Pizza (the) Hutt approves…
5 Likes
Hydrogenated oil. Hydrolyzed oil would be glycerine and fatty acids, a not exactly tasty proposition. 
Aren’t there too many restrictions and controls? The amount that makes sense is in a sngle percent range of the total, the rest are mostly annoyances with minimal actual impact.
Todo: build a still and try out a batch of pontikka, for training and documentation purposes.
Are there still toddlers killing people? Then no, there are not too many controls.
1 Like
With the incidence at some ppm level, is it frequent enough to warrant attention?
No, it’s hydrolyzed. For the extra lubrication, and heat resistant properties. It comes out of the oven looking exactly the same as it went in… Because it’s like silicone oil. I used to work at Little Seizures. I also read the labels. Examining things too closely got me fired my second week there.
6 Likes
Actually I think you in the USA have a multi-billion dollar industry dedicated to eradicating that “boxcutter crime”. In fact you invaded many countries ostensibly to prevent box cutter crime. Air travel around the world has been regulated as a result and how we travel is hugely changed.
So it’s a good example in some ways of eradicating something with regulation just not the approach I’d go with.
1 Like
That would be a strange lie. If guns aren’t designed to kill people, I guess we should we should quit wasting money on equipping our soldiers with them. “Only” 30,000 people die form them every year- I would say many people are getting use out of their guns. I haven’t used the fire extinguishers in my house, but that doesn’t mean they are a bad investment if I don’t ever need it. If I ever do buy a gun for self protection I will be happy if I don’t have to use it. But let’s not ignore the fact that guns are designed to kill (or at least injure) another person, that is exactly why many people have them - to say otherwise is a lie.
6 Likes
Yes.
I read an article about a man who was designing a gun which would not fire unless a particular ring was also being worn. He received death threats and desisted. That’s where we stand as far as gun ownership and safety go. Our problem is not toddlers, but adults.
3 Likes
Yes, it’s not astounding or insightful to observe that comparing the number of times that regulations were in place but nothing went wrong vs the number of times they were needed does give you very small percentages. Even more so when the regulations are preventative and designed to avoid the bad situations occurring in the first place.
That’s not an argument that regulations are pointless.
A quick estimate says it’s reasonable that I’ve easily taken over 20,000 car rides in my life so far. Only one of those times, a seatbelt saved my life.
19,996 times, the regulation that made me wear the belt was undoubtedly “an annoyance with minimal actual impact”. (Three other times it maybe saved me from a nasty crack.)
If 100,000 seatbelts are worn to prevent one fatal accident, if 100,000 pools are fenced to prevent another toddler drowning, if 100,000 restaurant inspections prevent one fatal poisoning, if having 100,000 less guns brought into homes would avoid another one family shooting…
Then yeah, I think that a lot of modern cultures are OK with the numbers in that trade-off introduced by that “annoyance with minimal actual impact” that comes with living in a civilisation made up of laws and consequences.
But sure, some people draw the numeric borderline between individual liberty and social responsibility at different points on the scale, depending on their own beliefs. We are all calibrated a little differently.
5 Likes
This is why we can’t have nice things incredibly efficient killing machines…
5 Likes
Tell me, what other purpose could a car possibly have that would justify the risks associated?
So you’re saying as long as we can demonstrate enough utility provided by firearms, that some small number dead children are OK?
If gun ownership in the US meant that gun enthusiasts were limited to weekend events where they dress up in full body kevlar and play live ammo “paintball” in enclosed environments, I’d be totally cool with that. And this isn’t just a snide “let 'em kill each other,” closed-arena, site-specific recreational gun use is my personally preferred vision of gun usage…
1 Like
So you’re saying that regardless of the usefulness or otherwise of a given item, even if that item is utterly useless, that dead children are a good thing?
See I can throw out obvious trollish non-sequitur straw men too!
Come back to me when you have a valid point.
Actually a good point here in all seriousness on your comment and the two replies above mine…
Box cutters were used by the hijackers on 911…so, what happened? Ban all box cutters from society? no of course not. BUT…we did in fact regulate the transport and carry of sharp objects like box cutters on flights then on. Not an unreasonable action to most people…right? And to the comment on pools…yes! Private pools do in fact cause deaths due to drowning, so do we ban pools…no…but we do have regulations and laws for their use and construction! Such as there must be fencing, or a locked gate around the pool at some perimeter, also the gate to the pool must either be locked or the ladder into the pool be barred or removable.
REASONABLE SAFEGUARDS! Much like licensing drivers and ensuring they register their vehicles and insure them. Why the right wing neo-facist NRA loving gun owners can’t see reason is utterly insane.
2 Likes
I was questioning your absolutist viewpoint.
Children have a similar (arguably greater) ability to cause themselves and others harm with cars. But we don’t seem to be pressing for more safety features to prevent that. Why?
(You’ll notice in the comments here I am picking on both sides of the debate.)
Because, as stated several times throughout this and other threads on the topic, cars serve more of a purpose than killing machines. They are managed, controlled and restricted to people who have proven they can be responsible and ownership is tegulated and insured.
The gun lobby has had opportunity after opportunity to implement such stratgies and they haven’t. They can’t be trusted to self regulate so strict regulation should now be enforced.
4 Likes
Is it about guns, or about lives saved?
Because you can do more bang for less buck in e.g. the field of health care, whether availability/accessibility or by reducing medical errors.
Why not focus the efforts and emotions and heartstring-tugging that way instead? You’d encounter less opposition and are likely to get more results than inefficient rehashing of old arguments that won’t convince anyone not already convinced.
2 Likes
