Should read "I didn't 'think that'".
Should read "I didn't 'think that'".
Please excuse how my replies got lumped at the bottom. They reply to you in the order your comments appear.
Have fun cleaning your gun then. Because unless you can successfully clear it and declare it safe, you can't clean it.
Or, as in Australia where firearms must be stored unloaded in a safe, unless you can successfully clear it and declare it safe, you can't store it.
You're 100% wrong. Firearms can be rendered safe. Not pointing unloaded (safe) firearms at people is a habitual thing and a courtesy. Without cartridges in them they are lumps of steel, wood, and plastic that cannot do anything.
No they don't. The majority of studies, and all meta analysis concluded the firearm law changes did not affect Australia's firearm (and total) death rate. Firearms are readily available in Australia. The vast majority of the population can purchase semi-automatic handguns, bolt action, pump action, and lever action rifles, break open and lever action shotguns, etc.
Look at New Zealand. They have the most similar culture and living conditions to Australia than any other country in the world. In 1997 (when Australia's firearm laws changed) they did not change theirs. Consequentially you can purchase semi-auto handguns and rifles and high capacity magazines. Yet over the last 20 years their homicide by firearm rate has remained lower than ours (and their total homicide rate also has remained lower than ours).
Guns are never *assumed* to be safe. After visually checking that a firearm is safe by everyone present then it is in fact safe. As a habit we still don't point our firearms at anyone.
As above. The topic is clear. We are relating firearms to human fatalities, not the destruction of animals for food or pest purposes. And either way, hunting is a sport (culling pest animals is more of a job).
Please stop conflating things.
Red herring. The term is perfectly adequate for this situation. The context is firearm related human death. We are not talking about the death of food animals or pests. As an aside, hunting is a legitimate sport and so is paper and steel target shooting.
I did "think that". I clearly asked you if you were. You on the other hand assumed that I thought you were afraid when I didn't (you asked "why" I thought that).
You're moving to a different point (the efficacy of spoons versus guns in killing people) and not addressing the point at hand. I'm not arguing that firearms are not better at causing acute trauma than spoons. We are talking about why people are afraid of guns and the comparison made with spoons. You pointed out that spoons cause less death. I pointed out that as a proportion of bullets fired down barrels, firearms also cause hardly any death.
A much better comparison is with knives. Knives cause twice as many murder deaths in Australia each year (where I live) versus firearms, yet people are not afraid of knives. Going by the numbers they should be more fearful of knives.
The Apple standard end user license that you agree to when using their devices and software holds them not liable for offensive content.
"the number of non-fatal uses of spoons are in the trillions, if not more".
I do take your point though.
And along the same lines, also with no data, the number of bullets fired in non-fatal usage of firearms per annum is many orders of magnitude higher than bullets fired that result in injury or death. This is from sporting firearm usage which is the predominant use for firearms the world over.
Are you afraid of guns?
ETSA don't exist anymore. It's SA Power Networks now.
Eugenics still happens.
Hospital staff (i.e. doctors) routinely pressure parents of foetuses with non-lethal (i.e. conducive to life) genetic conditions into aborting those foetuses, thereby removing babies with what they consider undesirable traits from the gene pool.
(note: this is not an anti-abortion post)
I use modified nonsense rhyme composed by myself, combined with numerals, capitalisations, and symbols.
Sometimes they're based on a phrase in English to make it easier to memorise.
Using this method it's fairly easy to remember very long passwords with words mostly not in the dictionary (and that are unique to whomever compose them).
A less secure one: ThellowImWemmo
A more secure one: 7sKrickledefaNg.ate*plipples
That's stretching it
The pancreas synthesises insulin (amongst other hormones and enzymes). The pump has to be refilled from an external source and cannot synthesise anything.
I say the knife beats the gun in world changing.
Used in more conflicts.
Used more in peacetime.
Used for thousands of years longer.
Time Magazine's idea of a gadget is very narrow. Their list only contains electric gadgets.
"transsexualism is now known to have a physical cause".
I provided the DSM 5 definition. Please stop trying to subvert it.
"Also, you;re linking to outdated info."
I provided information from the DSM 5. This is not preliminary information and it is most certainly not outdated. The information you found is a proposal for the DSM 5. You'll note that your link refers to it as the now deprecated Gender Identity Disorder (that's how old it is).
Along those lines, how is newer information (the DSM 5 was published in 2013) outdated compared to the information you've provided (the last edit on that website was 2012, but I believe those proposals were floated around 2010)?
Here's the DSM 5 text if you can view it: http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi...
Go search for a "we propose" line, you won't find it.
I have university access to the DSM. I quoted the information directly as a courtesy.
Doctors, psychologists, and psychiaratrists use the DSM. They also use the SOC. Additionally they will use published peer reviewed journals. You switching to a new source of information is misdirection to save face. Why? Read on.
Lets go back a bit shall we... "You seem to believe that transsexualism is a mental disorder. The American Psychiatric Association says otherwise"
That's you quoting the APA as the basis for your argument. Your whole argument was based on the APA. Now you're saying "Physicians, even in the US, follow WPATH recommendations, not the APA, which was a late-comer to the process" Lol. Please.
By the way I have the SOC 7 right here. It's published in 2011, 2 years before the much newer DSM 5.
"WPATH recognizes that there is a difference between gender-non-conforming individuals and those with gender dysphoria.
And? Red-herring, you're redirecting away from your original point so you don't have to address it.
"As I said, try to keep up.
You're getting pretty boring. I doubt I'll engage in further conversation.
"Try to keep up, mkay?"
Keep up with what? All I've done is listed someone else's research. I haven't said it's wrong. I haven't said it's right. You've made poor assumptions. Keep your words in mind while reading on.
Your assertions don't match up with the DSM 5.
In case you can't get to it here is a fact sheet.
The American Psychiatric Association say that GID was specifically renamed to Gender Dysphoria to remove stigma.
You wrote "Gender dysphoria, on the other hand, allows for (and pretty much mandates) that transsexualism has a physical origin, and that the RESULT is gender dysphoria "
The DSM 5 defines transsexualism quite simply: "Transsexual denotes an individual who seeks, or has undergone, a social transition from male to female or female to male, which in many, but not all, cases also involves a somatic transition by cross-sex hormone treatment and genital surgery (sex reassignment surgery)."
This does not match your definition. Transsexualism quite specifically does not need "a somatic transition by cross-sex hormone treatment and genital surgery (sex reassignment surgery)."
You wrote "gender dysphoria - a distress about the mismatch of perceived and physical genders".
I believe you mean perceived gender and physical sex.
The DSM 5 has 6 diagnostic criteria for adults for gender dysphoria of which the patient must have at least 2 criteria present:
"1. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
2. A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
3. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender.
4. A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
5. A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
6. A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)."
You are half way there. The last three criteria do not require any rejection or desire of sexual characteristics.
In children you're quite off the mark, with 8 criteria, of which the child must have 6. Of the 8 criteria, there are 6 which don't refer to sexual characteristics, and 2 that do refer to sexual characteristics.
You wrote "same as you would have if you woke up tomorrow and some naughty bits were missing".
More assumptions. Sigh.
"I have just one word for you, my boy...plastics." - from "The Graduate"