Total posts: 1,002
-->
@Best.Korea
that phrase though is open to interpretation. could be said that we only forgive if they repent... just as we are only forgiven if we repent.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
those are good ideas. yes, the idea of eternal torture is sadistic. but i think we should also be open to annihilation, for those who have no hope. the soul simply ceases to exist.
Created:
one of the foundational aspects of forgiveness is repentence. or that someone ask for it to receive it. some traditional christians like some catholics say it's not necessary to forgive everyone, or those who are unrepentent, cause God doesn't either. if we look at the eastern concept of forgiveness, it also implies reconciliation. you can only forgive those you are reconciled with. it's about establishing communion, and we can't commune with someone closed off to us.
but Jesus does say 'the measure you use will be measured to you'. which might indicate that the standard we use to forgive might be the standard God uses with us. at the end of John, he says 'whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained'. catholics like to say this creates the idea of their confession, but protestants like to say this just means we have the power to save people through our preaching. neither of these ideas really fit that well, but both are compelling. we might say that if we dont forgive, they aren't forgiven, their sin is retained. between the two of you. but we have to remember that our measure will be measured to us.
to incorporate NDE philsophy, everyone can acheive salvation. maybe of legal matters, we are all forgiven. but when it comes to the eastern concept of reconciliation, it is impossible to forgive someone we can't commune with.
so, maybe in the sense that is most meaningful, we cant forgive if we can't reconcile.... but we can always be open to reconcilation if they repent, or if it's a matter of looking past brusised egos and letting bygones be bygones... or as saint paul said, 'just let it slide'.
but when it comes to legality, but we can forgive but maybe it is up to each person how they want to treat that. but i would think if we use legality against others, it could be used against us. ultimately i think it's wisest to forgive everyone, not just cause that's what we want when we are unrepentant, but because it's the godliest thing to do.
Created:
the bible only talks about rejecting the truth as the basis of condemnation.
around the infamous john 316, it says the light didn't come to the world to condemn it, but to save it. the condemnation comes when someone perfers darkness over the light.
also in john, jesus also said 'unless you believe i am he, you will die in your sins.'. this implies a rejection.
at the end of mark jesus said, 'go and baptize the world. he who beleives and is baptized will be saved, he who doesn't will be condemned'. again, this implies rejection.
i think there's one or two other examples where rejection is implied.
there are some references to 'unbelievers' being unsaved in the new testament letters, but you have to consider whether John 316 defined unbelievers as those who reject the light for preferring darkness. it is possible to insist these unbeliever references should be taken literatlly and all unbelievers are unsaved, but i think that ignores the context i mentioned above.
we also have to consider that NDEs teach us implicitly that everyone can experience heaven, regardless of religion or creed. but i think it's important to remember that we have free will, and if we prefer darkness over light... that is what we will get.
Created:
protestants like to say they are saved, end of discussion. catholics say you have to work out your eventual salvation... but if you look closer, they are willing to say salvation is both an event and a process. i dont think it's very standard for a protestant to say salvation can be a process?
i think the way to look at this is simply by looking at the question of 'being forgiven'. when we pray the our father, we ask as christians to be forgiven. we dont say 'thank you for forgiving me'. it's a very basic idea of repentance that's foundational... for that foundation to be off would be a wild accusation.
it's also worth noting, that the bible often talks about falling away and such. like the parable of the seeds and how jesus said some start to grow only to later wilt due to worldly concern. only some seeds grow to maturity.
it's also worth tying the 'assurance of salvation' and 'once saved always saved' ideas to the idea of salvation.
-the bible says you can know you are saved, but given all the other examples where it says you can fall away, i would say that knowing one is saved is a special gift for a special person. jesus did say 'not everyone who says to me lord lord will inherit the kingdom, but only those who do the will of the father'. it's a lot to read into this that you can't know you are saved, but we have to at least remember that acknowleding jesus as lord is not enough. i think we can all agree that just thinking you are saved isn't enough? it does get into murky territory but there's always a hypothetical mass murderer who is pathologically propensed to think he is saved.
-also, i think free will is such that a person can always loose their salvation for practical purposes, but for practical purposes some people can know they are saved, and always will be saved, practically.
to tie into this near death experience philosophy, a person can be loved unconditionally, and in that sense they are always saved, but a person still must face the consequences of their actions. like a mother unconditionally loves her children, she also must let them face their own consequences and actions. it's like near death philosophy says, we go to where our vibration permits. if we have a low vibration, out soul can be saved by becoming a genuine christian. that's all that's necessary. because you will grow into higher vibrations and god has your back. if your words are empty, you wont grow into higher vibrarations. there's a question about whether hell is eternal given near death philosphy, and most of those guys like to say hell is a prison. i think we can all agree that an eternal hell is possible given our free will, but we have to wonder the open question of if hell is eternal for practical purposes. it very well could be, or maybe not. it is central that hell does exist though. only one percent of NDEs are hellish, and they usually just consider that it was a learning experience. a wake up call.
it's interesting that 'once saved always saved', ties into salvation like that. just like how it's intersesting that 'atonement' ties into the 'justification' and salvation ideas. and lately i've been incorporating NDE philsophy as well.
Created:
i dont know why you guys think an impulsive decision to kill, necesssarily won't change when the person has time to consider the consequences and come to their better senses. apparently every unsuccessful impulsive decision to kill, will later be followed up with a thought out decision to hunt the victims down.
makes perfect sense.
Created:
it's easy to see this as a situation where the man had a knife, and was playing his music too loud and was asked to stop. he wouldn't have killed them in that situation given all he had was a knife... but apparently we can rest assured he would have hunted them down one by one later when the ability to kill was easier.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
so you dont think the impulsive nature of how easy it is to push a button, changes whether or not someone might decide to kill others? you seriously think he would have later premeditated and hunted them down one by one if he only had a knife at first?
so there's second degree murder. or murder where the situation such that a person's mental state is factored in to the punishment given they acted impulsively to the circumstances. you seriously think every second degree murder would have turned into a premeditated first degree murder, if the person didn't have a gun and the means to kill when they were in an agitated state, but later decided to hunt and kill anyway?
so every potential second degree murder with no feasible way to murdering, will eventually became a first degree murder when they have the ability to kill easier?
that's one of the stupidest things i ever heard.
Created:
-where there is more gun control, there is less murder. this is the scientific consensus, as shown with the literature review. being a literature review makes this a lot more informing than just being a single study; we see the consensus forming. also included is a link to a poll of scientists but a literature review itself makes the claims even stronger.-where there are more guns, there is more murder, across geographic regions from localities and larger. this is also a lot more informing because it a literature review of lots of studies. what's more, people are shown not to kill with other weopons instead of guns, as is often argued, because if they did there would be no correlation here.-women are five times more likely to be killed if their significant other has a gun. this is a practical point in illustration of the guns v murders correlation. same in individual lives as general trends-you are more likely to be murdered if you have a gun, as well as those close to you-States with more gun control have fewer mass shootings-only around two hundred and fifty killings are done in the name of self defense per year. people like to pretend defense is such a huge thing, but the odds of being murdered is is closer to forty times higher. the odds of being shot and not necessarily killed are upwards of four hundred times higher.
-we have half the worlds guns in the usa but a small percent of the worlds population
-Police are more likely to kill unjustifiably in low gun control and high gun areas due to their increased fear, and police are more likely to be shot themselves in those areas.-Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher.-High school kids in the USA are eighty two times more likely to be shot than the same kids in other developed countries.-states with more gun control have fewer youth who die from guns
https://abc30.com/5396718/?ex_cid=TA_KFSN_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5d2d172f8e73cc000164c229&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2T40EdBsGdPZk_VCL8Bi5RDJsNtpF2Ud9NIYiB74njS72zrcqudw1idWY-it is claimed that most murders are gang related, but this looks to be factually incorrect in the link. even if higher numbers floating around on the internet are true, our murder problem still there if you take out the gang murders from consideration. the numbers here can be arrived at with basic math.-this really isn't just a mental health problem. we don't have more people with mental health problems than other countries.... just more people with guns. the study controls for mental health factors v other factors.-we dont have more crime than the rest of the world, just a lot more people getting shot and killed. you aren't more likely to be mugged here, for instance, but you are more likely to be mugged and shot in the process. again a gun problem. showing it's not just deviants being deviants as some suggest but an emphasis on the gun problem.-You can tell this is a gun problem, not just a bad person problem as the gun lobby says, also by comparing non-gun homicides of similar countries as the USA, and then adding guns to the mix: non-gun homicides are slightly on the higher side but within normal range, while gun homicides go wildly higher. If this was a bad person problem at its core, there would be a wildly higher amount of non-gun homicides as well, but that's not the case. Included is an article describing this phenomenon and a link with a picture.https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/71n1u2/gunnongun_homicide_rates_in_oecd_countries_for/-people like to say assault rifles are not that dangerous, because there are only a few hundred murders with them per year out of only around ten or so thousand of gun murders. the thing is though, the percent chance an assault rifle will be used to kill someone is significantly higher than the chance other guns will be used to kill someone. /// you can do the math yourself. there are 2.5 million assault rifles in circulation. 374 rifle deaths per year. there are 11000 gun homicides. there's a gun for every person in the usa, 340 million. what's the math say? 374 divided by 11000 is 3.4 percent of deaths are from rifles. 2.5 milliion divided by 340 milliion is less than a percent. so what does this mean? despite rifles being less than a percent of guns, they cause 3.4 percent of deaths. that is, a rifle has a higher percent chance of being used to murder than a non rifle. most guns that are used in murder are hand guns, but assault rifles are more likely to be chosen over a hand gun when faced with that choice. just like, as an analogy, people are more likely to speed in a sports car, but most cars that speed are not sports cars.-people like to throw around number of defensive gun use. the idea is that not all defensive gun uses result in a killing. the most common number in literature is tens of thousands, though the number vary wildly. the only thing is, even if you are more likely to use a gun in self defense than being murdered, you are still more likely to be murdered than someone who doesn't have a gun. also, a lot of those thousands of defensive uses are not all that critical.... downplaying their significance. and, a lot of those 'defensive' uses were actually situations that were people instigating and escalating a situation that wouldn't otherwise exist, as the link below illustrates. even if we used the higher numbers, is it all that convincing that there are tens of thousands more near murders in a nation with already a globally disproportionate number of murders? it holds true, that we could give lots more people guns, and that may increase defensive use... but it would come at the cost of more murder, too.-for more on giving an overview of the gun issues, see the following-in the usa, the number of murders has overall gone down in recent decades. the thing is, while the number of guns went up, the number of people owning them went down. also, this is just one measure: all the other measure include all the countries and localities where gun levels are proportionate to murder rates.
-for more information on gun policy in the usa and other countries: www.gunpolicy.org-australia. they enacted major gun reform around twenty years ago after a mass shooting. they bought back a bunch of guns and enacted other gun control. their mass shootings stopped. this almost surely is not an anomloy. their homicides dropped by up to fifty percent. the idea is a lower murder rate came with a lower percent of people owning guns (note that this is different than the specific gun ownership rate because if less people own more guns that could cause the percent owning to go down but the overall rate could be the same). misinformation attempts like to point that overall murder went up slightly after reform, but the rate did not and went down. also, the number of guns have gone up closer to previous level but the gun ownership rate is still lower. it is true that global murder went down, and some of that correlates with australi's rate... but global reductions arent as drastic s australia's.-japan. they literally have barely any murders, and barely any guns. they have a rigorous process for allowing guns
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
the amount of people arguing about 'ban all guns' v 'no dont ban all guns' is a fringe debate given this debate isn't very common. you must not be paying attention.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
many conservatives think gun control makes no difference to the murder rate. many think the precense of guns doesn't increase murder rates.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
i ascknowledge and never denied that guns have self defense points to them. and i never made the argument that you shoudln't have a gun. some people shouldn't have guns, though, and if we tell them they shouldn't have a gun, they might decide not to get one. not everyone is a black hoodie who will stop at nothing to get a gun illegally. if the man in the example was told not to have a gun, and he listened, this incident may not have happened.
so. 1. guns increase murder rate 2. gun control decreases murder rate.
trying to get gun nuts to acknowledge these facts is like trying to nail jello to the wall, given said gun nuts lack common sense.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
i admit that he would have had murderous rage even if he didn't have a gun. but he had a gun. so you acknowledge that he wouldn't have killed them if he had a knife? is your position so stupid that you think he would have later hunted them down to kill them one by one? if your position isn't that stupid, then why dont you just admit that the presence of a gun made a difference here in whether people were murdered?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
you are deflecting. my point is that the precense of a gun makes situations more deadly than other weopons. feel free to admit this point, if that's your position. everyone else who are gun nuts like to pretend guns make no difference in the murder rate, so i'm just giving a solid example of how that's not true.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"so you think if this guy didn't have a gun, that he would have 1. first of all attempted to kill all those people 2. he would have been successful killing all those people?"
you didn't answer the question. see above. please answer. you think if he had a knife, he would have attempted to kill them all, and that he would have been successful?
the point, is that people are more likely to murder others if they have a gun versus if they have other weapons. people are impulsive and a gun is a push a button response that other weopons aren't like that.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
what happened was realistic whether or not he was drunk. these things happen all the time, both ways.
you didn't answer the question...
"so you think if this guy didn't have a gun, that he would have 1. first of all attempted to kill all those people 2. he would have been successful killing all those people?"
you just fail to realize that human pyschology is such that the ability to push a button and people are dead, combined with people's impulsivity, means that the presence of a gun is more deadly than if it was just a knife. people are more likely to kill if they have a gun. that's common sense and i bet you won't even answer my question that i quoted, cause this is a perfect example of how a gun being present changed things.
you also fail to realize that if you tell someone they can't have a gun, not all those people will run and and get one illegally. i'm talking about people who shouldn't have a gun. many will get them on the black market, but many won't. if they didn't get one illegally, and they were the person in this hypothetical, then people are less likely to die.
this stuff is such common sense, that it's mind blowing how much ya'll lack critical thinking.
Created:
A texas gunman shoots his neighbors, including an 8 year old boy because they asked him to stop shooting his rifle in his front yard. 5 killed 3 injured.
so you think if this guy didn't have a gun, that he would have 1. first of all attempted to kill all those people 2. he would have been successful killing all those people?
people who think the presence of guns makes no difference in murder rate, lack critical thinking skills.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
so you think if this guy didn't have a gun, that he would have 1. first of attempted to kill all those people 2. he would have been successful killing all those people?
people who think the presence of guns makes no difference in murder rate, lack critical thinking skills.
Created:
so far i see no one talking about baiting a hook, and no one unzipping their pants. this thread isn't isn't goin anywhere on point.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Is clubbing a woman and dragging her to your cave like a caveman a God approved method of picking up women?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
you could also take the stance, that if a person causes another person to need an organ, then they should be required, by law, to provide it. i know civilized society wouldn't think of it, but who cares. if you cause someone to need a kidney, you should be required to give it to them. it's only fair. id say it's only fair, even if your life ends by giving the organ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
i dont know how he would explain being a catholic who is also an atheist. i also dont know why he considers himself catholic given he doesn't believe a lot of what they say is required for catholics to be believed. i think he's a super smart guy, but he just hasn't really delved into the complex arena of christian theology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
i think you might be confusing me with orogami.
Created:
Posted in:
eastern christians believe in theosis... it's a process of salvation, increasing in holiness. they dont use justification or sanctification as words, given those are tied to the legal concepts of atonement, but theosis is similar idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
catholics and protestants both believe in justification and sanctification. justification is how we become right by God, and in western theology being right with him is a legal relationship. (eastern christians dont believe we have a legal relationship with God, which is more how i view it, but the west have good arguments) santification is how we increase in holiness. catholics believe that when we do good things and sanctify ourselves, it adds to our justification. what we lack in justification, Jesus makes up for in his atonement. and they believe purgatory is where we deal with purging ourselves with the stains of our sins and further increase our justification. protestants believe that sanctification doesn't add to our justification... they believe Jesus' atonement covers our justification completely. to stress, it's important to tie the concepts of justification and atonement together. different ideas thologically, but related. it's also important to tie the classic 'faith saves' 'faith plus works saves' debate to justification and sanctification.
the main reason i am not catholic is because of their idea of infallibility, but i would consider being a catholic who doesn't believe that specific doctrine. it's just easier for me to identify as non denominational.
i know a ton about christian theology and the bible, and catholic theology, cause i grew up catholic. if you have any questions, i know i can point you in the right direction for things to consider.
Created:
Posted in:
my point in describing the atonment where Jesus defeated death, is also to point out that we as humans cannot defeat death. only Jesus can as a perfect embodiment of love. we cannot be forgiven without a perfect sacrifice, because we are mere sinful creatures and our petition isnt perfect without Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
you could switch to a theology similar to catholics, or you could look at God as unconditional love, or you could consider the idea of sancitification. catholics believe our sins must be made up for as humans and anything that isn't made up for must be purged in purgatory. protestants believe we are atoned by jesus, but even they believe in sancification.... which is like catholics idea of atonement except protestants dont think that purging process is what saves us. also, you could look at God as unconditional love and forgiveness, but just remember that that doesn't mean that there are no consequences to our actions. if we are forgiven unconditionally, you are quibbling over God being too generous... and if you want consequences, just focus on the natural consequences to the things you do, or look at sancification.
Created:
Posted in:
things are the way they are. that's just the way it is. there's a lot of room to complain but it's not our place to say it's wrong. we might speculate conventional wisdom is correct, but eventually you just have to take things on faith.
Romans 9:20 "Therefore, who are you, oh son of man, that you give a rebuttal to God? Does the thing formed say to the one who formed it, “Why have you made me this way?”
Created:
it's worth noting that i think the general understanding among church fathers was that baptism was an actual healing or washing away of sins. i dont think this is how modern protestants would look at it. i also dont think that was the only understanding among the church fathers.
Created:
Posted in:
jesus' death was a self sacrifice. our nature human nature is to die. jesus' nature as a human was to die, but as a divine being to rise and live eternally. he had a right to self defense. even jesus during the ordeal said he had the power to call down legions of angels to save him, but he chose not to. he chose not to utilize his right to self defense, and in so doing he died, and when he rose, he defeated both sin and death. love conquered death. God wouldn't let jesus die. christians are adopted brothers and sisters of christ.... and we're all united by the power of love through Jesus' death. with Jesus we die, with him we will rise from the dead.
this narrative isn't the way it has to be... it's just the way it is, the way God made it to be designed.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
i think it might be beneficial to tie the faith v works debate to the infant v no infant baptism debate.
why baptize a baby if he doesn't have faith? can that baptism save them? if you are catholic or of the 'works can add to our justification' circle, then the sacraments are holy and can impart an increase in justification. or, you could even go so far as to say the baptism, 'initially saves' the infant, as if that's God's way of doing so.
of course, if you dont follow the works part and say works are only the result of saving faith, what's the point of infant baptism, if the baby has no faith? i know even some protestants believe God might save babies, even though they technically aren't believers, but whether the baby was baptized doesn't seem to matter if faith or pure mercy is the only standard. maybe GOd saves the mentally ill like those with autism too, like he does infants... but maybe that doesn't mean the mentally ill nor infants need baptized. maybe the general rule is that someone seeking with faith should be baptized.
i think a protestant could say 'it's just good form to baptize babies', but i dont know why it would matter so much.
it's also important to note, that the bible says that households were baptized. that may imply that babies were baptized, but we really can't know for sure. that's what the catholics think, though.
Created:
Posted in:
not that i'm trying to rehash this thread. but it looks like the skeptics are arguing that the universe should be considered possibly an uncaused cause and their reason for choosing that over the universe being an effect, is because it looks like a simpler argument. that might be plausible, and i concede we dont know the answer, but my opening post is why i disagree. believers think the universe is an effect. the reason, is because of what i posted in my opening post... thermodynamics and a finite v infinite begining and end. ockhams razor might be to look for a simple solution, but it's only a the best approach when you dont have a reason to think otherwise. we have plenty of reason to think otherwise. again i acknowledge every proposed solution breaks down with our normal understanding, so maybe we should consider the universe itself as a special circumstance and our rules dont apply to... and thus, it's plausible to say the universe is an uncaused cause. i just disagree that that's the best argument.
on a related note, i wonder if defining an uncause cause an an "eternal uncaused cause" or "uncaused infinite regress" a fortiori. would be helpful. cause i'm thinking an uncaused cause could be possibly not eternal, but it would make more sense if it was eternal. i think this is a point that isn't defined or discussed very well in causality debates
Created:
also insect farms are a good idea too.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
this seems to indicate we will need more food production
do you have a source that we will produce enough in the future? my general understanding is that right now we produce enough food, but i dont know the extent if we need to ration at all right now. i understand the main problem is getting food to remote areas, distribution.
Created:
Posted in:
what say ye?
Created:
what say ye?
Created:
Posted in:
this topic reminds me of the differing views of atonement. penal substitution v christus victor, they are called. one focuses on jesus' death, while the other focuses on his resurrection. im partial to christus victor and easter, but there's good arguments to be made for penal substitution and good friday, focusing on his death.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
???
Created:
because the number of illegal immigrants in our population doesn't really go up, it just fluctuates. like, twenty years ago there were twice as many illegals here, but over the years its gone down, and just fluctuates.
i always thought a wall or good fence was a good idea, but now i'm not so sure.
(it's obvious a wall would keep some illegals out. if you hinder their access, less will come. it's idiotic of liberals to say a wall wouldn't prevent anyone from coming, just like it's idiotic of conservatives to say gun control or limiting guns wouldn't decrease murders. it's the same stupid idea, as if a fire extinguisher wouldn't lessen the extent of fires)
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
this link has the literature reviews that directly contradict your arguments. literatures are a lot more persuasive than he said she said or this example v that example. it also has all the other science that i posted on each fact. it also has the fact that non-gun murders aren't wildly out of control in the usa v other countries, when if this was a bad person problem, it would be, or should be.... i dont think any of ya'll are capable of acknowledging this, because ya'll have a glitch in your brains, similar to a delusion where you can't be reasoned with.
"It's the basic principal dude.
Question:
Is it good for criminals to have a more advanced weapon than everyone else? Simple question. "
it's irrelevant if bad guys have worse guys, if for practical purposes it doesn't change anything. the end result as it is now, is that criminals are more efficient in killing when defensive use is almost never needed with an AR. you're insisting on the principle, but it has no purpose. it's a non sequiter.
" if they go on a rampage with a knife, aren't less people likely to die than if it was a gun?
Yes, but if a bad guy gets a gun illegally and everyone else only has knives, then what then? More people are going to die because of that. "
you are changing the goal post. the point is that guns cause mass killings to be more deadly than without a gun. you are making an illogical point by changing the goal post, or at least deflecting and not acknowledging the truth. you have a good point to argue, about defensive gun uses... but that doesn't change that gun attacks are much more deadly than non gun attacks.
" if i group of men are arguing, isn't it more likely they will attempt to kill the others if they have a gun than a mere knife?
Guns are used for threatening more than killing. Think about it.
If your mad at a dude and you pull out a knife, you are committing to the murder, because once you pull it out, it's all hands on.
But if your mad at a dude and you pull out a gun, you are most likely using it as a threat more than an actual weapon. "
you dont understand human nature. maybe most of the time a gun will be used to threaten but not all the time. it's illogical for you to pretend like that's what always happens.... of if you aknowledge that that's not what always happens, then you are mentally glitching on the fact that sometimes a person is just impulsive and the ability to push a button will cause him to kill a group of others quickly, when if no gun was there, it woudln't have happened like that.
on the point of self defense with guns. you say 70000 defensive gun uses every year. well, we know the large majority of those are not involving actually shooting anyone. yet, we know that there are 100,000 gun shots taken care of at hosptials every year. that means most of the shootings that we actually see, are from an aggressor. also, only around five hundred people... five hundred only... are killed because they were the first aggressor. we know that there are over ten thousand murder per year, which means that compared to a bunch of defensive gun uses where the gun may have not even been needed, the rate of murder v using a gun is much higher.
cause the thing with all those defensive gun uses, we also know that a lot of them were just people who thought they needed the gun but really didn't... they might take a gun because they hear a noise, and assume they needed the gun in that sitaution. and maybe they did, but the gun didn't really change anything. you can give every one a gun, and the number of defensive gun uses would sky rocket... but that doesn't mean pepole are being safer all the time, it just means guns are being used more often. (i acknowledge that everyone having a gun would save some people, full stop, but that would come at a cost) sometimes the person who thinks they needed a gun were just being the aggresor themself, that's human nature to think they're always the victim. these 'defensive gun use' studies on based on surveys after all.
Created:
having an AR doesn't give an advantage against a bad guy that has one, for practical purposes. you never see shoot outs with ARs. what you do see are people murdering with them, not infreuently. you dont see defensive gun use with AR in situations where a hand gun wouldn't have worked. so what is the end result? criminals are more efficient murdering people, but it's almost never the case that a person needs an AR. i strongly doubt you can find many real world examples of where an AR was needed over a handgun for defensive use.... but criminal use of AR happens every day.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
i dont know if you missed it, but i posted in one of these threads gun control science. if you do a literature review, locations with more guns correlate to more murder. places that have more gun control, correlate to less murder. the consensus of scientists, if you poll them, is that gun control decreases the murder rate. these are all based on literature reviews... which means that if you look at the trends in science study, the facts are as i state them.
women are more likely to die if her abuser has a gun than if he doesn't. we aren't more likely to get mugged in the usa compared to other countries, but we are more likely to get murderd overall, due to guns, when we do get mugged. police are more likely to die in places with more guns, and less likely to die with less gun control. people who own guns are more likely to murder someone than to use it in self defense.
these are all based on scientific studies. the underlying them on these things, is that the precense of a gun can cause someone to die when they otherwise wouldn't.
if you need me to dig up that info i can, but all you guys ever do is ignore it so i assume you are ignoring it.
i'm giving you literature reviews, and trends in science. all you give are exception examples and anecdotal evidence.
that is the science. here is the common sense,which you again ignore:
you responded to the wrong part of my post... respond to this.
"how about you actually address what you quoted? isn't a person more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife? aren't they more impulsive when all they have to do is push a button? if i group of men are arguing, isn't it more likely they will attempt to kill the others if they have a gun than a mere knife? " if they go on a rampage with a knife, aren't less people likely to die than if it was a gun?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
see last post, above quote that i argued to you and that you ignored.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
a person is more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife. people are impulsive, so the ability to just push a button and the other person dead, is significant. plus, a person can kill others with much greater speed and efficiency.. you are comparing apples and oranges by arguing about non-gun weopons.We have had gun rights for all of American history. Why is it we are facing this big problem only up until recently?Maybe it has nothing to do with the guns. Maybe another factor is at play. Mental illness? Weak Law Enforcement? Bad court systems?
this is why the gun debate never goes anywhere. i gave you guys objective science that says the presence of guns causes more murder. you ignore it. i gave you the above point that pinpoints that guns are objectively different than non guns. the guy i addressed it to ignored it, and you went to an unrelated point. why did you bother to quote me if you aren't going to specifically address what i said?
to your point, every other country has the same mental health problems that we do. they dont have the same murder problem. a person in this country isn't more likely to get mugged than in other countries, but they are more likely to get shot in the process when they do get mugged. we have tougher crime regulation than other countries too.
when there's mass knife attacks in other countrires, there are always way less victims than compared to our mass shootings. because guns kill more people than non guns. this isn't rocket science.
how about you actually address what you quoted? isn't a person more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife? aren't they more impulsive when all they have to do is push a button? if i group of men are arguing, isn't it more likely they will attempt to kill the others if they have a gun than a mere knife?
you guys are objectively idiotic on this issue... it's delusional the things you argue, because you can't be persuaded by the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
if someone asks 'what was the cause of death' it is fair to say 'a gun;. a gun caused someone's death. that is, a gun killed someone. beyond this, you are just playing word games and semantics so there's no point continuing this line of argument.
a person is more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife. people are impulsive, so the ability to just push a button and the other person dead, is significant. plus, a person can kill others with much greater speed and efficiency.. you are comparing apples and oranges by arguing about non-gun weopons. completely void of logic and common sense to make the arguments you guys are making.
banning a spoon wouldn't make a difference in stopping obesisty, cause they will just use other methods to eat. again, there's no comparison between guns and non gun weopons.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
a person is more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife. people are impulsive, so the ability to just push a button and the other person dead, is significant. plus, a person can kill others with much greater speed and efficiency.. you are comparing apples and oranges by arguing about non-gun weopons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
it's just a matter of talking that's imprecise. if it's fair to say people kill people, then it's fair to say guns kill people. it would be more accurate to say 'some' people kill people, and 'some' guns kill people. to quibble about the wording is an irrelevant semantic. you say guns dont kill people.... well, some of them do. that's a fact.
Created: