text:
- Rob Freda
- Pylesville, MD
- United States
This conversation is closed.
Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
First that this idea even needs to be broached in the first place is ridiculous especially given the lack of clarity in the second amendment (eg it does not specify types of arms so that should be handled by laws not as a "do what you will free for all").
That said it seems there are some major elements that would be necessary to reduce gun deaths in the US and there are some obfuscating interests embodied in the NRA that must be sidestepped or accommodated in the solution.
Four main areas of focus jump out to reduce gun deaths:
1) "mass killings" (included in this would be the 2 or 3 person shootings as well as as Newtown or Aurora types)
2) Accidental shootings
3) Non-owner shootings (eg the shooter is not the owner of the gun)
4) "black market" trading
Added to these I would say the parameter that makes gun control legislation difficult is gun manufacturer revenue stream protection using the second amendment as a shill.
So what are the necessary parameters to make something happen vs. the absurdity of what is going to happen over the next few months in Washington:
1) Figure out a way that shifting policy creates more revenue for gun manufacturers so they get the NRA on board
2) Make sure that guns cannot be used in public places or by someone other than their owner
The Idea - Mandatory gun locks and universal kill switches.
On locks, all responsible gun owners have gun safes. Why not move the lock to the gun's trigger mechanism either with a combination code or biometric locks. That would prevent unauthorized use of the gun by anyone but the owner.
On kill switches, in the same locking mechanism put a chip and actuator that freezes the locking mechanism mentioned above when it receives a certain modulated radio signal.
If mandatory then all existing guns will have to be refitted with the new bolt mechanism creating revenue streams for the gun manufacturers and on all new guns they can charge more creating more revenue.
Linda Taylor
Jan 17 2013: I saw this the other day and it sums it up better than I can:
- +4
You beat someone to death? What is wrong with you?
You strangle someone to death? What is wrong with you?
You stabbed someone to death? What is wrong with you?
You shot someone to death? We better do something about guns.
It's not about guns. It's about violence.
Jan 17 2013: ahhh...no actually killing 20 people inside of a minute or accidentally shooting your cousin in the head is about guns!!! Ever heard of someone accidentally strangling or stabbing someone to death? or mass stranglings and stabbings?
"wait, hold on! don;t run away. I haven't finished strangling the first person yet."
pithy, amusing, but basically an ridiculous (happy?) perspective.
humans are violent. as evidenced by the way we continue to find more and more efficient ways to kill each other. How are you going to solve that? Put thorizine in the water?
Jan 17 2013: Right. What you don't seem to understand is that guns are just a tool. If somehow we could take guns away from the violent and mentally ill, they would simply find another tool. Guns are not the problem. Talk about imbecilic.
Guns don't kill 20 people in a minute. Mental illness does. There are many many guns out there that have that capacity owned by normal people living in normal America. People are NOT running around shooting 20 people a minute just because they can.
Maybe we should find out the cause of violence and address that. Then it would not matter if every house had a gun like every house has knives. (In my neighborhood, every house DOES have a gun-usually several)
We already know how to begin to address mental illness. We know that people are violent when they are not safe, or there are not enough resources, or when there are too many people located in too small of a geographic area. How about we fix some of those things instead of getting rid of tools.
About 6,000 deaths and a half a million injuries are caused by distracted drivers every year. Let's get rid of cellphones. That would have a bigger impact than getting rid of guns.
Jan 17 2013: OK. let's try this really slowly. What are guns? Guns are force multipliers. Modern military hardware is specifically designed for area suppression which means given a nice tight grouping, like say a mall or concert, you can kill a hell of a lot more than 20 people in a minute.
Force multipliers are generally nasty pieces of work. Some more advanced ones - fuel-air explosives, nukes, neutron bombs, mustard gas, VX, which if they get nasty enough everyone agrees to outlaw, eg the Geneva convention, especially if they are easy to use.
No force multiplier = less dead people. (I noticed you also neatly avoided dealing with stabbing and strangling this time around which are not all that easy to do if you do not know what you are doing). See how fast someone goes down from a single knife wound.
What you are calling the "cause of violence" is the natural state of all animal life. you see a lot of chummy interaction between sharks and seals? The cause is competition for and acquisition of resources specifically to produce calories (for muscles or cars, computers, etc.) so you can reproduce and create more mini-yous to go out and kill more stuff for more calories. The "mental" illness you are focused on is a small extreme microcosm of the systemically violent state of all life.
Like I said (which you also neatly avoided answering) how are you going to stop violence?
Also just curious - who said anything about getting rid of guns? (Restricting types of tools and their use is done all the time. Try using dynamite to dig a hole for your pool in the back yard and see what happens)
I just said use technology to temporarily disable them where they are very dangerous. Your reaction is a typical knee jerk response that has little to do with what I said.
Linda Taylor
Jan 17 2013: Get over it Your car is a force multiplier. A hammer or wrench is a force multiplier. My Cuisinart is a force multiplier. And they are dangerous. You don't have an argument unless you want to ban (oh sorry, I mean 'control') cars, hammers, wrenches, food processors...
- +1
I already posited what the cause of the violence is. You are the one that connected it to wildlife. If you really think that violence culls the herd, maybe we should arm people to get rid of the problems that cause violence simply by decreasing the population numbers. Like my neighborhood.
And if that is what you think mental illness is, you need to learn a lot more before you expose any more of your ignorance.
(By the by, I know exactly where to place the knife wound so the person goes down and does not get up again.)
Violence is merely a symptom. You can't 'stop' violence. You can only address the underlying cause of the symptom. Or all you are doing is applying a bandaid (or administering Thorazine)Jan 17 2013: Worn argument? Force multiplier came from your brain but I have an old argument?
"Why exactly would you have a problem with a kill switch in a biometrically coded gun that temporarily deactivated the gun in a heavily trafficked or sensitive public place?" Who controls the kill switch, under whose authority and for what purpose? How do I prevent the rapist from buying one at Home Depot or from the DIY video on raping website? You can bet if the feds have it, so will the bad guys.
You really should look stuff up once in a while. From Wiki "Culling is the process of removing breeding animals from a group based on specific criteria. This is done either to reinforce certain desirable characteristics or to remove certain undesirable characteristics from the group." From you, "The cause is competition for and acquisition of resources specifically to produce calories (for muscles or cars, computers, etc.) so you can reproduce and create more mini-yous to go out and kill more stuff for more calories." You will note that culling does not necessarily mean a process from without the herd itself.
It is not always easier to put someone down with a gun than it is with a knife. You have less strike accuracy with a gun than you do with a knife. Depends on your purpose and choice of tool.
Like I said. Do your homework on mental illness or do not attempt to argue. The ignorance is more blatant by the second. Violence is not mental illness but people with mental illness can manifest with violence as a symptom. I never said the underlying cause was violence. I said we need to find the underlying cause of violence. Please do your homework or expect to get called on it.
Jan 18 2013: worn argument is saying that there is no confluence between the individual and the tool and to only look at the tool, eg guns don't kill people, people kill people. a wrench kills people. really. rocks kill people too. that is your basic argument and it is a non-starter as it basically excludes an entire area of the solution space of the bat for no benefit other than your opinion of the constitution.
the difference on the items you mentioned is guns are designed to kill. the other items were not. unless gun designers are really really bad at their jobs the premise you are starting with is a non-sequitur.
Same tech as server encryption keys. It would require sophisticated signal matching and coding in the damper which would be extremely difficult for anyone to duplicate or crack, so unless you happen to have an Anonymous desk at Home Depot that is a non-concern, unless of course you are so far off the rails that you are actually worried about the US gov using it to deny second amendment "remedies" because all that weaponary would be really useful against a predator or a M1, right?
I know what culling is. culling indicates the interaction between predator and prey or in husbandry removing undesirable traits. same result either way.
No one except you is arguing about mental illness. If you really think that you are going to be able to put system in place to identify the "bad" people and only have the "good" people have guns you would need to find specific genetic markers in individuals to "predict" their behavior. Which is the greater affront to liberty? Being able to disable weapons in certain instances or universal genetic testing?
By the way that would not have prevented Newtown since his mother owned the guns.Jan 17 2013: OK here is what I think we should do. If you create a square and look at all the steakholders (this is a little simple but illustration purposes) Imagine two lines creating four boxes.
...............Good People | Bad people
guns.............................. |
no guns..........................|
and imagine that we can move both the (somewhat) vertical and horizontal line. We want to maximize good people with guns and maximize bad people with no guns. So you see, there is only way to strike a balance. To favor one or the other will take guns away from good people or give guns to bad people.
So one way to address this would be to make sure that only good people can purchase weapons and that each and every person who purchases a weapon is trained and has the proper ability to keep the weapon out of the hands of the bad guys. So I think every gun owner should go through training with documentation of secure storage before being allowed to own a gun. And be liable for misuse or loss if not reported.
Of course the bad guys can ship them in, but that would mean law enforcement would have to be adequately manned and supported.
This is where regulation becomes important. But the regulation should not be about whether or not people should have guns but how to keep guns out of the hands of bad people.
Think about it. In all cases where there were mass killings the perpetrators had ACCESS to weapons. They did not always own them.
The guns at Sandyhook belonged to the guys mother. What was she thinking? She knew her boy was struggling yet she kept that kind of firepower in the house. She needs to be in jail.
There should be at LEAST two levels of security for each weapon and three levels of security for ammunition. My kids could pick trigger locks in grade school.
Jan 18 2013: she's dead.
so every argument you just made argues for moving the lock onto the gun either biometric or punch code. So what is your problem with the original idea?
good people. bad people. so no good person ever becomes bad? what is the rate of relicensing for training and confirmation of secure lock-up and how have you satisfied those who want to make sure this does not happen again?
your solution really only satisfies one set of stakeholders, the "good" gun owners...you. it ignores the messy donnybrook reality is.
What you are ignoring is 50% of the country does not own a gun and does not want to own one or to get shot by one. They do not want to take yours away. They just want to make sure that a disaffected individual (which mat or may not be mentally ill) cannot take an assault rifle into a mall or office building and fire away.
you really need to let the mentally ill thing go. many mass killers have not fit any of the recognized sociopathic disorders. this is not just about mental illness. it might make you feel better to constrain the problem in these ways because it fits your desired solution but things are not that simple and clear cut.Jan 18 2013: You can always override a killswitch. Either from the beacon or from the receiver. Just a matter of blocking a signal. Simple.
Jan 18 2013: no. signal jamming in modern DSP requires matching the frequency hopping (which, weird factoid, Heady Lamar invented during the war) which in any sophisticated system has had in place since the 40's. that is not an insignificant task with civilian equipment. also since I think the 70's systems pick up the frequency jamming and change the inputs to their "random" hopping algorithm so you basically need a system that matches and jams and then does it all over again second by second.
Matching and jamming an encrypted system with frequency hopping response is...well I know quite a few EE's and I doubt any of them could do it. I guess you could try broad spectrum jamming, but again the chip can be programmed to go into auto shutdown in that circumstance.
the easiest way around it would be to custom build the whole firing mechanism and replace it.
no solution is perfect, but hopefully each one incrementally improves the results. the point of this one is to make it more difficult to go from a standing start to killing people. nothing is solved in one step. I am merely suggesting that as first step we can buy ourselves some space and time by getting a market-solution band-aid in place that accommodates primary stakeholders/power brokers while we try and see how to solve the problems you mention.
if you try and tackle this with a "silver bullet" (pun intended) or by only satisfying one set of stakeholders it is just going to go nowhere fast.Jan 18 2013: Let me explain it slowly. Guns are not electronic. They are mechanical. With no chips anywhere. So that means that you would have to have some type of kill switch that interfered with a mechanical device.
This would require the switch to have some type of power source to move something. The usual power source for some type of electronic kill switch (encrypted system with frequency hopping response) is a battery. Even if you weld the battery into the gun somehow, you can bet any smith worth his weight will be able to override or disengage it or simply swap out the part. Or the gun owner can drain the battery or short out the system so the battery just dies. The cheap and easy way to block the receiver would be to wrap the part of the gun containing the switch in some type of heavy metal shielding. Oh wait, guns ARE heavy metal.
Jan 18 2013: did you bother to read the idea?
yes a smith can swap out the firing mechanism. my bet is there is a way to design it that would make the tolerances such that it would not be easy to do. regardless how many gunsmiths do you know that are batty enough to shoot people?
the point at this stage it to block and tackle. buy some room and time. just make it more difficult to decrease the rate of incidence until a real solution can be put it place. this has to be done in a phased approach. trying to solve it in one shot is biting off too much to chew.
even if as you suggest you can somehow separate the good from the bad the amount of time it would take to have an effect would be on the order of a decade. there is no quick fix because there are too many vectors affecting the outcome. a serious misstep at this stage could derail any solution. therefore short term solution must be put in place to reduce the rate of incidence and then mid-term solutions until the long term solution can be found. that is how complex issues get resolved positively. other approaches generally result in less than optimal outcomes.
it is an electronic locking system. cutting the power source automatically locks it.Jan 19 2013: I know perhaps in your part of the world power is not an issue. I know a lot of people who don't have electricity who hunt for food. I guess you could power it from a cigarette lighter but some people don't make it through the winter if the hunt is unsuccessful;. There are enough problems with guns jamming from poor design let alone some electronic chip malfunction out in the woods. Or heaven forbid your batteries run out!
It doesn't solve anything and complicates the heck out of what is already in place. It won't buy time but a bunch of smiths would make a lot of money overriding chips. I do know a few who would do it in a heartbeat. They understand real life.
Jan 19 2013: you are inverting how such a switch would function. power would be required to activate the gun not deactivate the gun. deactivated would be the basis state. power requirements would very low on the mW scale. regarding maintaining it, you clean your, you charge your battery. also maybe you only do it with certain weapons and leave single shot hunting rifles or revolvers out of it. (actually realistically you would have to target high-priority weapons anyway given the range of product out there. maybe mental health or public health solution solve something before it becomes fully universal)
as noted point is not whether it works universally but whether it reduces the rate of incidence over the short term.
one question on gunsmiths though. advanced glocks have biometric safeties. are any of the gunsmiths you know able to bypass those? if not or not easily then there is no argument on your end. a kill switch would be integrated directly into the lock. I think your idea of what can and cannot be done with modern DSP and encryption is a bit out of date. the biometric locks are already to this stage anyway so any new gun could easily have this.
one other thing is this would take a big smart team about a year or 2 to solve. the biggest design issue is refitting. If your gunsmiths are making a lot of money from refitting guns with such systems what is their incentive to disable it other than being paid more to do so which if it were illegal would make disabling riskier. if you are making 100K off refits why would you risk jail time and penalties to do something that might end in someone being killed?
as a noted to another commenter these systems have already existed for quite some time on defense systems we sell to other countries. this is not an unachievable technology.
also just think about this like the finger in the dike. are you also opposed to owner locks on the guns in general?Jan 19 2013: also am not sure that it would be worth the time to institute refitting in ex-urban areas. majority of deaths are in urban areas. only about 16% of the population lives outside urban areas and by 2020 that will be less than 10%. Right now 40% of the US population lives in the ten top urban areas.
think most of the people you know could simply be left out of it through exemptions, no?
Daryl Roche
Jan 20 2013: Rob, your proposal to "refit" all weapons is as ridiculous as your responce to Linda who has among others outlined the REAL issue. You and so many others are way too eager, as usual when ever there is an incident of extreme violence involving a weapon, to grab at a detail as obscure as what the severely mentally disturbed person was wearing. Infact, refitting all weapons is impossible especially as an effort to stop or even curtail violence commited WITH firearms not by firearms. The enormous amount of money required to accomplish this and the incredible amount of faith you put in the systems and people required to put this measure in place is at face value absurd. Restricting who gets access to weapons as well as what type of weapons are available to the public at large is the best first step in support of other measures like comprehensive mental health care. Additionally, we need to take a very close look at the pharmaceutical companies and their products when gathering the information needed to make any reasonable proposals in an effort to bring these horrible crimes to an end.Jan 24 2013: The first three you mentioned are a lot harder to actually commit, I'd say. This shows that there may be some belief that guns are easier to use to hurt people. Perhaps actually less violent? It may have some significance in our discussions even though we ought not to lose sight of the violence involved, like you said.
- +1
Mike Colera
Feb 14 2013: What I have learned so far:
- +3
Gun Violence !
Gun violence, most all violence seems to be concentrated in the large metropolitan areas. Gun control measures seem to have little effect. Compare Chicago, IL with Houston, TX
Political Climate !
It has been said that the USA is more politically polarized then ever. Not sure about ever, but if we look historically, the split is between Federalist and Antifederalist. In the beginning, the Federalist believed in strong central governance and even offered Washington a crown. The Federalist were from the big cities and the Antifederalists from rural areas. The Antifederalists believed in limited government with strong individual rights. Hence the Bill of rights. Yes, the Antifederalist were concerned that a strong central government could become tyrannical.
Painless Compromise !
An oxymoron.
Technological additions to firearms !
I think there is a need here. Gun accidents, many by children finding Dad's gun. Some device to limit use of gun by others has promise.
Long Distance Opinionated Evaluations !
TED is a world wide forum. This subject is most focused on problems within the.USA. Helpful suggestions from far away can be appreciated. The forest from the trees axiom. But, so many comments were a venomous harangue pointed at the USA and Americans. Most Americans would be loathe to criticize other great democratic nations that
we call friends and allies. However, that feeling is not reciprocated on these pages. So many comments were presented with contempt and arrogance and usually with little or misguided facts. So, I have learned that TED is truly an open forum, even to the braying of pompous asses.
pat gilbert
Feb 13 2013: I think you folks forget that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to defend yourself against tyranny. The sort of thing that has happened in many countries where the citizens were subsequently enslaved. Or in 92 in LA where the Korean shop keepers were able to keep their stores and inventory because they had automatic weapons. The police were severely out manned by the rioters. This is sort of tough to do with a single shot against an automatic weapon.
- +3
Andy Lee
Feb 13 2013: Pat I agree with your assessment but the shop keepers didn't have automatic weapons, they had semi automatic weapons at most. The president wants to take away the option of owning semi automatic weapons.
- +2
Feb 13 2013: My understanding was they had SK47s which are easily made full auto
Feb 14 2013: That part is wrong, sk's are not easy to make full auto without destrying the characteristics of the weapon. Such a weapon would be almost un-usable.Feb 13 2013: have you actually read the second amendment? There is no mention whatsoever of tyranny.
Those "many countries" you mention had no tradition of freedom or democracy so whether they had guns or not made absolutely no difference. After the fall of the Czar the Russians were armed to the teeth. Did that stop small group of radical leftist from imposing a totalitarian regime? The reason that was so easy was because Russia was a totalitarian regime under the Czars for 1000 years. Romans were armed to the teeth. That did not prevent the suborning of the republic. Every case of totalitarian governments is history is preceded by a totalitarian government so what exactly are you even talking about?
Your premise is ignorant and absurd. try reading some actual history vs. the fantasies you are being feb by your news and pundit sources..
Feb 13 2013: I thought I was obnoxious but you win the prize and then hide your profile..., but why would I expect anything else from a progressive?
Actually the 2nd amendment was exactly about the citizen defending himself against tyranny through a militia and to underline his natural right to defend himself, as stated in the Bill of Rights and the federalist papers and the anti federalist papers.
Rob Freda
Feb 14 2013: hide what profile? Not a progressive. basically apolitical. Just know some actual history, political theory, and logic. If an adherence rationality and empiricism vs. fantasy makes me a "progressive" then feel free to use the moniker.
- +1
Actually you are completely wrong. there is no mention of individual defense in the amendment. so you basically have two choices. 1) ignore the care and thought the framers of the constitution took in writing the actual words of the amendment which is basically like spitting in the framer's eye (and I am guessing you adulate them to a degree they themselves would find disturbing) and obviating their attempt to as Mike put it create a "living document" 2) Accept the actual amendment as written and learn some actual history.
And yes I was obnoxious because after a certain amount of absurdity I reach my litmus point. Your absurd comments about tyranny reflect and abject lack of historical knowledge which is a bit odd for someone how worships a document from 200 years ago.
Personally I find it more obnoxious to constantly spout opinions that are based on a lack knowledge and rigor with regard to the subject.Feb 14 2013: To Rob,Why do you constantly attack anyone that doesn't think the way you do? You talk as if you and you alone know history. The russians [general citizens] were not armed after the revolution, it would be those pesky communists that were armed, and they quickly disarmed any not believing their way. And for you to say that the second didn't say this, or that, and then not let people defend their view because it really doesn't matter what the founders said, ........that is what your argument to me was......... it is you that is pushing this argument in one direction, and not allowing others to have a say. Why should any gun owners wish to have a discussion with people that only want their way presented?Feb 14 2013: Right back at you, but the 1st amendment allows you to state your opinion, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Feb 14 2013: which one right back at me? ignoring what the framers actually wrote because it inconveniently does not support your argument.
you have not put out a single fact. all you have done is repeat a bunch of pablum and platitudes that have nothing to do with facts.
what facts are there in your opinions exactly?
1) Name a country that first disarmed its citizens and then became totalitarian.
2) Name a western democracy that has turned into a dictatorship (and please do not throw out the Wiemar republic).
3) where in the 2nd amendment is it even implied that the US government is the entity against which individuals should bear arms. that pesky first clause of the amendment is a bit of a problem isn't it.
4) Please elucidate the factual basis for the 2nd amendment guaranteeing your right to bear arms to for self-defense. Where exactly are the words "self-defense" in the amendment.
Oh, I forgot, your position is one where facts should never ruin a good story. your arguments are based on selective reading or completely inaccurate representations of history.Feb 14 2013: Rob Freda,
Brother you need to go read some books. The answers you're seeking are in the Federalist Papers which outline the reasoning for each amendment in the US Constitutions - Bill of Rights.
I'll give you an example. The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Some folks (leftists, progressives and idiots in general) think this means that the US Federal government cannot engage in acts of prayer or religious service. When in fact within days of the signing of the US Constitution, the Congress established the Office of the Chaplain for the House and the Senate. The reason why is explained in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Federalist Papers. All of which are the basis and reasoning for the US Constitution.
The Second Amendment is even more straight forward. It was enacted so that every able man that was not prohibited by physical condition or religious beliefs could be ready to fight if a need to form a militia was present. The second part of the amendment affirms that the "states" are free and that they have the right to defend themselves. For those who believe that the 2nd Amendment has something to do with hunting and fishing. That's just stupid because back then if you did not hunt and fish then you did not eat. Notice carefully that it does not say the right of the militia or the government or the church. It says the "PEOPLE" have a right to bear arms and that this right shall not be infringed. This is basic 6th grade civics and American History.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If you're serious about learning about the why and what's of the founders intent. Then I recommend the aforementioned which talk in great detail about how and why America came to be these United States.Feb 15 2013: Rob: you recommend that we all read History to understand what it takes to fight off a "Tyranny". Is that not what the American Revolution, fought by the men who wrote the Constitution were doing?! And the very first skirmish in it was an attempt by the Government of the day to seize private weapons. And that pattern is very consistent . In 1936 some Fascist generals in Spain though they could easily overthrow an elected government , thanks to a foreign mercenary army . Government defenders were basically civilians given guns by the government that enabled them to hang on for 3 years, almost win, but they were only defeated by Fascist and Nazi troops brought in to help the Generals. And incidently, a refusal by the rest of the world to allow the Spanish Loyalist government to buy weapons. What typannical movement did NOT try to deny weapons to ordinary people?
Robin Pearce
Feb 13 2013: Pat the second amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms , however it does not guarantee which sort of arms citizens have a right to bear. This has been tested many times since the first case in 1930. The Supreme Court then and since then has upheld the right to own arms but it has also ruled that Government can determine which arms you can and cannot own.
- +1
pat gilbert
Feb 13 2013: But a hunting rifle is irrelevant for arming/defending oneself
- +1
Feb 15 2013: Not if it's the only thing you have to hand.
Robert Rice
Jan 22 2013: If you want to improve the world by reducing violence, might I recommend beginning a discussion on mitigating the social darwinian nature of human interactions. It is the fundamental problem and far more pertinent.
- +3
Consider the data:
Twice as many people are murdered by some body part as are from rifles. Four to five times as many people are murdered from knives. One and a half times as many people are murdered from blunt objects. Where's the outcry for fist control, knife control, and hammer control? Apparently we should all be brains in a vat, living in a virtual reality. Where oh where is the Matrix when you need it? You aren't going to solve anything by outlawing further sales on "assault" rifles or reducing magazine capacity to say 10 rounds, as is Obama's current proposal. It doesn't take long to reload a Smith & Wesson .45 caliber, 10 round capacity pistol or some similar model. In which case, you aren't going to resolve mass killings. Handguns aren't even the consideration. Ironically, those who seek to reduce gun violence ought to be focusing their efforts on such (perhaps by insisting on revolvers only; still, a few revolvers with a large enough caliber is 15 murder victims), but there isn't a canary's chance in an offgasing coal mine the United States will outlaw handguns. And the reason is simple; as much as they are used in unjustified violence, they also save lives:
My firearm has deescalated violence more than once. I know of a couple whose home was broken into in the middle of the night, and after a 30 minute fist fight witht the assailant, although they won, they wish they had a firearm (and carry them religiously now).
Focus on what matters; accountability and justice. Less dog eat dog, more honor & fairness.
In the meantime, I'm cleaning my gun.
Jan 22 2013: good point. would actually say that is the misunderstanding of evolutionary environments as embodied by social darwinism and that misunderstandings influence on attitudes and our culture. it is a bit splitting hairs, but the idea that evolutionary environments produce "optimal" solutions has infected our zeitgeist and is in a word completely wrong. highly efficient species can "optimize" into extinction so the whole underpinning of the modern form of social darwinism per Ann Rand, Paul Ryan, etc. just displays a basic ignorance of how dynamical systems actually work.
wish we could go back to the classic western ideals you espouse.
Jan 22 2013: Indeed. In my observation, not everyone is wired to make decisions leading to peace. We aren't going to persuade lions to live in perfect harmony. Perhaps working toward genetically reengineering humans to pursue healthier relationships, and we might have real peace. In our circumstances, the goal is to find a way to minimize unjustified violence of whatever form. This is a function of many variables, justice and accountability being central.
Jan 22 2013: hmmm. think we might need to reengineer more than just the genetics but interesting idea.
there does seem to be a lack of what I would call "personal philosophy" in our society, eg an ethical code which one adheres to such as stoicism in the ancient world. it seems that you have one. Out of the people I know I would say maybe 20% do. This is a bit counterintuitive since we have educated at least to a minimal level large portions of the population.
I think that what you are talking about requires that a large portion of the population in a democracy holds themselves to a standard of action and behavior. That means the values and standards have to be shared. It is also requires that the society in general apply pressure to those whose behavior strays to far from acceptable ethical behavior.
Not sure that is doable right now. Too many people thinking (or not thinking as the case may be) left or right, liberal or conservative. Many of the western ideals have been torn down and associated with the negative effects of colonialism. Political correctness prevents people on both sides from pointing out the obvious. etc. etc.
I have a friend that notes if you always come down on the same side of every issue, you are not principled, you are not thinking.Jan 22 2013: one other point. guns are the only object you mentioned specifically designed to kill something. can you openly carry a sword or morningstar legally? (honest question as I do not know the answer)
Jan 22 2013: From what I gather, you aren't concerned with a firearm being designed with the ability to kill any'ole thing (I don't gather this conversation is on the merits of hunting), you are concerned with a gun being utilized against a human target in the commission of a homicide. Almost never is the motive of the creator/designer/manufacturer to produce a firearm to be employed in such a manner. In which case, although firearms generally are designed to have the ability to kill something (a fact they share in common with many knives, bow and arrows, swords, battle axes, etc.), I'm missing the relevance of this fact to your concern. Isn't your interest in reducing murders?
Jan 22 2013: yes on point one. on two homicide or accidental shooting.
on point three "Almost never is the motive of the creator/designer/manufacturer to produce a firearm to be employed in such a manner." WHAT? A bullet traveling a 3000 ft per sec that kills with hydrostatic shock is not designed to kill a person if you hit them anywhere but the hand or foot? 50 cal rifles were not designed specifically to punch through armored vehicles and bounce around inside? I think the US DoD has been wasting a lot of R&D dollars if a better killing machines is not the primary motive in the design of guns.
the point is all guns are designed specifically to kill something. whether it is a mammal or whatever. that cannot be said universally of the other items you mentioned previously (they can be used to kill but that is not generally their specific purpose, eg blunt objects). that is why I asked about the sword which is designed for no other purpose. was just pointing out a logical inconsistency in your original grouping.
shawn disney
Jan 29 2013: Rob: you are extrapolating unjustifiablly, Guns really are tools, and can be used for many different things . If they are exclusively to "Kill people" as you say, may I ask why Police are allowed to carry them? They are not authorized to "kill people", though they may be forced to occasionallly, but that is not the purpose of the gun.Jan 22 2013: For whatever idiosyncratic reason to TED discussion boards, I cannot reply to your most recent comment directly, so I'm sending my reply to your previous comment to address your most recent thoughts. If you read the sentence prior, I indicated guns are not manufactured for the purpose of murder. Context, friend, context.
- +1
Many knives, bow and arrows, and so on are expressly created with the ability to kill something consistent with firearms. My comments were entirely consistent.
Jan 22 2013: It is weird. You have to go into the reply on the comment specifically not just the window that pops up. makes no sense.
"Twice as many people are murdered by some body part as are from rifles. Four to five times as many people are murdered from knives. One and a half times as many people are murdered from blunt objects. Where's the outcry for fist control, knife control, and hammer control?"
knives - dual purpose
blunt objects/hammers - not designed to kill
Fists/body parts - not designed to kill
guns, sword, bow and arrow, >>> all weapons - specifically designed to kill
I was just saying the relative to the quote above guns were the only thing you mentioned that was exclusively designed to kill although there was a brief vogue in the military when they were designed to maim badly to stress the enemies infrastructure.
you asked why guns should be treated differently. that is why. swords, bows, etc should be treated differently too.
I generally agree with the gist of your post and would say what you are pointing out is systemically becoming more problematic in our society.
One point though I did not say ban the assault rifle, I said make it safer. your post does not really address why that is not a potential solution over the short term while we work on the things that humans have failed to fix in any society yet.Jan 23 2013: I have some counter research with opposite results (guns kill the most people). Not that I think anything need discussing, I think the point should be made that research results are variable. And since we now have two conflicting data, we can't say anything intelligent about it yet. To be forward, I am against additional gun control, but really don't care either way because I already own the guns I want to own.
source = http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html
Jan 23 2013: The data you posted does not conflict with the data I referenced from the FBI. Without meaning to sound rude, you didn't read my comments carefully enough. If you look more closely, I think your error will be evident.
Jan 24 2013: You're not rude, and I was lazy for not completely reading your post. Cheers (I might clean my gun today as well).Jan 25 2013: ;-) Always appreciate an honest man. Cheers to you! And don't forget the oil!Feb 14 2013: Here's a couple of questions:
Let me predicate by saying that I am American. I am against all forms of slavery including Marxism. I am trained marksman, a vet as well as a family man.
First question I have is: If a criminal broke the law to obtain possession of a firearm(s.) And then subsequently used that firearm to commit murder(s) like in the Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora and V-Tech then why are some of you talking about totalitarian measures and the infliction of criminal consequences on law abiding citizens that have done nothing wrong?
Second question is: Would it be more logical and effective to first look at the failures in the enforcement of the current laws before we discuss the implementation of new laws?
The USA is a free country. We are not subjects or slaves. We do not bow to any monarchy nor do we adorn our currency with the images of royalty or dictators. Our freedom is only predicated on our ability and willingness to defend ourselves. Our Constitution, like every other constitution means nothing if the people have no way to defend their rights.
People who are against guns often forget that criminals by nature don't care about laws and consequences. And they also forget that 99.9% of the time when a crime is committed the police show after the crime. So if you disarm people or limit their ability to defend themselves. Doesn't that put you in the same spectrum of evil as the people that commit murders and rape women? An unwitting accomplice?
Some of the ideas about gun control in the USA are forged in ignorance by people that don't even own a weapon or have never used one. It's like taking driving tips from someone that neither drives nor owns a car.
Feb 15 2013: Roman,
Where in the idea did it suggest any of what you have in your comment? The idea did not restrict gun ownership. it was not against guns. it merely applied the idea that maybe the product should include some basic safety measures and that applying those safety measures would accommodate any concerns that gun manufacturers might have to be inspired to fight it because they would make more revenue which is really the whole reason for the La Pierre positioning. At this moment the gun manufacturers are laughing their way to the bank and it has nothing to do with freedom or being an american. If they were the type of citizens or people you admire they would try some of this themselves without any laws.
Feb 15 2013: Mr. Freda,
You were badgering people with your comments. Challenging them to produce evidence to support and underpin their opinions. And when they did and they certainly did, you chose to ignore the reality and then produced the above nonsensical drivel that you just posted ten minutes ago.
Consider yourself schooled.
And your biometric idea is not your idea. It was already tried with police weapons years ago. It won't work because when a people need their weapons to defend their lives the last thing in the world they want to happen is for their weapon to fail. If a weapon is required to be wound up like a camping flashlight or required to take power from a battery then that weapon will fail and people will die. Nice idea you had there buddy.
Your idea of as "little pain" as possible is laughable because you only want the gun owners to give up something. How about this. I would happy to trade my large capacity magazines and have universal background checks if non-gun owners would be willing to pay a 50% income tax to fund the needed extra security to keep every American safe. As well as fully funding a Victims Medical Insurance Program. How is that for a painless idea?
Robin Pearce
Feb 14 2013: LMAO ! you are 2490% more likely to get killed by your doctor than a gun. Why is everyone under the false assumption that a gun will make them safe ? I work with dept of corrections and I look at all the studies. I am also a counselor and I know that the average person has no conception of what they are up against when they own a gun.
- +2
Feb 15 2013: please gont make wild and ludicrous generalization that are pointless in your comments ...
ie the average person has no conception of what they are up against when they own a gun.
You have NO evidence for that.
Robin Pearce
Feb 13 2013: Nope , Combinations are nice if your intruder gives you advance notice . In my case we have several hunting guns because we have bears and mountain lions on the property and I sure don't want to be fooling with a combination if I have one of those at my door.I don't like biometrics because they can be troublesome at times, I have a biometric time clock at work and half the time it doesn't work properly. I also don't want to have to find my husband who is farming down the road because his biometrics are the only one on a gun.
- +2
Feb 13 2013: am assuming you live in an ex-urban area, no? probably would have to exclude ex-urban anyway. Only 18% of the population is ex-urban. If the tech or any other solution proved out where the population is then could always do ex-urban later.
a consumer biometric clock is probably not an accurate idea of reliability. anything including the gun is going to malfunction at some point. that is just a question of price:quality and the pro's and con's. If they used US components then I would bet the problem would not be bad. chinese components....
any type of chip based lock could be programmed to multiple users. think the main point of a lock is you do not want a kid or stranger to be able to fire the weapon.
Feb 14 2013: Not everyone could use Biometrics there are those who actually have no fingerprints. There is nothing wrong with stronger laws about registration, after all I am a counselor and even I have to have my name in a data base when I go and buy sudafed for my cold. If I buy to much then I get investigated.
I work with Criminal offenders and they have told me that buying a gun without a background check is easy , just go to the newspaper .
Rob Freda
Feb 15 2013: I was thinking the system that reads the heat in your palm's vein pattern. basically a thermal thin film grip.Feb 13 2013: How about just making possession of guns without a well considered reason, illegal? Say through an n-th amendment? That seems way simpler.
- +1
Or alternately, why not abolish police and let the citizens protect and defend themselves. Much saving for tax-payers.
Andy Lee
Feb 13 2013: Who decides what, "a well considered reason" is? Why not address the issue of mental helath that is the common thread in all of the recent mass murders? We used to confine mentally unstable people with demonstarted violent tendencies. Now they self medicate and walk the streets.
- +3
315 million people, 270 million firearms, 11 thousand firearm homicides on average annually. Thats .00004% of the total number of firearms used to kill .00003% of my countries population. I think the issue is tremendously exagerated. Drug overdose kills more people every year and has no national spotlight nor international debate, no weeks of coverage in the media, no presidential proclamations, no celelebrity campaigns, no Ted conversation.
While the loss of a loved one is painful regardless of how it occurs, we don't advocate the banning of every legally obtainable thing that accidently or intentionally results in a fatality.
Keep the big picture in mind.
Robin Pearce
Feb 13 2013: Who determines what is Mental Health ? There are 297 mental health diagnoses in my DSM IV , . You aren't going to find any counselor wanting to put his license on the line by saying this person or that person shouldn't own a gun. Unless a client specifically states he is going to harm someone you can't predict who is going to do harm.
- +1
Only about 5% of all cases involve mental health issues , Most cases involve anger at a person or institution. There is no diagnosis for revenge shootings . You can't predict or diagnosis who is going to do it.
Feb 15 2013: Really??? You need to watch a few TED videos, the hard work is already done.
You aren't going to find any counselor wanting to put his license on the line by saying this person or that person shouldn't own a gun.
Of course they are not, it's a shameful profession, where they wont make any commitment, yet they are only too happy to commit others.Feb 13 2013: I'm actually confused as to why everyone is talking about Gun Control even though we have the second amendment. It's simple:
Right to bear Arms shall not be infringed.
So, what people are saying: "It doesn't say what arms!" yet when someone says: "Cats have claws naturally" no one goes and says: "Which cats!"
It's quite that it means in general. Sadly, people think assault rifles being around now and not back then change something. Think about it- Back then we had Muskets- Back then British had muskets. Military all over the world has assault rifles, why can't we? Cause you think people kill other people? Well, the police are people too. In reality- criminals kill people, not people. After all, killing in a crime. :) Now, people think that guns are for hunting or something yet the right to bear arms was really meant for when tyranny comes so that the Americans could fight against it.
Also, there is the excuse: "The constitution is out of date/invalidated!". My response is: Kool story bro. Just kidding, but seriously: Man has not changed, thus Tyranny has not changed, thus the validation of the constitution has not changed. It's really, really simple. How can you have any right to say the reason you are free in invalidated.
Also, remember: If people give up freedom for security, you end up losing both. It's true. Look at things. You think the government will do something for you when a guy is breaking into your home with a illegal gun? 20mins late maybe. Guns will always exist in America. This is not England(I mean UK) where there is no land connecting to other countries. We have a drug cartel to the south decapitating ppl. We have much larger country then England. We would have to have a police state for it to work, and that would lead to the need of a revolution-- Wait, there's no guns at that point-- I guess that would be irony, wouldn't it?
Anyways, it's pathetic to even discuss gun controls. It's contradicting to the rights of Americans AND the security too.
Feb 13 2013: try reading the first part of the amendment and then look up the last 200 years of SC decisions excepting the last 2. infringed and regulated are not synonyms by the way. the constitution is a document that defines the foundation of the laws and then the law itself clarifies the specifics. If the framers meant that arms should not be regulated they would have said "infringed or regulated". Basic political theory should tell you that no framer thought that you could just have an arbitrary right without attendant laws and regulation. that is not a society. that is a disaster.
so do you have an actual point?
Feb 15 2013: Rob: you really follow your own good advice and read up on US history. The meaning of "infringement" has not changed in 200 years, but "regulated" has. The Constitution was in no way supposed to be a program for the Feds to micromanage what States and Localities had been doing all along. "Regulating" a Militia unit meant making sure that they could shoot straight, and know how to do the somewhat complex manual of arms required for massed volley shooting. In a society mostly concerned with avoiding British Imperiialism, how can you suppose that they were worried about preventing Drug Gang-Bangers obtain pistols, or some such stuff as that?! Most people lived on isolated farms, subject to Indian attacks, or various wild animal threats, and you tlhink the Founders were concerned with disarming them?!Feb 11 2013: The percentage of people who die from mass shootings is way less than that who die from lightning.
All of the mass shootings were associated with Psychiatric drugs
The culture has adopted the meme that the solution is violence.
The more gun control is implemented the more gun violence goes up, E. G. in Chicago or Washington DC
Feb 11 2013: Mass shootings account for less than 5% of all gun homicides in America. And although it is true that gun crime will spike after gun controls are implemented the overall homicide and gun homicide rates would eventually drop.
The last couple of generations have grown up in a drive-thru fast food mentality where we expect results in 5 minutes or less. The gun issue would take years to resolve.
And here is the problem. Handguns account for 98% of all gun homicides in America and gun crime in general. They are small, concealable and convenient to the criminal who wishes to use it. Because there are severe restrictions on law enforcement, it emboldens those criminals even more.
Countries that have strict handgun laws also experience much lower gun and overall homicide rates.
When Great Britain implemented the handgun ban gun crime spiked but after 2 years started to drop dramatically as the guns were picked off of the streets. In fact since that ban, the overall homicide rate in GB dropped 75% with guns accounting for only 8% of all homicides. In American, guns account for 68.3% of all homicides.
Canada, whose society experiences a great influence of American culture has strict handgun possession laws. As such, guns account for only 28.3% of all homicides. In comparing gun homicides per capita, you have a 7x greater chance of dying from a gun homicide in the US than in Canada.
Then we look at a nation like Switzerland who has mandatory gun possession laws. Their gun homicide rate is 11x that of Great Britain where 72% of all homicides in that nation come from an end of a bullet.
Cleaning up the gun problem will be a long and arduous effort.
For me I liken the gun problem like this.
If you walk into a room and see glass smashed all over the floor.
Do you sweep it up knowing that you might not get all the pieces but at least the floor is safer to cross??
Or do you smash more onto the floor??
Feb 11 2013: Where are you getting any of this? I've heard quite the contrary to nearly everything you assert.
Feb 11 2013: I research sources from the CIA, FBI, CDC, OECD and various government healthcare sites that accumulate statistics on cause of death.
Andy Lee
Feb 13 2013: Dwayne you are making up numbers. The firearm homicide rate in the United States is approximately three times that of Canada and the United states has slightly more than nine times the population. Canadian census report shows the population to be approximatelt 34 million while the United States has approximately 314 million. The state of California has more citizens than the enitre nation of Canada. Furthermore the number of people killed without the use of firearms is nearly equal 100,000 citizens. Please stop making up numbers to support you argument that we the citizens of America shouldn't be allowed to own firearms because you can't. Here are a few references. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.htmlhttp://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/12-581-x/2012000/pop-eng.htm#t01http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/03/us-vs-canada-homicide-modi-operandi.html Hello Peter, percentages are not per capita, "75% decline" is not per capita, " In American, X95account for 68.3% of all homicides." is not a per capita number, "28.3% of all homicides" is not a percapita number. These are percentages of something other than 100,000 people.
- 0
Feb 13 2013: The numbers he quotes are per capita so population difference is irrelevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate It's not hatd to find if you look.Even the numbers in your own link are per capita????????????
Comment deleted
Feb 11 2013: It is the idea that celebrities try to influence the dangers of guns yet make their living from violent entertainment. Which creates the meme that when you are in a tight spot the solution is always violence. This is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
http://rubinoworld.com/2013/01/07/exposing-commie-celebrities-gun-control-hypocrisy-video/Feb 7 2013: Looked at the question, looked at the answers; both of them deal with the minutia of the situation. That itself is not a issue, but it's also not a solution.
It's as much a solution as putting metal detectors in school, they temporarily work, they dont address the bigger picture of "why is this happening". Nor, does the well "it does it not happen in my country"
That today, is what I'll pose some interesting very large vista issues.
Please if you reply, stay away from minutia, that always just distracts from having a larger understanding of why this is happening, the psychology of it's people, and what can be done about it.
Lets begin
The mother of the shooter was said to have an arms cache.
The president has a hidden base in Saudi Arabia containing predator drones.
The shooter 'executed' children, no court, no justice, no reason, just execution.
People in Yemen, Pakistan, are targeted by the president who with, no court, no trial, no presentation of evidence, no un sanction, bombs these people in their homes with their families. Simply put they are executed. (source ny times)
Now give both of those scenarios, I hope you can see the similarities, in these two circumstances. I'm NOT getting emotional about either, NOR moral.
Just posing these questions.
1) How can people be outraged at one, and be talking and doing something about it, and not the other.
2) How can we ask for mental health checks against citizens and not it's presidents?
3) How can we ask for weapons to be taken away from Citizens yet not governments.
4) If you just look at the numbers only, with no emotion, then the government kills more than anyone.
5) What correlation between one set of actions by the president and it's impact on it's citizens psych? (hint look at any waring county - Israel, Palestine, Northern Ireland, Burma, Libya, Egypt for example)
6) Old adages tend to be true, as they have stood the test of time, one that comes to mind for ANY president - Lead by example.
Feb 7 2013: Very welll said!Feb 7 2013: 1) People can be outraged about the former because we don't see a moral equivalency between these killings. One is done as part of a war, the other is murder. The only way you can equate the two examples is if you do not believe that war is justified in any circumstance. I disagree, but that's a whole other debate.
2) The President is assumed to be sane. We don't generally elect insane people to that office.
3) We shouldn't. Since the government will always have weapons to arm it's military and protect itself, the citizens must have the same right (with reasonable limits). Both should be armed, hence the Second Amendment in the US Constitution. Otherwise, the people are rendered powerless.
4) Which government? The Nazi government under Hitler? Stalin's government? Pol Pot's government? Milosevic's government? Absolutely true. The question is not who, but why? and do you agree with their rationale? Is killing at any time justified? I don't think you find any justification for killing, which is why you make this statement. I disagree, in that I feel there is a huge difference between murdering civilians convicted of no crime and killing soldiers of an enemy nation who want to do the same to you.
5) You can hardly make this statement. George Bush had a set of actions and the psyche of his citizens was far from compliant. He was criticized vehemently for his position. The citizens in Libya and Egypt rose up against their "president"/dictators and overthrew them. Unless you're a sheep, you don't let your President do your thinking for you.
Feb 7 2013: Lets be honest, the only reason the people don't see a moral equivalency, is that it isn't happening to them. If another country at war with terrorists in our country was taking them out with drones, that also hit our children, you would quickly see the relavance, you would even call them terrorists, it's all relavant.Feb 7 2013: Hi Tify
You seem to have a theme that Government is most responsible for death and destruction.
You seem have given some thought to that premise. But, to end that source of death and destruction would that be to end of government?
There have been incidents of societies without government that didn't do well. There was even a book I read about some children caught on a desert island without adults and no form of order. Not a happy story. So, no government and no death and destruction? Or are we talking about scale?Feb 9 2013: People voted for the President that started the war in the first place if he had a mental health problem why was he allowed to stand.
At least the current President is getting America out.
Feb 9 2013: Hi Morgan,
I am not sure which President you speak of when you say "started the war" and "mental health problems" ... The USA has had presidents with "colorful personalities", not sure of mental health problems. Of the 47 presidents, can't think of an election that was clearly defined by going to war or not. Although, some candidates have been characterized as "hawkish" .
The current President is is not really getting American out of war. In some respects, he is more "hawkish" then most. Of all the Presidents, his talent is best described as a political illusionist.
And he is very good. He implies great things, does the mundane, blames others for failures and convinces the American public that he is one of their greatest leaders.
For example, He is ending a war, then the cost of that operation could logically be deducted from
the budget of the Department of Defense? No, that bureaucracy has asked for a greater budget to meet new contingencies. I could give many examples such inconsistencies in his administration but, What he has actually accomplished is something he said in a speech given in Europe about America's attitude and it's position in the world. America is too superior in it's attitude and should be more attuned and sharing with other countries.
So, In his four years, America has become less certain, flat-lined economically, it's on the way to becoming the largest 3rd world nation. While that may give some satisfaction to those who feel the USA deserves it, it begs the question, who steps up to be the next alpha dog in this pack of human nations.
Gary Taylor
Feb 3 2013: There is no gun violence problem to solve.
- +2
Feb 3 2013: Gary,
There are shootings every day in our big cities, usually it is gang members against drug dealers, but innocents are often in the way. Then there is the various and sundry robbers, muggers and hot heads. Once in a awhile, we get some maniacal hot head(s) who go into schools, movie houses, etc and shoot the place up. I could make an argument for gun violence. But, what we are trying to solve is is not the gun violence, but the best way to remove the tools of the gang bangers, drug dealers, and the assorted malevolent who commit the vast majority of gun crimes and focus on those maniacs who go after schools. Not to say that say that to end this heinous behavior is wrong, but the focus has been on the tools, not the nut. To make matters worse, the tools of these nuts are legal. So, the question begs, we have bad people using legal tools to do bad things to people. And we go after the tools. Many blame the tools not the man..
That just mystifies my logic. Should I honor the brick for the great wall of China? Should I condemn the atom for splitting and destroying huge cities? And in any other comparison, it is always the man.
BUT, these tools were meant to kill and maim!!! OK, it still takes a man to use it. Worse, if we remove every tool that could kill or maim, man will be back living in caves. So, let us figure a way to address the violence in man, address the corruption in political systems, how do we change the vision of some that greed, and power are not goal of mankind.Feb 4 2013: Tell that to the family of the highly decorated Navy seal who survived 4 tours of Iraq and Afganistan only to be shot and killed on firing range at home, by trying to help ex vets.
Actually tell that to any one who has actually been shot and survived ,see what reaction you get to that.
Mike Colera
Feb 4 2013: Hi Morgan, happy to hear from you again,
- +1
As tragic as this was. Cris Kyle and a friend was murdered by a former vet that was suffering from mental illness.
In a review of this horrific act, it will likely be shown that the vet found himself surround by gunfire flashed back to his combat experiences and seeing himself with two armed men, fired to protect himself.
Of course, the violent loss of a father, husband, friend is an unspeakable sorrow.
So, to your question to those who have been shot and survived.
I, if you are religious, had a overworked guardian angel,... if you're atheist, had extraordinary dumb luck, can not address the question
" When you were shot, did you think about the gun or the man behind the trigger? And by extension. if you were wounded by an IED, the bomb or the man who set it.
To those who were shot not in a combat situation, who or what was at the core of your focus? How about those that were knifed or beaten, who/what do you blame for your injury?
So Morgan, you are still convinced that if there were no guns legal or otherwise, there would be less gun violence, and right you are. and you have your nation's numbers to to support that statement.
The USA has about 10 times the population of Australia in about the same amount of area.Ten times the number of overcrowded cities, ten times the number of mentally ill, things in multiple of ten.
There is one differing cultural background. The USA came from a revolution where the victors had a very strong distrust of central government and left in their heritage a mechanism to defend them selves and your founding fathers didn't. Will this ability for defense of our nations ever be needed?
If I knew that....
PS did I mention the worst school tragedy in the USA was a school destroyed by ANFO in the 1920s, by a disgruntled farmer. Nearly 50 killed and many more wounded. Yes, the government cracked down on ANFO but then ANFO was not constitutionally protected.
Feb 4 2013: G'day Mike, thanks for the welcome back,,
the ban all guns universally comment was just for hypotheticals.
and I realise that the Vet involved is probably suffering from PTSD but still if he had been diagnosed with that why was he allowed access to firearms??? who's responsibility does that become????
still unfortunately another two people are necessarily dead when they really didn't need to be.
So the question remains what d we need to do to make things safer???Feb 4 2013: Morgan, I know people who have been shot at and survived. I've never heard them ask for a gun ban or blame the guns. The usual response is to arm themselves.
Feb 4 2013: Why what's the use they arm themselves out of fear do they make sure they know how to use it properly do they keep it safely?? nope probably sitting in the dresser draw next to the bed or under the pillow. Scared people with guns are dangerous people with guns.(Love the peace sign in your photo by the way )
((Need a new secretary too mine has major spelling proof reading and grammatical issues))Feb 4 2013: They do not arm themselves out of fear. They want to give themselves the option to retaliate if necessary... I personally know people that were armed in dangerous situations and had the self control to not pull their gun. They understand the consequences of what a gun can bring.
Where they keep their guns varies. I will say this, I and everyone i've been around knew better than to grab an adults gun.
Feb 4 2013: I guess the question remains even though they did not pull their gun could they of pulled the trigger???Feb 5 2013: Gary, I couldn't agree with you more. Bad things happen to good people. I don't understand anyone that feels it's there responsibility or duty to fix every issue that they feel is a problem in the world.
I was taught the responsibility and safety of weapons as a very young age. I think I was about six when my grandpa gave me my first pocket knife. My dad owned and still owns various guns and is responsible for/with them. You want an issue to discuss? How about the growing failure of parents in the USA?Feb 2 2013: Actually, Violent crime has decreased over time.
That is the official FBI website.
Also, there is the fact that UK has twice the amount of knife killings(total gun ban by the way)than there are gun killings in America: http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323 --- Which has it's own sources so I don't have to say much.
Of course, I think the best example for guns beings in the hands of civilians is Switzerland.
I think that is more than enough to show that Gun Control is stupid.
By the way, it's illegal. See, the second admendment was talking about right to bear arms. Guns are arms. Thus assault rifles are under that too. Also, the constitution is not out-of-date by the way. Cause man has not changed, thus tyranny has not change, and thus the constitution is not out of date. It was so tyranny will not gain the upper hand on people. If you think otherwise- then you should go Chicago, New York, or UK. Good luck with that. :)
P.S. I think you're going a bit crazy with the gun lock and such. I think you should go to a place usually referred to as a "Mental Hospital". Good luck with that too.
Feb 3 2013: http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323This link actually refers to knife crime not killings. There are more people per capita murdered by guns in the US than the entire murder rate in the UK. 3 vs 1.4.
As to the Swiss, do you think maybe the low crime rates are related to very low unemployment and very high social security rates? ie 3% unemployment and social security based on 80% of your previous pay rate.
Feb 5 2013: In the end, people having guns lower the crime rate.
Criminals are going to get guns anyways so it would be best to arm civilians so they can defend themselves. Just cause you have a gun doesn't mean you have to shoot the person in the head. You can simply shooter him in the shoulder.
Plus, since Swiss had guns they were able to scare off the Nazis during WWII. Not to forget anyone else for 100 years or so. The Nazi(German) General talks with one of the Swiss Generals and the Swiss General said: "I can have Million(s) of soldiers within 24 hours if you attack us." The German General went around them cause even though he thought he could take it over, he said that he would: "Lose too many men."
We have oceans all around us and no one of worth(Military-wise) connected to us. We could easily handle a lot of people with arms civilians. Though you might think guns kill people, it's not the case. That's like saying spoons cause obesity, it is just a tool. Put a gun on the table, it will not shoot on it's own. It's simply people's behavior, Not guns.
In the end, the second amendment is clear-- We have the right to bear arms. It doesn't do details to what arms cause it's arms entirely. I don't agree with some things like tanks cause you don't have that in your arms, but that can be for state militias in case a dictator(American) starts killing millions of people in our country due to communism/fascism or something. Doubt that will happen yet. It's actually not for hunting, by the way. It's known that it's more for when the government starts to get corrupt, and is not for the people that we need guns for when the government starts doing things beyond their power. I know people now-a-days have not even seen a real war, and I know they haven't seen a revolution(At least in our country) either. I'm assuming that's why you seem to like the idea of Gun Controls. Unless, you -actually- think that it will save people by banning it from people that actually use it for defense.
Feb 11 2013: I went and did the research and was surprised to find that the death rate from gun shot in Switzerland is more than 3 times what it is in Australia, even though their murder rate is lower.Jan 31 2013: Here's a thought, why not require pre approval for gun sales, instead of back ground checks and waiting periods. The purchase of a firearm is not an impulse purchase.
Selling a gun privately, or at gun shows, with pre approval of the seller limits the liability to the seller.
Mike Colera
Jan 29 2013: I have been outed. I am a member of the silent generation. We didn't have a lot of gun problems, unlike the previous generation under prohibition. During that time, laws were made to prohibit automatic weapons. No problem for Al Capone or Bonnie and Clyde. The other thing that was inherent was the sense of civility in society. People were very moral, what is referred to today as right wing christian zealots, children went to Sunday school and learned about the Thou Shalt Don'ts. People had manners ie. consideration for others. If times got hard and it did during the depression, it was unmanly to accept charity. When my father lost his job, he join the CCC who provided him work to support his family. My mother dug up the back yard to grow vegetables and we had a couple of chickens for eggs and rabbits too. No HOA rules in our neighborhood.. Why this trip down memory lane... to show a contrast. It started in the 60s. The age of the dawning of Aquarius. A hundred things happened. Church was no longer cool.. Politeness was out. Self indulgence was in. Do it if it feels good. New government programs made taking charity a right. We deserved charity.. We became entitled.. No more Thou Shalt Don'ts. No stealing? Ripping off is good, the insurance companies will cover loses of the dummy we scammed. Education? The new band of educators took the education I enjoyed, rated no. 1 in the world to... thirty today.
- +2
Instead of prohibition booze we have prohibition drugs. Instead of Al Capone, we have the cartels and street gangs.
Instead of Elliot Ness, we have gated communities. Instead of Dad working and Mom home keeping the family in line with Grandma and Grandpa down the street, We have both Mom and Dad working to keep up the Mc mansion with the grandparents living in Florida. Instead of draconian mental asylums, we got psycho topic drugs and let the ill out on the streets. But if we just get rid of those rifles all will be right with the world.
Jan 29 2013: Sometimes I feel like I was born in the wrong era. People that are trying to regulate other people's lives do not realize the true cost of the freedoms you are describing. Thank you for trying to spread morality in any form.


text:
in this issue
premium services
online directory
customer care
Regions :: Middle East :: U.A.E.
GPCA day 3: Scarce gas supplies putting pressure on Mideast petchem producers
5:32 AM MST | November 29, 2012 | Natasha Alperowicz in Dubai
Day three of this year's Gulf Petrochemicals and Chemicals Association (GPCA) forum in Dubai included presentations on sustainability, refocusing business models to meet new world order, and the rise of green petrochemicals. Kicking off the final day of the conference, Abdulwahab Al Sadoun, secretary general of GPCA noted that the Arabian Gulf accounts for 20% of the world's proven natural gas reserves but only for 11% of total output. Petrochemical producers have to compete with other industries for scarce gas supplies in the Gulf states at a time...
This information is only available to Chemical Week subscribers.
Forgot your user ID or password?
Not an IHS Chemical Week member yet?
Here's why you should be:
100% Satisfaction Guarantee
contact us | about us | customer care | privacy policy | sitemap | advertise
Copyright © 2015 IHS, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
What regulations exist for organic materials and compost facilities?
Organic material management is regulated (i.e., siting, permitting, and management) at the state level, except for biosolids and animal manures.
States have assumed the lead role in regulating composting facilities. Composting facilities may need approval from the state before operating. The permit requirements for composting facilities vary among states. Examples of topics covered in the permitting process include: a detailed facility design, operating plans, a description of incoming materials, the amount and types of residue to be generated in the plant, monitoring plans, potential environmental releases, landfills to be used, and potential markets for the compost.
On the federal level, the Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge (40 CFR Part 503 under the Clean Water Act ) was published in the Federal Register (58 FR 9248 to 9404) on February 19, 1993. This act pertains to land application (and biosolids composting), surface disposal, and combustion of biosolids sewage sludge. Many of the standards promulgated in this rule can be applicable to municipal solid waste compost. For more information about this regulation, please go to EPAs Biosolids Page.
Regulations for Confined Animal Feed Operations (CAFOs)
Under Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (Title 33, Chapter 26, 1311, USC), EPA has the authority to regulate point source discharges (including CAFOs) into US waters through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program.
Manure and wastewater from CAFOs have the potential to release pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus, organic matter, sediments, pathogens, heavy metals, hormones, antibiotics, and ammonia to the environment. Excess nutrients in water (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) can result in or contribute to low levels of dissolved oxygen (anoxia), eutrophication, and toxic algal blooms. These conditions may be harmful to human health and, in combination with other circumstances, have been associated with outbreaks of microbes such as Pfiesteria piscicida. Decomposing organic matter can reduce oxygen levels and cause fish kills.
Pathogens, such as cryptosporidium, have been linked to impairments in drinking water supplies and threats to human health. Pathogens in manure can also create a food safety concern if manure is applied directly to crops at inappropriate times. In addition, pathogens are responsible for some shellfish bed closures. Nitrogen in the form of nitrate can contaminate drinking water supplies drawn from ground water.
For more information about CAFOs, see the National Agricultural Compliance Assistance Centers Animal Feeding Operations.


text:
|News » Archives
Football Upsets No. 1 Georgia Southern, 19-16
Saturday, October 27, 2001JOHNSON CITY, Tenn. (Oct. 27, 2001) - East Tennessee State scored 12 of their 19 points off turnovers as the Buccaneers defeated the No. 1 ranked Georgia Southern Eagles, 19-16 from Memorial Center in Johnson City, Tenn. Saturday night. The Eagles (7-1, 5-1 Southern Conference) began the game on top with field goals to end their first two drives from kicker Scott Shelton. The first quarter ended with the Eagles in front 6-0. Georgia Southern began the second half with another Shelton field goal with 12:50 remaining after an ETSU (3-4, 2-3) fumble. The Eagles would take that 9-0 lead into the locker room at halftime. The Buccaneer defense would step it up in the third quarter as safety Montreal Harkley (Hanahan, S.C.) caused Georgia Southern quarterback Melvin Cox to fumble on the third play of the half. Harkley would fall on the ball at the Georgia Southern 29. On the second play of ETSU's ensuing drive, senior quarterback Matt Wilhjelm (Johnson City, Tenn.) connected with junior wide receiver Cecil Moore (Morristown, Tenn.) for a 27-yard touchdown with 13:28 remaining in the third quarter. Following a missed extra point, ETSU had drawn within three points at 9-6. On the following drive, ETSU defensive end Brandon Calton (Pennington Gap, Va.) would fall on a failed pitch from Cox at the Georgia Southern 29. After two plays and a penalty, Wilhjelm would connect again with Moore, this time on a 35-yard score on third and 16. Moore made a phenomenal catch after the ball had been tipped by a Georgia Southern defender. After another missed extra point, the Bucs held a three-point lead, 12-9 with 11:31 remaining in the third. The Bucs would force another fumble as ETSU defensive lineman Travis Williams (Bristol, Tenn.) recovered Cox's fumble on the ETSU 20 after Georgia Southern had driven 52 yards. One of the biggest plays of the game came late in the third quarter as ETSU punter Aaron Bass (Clinton, Tenn.) made a great play to get off a 27-yard punt after he had bobbled the snap. After Bass got the kick off, he was hit and a 15-yard roughing the kicker penalty gave ETSU the ball back. After the drive continued, running back Corey Carter punched the ball in from one yard to widen the ETSU lead to 19-9 with 1:51 left in the third quarter. Georgia Southern quarterback J.R. Revere, who had come in the third quarter, led the Eagles on a quick scoring drive, midway through the fourth quarter. Revere hit Carl Kearney with a 51-yard pass on the first play following an ETSU punt. After a nine-yard run by Adrian Peterson, Revere ran it in from four yards to make the score 19-16 with 4:34 remaining in the game. After a short ETSU drive, Georgia Southern got the ball back at their own 4-yard line after a 56-yard Bass punt. On the first play of the drive, Revere's pass was intercepted by freshman safety Gerald Sensabaugh (Kingsport, Tenn.) at the Georgia Southern 21. On the next drive, ETSU would get a first down on three Carter rushes the kneel on the ball three times to run out the clock. The Bucs were led by Wilhjelm, who completed six of 18 passes on the evening for 104 yards and two touchdowns. The senior quarterback also added 35 yards rushing on the night. For the Eagles, Cox completed two of nine passes for 13 yards. The Bucs were led on the ground by Carter, who had 50 yards on 18 carries and the one touchdown. Adrian Peterson had another tremendous game for the Eagles, running for 159 yards on 31 carries. ETSU's Moore led the team with 88 yards on four receptions and two touchdowns. Kearney led Georgia Southern with his one reception for 51 yards. There were many defensive heroes for the Bucs on the evening. Harkley had 12 tackles, a forced fumble, a fumble recovery and two passes broken up. Sophomore linebacker Mike Cornegay (Fayetteville, N.C.) had his fourth consecutive game with double-digit tackles after registering 11 tonight. Sensabaugh also had a great game, tallying eight tackles and an interception. The Georgia Southern defense used their great speed to get into the ETSU backfield, registering 16 tackles for losses and three sacks on the night. For the Eagles, Mike Youngblood had eight tackles (two for losses) and a sack. Michael Ward had five tackles a sack and a forced fumble on the night. Next Saturday, the Bucs will travel to Charleston Southern for a 1:30 p.m. matchup in Charleston, S.C. The Eagles return home Saturday for a huge matchup for SoCon supremacy against No. 3 Furman at 3:30 from Statesboro, Ga.


text:
I am so happy and excited to have been able to run that run after a 90 mile week, and to feel as good and strong as I do.
110 miles in 8 days.
Bring on TAPER!!
Whatever happens at the Utah Valley Marathon, I am going into it healthy and strong, and knowing that I have more than put the work in.
Josh rode his bike along side me for the last 12 miles of today's 20 miler. The weather was NUTS! It was super windy (gusts up to 25mph) for awhile, it snowed for awhile, it rained for awhile, and thankfully the sun came out and things calmed down for the 10 miles in the middle.
It was great to have Josh by my side! He fought off a few dogs that wanted to eat me and got some video footage. Here are a couple of the very short clips from this morning.
Have a great weekend everybody!!


text:
The Pasteur Museum
The Pasteur Museum is housed in the apartment where Louis Pasteur spent his final seven years and offers a rare behind-the-scenes look at the living and working environment of the world-renowned scientist. Visitors can gain a unique insight into his everyday life alongside his ...
At the cutting edge of biomedical research
The Institut Pasteur's scientific strategy focuses on developing original and innovative topics and promoting interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary cooperation and approaches. The Institut Pasteur teams have access to the technological resources ...
Teaching students from around the world
Ever since the introduction of the world's first "Technical Microbiology" course in 1889, teaching has been a priority for the Institut Pasteur. The Institut Pasteur has an international reputation for quality teaching that attracts students from all over ...
The mission of the Industrial Partnership team is to detect, promote, assist and protect the inventive activities from research (inventions, know-how and biological materials) conducted at the Institut Pasteur (and in some Institutes of its international network), and transfer there to industrial ...
With international courses, PhD and postdoctoral traineeship, each institute of the Institut Pasteur International Network (RIIP) contributes to the transmission of knowledge with the training of young researchers all around the world. In this context, doctoral and postdoctoral programmes, study ...
From left to right: Reid Oldenburg, Caroline Demangel, Ludivine Baron, Laure Guenin-Macé, Véronique Mayau, Fatoumata Niang, Julianne Mathiot
Caroline Demangel, PhD
Tel: +33 (0)1 40 61 30 66
Laure Guenin-Mace, PhD
Tel: +33 (0)1 40 61 84 71
Fatoumata Niang, PhD
Tel: +33 (0)1 40 61 84 71
Ludivine Baron, PhD
Tel: +33 (0)1 40 61 38 92
Reid Oldenburg, MD PhD student
Tel: +33 (0)1 40 61 38 92
Jean-David Morel, M2 student
Tel: +33 (0)1 40 61 38 92
Véronique Mayau
Tel: +33 (0)1 40 61 38 92
Julianne Mathiot
Tel: +33 (0)1 40 61 38 92
Post-doctoral fellows
Yacine Bounab, now post-doctoral fellow at ESPCI
Romain Veyron-Churlet, now post-doctoral fellow at Institut Pasteur Lille
Sheerazed Boulkroun, now INSERM scientist in UMRS_970 firstname.lastname@example.com
PhD students
Aka N (email@example.com)
Emmanuelle Coutanceau (now Partner Life Sciences at Auriga Partners)
Dr C. Demangel
Unité d'Immunobiologie de l'Infection
Département d'Immunologie
25, rue du Docteur Roux
75724 PARIS Cedex 15, FRANCE
Office tel: +33 (0)1 40 61 30 66
Lab tel : +33 (0)1 40 61 38 92
E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.com
Administrative assistant:
Mme Marie-Luce Kop
Tel: +33 (0)1 40 61 33 96
Place : At Institut Pasteur
Second Symposium in Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases (LabEx IBEID) "Risk Analysis in Current Viral Epidemics"
Place : At Institut Pasteur
International conference: "Nobel 50 years. Lwoff, Monod and Jacob as founders of molecular biology"
Place : At Institut Pasteur
EMBO Conference: Genetic Control of Development and Evolution


text:
Snuggled in its own cooler is a two ounce serving of our favorite domestic caviar... Wild Hackleback sturgeon are native to the rivers and lakes of Tennessee and Illinois. The mild, slightly fruity caviar is small almost black, and is smooth and sweet from start to finish!
We love to serve this caviar on: extra-crunchy potato chips + creme fraiche, angel hair pasta, slightly buttered and salted, on scrambled eggs in the morning. Always with a glass of Pinot Grigio.


text:
Packaging the Future: Fluffy Natural Packaging!
So far in our Packaging the Future series we've explored how nature solves the packaging problems of strength, buoyancy and moisture-retention (coconut shells), tough-but-flexible protection (wombat butts) and light tensile strength (ant exoskeletons). Now it's time to look at the softer side of packaging; after all, not all containers need to be tough, and not all packing needs require rigidity. All of the fluffy paddings below are created from solar energy, water, soil minerals and air, unlike their packing counterparts: styrofoam peanuts, foam, polyester fillings, and other plastic-derived materials that use fossil fuels as their basis. They break down easily when they are no longer needed, and several have additional uses outside of softness – read on for some amazing examples of fluffy natural packaging!
Milkweed is a ubiquitous plant found at the edges of roadways, in recently abandoned fields, and other areas where secondary succession is taking place (milkweed is a colonizer). Its fluffy, white fibers could make great padding — the filaments (the individual white hairs inside the seed pods) are hollow, making them very lightweight (the better to carry their seed cargo distances to spread the plant), and coated with wax, which makes them water-resistant. In addition to their softness and ability to float miles on the wind, milkweed fibers have actually been shown to be better insulators than down in government military tests, which is why they are used for insulation could be ideal for packaging that requires some temperature regulation.
Outside of commercial applications, milkweed is the sole food source of the monarch butterfly, and its sap can be used as a natural remedy for poison ivy (though some people do experience contact dermatitis from the sap). Milkweed sap is also a common folk remedy to encourage blood clotting and wart removal, and Native Americans used it as a sweetener, as it contains a high concentration of dextrose (a type of sugar). Since 2007 it has been grown for use as a filler for pillows, but is not widely used for packing material – yet.
Lead photo © Tim Au Yeung
Related Posts
3 Comments
November 11, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Please contact me about our natural packaging.
November 8, 2010 at 12:56 pm
I really like the idea of popcorn being used! Do you think they could do flavored popcorn? Imagine getting packages with caramel popcorn! Something to eat while you unbox your new gizmo!
Also, this reminds me of a company making eco friendly packaging material out of mushrooms! It's not whole edible mushrooms (although I think it's edible) but a grown/formed/shaped piece. Here is video on it: http://www.energynow.com/video/2010/10/27/mushroom-provide-ecofriendly-packaging-material
Oh, and one thing I just noticed is that some packing peanuts I get are the new ones made from corn starch. To prove to my coworkers that they are different, I show how they disintegrate on water or even in my mouth! I try not to eat more than 1 or 2 though, haha!
November 5, 2010 at 8:35 am
Stop using food for packing (unless it can be eaten by man or beast after shipping). Give the foam peanuts back to the FedEx/UPS driver for reuse at the retail store.
Read Inhabitat
Search Categories
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Browse by Keyword


text:
The browser you are using is out of date and is no longer supported. To view and use this site correctly, please update your browser to the latest version.
2 October 2009There are two great days of family fun lined up at Stanley Mills especially for the October school holidays. At the same time Historic Scotland has announced that its visitor centre at the former cotton mill complex by the Tay is to stay open throughout the winter.
For further information


text:
Scene Info - Sandy Sweet, Scene #01
- Bonus Sites8
- Models2059
- Scenes3944
- Hours of Video2556
- Pictures468945
- Customer Support24/7
Where do they find teenage girls who can go down on a cock like this? Is there some kind of blowjob bootcamp that I don\'t know about? We caught Sandy Sweet in the final days of her teens and holy shit am I glad we did! This 19 year old is on the cusp of womanhood and we got to give her the final oral exam. There\'s something about Sandy that will definitely remind you of that babysitter you\'ve always wanted to fuck. Maybe it\'s the candy bikini she was wearing or that innocent smile she gives when she comes face to face with the One Eyed General. Whatever it is, we like it! She dropped and gave him 200 licks and floored us with her slow and easy suck skills that left our stud with his knees shaking. Sandy reminds us that we\'re in the \\'no cum-dodging\\' zone when she takes his load across her face without even batting an eyelash. Damn! Sandy Sweet passes with flying colors!


text:
The digestive system requires a variety of enzymes to break down food into simple components that can be used by the body. Supplemental digestive enzymes can help unlock nutrition from food.
Similase® is a combination of plant enzymes to support complete digestion of all types of nutrients, such as carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. The blend of enzymes is unique because it is active across a broad pH range in the digestive tract.
Similase® is perfect for people who prefer not to get their digestive enzymes from animal sources. Helps relieve gas, bloating, and occasional indigestion.
Directions for Use: Take 1 or 2 capsules at the beginning of each meal or as recommended by your healthcare practitioner.
Other Directions: Not recommended for use if peptic ulcer, gastritis or heartburn is present.
* Daily value not establishedThese statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
Other IngredientsVegetable capsule (modified cellulose) and cellulose.
Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacy is your source for natural health products. Browse our online selection of products from all of the best natural brands, or visit one of our pharmacy locations and talk with one of our licensed practitioners. From natural beauty products and cosmetics to vitamins, herbs and supplements, we offer high-quality natural wellness products for the whole family! Start exploring—shop by brand or by condition to find the perfect natural health products for your body, skin, home and more.
The products and claims made about specific products on this site have not been evaluated by Pharmaca.com or the United States Food and Drug Administration and are not approved to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease. The information on this site is for educational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for advice from your physician or other health care professional or any information contained on or in any product label or packaging. You should not use the information on this site for diagnosis or treatment of any health problem or for prescription of any medication or other treatment. You should consult with a healthcare professional before starting any diet, exercise or supplementation program, before taking any medication, or if you have or suspect you might have a health problem. Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacy will not assume liability for any cross-contamination of ingredients, misprints, or adverse reactions to any ingredients in the products we carry. The products sold here may contain lead and other substances that are known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects and other reproductive harm. Prices and promotions are subject to change without notice. All content on this web site is copyrighted by Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacy unless otherwise stated. All online offers and prices are valid for online purchases only, and may be different from those in our retail stores. Free shipping offer may not apply to all orders and all states; see shipping policy for full details. Copyright © 2009 – 2015 by Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacy. All rights reserved.


text:
After a disappointing 2013 season, Jenson Button says leaving Melbourne as the Constructors' Championship leaders is a welcome boost for McLaren.
Last season McLaren failed to secure a single podium finish, this year, though, they already have one on the board after just one grand prix.
Rookie driver Kevin Magnussen brought his MP4-29 home in third place in Sunday's Australian GP while Button was three seconds down the road in fourth.
"Yes it is," he told Sky Sports F1 when asked if was a 'big boost' for McLaren. "It's been a long time since we were leading a Constructors' Championship [China 2012].
"It's a really good feeling. You always want more but this is a good starting point and we have some improvements for Malaysia.
"We are not leading the Constructors' because we're the quickest, we're leading the Constructors' because we got both cars home and we're relatively quick.
"With some updates hopefully we can challenge the Mercedes and Williams, who I think are very quick."
Button's fourth was even more enjoyable as the 35-year-old was made to work for it having started 10th on the grid.
"Starting tenth was always going to be tricky and I said to the guys 'I want to get a good start'.
"It's the easiest place to gain places but it's also the easiest place to have a shunt and especially with the way the cars are under braking there were so many accidents on lap one so I actually found myself going backwards a little bit.
"But an enjoyable race and the team did a great job in the pitstops. Also when the safety boards flashed up I saw it and quickly dived in the pits, which made a big difference as well."
He also thanked those in the paddock who wore special pink shirt buttons in remembrance of his father John who passed away in the off season.
"It's been a tough weekend emotionally. I'm not the sort of person who likes to show it in front of a TV camera, I don't think that's right," he said.
"In the background it's very, very tough but I've had the most amazing support from the paddock, my family, friends, and all the guys within the team. They've been wearing this little pink shirt and it really does mean a lot.
"He'll have a big smile on his face looking down and knowing everyone's talking about him right now, he loved that!"
Related Links
Rosberg Wins As F1's Champs Falter
Gallery: Race Day In Melbourne


text:
Federal Work-Study
Student's Guide
The purpose of this program is to provide students with part-time employment opportunities for those who have been awarded work-study funding. There are a variety of reasons students may have the desire to work: to help finance their education, to cover personal expenses, to gain valuable and satisfying work experience and to develop time management, research, library, computer, or communication skills. A portion of the student wages are paid from the Federal Work-Study program funds and a portion by Claremont McKenna College. Therefore, the Office of Financial Aid places accountability upon both the student and the Federal Work-Study Supervisor for participation in the work-study program.