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.

We all know that. Nobody is disagreeing with you on this point (as far as I know). It's your insistance that the 97 ban has had no affect whatsoever and it was a complete waste of time that we disagree with.

..... Personally, I think before citizen's property rights are trampled upon, that some solid proof should be required that it's actually going to accomplish something useful. What property rights? This isn't America... perhaps that is something you are forgetting. We do not have any rights here in the UK we have freedoms which is slightly different. Rights entitle you to something but we don't have that. Our freedoms allow us to do what we like providing it doesn't break any laws that exist. So Parliament CAN introduce such laws such as the ban on weapons. Not that anyone was complaining anyway... except you of course.

Ah yes, you're so-called proof, which consists of the opinion of just one man. So many people are telling you the same thing John. It's time to wake up. Has there been one person from the UK agreeing with you? How many have disagreed? Compare the numbers. What does that tell you? I don't want a gun. I don't know anyone who wishes to own/carry a gun in the UK. I've never seen one outside of the military. I don't need one. If we were allowed to carry them I bet there would be a heck of a lot more gun crimes around and a lot more poeple shot dead and injured. The ban was introduced for one reason only... as previously explained time and time again..... and it worked, it removed the guns it was intended to remove and so far (fingers crossed) has prevented a repeat performance.....nobody has said it could not happen again, but with less guns than there would have been the chances are reduced ... no matter how slightly, they are reduced. At the time of the ban it was the right decision. Society changes over time however. There are other reasons for the amount of gun crime we are seeing now and nobody expects gun crime to disappear because of one ban that happend 10 years ago... except you of course. Rather than whinging about how one of our laws has been "ineffective" why not address the real problem and offer a solution?

In other words, you agree with me that the gan ban is a failure at preventing criminals from committing gun crimes. Why do you fail to see the reason for that particular ban even when it's been explained to you again and again? I agree that certain criminals (drug dealers for instance) can still get their hands on a gun if they want one and if they have the right connections. The reason for that particular gun ban however was not to prevent such criminals from getting hold of a gun. The reason for the ban was to prevent law abiding gun owners from suddenly "losing it" and using their weapon in acts of crime. It also removed the weapon making it impossible for it to fall into the wrong hands (such as can happen if the home was burgled, or if it's not locked away correctly, or if another family member decides to take it discreetly etc). Yes gun crime has increased but if the ban hadn't occured it would have increased at least at the same rate ... likely at a higher rate. What exactly would you like to see happen? Would you like the ban to be reversed? If it was what affect do you think (if any) it would have on gun crime?

Boris Johnson!! Hey at least he has comedy value. I grew up under Thatcher and vowed never to vote Conservative.... but if Boris was at the helm I would! I think he's the only politician you can trust. I wish he would set up his own political party, then I could vote for him without voting conservative.

I can't think of a single reason why the gun ban would prevent such an action in the future, though. A person so inclined would be just as capable of holding, then killing a classroom full of small children and one female teacher. Could use a knife, could probably do it with bare hands. Most people couldn't kill with their bare hands or stick a knife in someone. Most people are not that way inclined. Killing with a gun however is a bit easier - not that I've done it - but it requires less physical strength and you don't have to get up close and personal. The vast majority of people over here were and are fine with the ban of 97 so what's the problem? Edited to add: Yes there may well be one lunatic who will knife a classroom full of kids next week. If the ban hadn't been introduced however there would be more guns available in society for someone to get there hands on easily and perhaps 2 or 3 classrooms would be massacred. The ban was introduced though.... so there may well be a parent with a screw loose who beats up a teacher with his fists instead of shooting him.

The fact they are a "scientist" doesn't mean they know anything about climatology. I know a heck of a lot of scientists (used to work in a university) and they are all highly specialised. My wife is a biochemist but knows F. all about climatology but she could vote on this right...? And you still believe what they say even though it's not their specialised field? Fact 1. The climate is constantly changing, always has been and always will be. Fact 2. Since industrialisation there have been significant changes in greenhouse gas concentrations (i.e. changes faster than we would otherwise expect to see without mans industrial input) and this seems to correlate with global temperature changes. You only have to look at the figures..... of course the assumptions could be wrong but what other explanation is there for the correlation?

What are the other causes of global warming? Termites - they have small farts but there are a hell of a lot of them around!!

You're ignoring the whole thrust of this thread. You did ban guns, and gun crime has gone up anyway. Thus proving that criminals will get all the guns they want regardless. So the gun ban was a wasted effort, which accomplished nothing over than to deprive many citizens of their property and their sport. Your theory sounds nice, but has never been proven true anywhere that it has been tried. And the example of England is just another data point in that proof. The ban you refer to was for a specific reason and was a result of a particular crime - you know this as we've discussed it before but you continually choose to ignore it. Why? The ban wasn't a wasted effort as to my knowledge a similar incident hasn't happend since. For your information even before the ban it was not possible for anyone owning a gun to use it against another person to defend their property so we have not been deprived of the right to defend ourselves. Our legal system and culture is different over here. What works for you doesn't necessarily work in any other country. Yes it is obvious that if a criminal wants to obtain a gun today they can, anything is possible no matter what laws are introduced. That doesn't mean we all want to rush out and buy our own weapons though. I don't want one and to my knowledge I don't know anyone who does. The only person bothered about the fact guns are banned is you John and it doesn't affect you so why do you keep bringing it up?

That simply isn't true. How do you explain black on black gun crime here in the UK? They know there is a good chance of their target being armed which contradicts your theory.