What part of "I literally cannot reply further because of reddit, take it to DMs please" was confusing?

But fine, we can do it here:

Continuing from https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/113twme/oc_gun_homicide_rate_vs_gun_ownership_rate_in_the/j930nge/

/u/accurate_reporter252

> Nonviolent protest is highly effective up to the point the government isn't willing to directly or indirectly use violence on people.

Ftfy. Non violent protest has NEVER failed in modern history if you have just 3.5% of the population involved. That includes communist states, dictators, warlord states, you name it, whatever:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

> You play peace until it doesn't work, then you go to war. and it literally always works if any significant number of supporters are on board and actually care about your cause

Ftfy too, same link just above.

> That's insurance to try and keep the American government from using violence against non-violent protests.

Which doesn't work and you should ask for a refund from your insurer, because shooting back always merely escalates and leads to way more violence. See first link above.

Even if you hypothetically win an entire revolution as a result, and don't end up as (far more likely) the next waco TX, it STILL failed to be "insurance against violence" since you instead massively increased violence.

Absolute value of derivative, more specifically

It doesn't help you to invest in something based on news that lags BEHIND the price... you can just look at the actual price and already be way better off. It's also public.

Looks pretty obviously to me like searching here shortly follows "big changes either way" just as you'd expect intuitively. Okay and?

If you KNEW ahead of time, yes it absolutely would be. "Hey you I plan on playing a fun game with mygun whete I shoot the ground between my toes" "okay here you go" lol yes obviously you share blame.

That the Philippines dumps plastic in the ocean is so well known that we are posting it on reddit without even working in the industry, obviously industry people knew this, so yes therefore they fully share the blame.

Again same as hiring a hitman, same as trafficking guns to terrorists, same as selling unregistered people barrels of pseudoephedrine, etc

> Your comparison is silly because contract killing is illegal. Selling garbage isn't.

Your morality is entirely based on what the government tells you is good or bad? YIKES

It's everyone's responsibility in the transaction, since they all obviously know what's going on. Nobody can ethically be involved in a dangerous or harmful activity they know about.

Similarly to how hiring a hitman is illegal... not just being a hitman. Both.

> 1/3 or more of the population disagrees / Ignoring, of course, the fact you'll likely have half the states in the country trying to start a Constitutional convention or secede or just stop listening to the Federal government

Why would a state that voted to ban guns try to secede over banning guns? The whole starting premise of the conversation here is that 3/4 of states already agreed to an amendment.

It is implied of course in this hypothetical that the country actually wants to do it and is literate about the data and cares about people not randomly pointlessly dying etc. and decided to become a modern civilized country already.

> No right to privacy

Right to privacy isn't one of the bills of rights... but also you don't have privacy about sales of anything anyway, you need to report sales of things for taxes, for one, whenever asked. The main thing here is banning sales, not ownership.

> no right to assemble

? Nothing to do with the conversation

> no right to a jury trial

?? What on earth? Even less to do with the conversation. The parentheses explain nothing about how this is remotely relevant.

> And the black markets that will come up quick.

Black markets require something to sell. If legal guns aren't for sale anymore, where are they getting their stock from? Random reasonable citizens aren't just selling their guns to criminal syndicates, and you can't just whip up advanced firearms in your garage.

> I mean, they banned alcohol for a decade or so

1. Like half the world has banned guns, where unlike alcohol, things worked completely fine. So they are clearly totally different situations.

2. There's a pretty obvious REASON why they're different, too: You can make your own alcohol with some fruit, and buckets, and a bit of copper tubing. You cannot casually make your own AR-15 with scrap wood, plumbing pipe, and eyeglasses or whatever.

I don't disagree both countries sending and receiving are to blame, but the original comment was about how plastic laws in the US are "idiotic" because of a perception of low US waste being dumped.

Yet the US waste that ends up being dumped is on the very high end, because even if a minority gets dumped, it produces so much overall than a minority still dwarfs other countries. So those laws are not, in fact, "idiotic".

> Never had many guns in the first place Had lower violent crimes rates even before guns were banned

Wow almost as if few guns has a relationship to low gun crime! Wacky!

They did not have by any means zero guns, however, and the point stands they encountered no significant issues in banning them.

> [Europe doesn't] have huge populations of historically marginalized poor stuffed into urban ghettos

You should probably learn anything at all about European history before replying to a conversation about Europe.

> Have cultures where deference to authority is a norm, rather than fierce independence

Name a single instance in living memory where a notable group of people "Defended themselves against authority" with guns in America successfully. This does not happen. If you resist authority with guns, they bring bigger guns. You die. The end. Complete fantasy realities do not bear on actual real life policy considerations.

> Have a social safety net and educational systems that give people hope

What on earth does that have anything to do with what we are talking about? Banning guns. "I had a good relationship with my mother and I like strawberry ice cream, therefore guns can't be banned" No you can't just list random ass things out of a hat and pretend it's an argument.

> I'm sure you mean well, but you have no idea. The day guns are banned is the day the US ceases to exist.

I spent most of my life in the U.S. I also happen to know that almost nobody even gave two shits about the 2nd amendment prior to like the 1960s. It was not considered an even minorly significant aspect of the country's identity for the vast majority of its existence. To act like it is THE core pillar of American identity is absurd.

Edit since you blocked me: "I'm sure you'll succeed someday" I don't live in America anymore, so I already succeeded in escaping to a sane country that doesn't needlessly let its citizens die, but thank you for the unnecessary well wishes all the same.

Dozens of countries have done it and didn't go into any sort of mysterious recession or have years and years of massive complications of any sort. So... wrong? Observably wrong.

/u/accurate_reporter252 that is assuming everyone having guns would somehow have led to fewer deaths in those cases. Please refer to the graph at the top of the screen... or the fact that everyone in WWII had guns...

The most proven effective way to cause societal change is NONVIOLENT protest, for which you don't need guns. It turns out to be more effective by not escalating into further violence and thus garnering more and more sympathy from the unconvinced population who join your side until strikes and such grind the country to a halt, unless change is made, which it then is. Violent protest is much more rarely successful

http://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820

I will not be replying here again since reddit does not allow you to reply to third parties when some other guy your replied to blocked you, so you will have to take it to DMs if you like.

edit 2 "literally cannot reply here because of a bug" was confusing, I guess, so continued at https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/113twme/oc_gun_homicide_rate_vs_gun_ownership_rate_in_the/j932gyn/

Pick a random country off the list. There's at least a 50% chance, eyeballing it, that their total plastic produced there is < 6% of the United States' plastic. And that's pretending they are themselves dumping all of theirs too, so actually way more than that, probably like 80+% chance the US is dumping more, when you account for a lot of these other countries also using landfills.

I'm not trying to say "ur dumb" I'm trying to find the answers to the actual questions I asked: was this the hot burning combustion column they were modeling, or was it cold evaporated gases? And optionally: if they measured it for concentrations, did they also measure stuff in it? (maybe maybe not, but had to do SOME measuring, what did it find?)

I will check out the documentation too though, thanks

You should definitely need to know the temperature "Burning hot right out of a fire" or "cold, evaporated" is going to change the elevation and which wind patterns it is in by hundreds, thousands of meters...

Just labeling that alone would be great, because then from the chart of what was in the tankers and what burned and what didn't, etc, we could estimate what it is a plume of ourselves.

> The were some fixed site monitors upwind that measured pretty high polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

That seems way more interesting than this chart here (just in general, downwind readings make more sense for what people would care about, and skips right over the question of what the stuff is...), do you have a link for this?

That would still be more than like half the whole countries on here

> Well you asked "plumes of what" and then proceeded to tell us what would likely be there with more specificity than any other source ive seen here or elsewhere has offered, so it seems that was more just a complaint about the vagueness of the model.

I said what would be in burned vinyl chloride.

That doesn't tell me whether this graphic here is supposed to represent the burned column of smoke (with those things in it) OR cold gas nearer the ground from un burned stuff evaporating off of spilled pools of chemicals.

A distinction I actually made clear in my first comment.

> You seem to be suggesting that it can't or shouldn't.

Not if you don't know whether the gas is cold or burning hot, it can't. Or have any clue as to its general density.

I suspect that the issue isn't that the modeler didn't know any of those things, they almost surely did. But then didn't LABEL them. Making it just a bad graph. Dime a dozen on this subreddit, randomly not labeling crucial information is a tale as old as /r/dataisbeautiful I still don't know which one it is though.

> "its probably headed this way", which is all this model appears to be saying.

No, it's giving specific parts per million in the graphic. And also, as I mentioned as well from the start, it's showing some plumes suddenly disappearing, which I suspected might be "hitting rain clouds and getting knocked out of the air" but was interested in confirmation on.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0002889718506429

According to this, it's more like 0.04% phosgene, not 9%, off by multiple orders of magnitude there. And zero notable "other toxic compounds" either in any measurable quantities. Just CO is the only other one you didn't mention, which is not toxic in minute quantities in open air in the sky.

Name any that you can make anywhere near as cheap simple policy decisions to fix as banning guns.

? No, it's a sincere question. Even if I was a nobel prize winning chemist, I'd still want to know what the graph was of...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0002889718506429

HCl 27,000 ppm; CO2 58,100 ppm; CO 9500 ppm; phosgene 40 ppm

2,400x less phosgene in ppm than the other stuff created (it's a a similar molar mass to CO2 too for example)... not a big deal. Even if every single train car was full of 100% phosgene, it wouldn't really be at particularly dangerous levels spread out over 100s of cubic miles of air.

Let alone a handful of cars of vinyl chloride burned down and becoming only 1 out of 2500 parts phosgene in the combustion products, and THEN spread out of 100s of cubic miles.

I would definitely understand evacuating the town temporarily but not worried about phosgene poisoning in the slightest if I'm 100 miles away. Even if the plume is pretty directional and comes right at me

Ah I thought you meant you included it but just GRAPHICALLY cut it off.

(Not the same thing as not including it at all, since you have an r^2 value listed as well which would still be influenced by something not visible)

DC is not a state. If you included it, then your title is wrong.

"...vs a percentage of households owning a firearm in each US state"

Literally the whole point of them posting this was that people wanted the numbers without suicides from the other graph earlier today in a different thread. This is homicides.

> just because they don’t know exactly what’s been released, doesn’t mean it’s not concern.

No, my argument was that they shouldn't be physically able to graph it AT ALL, if they don't know what it is at all. How... did they make the graph/model then...? If they don't know what the density of any of it is, or the temperature, or whatever? Even if all you know was that it was from the combustion column, then you should know roughly what all those things produce when they burn and be able to give a pretty good likely summary.

And if they do know what it is, why did they not label it?

> You say you would be worried at 200 miles. But how about 50? Or 30?

I only commented on this cause the guy directly asked me, it wasn't my original or main point "how bad" it is. That being said, even if this contains some of all of those chemicals listed above for sake of argument, but MOSTLY combustion products, a cloud in the light blue zone at hundreds of miles away, at 1 part per billion total and maybe 0.1-0.2 part per billion of worst-stuff is not terribly concerning IMO.

> impartially burnt Vinyl chloride, Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, Butyl acrylate, Ethylhexyl acrylate, and Isobutylene

• "Impartially burnt vinyl chloride" your source mentions nothing about any such thing. Can you point me to the specific row and column you think you are seeing that?

• Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, Butyl acrylate, and Ethylhexyl acrylate: 1) all of these are liquids at STP, so they should not just casually form large amounts of any plume all that quickly, 2) Your source says nothing about any of them being in any plume regardless, again why did you cite a source for these claims that doesn't talk about what you claimed?

• Isobutylene: This one straight up says "no signs of a breach" at all.

> Also, Due to poor air quality weather conditions (subsidence inversion), the plume of toxic chemicals were not able to "go far up into the sky".

Higher than cold gas in the same location, was the only relevant point there. Thus requiring a different plume model for the non burning stuff.

> a huge mystery

If something is a "huge mystery" then how is someone graphing it...? Can't be that big of a mystery, or if it is then OP is just lying/made up this data? I'm responding to the graph here, you know the thing the thread is about.

> Lastly, your argument regarding power plants emitting SO2 is irrelevant

I didn't specify sulfuric acid rain. CO2 produces plenty of acid rain too (way way more than this will).

> Would you want these chemicals from East Palestine dispersed anywhere close to your home?

The point of plotting a plume of "chemicals" floating around is presumably that you are trying to argue it's a big deal even if it is FAR away from one's home. So not the relevant question.

Would I mind being 200 miles away from this with my home? Not particularly at the moment, no.

Why SELL your garbage if there's no infrastructure to handle it properly?

There's no responsible answer to either question. Thus, they are BOTH to blame. Note that "both" is not saying the Philippines have no blame...