A Tripolation

I'm inclined to agree that three or four other people with guns in the theater would've only made things worse. But I am still skeptical of the implication that a .44 magnum couldn't have blown through his helmet. Even if the round hit his chest, the concussive force of the bullet would be more than enough to stagger, if not completely topple him. From there, it is an easy matter to incapacitate him with more rounds. He was not wearing Abrams tank plating. I don't think you can equate these two, actually. And if you are advocating a stop-sale on firearms, I would like to know how you anticipate stopping the sell of firearms to people who do not go through legal venues to purchase their firearms.

Here, we see a marvelous example of how your study is biased. Is the study actually *saying* that people who get a gun out in self-defense actually end up shooting their loved one instead of the invader? No? Precisely. Because that's insanity. Or, is your study dishonestly looking at homes, then looking at the number of gun accidents (most of which are children accidentally shooting themselves or a cleaning gone wrong), and then comparing that number to the number of cases in which a gun stopped a home intruder? The simple fact is that there is no way you can say that having a gun in your home *while dealing with a home intruder problem* results in your family members being *more* at risk. That is a shameless spin, ydoaPs. I readily admit that there are far too many gun accidents and that no one should really have need of an assault rifle, but don't present your argument in such deceitful ways. I was unaware that we were able to produce helmets that could stop high-caliber bullets (.32+) from penetrating the visor. He would still have been vulnerable to a well-placed head shot. Am I mistaken in this? And, no, I'm not saying that in the midst of chaos and tear gas that there would've been a clear shot, I'm just saying he was not at all as impervious as everyone describes. And nor is everyone that would carry a gun in public a bumbling fool that has no idea how to shoot. Many of us are quite good marksmen with decades of experience. While I'm sure accuracy deteriorates under live fire, I don't think it would be the "randomly shooting bullets everywhere palooza" that I see being described in this thread. This may be off-topic, but I've never understood this. It completely defeats the purpose of owning a gun for self defense. Do you really have the 2 or 3 minutes it takes to unlock your safe during an emergency? Is it not better to keep the gun somewhere out of the way and still accessible?

Alright, I've only had basic quantum, but I'm pretty sure we know how entanglement works. Hint: It's nothing that will ever lead to interpretation.

The order that does their utmost to follow Christ's teachings and philosophies. Oh, shut up. I don't care how much schooling you may or may not have. You could be a quantum field theorist for all I care. You're still using terrible logic in this thread. [quote however, when you started questioning my ability to provide proof, I almost asked you the same question. Either I have been baited, or by someone with little knowledge in physical laws? Which is it? Define God. Then show me the empirical, objective evidence for his/her/its existence. Then, explain why I should call ANYTHING that we can test "God." If I can understand God, it is not a god. No. I can't. As far as I know, no one can understand the singularity at the "core" of a black hole because there is no successful theory of quantum gravity. I can calculate basic curvature around a black hole. I vaguely understand entropy measurements of black holes. And, yes, I can do basic relativistic dynamics. Did you have a point, or do you just want an intellectual-pissing contest instead of focusing on your fallacy-riddled OP? I couldn't care any less about whether or not you worshiped my God. I care that you try to act like God can be modeled scientifically, or that God is a necessity for our universe. This is off-topic. No more questions about my beliefs. I am a Christian, but not a kind you would recognize. So, once more, explain how you are defining God. You are presupposing that there was an initial observer. But this is not valid.

I do. A great deal. It is a marvelous place. Why it's called faith, brother. Off-topic. And Hell isn't theologically sound. My friend Russel has a teapot that you might be interested in. Let me know and I'll set up some arrangements. No, they are buzzwords because you are using them in empty, vapid ways. And I'm fairly certain I've been here a tad longer than you. I've never seen your face, either. Quite elitist, aren't we? I'm in my last year of physics/mathematics degree. So I know more than most, but nothing compared to the other members of this forum. So I don't often bother adding my meager knowledge where the giants already roam, unless I think I have a unique insight. I think I have some here, so I posted. Did I adequately answer your condescending question?

I'm a Christian. So I say God. But all it seems to me like is that you're presenting a god-of-the-gaps with a few physics buzzwords and \LaTeX equations. You still have no evidence. And you keep saying "assume" and "must" as if that makes you correct. And it doesn't.

Cool. I believe in the universe too. I'm sure the other posters do as well.

To support what many others have said, here is a helpful link.

Agnostic doesn't mean that you are "open to the concept of God." It means that you do not believe an absolute knowledge on the subject is attainable. It stems from -a (without) and -gnosis (knowledge). Most atheists are agnostic atheists. I agree. If we can comprehend it, why call it God? Sure. God could also be the programmer that created this artificial universe we live in. What? This sounds a lot like panentheism.

Funny how you demand that this "God" adhere to quantum mechanics when we know that quantum is wrong.

I think the first step to properly understanding astrophysics is indeed classical mechanics. Newtonian gravitation, Kepler's laws, orbital dynamics, stuff like that. If you're more interested in stellar death, black holes, cosmological events, high-energy stuff, etc, it's best to read entry level textbooks on astronomy (they are accessible for a smart 13-year old). You won't understand a lot of the background, but it's still a good start. Lots of these topics necessitate basic quantum, relativity, and some weird math. Best of luck.

This is where you're wrong. Most theists are actually a lot more moderate than you believe. Why would our God, the omnipotent creator of the multiverse, care about who marries whom? Most of us think this way. Most of us don't care about gay marriage. The term marriage does not belong to us. At all. You're hearing a vocal minority. And that's it. A hateful, bigoted, minority.

At least one instance? Try all the damn time. The Jericho Massacre is a particularly appalling example. And, please, enlighten me. Tell me how an infant can be "very evil and beyond help." I'd really like to know.

You're still taught gravity "pulls you down". You're still taught light is "photons" or "waves". You're still taught the sun "is on fire". You're still taught you live in "three dimensions". You're still taught everything can be modeled like billiard balls bouncing off of each other. Why do we do this? Because the truth is vastly more complex than your average human can understand. And not really...important in the grand scheme of things. Event the highly skilled people only truly understand one subset of a subset, or some such knowledge path. Simplification is better, sometimes.

The ignorance in this particular field astounds me. If you've eaten corn in the past few years, chances are it's been genetically modified. They do this to make the corn higher-yield. They make the corn resistant to pests and diseases of the ground. Almost every crop has been engineered to cope with the demands of seven billion people on this planet. Please research before you go spouting off about how dangerous GM is.

...why are you being so cordial and agreeable?

Actual origin of marriage: You give me five sheep and ox, I give you lady.

TOO FAR, NICK. TOO FAR.

Well, it won't be the Milky Way anymore, if that's what you're asking.

I'm fairly certain they've had their own mass as long as they've had stars. They are both in our local cluster, so, again, I'm fairly certain they've been attracting each other for a very long time. There's a lot of distance to cover.

...it's not that it will end, precisely. Anyways, in 4 billion years the Solar System will be unrecognizable as the Sun will start engulfing the inner planets as it expands into a red giant. In galactic "collision," stars/planets almost never collide. There is simply too much empty space. What does happen, however, is that the gravitation will get all wibbly-wobbly as these stars come into "close" contact with each other, and the general shape of the Milky Way will change. Here's a good picture of some galactic collisions/interactions.

No. Time is what clocks measure.

I dunno, man. Startin' to look prreeettyyyyy peculiar-like.

I'm a crazy, YEC, gay, communazi, Christian and I've never felt like there was anyone mean in this forum. Maybe you're overreacting.