Conquer Club

Sym wrote:Aye well if the article above is anything to go by pedophilia and shoplifting are given as caused by Lyme disease. I don't think you'll find many more liberal posters than me, but that raises some big question marks for me.

"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution] . . . "

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Sym wrote:Aye well if the article above is anything to go by pedophilia and shoplifting are given as caused by Lyme disease. I don't think you'll find many more liberal posters than me, but that raises some big question marks for me.

I wasn't suggesting that it absolves one of responsibility, I was just saying that, similar to how untreated syphilis can eventually cause dementia, CLD can have effects on the nervous system and presumably behavior.

-TG

Symmetry wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:The bacteria that causes Lyme, Borrelia burgdorferi is very similar to the bacteria that causes syphilis (they're both spirochetes) and can indeed affect the nervous system after enough time of chronic infection. It can also hide in biofilms, making detection difficult.

This is actually a very interesting topic; there are a lot of deniers of Chronic Lyme Disease and even of B. burgdorferi's ability to cause other symptoms than the typical ring and intitial fever, aches, etc., and this leads to denial of treatment under many insurance policies. Here in Oregon, there are many docs who refuse to treat anything other than the intitial infection because of fear of reprisal. There was a documentary that followed the careers of a few docs who specialized in CLD who were brought up under malpractice charges because they attempted to treat the disease which was counter to standard practice.

/offtopic

-TG

Aye well if the article above is anything to go by pedophilia and shoplifting are given as caused by Lyme disease. I don't think you'll find many more liberal posters than me, but that raises some big question marks for me.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I've always understood that Lyme disease was spread by biting insects like ticks. So my question is; How would one catch Lyme Disease in December? Or, how long can it remain undetected?

Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom

Juan_Bottom wrote:^^ I sometimes think about this runoff from Upworthy. Why is there a split between Dems and repubs here? These two guys do the same thing.

Juan_Bottom wrote:More Americans Have Died From Domestic Gunfire Than All Wars In U.S. History – Is That True?

thegreekdog wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:^^ I sometimes think about this runoff from Upworthy. Why is there a split between Dems and repubs here? These two guys do the same thing.

No clue. I don't watch Colbert at all and from what I've seen he's not my favorite.

I watch Stewart for the funny, not for the politics in any event. Stewart is very intelligent and has some good things to say and I wish, like you, he would attack his party of choice once in a while, but I really watch the guy because he's intelligently funny.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:I've always understood that Lyme disease was spread by biting insects like ticks. So my question is; How would one catch Lyme Disease in December? Or, how long can it remain undetected?

The initial infection isn't that bad, but if it isn't treated within the first month or so it can cause problems over a period of years. And it's difficult to detect.

-TG

KoolBak wrote:So you know wicked?

Here's a fun poster:

KoolBak wrote:So you know wicked?

Here's a fun poster:

chang50 wrote:

KoolBak wrote:So you know wicked?

Here's a fun poster:

You would think that if someone went to all the trouble of collecting these statistics,and presenting them in a catchy poster,they might manage to correctly spell the name,Piers.

Metsfanmax wrote:And yet, the US has about 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people every year, while the UK has 0.25 per 100,000 (40 times lower). These things are not one-dimensional, and there are correlations that do not imply causations. You can never sum up the entire gun control debate in one snappy graph or poster.

FIREARM shows have proven particularly dangerous after a spate of accidental shooters injured at least five people.

USA Today reported , three were injured at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in North California when a 12-gauge shotgun went off as its owner tried to show it to police who were doing security checks.

Two were bystanders and the retired deputy sheriff copped an injured hand.

Meanwhile in Indiana, a 54-year-old man was injured after accidentally shooting himself as he left the show.

Loaded personal weapons were not allowed into the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife show where this happened.

In Ohio, a gun dealer was inspecting a newly-purchased semi-automatic handgun when it fired.

The gun's magazine was removed but at least one round remained in the chamber, injuring his friend.

Police believe the bullet struck the floor before hitting the friend's leg and arm.

The United States is in the midst of a divisive debate about how best to stem the rate of gun-related violence following a mass school shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 28 dead

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:And yet, the US has about 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people every year, while the UK has 0.25 per 100,000 (40 times lower). These things are not one-dimensional, and there are correlations that do not imply causations. You can never sum up the entire gun control debate in one snappy graph or poster.

Why do suicides and accidents count? Remember, the reason the government demands we ban guns is because they are used to murder others, not because some people choose to kill themselves.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:And yet, the US has about 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people every year, while the UK has 0.25 per 100,000 (40 times lower). These things are not one-dimensional, and there are correlations that do not imply causations. You can never sum up the entire gun control debate in one snappy graph or poster.

Why do suicides and accidents count? Remember, the reason the government demands we ban guns is because they are used to murder others, not because some people choose to kill themselves.

You may have the notion that people who commit suicide make a plan to do it, and will successfully do so regardless of whether they have a gun or not. Actually, according to this study, the majority of suicide cases are either unplanned (i.e. temporary crises) or are self-limiting (e.g. will go away if the person does not have immediate access to something with which to kill themselves). Also, the other common methods of suicide (drug overdoses and cutting) are much less successful at actually killing people. The paper demonstrates that there is a substantial link between suicide risk and access to a gun in the home. So that's why suicides count. I don't know about you, but I think it's generally bad when people kill themselves in temporary psychological crises when living otherwise fairly normal lives. This would happen far less often if guns were not as commonly owned.

As for accidents, isn't it obvious why they should count? The fewer guns that are around, the fewer gun-related accidents there are. That is a reason why we should limit the number of guns around, and it's an argument that is made commonly by gun control enthusiasts. It's been made several times in this and other threads, including by myself.

Or am I locked into a method of argumentation that is easy for you to refute?

Symmetry wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:And yet, the US has about 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people every year, while the UK has 0.25 per 100,000 (40 times lower). These things are not one-dimensional, and there are correlations that do not imply causations. You can never sum up the entire gun control debate in one snappy graph or poster.

Why do suicides and accidents count? Remember, the reason the government demands we ban guns is because they are used to murder others, not because some people choose to kill themselves.

You may have the notion that people who commit suicide make a plan to do it, and will successfully do so regardless of whether they have a gun or not. Actually, according to this study, the majority of suicide cases are either unplanned (i.e. temporary crises) or are self-limiting (e.g. will go away if the person does not have immediate access to something with which to kill themselves). Also, the other common methods of suicide (drug overdoses and cutting) are much less successful at actually killing people. The paper demonstrates that there is a substantial link between suicide risk and access to a gun in the home. So that's why suicides count. I don't know about you, but I think it's generally bad when people kill themselves in temporary psychological crises when living otherwise fairly normal lives. This would happen far less often if guns were not as commonly owned.

As for accidents, isn't it obvious why they should count? The fewer guns that are around, the fewer gun-related accidents there are. That is a reason why we should limit the number of guns around, and it's an argument that is made commonly by gun control enthusiasts. It's been made several times in this and other threads, including by myself.

Or am I locked into a method of argumentation that is easy for you to refute?

Well put, and it needs to be said more and more. NS is sort of correct that suicide isn't really considered in the arguments though. That it shouldn't be is clearly wrong.

“The whole point is you’ve got innocent people getting killed either way,” said Berman. “These are people who could be helped.”