Remember me
▼ Content

One reason for social distancing/isolation



Page 4 of 20<<<23456>>>
01-05-2020 03:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Seat belts

Generally work quite well (in cars, anyway).

So if I said:
"A seat belt won't save your life if you are in an accident." would that be a true statement?

It depends.

There are an insane amount of variables that go into any particular accident. In certain accidents, the seat belt will save your life. In certain accidents, the seat belt will reduce injury. In certain accidents, the seat belt will kill you. In certain accidents, the seat belt will increase injury. In certain accidents, there will be negligible to no difference either way.


If a seat belt kills you, then the accident itself wasn't survivable without one.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
01-05-2020 03:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Seat belts

Generally work quite well (in cars, anyway).

So if I said:
"A seat belt won't save your life if you are in an accident." would that be a true statement?

It depends.

There are an insane amount of variables that go into any particular accident. In certain accidents, the seat belt will save your life. In certain accidents, the seat belt will reduce injury. In certain accidents, the seat belt will kill you. In certain accidents, the seat belt will increase injury. In certain accidents, there will be negligible to no difference either way.


Well said.

So public policy should be that seat belts are to be worn while driving (as I see it at least).

Public policy has no place here. The use of a seat belt is a personal decision. The government has no place to require using them. They are a good practice, but the decision to use one MUST rest with the vehicle user, not the government.
tmiddles wrote:
The exact same situation plays out for the policies aimed at slowing the spread of a virus (the "flatten the curve" we hear so much about).
The policies don't work.
tmiddles wrote:
Do they work 100% of the time? Nope
The policies don't work.
tmiddles wrote:
Are they effective? Often

They are not effective.

If you want to wear a mask and look like a dork, go ahead.
If you want to keep away from people like they were carrying the Black Death, go ahead.
If you want to live in fear, go ahead.

The rest of us have work to do and things to enjoy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 01-05-2020 03:29
01-05-2020 03:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3515)
Into the Night wrote:
If a seat belt kills you, then the accident itself wasn't survivable without one.
So ????
"So public policy should be that seat belts are to be worn while driving"

You're saying:
Into the Night wrote:The policies don't work
with seat belt laws either?

Should driving while intoxicated be a personal choice too?
Edited on 01-05-2020 03:29
01-05-2020 03:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
If a seat belt kills you, then the accident itself wasn't survivable without one.
So ????
"So public policy should be that seat belts are to be worn while driving"

You're saying:
Into the Night wrote:The policies don't work
with seat belt laws either?

Should driving while intoxicated be a personal choice too?


RQAA. Contrivance. Extreme argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 01-05-2020 03:30
01-05-2020 17:01
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1331)
Into the Night wrote:
If a seat belt kills you, then the accident itself wasn't survivable without one.

Heh, good catch.
01-05-2020 17:12
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1331)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Seat belts

Generally work quite well (in cars, anyway).

So if I said:
"A seat belt won't save your life if you are in an accident." would that be a true statement?

It depends.

There are an insane amount of variables that go into any particular accident. In certain accidents, the seat belt will save your life. In certain accidents, the seat belt will reduce injury. In certain accidents, the seat belt will kill you. In certain accidents, the seat belt will increase injury. In certain accidents, there will be negligible to no difference either way.


Well said.

So public policy should be that seat belts are to be worn while driving (as I see it at least).

No. There should be no policy. It should be up to the individual.

tmiddles wrote:
The exact same situation plays out for the policies aimed at slowing the spread of a virus (the "flatten the curve" we hear so much about).

Do they work 100% of the time? Nope
Are they effective? Often

Those policies are not stopping nor are they preventing anything. Same with the seat belt policy.
01-05-2020 19:36
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2730)
When I was a freshman in high school, a girl in the senior class drove off the road, down an embankment, and into a river. She lived long enough, to tear out all her fingernails, clawing at the seat belt, which the paramedics cut, because they could release it ether, to recover the body. Car was only under about a foot of water...

I didn't wear a seat belt, until about 4 or 5 years ago, when it became a primary offense, $116 dollar ticket, and 1 point on your license. Points, mean hike in your insurance, or you lose the safe driver discount, same thing. I wouldn't wear the belt, if it wasn't a crime. Been in a few accidents, totaled a couple cars (not my fault), and no injuries, no belt either. Better not to get into accidents in the first place, but how you react, can minimize the damage. When I'm drive, that's about all I do, is drive. Keep the distractions, and playing with knobs and buttons to a bare minimum, wait until stopped, when possible.

A lot of safety equipment, gives a false sense of security. They don't prevent accidents, just hopefully minimize some of the damage.
01-05-2020 21:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
HarveyH55 wrote:
When I was a freshman in high school, a girl in the senior class drove off the road, down an embankment, and into a river. She lived long enough, to tear out all her fingernails, clawing at the seat belt, which the paramedics cut, because they could release it ether, to recover the body. Car was only under about a foot of water...

I didn't wear a seat belt, until about 4 or 5 years ago, when it became a primary offense, $116 dollar ticket, and 1 point on your license. Points, mean hike in your insurance, or you lose the safe driver discount, same thing. I wouldn't wear the belt, if it wasn't a crime. Been in a few accidents, totaled a couple cars (not my fault), and no injuries, no belt either. Better not to get into accidents in the first place, but how you react, can minimize the damage. When I'm drive, that's about all I do, is drive. Keep the distractions, and playing with knobs and buttons to a bare minimum, wait until stopped, when possible.

A lot of safety equipment, gives a false sense of security. They don't prevent accidents, just hopefully minimize some of the damage.


I had a friend of mine crash his ultralight in water, and it capsized. He was secured to the machine by a seat belt. It too didn't release. He cut the belt with a knife that he had on him.

He learned that the problem was a defective release mechanism. Guess what gets checked before every flight now!

Seat belts work. Just make sure they release properly when needed!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
01-05-2020 21:16
James___
★★★★★
(3452)
HarveyH55 wrote:
When I was a freshman in high school, a girl in the senior class drove off the road, down an embankment, and into a river. She lived long enough, to tear out all her fingernails, clawing at the seat belt, which the paramedics cut, because they could release it ether, to recover the body. Car was only under about a foot of water...

I didn't wear a seat belt, until about 4 or 5 years ago, when it became a primary offense, $116 dollar ticket, and 1 point on your license. Points, mean hike in your insurance, or you lose the safe driver discount, same thing. I wouldn't wear the belt, if it wasn't a crime. Been in a few accidents, totaled a couple cars (not my fault), and no injuries, no belt either. Better not to get into accidents in the first place, but how you react, can minimize the damage. When I'm drive, that's about all I do, is drive. Keep the distractions, and playing with knobs and buttons to a bare minimum, wait until stopped, when possible.

A lot of safety equipment, gives a false sense of security. They don't prevent accidents, just hopefully minimize some of the damage.



You guys really are scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't you? I know you have it in you to do better Harvey. I also know that gfm7175, itn and ibdm can do better. I am really disappointed in you guys. You're not even being insulting.
Has this forum become Comedy Central?
You hear the one about climate change? If CO2 ain't causin' it, ain't nothin' happenin'. Like in youse guys love lives. Ain't no rise cause they's ain't no women.

Or
Yep, sea levels risin', got in the tub. Sure enough the tide went up. It always rises when's people go swimmin'. People do go swimmin', right? Lessen o' course they's fraidy cats and don' likes the waters.

Yep, it's Comedy Hour at Comedy Central
02-05-2020 01:46
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2730)
On a brighter note, the governor of Florida, is starting to open up the economy on Monday, which includes elective surgery. Maybe you can use your $600 stimulus check, to bribe a doctor, to authorize a crap-sack surgery for you. It's not elective surgery, so maybe the doctor will help you defraud Medicare to cover it. They do enough unnecessary procedures on the tax payer dime, nobody would know the difference.
02-05-2020 02:21
James___
★★★★★
(3452)
HarveyH55 wrote:
On a brighter note, the governor of Florida, is starting to open up the economy on Monday, which includes elective surgery. Maybe you can use your $600 stimulus check, to bribe a doctor, to authorize a crap-sack surgery for you. It's not elective surgery, so maybe the doctor will help you defraud Medicare to cover it. They do enough unnecessary procedures on the tax payer dime, nobody would know the difference.



My niece's newspaper her parents started; https://www.seekernews.com/
I am trying to avoid my deceased sister's problems. Have a crap sack but could work and be healthy with an ileostomy. With Harvey, he needs someone to hate on. Without his hatred of others, what would he have?

p.s., Harvey, I'm actually hoping to have surgery in Europe. Your sentiments in the US are quite common. Fortunately my American mother and the US Navy allowed me to know that I have options. Like a Mexican in Mexico, I do not feel safe in my own country. Vive Star Trek !!

And like a Mexican, I will seek safe respite.

Edited on 02-05-2020 02:30
02-05-2020 02:49
James___
★★★★★
(3452)
You might want to preach Harvey that impure people are ruining America. We serve in the military (me and my brother) and publish material (our sister) that should be banned.
What do you "real" Americans do? I am the devil, I want to know what a good Christian or American does.
I am hoping you do not say Serve God and Country. My family does not do that because we are not "real" Americans. So please tell me, who are you and what does your family do?
This applies to everyone actually. Serving God and Country is about those 2 things. Most can only say that they wish they did. Am glad that my family chooses to do so.
02-05-2020 02:58
James___
★★★★★
(3452)
@All, to serve God and Country, that's going back in time. That's from a time when people believed in something. It really doesn't apply to today.
It was wrong of me to suggest that someone should serve both God and Country.
02-05-2020 03:18
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(741)
HarveyH55 wrote:
When I was a freshman in high school, a girl in the senior class drove off the road, down an embankment, and into a river. She lived long enough, to tear out all her fingernails, clawing at the seat belt, which the paramedics cut, because they could release it ether, to recover the body. Car was only under about a foot of water...

I didn't wear a seat belt, until about 4 or 5 years ago, when it became a primary offense, $116 dollar ticket, and 1 point on your license. Points, mean hike in your insurance, or you lose the safe driver discount, same thing. I wouldn't wear the belt, if it wasn't a crime. Been in a few accidents, totaled a couple cars (not my fault), and no injuries, no belt either. Better not to get into accidents in the first place, but how you react, can minimize the damage. When I'm drive, that's about all I do, is drive. Keep the distractions, and playing with knobs and buttons to a bare minimum, wait until stopped, when possible.

A lot of safety equipment, gives a false sense of security. They don't prevent accidents, just hopefully minimize some of the damage.


Some older models Ford cortinas have a habit of catching fire in the centre console.That makes trying to undo the seat belt gangs of fun


duncan61
02-05-2020 03:29
James___
★★★★★
(3452)
duncan61 wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
When I was a freshman in high school, a girl in the senior class drove off the road, down an embankment, and into a river. She lived long enough, to tear out all her fingernails, clawing at the seat belt, which the paramedics cut, because they could release it ether, to recover the body. Car was only under about a foot of water...

I didn't wear a seat belt, until about 4 or 5 years ago, when it became a primary offense, $116 dollar ticket, and 1 point on your license. Points, mean hike in your insurance, or you lose the safe driver discount, same thing. I wouldn't wear the belt, if it wasn't a crime. Been in a few accidents, totaled a couple cars (not my fault), and no injuries, no belt either. Better not to get into accidents in the first place, but how you react, can minimize the damage. When I'm drive, that's about all I do, is drive. Keep the distractions, and playing with knobs and buttons to a bare minimum, wait until stopped, when possible.

A lot of safety equipment, gives a false sense of security. They don't prevent accidents, just hopefully minimize some of the damage.


Some older models Ford cortinas have a habit of catching fire in the centre console.That makes trying to undo the seat belt gangs of fun


The Pinto was notorious for catching on fire. It's gas tank was located between the rear axle and the rear bumper. Just search Pinto fires. With that said, their overhead cam design provided too little lubrication to the overhead camshaft. As a result, they had to be replaced early and often.

I'll leave you guys alone. It's just that GM and the FoMoCo preferred different systems for lubricating their engines. If you're not car guys then you might not know stuff like this.

You'll have to forgive me Duncan. In my family, you had to know that timing changes dwell but dwell can't change timing. It's a basic truth in automotive mechanics. This is because dwell determines the gap on a point gap type distributor. ie, if you use points, what determines their gap if you don't have a feeler gauge? It's your dwell angle which might be more accurate.
People today don't know what points are
It's all computer controlled in which you have a modulator that fires your spark plugs. Before computers, there was a mechanical distributor that was fed by a coil. Pretty basic unless someone's never worked on one. And now we have computers.

@Harvey, my family preferred working on something mechanical to physics. Needless to say, thinking about quantum mechanics and cars usually don't go together. Actually, they don't. As ITN would say, it's a paradox.
Why is 15 seconds in the quarter mile fast and what is the difference between 4:11 and 3:89 gears and c?
I mean with 3:89, you can have a higher top end while with 4:11, it's a common gear ratio used. It depends on if your camshaft and where you develop torque and not horsepower. Horsepower is for once you get rolling. Torque gets you off of the line but won't let you have top end speed.
And this is where c is relative to an energy/mass ratio. A basic example is E = hf which is frequency. This has to do with mass/amplitude, etc. It's a derivative of force in a way. This is getting back into do you have 3:89 or taller gears? It's all pretty fücking mechanical. And 4:11 is taller because of the higher number of shaft revolutions to rotate your friggin differential. I sure hope ya'all get this.
I know you guys won't. In fact I doubt any of you have ever changed the oil in your car/truck/SUV let alone give it a tune up. This is hysterical. You can't work on your vehicle but think you know science? This is hilarious.

Edited on 02-05-2020 04:14
02-05-2020 04:55
James___
★★★★★
(3452)
Thanks Duncan

I have some work to do on my SUV and now realize the main problem is that I need a better hydraulic floor jack. What I have is good for basically changing tires. If you want to take your front end apart, I'd need my SUV higher off the ground.
Don't get me wrong about physics but when you work on a car, it's something that you can put your hands on. A lot of physics relies on if someone can make or do something based on what you think. But with a car, it's something you can enjoy working on and tinkering with. Physics just doesn't allow for that.
This is something my father was the lead machinist on. The original that is. If things like my wood working becomes known, it's because I was raised on mechanics

https://images.app.goo.gl/2a3QVchepDwkZsKm7

This kind of means the things people in my family can do, most people can't. And in here, it's not personal, just have been exposed to more. After all, boats can fly but in here, you guys would say they can't. I know how or why the boat flies just as I do an airplane. Hope you enjoy

Edited on 02-05-2020 04:59
02-05-2020 05:04
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2730)
I've never bought a factory-fresh, new car. Most of what I end driving are 10-15 years old. I do the work myself, mechanics are expensive. I only pay to to have tires mounted and balanced. My current car, a 2003 Ford Explorer sucks under the hood, but I still get it done. Never a Ford fan, but I'll drive anything cheap...
02-05-2020 05:24
James___
★★★★★
(3452)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've never bought a factory-fresh, new car. Most of what I end driving are 10-15 years old. I do the work myself, mechanics are expensive. I only pay to to have tires mounted and balanced. My current car, a 2003 Ford Explorer sucks under the hood, but I still get it done. Never a Ford fan, but I'll drive anything cheap...


Not cheap Harvey, economical. I bought a 68 Mustang once. It was cheap. Only $500. I put a new rear axle on it, drive shaft, etc. and then gave it to my sister-in-law because I thought she'd like it.
I had a 69 Buick GS400 California Special that I liked better. It didn't have a straight 6 but it got me to work.
Since your house is paid for, with what traffic is where you live, a small V-8 might be all you need. I mean the days of rollin' down the freeway at around 140 are basically gone. Used to be no cops would be around but today you might get more than a ticket. And yep, it is nice burying the speedometer on a car before punching it and then letting off the gas just because.
Trust me, a good engine at 140 sounds sweet. It's not about the speed. A Porsche can do 140 but a Big Block V-8 carrying a lot of metal? That's music.
Still, Ford Explorers are alright. I won't say anything bad about them. I mean I'm in a Dodge Caliber, heavy sigh!!!, still, gotta get around, right?

p.s., with the Mustang, it needed floor pans, interior work and a paint job. But it made for a good daily driver.
To give you a clue Harvey, my older brother who is deceased never told me about when took my (1967) GTO out racing. Me and my dad would be laughing about how the push rods got bent. I was in the Navy at the time in dry dock. My brother would take my car out on Friday nights and say he didn't know what happened.
That's the car I took to 120 (high end of the speedometer), buried it and then punched it. It needed higher gearing because 140 was about all the tranny allowed for without risking a blown engine. And it easily weighed 4,000 lbs which makes me wonder about who built the engine. It needed more than a TH-400. It needed a couple of extra gears. And today cars have those.
As for my brother, it would've been nice to have known if he won. Me and my dad spent a lot of quality time together trying to figure out how to keep the rocker nuts from coming loose. That was another issue. Could take a hammer and beat down on the nut but it wouldn't keep it tight.
And Harvey, I'm driving a Dodge Caliber with a 4 cylinder today, it does kind of make me want to have a car again where it has performance and I can work on it.
Times change but tinkering with your ride, does that have to as well?
Why I mentioned I'm driving a 4 cyl is because of what I'm not driving today. I also don't talk to my family either. They didn't like my choice in transportation.
And Harvey, thanks for reminding me of what I had. There were only about 400 GS400s built in 1969 so they were rare. Still, they had a full time cowl induction hood with 2 vents to the carburettor. If it rained, just the wrong car to be driving. Water chokes any engine. But on a sunny day, it was ram air induction.
Did I tell you that I don't talk to my family today? They don't understand ram air induction and all of its admirable qualities. Kind of why I am thanking you. It is nice to be reminded about one of the best things in life

Edited on 02-05-2020 05:51
02-05-2020 06:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3515)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[covid-19 regulations and seat belt laws]
Do they work 100% of the time? Nope
Are they effective? Often

Those policies are not stopping nor are they preventing anything...

So having and enforcing a law that requires:
1 - Wearing Seat belts
2 - Driving sober
3 - Obeying a speed limit

Has no impact whatsoever on the actual behavior on the road?
I'm asking for your perspective not characterizing it.
02-05-2020 06:24
James___
★★★★★
(3452)
Harvey, if you consider my brother Paul who did 6 or 7 years in the USCG before joining the Air Force, he'd tell us about trips he took on his Honda 750 Super Sport during a kegger.
From MountlakeTerrace he got to the freeway and the headed towards Bellingham. His average speed exceeded 120 mph. He said it felt like his front tire was trying to go underneath his bike, ie., they trailed.
To average over 120, he got to the freeway at a lot slower speeds. Nobody asked him how fast he went. It clearly wasn't safe. With driving between Alderwood Manor and South Everett, ask ITN how many cops you see. The freeway is straight enough. At about 140, you need probably at least 1/2 mile of visibility to avoid rear ending some **** doing 55.
Anyone who is willing to go over 140 is risking something and it is someone else's life. Stupid as hell but it's sooo muucchhh fun. Just ask ITN if you can roll over 140 between Lynnwood and Everett. It's got a really nice stretch of road for finding out if 140 is good. And it is.
Thing is, I doubt 160 is any better. A flat tire at 140 is instant death. But to hear the engine, God, that is what it's all about. Just to hear it sing. That's what it's about. And to think, you guys will never hear such a sound, never hear a sonic boom and never cross oceans.
If you're wondering, cancer took care of my ever having kids. So what is better?
My doing things you guys will never do or you guys doing what I'll never do? So you see, I'm not that lucky. I can't tell my kids I did something because I never had any kids.
I'm making the best of my situation. And yep, I am glad that Harvey reminded me of these things. A lot of people have done similar things and had kids, I just wasn't one of those people.

I am sorry for you guys. God, and I thought I missed something in life. Have you ever let off the gas at 140? A TH-400 didn't have another gear to hit. If it did, 160 or 170 was easily possible. And all in 4,000 lbs. of steel. There was nothing light about a 67 GTO. They were heavy and please, obey the speed limits.
At over 120 cops don't give chase but you didn't hear it here.

see what you started Harvey? Google map Lynnwood and Everett Washington on I-5.
Harvey, if you need a clue, me and my dad spent a lot of time "tuning" my GTO because my brother took it out racing. Family is family, right? So no harm done, just gave me and my dad time to spend together.
Edited on 02-05-2020 06:49
02-05-2020 09:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7585)
tmiddles wrote:
So having and enforcing a law that requires:
1 - Wearing Seat belts
2 - Driving sober
3 - Obeying a speed limit

Has no impact whatsoever on the actual behavior on the road?

What is your position on gun control? The answer is related.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-05-2020 09:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3515)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So having and enforcing a law that requires:
1 - Wearing Seat belts
2 - Driving sober
3 - Obeying a speed limit
Has no impact whatsoever on the actual behavior on the road?

What is your position on gun control? The answer is related.

There are two parts to ________ control: Who should have the power to decide, and what would you like them to do when they make their decision.

It's legitimate in my view for our democracy to delineate the right to bear arms as we do freedom of speech and our other personal liberties. To consider it's purpose and utility in court as well as at the ballot box.

What I would like them to decide is that guns for personal protection should be legal. Machine guns, RPGs, High capacity magazine, bump stocks, mortars, artillery, and weapons of war should be illegal (and mostly are). So for example a shotgun or revolver, which is not legal to carry outside your own home unless there are special circumstances, should be legal.
02-05-2020 18:34
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2730)
Gun control, is only being able to hit your intended target, and nobody else... The only legislation needed, is to insist on every gun owner to get out and practice often. Make sure everyone in the in the house, can safely handle firearms, and hit the intended target, even children. It's important to start young, so they clearly understand that guns aren't toys. All American should be encouraged to own at least one gun. We would have a lot less violent crime, eventually... It would make the job of police officers much easier and safer, less stressful. Criminals would know that every potential victim, is probably armed, and can hit what they point at. Big deterrent, chance of dying over pocket change really isn't worth the risk. Police officers won't have to be quite so polite, since they can pretty much count on everyone being armed, and deal with every call accordingly.

You don't need a gun to rob or murder another human being. Other tools of the violent criminal trade, can do a lot more damage, and much more deadly. Getting shot, isn't the worst thing that can happen to you, most people survive, and fully recover. Getting stabbed or cut, is nasty, and a longer recovery, worse if it gets infected. Getting clubbed or beaten, usually leaves injuries you have to deal with, the rest of your life. Doesn't take a lot of imagination, to use common, everyday tools and items, as deadly weapons. Banning guns, won't take away the desire or intent to commit violent crimes. Banning guns, just makes it easier and safer for criminals to victimize others.

It may take a generation or two, to get back to normal, but kids that grow up, learning what guns are, what they can do, and that everybody has one. That knowledge will deter them from even being tempted of committing violent crimes. They learn that they aren't likely to survive long enough to benefit from it. The criminals we currently have, will be either dead, or rehabilitated, after getting shot a couple times.
02-05-2020 21:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
duncan61 wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
When I was a freshman in high school, a girl in the senior class drove off the road, down an embankment, and into a river. She lived long enough, to tear out all her fingernails, clawing at the seat belt, which the paramedics cut, because they could release it ether, to recover the body. Car was only under about a foot of water...

I didn't wear a seat belt, until about 4 or 5 years ago, when it became a primary offense, $116 dollar ticket, and 1 point on your license. Points, mean hike in your insurance, or you lose the safe driver discount, same thing. I wouldn't wear the belt, if it wasn't a crime. Been in a few accidents, totaled a couple cars (not my fault), and no injuries, no belt either. Better not to get into accidents in the first place, but how you react, can minimize the damage. When I'm drive, that's about all I do, is drive. Keep the distractions, and playing with knobs and buttons to a bare minimum, wait until stopped, when possible.

A lot of safety equipment, gives a false sense of security. They don't prevent accidents, just hopefully minimize some of the damage.


Some older models Ford cortinas have a habit of catching fire in the centre console.That makes trying to undo the seat belt gangs of fun

Obviously then, the vehicle is unsafe.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-05-2020 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
James___ wrote:
The Pinto was notorious for catching on fire. It's gas tank was located between the rear axle and the rear bumper.
Just search Pinto fires.

No, the Fort Pinto had a rather bad habit of exploding when rear ended by another car.
James___ wrote:
With that said, their overhead cam design provided too little lubrication to the overhead camshaft. As a result, they had to be replaced early and often.

This is typical of Ford engines on this size vehicle. This was a 4 cylinder inline design using duel camshafts. Oil pressure was introduced on one end of the engine near the front cylinder. As oil flows through the galleries, pressure drops little by little. By the time the other end receives lubrication, pressure has dropped considerably. Oil galleries narrow if oil is not changed regularly. As a result, if the oil is not changed very often, or if the oil pump begins to wear (it was made of crappy materials like everything else on this engine), the main, wrist, and cylinder walls on the far end of the galleries would receive insufficient lubrication. The result was scored and worn bearings.

Further, the camshaft bearings on that same end of the engine would also receive insufficient lubrication, scoring both the camshaft and the bearings.

Materials quality in these engines was very poor. Some metal pieces were so soft you could score them with your fingernail. This engine was NOT designed to last.

Out of some three million Pintos manufactured, fewer than 10,000 are still on the road today. Those that are tend to be owned by those who collect old cars and have a liking for this unloved duckling. They have often had to manufacture their own parts just to keep this crappy engine running.

James___ wrote:
I'll leave you guys alone. It's just that GM and the FoMoCo preferred different systems for lubricating their engines.

Nope. Same system. Both companies use front mounted pressurized oil with ambient sump systems in their engines. Both companies use slip bearings for the main, rod, and camshaft bearings.
James___ wrote:
If you're not car guys then you might not know stuff like this.

I fix both cars and aircraft.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-05-2020 22:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
James___ wrote:
You'll have to forgive me Duncan. In my family, you had to know that timing changes dwell but dwell can't change timing. It's a basic truth in automotive mechanics.

No, it isn't. Dwell is part of timing an engine. If dwell changes, timing changes, since dwell is the time the points are closed. Plugs are fired when the points open again. Dwell centers on the top of the lobe of the distributor shaft. As dwell changes, the point on either side of that lobe changes, changing the timing. Fortunately, cars don't use this old mechanical timing system anymore.
James___ wrote:
This is because dwell determines the gap on a point gap type distributor. ie, if you use points, what determines their gap if you don't have a feeler gauge? It's your dwell angle which might be more accurate.

Either works. Some were easier to set using a feeler gauge, others were easier to set using a dwell meter or oscilloscope.
James___ wrote:
People today don't know what points are.

Generally true, both then and now. All folks that work on engines or automotive electrical systems (such as those found in cars, boats, or aircraft) know what points are. We still use them, even though the distributor is long gone.
James___ wrote:
It's all computer controlled in which you have a modulator that fires your spark plugs.

No, you have a computer that turns a large transistor on and off that substitutes for what the distributor points used to do. The ignition circuit on a car is otherwise unchanged. This single change means no more burned or worn distributor points, and no more slipped anchor screws for them, making timing of the spark much more reliable. Some automotive manufacturers call this a 'modulator', but it is a marketing term.
James___ wrote:
Before computers, there was a mechanical distributor that was fed by a coil. Pretty basic unless someone's never worked on one. And now we have computers.

Thank goodness. The computer does a much better job.
James___ wrote:
@Harvey, my family preferred working on something mechanical to physics.

Working on something mechanical IS part of physics. Car engines made use of Newton's laws, ideal gas laws, and of course Faraday's laws and chemistry.
James___ wrote:
Needless to say, thinking about quantum mechanics and cars usually don't go together.

Actually, they do, but auto mechanics don't have to think about that branch of physics.
James___ wrote:
Actually, they don't. As ITN would say, it's a paradox.

You don't get to say anything for anyone else. You only get to say things for you. There is no paradox here.
James___ wrote:
Why is 15 seconds in the quarter mile fast and what is the difference between 4:11 and 3:89 gears and c?
I mean with 3:89, you can have a higher top end while with 4:11, it's a common gear ratio used. It depends on if your camshaft and where you develop torque and not horsepower. Horsepower is for once you get rolling. Torque gets you off of the line but won't let you have top end speed.

Generally True. Engines have two ratings; starting torque and running torque. Electric motors have the same two ratings. The only difference is that gasoline engines have a minimum RPM (called the idle RPM).
Horsepower of an engine usually refers to the running torque.
James___ wrote:
And this is where c is relative to an energy/mass ratio. A basic example is E = hf which is frequency. This has to do with mass/amplitude, etc. It's a derivative of force in a way. This is getting back into do you have 3:89 or taller gears? It's all pretty fücking mechanical. And 4:11 is taller because of the higher number of shaft revolutions to rotate your friggin differential. I sure hope ya'all get this.

Word salad.
James___ wrote:
I know you guys won't. In fact I doubt any of you have ever changed the oil in your car/truck/SUV let alone give it a tune up.

Cars don't need tune ups anymore, thanks to the full authority digital engine control (FADEC) systems in place now. There is no distributor anymore, even though the coil and capacitor (condensor) is still there. Low voltage ignition systems are more common now too, moving the coil and capacitor into the spark plug cap of each cylinder, effectively eliminating high tension wiring in the engine (and it's losses).
James___ wrote:
This is hysterical. You can't work on your vehicle but think you know science? This is hilarious.


I work on all my vehicles myself. I have never taken any of them to the shop. I do all my own maintenance on my cars, my aircraft, and sometimes on my neighbor's stuff as well.

Personally, I'm glad the old distributor days are gone. Good riddance to the carburetor too. Both were inefficient dinosaur technologies that wasted fuel and required a lot of maintenance.

Today, the computer running engines is not only capable of much more efficient handling of engine running parameters, it can also help diagnose problems with the engine when something goes wrong. Sensors are everywhere. It is easy for the computer to cross check when something doesn't look right. Also, even throttle cables are gone. That means no more worn cable to rust up and snap. The electronic throttle system used today also makes implementing cruise control systems ridiculously easy. Duel sensors on the accelerator pedal allow the computer to cross check them and take a safe fail path in case one of these sensors fails.

Pretty damn nice cars running around today. They are not only much more fuel efficient, but the need for regular tune ups is eliminated and overall maintenance is simplified. In most cases, just look up the code, which is standardized.

The rest is just the usual bodywork and oil and coolant changes. Oh, BTW, oil itself is better. Modern engines use much thinner oil, providing better lubrication. They can get away with this because parts fit together more precisely. These synthetic oils don't build up carbon and acids as fast, allowing longer distance driven before oil changes.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-05-2020 22:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
James___ wrote:
Thanks Duncan

I have some work to do on my SUV and now realize the main problem is that I need a better hydraulic floor jack. What I have is good for basically changing tires. If you want to take your front end apart, I'd need my SUV higher off the ground.
Don't get me wrong about physics but when you work on a car, it's something that you can put your hands on. A lot of physics relies on if someone can make or do something based on what you think. But with a car, it's something you can enjoy working on and tinkering with. Physics just doesn't allow for that.
This is something my father was the lead machinist on. The original that is. If things like my wood working becomes known, it's because I was raised on mechanics

https://images.app.goo.gl/2a3QVchepDwkZsKm7

This kind of means the things people in my family can do, most people can't. And in here, it's not personal, just have been exposed to more. After all, boats can fly but in here, you guys would say they can't. I know how or why the boat flies just as I do an airplane. Hope you enjoy

Some boats can fly very well. They are also aircraft. Some fly unintentionally!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-05-2020 22:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've never bought a factory-fresh, new car. Most of what I end driving are 10-15 years old. I do the work myself, mechanics are expensive. I only pay to to have tires mounted and balanced. My current car, a 2003 Ford Explorer sucks under the hood, but I still get it done. Never a Ford fan, but I'll drive anything cheap...


Ah...the old Explorer. These cars were actually a pretty good design coming out of Ford (and that's saying something!). Given decent maintenance, they will last a fairly long time. They are very popular, especially in the midwest.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-05-2020 22:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[covid-19 regulations and seat belt laws]
Do they work 100% of the time? Nope
Are they effective? Often

Those policies are not stopping nor are they preventing anything...

So having and enforcing a law that requires:
1 - Wearing Seat belts
2 - Driving sober
3 - Obeying a speed limit

Has no impact whatsoever on the actual behavior on the road?
I'm asking for your perspective not characterizing it.


Since these result in traffic tickets if any of these rules are violated, they obviously have an effect on behavior. Your point? or do you have one?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-05-2020 22:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
James___ wrote:
Harvey, if you consider my brother Paul who did 6 or 7 years in the USCG before joining the Air Force, he'd tell us about trips he took on his Honda 750 Super Sport during a kegger.
From MountlakeTerrace he got to the freeway and the headed towards Bellingham. His average speed exceeded 120 mph. He said it felt like his front tire was trying to go underneath his bike, ie., they trailed.

Sounds like a dead man riding a bike. It's only a matter of time.
James___ wrote:
To average over 120, he got to the freeway at a lot slower speeds. Nobody asked him how fast he went. It clearly wasn't safe. With driving between Alderwood Manor and South Everett, ask ITN how many cops you see.

About 3 or 4 usually. They often monitor the I-5/I-405 interchange and an area near a rest stop up further north, where a cop crossover is built for them.
James___ wrote:
The freeway is straight enough. At about 140, you need probably at least 1/2 mile of visibility to avoid rear ending some **** doing 55.

Heh. Usually in the left lane. Morons.
James___ wrote:
Anyone who is willing to go over 140 is risking something and it is someone else's life. Stupid as hell but it's sooo muucchhh fun.

Mostly his own life. If he hits another car, it may injure the occupants, but he will be killed.
James___ wrote:
Just ask ITN if you can roll over 140 between Lynnwood and Everett. It's got a really nice stretch of road for finding out if 140 is good. And it is.

It is a fairly straight bit of road. There is a curve at the Paine interchange, but that's pretty much it. It's downhill into Everett itself too, as the road comes off the ridge to pass over the Snohomish river and its valley.
James___ wrote:
Thing is, I doubt 160 is any better. A flat tire at 140 is instant death.

Yup. Good way to turn your body and bike into the mother of all road rashes.
James___ wrote:
But to hear the engine, God, that is what it's all about. Just to hear it sing. That's what it's about.

Obviously you like high performance engines. Use a race track, not I-5.
James___ wrote:
And to think, you guys will never hear such a sound, never hear a sonic boom

I've heard both.
James___ wrote:
and never cross oceans.

Done that too. The Pacific. The biggest pond on the planet.
James___ wrote:
If you're wondering, cancer took care of my ever having kids. So what is better?
My doing things you guys will never do or you guys doing what I'll never do? So you see, I'm not that lucky. I can't tell my kids I did something because I never had any kids.
I'm making the best of my situation. And yep, I am glad that Harvey reminded me of these things. A lot of people have done similar things and had kids, I just wasn't one of those people.

I am sorry for you guys. God, and I thought I missed something in life. Have you ever let off the gas at 140? A TH-400 didn't have another gear to hit. If it did, 160 or 170 was easily possible. And all in 4,000 lbs. of steel. There was nothing light about a 67 GTO. They were heavy and please, obey the speed limits.

Sound advice. You'll get less tickets and you'll tend to have less accidents.
James___ wrote:
At over 120 cops don't give chase but you didn't hear it here.

Actually, they do, but usually they will set up a chase sequence, starting out ahead of where you are so that when you pass by, they are already up to speed to deal with you, or they will set up a rolling block to catch you that way.
James___ wrote:
see what you started Harvey? Google map Lynnwood and Everett Washington on I-5.

Sure has been built up in recent years.
James___ wrote:
Harvey, if you need a clue, me and my dad spent a lot of time "tuning" my GTO because my brother took it out racing. Family is family, right? So no harm done, just gave me and my dad time to spend together.

Nuthin' wrong with that!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-05-2020 22:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So having and enforcing a law that requires:
1 - Wearing Seat belts
2 - Driving sober
3 - Obeying a speed limit
Has no impact whatsoever on the actual behavior on the road?

What is your position on gun control? The answer is related.

There are two parts to ________ control: Who should have the power to decide, and what would you like them to do when they make their decision.

Why you have a problem saying 'gun control' is beyond me. This isn't an embarrassing subject.
tmiddles wrote:
It's legitimate in my view for our democracy

The United States is not a democracy and never was. It is organized as a federated republic. It has constitutions.
tmiddles wrote:
to delineate the right to bear arms

Not possible. No government has the authority to pass any law restricting guns in any way. This is very clearly laid out in the absence of any authority given to the federal government, and in the specific limitations of the 2nd amendment, which also applies to the States and always has.
tmiddles wrote:
as we do freedom of speech and our other personal liberties.

The federal government is not authorized to pass any law concerning freedom of speech, again reiterated by the 1st amendment. The States, however, have that right, granted in their own constitutions. Thus States can pass laws to make it illegal to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater unnecessarily. The 1st amendment applies only to the federal government. Thus, the federal government broke the law when it ordered radio stations to not utter words from a selected list given by the federal government.
tmiddles wrote:
To consider it's purpose and utility in court as well as at the ballot box.

Nope. You can't change the constitution that way.
tmiddles wrote:
What I would like them to decide is that guns for personal protection should be legal.

You don't get to decide. You are not the king.
tmiddles wrote:
Machine guns, RPGs, High capacity magazine, bump stocks, mortars, artillery, and weapons of war should be illegal (and mostly are).

They are all legal. Private citizens own all of these weapons and weapon accessories.
tmiddles wrote:
So for example a shotgun or revolver, which is not legal to carry outside your own home unless there are special circumstances, should be legal.

It is legal to carry either one outside your home. I carry a semiautomatic pistol on a regular basis. I generally don't like using a revolver, with a few exceptions.

You don't get to declare what weapons someone may carry or use. Neither does the federal government (legally). Neither does a State (legally).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-05-2020 22:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Gun control, is only being able to hit your intended target, and nobody else... The only legislation needed, is to insist on every gun owner to get out and practice often. Make sure everyone in the in the house, can safely handle firearms, and hit the intended target, even children. It's important to start young, so they clearly understand that guns aren't toys. All American should be encouraged to own at least one gun. We would have a lot less violent crime, eventually... It would make the job of police officers much easier and safer, less stressful. Criminals would know that every potential victim, is probably armed, and can hit what they point at. Big deterrent, chance of dying over pocket change really isn't worth the risk. Police officers won't have to be quite so polite, since they can pretty much count on everyone being armed, and deal with every call accordingly.

You don't need a gun to rob or murder another human being. Other tools of the violent criminal trade, can do a lot more damage, and much more deadly. Getting shot, isn't the worst thing that can happen to you, most people survive, and fully recover. Getting stabbed or cut, is nasty, and a longer recovery, worse if it gets infected. Getting clubbed or beaten, usually leaves injuries you have to deal with, the rest of your life. Doesn't take a lot of imagination, to use common, everyday tools and items, as deadly weapons. Banning guns, won't take away the desire or intent to commit violent crimes. Banning guns, just makes it easier and safer for criminals to victimize others.

It may take a generation or two, to get back to normal, but kids that grow up, learning what guns are, what they can do, and that everybody has one. That knowledge will deter them from even being tempted of committing violent crimes. They learn that they aren't likely to survive long enough to benefit from it. The criminals we currently have, will be either dead, or rehabilitated, after getting shot a couple times.

Don't need to make a law to practice often. People that like guns generally do anyway.
People that don't like guns are not required to buy them or carry them. They have that right as well.

We are an armed society. There are more guns out there than people in the United States (Source: CRC). Yet, we have one of the lowest murder rates in the world. (Source: UNODC, CIA).

Gun sales are high right now for a reason. The revolt against these governors keeping their State locked down unconstitutionally is building. The worry over financial collapse is building too.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 02-05-2020 22:54
02-05-2020 23:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7585)
tmiddles wrote:
So having and enforcing a law that requires:
1 - Wearing Seat belts
2 - Driving sober
3 - Obeying a speed limit

Has no impact whatsoever on the actual behavior on the road?


tmiddles wrote: There are two parts to ________ control: Who should have the power to decide, and what would you like them to do when they make their decision.

It's legitimate in my view for our democracy to delineate the right to bear arms as we do freedom of speech and our other personal liberties. To consider it's purpose and utility in court as well as at the ballot box.

Despite the completely anticipatable result, it really was not my intention to discuss gun control or the Second Amendment insofar as the Bill of Rights and the preservation of the rights and liberties of the minority at the hands of the majority.

You identified those three points, i.e. 1 - Wearing Seat belts, 2 - Driving sober and 3 - Obeying a speed limit, specifically as having control over behavior and that is a very dangerous and misguided road to travel. The legislation you listed regarding use of automobiles is the same as legislation for use of firearms in that no law can force behavior; it can only provide for punishment for engaging in prohibited behavior. It is illegal to rob a bank. Banks still get robbed. It is illegal to exceed the speed limit. The speed limit is exceeded in every State every minute of every day.

Therefore, the fundamental problem with your position is that you do not exist as a force for protecting American liberties; you exist as a force that seeks to punish more and more behavior and, in effect, chip away at liberties until they are all gone. The Bill of Rights exists specifically to prevent what you advocate, i.e. the infringement of the rights of the minority at the hands of the majority, aka mob rule. Regarding the Second Amendment, your view is that it should be open for elimination by vote rather than immune from death at the hands of mob rule.

... but since others have decided to wander down the path of "gun control legislation, I think I'll join in."



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-05-2020 00:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3515)
HarveyH55 wrote:
You don't need a gun to rob or murder another human being.
So what guns should be legal? (ITN seems to think all weapons are already legal everywhere)

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
There are two parts to ________ control:

Why you have a problem saying 'gun control' is beyond me.
I meant that my statement applied to control on anything. Taking away another human being freedom to ______. Sometimes I wonder where you grew up and if English if your first language ITN.

Into the Night wrote:
You don't get to declare what weapons someone may carry or use. Neither does the federal government (legally). Neither does a State (legally).
As he stairs lovingly at the portrait of Timothy McVey on his wall. Who, ITN will remind you, was NOT a terrorist.

IBdaMann wrote:It is illegal to rob a bank. Banks still get robbed. It is illegal to exceed the speed limit. The speed limit is exceeded in every State every minute of every day.
So it seems your argument is that it's not possible to prevent people from doing something they want to do?

IBdaMann wrote:The Bill of Rights exists specifically to prevent what you advocate, i.e. the infringement of the rights of the minority at the hands of the majority,...
So instead of just kicking back and asking questions how about you volunteer how you think society should work to prevent something objectionable? You mentioned Bank Robbery. Are we really helpless to prevent that? Of course I know you don't think we are but let's hear your version of how Bank Robbery should be prevented.
03-05-2020 00:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7585)
tmiddles wrote: So what guns should be legal?

All of them.

Instead of enforcing some religion by fixating on what inanimate objects are "unclean", e.g. pork, high-capacity magazines, etc... we should instead focus on defining what actions are incongruent with an orderly, peaceful society, e.g. murder, rape, burglary, etc.

tmiddles wrote: As he stairs lovingly at the portrait of Timothy McVey on his wall. Who, ITN will remind you, was NOT a terrorist.

We have laws against murder (an action). Timothy McVeigh committed murder. He was a criminal, specifically a murderer, specifically a mass murderer.

So who convinced you that McVeigh was somehow a terrorist? Were you gullible at the time you were told that the definition of terrorism is to detonate an explosive? I bet you didn't even question it, did you? You just let your eyes glaze over and then you bent over.

tmiddles wrote: So it seems your argument is that it's not possible to prevent people from doing something they want to do?

Nope. My position is that you are conflating the legislative function with the physical security function.

People need to be free to implement physical security because legislation does not perform that function. If you legislate away physical security then you destroy the orderly society. Have you noticed that all mass shootings occur in defenselessness zones? Are you confused at that stunning coincidence?

tmiddles wrote:So instead of just kicking back and asking questions how about you volunteer how you think society should work to prevent something objectionable?

So instead of just kicking back and ignoring the answers to the questions you repeatedly ask, why don't you pay attention to those positions. I have clarified this for you previously (I think twice at least) however Harvey just addressed it above very well. In fact, I should award him 5 bonus points.

The answer is that we strengthen our social understanding of the 2nd Amendment, we eliminate deflenselessness zones, we encourage everyone to take physical security seriously, we teach even children that physical security is everyone's responsibility and that we cannot depend on law enforcement instantly teleporting to the scene of an emergency.

That is the correct answer. The incorrect answer is to legislate away the rights of We the People until we find ourselves in one big defenselessness zone at the mercy of every criminal who, by virtue of not obeying the law, is the only one packing heat.

tmiddles wrote: You mentioned Bank Robbery. Are we really helpless to prevent that?

Those banks with sufficient physical security can prevent it.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-05-2020 00:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7585)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Gun control, is only being able to hit your intended target, and nobody else... The only legislation needed, is to insist on every gun owner to get out and practice often. Make sure everyone in the in the house, can safely handle firearms, and hit the intended target, even children. It's important to start young, so they clearly understand that guns aren't toys. All American should be encouraged to own at least one gun. We would have a lot less violent crime, eventually... It would make the job of police officers much easier and safer, less stressful. Criminals would know that every potential victim, is probably armed, and can hit what they point at. Big deterrent, chance of dying over pocket change really isn't worth the risk. Police officers won't have to be quite so polite, since they can pretty much count on everyone being armed, and deal with every call accordingly.

You don't need a gun to rob or murder another human being. Other tools of the violent criminal trade, can do a lot more damage, and much more deadly. Getting shot, isn't the worst thing that can happen to you, most people survive, and fully recover. Getting stabbed or cut, is nasty, and a longer recovery, worse if it gets infected. Getting clubbed or beaten, usually leaves injuries you have to deal with, the rest of your life. Doesn't take a lot of imagination, to use common, everyday tools and items, as deadly weapons. Banning guns, won't take away the desire or intent to commit violent crimes. Banning guns, just makes it easier and safer for criminals to victimize others.

It may take a generation or two, to get back to normal, but kids that grow up, learning what guns are, what they can do, and that everybody has one. That knowledge will deter them from even being tempted of committing violent crimes. They learn that they aren't likely to survive long enough to benefit from it. The criminals we currently have, will be either dead, or rehabilitated, after getting shot a couple times.


Five bonus points have been credited to your account.


.
Attached image:

03-05-2020 08:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3515)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So what guns should be legal?

All of them.
So you disagree with the NRA that automatic weapons should be illegal?

How about something like an RPG. Should this be legal and what legitimate reason is there for owning one?


And a tank, artillery, ect.

IBdaMann wrote:...we should instead focus on defining what actions are incongruent with an orderly, peaceful society, ...
We do. You said that as though they were mutually exclusive in our laws. Machine guns are illegal and so is murder.

IBdaMann wrote:So who convinced you that McVeigh was somehow a terrorist? Were you gullible at the time .....
Why is it important to you guys that McVeigh NOT be considered a terrorist? I don't actually have a complicated definition. A terrorist commits crimes with the goal of terrorizing others. Your efforts to somehow salvage that pig's reputation are beyond disturbing.

IBdaMann wrote:If you legislate away physical security then you destroy the orderly society.
It is not legislating something into nonexistence to delegate it. As with medicine, fire, and other areas surrounding human health our society, wisely in my opinion, delegates and restricts those functions to a highly trained and qualified class of professionals.

IBdaMann wrote:Have you noticed that all mass shootings occur in defenselessness zones? Are you confused at that stunning coincidence?
Defenseless zones? You mean where the population is stripped of the right to have guns? Like England, Europe:
link

I've notice that all mass shootings are done with legal weapons actually. The Vegas shooter used a bump stock not a real machine gun (why? cuz they are illegal and he couldn't get one, and that guy had money).

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You mentioned Bank Robbery. Are we really helpless to prevent that?

Those banks with sufficient physical security can prevent it.
Sounds like you a blaming the victim. If you find you are out gunned it's your fault for not having bigger guns?

I'm sure you've seen this but it's just incredible. I remember watching it live. Still blows my mind. So much like the downtown LA scene in HEAT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E4_wDQFky0

And yeah they had a real machine gun. AK47


How'd they get the guns?
vpc.org
Multiple fully automatic assault rifles including an AK-47 type
"The weapons were originally bought at a gun show and then illegally resold to Matasareanu and Phillips."
Edited on 03-05-2020 08:44
03-05-2020 10:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
You don't need a gun to rob or murder another human being.
So what guns should be legal? (ITN seems to think all weapons are already legal everywhere)

All guns are legal. All gun accessories are legal. All weapons are legal. Nothing in the 2nd amendment specifies a weapon by type, brand, action, or capacity. The government has NO legal authority to limit or restrict any weapon. Mantra 29...TMSb5...

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
There are two parts to ________ control:

Why you have a problem saying 'gun control' is beyond me.
I meant that my statement applied to control on anything. Taking away another human being freedom to ______. Sometimes I wonder where you grew up and if English if your first language ITN.

Mantra 12...
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You don't get to declare what weapons someone may carry or use. Neither does the federal government (legally). Neither does a State (legally).
As he stairs lovingly at the portrait of Timothy McVey on his wall. Who, ITN will remind you, was NOT a terrorist.

Mantra 30...lie...4c...21...29...

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:It is illegal to rob a bank. Banks still get robbed. It is illegal to exceed the speed limit. The speed limit is exceeded in every State every minute of every day.
So it seems your argument is that it's not possible to prevent people from doing something they want to do?
Mantra 16c...

tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:The Bill of Rights exists specifically to prevent what you advocate, i.e. the infringement of the rights of the minority at the hands of the majority,...
So instead of just kicking back and asking questions how about you volunteer how you think society should work to prevent something objectionable? You mentioned Bank Robbery. Are we really helpless to prevent that?

Yes. Mantra 16c...

tmiddles wrote:
Of course I know you don't think we are but let's hear your version of how Bank Robbery should be prevented.

It can't.
Mantra 31...29...

No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
03-05-2020 10:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So what guns should be legal?

All of them.
So you disagree with the NRA that automatic weapons should be illegal?

The NRA never made any such statement. Mantra 31. You don't get to speak for the NRA.
tmiddles wrote:
How about something like an RPG.

Role Playing Games are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
Should this be legal and what legitimate reason is there for owning one?


Rocket Propelled Grenades are legal.
tmiddles wrote:

And a tank, artillery, ect.

Tanks and artillery are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...we should instead focus on defining what actions are incongruent with an orderly, peaceful society, ...
We do. You said that as though they were mutually exclusive in our laws. Machine guns are illegal and so is murder.

Machine guns are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:So who convinced you that McVeigh was somehow a terrorist? Were you gullible at the time .....
Why is it important to you guys that McVeigh NOT be considered a terrorist? I don't actually have a complicated definition. A terrorist commits crimes with the goal of terrorizing others. Your efforts to somehow salvage that pig's reputation are beyond disturbing.

McVeigh was not a terrorist. He never committed an act of terror. He committed an act of revenge and an act of war.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:If you legislate away physical security then you destroy the orderly society.
It is not legislating something into nonexistence to delegate it.

Yes it is.
tmiddles wrote:
As with medicine, fire, and other areas surrounding human health our society, wisely in my opinion, delegates and restricts those functions to a highly trained and qualified class of professionals.

Mantras 16b...16c...37d...29...
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Have you noticed that all mass shootings occur in defenselessness zones? Are you confused at that stunning coincidence?
Defenseless zones? You mean where the population is stripped of the right to have guns?

Mantra 29...it's called 'gun free zones', dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
Like England, Europe:
link

Baserate fallacy. The United States enjoys a low murder rate. (Source: UNODC, CIA). Both England and Canada have mass shootings as well, dumbass. Mantra 31...4c...25a...
tmiddles wrote:
I've notice that all mass shootings are done with legal weapons actually. The Vegas shooter used a bump stock not a real machine gun (why? cuz they are illegal and he couldn't get one, and that guy had money).

Bump stocks and machine guns are both legal. All mass shootings in the United States are done with legal weapons. Legal weapons do not cause mass shootings. Mantra 20d...29...
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You mentioned Bank Robbery. Are we really helpless to prevent that?

Those banks with sufficient physical security can prevent it.
Sounds like you a blaming the victim.

Mantra 30...16b... There is no blame. A bank is responsible for it's own security, just as you are responsible for yours.
tmiddles wrote:
If you find you are out gunned it's your fault for not having bigger guns?

Bigger guns are not necessarily better guns or even a gun appropriate to use in a given situation. There is no 'best' gun. Strawman fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm sure you've seen this but it's just incredible. I remember watching it live. Still blows my mind. So much like the downtown LA scene in HEAT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E4_wDQFky0

...and hundreds of millions of people that had guns did NOT commit this kind of crime...ever. Cherry picking fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
And yeah they had a real machine gun. AK47


Machine guns are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
How'd they get the guns?
vpc.org
Multiple fully automatic assault rifles including an AK-47 type
"The weapons were originally bought at a gun show and then illegally resold to Matasareanu and Phillips."

Machine guns are legal.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 03-05-2020 10:39
03-05-2020 10:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3515)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... NRA that automatic weapons should be illegal?
The NRA never made any such statement.

in 1986, ... National Rifle Association. The organization made one concession, ... a federal ban on machine guns.
Page 4 of 20<<<23456>>>





Join the debate One reason for social distancing/isolation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Safe Distancing Video004-04-2020 06:28
Wind power is the earliest way to generate power, but there's a reason it stopped being used.1321-02-2020 20:12
Reason why companies are not converting to 100% electric, focusing on Porsche1806-12-2019 23:29
Is reason for climate change correct?4830-08-2019 03:14
Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.6819-08-2019 07:18
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact