SkepticLance

ParanoiA said : None of which is realistic in the least. This isn't a TV shoot out show. Intruders don't want to mess with an armed person. You cannot calculate the motives of a home invader as if that person was normal. They might be on drugs, or simply nuts. Such people will respond in unpredictable ways. If you pointed a shotgun in my direction, I would call you 'Sir'; apologise for any inconvenience, and get the hell out of it. A home invader on methamphetamine? Hey. Waitforufo said : You speak ill of the dead. A man who gave his life for others. The whole point is that he didn't. Peter Blake was a great guy, as I have said several times. But his death was utterly pointless and stupid. Trying to make his death heroic is not going to help anyone. And if you want to emulate his actions, just remember the consequences.

Haezed said : You missed the part where I said I would then get a gun if available and, depending on the situation, defend my family from a safe a place as possible. As we discussed, nothing I say can force you to act in any particular way. I am expressing an opinion. My opinion in this case is that any use of a gun in this situation is unwise. The first rule of dealing with home invasions (or bank robberies etc) is do not get the evil bastards pissed off with you. If you decide to use a gun from a 'safe' spot, you can either yell out and tell the EB's what you are doing, or shoot from surprise. I suspect that the latter would not go down well in a court of law. If you do the former, you are gonna piss them off. I can think of at least three ways a pissed off EB can kill you in that situation. So I regard that approach as unwise. 1. Open fire blind with their bullets going straight through the door, or walls. This could also kill members of your family. They might even do this out of pure spite, not caring who gets hit. 2. Find a window to shoot through. 3. Use a distraction to draw your fire as they open the door and shoot you. Without both serious training and experience, the average person is wide open vulnerable to this tactic.

KLB said You obviously are not speaking from knowledge on this. There are melting swamps in Siberia that are belching methane at such high volumes that one can actually light the gas as it bubbles to the surface Methane levels in the atmosphere are currently falling and have been for several decades - not by much, but definitely falling. Methane is not a persistent material. It oxidises to CO2 and water, with a half life of 12 months. There is no current evidence that methane is likely to increase in the future, and without increase it cannot cause warming. Basically for plant life to grow as rapidly as would be necessary to sequester the amount of CO2 being release in sub-arctic regions would require a jungle like warm climate where plants can grow rapidly. In sub-arctic regions NOTHING grows rapidly. Remember we are talking about raising the average annual temperature a half of a degree from just below freezing to just above freezing to trigger this effect. Your knowledge of biology is lacking. Plants will, indeed, grow at 1 Celsius. Admittedly, the growth is slow, and forests will take a long, long time. However, the global warming catastrophists are talking long term warming, and temperature increases of 10 C or more in the areas where permafrost currently reigns. If they are correct, we will see massive plant growth. Millions if not hundreds of millions of people live at or very near sea levels in impoverished countries like India and Bangladesh. These are peoples that depend upon oceans remaining at currently levels or at least raising slowly enough that populations can adapt without massive displacement of populations. Even the oceans raising just five feet will wipe out entire nations like Tuvalu, which is one of the lowest laying countries in the world. Most of the above paragraph is dogma, not science. For example, Tuvalu is in a rather special place where sea levels are actually falling. Sea level rise is currently at a global average of 3 mm per year. This means that over 100 years, the average rise is 300 mm - not much longer than your foot. This is not the stuff of global catastrophe. There are other places where the sea level rise fallacy is supposed to happen. There are islands off Papua New Guinea for example, that are experiencing serious problems. However, they are in a tectonically active zone, and the land mass is falling. Sea level rise there is only 3 mm per year as everywhere else. The problem with the whole global warming debate is that people get polarised views. They take up extremist denial ideas, or (as bad) extremist catastrophist views. If you manage to sort out one from the other, and rely on the data, not the theory, you see a picture that falls more in the middle of those polarised and often ridiculous opinions.

To geoguy. Because something is not possible today does not mean it will be impossible in 1000 years. The NASA scientists writing the Sciam article were clear in saying that up to 0.2c is theoretically possible. They predicted we would be able to do it in 500 to 1000 years.

The biggest problem with space travel is leaving Earth's gravity well. The best idea in theory for doing this is a space elevator, which is already being worked on. Last I heard, the researchers had built a suitable cable one mile high and lofted it by balloon. We need a ribbon shaped cable 78,000 km long. One end is tethered to the ground and the other is holding the whole thing taut by centrifugal force. 'Trains' travel up and down the ribbon. If magnetic levitation techniques develop sufficiently, travel up and down can be at extreme speeds. It may be that a suitable elevator may be in place within 100 years. Once the first is up, it makes further elevators much easier to construct. There is no theoretical reason we cannot have 100 or more elevators. That could lift into space any number of millions of people. Using the elevator means getting mass into space easily and cheaply. We can then build the habitats that Sisyphus so ably described. Once a habitat is built, there is no reason it must stay near the sun. In that 100+ year period, we should have good nuclear fusion generators of electricity. One per habitat would supply all its energy needs. A Scientific American article some years ago by two NASA scientists suggested that humans will eventually be able to travel at 0.1 to 0.2c. If our habitat shot off to Alpha Centauri at 0.1c, and took 10 years to accelerate plus 10 to decelerate, the entire journey would be 55 years. Once there, it could access debris in space for resources, and perhaps the people could build a second habitat. etc. Using these techniques and these numbers, humans could populate the entire galaxy within a few million years.

icemelt. Very nice graphs. I think, though, that the CO2 graph is made somewhat less helpful by the timescale. We need a scale of, say, 1750 AD to the present to see the current situation clearly. The sea level rise graph, though, puts the current situation into perspective nicely. We currently have a rise of 3 mm per year. In the past, as Icemelt shows so well, it has been drastically worse. I would like to comment on the statements about melting permafrost. I believe there is a serious fallacy there. When the last glacial period was at its peak, Britain was covered by ice right down to south England. Most of the UK was under ice. Then the ice melted. Within a short time (in terms of glaciation time) the whole of Britain was covered with climax forest. When snow melts on a mountain with the coming of Spring, it takes only 3 weeks before that area is covered with herbaceous plants in a thick carpet. Later, woody plants start to grow. If the ice does not come again, in time trees will grow. If we are talking about permanent melting of the permafrost, it will be replaced by plants in the short term, and forest in the medium term. This is a CO2 sequestering effect. The idea that melting permafrost will increase CO2 and methane is just plain wrong.

Haezed said : I wouldn't march. I would try to call 911 and/or set off an alarm IF I could. Congratulations. That is sensible. However, the numbers still show that fewer people are hurt or killed if guns are not presented. you have no right to tell me the best way to defend MY home. Nor do the police. No. But this is just a debate. Governments everywhere, however, do claim that right. It's called law and order.

Sisyphus Cars and alcohol are somewhat different. Cars because they are necessary to our life style. Alcohol because making it illegal has been tried, and the overwhelming evidence is that such laws do more harm than good. Guns are not normally outlawed as such. However, in most OECD nations, they are restricted by law, and only limited use permitted. For most OECD nations, this has been shown to work - not 100% - but sufficiently to demonstrate the value of such restrictions, as shown by reduced murder rates.

Pangloss said : You're not actually going to use a single example to try and prove that having a gun could never possibly do anyone any good are you? As I said before, its a numbers game. Case histories show that fewer people get killed if 'defenders' do not use guns. If you do not believe me, go to your local police station and ask the experts. Imagine the following scenario. You are at home with your family, having a quiet night. Your home is invaded by a bunch of evil bastards with guns. I offer three options. Option One. You grab your gun - make sure its loaded and the safety off and bravely march forth to confront the EB's. Option Two You show yourself - acting totally subserviently - and give them everything they want. Option Three You set off a really loud alarm - potent enough to be heard for two city blocks, and painful to the ears of anyone in the house. You try to stay back, but if caught, act totally subserviently. Now print off these options, take them to your local cops and ask their opinion. My favourite is option 3, and I am sure the police would agree. In that situation, the EB's will probably leave quickly. Option 1 carries the greatest risk of death or serious physical harm. Sisyphus said : Your argument, which is a reasonable one, tells me why it's almost never a good idea to bring a gun into a situation. I'm having a hard time seeing what that has to do with banning guns, though. We pass lots of laws to prevent idiots from doing idiotic things. Drunk driving for example. This is no different.

JohnF said : I think assuming that people only own or carry guns because of some macho inclination is probably false. Obviously we can over-generalise. I suggested earlier that there would be some women who carry guns out of fear. There will be some men who carry or own guns for motives other than macho. However, even though I may be wrong, I believe I have detected a major macho element runnning right through the US gun culture. It is as if millions of men want to emulate Clint Eastwood as some kind of Dirty Harry number two. waitforufo said : Do you really want to live in a world without those like Peter Blake? Some years ago I was privileged to meet Sir Peter Blake. I was at a dinner meeting, where he was guest of honour, and he ended up sitting at my table. I was able to spend some time chatting with him. He was a major hero in person as well as reputation - a really impressive guy. I admire him immensely. However, that just makes his death even more tragic and stupid. Great guy that he was, he was not immune to error. He allowed his courage and heroism to lead him into a stupid and fatal action. And no, I have no reason to feel ashamed. A lot of the arguments I have heard from pro-gun types has been the what-if type of argument. Anything can, of course, happen. And there will be rare occasions when a gun might help. However, any rational person plays the numbers - lives by the statistics. I am a keen scuba diver. I am often asked about sharks. I know that the chances of me killing myself in a car accident driving to where I scuba dive is 1000 times greater than the chances of dying in a shark attack. To permit myself to be influenced by the tiny chances of shark attack is stupid. In the same way, you should play the numbers in the gun question. Your chances of dying with a bullet inside you because you pull a gun are far greater than your chances of copping the blast if you do not. And yes. If a women is being raped near me, I will take action. I know this because I have already done so. Some years ago, when I was living in the city, I heard the sounds of a woman screaming. Rushed to the spot, where a rather nasty individual was trying to do the dirty deed. It did not take much to see him off. I did not need a gun. In fact, all it took were words. I suspect that, in most similar cases, all it will take is the appropriate words. Most of the time, drawing a gun will just make the situation worse.

Dak I think you missed the point, which is that opposing armed invaders with a gun is a sure way to make sure someone, probably you yourself, ends up with a bullet inside them. If you can, set off a very loud alarm. Your demeanour to the invadors, however, must be non-threatening if you want yourself and your family to survive.

JohnF said : If you remove the right to carry the gun, but not the right to own one, then this places the criminal in a disadvantaged position. Congratulations JohnF. This is the most downright sensible thing any of my debate opponents have said. It is not a measure that goes far enough, but would be a damn sight better than the current situation. Let me tell you other gun loving macho aspiring wannabes a little story. It is the death of Sir Peter Blake. This guy was a real hero to all New Zealanders. Six foot four tall. Strong and fit. Courageous. A real man's man. He made his name as a blue water competitive yachtsman, winning several round the world races. He was also prominent in marine conservation, and was chosen by Jacques Cousteau to lead the ongoing Cousteau expeditions after the great man's death. Peter Blake and his crew were exploring and filming the wilderness of the Amazon. They anchored for the night. A bunch of evil bastards from a nearby village decided to raid them. They loaded with small arms and took a small boat out, to board the Blake expedition boat. The rest of the crew threw their hands in the air, when faced with guns. Not Peter Blake, the real man. He dived below and grabbed a rifle. He charged up with gun ready to fire, and promptly received a bullet in his heart. Not one other person aboard the boat was hurt. The raiders grabbed whatever goods they wanted, and departed. Within two weeks, the local Brazilian authorities had caught all of the pirates. Today, they all languish in prison. Peter Blake did what most of you macho gun lovers seem to want to do. It did absolutely no good at all, resulting only in his own death. All you guys who talk about using guns to protect your families are simply risking the same. Most of the time, gun wielding criminals who hold up ordinary people will not shoot. Ask your local police who are experts at this. What do you do if faced by a gun wielding criminal? The answer is to get real subservient really quickly. Anything else is just idiotic. The best weapon against those thugs is a portable siren, which is readily available. When the burglars or home invaders are detected, set off the siren. Most of the time, the nasty buggers will just leave.

Saryctos said : Well as long as people are getting killed by something else it's ok right? Gotta maintain that murder per capita. The point is that the murder rates are much lower in OECD countries other than the USA. Guns make killings too easy. So many situations where the presense of a gun leads to a quick, easy killing. eg. a road rage situation. Without a gun, the killing would not have happened. I know this, because people are the same everywhere. We get these road rage situations here in NZ, but without the killings. Why? Because the killing is a result of anger, which is short lived. If the killing cannot be done quickly and easily, it probably won't happen. Ditto for domestic violence. etc. etc. Even gang violence is far more likely to end in killings if guns are easily obtained. Here in NZ, gangs obtain illegal guns, but cannot carry them for fear of arrest. Thus they are not used in unplanned brawls, and the number of killings is less. The USA has the loosest gun laws and the highest murder rate in the OECD. This is not coincidence.

Saryctos said : Expect it all you like, it won't happen. I find it hard to understand why so many people suffer this selective blindness. Outside the USA, it is clear cut that restricting access to guns reduces murder by gunfire. Hell, it is basic common sense, backed up by real world experience. I was raised on a farm. My father owned three sporting guns, which he justified in saying he used them to kill pests. As a teenager, I used the 0.22 rifle to hunt rabbits, and on one occasion, the shotgun to hunt ducks. I fully understand the emotional reaction to guns. A hot blooded guy picks up a loaded gun and stands taller. He feels great, and feels powerful. A gun makes weak people feel strong. I know it affected me that way. And then we grow up. Emotional logic becomes less convincing. Real world facts get considered. Guns make it easy for evil bastards to kill. Access to guns leads to higher murder rates. The USA is an absolutely classic example of this principle at work. Once a person puts aside the emotional attraction of being made powerful by carrying a gun, then he or she can see that this access to guns leads to death. Sure, it is only the nastiest 10% of the population that causes this. So what? We do what we can to stop the evil bastards, and restrictions to gun access is one of the most effective. Of course, some people never grow up and emotional logic remains their guide.

As a non-American, the gun control thing affects me, because I have twice visited the USA, and will probably visit again more than once. I would like to know that if I walk the streets of an American town, I will not be shot. As I have said before, the crux of the whole thing is the simple fact that the USA, with relatively lax gun laws, has a murder rate much higher than any other OECD country. If those gun laws were tightened up, including raids by police on criminal hang-outs, to confiscate any illegal weapons, we can expect with a high degree of surety, that the murder rate wil go down. In other words, tight gun laws save lives. When I walk around at home in NZ, I know that I might get mugged, assaulted, or even killed. However, my chances of getting murdered are only a quarter compared to being in the USA, and the chances of getting shot are almost zero.

ParanoiA said : You don't know that loose gun control is the cause of the per capita murder rate. I'm sure it contributes, but to what extent? We also have a pop culture completely in love with violence. Certainly. The culture is probably a bigger problem than the availability. However, short of nationalising all movie, TV and video game producing companies, I am not quite sure how you can change the culture. Plus, how do you stop the motivations driven by testosterone from happening? I do know you can tighten gun control. Bascule said : We're #24. Certainly again. But no cookie for Bascule. My comparison was to other OECD countries, in which the comparison is USA number 1. If you want to make the comparison with sub-Saharan Africa, or to Eastern Europe, you are not comparing the proverbial apple with other apples. Bascule also said : However, those differences have not changed substantially since the UK and New Zealand imposed gun control laws. Again, very faulty logic. Since the murder rate had little to do with guns in the first place in the UK and NZ, with most murders caused by weapons other than fire arms, your point is hardly surprising. Do things like gang violence and its cultural glorification ever enter into your thinking? Absolutely. We have a terrible gang problem here in NZ. We have large organisations built around gangs, in which the drug culture has gone putrid. Massive sales of methamphetamine, with all the violence that this drug stimulates. Yet there are very few shootings compared to the USA. And their culture is such that guns are like mothers milk. The difference is availability, and police arresting anyone carrying a gun. Only 5% of violent crime committed with a firearm within the US which lead to a successful prosecution involved a legally obtained firearm. Which probably means something close to 95% of all such crime happened with someone using a gun stolen from someone else who first had it legally. Again, tighten gun control and stop it happening. ParanoiA said : I have no idea who you're listening to or where you're getting your poetry on american gun lust, but it's almost funny. Actually, with the exception of a few women who want guns because they are plain scared, it is testosterone fuelled lust for power. It is common to almost all males, and you will find in many of the nations that Bascule referred to in making USA no. 24, that carrying a gun confers upon the bearer feelings of power and importance. And if you don't think that such feelings influence guys, you just ain't a red blooded male.

To ParanoiA re burglaries. Where I live, the police estimate every house in the country gets burgled every 33 years as an overall average. Contact between burglar and resident is exceedingly rare. Reason is that burglars are not stupid and do not enter a home where the signs are that people are in. Shootings currently run at about 10 burglars shot for every resident, nearly always by a hunting rifle. Reason : gun laws are so tight that burglars do not cary them. The police have a pretty good idea who the burglars are in any area, and will stop and search them. If they carried a hidden gun, it would mean time in prison. The simple fact is that the USA, with its loose gun control, has the highest per capita murder rate in the OECD. That is hardly something to be proud of. The clear solution is strong gun control. Obviously, it will take time. In the long run, it would drastically reduce the number of people dying from bullet penetration each year. Especially if police routinely check people who they know have a criminal record. And in any town or suburb, the cops know who to check. ParanoiA said : Ok...if it's no problem getting all the weapons we need then why do you care about gun laws? Honestly, that doesn't make any sense to me. Faulty logic. There is a very big difference between an organisation like the IRA getting illegal weapons versus casual criminals or ordinary citizens. If the USA became a totalitarian government, and people banded together as resistance movements, then they would go to the extraordinary lengths that the IRA had to, and get their weapons. I would venture a prediction about this thread. I predict that most of those who are supporting loose control of guns are males. I am a red blooded male myself, if a little longer in the tooth than most. I understand the attraction of a weapon that can turn the ordinary person into 'hell on wheels'. There is a strong emotional attraction to the thought that little nobodies like myself and most of the contributors to this thread can become powerful with a gun. This is mostly a fantasy, but we are all attracted to fantasies. We dream of becoming John Wayne, and trampling down the unrighteous. However, if we put aside the emotional thinking and the desire for power, rational thought tells us that more people die with loose gun control than with tight controls. This alone should make those of us able to think rationally opposed to loose gun control.

The idea that you have to shoot a burglar is a mite ridiculous. There are always alternatives. If you and your family are able bodied, just jump out a window, and call the police from your neighbours. Sure, the burglar may do all sorts of damage in the mean time (that's why you have insurance); but damage to home and property is better than a killing. If you and/or your family are not able bodied, make lots of noise. That works 99% of the time. Then call the cops. The idea that you need guns to oppose an oppressive government is just as ridiculous. The IRA felt they had an oppressive government. Whether they were right or wrong, the fact is that they faced very strict gun laws and still managed to get enough weapons to carry out all sorts of highly destructive actions. If America got an oppressive government, and had to establish a resistance movement, they would have no problem getting all the weapons they needed illegally. Free availability of guns is an unmitigated disaster.

If you shoot a criminal in the act of committing a crime, that action may be justified. Whether or not, it must be seen as a drastic and very serious action. It should be fully investigated, and the person who does the shooting should expect to face up to that investigation. In that way, there is, at least, some incentive for restraint. Here in NZ, we have strong gun laws, although many people say they are still not strong enough. If someone shoots someone else in self defense, or fending off a crime, the shooter will appear in court, and will face charges. If the court action shows that the action was justified, they will be released without conviction. However, some who think they were justified still end up with convictions. Before anyone here can own a hunting rifle, they have to go through full police investigation, and then study up the gun laws and safety principles, and pass an exam before getting a limited gun license. The whole process takes months, and is enough to put most people off even trying. In addition, whole categories of guns are totally off limits, and cannot be bought even by those with licences. Hand guns are subject to very strong restrictions. If you want to own a hand gun, you have to be a member of a pistol club for at least a year. You must be recommended by the committee of that club. You must have a strong lock up facility for that hand gun, where it is kept at all times it is not used, and can only be used at the club premises. And you can only carry it when travelling from home to the club, and back. No other time. The process of police investigation is so strict, it takes a full year after application is made. As you can imagine, death by hand gun in NZ is rare. In my country, people die in hunting accidents, but most murders are from weapons other than fire arms. And the total murder rate per capita is one third that of the USA, despite our total violent crime rate being just as high.

Paranoia said : How about this: How about we think a little harder about how we can deal with that 10% without trampling all over the rights of the 90%? Surely we're smart enough - it's just a matter of laziness and no regard for others. Actually, it is the rights of the 90% not to have the other 10% shooting them. The right to life. The biggest problem, with respect to this debate subject, in the USA is the 'gun totin' mentality. The feeling by so many people that they have a right to carry and use a gun, with emphasis on use. The easiest way to stop people shooting and killing innocents is to cut the availability of guns. It would take a long time, since there are so many guns out there in the community. Probably decades. However, in the end, it would be worth while. If almost no-one had guns, then the need to carry them for self defense disappears.

To agentchange. DNA did NOT form as simply as the Miller experiment. The Miller process represents only the first stage. It is likely the origin of the simple organic compounds such as purines and amino acids, which for the building blocks for polymers etc, which after a number of other changes lead to something like DNA. As in my previous posting, it takes minerals, fatty acids, simple polymerisation, catalyst formation etc to lead to even the simplest replicating molecule. It is the stages after the Miller experiment type reactions that scientists are still studying and trying to simulate, and which are the key to the first life.

We are slowly learning possible ways biogenesis could have taken place. The Miller experiment showed that organic molecules will form in a world with methane, CO2, water etc, when energy is applied, such as by lightning, strong UV, asteroid collision etc. Thus, any planet that has such an atmosphere, and is of the right temperature, permitting liquid water, will end up with organic molecules dissolved in the pools of liquid water. Beyond that, things are less clear. We know that certain minerals, such as calcite, will cause certain organic molecules to 'line up' on the mineral surface, allowing them to join to form simple polymers. This may have led to the first complex molecules. Some of those complex molecules are likely to have acted as catalysts, to assist in the formation of more polymers. Fatty acids have a habit of forming into spheres, which can entrap some of these polymers, forming something similar to the membrane of a cell around cytoplasm. This is about as far as we can go, with current knowledge, although there is a great deal more detail known than I have stated. Somewhere, the interacting mass of organic molecules and polymers have created a self-replicating molecule that can 'feed' on the organic material around it, and multiply. If such a molecule is subject to chemical changes that are passed on to the 'daughter' molecules, then evolution by natural selection becomes possible on a molecular level. And life has begun.

Water is exceedingly common in the cosmos, as revealed by spectroscopic analysis of the light from nebulae etc. Planets are, apparently, also very common. It is tricky to detect any near Earth size around other stars, but it is reasonable to expect that, with lots of large planets being proven, lots of small ones also exist, even if not yet detected. Most such planets have strongly elliptical orbits, but a few have almost circular orbits. Thus, it seems that, statistically, we will eventually find a planet in almost circular orbit, in the part of the stellar system that permits water to remain liquid. Such a planet will have liquid water - and quite likely in very large amounts. We will be delighted to make such a discovery, but should not be surprised.

The interesting thing about this thread is that no-one seems to be screaming for more gun control. This surprises me. I am aware of the adage that guns do not kill, only people kill. However, it is also true that it is a damn sight easier to kill if you have a gun. Mass killings require potent weapons. And places with easy access to weapons and with a tradition of gun use have very high murder rates. The USA, per capita, has a murder rate at least 3 times as high as my country, which has strong gun control, and no tradition of resorting to firearms. For what its worth, I am totally in favour of very strong gun control. While 90% of the population will be reasonably responsible with fire arms, there is that other 10% ....

john5746 said that the decision for war is a cost/benefit exercise. I agree. However, I do not think that the powers that be in the USA carry out that exercise correctly. The cost/benefit must include human lives as well as money, and the value we put on human lives should make one African peasant of equal worth to one American soldier. We all too often see news items that say, in Iraq for example, that a certain number of Americans and British have died, and how terrible is that. We ignore the fact that the casualty rate among locals is several hundreds of times greater. The great tragedy of Iraq is not that 3000 American soldiers die. It is that 650,000 Iraqis die. A proper cost/ benefit analysis should take into account local casualties also. Even the casualties on the side of the 'enemy'. They are also human.