hypervalent_iodine

If the number of guns affected the rates of total violent crimes, you would expect to see that relationship mimicked when looking solely at the rate of gun-related crimes (though I was really only looking at one aspect of this in my data). In any case, the studies that I mentioned in my final paragraph did in fact look at both. Your last sentence touches on the issue of method substitution, but it doesn't negate my point. Where the question is, 'do more guns cause more violence,' the underlying common-sense premise is that an increase in the number of deadly weapons begets an increase in the number of crimes using those deadly weapons. To illustrate this a little better, we can assume a case where there is a positive association between gun ownership and violent crime rate over time, but a negative or lack of correlation to that and the rate of gun related crimes. In this instance, it would rather difficult to come up with an argument to support the notion that the higher incidence of gun ownership resulted in the increase of violent crimes. One reasonable explanation might be that the surge in gun ownership is in fact a result of the inflation in violent crime, rather than the reverse.

Are you sure you have the name of the journal/magazine correct? The only thing I could find with that name is the journal of American Science, which started publishing in 2005. Do you perhaps mean Scientific American? If so, this may be of some assistance: http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/s/scia/scia.1852.html

I would hope the OP had finished their honors by now, but perhaps your post will help someone else. Also, potassium ferricyanide is a bright orange-red, whereas the equivalent ferrocyanide salt is pale yellow.

I doubt it as well. A lot of it seems to be political bolstering in the wake of a highly publicized, yet rather isolated tragedy, which is incidentally the same reason Australia went on to adopt the harsh laws we currently have (see here). Your last sentence has actually hit on something I meant to mention in my first post. Looking at the numbers, the USA hasn't seen much change in the way of gun homicide rates since about 1998, except in the last 5 years where it has been very slowly decreasing (see here). A similar argument can also be made for total homicide rates (see here). While it's true that violent crime rates are abnormally high in the US compared to other developed nations, the fact that rates are decreasing (albeit slowly) shows that a lot of the current hype over gun control laws is just that. Media induced hype. That's not to say that the US wouldn't benefit from certain reforms, but the situation is nowhere near as dire as people are being led to believe it is.

I'd certainly be interested to see some research in the area. If I'm not mistaken, part of the reforms proposed by Obama include funding to investigate if any such relationship exists and methods to counteract it.

I'll admit that I haven't kept up with this thread for a number of pages, but I thought I'd join in for a second to share a small amount of research I did last night while trying to respond to something linked by a friend of mine. She linked this article, which was written by the former PM of Australia. Initially I thought it to be rather stupid, as the comparison between Australia and the US in this context is hardly a fair one. Reading the article I realised that it was actually just John Howard talking about how great he was rather than making sweeping statements about what the US should be doing with gun reforms. Regardless, I've seen a lot of arguments here and from friends in Australia that essentially boil down to the claim that our strict gun laws resulted in low rates of violent crime, which I don't think is factually correct. Australia has traditionally never been a violent nation; using homicide rates as a general litmus for this hypothesis, you see that from the 1970's up until the early to mid 2000's (well after gun reforms were introduced in 1996), the homicide rate remained between about 1.6/1.7 - 1.9/2 per 100,000 people (according to wiki data). Furthermore, gun related deaths on the whole had been on a rather steady decline since well before 1996 (see here); the new laws being introduced don't appear to have changed anything that wasn't already happening, though that's obviously speculative, as it's impossible to prove that the preexisting rate of decrease wouldn't have stagnated or deviated in some way. I was curious after reading that what the relationship between the number of guns and gun related deaths was, so I did a bit of digging for numbers and came up with the attached PDF. It's not exactly conclusive and I'm sure anyone here could poke a dozen holes in it, but it's at least a suggestion that the number of guns on a national scale and the rate of gun related homicides are not related. There are also a few papers and books on the subject that state the same thing on smaller scales within the US and the UK. Even taking into account the difference in gun usage in rural and urban areas, you find no correlation between the number of guns and gun related deaths (this book provides a decent summary of research done in the area). To my mind, that's fairly conclusive evidence to support the notion that a ban on guns or limiting the number of guns would be rather ineffective. The glorification of violence and guns may very well be a large part of the problem, which leads me to think that perhaps this is an issue of social control rather than gun control. guns Sheet1.pdf

! Moderator Note Which is tangential to what Moontanman intended this thread to be about. Please do not continue to derail this thread, or your posts will be removed. If you wish to discuss moderator action, please PM a member of staff or use the report feature. Or better yet, just start a new thread on the topic and be done with it.

! Moderator Note Semjase, please do not hijack other threads with your own speculations.

I looked at them once or twice. They had them in the hotel we stayed in while I was in New Orleans the first few days I was there, but I was a little unsure about them and at the time, I was still trying to get my head around the existence of so much orange cheese. After that, the opportunity never presented itself and I wasn't desperate to go looking for them, though I probably would be okay with them. I did however get to try sweet versions of sweet potato and pumpkin. Not a fan of the former, but I didn't mind the pumpkin pie and sweet pumpkin bread. If I said yes, would you be more willing to try it? Oh, I'm sure I'd make do. I can eat most of the things on that list if I have to, with maybe 4 exceptions (seafood, internal organs, peaches with the skin still on and tinned meat).

Blasphemy!

Kangaroo is fairly common here. Not as common as beef, lamb, chicken or pork, but you can certainly buy kangaroo steaks in most supermarkets. I'm yet to try it myself, though I'm told it's quite good.

I have a very long list of things I can't bring myself to eat, mostly because I seem to be overly sensitive to smells and textures. - Cilantro/coriander, which tastes like soap to me. I read once that there is a genetic component to this. - Tomatoes, unless cut up and cooked in something. - Most seafood, except some fish and (sometimes) calamari. - Liver, kidney or most internal organs. - Aniseed. - I can't stand eating or touching peaches because of the fuzz. If someone removes the skin for me, then I'll eat them and enjoy them. - Canned vegetables or meat. - Most deli hams smell like cat food to me. If I smell it before I eat it, I can't do it. Otherwise it's fine. - Eggs where the whites haven't been properly cooked. Pretty much for the same reason I won't eat oysters or shell fish; the texture makes me gag. - Venison. - Marshmallows (unless roasted in a camp fire).

You've hit on my point while missing it entirely. No one in here is a definitive authority on what religion is and is not. What makes you think that you are any more of one than the others who have posted here? We will do no such thing. This is not your forum and you don't get to dictate how and when the rules apply to you. You can either follow them or risk suspension. Up to you.

! Moderator Note proximity1, John C and Arete pretty covered the crux of this warning, this is just an official note to let you know that your use of appeal to authority is not an acceptable form of debate here.

! Moderator Note Immortal, We've received several complaints over the past few weeks on various posts of yours. Your debating style needs some serious work. Particularly in this thread, where it seems that anyone who does not agree with your ideas about religion is ignorant and confused. There are in fact 2 logical fallacies in there; 10 points if you can name them. Simply, you are not the be all and end all authority on religion and you do not get to claim yourself as such and that others are wrong simply because they disagree with you. That's not how this forum works and we would very much appreciate it if you could take this into consideration when posting here in future.

! Moderator Note I've split this conversation from another thread, found here. Please try to keep this one on topic. SamBridge, you need to keep your attitude in check. Being impolite doesn't help the discussion.

! Moderator Note I just split 20 of the more recent posts into a new topic. Please try to keep discussion within the realms of the OP.

! Moderator Note Well, don't say you weren't given ample warning. Thread closed.

Yeah...moving to trash.

Could you be more detailed in what you're asking here?

You are not Galileo and this is not the church, it's a privately owned and operated forum. If you want to post your ideas and not have to respond to criticism or questions, start a blog. If you insist on posting here, then we have to insist that you follow the rules like everyone else. If you wish to respond to moderator notes or other staff actions, please use the report feature or PM someone.

Is this a homework question?

Or you could go back and read the thread yourself. However, since you seem incapable of doing so: You did attempt to address the above concern by answering the question of another member; I posted it because it was not answered sufficiently, as seen in the following dialogue: I must have missed this. All I've seen is seemingly random posting. Can you please, in explicit detail, show what you have calculated that is 'impossible' in current mathematics? You then tried to respond to this by telling Bignose to go back and read the OP, as if his criticisms were born out of thin air. Again, not an acceptable way to respond to someone genuinely trying to figure out what you're trying to achieve. He then posted this: Start at the back third of most any university level college calculus text, as well as http://www.amazon.com/Div-Grad-Curl-All-That/dp/0393925161/ will give you a good start on vectors. Vectors is a very, very wide field, and I am not going to type it all into this forum. Once you learn the above, you will learn that you can use operators on a vector or group of vectors and be able to re-create the pictures you posted. Specifically, translation, rotation, and possibly dilation operators. Have you seen one of those video games with advanced graphics? To render them, the GPU is constantly applying operators to vectors to create those images. Which you promptly ignored. This was followed by a post from Melina: Ms. you have confused yourself with pictures and math. When I take 1+1, I will always get two. You put two triangles on top of each other, and you still end up with two triangles. The problem is what you see. Which was also ignored. You then claimed that the only 'meaningful response' was from Bignose, who claimed that he could easily replicate your diagrams with 2D vectors, but that he hadn't given a solution )and so you continued to soapbox). What he actually told you that it was too much to go into on a forum and instead directed you to sources to learn for yourself (ignored by you). This prompted the following: You again tried to address the bolded section, while ignoring the rest of it, but this was refuted in the next post by Bignose, who was able to describe your example using existing mathematics. ! Moderator Note The tl;dr of it is this: people have shown you that what you are trying to illustrate here can already be done and done better by preexisting methodology. You have been asked numerous times to show where your solution can be used where those that already exist cannot. I'll grant you that you genuinely did try to answer that question once, however the single time you actually tried to answer that question, it was shown that your example could easily be solved without the need to resort to your solution. You have yet to address that (claiming that your solution has fewer characters doesn't count and isn't relevant, just FYI) and you have yet to address how the math shown in your OP is in any way useful. Before you decide to post more of your math here, you need to address what I've quoted in this post and address it properly. That means you don't get to tell people to go back and read the OP; the people responding to your post and engaging in your thread have quite obviously done that. Last chance.

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please. Please defer discussion to the existing thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70242-universal-theory

! Moderator Note You don't get to decide whether or not you've broken the rules. Members here have asked you questions, so I suggest you go back and answer them.