| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/17/2011 08:51:48 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by TonyT:
We should really start at the top of the list:
435,000 Tobacco
0 Marijuana |
This one really made me laugh! Tobacco kills by being smoked and people who smoke it die. 435,000 of them. How exactly are the people who are counted as using marijuana using it? Making herbal rubs out of it? If smoking tobacco kills, smoking marijuana kills. Of course IMHO if you want to kill yourself through tobacco, weed, or turning a gun on yourself, thats your business. But if your going to quote numbers at me, don't make the B.S. so obvious |
//www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#tobacco
Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.
Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2011 08:52:40 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Seeing as one of my friends was killed and the other is still in hospital and my children and I where at the funeral of Christina, as my daughter was her classmate. You are out of order.
Sorry but you are. You have no idea as to what you are talking about.
Edited to add: You have no idea how fast this happened. You also have no idea as to how many other people would have been injured or killed that day if there had been other people there with guns. You just can not comprehend how fast this was and there was no way to stop it. |
I am not talking about your friends and it always happens fast. I am saying people blaming guns for the problem is stupid. if a criminal knew everyone in a croud had a gun he would be less apt to pull a gun. You can not predict what crazy people will do. I do not know why you think I do not know what I am talking about. I was not there I am just saying you can not say ok you can do what ever you want to some people you have to kill them. I do not know why you think I was saying something bad about the people that got shot. i hate it very much you need to get the chip off your shoulder no one was saying anything bad about the ones shot. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 09:08:14 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by TonyT:
Of the US territories, I heard that the US Virgin Islands has the largest murder rate. Most of that is gang related violence and most of the murders are gang members killing other gang members. Should you really count those in your statistics? |
Of course they should be counted! Frankly, I'd be amazed if there weren't particular geographic areas or social groups over-represented in the gun homicide figures. But, so what? That's just popluation statistics. I'm sure anti-gun proponents would argue that the stats for areas/cohorts with low gun homicides should also be disregarded (thus making the homicide rates seem even higher), and that would be just as inappropriate.
I understand the argument about gangs perhaps not being representative of the population as a whole, however if they didn't have such easy access to firearms does anybody truly believe that they would be killing each other with same degree of efficiency? Whilst perhaps not as prevalent, there is also a gang culture of sorts in Australia too and gang violence does occur. Ask anybody who's ever worked in a hospital ED on a Saturday night and they'll tell you the stories about bashings etc due to gang conflict. However, the vast majority of these people recover. The same cannot be said for those shot in gang conflicts.
Message edited by author 2011-01-17 21:10:05. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 09:22:56 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by moondog:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Seeing as one of my friends was killed and the other is still in hospital and my children and I where at the funeral of Christina, as my daughter was her classmate. You are out of order.
Sorry but you are. You have no idea as to what you are talking about.
Edited to add: You have no idea how fast this happened. You also have no idea as to how many other people would have been injured or killed that day if there had been other people there with guns. You just can not comprehend how fast this was and there was no way to stop it. |
I am not talking about your friends and it always happens fast. I am saying people blaming guns for the problem is stupid. if a criminal knew everyone in a croud had a gun he would be less apt to pull a gun. You can not predict what crazy people will do. I do not know why you think I do not know what I am talking about. I was not there I am just saying you can not say ok you can do what ever you want to some people you have to kill them. I do not know why you think I was saying something bad about the people that got shot. i hate it very much you need to get the chip off your shoulder no one was saying anything bad about the ones shot. |
Moondog, I do apologize, I mis-read your sentence. I am really sorry. I have re-read it and it is totally my misunderstanding, I am sorry. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 09:28:21 PM · #80 |
| It is OK I am very sorry about your Friends. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 09:45:15 PM · #81 |
Me too, and I am sorry I was too quick off the mark,,,,,,, again it was my fault.
Message edited by author 2011-01-17 21:45:33. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 09:50:11 PM · #82 |
Oh, just kiss already!
On a serious note, sorry for the loss of your friend Juliet, and the loss of your daughter's friend as well. I hope the one in the hospital will be OK. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 09:58:31 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by TonyT:
We should really start at the top of the list:
435,000 Tobacco
0 Marijuana |
This one really made me laugh! Tobacco kills by being smoked and people who smoke it die. 435,000 of them. How exactly are the people who are counted as using marijuana using it? Making herbal rubs out of it? If smoking tobacco kills, smoking marijuana kills. Of course IMHO if you want to kill yourself through tobacco, weed, or turning a gun on yourself, thats your business. But if your going to quote numbers at me, don't make the B.S. so obvious |
//www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#tobacco
Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.
Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana. |
I can't find it now, but I also saw one study that stated that smokers of marijuana tended to breath deeper when smoking, thus inhaling it deeper, and holding it longer causing deeper, more intensive long damage. If I get a chance, I'll try to track it down again.
Say what you want about people on pot, but the most aggravating experience of my life was trying to teach someone who was high. Oh my gosh. They could not remember one day to the next what you had taught them. They were totally OUT of the moment and wasting their time. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 10:14:26 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by JH:
Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. |
What magic power is it that allows this one particular type of smoke to have little adverse effects to the lungs when all other burning matter is carcinogenic when inhaled?
According to those silly boys at the C.D.C. marijuana poses significant health risks, but what would they know? If you think smoking an equal amount of marijuana is less dangerous than smoking tobacco, or tea leaves or any other plant matter, you must be blunted. I have never seen a tobacco smoker hold a lungfull till he coughed, nor have I seen a joint filtered or in a low tar formula. Some folks even like to smoke the buds, despite the higher tars and complex compounds that are found there is high concentrations.
Smoke is bad for you. Even if you wish otherwise. Is it worse than tobacco? It seems not. Are its health effects minimal? Of course not.
To say that aspirin kills 7,600 people a year and marijuana kills none is pretty much wishing against the obvious.
There is a nice study here done outside the US, there by skirting the silly ban on study of weed we had for years. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 10:25:53 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by moondog:
I am saying people blaming guns for the problem is stupid. if a criminal knew everyone in a croud had a gun he would be less apt to pull a gun. |
Do you have any evidence of this?
In Oakland gangs are a big problem. They kill each other and those near them, and those in the houses they are standing near. The targeted gang members are all assumed to be armed, yet quite often they are strafed by gunfire by people shooting from passing vehicles. Hundreds of bullets are shot in seconds. When you know your target is armed, the attack tends to be fast and overwhelming.
I fell little sympathy for the gang members, but many of the victims are the result of mistaken identity. Sadly those innocent people are assumed to be armed, so they are killed before a positive identification can be made. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 10:43:26 PM · #86 |
| I believe one of the reasons we are given the right to have arms is for protection from the government. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 10:52:39 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by mgarsteck:
I believe one of the reasons we are given the right to have arms is for protection from the government. |
As many people read the Second Amendment (though perhaps not the current SCOTUS), it is to allow the States to maintain independent militias to protect the state from Federal usurpation of their rights; it says nothing about allowing individual insurrection against any level of government.
In the days the Constitution was written, those militias made use of the arms already owned by citizens, and for that purpose the Federal Congress was prohibited from banning guns. Note however, that the Founding Fathers used the words "well-regulated" -- suggesting that the rights granted by the Amendment were not immune to some degree of limitation.
Message edited by author 2011-01-17 22:53:00. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 03:12:53 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by moondog:
I am saying people blaming guns for the problem is stupid. if a criminal knew everyone in a croud had a gun he would be less apt to pull a gun. |
Do you have any evidence of this?
In Oakland gangs are a big problem. They kill each other and those near them, and those in the houses they are standing near. The targeted gang members are all assumed to be armed, yet quite often they are strafed by gunfire by people shooting from passing vehicles. Hundreds of bullets are shot in seconds. When you know your target is armed, the attack tends to be fast and overwhelming.
I fell little sympathy for the gang members, but many of the victims are the result of mistaken identity. Sadly those innocent people are assumed to be armed, so they are killed before a positive identification can be made. |
And all of the gang members are carrying legally?? ...yeah, that's what I thought. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 04:30:20 AM · #89 |
Art's amendment to the second amendment:
The right of the people to shoot spammers shall also not be infringed. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 04:31:18 AM · #90 |
(mis)quoting and (mis)applying the US constitution to defend the right to own guns in the face of all overwhelming evidence that high levels of gun ownership leads to high rates of homicide by gun is a very strange thing to me. In so many other ways the US is advanced, practical, and sensible. Why does nobody have the political nerve to address this issue? America is the world's most important democracy and on the gun issue is like a banana republic
@Art, of course most gang members are not licensed gun-owners, but if the country is awash with weapons then they will, of course, fall into the hands of criminals.
@ the OP, I'm guessing you're not getting paid to take pictures, I'm also guessing you are not uncovering some hugely important story, more likely you're taking a picture of a derelict building for a dp challenge. It's a hobby, does this really need a lethal weapon? How about you just don't go?
Press photographers don't even carry guns in war zones. What are you thinking about, being armed taking pictures in modern America? |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 04:47:39 AM · #91 |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 05:33:22 AM · #92 |
Pentax solved it nicely with an all-in-one solution. This camera has a built in 22 caliber "Stinger".
 |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 05:50:16 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
Pentax solved it nicely with an all-in-one solution. This camera has a built in 22 caliber "Stinger". |
Now you know why we 'shoot' with Pentax. Mind you, it gets expensive. I'm on my third 70-200 2.8 this week! |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 06:10:57 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
And all of the gang members are carrying legally?? ...yeah, that's what I thought. |
Would it make a difference if they were all legal, licensed guns?? ...yeah, that's what I thought. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 06:14:14 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
@ the OP, I'm guessing you're not getting paid to take pictures, I'm also guessing you are not uncovering some hugely important story, more likely you're taking a picture of a derelict building for a dp challenge. It's a hobby, does this really need a lethal weapon? How about you just don't go?
|
that is partially it but I also have clients that I do sessions with downtown. Of course I try and stay in safer areas and I do try and be smart about it. I was really just wondering what other photogs do and if anyone has had any uncomfortable experiences while out shooting. I do carry a cell phone at all times and if i am on a shoot there are usually at least 3 people. It is not likely that I would come across a problem but there have been crimes in the area so I was just curious what others thought or did. Probably should have known it would be a can of worms but I was really just looking to see if anyone else carried or if anyone had run into problems while out. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 06:31:54 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
And all of the gang members are carrying legally?? ...yeah, that's what I thought. |
Would it make a difference if they were all legal, licensed guns?? ...yeah, that's what I thought. |
The point is that they aren't. Laws won't disarm gangsters, they will only disarm law abiding citizens.
There are rational and irrational arguments on all sides of this issue. I'm not a gun nut (just a plain nut). I support everyone's right (in the U.S.) to own guns. I would also support rational restrictions on things like 30 round magazines, but I also understand the fears that if you let the government start regulating, they will never stop.
If you're not a U.S. citizen, your opinion on this issue is to me, as relevant as mine is to you on your system of government or laws or constitution or social culture. No offense. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 06:58:37 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
And all of the gang members are carrying legally?? ...yeah, that's what I thought. |
Would it make a difference if they were all legal, licensed guns?? ...yeah, that's what I thought. |
The point is that they aren't. Laws won't disarm gangsters, they will only disarm law abiding citizens.
There are rational and irrational arguments on all sides of this issue. I'm not a gun nut (just a plain nut). I support everyone's right (in the U.S.) to own guns. I would also support rational restrictions on things like 30 round magazines, but I also understand the fears that if you let the government start regulating, they will never stop.
If you're not a U.S. citizen, your opinion on this issue is to me, as relevant as mine is to you on your system of government or laws or constitution or social culture. No offense. |
Well put. Where's the "LIKE" button on this thing? |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 07:05:04 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
And all of the gang members are carrying legally?? ...yeah, that's what I thought. |
Would it make a difference if they were all legal, licensed guns?? ...yeah, that's what I thought. |
The point is that they aren't. Laws won't disarm gangsters, they will only disarm law abiding citizens.
There are rational and irrational arguments on all sides of this issue. I'm not a gun nut (just a plain nut). I support everyone's right (in the U.S.) to own guns. I would also support rational restrictions on things like 30 round magazines, but I also understand the fears that if you let the government start regulating, they will never stop.
If you're not a U.S. citizen, your opinion on this issue is to me, as relevant as mine is to you on your system of government or laws or constitution or social culture. No offense. |
Not to go off on some political discourse, but, we are all citizens of the world - it is quite valid for somebody in Europe to have an opinion on issues in America. The US comments on, say, German monetary policy, human rights abuses in China, genocide in Sudan etc. We can listen to these comments (or not) and apply our own experiences (or prejudices) to our judgement but generally the world is a better place when we exchange views with our neighbours.
You support everyone's right to own guns? Including mentally unstable people? Or sight-impaired? Or people taking mood-altering medication?
The law wouldn't disarm criminals but less weapons in circulation generally would make the country safer, no? |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 07:07:41 AM · #99 |
I don't need no stinkin' gun. Instead, I bring a private body guard on photo missions - whether they're impossible or not. As a token of appreciation, she gets to play with my 200mm lens in the evening (she loves low-light conditions). Not only is she a good shot and photographer; she's also photogenic. What more could I ask for? :P
Message edited by author 2011-01-18 07:08:09. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 07:39:32 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Not to go off on some political discourse, but, we are all citizens of the world - it is quite valid for somebody in Europe to have an opinion on issues in America. The US comments on, say, German monetary policy, human rights abuses in China, genocide in Sudan etc. We can listen to these comments (or not) and apply our own experiences (or prejudices) to our judgement but generally the world is a better place when we exchange views with our neighbours. |
Opine all you want. I've already said how relevant I consider non-U.S. citizens' opinions on this issue. Others will undoubtedly disagree. I listen, but I also consider the source. Different countries have different cultures and what works in one, does not necessarily work in another. I love and respect the laws and cultures of many other countries and I am baffled at others, but I don't presume to think they should "be the way we are", or that they ever could be (i.e. Afghanistan). One of the things I love about the U.S. is that we have lots of differences in laws, philosophy and ideology throughout our 50 states and if I don't like it in one, I can freely move to another.
Anyway, on the gun issue, people always get worked up when a particular incident happens, but I am more in favor of keeping things in perspective and address the real problems and the higher priority ones. These debates are as pointless as many political debates - it all boils down to a difference in opinion.
And with that, I am going to get some sleep. :) |
|
