Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Shannon wrote: "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. F..."
Can you give me a link to the college survey you are talking about, I'd like to read more about it.
Mary wrote: "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. "
I think that would be great, Mary. Really. As long as we also saw and heard, weekly, how many people used guns that scared off or stopped attackers. That also would likely be a mind-blowing experience.
Then, we could sit down and ask some hard questions about our culture and try to figure out how to change it.
And, we'd need to decide ... whose rights came first ... prior to changing the culture ... which life is valued more highly....
Regarding how you opened this post, ....
I'm not going to make an assumption. I'm going to ask a question.
Did you mean to imply things like speeding and yelling "FIRE!" in a theater, which might make you happy, equate to a woman saving herself and her baby ... utilizing her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Is that what you meant to imply? Or, were you making a different point?
I think that would be great, Mary. Really. As long as we also saw and heard, weekly, how many people used guns that scared off or stopped attackers. That also would likely be a mind-blowing experience.
Then, we could sit down and ask some hard questions about our culture and try to figure out how to change it.
And, we'd need to decide ... whose rights came first ... prior to changing the culture ... which life is valued more highly....
Regarding how you opened this post, ....
I'm not going to make an assumption. I'm going to ask a question.
Did you mean to imply things like speeding and yelling "FIRE!" in a theater, which might make you happy, equate to a woman saving herself and her baby ... utilizing her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Is that what you meant to imply? Or, were you making a different point?
Mary wrote: "Let's see the raw numbers, the names, faces of these victims."
Agreed.
But, ....
That would give biased results. Wouldn't it?
If you only look at the victims, instead of looking at the victims of gun violence and the people who saved themselves with guns, you'd have biased data.
Agreed.
But, ....
That would give biased results. Wouldn't it?
If you only look at the victims, instead of looking at the victims of gun violence and the people who saved themselves with guns, you'd have biased data.
Mary wrote: "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."
Oops.... Just got to this part. Thank you. Thank you for saying we should look at both. I'd be all for that. Both.
Let's make a decision based on facts and evidence."
Oops.... Just got to this part. Thank you. Thank you for saying we should look at both. I'd be all for that. Both.
Mary wrote: "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...."
No, that wasn't in my head at the time. What was in my head? Many think conservative states with citizens who go to church on Wednesday nights and Sundays are the states that want guns, no gun laws, etc.... Interestingly, Vermont is one of the most liberal and least religious, yet....
But, who knows ... maybe.
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...."
No, that wasn't in my head at the time. What was in my head? Many think conservative states with citizens who go to church on Wednesday nights and Sundays are the states that want guns, no gun laws, etc.... Interestingly, Vermont is one of the most liberal and least religious, yet....
But, who knows ... maybe.
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "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 natio..."
Actually Vermont is the least religious state out of all 50 and Hawaii ranks 7th among least religious...so that just leaves Liberal as the key to being safer?
The top ten most religious states are exclusively Southern. based on a 2013 Gallup poll
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/02/13/w...
Mary wrote: "Can you give me a link to the college survey you are talking about, I'd like to read more about it. "
That says 2.5? Give me a few minutes. Like I said, though, my guess is it's highly problematic. How could that be possible? But, hold on.
That says 2.5? Give me a few minutes. Like I said, though, my guess is it's highly problematic. How could that be possible? But, hold on.
Mary wrote: "Actually Vermont is the least religious state out of all 50 and Hawaii ranks 7th among least religious...so that just leaves Liberal as the key to being safer?"
Possibly. Though, I'm guessing Gary and other people who understand science would say ... slow down. Guessing one would need to examine other factors and such things. Could other factors be at play, etc...? I don't know how one would test for that.
Possibly. Though, I'm guessing Gary and other people who understand science would say ... slow down. Guessing one would need to examine other factors and such things. Could other factors be at play, etc...? I don't know how one would test for that.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "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."Right....
She had the right to tell them not to ente..."
Right....
So, you do understand the difference...
Now that we've established that I'm more than happy to talk about means and the practical side if you'd like.
Bring on your multitude of scenarios and we can forget all about rights, except for the second amendment.
If those 20 first graders in Newtown had had guns, they would have had the means to defend themselves and then they could have enjoyed the rights you mention, including gay marriage, as it's a right in Connecticut.
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "Can you give me a link to the college survey you are talking about, I'd like to read more about it. "
That says 2.5? Give me a few minutes. Like I said, though, my guess is it's hig..."
Well, hell....
I already did. I can't believe it!
Look at this article ... it mentions the 100,000 (NCVS/study) number I discussed and the problems. It also mentions the 2.5 million number.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion...
Okay, so .... I wanted to look up info on the NCVS/study, which I included. That seemed to be the most reasonable, in my opinion. I'm guessing I got the Kleck info, somehow, in trying to find information on the NCVS/study. I read all the portions regarding the NCVS/study and knew Kleck thought the number was higher, but .... Either I didn't realize Kleck was the 2.5 guy or forgot between when the kiddos were doing research and now. But, go back to the post I sent to Gary ... Maybe on Friday. It gives info on NCVS ... but the stuff on Kleck is the 2.5 guy.
Now, the fascinating thing about that ... I feel like I remember, though it seems my memory is a bit off ... someone saying he couldn't argue with Kleck's methodology but was upset that Kleck's study might go against his (the man speaking) ideology. If I remember correctly, when I read the NCVS part of the Kleck piece and part of the Kleck piece, he based his research on self-reporting ... maybe through a phone survey. I remember thinking that was problematic and steering one and all to the NCVS/study ... not allowing them to use Kleck or the 2.5 million ... not realizing Kleck and the 2.5 million were on in the same.
Hell ....
I need more sleep.
That says 2.5? Give me a few minutes. Like I said, though, my guess is it's hig..."
Well, hell....
I already did. I can't believe it!
Look at this article ... it mentions the 100,000 (NCVS/study) number I discussed and the problems. It also mentions the 2.5 million number.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion...
Okay, so .... I wanted to look up info on the NCVS/study, which I included. That seemed to be the most reasonable, in my opinion. I'm guessing I got the Kleck info, somehow, in trying to find information on the NCVS/study. I read all the portions regarding the NCVS/study and knew Kleck thought the number was higher, but .... Either I didn't realize Kleck was the 2.5 guy or forgot between when the kiddos were doing research and now. But, go back to the post I sent to Gary ... Maybe on Friday. It gives info on NCVS ... but the stuff on Kleck is the 2.5 guy.
Now, the fascinating thing about that ... I feel like I remember, though it seems my memory is a bit off ... someone saying he couldn't argue with Kleck's methodology but was upset that Kleck's study might go against his (the man speaking) ideology. If I remember correctly, when I read the NCVS part of the Kleck piece and part of the Kleck piece, he based his research on self-reporting ... maybe through a phone survey. I remember thinking that was problematic and steering one and all to the NCVS/study ... not allowing them to use Kleck or the 2.5 million ... not realizing Kleck and the 2.5 million were on in the same.
Hell ....
I need more sleep.
Travis wrote: "So, you do understand the difference...
Now that we've established that I'm more than happy to talk about means and the practical side if you'd like.
Bring on your multitude of scenarios and we can forget all about rights, except for the second amendment.
If those 20 first graders in Newtown had had guns, they would have had the means to defend themselves and then they could have enjoyed the rights you mention, including gay marriage, as it's a right in Connecticut. "
Do I? I'm feeling rather tired and confused, actually.
Given how many questions and scenarios I've put forth, I'm guessing you can answer them without my re-typing them. Right? Seriously.... Or, are you poking fun? Too tired to try to figure it out.
Now, regarding first graders packing heat.... Not sure I'd suggest that.
But, if any of the educators had been carrying, those babies would have been able to grow up to have abortions, universal health care, and gay marriage.
(No, I'm not one for teachers packing heat. Though, I am for SRO's, school resource officers, and have worked with several ... who are armed.)
Now that we've established that I'm more than happy to talk about means and the practical side if you'd like.
Bring on your multitude of scenarios and we can forget all about rights, except for the second amendment.
If those 20 first graders in Newtown had had guns, they would have had the means to defend themselves and then they could have enjoyed the rights you mention, including gay marriage, as it's a right in Connecticut. "
Do I? I'm feeling rather tired and confused, actually.
Given how many questions and scenarios I've put forth, I'm guessing you can answer them without my re-typing them. Right? Seriously.... Or, are you poking fun? Too tired to try to figure it out.
Now, regarding first graders packing heat.... Not sure I'd suggest that.
But, if any of the educators had been carrying, those babies would have been able to grow up to have abortions, universal health care, and gay marriage.
(No, I'm not one for teachers packing heat. Though, I am for SRO's, school resource officers, and have worked with several ... who are armed.)
Shannon wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "Can you give me a link to the college survey you are talking about, I'd like to read more about it. "That says 2.5? Give me a few minutes. Like I said, though, my g..."
So the link you gave me said that the survey was based on old data from 2 decades ago, nonspecific questions to the surveyed and results that are unverifiable.....The link you gave me pretty much said the data was false. So why are you quoting this survey, to point out that we have no real number about guns preventing crime? Except the FBI report that said 213 justifiable homicides occurred in 2005-2010. That's not very many. Of course maybe not every instance ended in the gun owner killing the attacker.
Just seems that all the evidence is anecdotal, but there are sure pretty clear numbers on how many die a year from guns.
Mary wrote: "So the link you gave me said that the survey was based on old data from 2 decades ago, nonspecific questions to the surveyed and results that are unverifiable.....The link you gave me pretty much said the data was false. So why are you quoting this survey, to point out that we have no real number about guns preventing crime?"
You're welcome, Mary, for taking the time to look into that for you.
Regarding the above, perhaps you're forgetting the times, two or three times, when I mentioned the 100,000 number is problematic due to the fact that the data is from the '90's when the crime rate was 30% higher. Full disclosure. Something I believe in. In fact, if I remember correctly, I asked in one of my posts if it made mathematical sense to take the 100,000 number and take 30% to account for the differentiation in crime rates ... doing the math ... and asking if that would work.
Anyway, why would I use that info ... I'd use it as I used it ... stating that people look toward that number, but they also find it problematic. Even with that, it seems to be, in my opinion ... as I've stated, the closest we have. But, hey, maybe we should go with the 2.5 million number.
But, hey, maybe no one in America protects themselves with guns. I guess that's possible. I sort of doubt it. But, maybe ....
Regarding justifiable homicides, .... I'd have to do some research, and I'm not going to. Maybe you could do that for us and share your sources as I've done. How do they define justifiable homicide? And, yes, one could assume there are instances in which a gun is used to protect oneself, if such a thing actually happens, and the perpetrator isn't killed. Would be nice to have those numbers. I'm also guessing, if it's possible for a person to protect himself/herself with a gun, for the perpetrator to run away without being shot at all. It would be nice to know what those numbers look like. (By the way, some people are crappy shots.)
If you decide to take this on, please let us know and share your sources. I'd love to look at those numbers.
You're welcome, Mary, for taking the time to look into that for you.
Regarding the above, perhaps you're forgetting the times, two or three times, when I mentioned the 100,000 number is problematic due to the fact that the data is from the '90's when the crime rate was 30% higher. Full disclosure. Something I believe in. In fact, if I remember correctly, I asked in one of my posts if it made mathematical sense to take the 100,000 number and take 30% to account for the differentiation in crime rates ... doing the math ... and asking if that would work.
Anyway, why would I use that info ... I'd use it as I used it ... stating that people look toward that number, but they also find it problematic. Even with that, it seems to be, in my opinion ... as I've stated, the closest we have. But, hey, maybe we should go with the 2.5 million number.
But, hey, maybe no one in America protects themselves with guns. I guess that's possible. I sort of doubt it. But, maybe ....
Regarding justifiable homicides, .... I'd have to do some research, and I'm not going to. Maybe you could do that for us and share your sources as I've done. How do they define justifiable homicide? And, yes, one could assume there are instances in which a gun is used to protect oneself, if such a thing actually happens, and the perpetrator isn't killed. Would be nice to have those numbers. I'm also guessing, if it's possible for a person to protect himself/herself with a gun, for the perpetrator to run away without being shot at all. It would be nice to know what those numbers look like. (By the way, some people are crappy shots.)
If you decide to take this on, please let us know and share your sources. I'd love to look at those numbers.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "So, you do understand the difference...Now that we've established that I'm more than happy to talk about means and the practical side if you'd like.
Bring on your multitude of scena..."
Well, when you are well rested can you maybe leave that poor woman from Oklahoma alone?
If those teachers had been armed...or if that kid had not had access to assault rifles and extended clips more kids would have survived Newtown.
That's my take on gun laws, I like to see if we could come up with a scenario involving less guns, rather than all the scenarios that involve more guns.
If there's a problem with a house on fire, more fire is not the best idea.
If you have a flood, more water is maybe not the way to go.
Why is the solution to 'we have a problem with guns, always more guns?'
So, if no one can tell me how many dead kids before we can change the gun laws, can anyone tell me why the answer is never less guns?
Travis wrote: "So, if no one can tell me how many dead kids before we can change the gun laws, can anyone tell me why the answer is never less guns? "
Dang! Still asking questions without answering any! Wow!
Or, am I so tired I'm dreaming this....?
Dreaming that you said you'd answer questions ... only to, still, answer nothing but lob more yourself....
Though, I must say I'm glad you've changed the phrasing of your question.
Dang! Still asking questions without answering any! Wow!
Or, am I so tired I'm dreaming this....?
Dreaming that you said you'd answer questions ... only to, still, answer nothing but lob more yourself....
Though, I must say I'm glad you've changed the phrasing of your question.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "So, if no one can tell me how many dead kids before we can change the gun laws, can anyone tell me why the answer is never less guns? "Dang! Still asking questions without answer..."
Yep, and you've been a shining example by...not answering mine.
Tell me how many dead kids before we can change the gun laws and include with your answer your full list of burning unanswered questions and I will ask no more new questions of any one until your list is answered to your full satisfaction.
Let's go.
Travis wrote: "Tell me how many dead kids before we can change the gun laws and include with your answer your full list of burning unanswered questions and I will ask no more new questions of any one until your list is answered to your full satisfaction."
Change the gun laws how? Background checks? None. That's what was before our politicians, legislatively, and that was your last straw. Banning assault rifles? None, in my opinion. Anything else? We need to have a damned discussion, take testimony and look at evidence. Further, we need to look at more things than changing gun laws. Looking only at gun laws is a crock of crap.
Change the gun laws by throwing out the 2nd Amendment? Sophie's choice. You saw what I wrote last night. I wouldn't choose. We'd all die before I picked one baby over another. Given that, you know full well what that number would be. How many people live in America? May the God I believe in forgive me.
Now, ... if I retype a list of my questions, you'll answer them.
I have no desire to be played with, Travis. You're playing games.
You're an intelligent adult. You know what the questions were and are....
Answer them or hide.
Your choice.
Change the gun laws how? Background checks? None. That's what was before our politicians, legislatively, and that was your last straw. Banning assault rifles? None, in my opinion. Anything else? We need to have a damned discussion, take testimony and look at evidence. Further, we need to look at more things than changing gun laws. Looking only at gun laws is a crock of crap.
Change the gun laws by throwing out the 2nd Amendment? Sophie's choice. You saw what I wrote last night. I wouldn't choose. We'd all die before I picked one baby over another. Given that, you know full well what that number would be. How many people live in America? May the God I believe in forgive me.
Now, ... if I retype a list of my questions, you'll answer them.
I have no desire to be played with, Travis. You're playing games.
You're an intelligent adult. You know what the questions were and are....
Answer them or hide.
Your choice.
Travis wrote: "Let's go. "
Let's go ....
Will be chuckling over that unless and until you actually answer my questions thoughtfully and honestly.
Let's go ....
Will be chuckling over that unless and until you actually answer my questions thoughtfully and honestly.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Tell me how many dead kids before we can change the gun laws and include with your answer your full list of burning unanswered questions and I will ask no more new questions of any o..."I'm not playing games.
I asked for a number. If none is your answer that's fine.
No amount of dead kids will get you to change the gun laws.
Stop wasting time and get me the list.
Travis wrote: "Stop wasting time and get me the list. "
Why are you wasting my time? You know the questions.
Answer them as I answered your questions ...
Or hide ....
Your choice.
Why are you wasting my time? You know the questions.
Answer them as I answered your questions ...
Or hide ....
Your choice.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Stop wasting time and get me the list. "Why are you wasting my time? You know the questions.
Answer them as I answered your questions ...
Or hide ....
Your choice."
No, I said give me a complete list, so I can get them all in one place, answer them all in one go to your satisfaction, until you are completely happy with the answers and then we can move on.
I'm not slugging through every one of your epic rants so you can then turn around and go 'you missed one, why didn't you answer...?"
Why are you still talking to me? I am giving what you want, this is your golden ticket, Charlie, get all the answers you've been claiming you've been denied.
So, list or...hide
Travis wrote: "So, list or...hide "
Oh, but I never hide ....
Oh, but I never hide ....
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "So, list or...hide "
Oh, but I never hide ...."
By the way, I had a funny feeling you were going to go that route. Was just thinking of listing all of the questions here, but ....
That wouldn't really be fair. Context. I've complained before about Gary taking me out of context, only taking parts of my posts, etc....
It would be highly hypocritical of me to give him a hard time for that and do it myself.
So, I have a list and will put it in one place....
My questions for you are in the following posts ...
10464
10476
10484
10485
10490
10504
10542
10548
10549
Not sure that you'll be willing to actually do the work and answer the questions. Hiding is definitely easier.
It's up to you. I'm actually hoping you'll prove that you're a man of your word, without ever-changing conditions.
Regardless, I'm going to bed.
Buck up and answer or not. The choice is yours.
However, .... Any excuses given for not answering will be just that. Excuses. That and ... obvious.
Oh, but I never hide ...."
By the way, I had a funny feeling you were going to go that route. Was just thinking of listing all of the questions here, but ....
That wouldn't really be fair. Context. I've complained before about Gary taking me out of context, only taking parts of my posts, etc....
It would be highly hypocritical of me to give him a hard time for that and do it myself.
So, I have a list and will put it in one place....
My questions for you are in the following posts ...
10464
10476
10484
10485
10490
10504
10542
10548
10549
Not sure that you'll be willing to actually do the work and answer the questions. Hiding is definitely easier.
It's up to you. I'm actually hoping you'll prove that you're a man of your word, without ever-changing conditions.
Regardless, I'm going to bed.
Buck up and answer or not. The choice is yours.
However, .... Any excuses given for not answering will be just that. Excuses. That and ... obvious.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "So, you do understand the difference...Now that we've established that I'm more than happy to talk about means and the practical side if you'd like.
Bring on your multitude of scena..."
There is absolutely no proof that those teachers having guns would have stopped Adam Lanza. You have hinted that you are a teacher and I will proudly say I am one. If you are, then you know that a teacher carrying a gun, especially in elementary school is problematic in the least. First, if you want the gun to be always accessible and ready to use, then it needs to be loaded and on your person. This also makes it accessible to your students and their curious hands, plus the human error factor of you accidentally leaving it within their reach.(Which recently happened when a school security guard left his gun in the bathroom, oops)
Now if you want to have a gun at school, but keep it locked up and out of the reach of children, then you have to factor in the amount of time you would need to get to the gun and load it.
Then you would have to factor in your actual ability to calmly aim and shot an unknown intruder while 30 kids scream and grab at you, while simultaneously not accidentally shooting one of your students.....
Columbine had armed security, they could not prevent that shooting. Virginia Tech had armed security, didn't stop those deaths. Policemen are armed and still die in the line of duty. Soldiers are all armed, often heavily, and yet they still die in combat.
**Just having a gun, is not a guarantee that you will be able to protect yourself.
From your post it sounds like you work in a high school or middle school where you have broken up fights. If they push you around in a fight, certainly they could take a gun from you.
Now maybe you are saying we need to arm every man and woman in our country? Do you think that will keep us all safe? Do you see any foreseeable problems with a completely armed citizenry making decisions on who is a threat and who is not?
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Tell me how many dead kids before we can change the gun laws and include with your answer your full list of burning unanswered questions and I will ask no more new questions of any o..."Throw out the 2nd Amendment? Hyperbolic to say the least. Who is saying that?
2nd Amendment says "well-regulated" militia. Gun laws fall under regulation I believe. Or is it only PART of the 2nd amendment that you want to protect?
Gun legislation works in other countries...but we are just so special/unique/magical that we are immune to the benefits of gun regulation? Really?
You have to have a license to drive a car,as a teacher I had to submit to a background check with fingerprints, it takes reams of paperwork and background checks to adopt a child, but it just will not work on reducing gun violence because?? Really?
By all means address mental health care in this country. Maybe the NRA will give some of their money and start a real grassroots movement to greatly improve how mentally ill are treated in this country. I know that would reduce gun violence. So would reducing poverty, establishing real vocational training in the high schools and jobs that pay more than minimum wage. So I'm sure pro-gun advocates and the NRA are also doing all they can to get their members to support non profits in poor areas, to donate the same millions they do to the NRA for schools, to volunteer in schools and to just get out there and help in mental health clinics, right? I mean they say background checks won't help, and banning certain guns won't help, so surely, surely they are putting all their enormous resources behind a real solution....right?
Kinda like OJ looking for the real killer?
Mary wrote: " You have hinted that you are a teacher and I will proudly say I am one. If you are, then you know that a teacher carrying a gun, especially in elementary school is problematic in the least. "
I hinted....
Yeah, Mary, I said I'm a teacher.
I also said I didn't advocate for teachers packing heat. Right? Could swear I said that.
But, I did say I was for SRO's carrying.
By the way, there are also incidents in which school shootings were stopped by people with weapons. There was a school in which an administrator or teacher ran out to his car and got his gun. Not sure how it was legal to have a gun in his car, but .... There was also a recent incident of a man showing up at a school with a gun, trying to get in, and an armed SRO holding him off until reinforcements came. He was killed.
But, of course, you realize your examples are anecdotes, right? As are mine?
I'm guessing someone would have to compile all the numbers and figure it out somehow. Following Gary's logic though, that might be difficult. How many more would have been killed if ....? How many wouldn't have been killed if ...?
Do I realize students who pushed me around in a fight could take a gun from me? Yeah. Pretty sure I get that. That's one of the MANY reasons I don't think teacher's should pack heat, at least in schools. Like I said....
Am I saying we should arm every person? No. I didn't say that, and I'm not saying it secretly in my head. Do I think that will keep us safe? Well, I don't think we should do it to begin with. Do I see any foreseeable problems with a completely armed citizenry making decisions on who is a threat and who is not? Yes. But, then, I never said I was advocating for a completely armed citizenry.
Just having a gun isn't a guarantee that we'd be able to protect ourselves. Going back to that one.
You know ... you're right.
One would have to know how to use the weapon and use it well. One would have to have ammunition for the weapon. One would have to have access to the weapon, readily. One would have to be willing to use the weapon.
Yeah.... For sure.
Wonder if you're willing to answer some of the questions Travis hasn't been answering.
The mother in Oklahoma .... Locked doors, 911, locked in bedroom, police won't get there for an hour, two men kick in her locked bedroom door, and one is wielding a 12-inch hunting knife.
Okay.
Did she have the right to use her gun to protect herself and her infant?
How do you envision her protecting herself and her infant without her gun?
What do you think would have been the most effective means of protecting herself and her infant?
Did having the guns guarantee her safety? No. But, in reality, her gun and her ability to use it saved her tiny baby and herself.
Do you advocate for her right to bear arms? The gun being a shotgun.
Or, do you advocate for doing away with the 2nd Amendment and her right to bear arms?
I hinted....
Yeah, Mary, I said I'm a teacher.
I also said I didn't advocate for teachers packing heat. Right? Could swear I said that.
But, I did say I was for SRO's carrying.
By the way, there are also incidents in which school shootings were stopped by people with weapons. There was a school in which an administrator or teacher ran out to his car and got his gun. Not sure how it was legal to have a gun in his car, but .... There was also a recent incident of a man showing up at a school with a gun, trying to get in, and an armed SRO holding him off until reinforcements came. He was killed.
But, of course, you realize your examples are anecdotes, right? As are mine?
I'm guessing someone would have to compile all the numbers and figure it out somehow. Following Gary's logic though, that might be difficult. How many more would have been killed if ....? How many wouldn't have been killed if ...?
Do I realize students who pushed me around in a fight could take a gun from me? Yeah. Pretty sure I get that. That's one of the MANY reasons I don't think teacher's should pack heat, at least in schools. Like I said....
Am I saying we should arm every person? No. I didn't say that, and I'm not saying it secretly in my head. Do I think that will keep us safe? Well, I don't think we should do it to begin with. Do I see any foreseeable problems with a completely armed citizenry making decisions on who is a threat and who is not? Yes. But, then, I never said I was advocating for a completely armed citizenry.
Just having a gun isn't a guarantee that we'd be able to protect ourselves. Going back to that one.
You know ... you're right.
One would have to know how to use the weapon and use it well. One would have to have ammunition for the weapon. One would have to have access to the weapon, readily. One would have to be willing to use the weapon.
Yeah.... For sure.
Wonder if you're willing to answer some of the questions Travis hasn't been answering.
The mother in Oklahoma .... Locked doors, 911, locked in bedroom, police won't get there for an hour, two men kick in her locked bedroom door, and one is wielding a 12-inch hunting knife.
Okay.
Did she have the right to use her gun to protect herself and her infant?
How do you envision her protecting herself and her infant without her gun?
What do you think would have been the most effective means of protecting herself and her infant?
Did having the guns guarantee her safety? No. But, in reality, her gun and her ability to use it saved her tiny baby and herself.
Do you advocate for her right to bear arms? The gun being a shotgun.
Or, do you advocate for doing away with the 2nd Amendment and her right to bear arms?
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: " You have hinted that you are a teacher and I will proudly say I am one. If you are, then you know that a teacher carrying a gun, especially in elementary school is problematic in the ..."Shannon these are your exact words.."But, if any of the educators had been carrying, those babies would have been able to grow up to have abortions, universal health care, and gay marriage"
Now you do go on to say you don't advocate teachers carrying in the next paragraph...but you can see why I might be confused as you contradicted yourself within the space of two sentences.
Mary wrote: "2nd Amendment says "well-regulated" militia. Gun laws fall under regulation I believe. "
You don't have to, of course, but you might want to read the most recent Supreme Court case regarding this. Might shed some light.
You don't have to, of course, but you might want to read the most recent Supreme Court case regarding this. Might shed some light.
Mary wrote: "Shannon these are your exact words.."But, if any of the educators had been carrying, those babies would have been able to grow up to have abortions, universal health care, and gay marriage"
Now you do go on to say you don't advocate teachers carrying in the next paragraph...but you can see why I might be confused as you contradicted yourself within the space of two sentences.
"
Yup. I'm exhausted, Mary, as I said and am battling a bout of insomnia. The first paragraph you highlighted should have said might.
Wonder what the probability would have been?
We'll never know, I don't think.
Now you do go on to say you don't advocate teachers carrying in the next paragraph...but you can see why I might be confused as you contradicted yourself within the space of two sentences.
"
Yup. I'm exhausted, Mary, as I said and am battling a bout of insomnia. The first paragraph you highlighted should have said might.
Wonder what the probability would have been?
We'll never know, I don't think.
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: " You have hinted that you are a teacher and I will proudly say I am one. If you are, then you know that a teacher carrying a gun, especially in elementary school is problematic in the ..."Did I ever, ever say that guns for personal protection should be banned? You are obviously not reading my post all the way, as demonstrated when you immediately reacted to my post about publishing the faces and names of the dead, not once but twice...only to have to apologize in your third reply when you realized I was advocating just exactly what you were demanding I do.
Shannon I think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. You contradict yourself so often you cannot remember what you said.
I'm really not sure what you believe, you seem to want to argue with whichever side is making the strongest argument.I do know you feel all proof and evidence can be found in your "woman from Oklahoma" example.
You throw out info, and then say "don't know if its true or not", "not sure about that, will have to look it up" Why not just take a deep breath and look things up. It will prevent all the backtracking.
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: " You have hinted that you are a teacher and I will proudly say I am one. If you are, then you know that a teacher carrying a gun, especially in elementary school is problematic in the ..."And having a gun killed Josephine Fanning when her 4 year old nephew found it and shot her. Surely you can admit that if her nephew had found a baseball bat, a stick or even a knife then she'd still be here today. So there we go - tit-for-anecdotal-tat. Now what? Can we move on?
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "2nd Amendment says "well-regulated" militia. Gun laws fall under regulation I believe. "You don't have to, of course, but you might want to read the most recent Supreme Court case re..."
Supreme Court also ruled several times supporting validity of the 18th amendment. You know, the one that was eventually repealed. So they said it was valid, upheld it with legislation, but later it was repealed. So were they incorrect? Heavens no! Right?
The Supreme Court is ONE of our checks and balances. And sometimes they are wrong.
The founding fathers felt the need to write well-regulated militia for a reason right? Isn't the cry from the gun lobby that the 2nd amendment is written exactly how the founder's intended and any attempt to interpret it by the supreme court is an infringement on what our founders wanted?! But you're saying....leave it alone, UNLESS, the supreme court decision in in favor of what you want? They legislate away! Right? No? Feel free to explain your position.
Mary wrote: "Did I ever, ever say that guns for personal protection should be banned?"
Nope. In fact, you said the opposite. However, a lot of what you say makes me wonder a bit .... So, I thought I'd ask for clarification.
Nope. In fact, you said the opposite. However, a lot of what you say makes me wonder a bit .... So, I thought I'd ask for clarification.
Mary wrote: "Supreme Court also ruled several times supporting validity of the 18th amendment. You know, the one that was eventually repealed. So they said it was valid, upheld it with legislation, but later it was repealed. So were they incorrect? Heavens no! Right?
The Supreme Court is ONE of our checks and balances. And sometimes they are wrong.
The founding fathers felt the need to write well-regulated militia for a reason right? Isn't the cry from the gun lobby that the 2nd amendment is written exactly how the founder's intended and any attempt to interpret it by the supreme court is an infringement on what our founders wanted?! But you're saying....leave it alone, UNLESS, the supreme court decision in in favor of what you want? They legislate away! Right? No? Feel free to explain your position. "
Mary, ....
Why don't you read the above statement? Pretend someone else wrote it. Maybe pretend I wrote it.
Can you see who someone would question whether or not the author wanted the 2nd Amendment repealed?
The Supreme Court is ONE of our checks and balances. And sometimes they are wrong.
The founding fathers felt the need to write well-regulated militia for a reason right? Isn't the cry from the gun lobby that the 2nd amendment is written exactly how the founder's intended and any attempt to interpret it by the supreme court is an infringement on what our founders wanted?! But you're saying....leave it alone, UNLESS, the supreme court decision in in favor of what you want? They legislate away! Right? No? Feel free to explain your position. "
Mary, ....
Why don't you read the above statement? Pretend someone else wrote it. Maybe pretend I wrote it.
Can you see who someone would question whether or not the author wanted the 2nd Amendment repealed?
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "Shannon these are your exact words.."But, if any of the educators had been carrying, those babies would have been able to grow up to have abortions, universal health care, and gay marr..."Shannon,
I guess I'll just ask what Travis was asking. What will decrease gun violence?
Why can other countries implement real gun regulation, but we can,t?
Are more guns the only answer to gun violence?
What solutions do you see?
I've told you all my answers to those questions. And please for the sake of all things human do not reference the woman from Oklahoma again as proof of anything.
Yo, cHriS ....
I know I was told once never to mention your name ... you know, along with any reference to Hitler, WWII, Nazis, ... not to use the word "extremism" ... gosh, I know the list goes on and on ....
But, I'm going to go out on a limb and give you a shout out.
Insomnia for the, I've lost track, night in a row. Sitting here, a little punchy, and remembering all the good old days.
It's an "epidemic"?! Right?
Are you seeing it?
You get what I'm saying, right?
Know what I'm thinking?
I'm remembering, oh so fondly, all of the many seemingly endless "rants" about your refusal to answer questions. Gotta tell you.... There have been times when you didn't. But, you've answered a lot more than they give you credit for.
Rants. Calling you names. Saying ugly things. Refusing to "speak" to you.
(Actually not remembering that fondly ... register sarcasm.)
Right?
You've seen it.
Haven't you?
Over the past two or three weeks...?
You've seen all of the questions that people have refused to answer. Haven't you. Many of the same people who maligned you over and over for refusing to answer questions. Right?
Wow! I swear ... it's an dang "epidemic" ... over and over ... person after person ... subject after subject.
Ahahahahahahaha...!
And, to top it all off, I just got even more questions ... without answering any in return.
Just had to take note ....
Just had to say ... I took it in ... I noticed ... I'm not going to say you didn't evade some questions ... but, shoot ... I'm feeling you answered a bushel load more than this ... the hypocrisy is something else again.
I know I was told once never to mention your name ... you know, along with any reference to Hitler, WWII, Nazis, ... not to use the word "extremism" ... gosh, I know the list goes on and on ....
But, I'm going to go out on a limb and give you a shout out.
Insomnia for the, I've lost track, night in a row. Sitting here, a little punchy, and remembering all the good old days.
It's an "epidemic"?! Right?
Are you seeing it?
You get what I'm saying, right?
Know what I'm thinking?
I'm remembering, oh so fondly, all of the many seemingly endless "rants" about your refusal to answer questions. Gotta tell you.... There have been times when you didn't. But, you've answered a lot more than they give you credit for.
Rants. Calling you names. Saying ugly things. Refusing to "speak" to you.
(Actually not remembering that fondly ... register sarcasm.)
Right?
You've seen it.
Haven't you?
Over the past two or three weeks...?
You've seen all of the questions that people have refused to answer. Haven't you. Many of the same people who maligned you over and over for refusing to answer questions. Right?
Wow! I swear ... it's an dang "epidemic" ... over and over ... person after person ... subject after subject.
Ahahahahahahaha...!
And, to top it all off, I just got even more questions ... without answering any in return.
Just had to take note ....
Just had to say ... I took it in ... I noticed ... I'm not going to say you didn't evade some questions ... but, shoot ... I'm feeling you answered a bushel load more than this ... the hypocrisy is something else again.
Shannon wrote: "Yo, cHriS ....I know I was told once never to mention your name ... you know, along with any reference to Hitler, WWII, Nazis, ... not to use the word "extremism" ... gosh, I know the list goes o..."
Imagine how many questions you could have answered instead of that sarcastic rant.
You used a lot of words there, but didn't answer any questions.
Here's what I go out of this post of yours...
Shannon to kettle - "You're black"
Mary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Yo, cHriS ....I know I was told once never to mention your name ... you know, along with any reference to Hitler, WWII, Nazis, ... not to use the word "extremism" ... gosh, I know..."
What questions do you want me to answer Shannon?
10464:My argument that taking away the gun does not equal taking away the right is based on logic.
No gun still gives you the right to defend yourself.
The means/ability to defend yourself has nothing to do with the right.
I own no guns, do I still have the right to defend myself? Yes.
Do i have the means or ability to? Depends the the scenario.
10476
You have a lot of questions here. Am I supposed to get all of them or was there a specific one?
10484
Were the lives of the mom in Oklahoma as valuable as the kids at Sandy Hook
Tricky.
20 kids vs one adult, I'd say, objectively, the kids are more valuable.
Or are we talking would I trade that one mom for the twenty kids?
Since I have no emotional connection to any of these people and only know the mom through your stories, I'd say the kids are still going to win this one.
10484
If she owns a gun and needs to defend herself then she uses it.
Then she has the right and the means.
10490
I'm not refusing. I've been attempting to answer, but you kept treating the means and the right as though they were the same thing.
So, I kept explaining my point and you kept repeating a question that looked like you weren't getting the point, were deliberately missing the point or trying to have a seperate conversation.
10504
Again, you are rambling. Do I answer all of them or is there a certain one?
10542
Hate to repeat myself, but do I answer all of them? When you get going a lot of them seem rhetorical.
Let me know either way.
10548:
My point is people keep stating that taking away your guns takes away your right to defend yourself, which is not true.
It is a logical fallancy, and just as bad as people announcing 'Obama is going to take my guns!'
Mom in Oklahoma has the right to defend herself wether she is armed with a gun or a beanbag.
I have no guns, but still have the right to defend myself. Having the ability is a whole different conversation.
10549
that question doesn't really make much sense.
I just assumed it was you being sarcastic and thinking if you keep hitting me with that mom from Oklahoma I'd go 'You're right! Give everybody a gun!"
Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is considered a right, but it wasn't the one we've been discussing.
I'm still talking about the right to defend yourself.
Think that's all of them
Going to need some clarification on the ones where you rambled.
If any answers you find unsatisfactory, let me know.
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "Supreme Court also ruled several times supporting validity of the 18th amendment. You know, the one that was eventually repealed. So they said it was valid, upheld it with legislation,..."Sorry Shannon. I don't see it. The Supreme Court is only one of our checks and balances. They recently ruled that corporations are people. Citizens United allowed millions of dollars of dark money to be funneled into PAC's with no repercussions or transparency. I'm sure Karl Rove had a lot of splainin' to do when all those 100's of millions did not buy Romney's election as he promised his investors it would. So yes, I do feel the Supreme Court can be wrong. Are you saying it never is?
The 18th Amendment was repealed because people wanted their alcohol back, organized crime probably wasn't so happy about the repeal as they made a killing on illegal alcohol. If you want to extrapolate from my example that I am now advocating the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, regardless of everything else I have said, then yes I think you are punch drunk and should go to bed.
I feel we need comprehensive background checks, a ban on high capacity magazines and assault rifles. That's the legislation I want.
I think those are pretty clear answers.
I feel the woman in Oklahoma was a legal gun owner and she defended herself. All which I have said is legal and not something I think should be changed.
I have also stated that is but one example, anecdotal example, and there are plenty others where guns had no positive effect on the victim of a crime's ability to survive the crime.
What other questions would you like answered?
I do not shirk or hide. Those are my beliefs on this issue and I have never changed those in these posts or anywhere else.
I want real data. I want police reports, not a phone survey asking "have you ever in your life used a gun to protect yourself"? You know why, cuz people lie, or say what they think the caller wants to hear, or just plain mess around with the survey taker for fun.
The only real facts I could find was the FBI number of justifiable homicides.
But I can find, in black and white, a number of American men, women and children killed by guns each year.
Here's a link to a map and details of the gun deaths in just the months following Newtown.
http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...
Surely we can do better..
And remember, as you wring your hands, and cry out to Chris to feel your pain from all us evil question askers.....no one makes you post on this board. You are here because you want to be. You reply and argue because you want to.
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "Did I ever, ever say that guns for personal protection should be banned?"Nope. In fact, you said the opposite. However, a lot of what you say makes me wonder a bit .... So, I thou..."
Examples?????
Travis wrote: "10476
You have a lot of questions here. Am I supposed to get all of them or was there a specific one?
10484
Were the lives of the mom in Oklahoma as valuable as the kids at Sandy Hook
Tricky.
20 kids vs one adult, I'd say, objectively, the kids are more valuable.
Or are we talking would I trade that one mom for the twenty kids?
Since I have no emotional connection to any of these people and only know the mom through your stories, I'd say the kids are still going to win this one."
Your deal was all questions ... so all.
Regarding Oklahoma, there was the mom and the infant....
A mom and an infant and 20 children. You know how I kept saying you were asking me to pick between children. The baby in Oklahoma versus the baby in Sandy Hook without the front teeth.
You have a lot of questions here. Am I supposed to get all of them or was there a specific one?
10484
Were the lives of the mom in Oklahoma as valuable as the kids at Sandy Hook
Tricky.
20 kids vs one adult, I'd say, objectively, the kids are more valuable.
Or are we talking would I trade that one mom for the twenty kids?
Since I have no emotional connection to any of these people and only know the mom through your stories, I'd say the kids are still going to win this one."
Your deal was all questions ... so all.
Regarding Oklahoma, there was the mom and the infant....
A mom and an infant and 20 children. You know how I kept saying you were asking me to pick between children. The baby in Oklahoma versus the baby in Sandy Hook without the front teeth.
Travis wrote: "10504
Again, you are rambling. Do I answer all of them or is there a certain one?
10542
Hate to repeat myself, but do I answer all of them? When you get going a lot of them seem rhetorical.
Let me know either way."
Sort of confused....
You said you'd answer all of my questions and ... would answer them to my satisfaction ... (promise to be kind on the latter) ....
So, yeah, all....
??
Again, you are rambling. Do I answer all of them or is there a certain one?
10542
Hate to repeat myself, but do I answer all of them? When you get going a lot of them seem rhetorical.
Let me know either way."
Sort of confused....
You said you'd answer all of my questions and ... would answer them to my satisfaction ... (promise to be kind on the latter) ....
So, yeah, all....
??
Travis wrote: "10549
that question doesn't really make much sense.
I just assumed it was you being sarcastic and thinking if you keep hitting me with that mom from Oklahoma I'd go 'You're right! Give everybody a gun!"
Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is considered a right, but it wasn't the one we've been discussing."
You're hedging....
Splitting hairs....
Remember when David said, ... if one doesn't have the right to defend oneself, what rights does one have ... I said ... truer words ....
We can't defend ourselves with bean bags ....
Weird that you didn't answer any of the questions regarding how a woman is supposed to defender herself against two men with a knife.
Well, maybe not....
Sometimes, like in that situation, one will be raped and/or raped and murdered if one doesn't have a gun to stop the attack. In that instance, if one wasn't allowed the gun, one wouldn't really have the right to defend one's life. Throwing a baby bottle at someone and being raped and murdered isn't defending oneself ... and it sure as damn hell isn't assuring someone's life and liberty ... which is totally and completely the point.
that question doesn't really make much sense.
I just assumed it was you being sarcastic and thinking if you keep hitting me with that mom from Oklahoma I'd go 'You're right! Give everybody a gun!"
Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is considered a right, but it wasn't the one we've been discussing."
You're hedging....
Splitting hairs....
Remember when David said, ... if one doesn't have the right to defend oneself, what rights does one have ... I said ... truer words ....
We can't defend ourselves with bean bags ....
Weird that you didn't answer any of the questions regarding how a woman is supposed to defender herself against two men with a knife.
Well, maybe not....
Sometimes, like in that situation, one will be raped and/or raped and murdered if one doesn't have a gun to stop the attack. In that instance, if one wasn't allowed the gun, one wouldn't really have the right to defend one's life. Throwing a baby bottle at someone and being raped and murdered isn't defending oneself ... and it sure as damn hell isn't assuring someone's life and liberty ... which is totally and completely the point.
Travis wrote: "10484 If she owns a gun and needs to defend herself then she uses it. Then she has the right and the means.
"
Glad to hear this one, honestly.
While I get, philosophically, your point regarding right versus means, I don't get it in my heart and my gut.
If a woman is going up against two men with a knife, her "right" to defend herself with her bare hands means relatively nothing. Doesn't it? She'll not be able to defend herself. Or her baby. She'll be violated and won't be able to stop it. So will her baby, if only through his mother.
Wouldn't it sort of be like gay marriage? (Which I'm for, remember.)
A gay couple has the right to live together.
A gay couple has the right to civil unions in some states.
You've argued that's not good enough. (I agree.)
All gay couples don't have the right to unions. All gay couples don't get tax breaks, health care, etc....
Wrong, wrong, wrong. (I agree)
If we were to take guns out of the mix, IF, ....
Not everyone would have the right to live? Why? There are perpetrators out there who are bent on rape and murder. Men will often be favored in these scenarios. Not always, but often. The men of America will often be more able to have the right to life than will women or the elderly.
Women will have the right to throw bean bags at their attackers; sort of like gay couples having the right to live with one another. Oh, they have the "right" but what do they get for it? Their lives? Health insurance and the right to visit their partners in the hospital? No. But, they have the right to throw bean bags and live together as a couple in one home.
Women will be able to throw bean bags at their attackers; whereas men will be more apt in many cases, given bone structure alone, to do serious damage, potentially, to an attacker. Feeling the need to take another self-defense course.
Yeah, ... I know. You're going to tell me it's totally different. Apples and oranges.
I'll go and contemplate the right to throw beanbags.
The right to throw beanbags and the inherent effectiveness of throwing beanbags as a means of protecting oneself and one's right to life.
The right to an abortion. The right to health care. The right to gay marriage.
The right to defend oneself with beanbags.
Ha.... That last one might make a quirky bumper sticker.
"
Glad to hear this one, honestly.
While I get, philosophically, your point regarding right versus means, I don't get it in my heart and my gut.
If a woman is going up against two men with a knife, her "right" to defend herself with her bare hands means relatively nothing. Doesn't it? She'll not be able to defend herself. Or her baby. She'll be violated and won't be able to stop it. So will her baby, if only through his mother.
Wouldn't it sort of be like gay marriage? (Which I'm for, remember.)
A gay couple has the right to live together.
A gay couple has the right to civil unions in some states.
You've argued that's not good enough. (I agree.)
All gay couples don't have the right to unions. All gay couples don't get tax breaks, health care, etc....
Wrong, wrong, wrong. (I agree)
If we were to take guns out of the mix, IF, ....
Not everyone would have the right to live? Why? There are perpetrators out there who are bent on rape and murder. Men will often be favored in these scenarios. Not always, but often. The men of America will often be more able to have the right to life than will women or the elderly.
Women will have the right to throw bean bags at their attackers; sort of like gay couples having the right to live with one another. Oh, they have the "right" but what do they get for it? Their lives? Health insurance and the right to visit their partners in the hospital? No. But, they have the right to throw bean bags and live together as a couple in one home.
Women will be able to throw bean bags at their attackers; whereas men will be more apt in many cases, given bone structure alone, to do serious damage, potentially, to an attacker. Feeling the need to take another self-defense course.
Yeah, ... I know. You're going to tell me it's totally different. Apples and oranges.
I'll go and contemplate the right to throw beanbags.
The right to throw beanbags and the inherent effectiveness of throwing beanbags as a means of protecting oneself and one's right to life.
The right to an abortion. The right to health care. The right to gay marriage.
The right to defend oneself with beanbags.
Ha.... That last one might make a quirky bumper sticker.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "10476You have a lot of questions here. Am I supposed to get all of them or was there a specific one?
10484
Were the lives of the mom in Oklahoma as valuable as the kids at Sandy ..."
So, two vs twenty: Sandy Hook still wins.
Even if we go with subjectively, I've seen pictures of the twenty and heard their parents talk.
The Oklahoma mom, I only know as some story you keep telling.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "10549that question doesn't really make much sense.
I just assumed it was you being sarcastic and thinking if you keep hitting me with that mom from Oklahoma I'd go 'You're right! G..."
You have all the rights. Born in this this country or legally become a citizen and you have all the rights.
Again you keep acting like the rights and the means are the same thing and they are not.
If i take away your bible, do I take away your religion?
If I take away your crayons do I take away your imagination?
I have never said that mom in Oklahoma cannot defend herself with a gun, heck, I've said that if she was legally able to have a gun she could, what I have said is the right does not come from the gun, the means and ability can come from the gun.
you and David seem to be saying only the gun gives us the right to defend ourselves.
So according to your reasoning I, who have never owned a gun and never will, will never have the right to defend myself.
I think a world without religion would mean a world without a lot of the wars that have been waged over the centuries. Colonialism in the name of 'spreading of the word' would not exist. So called converted Christians in many former colonized parts of the world would still revel in their own cultures and beliefs. Think about. How many wars of death and destruction have been waged in the name of science? Science was hindered because of religious views. And not just religious views but fervent violent protection of those views. It really is not as simplistic as this answer but I think this is at the root of why I would not a world without science.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "10484 If she owns a gun and needs to defend herself then she uses it. Then she has the right and the means."
Glad to hear this one, honestly.
While I get, philosophically, your p..."
You got my point, but have been arguing against me anyway and acting like you don't for three pages?
Once, this list is finished, I'm done talking to you.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Right....
She had the right to tell them not to enter her safety zone, blow her rape whistle, and punch one of them.
At that point, more likely than not, one would have punched her, hard, or sliced her. Then, they'd likely have taken turns gang raping her. My question.... Would they have killed her when they were done?
So, she had a right to defend herself, with her bare hands, ... the outcome ... certain rape and possible death.
Given the outcome, it doesn't seem like much of a right. And, ... it doesn't seem like she's being afforded the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But, hey ... if she lived, she'd have the right to an abortion, a right to universal health care, and the right to marry a woman. Wait ... maybe not the latter in Oklahoma.