john5746

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/28/majors findings from a study that looks at trends between study of certain subjects and religious observance Humanities and social science majors had a significant loss in religious attendance and importance over their college career Education and Business majors had an increase Biological and Physical Science had no change in attendance but did lose religious importance. "Our results are thus consistent with the overall theoretical framework guiding this research. We believe that there are important differences among the college majors in world views and overall philosophies of life....," they write. "[O]ur results suggest that postmodernism, rather than science, is the bête noir -- the strongest antagonist -- of religiosity."

I only read this much of your post.

We would also expect to see even larger trends with graduates in analytical fields.

This little debate between Newt and Piers spells out much of this discussion concerning assault rifles/clips First, Newt brings up Chicago, then mentions "we don't know - maybe mental health". Then says handguns are the most often used firearm in deaths. I thought Piers made a very cogent argument. Ar-15's apparently have little use, except for fun or in mass killings. Newt wants to hide behind larger problems that don't have obvious answers. Look away, over there! I could make the same argument with Nukes vs regular bombs. Much more people have been killed with conventional bombs and they will be used much more often, so why try to keep Nukes so secure? Why worry so much? Look away, over there!

As others have said, the man is usually asking so it is a courtesy to offer to pay. If I had a daughter, I think I would say something like the following: Being for women's rights does not make genders neutral. Women will still be different than men. Women bear the most costs from sex in terms of disease, pregnancy and child rearing. It isn't fair, but nature doesn't care. So, you will find that men are more likely to be playing the field, since the sexual costs to them are relatively low. Quantity over quality, until they are ready to settle down. One way to distinguish the players from the serious is to expect more while dating. If they live in another town, expect them to visit most often, no need to meet them halfway, etc. If they deem you worthy, they will do more than meet you halfway. When you do settle down with the "one", you will more than likely to more than half of the child-rearing and cleaning(men can't see dirt). And you will be expected or want to work and have a career. Don't expect to be treated better after dating. Then the daughter would probably say something like "Oh dad, your like so old fashioned. You have no clue" and my wife would probably chime in "Oh, now he says that, let me tell you how HE was when we dated. blah, blah, blah." Glad I didn't have a daughter.

The universe owes us no explanation. Smart people have to determine it and they have been trying. Some links: Interestingly, the blog references this site's physics brain Swansont. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/ I get the feeling we are missing something fundamental, like an extra dimension or the lack of a time dimension, but thats coming from extreme ignorance on my part. These things need to be tackled by those who can apply the math and rigor. Or, someone like Swansont needs to trip on some acid

I can see where comparing stats between countries might not be relevant, but individual instances can shed some light. I mean Aussies are superhuman, but still. I read a little about the Monash shooting and it supports the assault weapons ban argument very well. The guy was tackled by unarmed men when he stopped to grab another weapon. This is the argument, that while it might be impossible to prevent these things from happening, we can at least reduce the carnage when they do. Xiang, the shooter, had joined a shooting sports club and purchased the guns legally. Not sure if there were any other dots, but the only thing listed was a teacher was concerned about his mental state one week prior. You can imagine how difficult it would be to have someone put on a list with a statement like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting From the article Great post menageriemanor. Keep in mind that most of the real terror happens in small pockets throughout the country, but many in very safe areas still feel threatened. When I see how the US stacks against others in regards to healthcare, education, global warming, drugs and violence and the widespread denial of these problems in the general public, I do feel sad. I'm living in a shit country that thinks its number 1. We have many rich people, yay!

Oh, I think you can...ever work in manufacturing? Anyway in this case, as long as they don't bring along children, I'm fine with it.

On any given Saturday in the United Morons of America... 5 people injured in gun accidents at 3 separate gun shows http://www.wral.com/private-gun-sales-at-gun-show-on-hold-after-three-hurt-in-accidental-shooting/12000843/

I wasn't aware of that. Seems a little self-defeating. Wouldn't a young virgin be better?

If there were any as smart as dolphins, that would be pretty amazing to me. Not sure we could tell from fossils, since dolphins don't make tools.

I don't disagree with most of the previous posts, but I'm not sure that we really care that much. Big tragedies like this will get the news, but it eventually dies down until the next one. I think we spend quite a bit of resources fighting diseases, making products safe, making products to improve safety and prevent accidents, etc. Has anything been done in regards to this issue? These things are rare, but we do know they are going to happen from time to time. They also are not part of our useful lives, like driving to places or having fun. So if there are some simple actions that can be taken to limit the possible damage, why not? The less firepower a monster has the better. Reloading makes them vulnerable, giving them the chance that they can be stopped or someone can escape. If reloading is irrelevent, than everybody can reload.

Yeah, I read it in a little bible story book for kids a long time ago. I was also reading marvel comics, which were far better, IMO. I'm guessing you realize a jawbone would not make a good weapon. I think you know that guns are most effective at killing. That's why god created them, right? Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but soccer moms sometimes have boys. So, if they decide to have a gun, I hope they make sure the kids can't get to it and I hope they don't feel the need for an assault rifle. I can only hope. Maybe you can convince them to carry your jawbone instead?

Yeah, and I farted on a plane waiting for liftoff and it killed all aboard. If we are going to use make-believe in our though process, its going to get stupid real quick. Would you be OK with replacing guns with a jawbone of an ass? With knives? With cars? Why not?

Since very few are advocating the reduction of all guns, I think the most important piece of information from your data is that the US is an outlier. The US isn't just one monolithic place, if it was, we could conclude that they just can't handle guns apparently. "We crazy" We don't pass the background check! http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/# http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state The second link above provides gun murders, assaults and robberies by state. At the high end is DC, which is really a city and at the low end is Hawaii, which is an island far enough from the insanity(although they get internet and same movies out there). Next 3 on the high list are Lousiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. Not only do they have the highest gun murder rates, they increased from 2010 to 2011. So maybe people can study the differences between these high rate states and low rate states like New Hampshire, Rhode Island and South Dakota. If we were to look within states and then within cities, I'm sure we would find relatively small pockets where most of the violence occurs. The social ills that plague the US: drugs, gangs, race disparity, domestic violence, etc. will probably be a significant root cause to much of this problem. So, long term I do think we somehow need to tackle these problems. Do we tackle them by making sure the wealthy keep as much of the wealth as they can and tell the poor to grow a pair, try harder, go to church and buy more guns? I don't think so. These issues will unfortunately be with us for a long time to come and there will be just as much division as to how to tackle them or if we should tackle them. The issues above, while they probably are the majority of the problem, are different from the random mass killings. These killings do grip national attention, but I don't think it is completely unfounded. Incidents are resulting in larger death counts. And they aren't criminals or necessarily people with a history of mental health issues. Gangbangers shooting at each other with handguns is a completely different issue than someone mowing down children with a semi-machine gun. It makes sense to question why people need weapons of mass destruction in the first place. I think Obama's proposals make alot of sense and try to tackle the issue from several fronts. Obama's proposals are not trying to reduce the total number of guns. He is trying to limit assault weapons. People can still have their guns for protection or hunting. And trying to study the problem will get stiff fights from the NRA, since they will see it as an attack. They know the answer already - more guns.

I found this Sam Harris vid relative to the topic:

Well, there are breasts and then there are assault breasts. I was thinking along the lines of how strong the woman is, etc. But then I realize there probably is an accomplice. When you got the stick in the box, even suffocation won't stop that action. Back to the topic, I guess. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/16/what-everybody-needs-to-know-about-our-constitution-and-gun-control/

how about if we shoot the kneecaps of anyone who owns a gun used in a rampage? with said gun.

I would start with the Preamble, such a shame, since I like the school house I think the following ideas should be incorporated: Recognize that we are in debt to our fellow citizens of the past, present and future. Strive to be a positive partner in the global community, promoting human rights for all and helping sustain the global environment. PS: Maybe a new song could be made, with Justin Bieber singing it. Yay!

Well, at least that's a more plausible scenario, a local govt. goes rogue and the federal doesn't care. I just don't agree that everyone being armed would have made all past injustices better. Native Americans were armed, the Confederacy was armed. I think you underestimate just how much hatred, fear and loathing go into this type of oppression. I'm sure it would have helped some on an individual basis, but basically you are talking mafia wars. If the enemy has a stick you bring a bigger stick. What I learn from the plight of African Americans is that we should not treat people differently based on race, creed, sex, etc. That was the issue, not guns. So yeah, I would be against a law banning guns or anything based on race, creed or sex. Although, based on your argument, maybe we should have affirmative action gun rights. Make bushmasters, etc cheaper for oppressed minorities? I really liked Capn's link regarding Nukes. If you think about it, if we are really concerned about a future US tyrannical government, then maybe every country should have some nukes for protection? Regardless, if I accept your argument, I think it reasonable that we still limit guns to those used for home protection. No need for 100 round magazine clips, 10 guns, etc. I have never been arguing to completely disarm the populace, just have reasonable limits. Having a gun or two to protect your family multiplied in a neighborhood would also be a reasonable deterrent from a rogue local police force. Of course, as has been mentioned before, having people armed this way makes every call a potential gun fight, putting police under a more heightened state of alert and more armed. This can create an arms race if dumber minds prevail. So, can we move forward and discuss reasonable limits? Should there be any limits? Magazine size? Number of guns? Gun type? Ammo limits?

Sorry, this video pretty much sums up my thoughts on the "just in case spooky government" arguments.

Nope, I think we have to assume that a weapon will be used, otherwise we would just have everyone sit on a nuke. You can't assume a bluff won't be called, especially if its a relatively weak hand. More importantly, when do people use their guns against the government? Is there a document we can reference? Any rules? Rather than a case where all of the government goes bad and most of the populace is sure it is right to rebel, I think it far more likely we will have pockets of unrest and the government cracks down and most people see the crackdown as justified. Worse, we could see two groups, possibly racial or religious go at each other This scenario, where most of the people rise against the government is indeed highly unlikely. Rather than making police think twice before doing their job, it makes their jobs far more dangerous, puts them in a more agressive mood and far more likely to shoot if someone makes a sudden move. A gun can be anything from a pea shooter to a rocket launcher. I think most of us are somewhere between these extremes as to what should be allowed. If someone wants to argue that we must be armed to fight a fictional future boogeyman, well if they agree with the level of weaponry that I support for home self-defense, then I am OK. I just think this argument makes it difficult to limit any weapon. We have ticking time bombs out there that are increasingly more well-armed. This is not a possibility, it is happening more and more. I don't know why we worry about foreign terrorism, when we have made a perfect breeding ground for it here. I hate bow hunting. I do think it is closer to a sport than a gun, but suffering of the animal is more important to me. This video will bother some, but not others. It really is a question of empathy, some just don't have much. Hunting for meat or population control is understandable, but sport is just for kicks. Killing and torture for kicks makes you a shitty person, imo. People are concerned about video games, but seem to think killing animals in this way, knocking the piss out of people in football and going to war all the time make a great society. I really think activities with real beings have a far greater effect on most people. I've become convinced that our problem is America as a whole, not just the nutjobs. We love war. We go to war with countries, we have wars against drugs, ideas, etc. And on Saturdays and Sundays, we watch athletes pound each other, causing mini brain lesions that they will pay for later in life. And these are the "best" people. Yet we are surprised when the downtrodden turn to violence? Oh yeah, war against them too. Heck, war against our government, our neighbors, ourselves.

As long as humans harm one another, some type of war will be necessary. So, to prevent war we need to prevent violence to one another. I can't imagine humans being completely non-violent. I think it would take some genetic engineering. To reduce violence, I do think education is key. Being aware of our history, not just in a matter-of-fact reading, but also experiencing the feelings and thoughts of some in the past is important. We do need moral philosophy taught in schools and at home. I personally don't think religion is the best method, but its better than nothing in most cases.

I would argue that these massacres are worse than treason. By what standards and who decides if the government is treacherous? I didn't like the Iraq war. Should I have take a gun and took a shot at the President. Should I have sent some Anthrax to congress? Heck, you probably thought war protesters were helping the terrorists with their speech. No one mentioned Syria or any other government. IMO, Syria doesn't use chemical weapons because they know the US will kick their ass. When you want to rebel against a government, survival is a key factor. People usually are not looking to commit suicide for themselves and their family. If the government is much too strong and is willing and able to use ultimate force, you must find another way Basically, it comes down to trust. I trust my elected officials, present and future more than I trust the likes of you and Rigney to have weapons of mass destruction in your hands. And guess what? The more people like you want bigger and badder weapons, the more people will support monitoring people like you - what weapons and ammo you buy. How you store them. Who lives with you, around you. What websites you visit and what kind of opinions you post. In other words, you might help create the monster you fear. I think it far more likely that we will have pockets of uprisings from people who are mad at the system or some other group than a government that decides to kill its people. When you use speech, you can have many different opinions, but when you use guns, you just have lots of death.

That link appears to have a problem, but you seem to suggest in the other thread citing the same link that we need to be little terrorists, waiting to shoot our government if needed. I have lived around red necks, maybe considered one at some point, and I'll defend them against this remark. They may be ignorant and bigoted and a few may be toothless and inbred, but I never heard one wanting to take up arms against their government. At least not during the Bush years. Maybe I'll have to go in the sticks and see what they're saying now.