Total posts: 1,002
-->
@3RU7AL
"it is almost impossible to find a ten year old or even a thirteen year old with a more developed prefrontal cortex than an eighteen or twenty five year old"
so younger minors are not as mature as young adults... what's your point? that doesn't mean that all young adults are mature enough to have a gun.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i think u r referring to the factors that i would refer to... "impulse control" or "executive function" "prefrontal cortex development"
again, isn't this self evident?
also, i didn't say smart v dumb, i said mature v immature.
i dont know how u can be so dense to be dragging this out given it's so self evident. what am i missing?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
isn't it self evident?
some minors are treated as adults based on maturity then it follows that some adults are no better than minors. is it such that the day before his 18th birthday someone might not be mature but then the day after their 18th birthday they are mature?
it's basic logic.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
i agree it might not change anything, but i would like all those 'guns are just tools' people to finally acknowledge the common sense and science that says gun are dangerous and increase the murder rate. though, most the people who make that sorta argument probably wouldnt admit to it after the smack down of science and logic in this thread, lolz
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i dont know why you keep thinking i'm referring to a test. i think it's self evident that many adults are no more mature than minors, and thus it is illogical to say so many guns in so many hands doesn't increase the murder rate. A. a minor isn't mature enough to own a gun B. many adults are no more mature than minors C. therefore many adults are not mature enough to own a gun D. if those irresponsible adults have a gun, the rate of murder in our country will increase
irrefutable logic.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i dont know where you got that. my point is that if a minor isnt mature enough to own a gun, many adults are not mature enough to own a gun, and simply having so many guns out there in so many hands, will increase the murder rate. my reason for making that point, is it's common for gun nuts to say guns are simply tools and dont increase the chances someone will get murdered.
Created:
turning 18 doesn't magically make a person a mature adult. we give them the rights of adults, with the consequences of adults, because they should know better. that doesn't mean they will know better.
if a kid isn't mature enough to own a gun, and many adults are no better than kids in their maturity, how does it follow that all adults are mature enough to own a gun?
my point, is the presence of a gun, will cause some people to die who otherwise wouldn't die. this common sense point is at the basis for half the nonsense that gun nuts talk about. "guns dont kill people, people kill people". in fact, guns do kill people. and, it should be common sense that a gun will cause some people to be more likely to kill people.
the science behind this is overwhelming, that the presence of a gun causes murder rate to increase, more here.
but i'm just curious how the gun nuts will wiggle around this kid v adult maturity point.
Created:
Posted in:
I think coal has reading comprehension issues... U would think if the founders gave everyone a right to a gun, they might have mentioned something in the historical record about everyone having a right to a gun.
Created:
it sounds like the site just wasn't managed properly. there has to be a sale or situation that would be acceptable to the previous owner, where the site could be maintained. letting it get shut down benefits no one.
Created:
Posted in:
if a person is a hermit or recluse that doesnt participate in society, maybe they have a claim to not owing society anything or not wanting to pay taxes. anyone who participates in common society owes that government for what it does, in at least some capacity. it's irrational to say otherwise.
"Exactly, because every civilization that came before us has already figured this out."
sums up how obvious this is. the dude arguing against this, is crazy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I agree that atheists r slightly smarter but u r jumping to too many conclusions based on that idea. The IQ difference is prob too small to draw many conclusions. With that said a baby should be neutral on god and then as they get older should become atheists if they remain ignorant, the default. It takes knowledge and critical thinking to rise above the atheist default. It's understandable that there's so many atheists since knowledge and critical thinking r in short supplyl
Created:
Posted in:
this debate about the role of government reminds me of a family guy episode. peter joins the libertarians and then disbands the government. then, to create order and justice in their new system, they agree to follow some basic rules and everybody chip in for the common good... all without the government!
Created:
Posted in:
i think atheists can be smart, but so can theists. with that said, i think most atheists that i see on the internet lack critical thinking. they are presented with objective evidence for God, and insist there's no evidence for God. with that said, most theists suck at arguing the points. atheists are probably slightly smarter on average, but not by a lot, but the main reason most remain atheists, is because they're ignorant.
Created:
Posted in:
i look at it as basic fairness in resource distribution. if a caveman doesn't have what he needs to eat, it's fair for him to go eat off an apple tree or hunt on land, that the laws of man say someone else owns, if that owner has excessive amounts of land and resource. same deal in modern life.
Created:
Posted in:
Eat the rich; there's only one thing they're good forEat the rich; I take one bite now, come back for moreEat the rich; I gotta get this off my chestEat the rich; I take one bite now, spit out the rest!Eat the rich; there's only one thing they're good forEat the rich; I take one bite now, come back for moreEat the rich; don't stop me now I'm going crazyEat the rich; that's my idea of a good time baby
Created:
Posted in:
Citing Halbrook, Amar concluded "militia" means "all Citizens capable of bearing arms" because that is how the term was then understood.6 What Amar seemed not to recognize, or at least did not acknowledge, is that "militia" is defined in the Constitution itself.6 The founders disagreed about how the militia ought to be organized. For example, 60. See Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 YALE L.J. 1193, 1205-11, 1261-62 (1992) [hereinafter Amar, Fourteenth Amendment]; Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 YALE L.J. 1131, 1162-75 (1991) [hereinafter Amar, Constitution]; see also AKHIL REED AMAR, THE BILL OF RIGHTS: CREATION AND RECONSTRUCTION 46-59 (1998). 61. Amar, Constitution, supra note 60, at 1164. 62. Id. at 1165. 63. Id. at 1165-66. 64. Id. at 1166. 65. The Constitution provides: The Congress shall have Power... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8. CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW Madison favored a universal militia while Hamilton argued for a select militia. 66 However, they agreed as a constitutional matter to leave this up to Congress; and the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to organize the militia. Thus, the militia is what Congress decides it is, regardless of whether it differs from an eighteenth-century model. Currently, the militia is indisputably the National Guard because Congress has so decided 67 (and Amar's suggestion notwithstanding, no one reasonably contends the militia includes SWAT teams). If Amar wrestled directly with Congress's power to define the militia, he might be forced to reconsider his insurrectionist view. How can the armed militia be a bulwark against governmental tyranny if it is organized and regulated by the government itself?
Created:
Posted in:
Gun control examples in early america
Created:
Posted in:
Trinity is a paradox or mystery. Jesus is god and the father is god but Jesus is not the father. I accept the trinity but either it isn't logical not that it's suppose to be or it needs modified. Maybe all three equal god? I'm open minded to new thinking given it don't make sense to humans
Created:
Posted in:
the history and politics of the second amendment scholarship
Created:
Posted in:
then you settled it, you are ignorant, yet refuse to learn. if you are capable of critical thinking, go back to the sources i cited in previous posts that cite what i say as true. 'bear arms' means to use a gun in a militia. that's a fact. i dont know if you are too ignorant to learn more, or just too stupid.
no, yeah, you are right.... no mention of self defense during the constitutional convention, and then taking two hundred years for the idea of self defense to be applied to the second amendment by law reviews who all previously took positions opposite yours. but yes, it's obvious we needed hundreds of years to figure it out. far out theory, man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
big flaws in your argument.
one, is that the founders never even mentioned anything about self defense or any other reason than a militia for the second amendment during the convention. it's possible to say it's implied, but it's a major blow to your argument to assume something that big. two, militias were defined back in those days by the state. young, old, religious peeps, many government workers etc were not included in the militia. why should we assume them or anyone not currently defined as a militia should be entitled to a gun? three, there were all kinds of regulations regarding guns in the founding days. four, 'bear arms' in those days meant to have a gun in a militia, not just carry a gun.
i could go on and on. you sound very ignorant and/or narrow minded.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
To the mods I was having trouble accessing accounts so briefly had two but I will make this my default used account
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
you r right about the raw frequency of mass shootings, but the info i posted was the 'median rate per million that people die', so it was looking at how frequently people die regardless of how large the country is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
your own article says your data is skewed.
A possible better alternative .......The fact-checking analysis goes on to suggest that instead of computing each country's average, or mean mass shooting deaths, a better method would be to compute the median, or typical, number of deaths. The median is considered by many statisticians to be better insulated against individual outlier events (such as the Norway massacre) that can skew results. This leads to a more accurate day-to-day impression and country-to-country comparison. Using the CPRC’s own data and more precise per-year population data from World Bank (the original study used only 2015 population data) to solve for the median, the more statistically sound analysis results in a notably different list:Typical (Median) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015):
- United States — 0.058
- Albania — 0
- Austria — 0
- Belgium — 0
- Czech Republic — 0
- Finland — 0
- France — 0
- Germany — 0
- Italy — 0
- Macedonia — 0
- Netherlands — 0
- Norway — 0
- Russia — 0
- Serbia — 0
- Slovakia — 0
- Switzerland — 0
- United Kingdom — 0
Using the median analysis, the United States is the only country examined that shows a propensity for mass shootings. The data itself supports this interpretation, as the United States endured mass shooting events all seven years, but the other countries all experienced mass shootings during only one or two years. Thus, in a typical year, most countries experience zero mass shooting deaths, while the US experiences at least a few.
Created:
Posted in:
that is very impressive rationalmadman. you have developed a lot over the years.
Created:
Posted in:
if then if then and or and or and and and or or if or and then if or then and if or
Created:
Posted in:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."-the phrase "bear arms" historically meant to use a gun in a militia. the preface of the amendment says the purpose regards militias.-“The people”: The founders used this phrase to mean not individual persons, but rather the body politic, the people as a whole. During the ratification debate in Virginia, speakers used the phrase “the people” 50 times when discussing the militia. Every single mention referred to Virginians as a group, not as individuals.-when the constitutional convention occurred, they didn't talk about the need for people to have guns or self defense, all the emphasis was on the need for a militia and the militia langauge in the constitution. the following links are for both this factoid and the next one too.-From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun-when the amendment was passed they had all kinds of laws regarding who could have guns for all kinds of reasons, along with gun control-here are some highlights about gun laws during the founding era:
-stand your ground laws were not the law. colonists had the duty to retreat if possible.
-public and concealed carry in populated areas was banned
-anyone who didn't swear loyalty to the state couldn't have a gun. it's far fetched to say as today's conservatives do that guns were protected to protect against the state when back then the state was disarming people they thought were disloyal
-the state disarmed people for the purposes of furthering the government. one of washington's first acts was to disarm the people of queens new york.
-all guns had to be registered and inspected
-some states regulated the use of gun powder
-some cities prohibited firing guns in the city limit
-some cities prohibited loaded firearms in houses
-only one state protected gun rights outside of the militia
-several states rejected the idea of gun rights for self defense or hunting, even though conservatives today claim it was already protected by the second amendmnet
-indians and blacks were barred from having guns-the supreme court historically didn't touch the amendment much, but when they did treated it as pertaining to militias. as recently as the reagan administration, the conservatives said the same thing. it was called a quote unquote "fraud" on the public, to say otherwise, by the conservative chief justice Burger.-drafts of the amendment included a conscioustious objector clause, if you objected to militia duty for religious reasons you can be exempt from a militia. this reinforces that the amendment pertained to militia stuff.-half the population from postal workers to priests were exempt from the militia. this reinforces that it wasn't generally understood that the people informally make up an informal militia. a militia is what a state defines it as.-all the amendments have limits on them. including the first amendment. you can always read into the amendment what exactly it means to infringe on someone's rights, and find other reasonable exceptions-the bill of rights and this amendment was originally designed as a safeguard against the federal government. that's why some hard core conservatives say states should be free to regulate as they see fit. others, say the fourteenth amendment incorporated parts of the bills of rights including the second against the states as fundamental "liberty" interests. each amendment can be incorporated on an individual basis depending on the merits of whether the amendment represents a fundamental 'liberty' interest. the issue still exists though, that how can you incorporate something as a fundamental right if it was never there to begin with?-what does "arms" mean? if we want to be originalists and faithful to orginal intent, there is a difference between military grade weopons and the muskets they had when the amendment was passed-you would have to use the word "keep" in the amendment to spin your way into individual rights. this ignores all the historical and amendment itself context, and ignores straighforward reading of the words taken together.-the following is a common set of quotes from the founding fathers. if you google each of the stronger looking ones here or that you find around the internet, you will see them taken out of context or misquoted. for example, here is the proper context of washington's first point, where he was simply addressing the need for a militia (see the second link below for even more context)- in other words, the people should be armed and disciplined for a militia if the State has a plan for a militia... so the question remains, if they are not disciplined for a militia, why should we assume they should have a right to otherwise be armed? Washington even went so far as to say it was a condition in having them be armed and disciplined for a militia, that there be some sort of formalized plan, a "requisite" condition:""Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy.""
Created:
Posted in:
i've heard 'well regulated' means 'well functioning' basically. which if that's true, it's plausible to say the second amendment gives an unalienable right to a gun. except, given 'bear arms' means to have a gun in a militia, they should be saying they have a right to 'keep' arms instead. of course, focusing on the word 'keep' ignores the rest of the amendment and ignores the history of the amendment and the original meaning.... that people have a right to a gun for a militia.
Created:
Posted in:
if kids can't handle guns, does anyone think every non criminal over 18 would be able to handle guns too? per arming everyone who's not a criminal. half of a adults are no better than kids, so it's basically like arming kids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
do you think it's better to give all well behaved kids hammers if there's a problem with bad kids hitting others with hammers? do you honestly think half of adults are any better than children?
Created:
Posted in:
many adults are no different than children. i dont think anyone disputes this. but the gun nuts will instinctively say children shouldn't have guns but any non criminal adult should be able to, and some nuts say all non criminal adults should have one. so think about it. if children have problems hitting each other with hammers, isn't it better to discourage kids from having hammers, especially the bad ones? to say it's better to give all the good kids hammers is expecting the world to be divided into good guys and bad guys. good kids act up and hit kids with hammers too. the point, if you give a bunch of adults guns, it's like giving a bunch of kids hammers. of course more problems will arise than good things. half of adults are no better than children. full stop.
Created:
-->
@Bones
but it might also be possible that suffering is necessary, for our free will to be purified with the strife that humans encounter. we humans can't know the answer. but, if we are believers, it makes more sense to assume there's a reason for things.
Created:
-->
@Bones
i dont disagree, but there could still be a purpose or reason for suffering to exist.
Created:
i guess traditional christian theology is possible too. we are living in the fall of man, and the consequence is suffering. i never got into all that sorta jibe though
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
interesting, i never considered it from the polytheist perspective. makes sense though when ya consider the history of god's and their purposes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
sometimes he claims he's retired and living it up on his investments, and sometimes he's claiming to be a shrewd welfare queen. i dont think grayparrot fully respects reality or understands himself, so i dont think it's possible for others to fully make sense of him or his arguments either.
Created:
to be clear, i respect the argument of the problem of suffering. i just dont think it's enough to insist on being a skeptic.
Created:
is it possible for there to be a purpose for suffering? yes. it can help us make progress to end suffering. we are co creators in that sense. it can give people the perspective to appreciate no suffering. as jesus said, the man wasn't born with health problems because of something him or his parents did, but to give glory to God when he's one day disease free.
also, asking why we still have suffering is like asking why darkness exists. that's just the way it is. can we have just light? i dont think that is possible in our reality. same way, suffering may need to exist in this reality too.
of course, a person can just insist that if it's possible for suffering not to exist but does, then it isn't necessary. a person could rationally cling to that principle, but they have to admit that they might be wrong if everything i say is true, and they need to admit that the alternative view that i present is completely realistic. What if God and heaven exist, and the reality is how i present it? then the skeptic is just clinging to philosophy that has no basis in reality. the words and thoughts, the pointless ramblings, of mere men.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
this article says the science on gun free zones is inconclusive.
i dont know anything except everything else i've said.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
so you think every person who is told they can't have a gun by gun control laws will 3d print one or get one illegally or kill with another method? again, perfection in our legislative agenda isn't necessary. you are the one ignoring basic logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
all i can do is keep harping you on the exact stats. i can't just take your word on it, sorry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
to be clear, i can be convinced concealed carry is good, even though i'm skeptical right now, but that wouldnt change anything else, the overwhelming other evidence, that i've posted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
since you usually ignore the most important points....
"u need to show the proportion of gun free zones versus the rate they are targeted."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
having armed guards is a unique form of defense. that shouldn't count as to whether having concealed carry or lots of guns there makes a difference. to be clear, i'm on the fence about teachers having guns, cause i know guns introduce murder more than if the gun isn't there and mass shootings are rare, but i also know teachers are usually good character.
Created:
Posted in:
i do know, most schools are gun free zones, so just because most mass shootings happen in gun free zones doesn't mean they are targeted for that reason. u need to show the proportion of gun free zones versus the rate they are targeted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
i'm willing to examine your source on that. the 94% point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
as usual, you are getting hung up on irrelevant side points. maybe concealed carry isn't that uncommon, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether that law makes a difference in mass shootings.
Created:
here's a load of science that shows the consensus in science is against the gun nuts.
it's consensus science that where there's more guns, or more people have them, that there's more murders than places that dont have guns.
it's consensus that where there's more gun control, there's less murder.
it's basically. irrefutable that non-gun murders are in line with the rest of the world, but gun murders are wildly out of whack. if this was a bad person problem, not a gun problem, then non-gun murders would be out of whack too. dont need scientific study for this though, this is such common sense, and it's obvious that you are just regurgitating stupid gun nut talking points, that there is something obviously wrong with your critical thinking skills.
gun control won't stop mass shootings, as people can just regular guns, or a few of them, and go on a rampage. but it might help some. if it's too hard to get a gun (fewer guns, more restrictions), people are more likely to give up. that helps a little.
or, like sandy hook, if they dont have assault rifles, they won't be able to shoot hundreds of spray shots with such ease in a few minutes. obviously, the benefit greatly outweighs the cost of confiscating assault rifles, given they're almost never needed for self defense.
gun control is mostly about lessening the amount of times someone gets mad and happens to have a gun when they do, less about mass schooting. i saw two strangers kill each other in road rage before, which obviously wouldn't have happened if they didn't have guns.
if you tell someone they can't have a gun, not everyone who is denied will run out and get one. if they dont have a gun when they are mad, they are less likely to kill someone than if they had a knife or other weapon. it might be possible to 3d print guns, but not everyone who is denied a gun is willing to go to that level of desperation.
this is all common sense. u need to work on your critical thinking and drop the propaganda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
so do you honestly think criminals research whether their target area has concealed carry or not? if they dont research the point, they're gonna do the shooting regardless of that law.
do you seriously think considering how rare people have concealed carry and how rare mass shootings are, that a hero will be able to emerge than if concealed carry didn't exist? it's good for guns to be in circulation for self defense, to help stop those situations, but that dont mean concealed carry is necessary.
you're making a leap in logic here in many ways
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
look at the link in my last post. ive tried before, i'm not gonna keep trying to educate someone who refuses to be educated.
Created: