Red_Skydiver

If that were true then how could you desire something unless you have first experienced it? Why would you go out of your way to experience it unless you had the desire to?

Both "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" have 13 letters each ....... so how exactly is it shorthand?

Your are right, so here's a one with a different scale. Same data, but it appears that CO2 is rising faster than temparture. Nice graph I think it's important to point out that climate change would happen with or without us pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. However with CO2 being a greenhouse gas it will exasperate the situation. Something that should be considered is the possible delayed effect of CO2 increases on temperature rises. Edited to add: It's important to remember that CO2 isn't the only variable affecting temperature or infact climate change in general. (also important to emember climate change involves more than just temperature changes).

Not saying they cannot get hold of another weapon but it is much harder to get their hands on one now I agree with the judgement but you seem to be arguing for the sake of an argument rather than actually trying to understand the facts of the ban. Your legal system does not apply over here anyway. For your info we can use self defence in the UK but we cannot keep weapons for that purpose.

how much energy does it consume? can be harnessed as a new source of energy for transport?

Was this tested on experienced firefighters? Just curious to know if they reacted differently?

the IPCC are due to publish their next report tomorrow and I understand there will be a revision to the likely temperature increase.

But isn't that the point of the debate? To what extent are our actions acting as a catalyst and are we able to survive? Will our lifestyle in the west be able to continue and if not they how can we adapt? How will we feed ourselves if the worlds crops start failing due to climate change?

Yeah it's a true representation on the face of it but the scale used is not helpful in interpreting the graph shown. The pre-industrial levels of CO2 were 280ppmv and in 1990 they were 353ppmv (Source: NASA). Your graph does seem to show this but it seems to have been plotted in such a way that could mislead (whether intentional or not). The temperature has increased in this time also but the increase looks pretty small when plotted on a graph also which could also be misleading. The fact is the graph does show an increase in temperature and CO2. Changing the scale used could make it look more dramatic.... or at least be more informative.

That also applies to the scientists who claim that "global warming" is caused by anthropogenic CO2 generation. I'd bet your wife has a very strong opinion about the issue, even without knowing "F. all about climatology." I agree. Most people have a view on the subject one way or another without being a specialist in the field. But can you get away with quoting scientists views if it's outside their specialism and use it to back your argument?

Most people aren't inclined to kill a dozen people by any means. Got some science beyond 'i think it would be easier to be a psychotic killer with a gun?' I don't know much about being a psychotic killer .... I never claimed to. I don't have scientific quotes for you either..... do you? However from what I've read generally over the years (no quotes I'm afraid) it is relatively easy to squeeze a trigger when some distance from the target compared to the physical exertion and psycological trauma of killing by repeatedly sticking a knife into someones chest/sawing away at their throat/sticking it through their eye to hit the brain. A 10 year old child could kill a grown man with a gun quite easily but they would find it quite difficult (in most cases) of killing him with a knife (no scientific quotes for you there either I'm afraid, just common sense)

Good luck - careful that rifle doesn't jump up and start shooting people at random, ok? but once he gets his gun...he could turn psycho and use it ti kill innocent people...if it was impossible for him to obtian a gun in the first place, you've taken that possible scenario out of the equation...and that's what the british government is trying to do. they are trying to put measures in place to stop some guns getting into the wrongs hands.... like i said before, if those measures also stop lawful gun owners having guns too, then in our governments eyes (and thankfully, many citizens eyes too) thats a price worth paying to take just a few guns off the streets that might get used to kill innocent people In the US those that have conceal carry permits are shown statistically to be MORE law abiding than the general population. NO police officer has been killed by a person permitted to carry a weapon. On the flip side there are 4 confimed cases where officers lives were saved because a civilan who was permited to carry, had their weapon on them and saved the life of the officer. Your analogy is flat f*7%ing backwards. You see, people licensed to carry are not criminals. Criminals do not care about the law to begin with. I ask again, how many inocent people must die because a government removed their right to carry a weapon to protect themselves, before you will change your mind??? Our government didn't remove our right to protect ourselves with guns because we were never allowed to protect ourselves with guns in the first place!!! When will you learn? We never had a right to own a gun for self protection prior to the ban. Taking guns away from us hasn't taken away our right to use them in self defence because we were able to anyway.

I feel like you missed his point. In the US for example. Smoking is legal. Cigaretts are legal. I hate being around smoke but, even with that said, I feel the only place the gov should be about to do anything about it is in gov owned public places. I do not feel they should be able to tell a bar owner they can not allow smoking because it is property the owner allows the public in to eat or drink. In essance, I feel it is wrong to regulate privatly owned businesses because some busybody wants to go in to this place but doesn't like being around smoke. I aplaud my states Supreme court for saying as much. Now apply this to gun ownership. In the US it is a right spelled out by the constitution. Anybody making the claim that a militia is what is being talkied about better had better to be ready to give up all the other rights as well because individal right has to be interpeted differerntly for someone to support that claim. The major law schools (for the most part) have stated this and is where I learned that fact. To continue, regarless if you want to own a gun, everyone needs to fight for all the rights lest they loose the rest of them too. I do not know what the UK laws state about gun ownership but I do feel it necessary to debate the stats as to what has happened there (since some guns were banned) because the anti gunners (and they did this first) use foreign examples to try and sway people. It only seems right the when facts are wrong or misused, those errors or deceptions (if any) be brought to light. Firstly you forget this thread is about gun ownership in the UK not the USA. We do not have a constitutional right to own a weapon over here. Secondly we were never allowed to defend ourselves or our property with the guns that were banned anyway so taking them away hasn't made any difference. The ban referred to was never meant to reduce gun crime, it was meant to prevent a specific type of gun crime. Gun crime has increased but for other reasons other than the ban.

I get it now, I think .... don't know why I didn't see it sooner. John doesn't give a crap about the 97 ban over here, he is just clutching at anything that can influence people in america to fight for their right to bear arms, right? He's trying to use our example to highlight what could happen over there if your right is eroded. Is that right John? If so the example you have chosen and your argument are pretty weak. There has to be a better way to get support.

"Likely"? You think it's a good idea to confiscate people's property based upon the hope for a "likely" outcome? Errr yes.... that is what usually happens. Laws are made with certain intentions but as we can't travel in time we assume a likely outcome..... unless you know of a better way.