Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 10,301-10,350 of 12,463

[[deleted user]]

Tim wrote: "Shannon: how would people know you owned a gun? Well, you would have to either wear it on your person or have it in the gun safe. Having it in a gun safe would be if no use if you are attacked. Most wealthy middle to upper class South Africans have domestic workers or gardeners, or employ a garden service. Criminals pay these people for information on who owns what. Word gets out quickly who owns lots of guns.

I love using guns. When I was fifteen I was the best marksman in my province here, of all age groups. But I don't own guns any more.

You're just pig-shit stupid if you think owning a gun here in South Africa is going to make you less of a target. And you're even more stupid if you think that your property is worth dying for, because more often than not they just want your shit, not your life. "

Thanks for the info. Learning about other countries is interesting. I'd never heard that reported, how many robberies there are there, etc....

The only thing I've heard reported or read deals with women and rape. I've read that South Africa has one of the highest rates of rape in the world, something like a rape every three seconds or every second or something or three rapes every second. I can't remember. Major violence against women, or so I've heard and read. Is that true? It would be interesting to get confirmation.

If true, I wonder if women carrying concealed handguns and knowing how to use them could make a difference? Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't. I don't know. And, of course, I don't know if the reporting is accurate.

[David]

Travis said, "Is anyone really surprised/shocked that the IRS gave a little extra scrutiny to groups that loudly declared they didn't want to pay taxes and had members burning the president in effigy and talking about killing him?"

Lies. None of that happened.

[David]

Shannon said, "Is this really what you want to do? Is this really the question you want to ask, while refusing to answer any tough questions yourself, by the way?"

It is a trick question Shannon. On the same level with "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "If you're going to talk of evidence and logical arguments, please stop playing fast and loose with the facts. Whether you're intentionally being dishonest and giving false information or whether you've read something by someone and believe that person rather than doing your own research to discover the truth, I don't know. "

If you read what I asked again, I asked whether if it was shown that gun ownership risked more lives than it saved would the person still have the right to increase everyone's risk just because they personally felt safer? I then remarked on the response about the majority enforcing it's will on the minority rather than vice-versa.

I wasn't stating facts, I was discussing hypothetical situations. I have said before that the gun control argument in the USA is complex and does require a lot of data and evidence. I will happily admit I do not know. However, I did ask why the USA was so fundamentally different from other countries that guns are so vital for personal safety - apart from the obvious which is criminals are just as, or more, likely to be armed.

Obviously my verbose writing was not clear enough for you this time rather than vice-versa.

[David]

Tim asked, "David. Could you explain how it is based on a false premise? Owning guns in South Africa makes you a target. Everyone here knows this. Studies have confirmed it. More than a thousand farmers and policemen are killed every year in South Africa, and in every instance, they are robbed of their guns."

Guns are valuable so it makes sense that they were taken. People who have guns have other things to steal. You could just as easily say that because those people were also robbed of their money that money is the problem and people should not have money.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "My point was that both religion and science can leave their virtual worlds and intrude on our lives. Religion has and likely will continue to do so. Acknowledged. But, I wasn't interested in looking at just one point of view. Science can also intrude on our lives; if the risk outweighs the benefit in the experimentation being done by the Chinese scientists, I'd, personally, rather the Chinese scientists didn't do such research."

Indeed both can intrude on our lives, but the difference that I was trying to illustrate is twofold.

First, in the Chinese scientists example, you are correct that this could effect us all. However, without a realistic assessment of the risks we don't actually know how dangerous it was. It sounds dangerous, but without knowing the details of the experiment you cannot tell. The scientific community in general has a system of peer checks and balances that not only assess how right a result is, but how risky the experiment is. It could turn out that the fears about the experiment are completely overblown, while the potential benefits may save the lives of hundreds or millions of people. Or perhaps it was a stupid risk for no gain, in which case other scientists should examine what they say they did and condemn them. Which apparently may be what is happening.

The point being is that there is a control mechanism.

Meanwhile religion comes out and influences people on real issues and there is no balance or check for these views except for our consciences. When the Pope spreads the word that being gay is evil, we can't examine his results, assess the risks and say "hang on, that doesn't seem right". Instead he says god thinks it's evil and then a billion Catholics follow suit. The same with a Muslim Fatwa, or the same with Jerry Falwell. Though indeed there may also be many Catholics who have the conscience to sprinkle the communion wafers with an appropriate amount of metaphorical salt, entire Christian sects that put "god = love" before prejudice and many Muslims who similarly place conscience before dogma, there is little in general they can do to dispute the "findings" of their spiritual leaders even if their consciences tell them it's wrong.

The second point is that the "intrusion" of science into the real world are mostly in the form of real, tangible, demonstrable advantages that cannot be found outside of science. No religion can make that claim, even the most beneficent and peaceful religion finds similar levels of compassion and humanity outside of said religion, whether its in another religion or within a non-religious persons conscience.

What we know of medical science is that considering child mortality rates, historic levels of disease and scarcity of food - without science chances are the people who have said "religion" on this thread would (a) not have existed to reject science if it wasn't for science and (b) would not have an internet to write on.

So yes, I fully agree that scientists should be careful about what risks they take, but that is already part of the modern scientific community, though there is every reason to try to improve those precautions further. However, to compare it to the damage that religion can do to minorities and the vulnerable with no way to apply caution other than personal conscience, I do not feel is remotely comparable.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Not a statement about science .... Yes, I know why scientists would want to do this thing.

It's a statement about security, benefits versus risk, etc...."

Understood and I see your point. Yet it is about managing and comprehending risks. Again I don't think we can directly address this hybridisation work done by the Chinese scientists without knowing a lot more about it. It may sound scary, but it is entirely possible that the risks were a lot less than they sound. Vaccinations and inoculations themselves can sound a lot riskier than they are. After all you are deliberately infecting yourself with the corpses of germs or even artificially weakened ones. Yet the risk is minor, compared to the risk of failing to act.

Everytime we do something there is a risk attached. If you drive to work, you risk people's lives with every journey. If you walk through a crowd and someone steps out of your way, you could be increasing their risk of a stumble and fall, or even stepping into the path of a freak meteor.

The point is risk management.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "If you read what I asked again, I asked whether if it was shown that gun ownership risked more lives than it saved would the person still have the right to increase everyone's risk just because they personally felt safer? I then remarked on the response about the majority enforcing it's will on the minority rather than vice-versa.

I wasn't stating facts, I was discussing hypothetical situations."

Didn't realize you were going for the hypothetical. Thought you believed your statement.

Regarding gun ownership saving lives, you might want to read the information I sent yesterday ... that addressed that very thing ... including how many lives are taken vs. how many lives are saved.

It's sometimes interesting to delve into the hypothetical, though, sometimes it's more interesting to deal with facts.

[Arshdeep]

I myself would prefer a world with science! Religion is very important for the replenishment of the soul but in today's world it is more associated with stereotypes than with the its real mission which was to find a higher power the creator!


having said that i respect every faith and religion

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Understood and I see your point."

So, are you saying you misunderstood me, misrepresented me for days, and despite several attempts at explaining and "correcting" you, you responded based on your beliefs regarding my intentions versus my words?

Regarding my original point regarding science sometimes intruding negatively into our lives, ....

I don't expect you to agree with me. I can't imagine that you will agree with me. Further, I detailed the fact that I, more than many, do not take risks and went into why I don't. Nothing to do with religion or science. Everything to do with my makeup. So, yeah, for you, it might not be that big of a risk. Or, the risk might be manageable. Worth the benefits. Fine. You've said it. Several, several times. You're saying it again.

Given my makeup, Gary, while I understand where you're coming from, I, Shannon, would not take the risk in a facility with questionable security. Period. That's me. My opinion. I have a right to it ... without being falsely represented for days on end.

You think my original point ... that science can intrude upon our lives negatively from time to time ... as religion can intrude upon our lives negatively from time to time ... isn't a good point. Isn't the same as the evils of religion? Religion doesn't have checks and balances? Science does. (Always?) Fine, Gary. You have a right to that opinion. Equally, I have a right to mine.

[David]

Gary said, "The scientific community in general has a system of peer checks and balances that not only assess how right a result is, but how risky the experiment is."

Peer review comes after the experiment. If it were as you say then we would be discussing whether the Chinese scientists should conduct their virus experiment instead of expressing concern that they did.

"When the Pope spreads the word that being gay is evil..."

When did he say that?

"The same with a Muslim Fatwa, or the same with Jerry Falwell."

Yes those Christian fatwas telling christians to strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent people must stop. You've had a respite from Jerry Falwell fatwahs - since he's been dead for six years.

"The second point is that the 'intrusion' of science into the real world are mostly in the form of real, tangible, demonstrable advantages that cannot be found outside of science."

What does this statement mean? Science intrudes into the real world with advantages that are not scientific? This is nonsense.

"What we know of medical science is that considering child mortality rates, historic levels of disease and scarcity of food - without science chances are the people who have said "religion" on this thread would (a) not have existed to reject science if it wasn't for science and (b) would not have an internet to write on."

Tripe. This ignores the fact that many scientists have religious beliefs. Using your logic, I could just as easily (and falsely) claim that without Isaac Newton (a Christian scientist) you would not have the calculus.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Didn't realize you were going for the hypothetical. Thought you believed your statement."

That's fine, I can see why it got lost in the mix.

Shannon wrote: "Regarding gun ownership saving lives, you might want to read the information I sent yesterday ... that addressed that very thing ... including how many lives are taken vs. how many lives are saved."

Obviously the gun control question is not a high priority for me seeing as I am in the relatively gun free UK. I will try to give it a look over if I have time though. One of the things that stays with me is the difference between New York (Pop. 8.3M) versus London (Pop. 8.1M) in that a shooting in London generally gets headline news, while I remember in New York recently it made headline news when there wasn't a murder for one day.

But yes, that's anecdotal rather than evidence.

My main interest in the gun control debate is the similarity to religious debates, where one side (appears) to launch off into absolutist arguments based pretty much on belief, with a fanatical fervour. Those people rant about their second amendment rights and the government trying to get them, yet it seems (to an outside observer) that those very same people are so terrified by terrorism that they will happily throw all their other rights under the bus to protect them from something which claims a lot less lives, and are quite happy to allow the government to snoop on them and deny them rights when arresting them if they think its all being focussed on Muslims and foreigners.

Yes that's just personal opinion from a distance.

Shannon wrote: "It's sometimes interesting to delve into the hypothetical, though, sometimes it's more interesting to deal with facts. "

The above is why I delved into the hypothetical. I wanted to see what a gun advocate would choose if it turned out that guns were making everyone less safe rather than more safe, and so far it seems that the facts would hold little interest for the ones who have replied.

Again I would like to see the facts and data gathered, but it is not necessarily as simple as people may think. For example data on lives lost to guns compared to lives taken may seem to be clear cut, but it really isn't. After all how many lives are saved when a rabid gunman is shot before he can kill? Does it take into account that those lives wouldn't be at risk if the gunman lacked a gun? How many people are collateral damage to another incident? It's not as easy.

It's like the statement that we in the UK suffer more violent crime than the US. (A statistic I will accept for the purposes of this though I am not sure). Does this take into account the fact that this may include people who are repeated victims who instead would have died had their assailant been armed?

I don't know, and as you may have realised, I would prefer a decision based on evidence and facts. However, it seems that the gun control debate in the US is not interested in facts. In fact they are not interested in the fact that 90% of the country wants a few sensible controls at least.

After all, you need a license to operate a vehicle, which yes can kill as well. So why not licenses and background checks for something that after all has no other use but to kill?

[Jai]

What a dumb question. Can't believe people are discussion about it.

Without Science - No electricity, No Cars , No Medicines, No huge buildings

Without Religion - No Terrorists ( or well at least relatively less )

[Mary]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Didn't realize you were going for the hypothetical. Thought you believed your statement."

That's fine, I can see why it got lost in the mix.

Shannon wrote: "Regarding gun ownershi..."

Gary, everyone on here deals in hypothetical and anecdotal and even Shannon admits the information she throws out there may or may not be true. So don't worry too much about defending yourself.

You did hit the nail on the head when you said that the debate in the US over gun control is vary rarely based on fact. Fear and near hysteria seem to drive a lot of the discussion. One side wants reasonable controls, the other is afraid any legislation will end in a military coup where all guns are confiscated. When I ask for a sane rational solution, I get "any loss/death is acceptable as long as I can whatever gun in whatever quantity I want" answers. It is hard to reason with an all or nothing stance.
We've lived outside the US, in England, Saudi Arabia and Guatemala and we have traveled extensively, and I am painfully aware of how we appear to many other countries.
I've always wondered- Do other countries engage in the kind of survivalist or "Doomsday Preppers" behavior as some Americans do? I mean we even have a TV show where people are so afraid the government is out to get them spend their whole lives and resources building bunkers and storing up arms and supplies. I never hear about British survivalists or French or Canadian. But they may exist. Is that kind of paranoia a strictly American phenomenon? Does anyone know? And what happens when they've spent their whole life being afraid, and not one of their fears is realized? Are they disappointed? Do they feel their life was wasted?
Just something I wonder about.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I'm tempted to break Shannon's law in the hopes that you mean it, and will follow the advice of the shouting people.
"

And, ... not talk to you. If not, what advice have the shout..."

Please show me where/how not having a gun takes away your right to defend yourself?

show me where I've said you don't have the right to defend yourself with a gun?

Then tell me why you believe people cannot defend themselves without a gun? Why is it the only method or item that can used for defense?

[Gary]

David wrote: "Peer review comes after the experiment. If it were as you say then we would be discussing whether the Chinese scientists should conduct their virus experiment instead of expressing concern that they did."

The point of peer review is that scientists that abuse the process will quickly find themselves unable to get further funding and unable to have their papers accepted and published by reputable journals.

What is the other choice, to appoint a government body to decide what should or shouldn't be researched? To what criteria?

David wrote: "When did he say that?"

I was not meaning a specific time but it is well known that most popes have considered homosexuality and marriage equality as being against God and therefore evil. However let's see.

From a letter to the Carmelite Sisters of Buenos Aires on the perils of marriage equality:

“Let’s not be naïve, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

“At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

And the previous Pope;
Ratzinger's "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," 1986, as reported by National Catholic Reporter
"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

David wrote: "Yes those Christian fatwas telling christians to strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent people must stop."

When did I say Christian fatwas or that Muslim fatwas are solely about bombing people (which they are not, many Muslim fatwas are moral). However, there are Christians who preach intolerance and violence, just as there are Muslims who do the same.

David wrote: "You've had a respite from Jerry Falwell fatwahs - since he's been dead for six years."

Yes because being dead has been a real hindrence in the past for religious people to carry out what they think you would have wanted :-D

David wrote: "What does this statement mean? Science intrudes into the real world with advantages that are not scientific? This is nonsense."

Yes, what you said is nonsense.

What I said is that (in addressing the difference between religion intruding on our lives and science which was brought up earlier). When science intrudes on our daily lives it usually improves our quality of life in real and measurable ways that you could not achieve without that science.

David wrote: "Tripe. This ignores the fact that many scientists have religious beliefs. Using your logic, I could just as easily (and falsely) claim that without Isaac Newton (a Christian scientist) you would not have the calculus. "

Again that is tripe as you don't appear to have read what was written. What I said was;
(1) without science there wouldn't be an internet to write on. - Do you dispute this?
(2) without science there would be less people alive due to the lack of scientific advancements in medical fields (especially childbirth) and agriculture. - Do you dispute this?

What has it got to do whether Isaac Newton was a Christian? He was also an alchemist and that doesn't work either. Science owes to Newton his work in science, calculus is thanks to his work in Mathematics (oh and it is entirely possible Leibniz invented it simultaneously).

Many scientists have religious beliefs, many do not. Many scientists speak English, many do not. Many like Jazz music, many do not. Exactly what has this got to do with their ability to do science except when they abandon the scientific process in favour of belief. (Just like Newton believed in alchemy, do we now revere him for his ability to transmute base metals into gold?)

[Travis]

David wrote: "Shannon said, "Is this really what you want to do? Is this really the question you want to ask, while refusing to answer any tough questions yourself, by the way?"

It is a trick question Shannon. ..."

No, it's an honest question.
What will it take before we can discuss changing some of the gun laws?

If no amount is worth changing the gun laws, then say so.
I'm just looking for an honest answer.
I want to know at what point can we talk about fixing this problem.

[Travis]

David wrote: "Travis said, "Is anyone really surprised/shocked that the IRS gave a little extra scrutiny to groups that loudly declared they didn't want to pay taxes and had members burning the president in effi..."


Really?
Weird about all those tea party rallies that Fox news kept airing and news paper stories.
Wonder how all those lies slipped through.

[Mary]

Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I'm tempted to break Shannon's law in the hopes that you mean it, and will follow the advice of the shouting people.
"

And, ... not talk to you. If not, what advic..."

You make a good point Travis. There is something about guns, that seems to speak to something primal in some people. They see them as a symbols of power or manhood or a combination of both. It makes some feels as if they are invincible and that is a hard emotion to counteract. I can only think that some of the opposition to any gun legislation comes from the fear that an actual part of themselves may be taken away.
Of course this is not true of all people with guns or even most people, most see them as a tool that is used appropriately but not worshiped.
But there is a reason Adam Lanza took his mothers guns and not the knives in her kitchen, or James Holmes walked into a Colorado movie theater with body armor and guns and not a knife or baseball bat.
Guns represent something more than just a weapon for self defense.

[David]

Travis, Give me one link to an instance where people at a Tea Party rally said they wanted to pay no taxes, burned the president in effigy, or said they wanted to kill the president.

I can save you some time. You won't find them. That makes your statement lies and it make you a liar.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "My main interest in the gun control debate is the similarity to religious debates, where one side (appears) to launch off into absolutist arguments based pretty much on belief, with a fanatical fervour."

Indeed.

It's more extensive than you might realize, though.

First, I can understand that, being in the UK, you're not overly interested in the topic. However, you have been making comments and, I think, are someone who likes to pick up new information. Some of what I'm about to say is mentioned in what I already posted. Some is from articles and such in our news; I'm not posting those given that you're not overly interested and can Google what I'm about to say.

Both sides in the gun control argument in the US make absolutist claims that are based in lack of evidence and personal beliefs.

Do pro-gun people? Yes. True. No argument from me.

But, then ... we also have the anti-gun side. I bet you've heard and seen a bunch of articles that talk about "myths" believed by gun advocates. Right? One of those "myths" deals with people saving themselves from guns and women stopping rape with guns. Anti-gun outfits, people writing opinion pieces for CNN, politicians, etc... say this is a myth. They say the statistics don't prove that people save themselves with guns, that women don't save themselves from being raped with guns. The statistics just don't back up the myth, or so they say. The public sees their words and believe. Without thought or research. It must be true. Right?

Here's the thing....

That's only an accurate statement due to the fact that we don't keep statistics of people who save themselves with guns.

Seriously ... take that in.

The government, FBI, etc... keep statistics on everything. How many murders, suicides, etc.... Hate crimes. Rapes. The CIA, given the info on the World Fact Book, seems to keep track of how many people have phones, etc.... But, we don't keep information on how many crime victims use guns to protect themselves in a crime. Why? Would it be difficult? Yes and no. The police keep record of that information, when dealing with reported crimes. I'm sure they have that stuff in their databanks. If we went into the what if's that you discussed ... it would be difficult. For example, this is mine, how can we know the man would have raped and killed the woman? How can we know she saved herself with the gun? Take a home invasion. How can we know the men who entered with guns would have killed the family? Maybe they wouldn't have. Maybe they'd only kill one person. Okay .... (Not going down the path of ... what if the men didn't have guns. That's not our reality nor will it be. Do you know how many guns are out there?)

Here's the thing.... While factually accurate, anti-gun advocates are misleading the public and are attempting, if conscious of the whole picture, to sway opinion based on misinformation. The stats don't prove the "myth" ... because there are no stats. The stats from the '90's don't prove the "myth" because the crime rate was lower then. Last time we had stats.

Even though difficult, we could make an attempt. Couldn't we? Yes. We could explain the problems with the process and how we came up with our conclusions. Fine.

But, the ultimate reality is ... when people hear someone say, "The stats don't back up that belief," people think there are stats to prove the opposite. I bet a ton of people leap to that conclusion. If the stats don't prove it, they must prove the opposite. That's how many people's brains work.

But, no, there aren't stats to disprove the myth. There just aren't stats, adequate and appropriate stats.

Fascinatingly, a democratic politician recently said there aren't stats to prove women save themselves with guns, save themselves from rapes. Further, he said, they could protect themselves in other ways. Guess what he mentioned? Safe zones and rape whistles.

Taking the mom from Oklahoma.... Do we think a safe zone and rape whistle would have saved her?

Lots of people making statements that they can't back up. :(

[Travis]

Mary wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I'm tempted to break Shannon's law in the hopes that you mean it, and will follow the advice of the shouting people.
"

And, ... not talk to you. If ..."

Well, the fact that they are not called 'defense rifles' would seem to be a hint.

and while everyone brings up the 'you can kill someone with a baseball bat' argument, the NRA is not recommending that we post people in schools with baseball bats.

And while there are responsible gun owners out there, I know a couple, even they seem to immediately jump to the 'all or nothing, there is no other way to defend yourself'' point of view when they talk about it.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "So, are you saying you misunderstood me, misrepresented me for days, and despite several attempts at explaining and "correcting" you, you responded based on your beliefs regarding my intentions versus my words?"

No.

I am saying that you seemed to be using the Chinese example to show that sometimes science intrudes on the real world in a potentially negative way. That indeed was the point I was trying to address by pointing out the difference between that experiment that may have an associated risk and may have tangible benefits against when beliefs are used to justify actions or policies that effect people outside that belief.

I haven't been trying to attack you, certainly not as much as your repeated accusations that I am seeking to attack you or alluding to me deliberately trying to deceive or evade when actually I was trying to understand your point and discuss.

Shannon wrote: "I don't expect you to agree with me. I can't imagine that you will agree with me."

That's fine. I still don't see why examining why I disagree is a problem?

Shannon wrote: " Further, I detailed the fact that I, more than many, do not take risks and went into why I don't. Nothing to do with religion or science. Everything to do with my makeup. So, yeah, for you, it might not be that big of a risk. Or, the risk might be manageable. Worth the benefits. Fine. You've said it. Several, several times. You're saying it again."

Except I don't accept your premise. You seem to be fond of these absolute statements. 'You do not convert people'. 'You do not take risks'. Yet I see you here arguing against people with different points of view in public, which to my mind is an attempt at changing peoples minds which can be described as an attempt to convert people to your way of thinking. In the same way you claim that you do not take risks, yet I cannot see how you can justify that statement. Do you own a knife, a car, a gun? Do you drive, walk or eat?

Do you understand what I mean? You may choose to define a certain level of debate here as "not converting" and you may chose to define a certain level of risk as "negligible". While it's fine to do so, I don't think you can then define those levels for everyone else too.


Shannon wrote: "Given my makeup, Gary, while I understand where you're coming from, I, Shannon, would not take the risk in a facility with questionable security. Period. That's me. My opinion. I have a right to it ... without being falsely represented for days on end."

While I also feel that you have been falsely representing me for days on end, but if we both keep accusing each other of doing so then we will get nowhere, which is why I am trying not only to understand your point as you intended to make it not as I understood it but also try to make you understand my point, not your interpretation of it.

Shannon wrote: "You think my original point ... that science can intrude upon our lives negatively from time to time ... as religion can intrude upon our lives negatively from time to time ... isn't a good point. Isn't the same as the evils of religion?"

Yes I agree, the products of science can effect us negatively, yet it is not science (i.e. the methodology of searching and verifying knowledge) that is usually the issue. It is the abuse of science or not considering ethical consequences of the methods used for science that is the problem, not the methodology of science itself.

This is the difference I see between science (which is essentially a tool that can create things that can be wielded for good or ill) compared to religion which when it intrudes on those outside it's sphere, often does so negatively.

Shannon wrote: "Religion doesn't have checks and balances? Science does. (Always?)"
Again "always" is an absolute term. My point is that it does have a system of checks and balances, which works most of the time. More to the point science doesn't turn around and tell us how to use it. It tells us what is around us and what we are, not what we must do to each other. It also gives us a framework to resolve disputes between ideas within it in a peaceful and most of all constructive manner.

Meanwhile religion is divisive and compels its adherents to behave in particular ways, some good, many bad.

Let us say Stephen Hawking says that the Universe is made out of crepe paper and you disagree. How do you resolve this? You look at his data and try to see if he's wrong.

Let us say the pope tells you that homosexuals should be marginalised and should be considered evil if they have sex, and you disagree. How do you resolve this?

Shannon wrote: "Fine, Gary. You have a right to that opinion. Equally, I have a right to mine. ."

A very nice thing to say, until that belief intrudes on reality. Does the racist have a right to their opinion that the other races should be expelled/enslaved/killed? At what point do they lose the right to act based on that opinion? If someone believes that people do not have a right to their opinion, do they have a right to that opinion?

In effect that nice, but unworkable, concept you gave there demonstrates to me the problem. Beliefs are fine - as long as you don't expect people to act on them, yet they always will.

[Travis]

David wrote: "Travis, Give me one link to an instance where people at a Tea Party rally said they wanted to pay no taxes, burned the president in effigy, or said they wanted to kill the president.

I can save yo..."

Not great with the link thing, but here's a couple.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_nweQSRDkBhs/TJO...

http://blog.wallack.us/2009/09/here-w...

No burning yet, can't remember what paper that one was in, but I figure Hitler references and death threats would be acceptable.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: (Somewhere, cHriS is thinking ... emotive.) ..."

Here ....emotive, maybe, but you are correct, as I see it.

I have had to read the last 40 or so posts quickly but I do get the gist of the discussion.

Like other topics here, this topic is not black or white and I think Travis does tend to see things without much grey in the middle.

Unlike the US the UK does not have guns. Yes we have special police unites with guns and some armed officers, but apart from that and gun clubs and some farmers and gangs on the street we do not have guns. We are one of only two countries who's police do not carry guns.

When I’ve been to Florida I do wonder what are the precise rules about US citizens been allow to carry guns. I wonder if that lady has a gun in her handbag or that person has a gun in their Levis waistband. It is quite hot out there so most folk don't ware a lot of cloths and it would be hard to conceal a gun, I suppose. Although………….

I watched a programme last night called 'cops', about the Las Vegas police. A sheriff stopped a truck because the driver had an out of date licence. He asked the truck driver to get out the truck and as he did so, a small hand gun fell out of the drivers sock and onto the ground. The cop cuffed him and called for back-up.

This was the bit that ‘puzzled’ me. He asked the driver if he had a permit to carry the gun in public.

The driver said ‘no’
The cop said ‘why not’?
The driver replied ‘can’t afford it’.

..and the cop then said, and this is the bit I find odd, ‘you can’t afford it? it only costs sixty bucks.

The issue seemed to be the sixty bucks and not the fact the guy had a gun. But that is me looking at things from a UK perspective, I guess.

The gun thing in the US is all about ‘rights’ something Travis is usually quite ‘hot’ on but I guess that if two sets of rights are at issue then you have to take sides.

While the US laws are as they are, then Shannon your rights to have a gun a home precede the Childs rights not to be shot, if indeed the right not to be shot is a 'right'.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Both sides in the gun control argument in the US make absolutist claims that are based in lack of evidence and personal beliefs."

I am aware of that, and it does bother me.

Shannon wrote: "That's only an accurate statement due to the fact that we don't keep statistics of people who save themselves with guns."

From what you wrote I would actually agree with the gun control lobby because of one of the basic precepts of evidence is that the person making the claim needs to provide evidence to back that claim. 'That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'

So if one side claims that guns are significant in saving women from rape, then they need to back that claim with the statistics that are apparently not gathered. So for the other side to say "there is no evidence to support that position" is - in this case - entirely accurate from what you said.

Shannon wrote: "But, we don't keep information on how many crime victims use guns to protect themselves in a crime. Why? Would it be difficult? Yes and no."

I'd say very difficult, because you don't have a "control" group to try to eliminate other factors and the data is hard to distinguish. At what point does the gun protect them from the crime? What would have happened if they hadn't had the gun? General criminal behaviour seems to indicate that a potential victim with the guts to pull a gun, probably has the guts to make their assailant back down without one. Many crimes only proceed because the victim is intimidated. We'd also have to balance this with the number of crimes enabled by guns.

Shannon wrote: "For example, this is mine, how can we know the man would have raped and killed the woman? How can we know she saved herself with the gun? Take a home invasion. How can we know the men who entered with guns would have killed the family? Maybe they wouldn't have. Maybe they'd only kill one person."

Yeah, exactly.


Shannon wrote: "The stats don't prove the "myth" ... because there are no stats. The stats from the '90's don't prove the "myth" because the crime rate was lower then. Last time we had stats."

Actually crime was higher then, according to statistics.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv11.pdf

Wiki - "After World War II, crime rates increased in the United States, peaking from the 1970s to the early 1990s. Violent crime nearly quadrupled between 1960 and its peak in 1991. Property crime more than doubled over the same period. Since the 1990s, however, crime in the United States has declined steeply."

It's interesting that you thought it was the opposite based on the point I made some time ago. Apparently crime in the USA is lower than ever, but fear of crime is actually higher. As I said before apparently this may be due to the kind of sensationalist news media that is prevalent in the states (that the UK seems to be copying).

Shannon wrote: "Even though difficult, we could make an attempt. Couldn't we? Yes. We could explain the problems with the process and how we came up with our conclusions. Fine."

Speaking scientifically what you would need is a randomised trial to compare the policy of gun control against the policy of gun ownership. Unfortunately there is no real way to administer such a trial.

The only sensible way to do it, I think, is to look at other countries where gun control has been introduced. Now I know that the gun lobby seems to think that every nation that has gun control becomes a stalinest state rapidly, but that belief isn't really backed up by the evidence. Most of Europe has gun control, as does Australia (now). Has Australia become a tyrannical dictatorship? Well it had an atheist Prime Minister but I am reasonably sure that's not the same thing :-D As for crime, the NRA claimed that violent crime had risen in Australia since the introduction, but the Australian government vehemently denied it. Importantly though, since it's was enacted there have been no more mass shootings.

Shannon wrote: "But, the ultimate reality is ... when people hear someone say, "The stats don't back up that belief," people think there are stats to prove the opposite. I bet a ton of people leap to that conclusion. If the stats don't prove it, they must prove the opposite. That's how many people's brains work."

You're quite right, and I've seen it often. However, there is a difference between making the opposite claim and making no claim.

If I assert that Jenni murdered Kate, then I should be expected to produce evidence. If I don't that's not the same as claiming Jenni did not murder Kate, but simply that there is no evidence to make that decision.

So a claim without evidence that on average guns protected rape victims (more than they enabled rapists) does not mean a lack of evidence means they did not, just that there is no grounds to make that claim.

Shannon wrote: "But, no, there aren't stats to disprove the myth. There just aren't stats, adequate and appropriate stats."

Which means that the positive claim (that guns work to protect people) has no proof. Therefore you should not make that claim. This means that until proof is gathered the default position is that it doesn't until evidence shows otherwise.

Shannon wrote: "Taking the mom from Oklahoma.... Do we think a safe zone and rape whistle would have saved her?"

Again, anecdotal evidence should not override the actual statistics. Fine, perhaps in her specific circumstance having a gun was vital, but what if her assailant had a gun?

The point is that does having a gun make you safer overall? Lets face it, if everyone was armed with individual nuclear weapons you would have the means to protect yourself from practically anything, however in that world is anyone particularly safer. (That may seem an argument from absurdity, but I simply wish to show that proliferation and efficiency of weaponry do not automatically make you safer, and in fact often do the opposite.

Shannon wrote: "Lots of people making statements that they can't back up. :( "

True, which is why I am interested (as you kindly indicated) and why I am not 100% decided. However, what we do know is that there have been 30,000 deaths due to guns in the last year, almost 20,000 being suicides, and about 20,000 people accidentally wounded. That's a fairly big risk. Given that most people who are shot, shoot themselves (deliberately or not) or are shot by someone they know, then for that huge risk I'd want some pretty conclusive evidence that widespread gun ownership reduces the overall risk of someone being the victim of crime.

This does not even include the additional effect of how useful a gun is to a criminal. "Data analysis of crime gun databases showed that 70% of guns recovered at crime scenes in Virginia were purchased within one year of the crime, suggesting that in some cases guns are purchased with the intent to commit a crime or murder."

[David]

Travis said, "...I figure Hitler references and death threats would be acceptable."

You figure wrong. There are no death threats in the pictures that see on your links. So instead of your claimed no taxes, effigies, and death threats you are offering references to nazis and guns? Weak. Just admit it, you made up some claims with no facts to back them up.

[cHriS]

.....another thing about guns in the US; it would be almost impossible to change the way things are regarding guns, even if the voters wanted it changed.

Imagine the US saying that it is changing the side of the road you drive on. As from 1st Jan 2014 you will all drive on the left. That would be easy compared to getting rid of guns.

http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/history/d...

[Travis]

David wrote: "Travis said, "...I figure Hitler references and death threats would be acceptable."

You figure wrong. There are no death threats in the pictures that see on your links. So instead of your claime..."


So, threatening to use a gun does not constitute a death threat?

[Mary]

David wrote: "Travis, Give me one link to an instance where people at a Tea Party rally said they wanted to pay no taxes, burned the president in effigy, or said they wanted to kill the president.

I can save yo..."

Here ya go...guy in front says "No new taxes" Guy in back says "No Taxes".....
http://media.nola.com/politics/photo/...

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "They see them as a symbols of power or manhood or a combination of both. "

Where I live, a great many people see them as a tool to use to feed their families. Many families hunt. I've had students who got up and hunted for an hour or so before school and left right after school to hunt. Nothing was more heartbreaking than watching them, day after day, if no one got an animal. That's the type of thing that feeds some people around here, at least protein, for the winter. Talk about primal. But, that is more of desperation than anything else.

[Mary]

Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "They see them as a symbols of power or manhood or a combination of both. "

Where I live, a great many people see them as a tool to use to feed their families. Many families hunt. I'..."

Shannon, maybe you didn't read my post carefully, but I said most people see guns as a tool. I think you know exactly what I am talking about but you enjoy splitting hairs and arguing for the sake of arguing. That's fine. But you basically restated what I did, most people are able to view guns as tools, but a certain amount see them as an extension of their bodies, or as the ultimate symbol of power.
Can you address my statement as to why mass killers like Adam Lanza or James Holmes or Seung Cho or Dylan Klebold or Eric Harris or any other of our too long list of mass killers, used guns, often many guns?Why not a knife? Why not a baseball bat? Because a gun represents more than a tool to some. It is pure power.

[Tim]

David wrote: " Guns are valuable so it makes sense that they were taken. People who have guns have other things to steal. You could just as easily say that because those people were also robbed of their money that money is the problem and people should not have money. "

Yes, that is indeed correct. Not strictly money though. A recent study published here showed that you are much more of a target if you flaunt your wealth by owning expensive cars, wearing valuable jewellery etc. I know that's not what you want to hear, but that's what the study showed.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I don't expect you to agree with me. I can't imagine that you will agree with me."

That's fine. I still don't see why examining why I disagree is a problem?"

That's not a problem. Taking my words and saying I was accusing all scientists of being criminals was a problem. That, for example, is the quasi-personal attack that I mentioned.

But, it's done.

[Tim]

Furthermore, they're not stealing the guns because they are valuable, or to sell to people who like to hunt rabbits. They are selling them to people who like to commit crime, or using them themselves.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "The stats don't prove the "myth" ... because there are no stats. The stats from the '90's don't prove the "myth" because the crime rate was lower then. Last time we had stats."

Actually crime was higher then, according to statistics. "

Yes, indeed. I've said that in my prior posts, two or three of them. That was a typo. Guessing I was thinking about the crime rate being lower now.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Please show me where/how not having a gun takes away your right to defend yourself?"

Asking questions while refusing to answer questions.... Doesn't that make you feel the least bit weird?

As I asked yesterday, ....

Background first ....

We have a documented case of a woman, around 19 or 20, in Oklahoma. Her husband died of cancer two weeks before. A man came to her door a week or so after. She wouldn't let him in. A week after that, he showed up with another man. They had and were brandishing a 12-inch hunting knife.

Her doors were locked. She called 911. She was told the police wouldn't get there for close to an hour due to her remote location.

She locked herself and her baby in her bedroom. The men broke in. Did they steal things and leave? No. They moved directly to her bedroom and broke down the door.

Questions ...

How was she to defend herself?

I'd like you to answer that question.

You're the one who keeps saying people can protect themselves without guns. Okay. Prove it. Think past the statement ... People can protect themselves without guns.

Think about it, Travis.

One teenager and an infant against two men with a 12-inch hunting knife.

How, Travis?

Prove it to me. Show me. Explain to me. What could she have done to save her life?

If you're so sure about this, prove it. What could she have done?

I eagerly await your answer....

Or, ... do you intend to ask me which baby was worth more, the baby in Oklahoma or the child without front teeth in Sandy Hook? Tell me to answer that first, to be a good role model...?

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "Gary, everyone on here deals in hypothetical and anecdotal and even Shannon admits the information she throws out there may or may not be true. So don't worry too much about defending yourself. "

Fast learner, Mary! Kudos. I make it a point to mention when I'm unsure of a statement. I made that point, what, once in the last few days. I don't make bold statements, as if they're true, without backing them with evidence. But, hey.... When you say, "...even Shannon admits the information she throws out there may or may not be true," you call everything I say into question.

Well done!

If, of course, that's the sort of thing you want to stand for.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Please show me where/how not having a gun takes away your right to defend yourself?"

Asking questions while refusing to answer questions.... Doesn't that make you feel the least bi..."

again, you can go into increasingly grisly details abut THE MEANS and THE EFFECTIVENESS of a defense, which in no way changes THE RIGHT.

Is that woman able to effectively defend herself without a gun? Probably not.
Does her right magically vanish without a gun? No.

Losing the gun does not take away the right. That is the point I made.

You cannot say taking away your gun takes the right away.
You can make statements (and have, over and over again) about how that effects the ability,effectiveness or ability, but none of that takes away your right to defend yourself.

Unless you are arguing that you only get your rights to defend yourself if you have a gun?
Do unarmed people have the right to defend themselves?
Do I, a liberal nutjob atheist gun hater have the right to defend myself if I refuse to own a gun?

When Daves' hypothetical knife wielder comes at me, do I just stand there and get stabbed? I have no gun, so I have no right to defend myself.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Then tell me why you believe people cannot defend themselves without a gun? Why is it the only method or item that can used for defense? "

First question ....

I don't believe people can't defend themselves without a gun.

Prevention is helpful. I always lock my car doors. I always lock the door to my place. I close and lock the windows at night, regardless of the heat.

As I mentioned last night, I've taken self-defense courses, twice. Courses that took place for a couple hours every week for a month or two. They were pretty intense. I took one with one of my cousins, in order to beat the crap out of one another. Truly. People aren't rough with one another in those classes, but a criminal who wants to hurt you will be. Therefore, we did it together and pounded on one another. Were constantly bruised. Of course, we weren't stupid. A man or men who wanted to take our rights from us would be 10 times rougher, more likely than not. So, clearly, I value self-defense courses, tactics, and think they would be helpful in protecting myself. I think they'd be helpful to anyone. Further, the Israeli method, Krav Maga, could be learned and employed by anyone, which is why they use it. It's learned "quickly" and can be used by all sorts of people ... fit or not, young or old, good health or with various issues. I hope more people here become certified to give courses; I'd like to take one.

I even have a whistle. And, ... pepper spray. And, ... a metal baseball bat. Of course, I'm aware a whistle only works if someone is there to hear it. And, hey, people might think it's just a whistle. Pepper spray works, sometimes, but not always. I've heard from law enforcement and an ex-... yuck ... boyfriend who was in the Army that pepper spray can be problematic. First, if you've been sprayed before, it's not likely to work on you. You know how to work through it or something. They also told me the person using the spray often has issues with sight and breathing. Given my asthma, my ex-boyfriend suggested I not use it; he feared I'd go into an attack, which would make defending myself rather difficult.

The bat could likely do some damage. If.... If I was going up against one person.... If that person wasn't armed with a knife or a gun.

Tasers.... I think civilians can buy them. I've never seen one or used one. I'm also aware that law enforcement is starting to turn from tasers. To many people have heart attacks.

So, all of those things can, possibly, work. It sort of depends, though, doesn't it. Two men with a knife. Nope. I don't see self-defense, hand to hand, working that well. Not against two men. No. Against one man? I'd take serious, serious injuries. The woman in Israel a year or two ago ... at home with her baby, asleep, her husband on duty for the IDF. When the Palestinian broke in with a knife to kill her, she fought him. Using Krav Maga. Of course, she'd been trained, as all women in Israel are trained in self-defense, etc... due to military duty. She fought him off, but she took extensive wounds.

Which, ... is getting to your last question ....

There will be times, when one is up against someone with a weapon or multiple attackers, that one would need a gun in order to defend him/herself.

The woman in Oklahoma were up against two armed men. My cousin, who was kidnapped, beaten and raped, multiple times, went up against two men. It happens. I know it does. I know it does because I saw, first hands, the results of two men who took the rights of another human being away.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Then tell me why you believe people cannot defend themselves without a gun? Why is it the only method or item that can used for defense? "

First question ....

I don't believe peopl..."

But which of those examples took the right to defend yourself away?
Do any of your examples involve the RIGHT going away?
Do any of your victims go "I don't have a gun, I have no right to defend myself?'

That's what I'm talking about.
The gun is the means, not the right.
You might need a gun to defend yourself, but that gun does not give or take away your right.

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "Shannon, maybe you didn't read my post carefully, but I said most people see guns as a tool. "

Did it occur to you that I was sharing what seems to be the norm in my area? Many people here hunt and need to do so. Something that isn't usually discussed, in part due to the fact that not everyone lives in rural areas in which one can hunt.

Yes, some do likely view them as their "power" or "manhood" as you suggested. I've no idea about the killers you mentioned; I've not read about them past initial news reports.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "You cannot say taking away your gun takes the right away."

Okay.... So, the mom in Oklahoma would have still had the right to defend herself. She could have yelled, "This is my safety zone," blown her rape whistle, thrown a baby bottle at them, and gone at them with her bare hands.

Sadly, she'd have been raped or killed or raped and killed. Who knows if they would have raped and killed the infant.

So, ... what is your point, exactly, Travis?

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "But which of those examples took the right to defend yourself away?
Do any of your examples involve the RIGHT going away?
Do any of your victims go "I don't have a gun, I have no right to defend myself?'"

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...?

If one didn't have a gun when going up against two men with a knife, one would likely die.

That right ...?

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "When I’ve been to Florida I do wonder what are the precise rules about US citizens been allow to carry guns. "

The rules actually vary, state to state. State's rights.... From what I've heard, New Jersey has some of the strictest laws regarding carrying and what guns and ammunition you can have. Whereas, I don't believe you even need a concealed carry permit in Vermont. Hold on. Checking. Yup. You don't need a permit in Vermont.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/vermo...

Careful where it says "No Carry Allowed" for the red states. That may mean without a concealed carry permit.

The funny thing ... Vermont is one of the most liberal states in the US, deemed the least religious, with very liberal politicians. Yet, Vermont is one of the states with the most gun rights/least restrictions.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "You cannot say taking away your gun takes the right away."

Okay.... So, the mom in Oklahoma would have still had the right to defend herself. She could have yelled, "This is my sa..."

My point is people have said 'If you take away my guns you take away my right to defend myself' and that isn't how it works.

and no matter how many stories you tell me, they are all about the means of defense, none of them are about the right.
Stop treating the means like it's the right.

Yes, people sometimes die without a gun and sometimes they die with a gun.
Sometimes people without a gun defend themselves and if tomorrow Obama managed to make all the guns go away, you still have the right to defend yourself.


Both have the right to defend themselves.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "But which of those examples took the right to defend yourself away?
Do any of your examples involve the RIGHT going away?
Do any of your victims go "I don't have a gun, I have no rig..."

Yes, the same right that those 20 six year olds in Newtown lost because the shooters Mom had the right to bear arms.

That right.

[Mary]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "But which of those examples took the right to defend yourself away?
Do any of your examples involve the RIGHT going away?
Do any of your victims go "I don't have a gun, I have no rig..."

Well, what if it makes me happy to drive my car 150 miles an hour down a busy street? Or maybe I am extremely happy to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater? Or maybe my happiness depends on me letting my 5 year old smoke cigarettes? Shouldn't I have the RIGHT to pursue my happiness? How dare anyone infringe on my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!!!

Or, just maybe, as a society we set up boundaries and regulations about what exactly what it looks like to possess certain rights. The 2nd amendment clearly says " a well-regulated" militia. Yet many gloss over that part and say "my right to bear arms" as if that's all the amendment says....
Just like Freedom of Speech does not mean you can say anything you want whenever you want without repercussions, the 2nd Amendment does not say you should be able to arm yourself with any gun, in any quantity you want.
Shannon, you put forth a lot of observations, but then say you have no idea who the mass shooters I mentioned are because you don't bother to read about them when the shootings occurred? You also state over and over again that you are not sure the things you say are fact based or not. Are all your arguments then based on anecdotal evidence you heard second or third hand? I have to tell you that can lead to a lot of misinformation.

As Travis stated before...your example of the woman in Oklahoma shows that she owned her gun legally and used it in self defense. Okay. Great. There are also 30,000 gun deaths a year in this country. How about the accident death where a 4 year old got his uncle's ( a cop)gun and accidentally shoots his aunt dead?
If you can use the Oklahoma woman's example to say "Look guns save lives" Then i get to use Josephine Fanning as an example where a legally owned gun killed.

I think both sides of this debate need to see what 30,000 dead looks like. We need to see and hear weekly the names, faces and circumstances of those who were killed by guns in this country. That would be a real eye opener for many.
By all means also compile and publish police reports where someone defended themselves with a gun.
Let's make a decision based on facts and evidence.

Right now each side makes all kinds of "claims". Based on often biased research paid for by those who want a certain result. Let's see the raw numbers, the names, faces of these victims. Then let's decide if we can really afford to keep the status quo.

Again, why is America somehow so special/different/unique that we cannot enact sane gun regulations, like many, many industrialized nations have done? Do they just love their children more than we do? DO these countries just value life more than us? I doubt it, but it sure seems they care more for their people than we do.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Taking the mom from Oklahoma.... Do we think a safe zone and rape whistle would have saved her?"

Again, anecdotal evidence should not override the actual statistics. Fine, perhaps in her specific circumstance having a gun was vital, but what if her assailant had a gun? "

Hey, Gary.... I don't think I'm going to answer all of your questions. They might be valid ... though I saw some about racists' rights ... you know how I feel about those.

Here's the thing.... I really don't have it in me to argue with you about this. That's what it is at this point, perhaps for both of us.

If you can't see that having a gun was, in fact, vital for that teen mom, we're never going to understand one another. I might be wrong. I might be the one who is off on this. Further, there have been times when I wished I weren't as fiery in temperament. Wished I was the person who, when faced with this type of situation, would ask the attacker if he wanted a hug versus going for his jugular. I'm not being flip. I'm being for real. There are people who are like that. I'm not. So, hey, maybe non-violence, always, is the right thing. Maybe not owning guns and hoping, if men wielding a knife break into your home, they won't rape you and kill you is the right way to go.

To me, that makes not one whit of sense.

To me, asking those men if they wanted to sit down to dinner or wanted to talk it out or asking them to please leave or begging they not rape and kill her or going at them with bare hands, doesn't enter the realm of reality ... would not, ever, stop the situation.

To survive, in my mind, she needed that gun and needed to use it in that situation. And, by the way, there are lots of those types of situations.

BLACK WIDOW FRYPAN! Travis, that's another means of defense that I'd employ.

Sorry, I digress.

When you say something like the above, ... even if you're coming at it from, I don't know, some scientific standpoint in which you never know if something can happen, is probable, is true ... if you're coming at it from deeply held values regarding non-violence, etc..., I see we will never understand one another on this point. Not really. We're too far apart in our thinking.

So, it seems to me that ... I can say, five more times in five different ways ... that women are attacked by multiple attackers and, in those situations, would need a gun to protect themselves ... and ... you're going to respond by saying ... Perhaps, in that situation, it was vital that she had a gun ... but what if he had a gun.... You can say that five times in five different ways.

I'm guessing neither of us will ever see any of this differently.

We've both had our say. I'll speak for myself. I've had my say and have provided multiple sources to back my argument. What more is there for me to say? My thoughts and feelings, my words and sources, well, they stand. People can read them or not. Think about them or not. Agree or disagree. I don't think there's anymore to be said.

(Other than ... many gun rights folk point to statistics, given in studies, and they hold with those studies. They don't pull crap out of their butts. In fact, there's a study out of a college that says 2.5 million people save themselves with guns each year. Notice that I didn't use that number. I question it on the standpoint of common sense and go with the stats and surveys I gave you. I, thinking it through and being honest, know there is a problem with the surveys, given the age of the statistics. However, having said that, if 100,000 plus Americans saved themselves in the '90's, I find it very hard to believe that none do today. Seems an odd supposition. They do. Americans do save themselves all the time. We don't know about it because statistics aren't kept. They should be, as best as possible, in my opinion. Again, I'm guessing you'll disagree. I know, however, that woman in Oklahoma saved herself and her baby with her gun. I'd count that as two.)

[Mary]

Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "When I’ve been to Florida I do wonder what are the precise rules about US citizens been allow to carry guns. "

The rules actually vary, state to state. State's rights.... From what..."


So are you saying that guns in the hands of liberals are safer? Maybe you are on to something...
Vermont's murder rate ( involving guns) is 1.1 per 100,000 that's the best in the nation and they are #6 on the least restrictive gun regulations list.....okay so does that mean less restrictions mean less gun deaths....
Apparently not because # 3 on the list of least gun death is Hawaii...and they rank 50th on the least restrictive gun law list..also a blue state....SO the most lax gun law state and the most restrictive gun law state rank #1 and #3 in least amount of deaths.
Alaska ranks #1 as the least restrictive state but has a gun murder rate of 4.4 per 100,000 that 4x Hawaii. But wait Alaska is red....SO is Lousiana, with 9.6 murders per 100,000....Hey maybe you found the key..It's not whether or not the sate is restrictive or lax on gun regulations, murder rate depends on whether its red or blue! wink wink