It Has Happened Again...

[Polaris]

Halifax was caused when two ships collided and one drifted into the pier while on fire. It then exploded. I believe it is still the worst disaster of that type ever

Worse than Port Chicago? That must have been one hell of a blast, literally.

But, a few seconds later means that the shrapnel wasn't travelling that fast.

It wasn't a few seconds, it was practically instantaneous from the detonation to the piece's arrival in the foreground of the camera. I'll search for the video.

That's okay, it is an interesting discussion and more likely to be productive now than when we were just slagging each other.

Agreed. I have to be a dick at work all day. I don't like to do it when I'm home - I don't come online to get pissed off.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, I don't think this is what happened.

Thinking something doesn't make it real.

One point for Saudis one point for America.

Still not clear. Please clarify.

Just those laws that prohibit things that are in high demand. The failed drug laws and the failed prohibition of alcohol demonstrate that in an other wise free society people will break the law to get that which they deem proper for them.

What is in "high demand" in the US that is forbidden by law?

Guns, drugs....what else?

 

[RandFan]

Thinking something doesn't make it real.

Yes, it doesn't make it not real either.

Still not clear. Please clarify.

I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it. America's culture is different from Saudia Arabia in that there is a high demand for alcohol in the US.

What is in "high demand" in the US that is forbidden by law?

Guns, drugs....what else?

And the question is relevant because?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, it doesn't make it not real either.

Typical woo-argument: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it. America's culture is different from Saudia Arabia in that there is a high demand for alcohol in the US.

How many factors are there? It's a perfectly simple question.

And the question is relevant because?

Do you want to debate at all? Or simply dismiss anything uncomfortable as "irrelevant"?

 

[RandFan]

Typical woo-argument: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If that were my argument then I would agree. It's not.

How many factors are there? It's a perfectly simple question.

I have no idea. The number of factors is not relevant to my position. On the relevant one is.

Do you want to debate at all? Or simply dismiss anything uncomfortable as "irrelevant"?

I didn't dismiss it. I asked why it was relevant. If it was it would seem that you could offer an answer.

 

[CFLarsen]

If that were my argument then I would agree. It's not.

I have no idea. The number of factors is not relevant to my position. On the relevant one is.

I didn't dismiss it. I asked why it was relevant. If it was it would seem that you could offer an answer.

OK, you are not interested in debating.

 

[RandFan]

OK, you are not interested in debating.

Rhetorical.

 

[Skeptic]

Arming them for the purpose of "securing" the state. That does not mean that you have a right to guns for fun or protection.

Well, that's not at all the interpretation the courts gave this amendment for the last 220+ years (including, I believe, courts which included in them members of the constitutional convention, whom presumably knew what it meant). The amendment gives the right to bear arms. The "well regulated militia" is given as a REASON for this right, but it's not a LIMIT on the right.

 

[Katana]

Are you out of your mind? Seriously. Who has argued that school shootings would disappear altogether, if guns were removed?

You did.

Remove the easy access to guns. If you can't get a gun, you can't shoot someone. Easy peasy. It's a doozy. A no-brainer. Something that shouldn't even be an issue.

Yes, it's a fact, people. The hard evidence is in. There is no question about this. Don't even try to spin this fact into something else. Remove the easy access to guns, and you won't have people killed by guns.

No, I said that bombs were not being used in the absence of guns. You have shown zero evidence that bombs would be substituted for guns, if guns were removed. You have offered nothing but your opinion. But no evidence.

You argued that bombs aren't being made. I provided evidence that they are. Guns have not been removed to show that they would be substituted, so the evidence does not exist. I am saying that it is plausible. You seem unable to accept that.

Why are you ignoring the evidence I have presented?

Because it does not support your claims.

Address the evidence, please. Don't bat your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist. Address the evidence.

I have.

What are you talking about??

What you're not, which is school killings and not gun-related crime in general.

Who has been arguing that, by removing guns, gun attacks would be completely removed?

You have presented that position by time-after-time being unwilling to entertain the notion that other devices would be employed once guns were out of the picture.

Can we please drop this idea that people will find other means, if there aren't guns available?

From: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1988141&postcount=90

Yes, direct quotes, please. Put up or shut up.

What do you think of the data above?

I have already told you:

You continue to celebrate your evidence when you have provided no evidence addressing what I am saying. You simply continue to provide links to information that I do not question, acting as though you have shot down what I have said. Interesting tactic.

 

[CFLarsen]

You did.

*groan*

I am saying that, by reducing the number of guns, you reduce the risk of killings. The lower you go, the lower the risk. Can you completely remove the possibility of school shootings? Of course not. But when you remove the easy access to guns, you won't see these school shootings where kids have had easy access to guns.

You argued that bombs aren't being made.

No, I argued that bombs aren't being made to replace guns. Your evidence has not shown that guns are being replaced with bombs.

I provided evidence that they are. Guns have not been removed to show that they would be substituted, so the evidence does not exist. I am saying that it is plausible. You seem unable to accept that.

You didn't even read your own examples. Oh, well.

Because it does not support your claims.

You ignore the evidence, then.

I have.

No, you have merely brushed it aside, without considering it at all.

What you're not, which is school killings and not gun-related crime in general.

I have been talking about school killings for some time now. You even criticize me for some points I've made.

Sheeesh, make up your mind, please.

You have presented that position by time-after-time being unwilling to entertain the notion that other devices would be employed once guns were out of the picture.

Rubbish. I am pointing out that there is no evidence that guns will be replaced with bombs.

From: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1988141&postcount=90

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I have already told you:

You ignore the evidence, then.

You have no evidence of your own claims. You ignore the evidence that proves you wrong. What do you have left?

 

[Katana]

*groan*

I am saying that, by reducing the number of guns, you reduce the risk of killings. The lower you go, the lower the risk. Can you completely remove the possibility of school shootings? Of course not. But when you remove the easy access to guns, you won't see these school shootings where kids have had easy access to guns.



No, I argued that bombs aren't being made to replace guns. Your evidence has not shown that guns are being replaced with bombs.



You didn't even read your own examples. Oh, well.



You ignore the evidence, then.



No, you have merely brushed it aside, without considering it at all.



I have been talking about school killings for some time now. You even criticize me for some points I've made.

Sheeesh, make up your mind, please.



Rubbish. I am pointing out that there is no evidence that guns will be replaced with bombs.



Wrong, wrong, wrong.



You ignore the evidence, then.

You have no evidence of your own claims. You ignore the evidence that proves you wrong. What do you have left?

I'll leave you with your delusions.

Enjoy.

 

[Morrigan]

*groan*

I am saying that, by reducing the number of guns, you reduce the risk of killings. The lower you go, the lower the risk. Can you completely remove the possibility of school shootings? Of course not.

Yet you said, "Remove the easy access to guns, and you won't have people killed by guns". Not, "you'll have FEWER people killed by guns". But you "won't have people killed by guns".

Then again,

But when you remove the easy access to guns, you won't see these school shootings where kids have had easy access to guns.

What makes you think that will stop school shootings, period? Canada doesn't have "easy access" like in the US, yet a shooting occurred. Whoops.

Anyway, you're a dihonest liar.

 

[Katana]

Yet you said, "Remove the easy access to guns, and you won't have people killed by guns". Not, "you'll have FEWER people killed by guns". But you "won't have people killed by guns".

Then again,

What makes you think that will stop school shootings, period? Canada doesn't have "easy access" like in the US, yet a shooting occurred. Whoops.

Anyway, you're a dihonest liar.

 

[Mephisto]

I think posting the Ten Commandments in schools will stop school shootings about as well as eliminating firearms will.

 

[Tricky]

Anyway, you're a dihonest liar.

What kind of liar is that? I'm guessing you meant, "dishonest", but with a double negative like that, it could mean that he tells the truth. Or maybe you meant "dijonest liar", someone who gives you plain old mustard on your sandwich but tells you it's Grey Poupon.

 

[Mephisto]

Or maybe you meant "dijonest liar", someone who gives you plain old mustard on your sandwich but tells you it's Grey Poupon.

Well, that clears me - I always ask, "Would you like some grey poop on that?"

 

[Morrigan]

What kind of liar is that? I'm guessing you meant, "dishonest", but with a double negative like that, it could mean that he tells the truth. Or maybe you meant "dijonest liar", someone who gives you plain old mustard on your sandwich but tells you it's Grey Poupon.

Hahaha.

 

[qayak]

Worse than Port Chicago? That must have been one hell of a blast, literally.

From Wikipedia:

Then, at 9:04:35, the cargo of Mont-Blanc exploded. The ship was instantly vaporised in the giant fireball that rose over 1.6 km (1 mi) into the air, forming a large mushroom cloud. The force of the blast triggered a tsunami that reached up to 18 meters above the high-water mark. Imo was lifted up onto shore by this tsunami. (The Imo was the ship the Mont-Blanc collided with.)

Over 2.5 km² of Halifax was levelled and windows were shattered as far as Truro, Nova Scotia, 100 km away. The explosion was heard as far away as Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and knocked a soldier off his feet in Cape Breton Island. An anchor from the Mont-Blanc was found 2 km from the harbour. The disaster resulted in approximately 2,000 deaths (as many as 1,000 died instantly), 9,000 injured (6,000 seriously) and — according to one conservative estimate — roughly US$30 million in damage (this estimate is given in 1917 dollars — calculated for inflation to 2005, this amount equals roughly US$508 million). Some 1.3 km² (325 acres) of urban/town area were destroyed, leaving 1,500 people homeless. A detailed estimate showed that of those killed, 600 were under the age of 15, 166 were labourers, 134 were soldiers and sailors, 125 were craftsmen, and 39 were workers for the railway. Many of the wounds were also permanently debilitating, with many people partially blinded by flying glass. The large number of eye injuries led to great efforts on the parts of physicians, and a collaborative effort managed to greatly improve the treatment of damaged eyes.