John Cuthber

In the UK condoms are available free. Please fix your healthcare system.

I guess your high school teacher friend can count to two- which seems to put them one up on you.

You were asked for information from a neutral source. Can you provide that?

OK, it may be "harsh" but when it comes down to it, this "Heavy chemical elements alter theory of quantum mechanics" just isn't true. These issues of relativity, as it applies to QM were already known. The "alterations" had already been made.

Preventative care is the best (and often cheapest) care to provide. It's the last thing for which you should cut funding. Fundamentally re. "Why should employers provide free birth control?" Because it's cheaper than providing maternity cover, not just for them, but for everybody

A number of options are available. blood, chopped liver baker's yeast or platinum for example. Which one is "best" depends on circumstances. What are you seeking to achieve?

Nice

The fastest method would be a nuclear explosion. Catalysis followed by electrolysis is probably the most efficient. If you were clever you could scavenge the energy released by the decomposition and use it to do some of the electrolysis.

I think we can rule out "he just snapped" since he had the guns with him in the hotel where he had been staying for some days. It was clearly "planned".

No. If you can't be bothered to explain it, then you clearly don't think it's important. If it's not important, I'm not bothering to look it up.

I am sat on a roundabout. By backside is held up by a force which exactly balances my weight. I'm getting travel-sick because of the very clearly real motion- broadly in a circle. So, the answer to the question "Can a force be = to the opposed force and be in ''Motion'' is yes. Strange is right about the post; it's gibberish.

We start to run into issues with the definition of "reason" here. Killing a bunch of people at a concert just isn't "reasonable"- not even for country music. What we are looking for is "What delusion was he suffering from whereby he thought this was a good thing to do?". It's possibly also interesting to consider how he cam to that , frankly insane, viewpoint. It would be fascinating to know what his web browser, newspaper and TV watching histories look like. My bet is that they resemble the OP's more than mine, but guess we will never know.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the mods In the UK gang rape is considered (and counted as) a separate offence from rape. In the US it isn't. So the official stats will show more gang rapes in the UK. " United States[edit] The US reports about 85,000 rapes a year, an average of 27.3 rapes per 100,000 population.[94] There is a rape in the US every 6.2 minutes.[95] As with other countries, the US does not collect separate data on gang rapes; Vogelman and Lewis estimate 25% of all rapes in the US are gang rapes.[75] Another source indicates 21.8% of American rapes are gang rapes.[96] A Roger Williams University study estimates from survey of crime data that 16% of all male rapists in the US participated in a gang rape crime.[97] Some recent examples of gang rapes reported in local media include the Cleveland gang rape,[98] Richmond gang rape,[99] New Orleans gang rape,[100] St Paul gang rape,[101] Miami gang rape/murder,[102] Chicago gang rape,[103] and Delaware park gang rape,[104] among others. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_rape#United_States Meanwhile, back at the topic. Is there anything to add to the fact that, if he hadn't been able to get way more guns and ammo than anyone sensibly needs, he wouldn't have been able to kill so many people? If not, it might be a short thread.

It's far from clear what the thread is about. You can answer the question anyway. Why are gangs of rapists with guns less of a problem that gangs of rapists without guns?

OK, I will have a brief look at them. They seem to be a bunch of shitty inadequate men. Now, since the thread is about gun control, who do you think is more likely to have a gun (and, indeed, to know how to use it) Do you think it is: Those shits or their victims? And, for a bonus, you can tell us how guns make things better in this context.

Interesting, but hardly news. Gold's colour and mercury's liquidity result from relativistic effects

Tha'ts neat! Can I ask you to post stuff on my behalf? ... Oops!

Because prohibition of alcohol has a success record like no other idea. And, just to bring it back to the topic, the 18th amendment was overturned when they realised it did more harm than good. These amendments can be revoked. How long for the 2nd amendment?

Saying "Now is not the time" because it's just after a mass shooting sounds kind-of reasonable. But when your country averages about 1 mass shooting every day, you essentially rule out any discussion. Was that the intention? It's quite a neat ploy, but surely people will see through it. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/02/america-mass-shootings-gun-violence

"Have you ever seen what a woman's face looks like after an acid attack?" No, I haven't and neither have you, as you say "I have seen pictures." "Do you know how many acid attacks have been committed in London since the first one occurred?" No, I don't know, and neither do you- as you say "Some give the number over 1000." "The exact number doesn't matter much." In a thread about mass shooting, that's the first bit you have got nearly right. But here's a heartening thought. The government just announced that it plans to do something about it by restricting sales of acid. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/03/18s-will-banned-buying-acid-amber-rudd-announces/ That's because most people don't need access to sulphuric acid very often (and under 18s don't need it at all). Now, just as soon as the people of the US realise that the same applies to guns, these mass shootings might slow down a bit. Like they did in Australia. BTW, feel free to ignore me. But, if you don't respond to valid points, you are not taking part in a discussion (instead, you are soap-boxing) and you will get banned.

I think you will find that the French would have used their language, rather than ours. Your claim is just silly. Thank you for clarifying that you have no interest in the truth. You have said that because of teh no-go zones in teh UK we will regret our lack of privately owned guns. But you also say you don't know anything about those zones and can't provide evidence for them. It may be just me who thinks this, but if that's how helpful you are going to be, why don't you just leave?

https://xkcd.com/285/ Because, if you can't find real evidence of "go go" zones in Europe, but such zones exist in the US, you might wonder why. One possible reason is that in sensible countries, you don't let all the criminals have guns. If the police here in the UK want to go somewhere, they do; if they think there's going to be trouble, they go armed.

Do you mean this "story"? https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/12/fox-news-expert-ridiculed-over-birmingham-is-totally-muslim-city-claims

Well, this would be a novel idea for a project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube

I doubt it. My not very well informed guess is that we are not even half way. I'd say it's certain that we don't. There are people doing research on that sort of thing Lots more than we currently know about.