Q. Hint - it's not even close. By that account should we not get rid of evil cars? Would be great for saving the earth too. Two can play this game
Answer
Save your breath trying to reason with democrats. Common sense tells everyone but liberals and democrats that ALL human predators dearly hope their targets are unarmed, whether the predator is a home invader, Stalin or Hitler:
-Thomas Jefferson, "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776: ââLaws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Even pacifists like Mahatma Gandhi "got it," saying: "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." An Autobiography, pg 446.
But liberals and democrats always religiously cling to their dogmatic faith that âmore guns leads to more crimeâ no matter how much evidence you shove in their face, including:
-9/27/01 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/156671⦠are deeply rooted within Swiss culture but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept"; âIn addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons.â
-1/15/03 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/26568⦠BBC: "âIf guns are outlawed only outlaws will have gunsâ" may prove prophetic. Gun crime in the UK is soaring even though it has the strictest gun control laws of any democracy.â
Nine years later: 12/17/12 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-⦠UKâs violent crime rate per 100,000 people is 2,034; USâs is 466.
-2/2/11 Daily Telegraph, about piracy: âThe safest ships of all [sailing in the Gulf of Aden] are flying the Russian flag: armed guards aboard them simply blow pirate boats out of the water and leave any survivors to drown. Attacks on Russian vessels have abruptly ceased.â
-7/25/12 http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-07-⦠1950 all but one mass-murders in the U. S. where more than three people died were committed in gun-free zones. The Gun-Free Schools Zone Act was passed in 1990.
-9/25/12 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5c1b6a72-c5eb-â¦
âBut almost 30 years after the law [which mandates that all households own at least one firearm for self-protection] was passed, it is still in place and still popular, not least because Kennesawâs crime rate has remained disproportionately low, even as the townâs population swelled from 5,000 in 1982 to almost 35,000 now. According to the latest FBI statistics, Kennesaw recorded 31 violent crimes â mainly robberies and aggravated assaults â during 2008. In other similar-sized local towns the figures were much higher â 127 in Dalton and 188 in Hinesville. For property crimes â largely burglaries and thefts â Kennesaw recorded 555 while Dalton had 1,124 and Hinesville 1,802.â
-11/23/12 http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/⦠2006-2011 gun purchases in Virginia increased 73%. During the same period gun-related crimes fell 24%.
-1/6/13 http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/20â¦According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, the firearm crime rate dropped from 6 victims per 1,000 residents in 1994 to 1.4 victims per 1,000 residents in 2009. This has occurred as more and more citizens have armed themselves under right-to-carry State laws. While major crimes show continuing decline in those States, this phenomenon parallels a major crime rise in heavily gun-controlled cities.
-U. S. Department of Justice http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf: 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007; a household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries. [meaning the police didnât show up in time]
-----
As to the democrat mantra, âCall 911â:
-In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, âpolice personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection . . . . [A] government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.â In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled âTHERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED BY THE STATE AGAINST BEING MURDERED BY A CRIMINALS OR MADMEN.â
-âWhen seconds count, the police are only minutes awayâ
Save your breath trying to reason with democrats. Common sense tells everyone but liberals and democrats that ALL human predators dearly hope their targets are unarmed, whether the predator is a home invader, Stalin or Hitler:
-Thomas Jefferson, "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776: ââLaws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Even pacifists like Mahatma Gandhi "got it," saying: "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." An Autobiography, pg 446.
But liberals and democrats always religiously cling to their dogmatic faith that âmore guns leads to more crimeâ no matter how much evidence you shove in their face, including:
-9/27/01 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/156671⦠are deeply rooted within Swiss culture but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept"; âIn addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons.â
-1/15/03 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/26568⦠BBC: "âIf guns are outlawed only outlaws will have gunsâ" may prove prophetic. Gun crime in the UK is soaring even though it has the strictest gun control laws of any democracy.â
Nine years later: 12/17/12 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-⦠UKâs violent crime rate per 100,000 people is 2,034; USâs is 466.
-2/2/11 Daily Telegraph, about piracy: âThe safest ships of all [sailing in the Gulf of Aden] are flying the Russian flag: armed guards aboard them simply blow pirate boats out of the water and leave any survivors to drown. Attacks on Russian vessels have abruptly ceased.â
-7/25/12 http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-07-⦠1950 all but one mass-murders in the U. S. where more than three people died were committed in gun-free zones. The Gun-Free Schools Zone Act was passed in 1990.
-9/25/12 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5c1b6a72-c5eb-â¦
âBut almost 30 years after the law [which mandates that all households own at least one firearm for self-protection] was passed, it is still in place and still popular, not least because Kennesawâs crime rate has remained disproportionately low, even as the townâs population swelled from 5,000 in 1982 to almost 35,000 now. According to the latest FBI statistics, Kennesaw recorded 31 violent crimes â mainly robberies and aggravated assaults â during 2008. In other similar-sized local towns the figures were much higher â 127 in Dalton and 188 in Hinesville. For property crimes â largely burglaries and thefts â Kennesaw recorded 555 while Dalton had 1,124 and Hinesville 1,802.â
-11/23/12 http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/⦠2006-2011 gun purchases in Virginia increased 73%. During the same period gun-related crimes fell 24%.
-1/6/13 http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/20â¦According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, the firearm crime rate dropped from 6 victims per 1,000 residents in 1994 to 1.4 victims per 1,000 residents in 2009. This has occurred as more and more citizens have armed themselves under right-to-carry State laws. While major crimes show continuing decline in those States, this phenomenon parallels a major crime rise in heavily gun-controlled cities.
-U. S. Department of Justice http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf: 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007; a household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries. [meaning the police didnât show up in time]
-----
As to the democrat mantra, âCall 911â:
-In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, âpolice personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection . . . . [A] government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.â In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled âTHERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED BY THE STATE AGAINST BEING MURDERED BY A CRIMINALS OR MADMEN.â
-âWhen seconds count, the police are only minutes awayâ
does a tsunami retreat back into the ocean?
Every Whit
how do people in tsunamis get "swept out to sea"?
does the tsunami just flood the land, and push all the debris inland?
or does it reach a certain point and then start retreating back the ocean?
if thats the case, is the current stronger going one way or the other?
if you found yourself in a tsunami, what would be your best ways to survive, and what would be the worse mistakes to make?
on videos on youtube, why does the 2011 Japan Tsunami look so much more destructive than the Dec 26 2004 Tsunamis in Indonesia? didn't like 10 times as many people die from the 2004 tsunami.?..the japan footage looks so much more large scale in camparison, with entire urbanized cities being engulfed and submerged in minutes
Answer
OK I will answer your questions respectively.
People in tsunamis get swept out to sea just like any regular wave that comes, and sweep your belongings on the beach into the sea. The water comes onto the land and push all the debris inland, but then things must go back to order. All that water inland cannot just stay there. The water retreat because the ocean is at the lowest point of the land. Many people get caught in that current of the water retreating, especially so because many are caught in the debris (wood, metal, cars) that are also being pulled back into sea.
I cannot tell you which current is stronger, going inland or outland, but they are both of massive force if they can sweep buildings and cars. Many of the dead are also usually children and the elderly. Some who survive cling on trees or roofs.
The best way is not to be one at all. Once there is an earthquake, I would go as far inland as I could and get to higher ground. Some people go into stronger buildings, stay higher, and never be caught inside your car. The wave will sweep your car and you will be trapped.
Finally on the videos, I do not have statistics on which Tsunami is more powerful, but there are also videos that show the 2004 tsunami is as powerful as the Japan tsunami. You may not have as many videos, because the 2004 Tsunami happened in a third-world region, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, India. The 2011 Tsunami happened in a first-world country, where every person carries a smart phone that has a camera, and Japan is highly technological country, you are bound to have every building equipped with security cameras that can capture the tsunami.
You don't see the tsunami in Aceh , Indonesia, because there are very few footage, many people are still in villages. These villages are entirely engulfed and also submerged, but you don't have pictures nor as many videos. The ones out in youtube are scarce, and are mainly from Thailand (due to foreign tourists having videocameras) and may not show the entire story. You won't see footage from a helicopter like the one in Japan. Japan is a major financial center, and Tokyo is home to media headquarters of CNN Tokyo, NBC News, etc. Indonesia is not home to any of these media headquarters.
Finally, many more people die because Indonesia again is a third world country, ill equipped to deal with a disaster, also ill equipped to deal with the aftermath of a disaster. Japan is very well prepared for Earthquake and their emergency response are one of the best, even compared to the US. You may think that Japan was ill equipped to deal with the nuclear plant meltdown, and tsunami, but if you compare the death toll, Japan was barely scratched. Besides the buildings that were swept by tsunami, barely any buildings are damaged by the earthquake itself, due to building codes and standards for earthquake zones, something that has never been enforced in Indonesia.
OK I will answer your questions respectively.
People in tsunamis get swept out to sea just like any regular wave that comes, and sweep your belongings on the beach into the sea. The water comes onto the land and push all the debris inland, but then things must go back to order. All that water inland cannot just stay there. The water retreat because the ocean is at the lowest point of the land. Many people get caught in that current of the water retreating, especially so because many are caught in the debris (wood, metal, cars) that are also being pulled back into sea.
I cannot tell you which current is stronger, going inland or outland, but they are both of massive force if they can sweep buildings and cars. Many of the dead are also usually children and the elderly. Some who survive cling on trees or roofs.
The best way is not to be one at all. Once there is an earthquake, I would go as far inland as I could and get to higher ground. Some people go into stronger buildings, stay higher, and never be caught inside your car. The wave will sweep your car and you will be trapped.
Finally on the videos, I do not have statistics on which Tsunami is more powerful, but there are also videos that show the 2004 tsunami is as powerful as the Japan tsunami. You may not have as many videos, because the 2004 Tsunami happened in a third-world region, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, India. The 2011 Tsunami happened in a first-world country, where every person carries a smart phone that has a camera, and Japan is highly technological country, you are bound to have every building equipped with security cameras that can capture the tsunami.
You don't see the tsunami in Aceh , Indonesia, because there are very few footage, many people are still in villages. These villages are entirely engulfed and also submerged, but you don't have pictures nor as many videos. The ones out in youtube are scarce, and are mainly from Thailand (due to foreign tourists having videocameras) and may not show the entire story. You won't see footage from a helicopter like the one in Japan. Japan is a major financial center, and Tokyo is home to media headquarters of CNN Tokyo, NBC News, etc. Indonesia is not home to any of these media headquarters.
Finally, many more people die because Indonesia again is a third world country, ill equipped to deal with a disaster, also ill equipped to deal with the aftermath of a disaster. Japan is very well prepared for Earthquake and their emergency response are one of the best, even compared to the US. You may think that Japan was ill equipped to deal with the nuclear plant meltdown, and tsunami, but if you compare the death toll, Japan was barely scratched. Besides the buildings that were swept by tsunami, barely any buildings are damaged by the earthquake itself, due to building codes and standards for earthquake zones, something that has never been enforced in Indonesia.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment