Now is not the time to talk about gun control (2 Viewers)

[brandon]

T&P

10 killed in Boulder shooting: Victims identified, suspect charged

Police said 10 people were killed, including an officer, after a shooting at a King Soopers grocery store in Boulder, Colorado.

www.google.com

 

[Huntn]

if shootings have increased (and it is completely undeniable they have) since we ended school prayer, it is an accurate statement. Do note that I never claimed it was BECAUSE we ended prayer in schools. I simply floated the IDEA that it MAY be a contributing factor, which blew everyone's mind, apparently.
I moved no goalposts, simply defended what I actually wrote against what you and others imagined I wrote or meant.

A prime example of inventing an argument for me and then trying to get me to defend against your weak-arse strawman argument. As with others, QUOTE me or stop the nonsense.

But you’re associating lack of prayer with increased violence, 1) tell that to the people at the Wisconsin religious school shooting. And 2) a hell of a lot more guns are in circulation while gun regulations have been reduced. Not the first time this has been stated in this thread.

Btw are you a Christian who supports Religion in public school, one or many religions? You maynot be one of those Christians who when they speak of “religious freedom” in essence mean “freedom to shove my belief down your children’s throats.

 

[Huntn]

Oh, I forget, all you want to do is yak on about MAGA, Trump, etc. Have fun with the other members of that little circle.

Do you support MAGA? If yes, of course you don’t want to discuss the Cult. Understood.

 

[Texan1211]

I agree and believe there must be required mental screening for gun ownership,

That may work, but could very easily take a turn down a slippery slope. It is something that will prove to be very hard to quantify.

and parents who allow their kids access to guns* that subsequently are used on other people without should be arrested along with the minor.

I believe holding anyone who owns weapons responsible if they allow access to their guns. No problem there. I stated weapons must be secure, so "Don't touch" would never qualify as secured in my book.

 

[Texan1211]

But you’re associating lack of prayer with increased violence,

No, I have repeatedly said it could be a contributing factor. Some people say violence in movies and television are contributing factors. Some say the breakdown of the family is contributing.
Do you discount those things, too, as possibilities for contributing?
I am not for religion in schools but don't think the world will end if a kid gets exposed to religion.
I say believe in God or whatever it is you want to believe in, and I'll do the same. I am not one to try to convert anyone.

 

[Texan1211]

Do you support MAGA? If yes, of course you don’t want to discuss the Cult. Understood.

What you should understand is that not every conservative is MAGA, nor are all Republicans, any more than all Democrats are as crazy as The Squad or Bernie Sanders.
I do grow weary of people who interject Trump into everything no matter if it is relevant or not. Same way with that MAGA crapola.
I have said I didn't vote for Trump, should that not make it clear I am not a fan or MAGA?

 

[Dragon]

No, I have repeatedly said it could be a contributing factor. Some people say violence in movies and television are contributing factors. Some say the breakdown of the family is contributing.
Do you discount those things, too, as possibilities for contributing?
I am not for religion in schools but don't think the world will end if a kid gets exposed to religion.
I say believe in God or whatever it is you want to believe in, and I'll do the same. I am not one to try to convert anyone.

Maybe you are just lazy

It’s entirely possible to find scientific research on most of these topics that could support your claims. Unfortunately, you seem unwilling to put in the effort and instead throw out assertions without providing any corroborating evidence.

It is actually very easy to do

Violence in tv/movies
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2704015/?

 

[Texan1211]

Maybe you are just lazy

Maybe you are just ignorant.

It’s entirely possible to find scientific research on most of these topics that could support your claims.

Of course it is. Before the research was conducted, what was there? All I have said was that it is a possibility, and provided an example earlier with the pig valves being used in humans. Before the pig valve was used, research was done to see if it was possible. No proof existed when the first person thought of using the pig valves. He didn't just say "No evidence exists that it would work, so I won't pursue it y further". All I am doing is asking people to acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of it being a contributing (NOT SOLE) factor in increased violence. No one here seems open-minded enough to do that.
Your source is a prime example, unless you think evidence existed before it did. One has to LOOK for evidence to see if it is a possibility. Not throw up your hands, shout "No evidence exists!!!" and pretend it can NEVER exist because it merely doesn't right now.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Another MASSIVE LIE. I said there was no evidence and yet, you pretend I never wrote it. I said it was a POSSIBILITY, maybe it is something you need to learn the freaking definition of.
Do you believe that MULTIPLE factors could contribute to increased violence? Or just what has already been proven to be factors?

Should we look at what you've said on the topic so far?

Sorry, I was unaware ONLY Republicans said that. Kind of hard to dispute the facts that when prayers were said in school, there was far less school violence. And before someone jumps on it, NO, I am not suggesting we have prayers in school again.

Here, you say it's a fact that there was far less school violence when prayer was mandatory in school. This ignores the fact that while there were fewer incidents, violence in schools (especially gun violence) happened with semi-regular frequency for decades, dating back over 100 years.

Facts say the incidents of violence were lower. Are you arguing against fact now?

Again, the facts leave out important context.

I didn't make the claim other than when there was prayer in schools, violence was lower. I didn't say it was BECAUSE of prayers, that is something some must have erroneously concluded.

If you aren't claiming it's because of mandatory school prayer, then why did you bring it up in the first place and why are you so upset that people are asking for evidence?

Didn't backtrack, stop letting your imagination run wild.
The data DOES support the claim.
At the time we had prayer in schools, incidences of school violence were far lower.
Now, that doesn't mean that prayer was THE reason but it may have been a factor.

Well, unless you can prove it, it MAY have been a contributing factor.

So now the data supports your claim. You have gone from "I didn't make the claim other than when there was prayer in schools, violence was lower" to "it may have been a factor".

Either you don't believe it's a factor, in which case your initial comment was pointless, or you do believe it's a factor (or a potential factor), in which case you are getting awfully upset that people aren't accepting it at face value.

Whatever the reason, all you have demonstrated in this thread is that you don't understand basic logic, the scientific method, rationality, or civil and productive discussion/debate.

 

[Texan1211]

Here, you say it's a fact that there was far less school violence when prayer was mandatory in school. This ignores the fact that while there were fewer incidents, violence in schools (especially gun violence) happened with semi-regular frequency for decades, dating back over 100 years.

I stated a fact, I didn't ignore it. I even linked violence by decade. The 50s and 60s had far less violent incidents. That is indisputable, but you keep trying.

Again, the facts leave out important context.

So fill them in your own self. The numbers are the numbers.

So now the data supports your claim. You have gone from "I didn't make the claim other than when there was prayer in schools, violence was lower" to "it may have been a factor".

Had you bothered to read any of the over two dozen posts I have made, you would recognize I stated MAY have been a contributing factor, What in the word does "MAY" mean to you folks?

Either you don't believe it's a factor, in which case your initial comment was pointless, or you do believe it's a factor (or a potential factor), in which case you are getting awfully upset that people aren't accepting it at face value.

Unlike you fine folks here, I am not blessed enough to be all-knowing and can not say definitively it is or isn't a factor. Hint here: THAT is why I KEEP saying it may be possible. You, on the other hand, know all and know that there is NO WAY it contributed in ANY way. Got any proof? If not, how can you be so cork-sure?

 

[Dragon]

I stated a fact, I didn't ignore it. I even linked violence by decade. The 50s and 60s had far less violent incidents. That is indisputable, but you keep trying.

So fill them in your own self. The numbers are the numbers.

Had you bothered to read any of the over two dozen posts I have made, you would recognize I stated MAY have been a contributing factor, What in the word does "MAY" mean to you folks?

Unlike you fine folks here, I am not blessed enough to be all-knowing and can not say definitively it is or isn't a factor. Hint here: THAT is why I KEEP saying it may be possible. You, on the other hand, know all and know that there is NO WAY it contributed in ANY way. Got any proof? If not, how can you be so cork-sure?

We’ve provided scientific evidence or data nearly every time we’ve made a claim. As I’ve demonstrated, it’s entirely possible to find research on almost any topic. However, most published research tends to focus on correlations that have been confirmed rather than unsubstantiated theories that have already been disproven.

For instance, it took me approximately two minutes to find a report on television and violence. Debating is much more constructive when it’s grounded in actual facts rather than speculative “maybes.”

 

[Texan1211]

For instance, it took me approximately two minutes to find a report on television and violence.

Right, because at some point in history, someone wondered if that may be a contributing factor. There wasn't any research before that person decided to do it. Which is beyond closed-minded folks ability to even consider.

 

[Dragon]

Right, because at some point in history, someone wondered if that may be a contributing factor. There wasn't any research before that person decided to do it. Which is beyond closed-minded folks ability to even consider.

There are multiple research reports available on this topic. You were the one who brought it up first, yet once again, you made no effort to provide any supporting data.

 

[Texan1211]

There are multiple research reports available on this topic. You were the one who brought it up first, yet once again, you made no effort to provide any supporting data.

Exactly , because I made no assertion that it was a contributing factor, I repeatedly said it COULD be a contributing factor. Because I had the temerity to SUGGEST it as a possibility, everyone jumped on it like I claimed it was THE factor.
But I get the feeling you on the verge of getting it any time now!

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I stated a fact, I didn't ignore it. I even linked violence by decade. The 50s and 60s had far less violent incidents. That is indisputable, but you keep trying.

You did ignore the context, though. Other people have provided it and you keep screeching on about how your theory may be possible, too. We can hear you over there yelling at us from the kiddie table, but that doesn't mean we have to entertain your ignorance. You have nothing meaningful to contribute to the conversation.

So fill them in your own self. The numbers are the numbers.

Fine. I did the research and found nothing. There, I win. Is that how this works?

Had you bothered to read any of the over two dozen posts I have made, you would recognize I stated MAY have been a contributing factor, What in the word does "MAY" mean to you folks?

I've read every post you made in this thread. Other people have given opinions backed by facts and data. You continue to insist that some unsupported potential factor is just as valid. It isn't, though. It carries as much weight as someone claiming that we had less school violence/shootings in the 50s and 60s because of segregation. That would also be an unsupported theory unworthy of actual consideration until some evidence is provided.

Unlike you fine folks here, I am not blessed enough to be all-knowing and can not say definitively it is or isn't a factor. Hint here: THAT is why I KEEP saying it may be possible. You, on the other hand, know all and know that there is NO WAY it contributed in ANY way. Got any proof? If not, how can you be so cork-sure?

I will explain for the second or third time that I don't care if it's possible. I am not weighing the likelihood of the possibility until there is some evidence to support it. It may rain tomorrow. That's a possibility. That doesn't mean I'm going to put on rain boots and a poncho without checking the weather report first.

 

[Texan1211]

We can hear you over there yelling at us from the kiddie table, but that doesn't mean we have to entertain your ignorance. You have nothing meaningful to contribute to the conversation.

I can't understand it all for you.

I did the research and found nothing. There, I win. Is that how this works?

What do you think you won?

I've read every post you made in this thread. Other people have given opinions backed by facts and data. You continue to insist that some unsupported potential factor is just as valid. It isn't, though. It carries as much weight as someone claiming that we had less school violence/shootings in the 50s and 60s because of segregation. That would also be an unsupported theory unworthy of actual consideration until some evidence is provided.

I have nothing to rebut that ignorance that you would ever understand.

I will explain for the second or third time that I don't care if it's possible. I am not weighing the likelihood of the possibility until there is some evidence to support it.

Truly, you don't see the sheer ignorance in that? Just like the example I gave using the pig valves, you are so close-minded to even entertain the POSSIBILITY. You won't consider anything you can't prove to yourself or shown proof of. With people like you doing research, nothing would ever get accomplished. Truly a sad way to go through life.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I can't understand it all for you.

Those first three words are all you need to say. We know.

What do you think you won?

I have nothing to rebut that ignorance that you would ever understand.

Truly, you don't see the sheer ignorance in that? Just like the example I gave using the pig valves, you are so close-minded to even entertain the POSSIBILITY. You won't consider anything you can't prove to yourself or shown proof of. With people like you doing research, nothing would ever get accomplished. Truly a sad way to go through life.

I won't consider it without evidence, yes. It has nothing to do with being close-minded. I am open to the possibility if you provide some evidence. That's the part you keep ignoring. I'm willing to listen to evidence on just about anything. What I can't and won't do is the research you should be doing as the person proposing the theory. If you come up with evidence beyond a simple correlation- something that actually explains why the end of mandatory prayer in school and school shootings are linked, in this case- I am more than willing to listen. As I said earlier, I think we have different ideas of being open-minded. I think the world would be a better place if everyone believed things for which we have evidence and disbelieved things for which there is no evidence. That doesn't mean people should stop trying to find answers to our problems or find out how the world works. It just means that we should have something to support a claim so we can properly evaluate it. That's not being close-minded. It's being rational.

 

[coldseat]

No, I have repeatedly said it could be a contributing factor. Some people say violence in movies and television are contributing factors. Some say the breakdown of the family is contributing.
Do you discount those things, too, as possibilities for contributing?
I am not for religion in schools but don't think the world will end if a kid gets exposed to religion.
I say believe in God or whatever it is you want to believe in, and I'll do the same. I am not one to try to convert anyone.

I do discount all of those things as significant factors. All countries have those same factors. The only reason were have much more gun death than those other countries is because of the easy access to guns and the amount of guns owned in our country. If we changed those metrics and got them more in line with other countries, we'd have the same percentage of gun deaths as they do.

It's not hard. The only reason people make it hard is because they want to live in their delusions so that they don't have to admit that their choices are causing children in this country to be slaughtered in mass shootings. Sorry if that's harsh.

It's the same story with climate change. We know what the problem is, we know the destruction it's causing and the solutions are obvious. But people want to live in their delusions.

 

[Texan1211]

Those first three words are all you need to say. We know.



I won't consider it without evidence, yes. It has nothing to do with being close-minded. I am open to the possibility if you provide some evidence. That's the part you keep ignoring. I'm willing to listen to evidence on just about anything. What I can't and won't do is the research you should be doing as the person proposing the theory. If you come up with evidence beyond a simple correlation- something that actually explains why the end of mandatory prayer in school and school shootings are linked, in this case- I am more than willing to listen. As I said earlier, I think we have different ideas of being open-minded. I think the world would be a better place if everyone believed things for which we have evidence and disbelieved things for which there is no evidence. That doesn't mean people should stop trying to find answers to our problems or find out how the world works. It just means that we should have something to support a claim so we can properly evaluate it. That's not being close-minded. It's being rational.

"I won't consider it without evidence, yes."
Exactly what I said, and why it is a damn good thing we don't depend on you and like-minded folks to do research on anything. You keep proving my point in almost every post.
What evidence do you think anyone had before someone thought of using a pig valve in a human? Obviously none if it had never been done before. But you in your infinite wisdom wouldn't even bother looking into it merely because there was no evidence that it would work.
yep, that is an example of extreme close-mindedness.