Now is not the time to talk about gun control (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[Dragon]

gee, what does the sentence "MAY have been a contributing factor mean to you?

And perhaps the influence of white religious supremacism could also be a contributing factor. While this might seem speculative, its probability is probably the same as your "may"

Gee, why am I not surprised that Trump gets dragged into it.
SMH

Trump serves as a prime example of someone in a position of power abusing social media to belittle and harass others. As a public figure and former president, his actions set a troubling precedent, normalizing bullying and making it seem acceptable to target and demean others. This kind of behavior can ripple through society, reinforcing the idea that bullying and harassment are permissible.
Moreover, bullying and harassment have been significant contributing factors in many school shootings, as they create environments of isolation, anger, and despair. When influential figures model such behavior, it not only perpetuates a culture of intolerance but may also embolden others to engage in similar harmful actions. This highlights the critical need for responsible conduct, especially from those in positions of authority, to counteract these destructive trends.

 

[MT15]

How can you so definitively rule it out even as a possibility?

Because there is zero evidence to support it as a possibility. We shouldn’t entertain random ideas as a distinct possibility without ANY evidence to back it up.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Do you claim that there is a direct correlation between mandatory school prayer and school shootings, and if so, do you have data to support the claim?

Not at all. Nothing I have written should have prompted such a question.

Nothing you have written, eh?

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

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Texan1211]

So as you can see - laws preventing minors from purchasing guns do not have anything to do with how adolescents get guns.

Laws preventing minors from buying guns are designed to specifically restrict (in some way) their access to guns.

“About 42% of adolescent school shooters obtained the firearm from relatives, mostly through theft. About 30% procured a firearm from the street or an illegal market, 22% did so from friends, 5% obtained one from a stranger or victim and 2% got one through a licensed dealer.”

All of which were available back in the day, so how does that prove guns are more accessible?

Also, while the percentage of households owning guns has risen only about 10% over the years, from 37% to 48% or so depending on the source, the actual number of firearms owned has gone up considerably. So it’s fair to say that guns are more accessible today, since there are so many of them.

So the number of homes with firearms hasn't increased greatly, just the number of them. I don't see much difference between having a couple of guns and having 17 as far as access goes. While true there are many more guns today, the access to guns has only increased by that 10% increase in number of homes with guns.
Now, I am 100% for arresting any parent who allows access to their weapons and those weapons are used in the commission of any crime. I am all for making people take gun-safety courses to own a weapon. I am all for charging everyone who lies on a gun registration form. I am all for those convicted of violent crimes or any type of domestic abuse being denied the right to own guns.
I am all for one single set of federal laws superseding any states' own laws regarding gun ownership along these lines.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

gee, what does the sentence "MAY have been a contributing factor mean to you?

It means you believe that mandatory school prayer may have been a contributing factor to fewer school shootings, a position you refuse to provide evidence for.

 

[Texan1211]

Because there is zero evidence to support it as a possibility. We shouldn’t entertain random ideas as a distinct possibility without ANY evidence to back it up.

I see, but it is perfectly rational to dismiss possibilities? How forward thinking

 

[superchuck500]

Since we’re talking about times when there was less violence - here’s one that actually has a scientific correlation.

Guess what happened between the two red lines:

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I see, but it is perfectly rational to dismiss possibilities? How forward thinking

When they are presented without evidence, yes. If you want to support the possibility with data, we can all look at it together and have a good discussion.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Doesn't the GOP say more religion in school would lead to less school shootings?

you beat me to it.

 

[Texan1211]

When they are presented without evidence, yes. If you want to support the possibility with data, we can all look at it together and have a good discussion.

A tad close-minded when one refuses to even consider the possibilities all on their own.
I am not sure if it was you, and apologies if it wasn't, but someone wrote something to the effect that it might have been because of a rise in white nationalism or something. That is something to think about. Or do you not agree that may be a possibility as a factor in some way, however small? How about racism? Anti-Muslim or anti-Jew rhetoric? Violent video games? Movies? Songs?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

A tad close-minded when one refuses to even consider the possibilities all on their own.
I am not sure if it was you, and apologies if it wasn't, but someone wrote something to the effect that it might have been because of a rise in white nationalism or something. That is something to think about. Or do you not agree that may be a possibility as a factor in some way, however small? How about racism? Anti-Muslim or anti-Jew rhetoric? Violent video games? Movies? Songs?

It's not close-minded to reject a possible cause without evidence. I'll consider it as soon as you show me some data. It's your job to prove your point, not mine.

 

[Texan1211]

It's not close-minded to reject a possible cause without evidence. I'll consider it as soon as you show me some data. It's your job to prove your point, not mine.

I'm amazed at the level of close-mindedness. Good God, with that type of thinking, no scientific advancement would be possible. Someone attempting to do or prove something never before done. Gathering data, not assuming none can exist because it isn't before them in a convenient book. Not rejecting possibilities or refusing to do tests because it hasn't been done before. Open your mind.

 

[brandon]

A tad close-minded when one refuses to even consider the possibilities all on their own.
I am not sure if it was you, and apologies if it wasn't, but someone wrote something to the effect that it might have been because of a rise in white nationalism or something. That is something to think about. Or do you not agree that may be a possibility as a factor in some way, however small? How about racism? Anti-Muslim or anti-Jew rhetoric? Violent video games? Movies? Songs?

Guns?

 

[brandon]

I'm amazed at the level of close-mindedness. Good God, with that type of thinking, no scientific advancement would be possible. Someone attempting to do or prove something never before done. Gathering data, not assuming none can exist because it isn't before them in a convenient book. Not rejecting possibilities or refusing to do tests because it hasn't been done before. Open your mind.

Holy shirt you have no idea how science works.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I'm amazed at the level of close-mindedness. Good God, with that type of thinking, no scientific advancement would be possible. Someone attempting to do or prove something never before done. Gathering data, not assuming none can exist because it isn't before them in a convenient book. Not rejecting possibilities or refusing to do tests because it hasn't been done before. Open your mind.

I fully support gathering and presenting data. As I said, however, that falls on the person making the damn claim. You said it's a possibility. I reject that possibility based solely on your lack of supporting evidence, just as I expect you to reject my theory if I refused to provide evidence. When there is evidence to present, I will consider it. That's not being close-minded. That's the scientific method. We come up with a hypothesis, we test it, and we look at the results.

 

[Texan1211]

Guns?

Wow, now you are thinking.
I should have known I needed to state the freaking obvious.
I'll do better next time.

 

[Texan1211]

I fully support gathering and presenting data. As I said, however, that falls on the person making the damn claim. You said it's a possibility. I reject that possibility based solely on your lack of supporting evidence, just as I expect you to reject my theory if I refused to provide evidence. When there is evidence to present, I will consider it. That's not being close-minded. That's the scientific method. We come up with a hypothesis, we test it, and we look at the results.

I really don't care what you reject or accept.
I wonder what would have happened if the doctor who figured out how to use pig valves in humans had simply said "There is no evidence that it is possible so it must not be possible". That is all you're doing. You are denying even the possibility because you see no evidence for it.