Total posts: 1,331
-->
@whiteflame
To the mods I was having trouble accessing accounts so briefly had two but I will make this my default used account
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
you r right about the raw frequency of mass shootings, but the info i posted was the 'median rate per million that people die', so it was looking at how frequently people die regardless of how large the country is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
your own article says your data is skewed.
A possible better alternative .......The fact-checking analysis goes on to suggest that instead of computing each country's average, or mean mass shooting deaths, a better method would be to compute the median, or typical, number of deaths. The median is considered by many statisticians to be better insulated against individual outlier events (such as the Norway massacre) that can skew results. This leads to a more accurate day-to-day impression and country-to-country comparison. Using the CPRC’s own data and more precise per-year population data from World Bank (the original study used only 2015 population data) to solve for the median, the more statistically sound analysis results in a notably different list:Typical (Median) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015):
- United States — 0.058
- Albania — 0
- Austria — 0
- Belgium — 0
- Czech Republic — 0
- Finland — 0
- France — 0
- Germany — 0
- Italy — 0
- Macedonia — 0
- Netherlands — 0
- Norway — 0
- Russia — 0
- Serbia — 0
- Slovakia — 0
- Switzerland — 0
- United Kingdom — 0
Using the median analysis, the United States is the only country examined that shows a propensity for mass shootings. The data itself supports this interpretation, as the United States endured mass shooting events all seven years, but the other countries all experienced mass shootings during only one or two years. Thus, in a typical year, most countries experience zero mass shooting deaths, while the US experiences at least a few.
Created:
Posted in:
that is very impressive rationalmadman. you have developed a lot over the years.
Created:
Posted in:
if then if then and or and or and and and or or if or and then if or then and if or
Created:
Posted in:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."-the phrase "bear arms" historically meant to use a gun in a militia. the preface of the amendment says the purpose regards militias.-“The people”: The founders used this phrase to mean not individual persons, but rather the body politic, the people as a whole. During the ratification debate in Virginia, speakers used the phrase “the people” 50 times when discussing the militia. Every single mention referred to Virginians as a group, not as individuals.-when the constitutional convention occurred, they didn't talk about the need for people to have guns or self defense, all the emphasis was on the need for a militia and the militia langauge in the constitution. the following links are for both this factoid and the next one too.-From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun-when the amendment was passed they had all kinds of laws regarding who could have guns for all kinds of reasons, along with gun control-here are some highlights about gun laws during the founding era:
-stand your ground laws were not the law. colonists had the duty to retreat if possible.
-public and concealed carry in populated areas was banned
-anyone who didn't swear loyalty to the state couldn't have a gun. it's far fetched to say as today's conservatives do that guns were protected to protect against the state when back then the state was disarming people they thought were disloyal
-the state disarmed people for the purposes of furthering the government. one of washington's first acts was to disarm the people of queens new york.
-all guns had to be registered and inspected
-some states regulated the use of gun powder
-some cities prohibited firing guns in the city limit
-some cities prohibited loaded firearms in houses
-only one state protected gun rights outside of the militia
-several states rejected the idea of gun rights for self defense or hunting, even though conservatives today claim it was already protected by the second amendmnet
-indians and blacks were barred from having guns-the supreme court historically didn't touch the amendment much, but when they did treated it as pertaining to militias. as recently as the reagan administration, the conservatives said the same thing. it was called a quote unquote "fraud" on the public, to say otherwise, by the conservative chief justice Burger.-drafts of the amendment included a conscioustious objector clause, if you objected to militia duty for religious reasons you can be exempt from a militia. this reinforces that the amendment pertained to militia stuff.-half the population from postal workers to priests were exempt from the militia. this reinforces that it wasn't generally understood that the people informally make up an informal militia. a militia is what a state defines it as.-all the amendments have limits on them. including the first amendment. you can always read into the amendment what exactly it means to infringe on someone's rights, and find other reasonable exceptions-the bill of rights and this amendment was originally designed as a safeguard against the federal government. that's why some hard core conservatives say states should be free to regulate as they see fit. others, say the fourteenth amendment incorporated parts of the bills of rights including the second against the states as fundamental "liberty" interests. each amendment can be incorporated on an individual basis depending on the merits of whether the amendment represents a fundamental 'liberty' interest. the issue still exists though, that how can you incorporate something as a fundamental right if it was never there to begin with?-what does "arms" mean? if we want to be originalists and faithful to orginal intent, there is a difference between military grade weopons and the muskets they had when the amendment was passed-you would have to use the word "keep" in the amendment to spin your way into individual rights. this ignores all the historical and amendment itself context, and ignores straighforward reading of the words taken together.-the following is a common set of quotes from the founding fathers. if you google each of the stronger looking ones here or that you find around the internet, you will see them taken out of context or misquoted. for example, here is the proper context of washington's first point, where he was simply addressing the need for a militia (see the second link below for even more context)- in other words, the people should be armed and disciplined for a militia if the State has a plan for a militia... so the question remains, if they are not disciplined for a militia, why should we assume they should have a right to otherwise be armed? Washington even went so far as to say it was a condition in having them be armed and disciplined for a militia, that there be some sort of formalized plan, a "requisite" condition:""Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy.""
Created:
Posted in:
i've heard 'well regulated' means 'well functioning' basically. which if that's true, it's plausible to say the second amendment gives an unalienable right to a gun. except, given 'bear arms' means to have a gun in a militia, they should be saying they have a right to 'keep' arms instead. of course, focusing on the word 'keep' ignores the rest of the amendment and ignores the history of the amendment and the original meaning.... that people have a right to a gun for a militia.
Created:
Posted in:
if kids can't handle guns, does anyone think every non criminal over 18 would be able to handle guns too? per arming everyone who's not a criminal. half of a adults are no better than kids, so it's basically like arming kids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
do you think it's better to give all well behaved kids hammers if there's a problem with bad kids hitting others with hammers? do you honestly think half of adults are any better than children?
Created:
Posted in:
many adults are no different than children. i dont think anyone disputes this. but the gun nuts will instinctively say children shouldn't have guns but any non criminal adult should be able to, and some nuts say all non criminal adults should have one. so think about it. if children have problems hitting each other with hammers, isn't it better to discourage kids from having hammers, especially the bad ones? to say it's better to give all the good kids hammers is expecting the world to be divided into good guys and bad guys. good kids act up and hit kids with hammers too. the point, if you give a bunch of adults guns, it's like giving a bunch of kids hammers. of course more problems will arise than good things. half of adults are no better than children. full stop.
Created:
-->
@Bones
but it might also be possible that suffering is necessary, for our free will to be purified with the strife that humans encounter. we humans can't know the answer. but, if we are believers, it makes more sense to assume there's a reason for things.
Created:
-->
@Bones
i dont disagree, but there could still be a purpose or reason for suffering to exist.
Created:
i guess traditional christian theology is possible too. we are living in the fall of man, and the consequence is suffering. i never got into all that sorta jibe though
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
interesting, i never considered it from the polytheist perspective. makes sense though when ya consider the history of god's and their purposes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
sometimes he claims he's retired and living it up on his investments, and sometimes he's claiming to be a shrewd welfare queen. i dont think grayparrot fully respects reality or understands himself, so i dont think it's possible for others to fully make sense of him or his arguments either.
Created:
to be clear, i respect the argument of the problem of suffering. i just dont think it's enough to insist on being a skeptic.
Created:
is it possible for there to be a purpose for suffering? yes. it can help us make progress to end suffering. we are co creators in that sense. it can give people the perspective to appreciate no suffering. as jesus said, the man wasn't born with health problems because of something him or his parents did, but to give glory to God when he's one day disease free.
also, asking why we still have suffering is like asking why darkness exists. that's just the way it is. can we have just light? i dont think that is possible in our reality. same way, suffering may need to exist in this reality too.
of course, a person can just insist that if it's possible for suffering not to exist but does, then it isn't necessary. a person could rationally cling to that principle, but they have to admit that they might be wrong if everything i say is true, and they need to admit that the alternative view that i present is completely realistic. What if God and heaven exist, and the reality is how i present it? then the skeptic is just clinging to philosophy that has no basis in reality. the words and thoughts, the pointless ramblings, of mere men.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
this article says the science on gun free zones is inconclusive.
i dont know anything except everything else i've said.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
so you think every person who is told they can't have a gun by gun control laws will 3d print one or get one illegally or kill with another method? again, perfection in our legislative agenda isn't necessary. you are the one ignoring basic logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
all i can do is keep harping you on the exact stats. i can't just take your word on it, sorry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
to be clear, i can be convinced concealed carry is good, even though i'm skeptical right now, but that wouldnt change anything else, the overwhelming other evidence, that i've posted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
since you usually ignore the most important points....
"u need to show the proportion of gun free zones versus the rate they are targeted."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
having armed guards is a unique form of defense. that shouldn't count as to whether having concealed carry or lots of guns there makes a difference. to be clear, i'm on the fence about teachers having guns, cause i know guns introduce murder more than if the gun isn't there and mass shootings are rare, but i also know teachers are usually good character.
Created:
Posted in:
i do know, most schools are gun free zones, so just because most mass shootings happen in gun free zones doesn't mean they are targeted for that reason. u need to show the proportion of gun free zones versus the rate they are targeted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
i'm willing to examine your source on that. the 94% point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
as usual, you are getting hung up on irrelevant side points. maybe concealed carry isn't that uncommon, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether that law makes a difference in mass shootings.
Created:
here's a load of science that shows the consensus in science is against the gun nuts.
it's consensus science that where there's more guns, or more people have them, that there's more murders than places that dont have guns.
it's consensus that where there's more gun control, there's less murder.
it's basically. irrefutable that non-gun murders are in line with the rest of the world, but gun murders are wildly out of whack. if this was a bad person problem, not a gun problem, then non-gun murders would be out of whack too. dont need scientific study for this though, this is such common sense, and it's obvious that you are just regurgitating stupid gun nut talking points, that there is something obviously wrong with your critical thinking skills.
gun control won't stop mass shootings, as people can just regular guns, or a few of them, and go on a rampage. but it might help some. if it's too hard to get a gun (fewer guns, more restrictions), people are more likely to give up. that helps a little.
or, like sandy hook, if they dont have assault rifles, they won't be able to shoot hundreds of spray shots with such ease in a few minutes. obviously, the benefit greatly outweighs the cost of confiscating assault rifles, given they're almost never needed for self defense.
gun control is mostly about lessening the amount of times someone gets mad and happens to have a gun when they do, less about mass schooting. i saw two strangers kill each other in road rage before, which obviously wouldn't have happened if they didn't have guns.
if you tell someone they can't have a gun, not everyone who is denied will run out and get one. if they dont have a gun when they are mad, they are less likely to kill someone than if they had a knife or other weapon. it might be possible to 3d print guns, but not everyone who is denied a gun is willing to go to that level of desperation.
this is all common sense. u need to work on your critical thinking and drop the propaganda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
so do you honestly think criminals research whether their target area has concealed carry or not? if they dont research the point, they're gonna do the shooting regardless of that law.
do you seriously think considering how rare people have concealed carry and how rare mass shootings are, that a hero will be able to emerge than if concealed carry didn't exist? it's good for guns to be in circulation for self defense, to help stop those situations, but that dont mean concealed carry is necessary.
you're making a leap in logic here in many ways
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
look at the link in my last post. ive tried before, i'm not gonna keep trying to educate someone who refuses to be educated.
Created:
Posted in:
here's a load of science that shows the consensus in science is against the gun nuts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
it's consensus science that where there's more guns, or more people have them, that there's more murders than places that dont have guns. it's basically. irrefutable that non-gun murders are in line with the rest of the world, but gun murders are wildly out of whack. if this was a bad person problem, not a gun problem, then non-gun murders would be out of whack too. dont need scientific study for this though, this is such common sense, and it's obvious that you are just regurgitating stupid gun nut talking points, that there is something obviously wrong with your critical thinking skills.
gun control won't stop mass shootings, as people can just regular guns, or a few of them, and go on a rampage. but it might help some. if it's too hard to get a gun (fewer guns, more restrictions), people are more likely to give up. that helps a little.
gun control is mostly about lessening the amount of times someone gets mad and happens to have a gun when they do, less about mass schooting. i saw two strangers kill each other in road rage before, which obviously wouldn't have happened if they didn't have guns.
or, like sandy hook, if they dont have assault rifles, they won't be able to shoot hundreds of spray shots with such ease in a few minutes. obviously, the benefit greatly outweighs the cost of confiscating assault rifles, given they're almost never needed for self defense.
if you tell someone they can't have a gun, not everyone who is denied will run out and get one. if they dont have a gun when they are mad, they are less likely to kill someone than if they had a knife or other weapon. it might be possible to 3d print guns, but not everyone who is denied a gun is willing to go to that level of desperation.
this is all common sense. u need to work on your critical thinking and drop the propaganda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
how is this an issue that cannot be discussed? that doesn't even make sense. i dont think trans people or the various races of the world would expect that the topic of identify politics can't be discussed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
there's nothing wrong with having a personal opinion on these conventions. it's not like i said caitlyn jenner had to identify one way or the other or anything like that.
Created:
Posted in:
bruce/caitlyn jenner is a trans woman. he is biologically male but she identifies her gender as female. if caitlyn is attracted to females, i think it would be fair for him to call himself either homosexual or heterosexual. this is because by the standard of gender, he's a lesbian. but, by the standard of biological sex, he's a heterosexual. both are fair game for self declared labels.
Created:
Posted in:
if someone intentionally or recklessly causes another person to need an organ, i would say it would be fair to expect the culprit to fork over the organ. it's not politically correct to say this, but at least i'm being consistent given i expect women after a couple trimesters to have a moral obligation to the baby.
also, the difference in forking over an organ and maintaining a pregnancy is a matter of balancing the competing factors involved. a woman after giving birth will remain relatively unscathed, usually. someone forking over an organ may incur significant damage. but yes, totally i would require someone fork over an extra kidney if a birzarre and rare situation that might be necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
have you noticed? i'm sure you have. almost none of the people who are for complete legality of abortion is willing to entertain answering the question of what happens when a woman abuses the privilege, and gets a late late term elective abortion for a stupid and immoral reason. i think it shows how weak their position is.
Created:
Posted in:
i remember back when the late term abortionist Tiller was still alive, and one of the examples of an elective abortion he did was when the mother wanted to go to a rock concert but her pregnancy was in her way.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
i'm not sure about private colleges. but either way, i've always said the government should regulate healthcare costs too, so it's not like i'm being hypocritical. (every other developed country spends half as much as we do, primarily by regulating healthcare costs)
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
this is what you said when you were suppose to make a conclusive argument..
"(Z) Government (whose policies caused the price) throw up their hands with an evil grin [guess what, price fixing and nationalization don't improve supply]"
i dont know why you think that passes as an argument. it's a very esoteric statement and i'm not sure exactly what you are trying to get at.
Created:
-->
@badger
just like i thought, you have no coherent arguments. my argument is pretty good, so all you can counter with, is drivel.
Created:
-->
@badger
you need to seek professional help
Created:
my position is actually the liberal position. bill maher, a traditional liberal, agrees with me.
it's obvious watching the back and forth that most people are just brain dead reactionaries latching onto whatever their party is promoting at the time. if this was joe biden getting banned on twitter, these same liberals fighting to support twitter banning trump would then be saying we should promote free experession of ideas.
Created:
-->
@badger
there's nothing abusive or excessive about asking people to pay ten percent of their discretionary income for ten years if they borrowed enough to warrant it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
i dont see any way around what i posted. but sure feel free to think whatever you want.
Created:
the government should regulate tuition costs to keep them reasonable. and they should make sure student loans dont hurt people's credit reports.
Created:
they already have a bunch of different types of repayment plans. one of them is even ten percent of your discretionary income per year for no more than ten years.
they also have rules for those who are disabled to get discharged.
how is that unfair? there needs to be personal responsibility too.
why should workers who have no degree be paying for their boss who has a degree? plus all those arguments that it's unfair to those who try to pay themselves.
i actually dont like part of the above ten percent scheme, cause it could encourage students to take too much out, knowing it will get discharged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
even if he's deferring loans currently, that doesn't mean it's legal. do you have a source that it's legal? i would say the presumption is that he doesn't have the authority, cause presidents are suppose to enforce laws, not just do what they want.
the dreamer regulations might not be legal either. and, even if it is legal, that doesn't mean pausing loans is legal. the justification for the dreamer deportation pause is that it isn't cost effective.... that wouldn't apply to collecting money on loans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@coal
Can The President Cancel All Federal Student Loans?The President does not have the legal authority to forgive student loans on his own. Only Congress has the power of the purse. Executive action can be used only when it has been specifically authorized by Congress.The executive branch cannot spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress, per 31 USC 1301 et seq (Antideficiency Act (P.L. 97-258)) and Article I, Section 7, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.The claims that the President has the authority to forgive student loans are based on a misreading of the Higher Education Act of 1965 at 20 USC 1082(a)(6). That section of the Higher Education Act of 1965 provides the U.S. Secretary of Education with the authority to:“...modify, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.”But that quote is taken out of context. The preamble to that section of the Higher Education Act of 1965 limits this authority to operating within the scope of the statute:“In the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers, and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may—"In other words, when Congress authorizes a loan forgiveness program, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness, Teacher Loan Forgiveness or the Total and Permanent Disability Discharge, the U.S. Secretary of Education has the authority to forgive student loans as authorized under the terms of these loan forgiveness programs.Without authorization by Congress of a specific loan forgiveness program, the President does not have the authority to forgive student loan debt. As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., (531 USC 457, 2001), Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes.”In addition, the “this part” language refers to Part B of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which applies only to loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program.There is similar language in Part E at 20 USC 1087hh for the Federal Perkins Loan program. There is no similar language for Part D for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program.The "parallel terms clause" in the Higher Education Act of 1965 at 20 USC 1087e(a)(1) (also, 20 USC 1087a(b)(2)) requires Direct Loan program loans to have the same terms and conditions as FFEL program loans. But this does not apply to the waiver authority because waiver authority is not part of the terms and conditions of the loans.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
aside from dangerous speech, what does it hurt everyone to have ideas freely passed around? im not saying it isn't the right of the company to make those calls, so you shouldn't keep harping on that point. it makes society better for ideas to be freely spread around, and stupid ideas should be countered by better ideas.
how can you claim to support free thought if you dont think it's an idea non-government should espouse too? clearly, you dont support free thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
what law gives him the authority to cancel student debt?
Created: