil's on the loose
Better run through the jungle
Better run through the kids school
Better run through the cinema, don't look back to see

Thought I heard a rumblin', callin' to my name
Three hundred million guns are loaded, Satan cries, "Take aim"
Better run through the temple
Better run through the mall
Better run through the campus, don't look back to see

In the Constitution, thunder magic spoke
"Let the people know my wisdom, fill the land with smoke"
Better run through the shooting range(TX)
Better run thru the Walmart parkin lot,
Better run through the jungle, don't look back to see
spocko

Oakland, CA

#109382 Jun 22, 2013
Goats milk wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite incorrect Tray.
A car running on LPG works in much the same way that a hydrogen vehicle can operate. The only difference is you have a tank of hydrogen instead of LPG. Both fuels are combusted.
You are being confused with different technology.
If the source of the electricity for electrolysis is a renewable one such as wind or solar or geothermal, than even if the process is inefficient, it does not matter, the energy is ultimately free after you subtract the cost of manufacturing the panels and turbines. Solar panels don't turn into pumpkins after one year of use. The panel produces energy from the sun for ten years, that's all free, the panel is just sitting there.
The idea, and what will happen, is production costs to make wind turbines and solar panels will come down. They already are, and they will be used in more extensive applications.
The goal is clean technology, not nuclear waste and risks, pollution or any other drawbacks, utilizing clean technology. It can be done, absolutely, no question, the economics is the big arguing point, but that is changing, and will continue to improve.
The economics will be a non issue, and because it is a free and clean source of power, the efficiency is a non issue also, this is easily overcome with sheer number of panels/ turbines. The efficiency is improving also, You would actually be surprised how much power can be generated by a wind turbine or solar panel. The future is fully utilizing renewables on a larger scale and for local power sources such as hot water, electricity in homes, parking meters, cars, many applications.
You are, of course, entirely correct! Remember, one can not argue with half baked wingnuz morons who's entire universe is based in ideology rather than verifiable facts :)
Mr NaughtyBits

UK

#109383 Jun 22, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
You are, of course, entirely correct! Remember, one can not argue with half baked wingnuz morons who's entire universe is based in ideology rather than verifiable facts :)
Now, who's the control freak?

“have seen the years,”

Since: Mar 10

and the slow parade of fears"

#109384 Jun 22, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
You are, of course, entirely correct! Remember, one can not argue with half baked wingnuz morons who's entire universe is based in ideology rather than verifiable facts :)
You are not kidding! But at least if they are getting their rocks off here on Topix maybe they won't go out and shoot up a school, or movie theater, or shopping mall, killing dozens of innocent men, women and children. They certainly sound capable of anything.
Mr NaughtyBits

UK

#109385 Jun 22, 2013
Doctor My Eyes wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not kidding! But at least if they are getting their rocks off here on Topix maybe they won't go out and shoot up a school, or movie theater, or shopping mall, killing dozens of innocent men, women and children. They certainly sound capable of anything.
Now, who's the control freak?

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#109386 Jun 22, 2013
Mr NaughtyBits wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, who's the control freak?
That would be you troll.
Mr NaughtyBits

UK

#109387 Jun 22, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be you troll.
How would that be?

I'm not in the least attempting to control anyone, in any way, manner, fashion, shape, or form.

BUT,=>YOU<= ARE!

YOU, then, are A CONTROL FREAK!

:-))

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#109388 Jun 22, 2013
Mr NaughtyBits wrote:
<quoted text>
How would that be?
I'm not in the least attempting to control anyone, in any way, manner, fashion, shape, or form.
BUT,=>YOU<= ARE!
YOU, then, are A CONTROL FREAK!
:-))
Yes you are! you are forcing everyone to live in a society flooded with weapons that can kill them, their parents, teachers, children etc....you are the biggest control freak of them all and a greater danger to your citizens by ignoring the need for stronger legislation to control background checks to ensure all sellers are registered and all gun sales are recorded. There is no danger to you if this is implemented but it will give a measure of safety to the community, whereby all guns (used in crimes or illegally) can be traced back to whence they came. Maybe that is why most of you gun idiots don't want it!
ilovemyguns

Torrance, CA

#109390 Jun 22, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you are! you are forcing everyone to live in a society flooded with weapons that can kill them, their parents, teachers, children etc....you are the biggest control freak of them all and a greater danger to your citizens by ignoring the need for stronger legislation to control background checks to ensure all sellers are registered and all gun sales are recorded. There is no danger to you if this is implemented but it will give a measure of safety to the community, whereby all guns (used in crimes or illegally) can be traced back to whence they came. Maybe that is why most of you gun idiots don't want it!
Australia was invaded by british illegal immigrants who took over a tribal land and now&#65279; shamelessly talk about equality and liberty Fffing Douche bags The problem isn't guns, it's liberal fat asses like you
ilovemyguns

Torrance, CA

#109391 Jun 22, 2013
To prevent this unnecessary bloodshed, America needs a call to arms, not a gun ban. If we are allowed to bring guns into church, to the mall, to banks, to movie theaters, into restaurants across the nation, criminals would think twice before attempting to rob someone. More guns in a location won’t increase crime. That hypothesis is flawed. Banning guns from certain locations does nothing to deter gun crime. If you jam pack an area full of law abiding citizens, carrying firearms, guess what? The law abiding citizens don’t murder people. On the contrary, criminals don’t care about gun laws, and gun free zones, if they did; there would be no bank robberies or school shootings because they wouldn’t be bringing the gun inside in the first place. In reality, they do. Criminals break the law and bring guns to places they shouldn’t. Imagine that. That’s why we need fewer restrictions on where firearms are allowed. All gun free zones do is let would be criminals know where they will find an unarmed target. A federal judge recently overturned an Illinois ban on conceal and carry noting that a typical citizen of Illinois faces a greater chances of being threatened on the street, then in their high rise apt. Law abiding citizens make up over 95% of gun ownership. If we were allowed to bring guns with us anywhere, citizens can react faster than the police can get there. It takes the police on average 2-3mins to get to a particular location. It doesn’t take a killer that long to unload a clip or two. Citizens who are armed and ready can take down the would be assailant in seconds, not minutes after he or she starts the crime.
ilovemyguns

Torrance, CA

#109392 Jun 22, 2013
We need measures like the guardian program across America’s schools. If we armed 10-15% of our teachers and staff at each school, one could argue that any would be shooter would be dead before they got 20 feet. Yes some people may still die, but it wouldn't be in the double digits. After 9/11, we beefed up security screening and put air marshals on airplanes and 10 years later, we have had no terrorist attacks on America. We need to same attitude towards our schools. We can disarm and pass all the gun controls we want, but evil knows no bounds, and respects no law. If an assailant wanted to make a bomb to place in the school cafe, he could, if he wanted to use a crossbow, he could. Guns are not the only means of carrying out violence, but guns are one of the best ways to respond to violence. America needs guns, more of them.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump's plan will seek to 'harden' schools agai... 53 min Correct 804
News Largest maker of bump stocks will stop acceptin... 1 hr Get Out 14
News Carlsbad student plans Stand for Second walkout 1 hr Dzadza 65
News CA Now Controlled by the Vote of Illegal Aliens... Thu tomin cali 1
News 'It is not our intent to finance or underwrite ... Wed Marauder 40
News No Way': Trump says Second Amendment won't be r... Apr 14 Quirky 101
News Here's what Pa. can do to stop the next school ... Apr 14 FormerParatrooper 1