19 year old kills 17 at Florida high school

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme: You can't quench a fire with more fire. Giving every teen a gun would just increase the chances of misuse and tragedies.

No, not allowing people to defend themselves it in itself a tragedy.

Avatar image for thewatcherking
TheWatcherKing

19428

Forum Posts

31

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@streak619 said:
@godsaveusall said:
@laiks stake said:

If the 17 had guns, they would be alive by now.

This, so much this!

Or if the 19 year old didn't have a gun. Giving 18 teenagers guns is just asking for a mass homicide shoot out right on campus, and would end up with a lot more casualties then just 17 kids, god forbid.

No it wouldn't. It would give kids something to fight back with instead of hiding behind desk praying not to be next. How can you seriously say that you wouldn't want the kids in this scenario to have a gun? Do you prefer them to be helpless to a monster?

Can you seriously say that you see nothing wrong with there being a school full of teenagers all with guns? The cons would outweigh the pros by a larve margin.

Avatar image for green_tea
Green_Tea

10841

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#104  Edited By Green_Tea

Another typical Wendesday for U.S.A

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#105  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@renny said:
@god_vulcan said:

@cable_extreme: You can't quench a fire with more fire. Giving every teen a gun would just increase the chances of misuse and tragedies.

True. Somebody already made the point that the solution would be for no one to have guns.

That cannot happen due to the 2nd amendment and the fact there there are already more guns than people. The solution to drug problems is that nobody has drugs (following the logic), but that cannot happen even though it is illegal. The only choice (with the current situation) is to do our best to level the playing field.

A good example is in Mexico where guns are banned, the civilian population cannot have guns yet the cartels have full body armor with full auto machine-guns giving them control over everything. Guns aren't going to disappear if we make them illegal, we can see that with drugs and how making such things illegal only brings underground profit for such items. Criminals will be able to always arm themselves in the same way they can get drugs at the corner of almost any street in the U.S.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme said:
@streak619 said:
@godsaveusall said:
@laiks stake said:

If the 17 had guns, they would be alive by now.

This, so much this!

Or if the 19 year old didn't have a gun. Giving 18 teenagers guns is just asking for a mass homicide shoot out right on campus, and would end up with a lot more casualties then just 17 kids, god forbid.

No it wouldn't. It would give kids something to fight back with instead of hiding behind desk praying not to be next. How can you seriously say that you wouldn't want the kids in this scenario to have a gun? Do you prefer them to be helpless to a monster?

Can you seriously say that you see nothing wrong with there being a school full of teenagers all with guns? The cons would outweigh the pros by a larve margin.

You can join the army and wield full autos and fight and die in war at that age....

Avatar image for heroup2112
HeroUp2112

18402

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#107  Edited By HeroUp2112

@cable_extreme said:
@thewatcherking said:
@cable_extreme said:
@streak619 said:
@godsaveusall said:
@laiks stake said:

If the 17 had guns, they would be alive by now.

This, so much this!

Or if the 19 year old didn't have a gun. Giving 18 teenagers guns is just asking for a mass homicide shoot out right on campus, and would end up with a lot more casualties then just 17 kids, god forbid.

No it wouldn't. It would give kids something to fight back with instead of hiding behind desk praying not to be next. How can you seriously say that you wouldn't want the kids in this scenario to have a gun? Do you prefer them to be helpless to a monster?

Can you seriously say that you see nothing wrong with there being a school full of teenagers all with guns? The cons would outweigh the pros by a larve margin.

You can join the army and wield full autos and fight and die in war at that age....

Whoa...whoa...whoa...I'm a 2nd Amendment guy here, but this is way off base. A couple of things...teenagers in the military are taught NOW to properly handle their weapons and they volunteer for service in the military. B. Simply arming every student without some sort of mandatory training, which would COMPLETELY interfere with their rights, would be a disaster of Biblical proportions. Hell, a good proportion of gun owners NOW don't properly train and familiarize themselves with their weapons (which is where a lot of gun deaths come from btw) and the largest portion of them aren't hormonal teenagers in confined,often volatile place. Things can go wrong SO easy, hell a kid reaching into his backpack for a book and causing an accidental discharge, a weapon falling out of a bag or a locker, not to mention hormonal kids getting picked on, or a fight escalating into someone dying. I've been in situations three times where trained soldiers have had accidental discharges either by pure bad luck or beings stupid. Thankfully, they at least had their weapons pointed at the ground and no one was injured, but hopefully you see my point. Without proper, and consistent training, people have no business carrying firearms, especially in an environment like that. When you're twenty-one and can legally own a hand gun then it's your right, and I hope to GOD people who buy them learn HOW to use them properly. Arming kids in high school is more of a threat than an active shooter. Zero doubt here.

Avatar image for yassassin
Yassassin

7917

Forum Posts

62

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#108  Edited By Yassassin

@cable_extreme said:

@thewatcherking said:
@cable_extreme said:
@streak619 said:
@godsaveusall said:
@laiks stake said:

If the 17 had guns, they would be alive by now.

This, so much this!

Or if the 19 year old didn't have a gun. Giving 18 teenagers guns is just asking for a mass homicide shoot out right on campus, and would end up with a lot more casualties then just 17 kids, god forbid.

No it wouldn't. It would give kids something to fight back with instead of hiding behind desk praying not to be next. How can you seriously say that you wouldn't want the kids in this scenario to have a gun? Do you prefer them to be helpless to a monster?

Can you seriously say that you see nothing wrong with there being a school full of teenagers all with guns? The cons would outweigh the pros by a larve margin.

You can join the army and wield full autos and fight and die in war at that age....

No you can not fight in wars at age 14, 15, 16, or 17, y'know the ages MOST highschool students are. Jesus Christ, is your only situation to turn the American schooling system to the Old West where everyone's packing? Are we really THAT far gone?

Avatar image for higherpower
HigherPower

12665

Forum Posts

4520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#109  Edited By HigherPower  Online

@cable_extreme said:
@god_vulcan said:

@cable_extreme: You can't quench a fire with more fire. Giving every teen a gun would just increase the chances of misuse and tragedies.

No, not allowing people to defend themselves it in itself a tragedy.

That's not what I said.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme said:

@thewatcherking said:
@cable_extreme said:
@streak619 said:
@godsaveusall said:
@laiks stake said:

If the 17 had guns, they would be alive by now.

This, so much this!

Or if the 19 year old didn't have a gun. Giving 18 teenagers guns is just asking for a mass homicide shoot out right on campus, and would end up with a lot more casualties then just 17 kids, god forbid.

No it wouldn't. It would give kids something to fight back with instead of hiding behind desk praying not to be next. How can you seriously say that you wouldn't want the kids in this scenario to have a gun? Do you prefer them to be helpless to a monster?

Can you seriously say that you see nothing wrong with there being a school full of teenagers all with guns? The cons would outweigh the pros by a larve margin.

You can join the army and wield full autos and fight and die in war at that age....

No you can not fight in wars at age 14, 15, 16, or 17, y'know the ages MOST highschool students are. Jesus Christ, is your only situation to turn the American schooling system to the Old West where everyone's packing? Are we really THAT far gone?

You can join when you are 17. Most people turn 18 their senior year as well. The faculty could also have CHL's. They already made it legal in Texas at least to conceal carry on college campuses (which I did a lot).

Avatar image for laiks stake
Laiks Stake

1282

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rahiem9123: You want to ban cars too? In Europe when they don't have guns, they use cars and the result is worse.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#112  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@cable_extreme said:
@thewatcherking said:
@cable_extreme said:
@streak619 said:
@godsaveusall said:
@laiks stake said:

If the 17 had guns, they would be alive by now.

This, so much this!

Or if the 19 year old didn't have a gun. Giving 18 teenagers guns is just asking for a mass homicide shoot out right on campus, and would end up with a lot more casualties then just 17 kids, god forbid.

No it wouldn't. It would give kids something to fight back with instead of hiding behind desk praying not to be next. How can you seriously say that you wouldn't want the kids in this scenario to have a gun? Do you prefer them to be helpless to a monster?

Can you seriously say that you see nothing wrong with there being a school full of teenagers all with guns? The cons would outweigh the pros by a larve margin.

You can join the army and wield full autos and fight and die in war at that age....

Whoa...whoa...whoa...I'm a 2nd Amendment guy here, but this is way off base. A couple of things...teenagers in the military are taught NOW to properly handle their weapons and they volunteer for service in the military. B. Simply arming every student without some sort of mandatory training, which would COMPLETELY interfere with their rights, would be a disaster of Biblical proportions. Hell, a good proportion of gun owners NOW don't properly train and familiarize themselves with their weapons (which is where a lot of gun deaths come from btw) and the largest portion of them aren't hormonal teenagers in confined,often volatile place. Things can go wrong SO easy, hell a kid reaching into his backpack for a book and causing an accidental discharge, a weapon falling out of a bag or a locker, not to mention hormonal kids getting picked on, or a fight escalating into someone dying. I've been in situations three times where trained soldiers have had accidental discharges either by pure bad luck or beings stupid. Thankfully, they at least had their weapons pointed at the ground and no one was injured, but hopefully you see my point. Without proper, and consistent training, people have no business carrying firearms, especially in an environment like that. When you're twenty-one and can legally own a hand gun then it's your right, and I hope to GOD people who buy them learn HOW to use them properly. Arming kids in high school is more of a threat than an active shooter. Zero doubt here.

Way to assume...

I never once said give untrained people guns, I am arguing that they should be able to obtain a CHL at age 17 (go through the proper training I did) when I was 21. If you are old enough to fight and die for our country, you should be old enough (and legally allowed) to conceal carry a firearm in a public school (assuming you pass all of the test).

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme said:
@god_vulcan said:

@cable_extreme: You can't quench a fire with more fire. Giving every teen a gun would just increase the chances of misuse and tragedies.

No, not allowing people to defend themselves it in itself a tragedy.

That's not what I said.

I didn't quote you.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rahiem9123: You want to ban cars too? In Europe when they don't have guns, they use cars and the result is worse.

Good point.

Avatar image for empressofdread
EmpressOfDread

12367

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

My opinion guns should be not easily available as such that even a sad kid can get his hands on.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

My opinion guns should be not easily available as such that even a sad kid can get his hands on.

The same could be said for drugs but you can buy them on any street corner even though they are illegal.

Avatar image for chimeroid
Chimeroid

9274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme: @laiks stake: it is a horrible point. You are comparing apples to oranges. On one hand you have random shootings because some people are nuts. In some countries in Europe terrorists attack civilians. Which is planned and orchestrated.

Avatar image for thewatcherking
TheWatcherKing

19428

Forum Posts

31

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@thewatcherking said:
@cable_extreme said:
@streak619 said:
@godsaveusall said:
@laiks stake said:

If the 17 had guns, they would be alive by now.

This, so much this!

Or if the 19 year old didn't have a gun. Giving 18 teenagers guns is just asking for a mass homicide shoot out right on campus, and would end up with a lot more casualties then just 17 kids, god forbid.

No it wouldn't. It would give kids something to fight back with instead of hiding behind desk praying not to be next. How can you seriously say that you wouldn't want the kids in this scenario to have a gun? Do you prefer them to be helpless to a monster?

Can you seriously say that you see nothing wrong with there being a school full of teenagers all with guns? The cons would outweigh the pros by a larve margin.

You can join the army and wield full autos and fight and die in war at that age....

I didn't realize you equate school(a place where you're supposed to learn) to a war zone.

Way to dodge the point I was making regardless.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme said:
@thewatcherking said:
@cable_extreme said:
@streak619 said:
@godsaveusall said:
@laiks stake said:

If the 17 had guns, they would be alive by now.

This, so much this!

Or if the 19 year old didn't have a gun. Giving 18 teenagers guns is just asking for a mass homicide shoot out right on campus, and would end up with a lot more casualties then just 17 kids, god forbid.

No it wouldn't. It would give kids something to fight back with instead of hiding behind desk praying not to be next. How can you seriously say that you wouldn't want the kids in this scenario to have a gun? Do you prefer them to be helpless to a monster?

Can you seriously say that you see nothing wrong with there being a school full of teenagers all with guns? The cons would outweigh the pros by a larve margin.

You can join the army and wield full autos and fight and die in war at that age....

I didn't realize you equate school(a place where you're supposed to learn) to a war zone.

Way to dodge the point I was making regardless.

I didn't compare it to a warzone, i used it as an example that teenagers can wield guns and fight and die for our country, then they can wield guns to protect themselves. This was assuming you were arguing the competency of teenagers and their ability to handle firearms. I didn't dodge the point, I directly addressed it.

Avatar image for thewatcherking
TheWatcherKing

19428

Forum Posts

31

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme: My question was if you think that there would be more cons in there being a school full of teens with guns than pros. As for what you said, it's simply not comparable. In war shooting people is what your supposed to do, it's extremely unlikely that if everyone in a school had a gun that not a single person would use it for something other than self defense.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#121  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@thewatcherking said:

@cable_extreme: My question was if you think that there would be more cons in there being a school full of teens with guns than pros. As for what you said, it's simply not comparable. In war shooting people is what your supposed to do, it's extremely unlikely that if everyone in a school had a gun that not a single person would use it for something other than self defense.

People just a few years older carry guns in college right now. I new tons of people a year ago in my college that carried with me. Not one accidental discharge or anything. This is pertaining to 17-18 year olds not people younger. They decided to put them in the military, or be tried as an adult due to 17-18 being considered an age at which people obtain adult-level maturity.

If you are old enough to die and fight in war, or be tried as an adult in court, then you should have the benefits of being one as well. If even a fraction of seniors students and faculty had concealed handguns, then there would have been at least a few chances to stop the gunman and save lives.

Avatar image for thewatcherking
TheWatcherKing

19428

Forum Posts

31

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for empressofdread
EmpressOfDread

12367

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#123  Edited By EmpressOfDread

@empressofdread said:

My opinion guns should be not easily available as such that even a sad kid can get his hands on.

The same could be said for drugs but you can buy them on any street corner even though they are illegal.

Drugs are not the same as guns. I am failing to understand the comparison. People still get arrested for drugs. I can not user drugs to kill school children just because I want to.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme: You still didn't answer the question lol.

I did answer the question, just not directly. I thought you would make the connection that I made when I said people just 2-3 years older are legally allowed to carry guns in college (at least in my state) with no accidental discharges. The age of 17-18 is considered by the government as an age with a maturity level high enough to fight and die in wars, or to be tried and presented as an adult in court. This means it would not be very different than the people 2-3 years older in college who are already armed.

I don't see any cons.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme said:
@empressofdread said:

My opinion guns should be not easily available as such that even a sad kid can get his hands on.

The same could be said for drugs but you can buy them on any street corner even though they are illegal.

Drugs are not the same as guns. I am failing to understand the comparison. People still get arrested for drugs. I can not user drugs to kill school children just because I want to.

People sell drugs to school children all the time and they OD and die.

Avatar image for boschepg
boschePG

6332

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

@empressofdread said:
@cable_extreme said:
@empressofdread said:

My opinion guns should be not easily available as such that even a sad kid can get his hands on.

The same could be said for drugs but you can buy them on any street corner even though they are illegal.

Drugs are not the same as guns. I am failing to understand the comparison. People still get arrested for drugs. I can not user drugs to kill school children just because I want to.

People sell drugs to school children all the time and they OD and die.

actually, I too am confused on this point too. People with probably mental illness shoot schools and churches and they want guns banned

we have an actual opioid epidemic and they actually legalize drug zones in some liberal cities????

heroine itself doesn't hurt anyone but if someone ODs on it kills and as I said cities are creating get high zones

guns themselves don't hurt anyone but someone with them kills people and they want to ban the guns

Im just confused

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for mooty_pass
Mooty_Pass

11196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Another Incident? What is this the 3rd time now?

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme: Conservatives have a generally lower IQ, I’d say they make less sense.

Avatar image for boschepg
boschePG

6332

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

@boschepg: Liberals make no sense.

Don't get me wrong, someone can actually pitch a higher restriction on semi-guns. the AR in AR15 does not mean Assault Rifle. I can pitch that why do people need it and I would say cuz its America and I want one to fire off some at the range. The weapon itself is not a problem. The shooter did seem to be off but gun shootings are also emotional based too, and there is no way you can screen for that. 95% of all gun shootings are handguns and America isn't going to ban handguns.

they showed their semi autos in Charlottesville but the lone person that got killed was run over by the car. There were no shots fired.

usually these shooters recently had something mentally wrong with them

@revan- said:

@cable_extreme: Conservatives have a generally lower IQ, I’d say they make less sense.

actually, they say conservatives actually are happier than liberals according to surveys

supposedly another survey said conservatives look better too

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:

@cable_extreme: Conservatives have a generally lower IQ, I’d say they make less sense.

According to your polls? Your polls also said Clinton would win by a landslide.

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme: It’s not a poll, it’s several scientific studies. And they’re not “my polls” I don’t own any.

Not the mention that conservatives are generally less educated, and poorer. Like for example, Mississippi the most conservative state is the poorest.

Avatar image for empressofdread
EmpressOfDread

12367

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@cable_extreme: dude you totally lost me when you admitted drugs and guns are the same as far as voluntary killing is concerned. I deliberately used that example.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme: dude you totally lost me when you admitted drugs and guns are the same as far as voluntary killing is concerned. I deliberately used that example.

Drug and guns are different. The comparison isn't how they are used to kill but rather how despite drugs being illegal, you can find someone selling them on your own street.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:

@cable_extreme: It’s not a poll, it’s several scientific studies. And they’re not “my polls” I don’t own any.

Not the mention that conservatives are generally less educated, and poorer. Like for example, Mississippi the most conservative state is the poorest.

Okay well, that would be irrelevant in this scenario because I am educated with a college degree in criminal justice involving statistics of crimes.

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme: Cool. Wanna cookie?

It has nothing to do with you, you said liberals don’t make sense, however they are generally more intelligent, you missed my point.

Avatar image for thebeardofzues
TheBeardOfZues

2801

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#137  Edited By TheBeardOfZues

Guns aren't going anywhere, the only thing you can do is BE PREPARED.

I got a CHL the day I turned 21, I carry two guys 1 full size handgun in my vehicle and 1 subcompact .38 strapped to my ankle.

God forbid it ever happens but, if i'm in a situation where a crook is firing at people at-least I have a chance to defend myself.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#138  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@revan- said:

@cable_extreme: Cool. Wanna cookie?

It has nothing to do with you, you said liberals don’t make sense, however they are generally more intelligent, you missed my point.

Mind linking the scientific study? I know they quoted this at one point, but the study has since been retracted.

I said liberals don't make any sense in regards to the positions they push for (what was being talked about). I never referenced their intellect, nor do I care what studies say as it doesn't make you or anyone else I talk to automatically smarter than me (or vice versa).

Avatar image for thebeardofzues
TheBeardOfZues

2801

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:

@cable_extreme: Cool. Wanna cookie?

It has nothing to do with you, you said liberals don’t make sense, however they are generally more intelligent, you missed my point.

That's not factual.

I'm nether Liberal or Conservative but, I've seen dumb Liberals and dumb conservatives.

California is by far one of the dumbest places I've been though.

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@thebeardofzues: I don’t care about your opinion, I only regurgitate empirical data.

Avatar image for thebeardofzues
TheBeardOfZues

2801

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#141  Edited By TheBeardOfZues

@revan-:

Well I hate to tell you this, the "fact" you stated was about as factual as Trump saying he's fix the Economy.

Added: Last time I did research on it the average IQ in Cali was only 99.5, let me see if I can't find it.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#143  Edited By Revan-

@cable_extreme said:
@revan- said:

@cable_extreme: Cool. Wanna cookie?

It has nothing to do with you, you said liberals don’t make sense, however they are generally more intelligent, you missed my point.

Mind linking the scientific study? I know they quoted this at one point, but the study has since been retracted.

I said liberals don't make any sense in regards to the positions they push for (what was being talked about). I never referenced their intellect, nor do I care what studies say as it doesn't make you or anyone else I talk to automatically smarter than me (or vice versa).

http://www.asanet.org/research-and-publications/journals/social-psychology-quarterly/why-liberals-and-atheists-are-more-intelligent

I said liberals don't make any sense in regards to the positions they push for (what was being talked about).

Huh, funny. Because the most important and impactful ideas that came out of liberalism.

I never referenced their intellect, nor do I care what studies say as it doesn't make you or anyone else I talk to automatically smarter than me (or vice versa)\=

I guess you don't know what general means.

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan-:

Well I hate to tell you this, the "fact" you stated was about as factual as Trump saying he's fix the Economy.

Added: Last time I did research on it the average IQ in Cali was only 99.5, let me see if I can't find it.

You still present no evidence.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:
@cable_extreme said:
@revan- said:

@cable_extreme: Cool. Wanna cookie?

It has nothing to do with you, you said liberals don’t make sense, however they are generally more intelligent, you missed my point.

Mind linking the scientific study? I know they quoted this at one point, but the study has since been retracted.

I said liberals don't make any sense in regards to the positions they push for (what was being talked about). I never referenced their intellect, nor do I care what studies say as it doesn't make you or anyone else I talk to automatically smarter than me (or vice versa).

http://www.asanet.org/research-and-publications/journals/social-psychology-quarterly/why-liberals-and-atheists-are-more-intelligent

I said liberals don't make any sense in regards to the positions they push for (what was being talked about).

Huh, funny. Because the most important and impactful ideas that came out of

This is the guy you are linking...

Avatar image for nefarious
Nefarious

35724

Forum Posts

1020

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#147  Edited By Nefarious

If the Sandy Hook tragedy didn't send the message, this won't either.

R.I.P to the victims.

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:
@cable_extreme said:
@revan- said:

@cable_extreme: Cool. Wanna cookie?

It has nothing to do with you, you said liberals don’t make sense, however they are generally more intelligent, you missed my point.

Mind linking the scientific study? I know they quoted this at one point, but the study has since been retracted.

I said liberals don't make any sense in regards to the positions they push for (what was being talked about). I never referenced their intellect, nor do I care what studies say as it doesn't make you or anyone else I talk to automatically smarter than me (or vice versa).

http://www.asanet.org/research-and-publications/journals/social-psychology-quarterly/why-liberals-and-atheists-are-more-intelligent

I said liberals don't make any sense in regards to the positions they push for (what was being talked about).

Huh, funny. Because the most important and impactful ideas that came out of

This is the guy you are linking...

Doesn't void his findings, especially when we can see the active effects of his findings.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17052

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:
@cable_extreme said:
@revan- said:

@thebeardofzues: I don’t care about your opinion, I only regurgitate empirical data.

Republicans have slightly higher verbal intelligence

Direct quote from your source:

Research has consistently shown that intelligence is positively correlated with socially liberal beliefs and negatively correlated with religious beliefs.

Also directly quoted from source

Research has consistently shown that intelligence is positively correlated with socially liberal beliefs and negatively correlated with religious beliefs. This should lead one to expect that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats. However, I find that individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat (2–5 IQ points), and that individuals who supported the Republican Party in elections have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who supported the Democratic Party (2 IQ points).

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:
@cable_extreme said:
@revan- said:

@thebeardofzues: I don’t care about your opinion, I only regurgitate empirical data.

Republicans have slightly higher verbal intelligence

Direct quote from your source:

Research has consistently shown that intelligence is positively correlated with socially liberal beliefs and negatively correlated with religious beliefs.

Also directly quoted from source

Research has consistently shown that intelligence is positively correlated with socially liberal beliefs and negatively correlated with religious beliefs. This should lead one to expect that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats. However, I find that individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat (2–5 IQ points), and that individuals who supported the Republican Party in elections have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who supported the Democratic Party (2 IQ points).

So your source supports my point? Cool.