Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 9:27 PM
74 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 72 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,821 Year: 18,644/29,783 Month: 589/2,043 Week: 141/386 Day: 44/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
45NextFF
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
Faith
Member
Posts: 30168
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 166 of 662 (830472)
03-30-2018 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Percy
03-30-2018 6:22 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
No you made all that up. I was calling violent criminals violent criminals. Sorry if that wasn't clear but it should have been given the context.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 03-30-2018 6:22 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 03-31-2018 10:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 167 of 662 (830473)
03-30-2018 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
03-30-2018 5:49 PM


religiosity and guns
I agree with ICANT, the loss of belief in God, or at least acknowledgment of God even at the cultural level even by nonChristians, that has been growing over the last century, does mean that people no longer have a solid authority for good behavior, or a fear of God to keep us from committing all the sins in the book.

Again, looking at other regions with low religiosity suggests this is otherwise. And looking at the US, highly religious States and low crime don't seem to correlate.

The problem of course, is nothing to do with religion. People without religion can refer to society and law as the higher authority. People with religion can believe their God justifies their crimes.

Most at EvC applaud these developments, surprising you aren't aware of them.

Of course I'm aware of them. Still 50-60% of Americans are religious. Compared with other Western nations, that's very high. I think only Italy and Portugal have a chance of beating those stats. Ireland, where abortion is practically illegal (there are about 2 dozen legally carried out a year) scores less than 50%. The point being lack of religion cannot be the reason there is as much violence as there is in the US.

While religiosity may be in decline - so is violent crime - another indication the one doesn't cause the other.

Invading the US would rapidly show up on some agendas if we were completely disarmed.

I doubt it - the military is the most advanced and well funded in the world. Armed nations have been invaded before, in any case. Organized armies are, unsurprisingly very good at winning wars. Armed citizenry can cause problems if they organize into a guerilla type operation, but its not the the pimary deterrent for invasion. Getting an invasion force to the US against the military is the principle problem - as well as supplying that army once they get a foothold. I suppose if there are a lot of guns and ammo around that might help the invaders resupply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 03-30-2018 5:49 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 03-31-2018 6:07 AM Modulous has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30168
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 168 of 662 (830476)
03-31-2018 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Modulous
03-30-2018 11:08 PM


Re: religiosity and guns
I still agree with ICANT. Unbelievers never get it right.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Modulous, posted 03-30-2018 11:08 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Percy, posted 03-31-2018 10:28 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 171 by Modulous, posted 03-31-2018 12:39 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17969
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 169 of 662 (830482)
03-31-2018 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Faith
03-30-2018 6:50 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
But you've used the excuse that you were misunderstood on a side-point to focus on that and are completely ignoring the points about the topic. Do you now understand that:

  • Your assertion that foreign cities do not have "crime-ridden areas, inner city areas" like American cities was wrong.

  • Your assertion that American cities have higher crime rates than foreign cities was wrong.

  • Your assertion that American cities are unique in the world for having higher crime rates than the country they're in was wrong (in a couple of ways).

Thus your assertion that higher gun death rates in the United States are due to higher crime rates in our cities than in foreign cities is wrong.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Faith, posted 03-30-2018 6:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17969
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 170 of 662 (830483)
03-31-2018 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
03-31-2018 6:07 AM


Re: religiosity and guns
Faith writes:

I still agree with ICANT. Unbelievers never get it right.

What about the opposite position, that regarding guns believers never get it right. How should the difference be settled? Maybe by discussing the facts, something conspicuously absent from your posts?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 03-31-2018 6:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 171 of 662 (830495)
03-31-2018 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
03-31-2018 6:07 AM


Re: religiosity and guns
I still agree with ICANT. Unbelievers never get it right.

In spite of the evidence? Oh wait, what am I saying?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 03-31-2018 6:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17969
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 172 of 662 (830504)
03-31-2018 5:49 PM


Ted Nugent Goes on Hate Filled Tirade
On the Joe Pags radio program NRA board member and conservative rocker Ted Nugent spewed hate at the Parkland school activists. Taken from these articles, not necessarily in the order on the broadcast:

quote:

They...have...no...soul.
...
They’re actually committing spiritual suicide because everything they recommend will cause more death and mayhem. Guaranteed.
...
The dumbing down of America is manifested in the cultural deprivation of our academia that have taught these kids the lies, media that have prodded and encouraged and provided these kids lies. I really feel sorry for them because it’s not only ignorant and dangerously stupid, but it’s also soulless.
...
To attack the good law-abiding families of America when well known predictable murderers commit these horrors is deep in the category of soulless. These poor children, I’m afraid to say this and it hurts me to say this, but the evidence is irrefutable, they have no soul...These children can't be critical of any of the propaganda that they're fed and that's just sad.
...
The level of ignorance goes beyond stupidity. Again, the National Rifle Association are a bunch of American families who have a voice to stand up for our God-given Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. We have no blood on our hands. No NRA member have ever been involved in any mass shootings at all, in fact the National Rifle Association is the lone organization that has taught firearm safety in schools, and for law enforcement, and for military, and for children's organizations and family organizations around the country for 100 years. So once again, this poor pathetic individual [Emma Gonzales] is a liar.

Concerning the accuracy of Nugent's claim that no NRA member has ever committed a mass shooting, the NRA becomes very narrow in their definition of a member when it comes to murders. When claiming membership numbers they count every magazine subscriber and course taker, but when there's a murder suddenly the roles shrink to just card carrying members. Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in NewTown, 26 murdered) had a number of NRA certificates for training and safety courses.

The NRA claims around 5 million numbers, and I'll use that number even though it might be inflated. There are 162 million males in the US (mass murderers are invariably male) of whom 75% are adults, for a total of 121 million. Let's also subtract the over-65 population, which is 13% or 21 million to arrive at 100 million males between the ages of 18 and 65. Of the 5 million NRA members 40% are women, so that means 3 million are men. So there's only a 3% chance that any mass murderer could be an NRA member.

As to Nugent's claims that the outspoken victims of Parkland are "soulless", could he please explain how he knows this and how did it happen? Did they have souls before the murder spree? If so, did they lose their souls immediately after the murders, or only after they spoke up? When they lost their souls, are those souls judged at that point and sent to heaven or hell, or do they remain in limbo until the original owner dies? If the soulless body repents and joins the NRA, does the soul return from limbo and reenter the body? How do we recognize those with no souls? What about the traditional belief that everyone possesses a soul throughout their lifetime?

One more question: Ted, do you have an economic stake in guns?

Gee, Ted, turns out you do! I haven't seen your TV show, but judging by the sponsors it looks to be all about guns. Boycott the sponsors of Nugent's Spirit of the Wild TV show. They're listed at the website, but also here for convenience:

  • Advanced Offroad Trailer
  • Alpine Innovations
  • Better the Hunt
  • Bushnell
  • Cannon Feeder
  • Clenzoil
  • Cold Steel Tactical
  • Dead Ringer
  • Excalibur
  • Freedom Mobility
  • Morrell Targets
  • Mossy Oak
  • NRA Carry Guard
  • Primos Hunting Calls
  • Shadow Hunter
  • Ted Nugent Ammo
  • Walker's Game Ear
  • Western Rivers
  • Yeti Coolers

Why do I have a feeling that almost no one here patronizes any of these companies?

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Coragyps, posted 03-31-2018 6:21 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 194 by Percy, posted 04-08-2018 7:53 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5365
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 173 of 662 (830505)
03-31-2018 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
03-31-2018 5:49 PM


Re: Ted Nugent Goes on Hate Filled Tirade
Ted Nugent? Talking about souls?

I think I’ll stop listening now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 03-31-2018 5:49 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3965
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 174 of 662 (830506)
03-31-2018 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Diomedes
02-15-2018 2:56 PM


Re: 17 Dead at Florida High School
quote:
One of the things I stated before is that the mindset here in America seems to be the ultimate culprit.

That’s what I have been thinking. There is something about some areas of America where people are a hairs breadth away from explosive violence. In counties where there are effectively no guns (like the UK) this ends up in fist fights, possibly a stabbing or two.

But when basically anyone can get a gun (which is a dramatic force multiplier) explosive rages and a mythology that one is a ‘responsible gun owner’ and one of the ‘good guys with a gun’ and that one is the hero of one own’s story may lead to shooting someone being acceptable behaviour.

After all when we are angry we know that we are right and it’s not until afterwards that we think ‘maybe I was out of line’ but by that time it’s too later and some is laying bleeding out.

But I’m an outsider looking in so it’s easy for me to make sweeping statements.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Diomedes, posted 02-15-2018 2:56 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 175 of 662 (830523)
04-02-2018 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Modulous
03-30-2018 2:57 PM


Re: Problem
Hi Mod,

Mod writes:

America is one of the most religious countries in Western Civilization.

Religion does not fix anything. In fact it usually makes a mess out of things.

You and other here point out many times all the bad things that have been done in the name of religion.

The worst part of that is I have to agree many bad things have been done in the name of religion.

But none of those people were followers of Jesus. Even though many may have claimed too. But they can not point to Jesus doing any of those things. The only time He could possibly have been accused of doing something bad was when He chased out the money changers from the temple because they had made His house a den of thieves.

Mod writes:

Are you saying that since god is imaginary

God is not imaginary He is real. Where did you get such an idea?

Mod writes:

religious people are being taught that they are the highest authority?

I don't know what religious people are being taught.
I do know that a lot of people are being taught they are no more than a worm. They just evolved from a lower life form. Because of their teaching they have decided they are their own boss and no one can tell them what to do or not do. So we have come to the point in history that taking a life is nothing. If life is worth nothing then there is nothing that is important. You just live and then you die. You might as well enjoy the trip between your birth and death as there is nothing else. So just take what you want and don't worry about the consequences.

Mod writes:

or you had something in mind I can't decipher.

The only thing I had in my mind are that there are people who have decided they are their own god. No one can tell them what to do or not to do. Parents have no authority, laws don't mean anything. You want be a celebrity, no problem. Just get a AR15 find a crowded place and kill 40 or 50 people then kill yourself. You will be remembered for many years to come. At least you will have made a mark in history.

Mod writes:

Almost like there was some reason for that.


Well knives, fists and feet, clubs and hammers kill a lot more people that the so called assault rifles.

Mod writes:

Probably because it wouldn't save lives.

Why wouldn't getting rid of automobiles save lives. There has been a total of 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013. Add another 105,690 for 14, 15, and 16.
The 3,719,422 deaths by automobile is over three times the number killed in all the wars the US has been involved in by 419,422.

I never heard of anyone being killed by two wagons running together.

Mod writes:

That's a piece of pedantry that's no longer particularly relevant. What someone calls the weapon, doesn't change the weapon.

But the masses don't know the difference in an assault AR15 and a semi-automatic AR15.

Mod writes:

And yet not even the majority of houses has a gun - and invading the USA does not seem to be on anyone's agenda.

Why would they have it on their mind? They would be facing a grave task which they would lose.
At least 50% of the households in America has at least one gun in the house. But if there was a need for more households to have weapons in their homes the 3% of owners who own half of the weapons would share with their neighbors.

Mod writes:

That wouldn't work, and it hasn't worked. Furthermore: It's not like Hitler's private militia were waving bananas around.

But the people could not resist as Hitler had confiscated all the weapons the public had from everyone that was not loyal to him. Confiscation of weapons is the first step to taking over a country from the inside.

If all weapons were confiscated in the US with only the police and military holding all the weapons. It would not be hard for a dictator to come along and get a majority of those armed people on his/her side and remove the weapons from all the police and military personal not loyal to the group and there would be no resistance to the government.

Ask the people in Iran why they don't rise up and change their government? They tried a few years back but had only a few weapons and the US would not supply them with weapons and because of that thousands were slaughtered.

Mod writes:

Exactly. And anybody who takes up arms against them finds out why that doesn't really work all that well.

You are talking about the civil war now. That was a whole different ball game.

As I said it would take 38 states to ratify a constitutional change to remove or modify the second amendment. That means it would only take 13 non ratifying states to block the change.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Modulous, posted 03-30-2018 2:57 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Modulous, posted 04-02-2018 12:21 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 04-03-2018 11:44 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


(1)
Message 176 of 662 (830524)
04-02-2018 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
03-30-2018 5:49 PM


Re: The root cause is spiritual
Hi Faith

Faith writes:

Not sure where it started but getting prayer thrown out of the schools thanks to Madalyn Murray O'Hare is often thought to be the starting point. We've been throwing out all the cultural Christian trappings on the basis of the First Amendment of all things, getting rid of the Ten Commandments and anything else that might remind us that w are spiritual beings answerable to our Creator.

Ms O'Hare was not the beginning but it was a profound change in course.

But I believe the gospel that was being taught to the young people at that time was more of the driving force to get us to where we are today. They were being taught evolution and that we shared a common ancestor with gorillas. They begin to question God and then they were told God was not necessary to create the universe.

When they became convinced of evolution they began to think differently about authority and so they rebelled. We had a few riots in which the guilty parties were not punished. This gave the animals called humans the ability to be able to do those things without fear. They did not fear God and his laws, nor the laws of man. They began to make their own laws to suit their own needs. Add drugs, alcohol and sex to the mix and we have a bunch of people who have no respect for themselves or anyone else.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 03-30-2018 5:49 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 177 of 662 (830535)
04-02-2018 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by ICANT
04-02-2018 1:34 AM


Re: Problem
Religion does not fix anything. In fact it usually makes a mess out of things.

You and other here point out many times all the bad things that have been done in the name of religion.

The worst part of that is I have to agree many bad things have been done in the name of religion.

But none of those people were followers of Jesus. Even though many may have claimed too. But they can not point to Jesus doing any of those things.

So we can throw out the theory that the violence is because people "are taught that there is no higher authority than themselves". Since even people who are taught there is a higher authority commit violent acts as you concede.

I do know that a lot of people are being taught they are no more than a worm. They just evolved from a lower life form.

These two sentences are in disagreement with one another.

In any case, my point still stands. Acceptance of evolution in the US is lower than most other Western countries - so can't possibly account for the violence. Also, acceptance of evolution is going up and violent crime is going down, further suggesting your link is false.

The only thing I had in my mind are that there are people who have decided they are their own god. No one can tell them what to do or not to do. Parents have no authority, laws don't mean anything. You want be a celebrity, no problem. Just get a AR15 find a crowded place and kill 40 or 50 people then kill yourself. You will be remembered for many years to come. At least you will have made a mark in history.

But this doesn't seem related to religion (or lack thereof) or evolution. So the question is - why are people doing this?

Well knives, fists and feet, clubs and hammers kill a lot more people that the so called assault rifles.

So it must be that there is some reason other than kill count that there are not calls to ban them. I'm sure you can figure it out, not only is your objection raised a million times by others, but it has been answered a million times. I'll give you a clue - how many people build houses using an AR15? How many people learn to walk using their AR15s?

Why wouldn't getting rid of automobiles save lives. There has been a total of 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.

Well that's almost certainly false - you have used a level of precision it is not possible to attain.

The American economy would crash without automobiles. The food network would collapse, the power grid would go under, medical supplies would not be able to taken where they need to go. In short - there would be complete chaos and millions would die within a few years, rather than over a century.

But the masses don't know the difference in an assault AR15 and a semi-automatic AR15.

As I said, that makes no difference.

At least 50% of the households in America has at least one gun in the house

It's less than a third.

But if there was a need for more households to have weapons in their homes the 3% of owners who own half of the weapons would share with their neighbors.

Hahaha. Sure.

But the people could not resist as Hitler had confiscated all the weapons the public had from everyone that was not loyal to him.

You have a chicken and egg problem here. Hitler could not confiscate guns until after he gained power. But your scenario was about preventing dictators getting power. Clearly private gun ownership not only didn't prevent Hitler gaining power, it helped him to gain power.

Also, he didn't confiscate guns from everyone not loyal to him even once he got power. He actually made guns more readily available to the masses. He confiscated guns from Jews, but they were a minority. So why didn't the masses use those guns to depose Hitler or protect the Jews?

If all weapons were confiscated in the US with only the police and military holding all the weapons. It would not be hard for a dictator to come along and get a majority of those armed people on his/her side and remove the weapons from all the police and military personal not loyal to the group and there would be no resistance to the government.

It would be pretty difficult to do this, actually. Not unless the majority of people consented.

Ask the people in Iran why they don't rise up and change their government? They tried a few years back but had only a few weapons and the US would not supply them with weapons and because of that thousands were slaughtered.

To what are you referring? To the peaceful protests in 2009 that were reacted to violently? I don't remember requests for weapons, but if there were such a thing, I'm betting they were the type of weapons not legal to own privately in the US.

Anyway, the answer is that the police and military were mostly in on the government's side and fighting the military is not something some semi-automatic AR15s is going to be much help with.

You are talking about the civil war now. That was a whole different ball game.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about people who raise arms against the government today.

But in your reality a civil war would be necessary - it couldn't possibly be 'the people' vs 'the military' since the military is composed of 'people'. If a sizeable enough number of 'the people' thought it was worth taking up arms against the government - you can bet there would be members of the military who felt likewise. And there would be a civil war.

As I said it would take 38 states to ratify a constitutional change to remove or modify the second amendment. That means it would only take 13 non ratifying states to block the change.

And as I said, "Well....yes. And?"

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ICANT, posted 04-02-2018 1:34 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30168
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 178 of 662 (830545)
04-02-2018 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Percy
03-30-2018 6:22 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
You can quote someone's actual words and still get it wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 03-30-2018 6:22 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 04-03-2018 1:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30168
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 179 of 662 (830549)
04-02-2018 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Percy
03-30-2018 5:59 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
I simply thought it odd that New York would have a lower gun death rate than a sparsely populated state like Wyoming, that's all. No need for fancy speculation.

You seem to have made your point and that's fine with me, only I haven't yet thought it all through so that could be a false impression. I'm happy if you're right, I just need to think it through and I don't know when I'll get to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 03-30-2018 5:59 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 04-03-2018 1:21 PM Faith has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17969
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 180 of 662 (830569)
04-03-2018 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by ICANT
04-02-2018 1:34 AM


Re: Problem
ICANT writes:

Religion does not fix anything. In fact it usually makes a mess out of things.

You and other here point out many times all the bad things that have been done in the name of religion.

The worst part of that is I have to agree many bad things have been done in the name of religion.

Good.

But none of those people were followers of Jesus.

Sure they were. You think no one doing "bad things...in the name of religion" were followers of Jesus? Followers of Jesus are acknowledged sinners, and sins run the gamut from white lies to murder to supporting Trump.

Even though many may have claimed to.

Ah, I see you have your own special definition of a follower of Jesus. Can I assume that "has done bad things" means one isn't a follower of Jesus? So in your eyes a follower of Jesus commits no sins?

But they can not point to Jesus doing any of those things.

Ah, another part of your special definition of follower of Jesus: someone whose only sins were ones Jesus committed himself.

The only time He could possibly have been accused of doing something bad was when He chased out the money changers from the temple because they had made His house a den of thieves.

So one can only be a follower of Jesus if the only sin one has committed is overturning the tables of the money changers.

You may now commence denying that you said what you just said.

Mod writes:

Are you saying that since god is imaginary

God is not imaginary He is real. Where did you get such an idea?

God is not real but imaginary? Where did you get such an idea? Books by ancient nomads don't count.

Mod writes:

religious people are being taught that they are the highest authority?

I don't know what religious people are being taught.

Oops, as a teacher of religious people you must be dissembling (hint: that's a sin, presumably one Jesus didn't commit).

I do know that a lot of people are being taught they are no more than a worm.

No kidding. What are the criteria for comparison?

They just evolved from a lower life form.

What criteria separate lower from higher?

Because of their teaching they have decided they are their own boss and no one can tell them what to do or not do.

So you're arguing that people are concluding that because they "are no more than a worm" and "just evolved from a lower life form" that they are "their own boss and no one can tell them what to do or not do." How does the conclusion follow from the premises?

So we have come to the point in history that taking a life is nothing.

Not sure, but are you maybe returning to the topic here? irregardless, again, how does this conclusion frollow from the premises?

If life is worth nothing then there is nothing that is important.

The logic seems okay, but you haven't shown that "life is worth nothing," especially from the perspective of people, who in general the world over seem to value life a great deal.

You just live and then you die.

That's a harsh way of putting things, but true.

You might as well enjoy the trip between your birth and death as there is nothing else.

Where in anything you said above did you show that people are caused to believe there is "nothing else"?

So just take what you want and don't worry about the consequences.

I've heard jail is an unpleasant place - are you sure you want to advise people to "just take what you want and don't worry about the consequences"?

Mod writes:

or you had something in mind I can't decipher.

The only thing I had in my mind are that there are people who have decided they are their own god. No one can tell them what to do or not to do.

A lot of TV preachers seem to have this problem.

...laws don't mean anything.

Oh, you mean Trump.

You want be a celebrity, no problem. Just get a AR15 find a crowded place and kill 40 or 50 people then kill yourself. You will be remembered for many years to come. At least you will have made a mark in history.

You deserve an award for rambling all over the place. So let me make sure I've got the logic straight here. People are being taught they're on the same level as worms and evolved from lower life forms, this causes them to think they're their own boss and that taking a life is nothing, therefore there is "nothing else" and life should be enjoyed with no worry about consequences, which leads to people who think they're their own God, so for the sake of celebrity they commit mass murder. Do I have that right?

Mod writes:

Almost like there was some reason for that.


Well knives, fists and feet, clubs and hammers kill a lot more people that the so called assault rifles.

Way to completely miss the point. You should have asked yourself why there are no efforts to ban knives, fists and feet, clubs and hammers. Could it be because no person with a knife, even a hundred knives, has ever killed 58 and wounded 851? Has any person with a knife ever even killed 17 and wounded 17? The 2014 Kumming knife attack in Japan that killed 31 and wounded 140 was carried out by 8 perpetrators, which is 4 killed and 18 wounded per perpetrator. How many might they have killed and wounded had they been armed with AR-15s?

And does an AR-15, a weapon of war, have any use beyond killing people and providing recreation for gun nuts? Can you use an AR-15 to slice onions? Hammer a nail? Knit a sweater? Walk to the store?

Mod writes:

ICANT writes:

Nor has anyone suggested we go back to the horse and buggy days to save lives.

Probably because it wouldn't save lives.

Why wouldn't getting rid of automobiles save lives.

You're again missing the point. Automobiles provide transportation, AR-15s kill people. We can't get rid of automobiles without having a massive negative impact on the economy and quality of life, something that would in itself cause a great deal of loss of life. But eliminating AR-15s and the like would have a minuscule economic impact but eliminate many mass murders.

Plus the safety of automobiles is moving in the right direction, while the safety of firearms is not:

The safety of automobiles is decreasing recently with increased distractions (mainly cellphones), but safety should resume increasing with increasing employment of crash avoidance systems. Would that efforts to improve gun safety were as ambitious.

I never heard of anyone being killed by two wagons running together.

Here's a list of horse and buggy accidents of the type that the horse and buggy era endured, many resulting in death. Getting kicked by a horse would become more common, too.

Mod writes:

That's a piece of pedantry that's no longer particularly relevant. What someone calls the weapon, doesn't change the weapon.

But the masses don't know the difference in an assault AR15 and a semi-automatic AR15.

Why does a civilian need either one?

At least 50% of the households in America has at least one gun in the house.

You are like way off. While personal gun ownership is up because more people own multiple guns, household gun presence is down and declining, about 30% right now:

For those households still with guns, the irony is that the guns decrease their safety. Those in households with guns are more likely to be shot.

But if there was a need for more households to have weapons in their homes the 3% of owners who own half of the weapons would share with their neighbors.

Anticipating the apocalypse, I see.

Mod writes:

That wouldn't work, and it hasn't worked. Furthermore: It's not like Hitler's private militia were waving bananas around.

But the people could not resist as Hitler had confiscated all the weapons the public had from everyone that was not loyal to him. Confiscation of weapons is the first step to taking over a country from the inside.

You're repeating a false Ben Carson claim (Ben Carson Nazi Gun Claim Wrong). There was no Nazi confiscation of guns during their rise to power. After WWI the allies imposed a gun ban on German citizens that wasn't much enforced. Gun restrictions were loosened in 1928 before the Nazis rose to power. The Nazis issued a new gun law in 1938 that loosened gun ownership restrictions a great deal more.

Hitler rose to power in the economic and political chaos after Germany's WWI defeat. He was the populist leader of the Nazi party when the German people voted them into power. Once at the head of government Hitler took advantage of circumstances, worsened by the burning of the Reichstag, to turn the German government into a dictatorship.

If all weapons were confiscated in the US with only the police and military holding all the weapons.

Then gun deaths in the US would decline precipitously.

It would not be hard for a dictator to come along and get a majority of those armed people on his/her side and remove the weapons from all the police and military personal not loyal to the group and there would be no resistance to the government.

How does a dictator just come along? I think you've been watching too many silly movies.

Ask the people in Iran why they don't rise up and change their government? They tried a few years back but had only a few weapons and the US would not supply them with weapons and because of that thousands were slaughtered.

You mean the 2009 election in Iran? 36 were killed according to Wikipedia.

Mod writes:

Exactly. And anybody who takes up arms against them finds out why that doesn't really work all that well.

You are talking about the civil war now. That was a whole different ball game.

Civil war and revolution are two different things.

As I said it would take 38 states to ratify a constitutional change to remove or modify the second amendment. That means it would only take 13 non ratifying states to block the change.

This is true.

How come it's the most religious who most strongly advocate implements of death?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ICANT, posted 04-02-2018 1:34 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by ICANT, posted 04-05-2018 9:22 PM Percy has responded
 Message 303 by ICANT, posted 09-29-2018 6:52 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
45NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018