19 year old kills 17 at Florida high school

Avatar image for thebeardofzues
TheBeardOfZues

2801

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan-:

The only thing I've stated was that Cali was by far the dumbest place I've been, which is subjective. (also kinda true with the average IQ being in the double digits.)

https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/2/McDaniel_2006_Estimating_state_IQ_-_Measurement_challenges_and_preliminary_correlates.pdf

I don't need to post facts, you on the other hand made a bogus claim about Liberals being smarter, which I've yet to see factual data for.

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan-:

The only thing I've stated was that Cali was by far the dumbest place I've been, which is subjective. (also kinda true with the average IQ being in the double digits.)

https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/2/McDaniel_2006_Estimating_state_IQ_-_Measurement_challenges_and_preliminary_correlates.pdf

I don't need to post facts, you on the other hand made a bogus claim about Liberals being smarter, which I've yet to see factual data for.

I just posted my evidence. If that's too hard for you to find, you should do something less mentally demanding.

Avatar image for thebeardofzues
TheBeardOfZues

2801

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan-:

I read it, It doesn't really prove much though.

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan-:

I read it, It doesn't really prove much though.

>ask for evidence of my point

>presents evidence

>"doesn't prove much"

gg

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:
@cable_extreme said:
@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.

I underlined the important part.

Liberals are religious as well. Non-religious people make up a very small portion of the population.

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme: It still supports my point, extremely well.

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

Note that it says "consistently"

Fact of the matter is, Liberals are generally more intelligent, and it shows in the decisions made. It's a well known fact that it's far easier to be stupid when you're conservative.

Liberals are religious as well. Non-religious people make up a very small portion of the population.

Liberals are more likely to be non-religious, and conservatives are more likely to be religious.

Avatar image for thebeardofzues
TheBeardOfZues

2801

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#157  Edited By TheBeardOfZues

@revan-:

Must be from California lmao. ( just a joke don't get upset, judging by your aggravation based reply i'd say too late.)

I've seen dozen of verticals just like yours saying the opposite, which is why it doesn't prove much. ( Cable even posted some, which is why I didn't waste my time. )

I'd love to carry on with this insightful debate but, I'm now on my way to watch Black Panther.

I agree with Non religious people being smarter FYI.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:

@cable_extreme: It still supports my point, extremely well.

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

Note that it says "consistently"

Fact of the matter is, Liberals are generally more intelligent, and it shows in the decisions made. It's a well known fact that it's far easier to be stupid when you're conservative.

Liberals are religious as well. Non-religious people make up a very small portion of the population.

Liberals are more likely to be non-religious, and conservatives are more likely to be religious.

Ill underline and bold it for you.

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).

This is literally saying republicans have a higher verbal intelligence, how on earth is it supporting your point?

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan-:

Must be from California lmao. ( just a joke don't get upset, judging by your aggravation based reply i'd say too late.)

I've seen dozen of verticals just like yours saying the opposite, which is why it doesn't prove much. ( Cable even posted some, which is why I didn't waste my time. )

I'd love to carry on with this insightful debate but, I'm now on my way to watch Black Panther.

I agree with Non religious people being smarter FYI.

Been to California once in my life. Hated it. Waaay to congested, and not in a cool way like New York.

You can't present me one reputable vertical like that, because it doesn't exist, honey. And the one Cable posted agrees with me. Unless you suddenly gained the inability to scoll up again and I have to repost it. But if so:

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

Sorry, sweetie.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:
@thebeardofzues said:

@revan-:

Must be from California lmao. ( just a joke don't get upset, judging by your aggravation based reply i'd say too late.)

I've seen dozen of verticals just like yours saying the opposite, which is why it doesn't prove much. ( Cable even posted some, which is why I didn't waste my time. )

I'd love to carry on with this insightful debate but, I'm now on my way to watch Black Panther.

I agree with Non religious people being smarter FYI.

Been to California once in my life. Hated it. Waaay to congested, and not in a cool way like New York.

You can't present me one reputable vertical like that, because it doesn't exist, honey. And the one Cable posted agrees with me. Unless you suddenly gained the inability to scoll up again and I have to repost it. But if so:

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

Sorry, sweetie.

You are leaving out the next sentence which literally states:

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: It still supports my point, extremely well.

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

Note that it says "consistently"

Fact of the matter is, Liberals are generally more intelligent, and it shows in the decisions made. It's a well known fact that it's far easier to be stupid when you're conservative.

Liberals are religious as well. Non-religious people make up a very small portion of the population.

Liberals are more likely to be non-religious, and conservatives are more likely to be religious.

Ill underline and bold it for you.

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).

This is literally saying republicans have a higher verbal intelligence, how on earth is it supporting your point?

Because it says socially liberal beliefs are correlated with intelligence. While he says nothing like that for conservatism, or about conservatism at all. But ah yes, verbal intelligence, because that matters in who's decisions are better. :thonk:

Fact is, Republicans (Note: Republicans, not Conservatives) have a superior verbal intelligence according to this study that you must purchase to view, that neither of us has seen, and Liberals are more intelligent when it comes to pretty much everything else according to a tangible study and several others that the source you cling onto says is "consistent'.

Fact is Liberals are generally more intelligent, which is consistent with major decisions in history. Face the music.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

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

@cable_extreme: It still supports my point, extremely well.

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

Note that it says "consistently"

Fact of the matter is, Liberals are generally more intelligent, and it shows in the decisions made. It's a well known fact that it's far easier to be stupid when you're conservative.

Liberals are religious as well. Non-religious people make up a very small portion of the population.

Liberals are more likely to be non-religious, and conservatives are more likely to be religious.

Ill underline and bold it for you.

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).

This is literally saying republicans have a higher verbal intelligence, how on earth is it supporting your point?

Because it says socially liberal beliefs are correlated with intelligence. While he says nothing like that for conservatism, or about conservatism at all. But ah yes, verbal intelligence, because that matters in who's decisions are better. :thonk:

Fact is, Republicans (Note: Republicans, not Conservatives) have a superior verbal intelligence according to this study that you must purchase to view, that neither of us has seen, and Liberals are more intelligent when it comes to pretty much everything else according to a tangible study and several others that the source you cling onto says is "consistent'.

Fact is Liberals are generally more intelligent, which is consistent with major decisions in history. Face the music.

Let me get this straight, you are saying the study isn't trustworthy because you have to buy it while at the same time using a quote from it to support your position? How many mental hoops did you have to jump through to come up with that?

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:
@thebeardofzues said:

@revan-:

Must be from California lmao. ( just a joke don't get upset, judging by your aggravation based reply i'd say too late.)

I've seen dozen of verticals just like yours saying the opposite, which is why it doesn't prove much. ( Cable even posted some, which is why I didn't waste my time. )

I'd love to carry on with this insightful debate but, I'm now on my way to watch Black Panther.

I agree with Non religious people being smarter FYI.

Been to California once in my life. Hated it. Waaay to congested, and not in a cool way like New York.

You can't present me one reputable vertical like that, because it doesn't exist, honey. And the one Cable posted agrees with me. Unless you suddenly gained the inability to scoll up again and I have to repost it. But if so:

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

Sorry, sweetie.

You are leaving out the next sentence which literally states:

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).

Verbal intelligence doesn't equate to general intelligence, which is something you can't seem to understand, nor does that study reference Conservatives, nor is it reputable or even viewable.

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: It still supports my point, extremely well.

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

Note that it says "consistently"

Fact of the matter is, Liberals are generally more intelligent, and it shows in the decisions made. It's a well known fact that it's far easier to be stupid when you're conservative.

Liberals are religious as well. Non-religious people make up a very small portion of the population.

Liberals are more likely to be non-religious, and conservatives are more likely to be religious.

Ill underline and bold it for you.

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).

This is literally saying republicans have a higher verbal intelligence, how on earth is it supporting your point?

Because it says socially liberal beliefs are correlated with intelligence. While he says nothing like that for conservatism, or about conservatism at all. But ah yes, verbal intelligence, because that matters in who's decisions are better. :thonk:

Fact is, Republicans (Note: Republicans, not Conservatives) have a superior verbal intelligence according to this study that you must purchase to view, that neither of us has seen, and Liberals are more intelligent when it comes to pretty much everything else according to a tangible study and several others that the source you cling onto says is "consistent'.

Fact is Liberals are generally more intelligent, which is consistent with major decisions in history. Face the music.

Let me get this straight, you are saying the study isn't trustworthy because you have to buy it while at the same time using a quote from it to support your position? How many mental hoops did you have to jump through to come up with that?

I never said it wasn't reputable. I said we don't knowif it is reputable. Because neither of us can see it, however we can see the one I presented and know it is reputable. And I used that quote to support my position, because it destroys the only leg you had to stand on, your own source contradicting you.

Plus, I like how you refused to answer any of my other points.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

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

@revan-:

Must be from California lmao. ( just a joke don't get upset, judging by your aggravation based reply i'd say too late.)

I've seen dozen of verticals just like yours saying the opposite, which is why it doesn't prove much. ( Cable even posted some, which is why I didn't waste my time. )

I'd love to carry on with this insightful debate but, I'm now on my way to watch Black Panther.

I agree with Non religious people being smarter FYI.

Been to California once in my life. Hated it. Waaay to congested, and not in a cool way like New York.

You can't present me one reputable vertical like that, because it doesn't exist, honey. And the one Cable posted agrees with me. Unless you suddenly gained the inability to scoll up again and I have to repost it. But if so:

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

Sorry, sweetie.

You are leaving out the next sentence which literally states:

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).

Verbal intelligence doesn't equate to general intelligence, which is something you can't seem to understand, nor does that study reference Conservatives, nor is it reputable or even viewable.

The vast majority of conservatives are Republican. You had no problem arguing based off of the link I provided that Liberals were smarter because they had a bigger population of non-religious people. Look at the peer reviews of the study, there aren't any peers that are objecting to the study as it was done in the proper way.

The one you listed was from a guy who consistently post racist and sexist articles that aren't based in any studies. He was laughed off many journal platforms as well.

You brought up religion and only 27% of non-religious people were democrats, 21% Republicans and the vast majority were independent.

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 said:

@revan-:

Must be from California lmao. ( just a joke don't get upset, judging by your aggravation based reply i'd say too late.)

I've seen dozen of verticals just like yours saying the opposite, which is why it doesn't prove much. ( Cable even posted some, which is why I didn't waste my time. )

I'd love to carry on with this insightful debate but, I'm now on my way to watch Black Panther.

I agree with Non religious people being smarter FYI.

Been to California once in my life. Hated it. Waaay to congested, and not in a cool way like New York.

You can't present me one reputable vertical like that, because it doesn't exist, honey. And the one Cable posted agrees with me. Unless you suddenly gained the inability to scoll up again and I have to repost it. But if so:

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

Sorry, sweetie.

You are leaving out the next sentence which literally states:

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).

Verbal intelligence doesn't equate to general intelligence, which is something you can't seem to understand, nor does that study reference Conservatives, nor is it reputable or even viewable.

The vast majority of conservatives are Republican. You had no problem arguing based off of the link I provided that Liberals were smarter because they had a bigger population of non-religious people. Look at the peer reviews of the study, there aren't any peers that are objecting to the study as it was done in the proper way.

The one you listed was from a guy who consistently post racist and sexist articles that aren't based in any studies. He was laughed off many journal platforms as well.

You brought up religion and only 27% of non-religious people were democrats, 21% Republicans and the vast majority were independent.

The vast majority of conservatives are Republican. You had no problem arguing based off of the link I provided that Liberals were smarter because they had a bigger population of non-religious people. Look at the peer reviews of the study, there aren't any peers that are objecting to the study as it was done in the proper way.

I'd much rather look at the study itself. Which supports my point anyway.

The one you listed was from a guy who consistently post racist and sexist articles that aren't based in any studies. He was laughed off many journal platforms as well.

A D H O M I N E M

Unless you can find a fault in his testing procedure or the way he used the scientific method, then that doesn't matter. Not to mention nothing he posted was viewed as racist, nor sexist aside from the very PC SJW's who you claim "make no sense". Ironic ain't it?

You brought up religion and only 27% of non-religious people were democrats, 21% Republicans and the vast majority were independent.

No, no, no, no no. YOU brought up religion.

Avatar image for heroup2112
HeroUp2112

18402

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@heroup2112 said:
@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).

Ahhhh, I apologize very much for my incorrect assumption. However, at the ages these kids are I still think more advanced training should be involved. Training at least to the level of BRM (Basic Rifle Marksmanship) in the Army where the instructors are death (not literally) on safety.

I can understand your point however. I should also point out (odd as it is) that even soldiers aren't allowed to buy a handgun until they're 21 (although this can vary slightly in different States and jurisdictions, best to ask the authorities where you live). So there's that hurdle to get around too. Not trying to completely poop on your idea (though i still disagree with it), it's just a road block in the way of what you'e wanting to happen.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan-:

I'd much rather look at the study itself. Which supports my point anyway.

You can read the abstract, buy it if you wish. The study was peer reviewed and is used in many articles to combat the liberal propaganda of them being smarter than Conservatives/Republicans. It says the exact opposite of your point, all you quoted was a statement between a religious idea and a socially liberal idea. The quote then assumes what you are trying to say only to then point out that assumption is wrong. It goes against your point.

A D H O M I N E M

Unless you can find a fault in his testing procedure or the way he used the scientific method, then that doesn't matter. Not to mention nothing he posted was viewed as racist, nor sexist aside from the very PC SJW's who you claim "make no sense". Ironic ain't it?

Here is an exampleAnother exampleAnother example

He is not a very respected scientist.

No, no, no, no no. YOU brought up religion.

Link the post. You are the one who quoted the sentence regarding religion and saying that supported your position even though the following sentence debunked your position.

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#169  Edited By Revan-

@cable_extreme: I'm done. Conservatives love to deny evidence in their face for their own desires. You can't argue, and have repeatedly refused to answer my points that you can't counter.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#170  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@heroup2112:

Ahhhh, I apologize very much for my incorrect assumption. However, at the ages these kids are I still think more advanced training should be involved. Training at least to the level of BRM (Basic Rifle Marksmanship) in the Army where the instructors are death (not literally) on safety.

I think there should be a course they could take (a lot like the course they take getting their license) I mean a car is a 2 ton hunk of metal going down the road at 60-70 MPH quite often. More people die in accidents than from guns, yet we willingly train 15-16 year old kids to drive them. The risk of driving a car and dying are much greater than getting shot (even by your own gun) yet we teach them to drive (not for their own safety) but simply for more independence. A 17-18 year old that is expected to fight alongside and against men in the military is at an age where our government believes is competent in handling a firearm (with training).

I can understand your point however. I should also point out (odd as it is) that even soldiers aren't allowed to buy a handgun until they're 21 (although this can vary slightly in different States and jurisdictions, best to ask the authorities where you live). So there's that hurdle to get around too. Not trying to completely poop on your idea (though i still disagree with it), it's just a road block in the way of what you'e wanting to happen.

It is sad that the country will so willingly use young men as bullet sponges but be unwilling to allow them normal rights afforded to people 3 years older than them.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:

@cable_extreme: I'm done. Conservatives love to deny evidence in their face for their own desires. You can't argue, and have repeatedly refused to answer my points that you can't counter.

I provided evidence for my point, I explained why your claim was wrong when you said this source supports your argument. I provided evidence supporting my statement involving the source you used. What did I ignore?

Avatar image for chimeroid
Chimeroid

9274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme: another weirs thing US does is having underage drivers...

Avatar image for deactivated-5b60e98a8eb99
deactivated-5b60e98a8eb99

11593

Forum Posts

275

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22269

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@willpayton: ever heard of deterrence? There is a reason all countries have their own military. You cannot trust another country not to attack you.

By having strong defence by carrying more weapons with you, offenders will think twice before engaging you. It is far safer for each high school kid to carry a machine gun than to have none at all.

Think: Why ever since World War 2 no countries ever used nuclear weapons in their war?

Giving children guns is not analogous to deterrence by nations. First, the concept of deterrence assumes that all parties act rationally. This is not the case for children since they are not mature and often do irrational, emotional, and self-destructive behavior. In fact, scientific findings show that generally the parts of the brain responsible for considering things like the long-term consequences of actions dont fully form until around age 25. Second, deterrence assumes that there's enough time to fully understand a situation and act accordingly. If you have a school full of irrational, immature kids with guns and someone starts shooting, all you're going to get is a shootout like in the Old West. In fact, you'll get the opposite of deterrence, because more guns only insentivises others to bring even more weapons, and you get escalation.

Lastly, what you're describing is a world governed by fear, where I cant go outside without weapons because I'm constantly afraid of others who are heavily armed and will presumably take advantage of me if I'm not. This world you want to have is inherently an unsafe, violent, and fearful one. Thanks, but no thanks. That's not the world I want to live in.

Avatar image for deathhero61
DeathHero61

18876

Forum Posts

50

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#176  Edited By DeathHero61

Goddamn, I couldn't imagine what I'd do if that happened at my college. I live in florida, and jesus christ did the shooting sent chills down my spine when I heard it happened at Stone Douglas.(I live at best an 30-40 driving distance away from the school and my college is a similar distance)

Avatar image for juiceboks
juiceboks

25279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#177 juiceboks  Moderator

@stahlflamme: Next time you make a comment like that you're leaving the site.

Avatar image for stahlflamme
Stahlflamme

5889

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for streak619
Streak619

8456

Forum Posts

36

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.

I said if the 19 didn't have a gun in the first place.

How can you seriously say that you wouldn't want the kids in this scenario to have a gun?

Because if no one had a gun, no one dies.

Do you prefer them to be helpless to a monster?

The monster isn't a monster if he didn't have a gun. Therefore, get rid of guns.

Avatar image for deathhero61
DeathHero61

18876

Forum Posts

50

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#180  Edited By DeathHero61

No it wouldn't. It would give kids something to fight back with instead of hiding behind desk praying not to be next.

Giving guns to irrational teenagers of this age is a horrible idea. Think about what you are saying....Kids, freaking kids. Bullies exist, those who have anger issues exist, those who pump out bravado, others who naturally young thugs. Imagine your streotypical school population and every single one of them had guns. That's f****** ridiculous.

Edit: If anything there would be an incident before another school shooter actually shows up....

Avatar image for godsavemenow
GodSaveMeNow

950

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@streak619: "The monster isn't a monster if he didn't have a gun. Therefore, get rid of guns."

So how would any of you guys respond to the argument that "guns don't kill, people kill"

Avatar image for streak619
Streak619

8456

Forum Posts

36

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@godsaveusall: It's true, unfortunately. But it doesn't support the notion that guns should be legalised, because fact is, if guns weren't legal, hundreds of teenagers wouldn't have had to die at the whims of other teenagers with deluded notions about what it means to kill.

If killers don't have the tools to kill, then nobody dies.

Avatar image for godsavemenow
GodSaveMeNow

950

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#183  Edited By GodSaveMeNow

@streak619: this is generally works in many other countries. However what I've heard of the US is that suddenly removing guns will destabilize the entire nation.

Guns are not the only weapons that can be used to kill. Cars and knives work as well too. Are we suggesting to ban those too?

Practical concerns wise: a huge part of US is rural and largely expected to be responsible for oneself. Without firearms how are the rural folks going to protect themselves?

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings

2746

Forum Posts

24

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

RIP. This needs to be taken seriously now, IDK how school kids are getting hands on automatic fire.

Automatic fire is already banned... Yet it doesn't seem to stop people from proving a point.

Virginia Tech killed kids with NORMAL PISTOLS, and well shredded this person in kill count (30+, with just 2 handguns).

Not a single one of these shootings would have been stopped by more background checks at this point, except for the one person who had domestic issues in one of the more recent ones. Which they were already supposed to check for anyway, and the Air Force just didn't do it's job... Not a problem with the law itself. Almost all of the gun shooters are either clean enough to pass even more stringent checks - or already as it was stole it off someone else... So, guess what they would have accomplished so far? NOTHING.

The democratic solutions are pointless short of banning guns. And that is not what the argument ever is, and people are so gd annoying about it all half the time.

And in my opinion, the problem here is depression and social pressure is seemingly causing more people to snap. The human mind is the most dangerous thing in these shootings. Think about it: If you had zero access to firearms, could you think of a way to easily kill a room full of people? I could, and I would just have to spend about 20 dollars at the convenience store. It is just most of these people are retarded and simply have access to the firearms. But I am inclined to think that because the problem is actually the rise of some of these behaviors (we had mass firearms per capita a hundred years ago, yet school shootings were, how rare?), that people will end up resorting to some of those other methods again. And it won't be a cure.

Furthermore, even with record numbers of guns, we have had a dropping murder rate... Despite the fact of what you may see in the mass shootings (rare enough, but highly publicized compared to the rest of it). And places like New Hampshire (with lots of guns) can still have competing homicide rates to places with full bans like the United Kingdom (yes, that is true). But not all of the US... Why? Culture, also some of the reasons mentioned before, today being more common, etc. Heck, one could flip it on it's head by asking why the suicide rate in Japan dwarfs the rest of the world even without guns, they have their different valves of release. And from the cartel drug running, war on drugs, and everything else - it will even be harder compared to every other country in Europe for the most part to keep out as easily, that is forgetting the fact how hard it would be to get rid of the nearly 450million plus (been rising steadily too) guns already here. It isn't like all of those other ones. It isn't, and the guns themselves aren't even the problem. Trying to say everything is equal and the same measures apply equally is insane. Heck, the fact that the USSR in the day banned firearms except for certain groups, and they still had the highest levels of homicide anywhere during that run, dwarfing the US. And it is still bad over in those areas, even though the gun laws are now somewhat different in many of those places.

Avatar image for streak619
Streak619

8456

Forum Posts

36

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@streak619: this is generally works in many other countries. However what I've heard of the US is that suddenly removing guns will destabilize the entire nation.

Guns are not the only weapons that can be used to kill. Cars and knives work as well too. Are we suggesting to ban those too?

Practical concerns wise: a huge part of US is rural and largely expected to be responsible for oneself. Without firearms how are the rural folks going to protect themselves?

How would removing guns destabalize the entire nation?

There are a lot of things around you that can kill you, pens, compasses, dividers. Guns kill with a capability far higher than anything else since they are meant to kill. They aren't things that 19 year olds should be able to walk around with to fricking schools, am I really the only one who finds this insane?

If no one had guns, then no one would need guns to protect themselves from other guns is what I'm trying to say. This is the simplest option.

Avatar image for proteusxmanrxis
ProteusXManRxis

4531

Forum Posts

30

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

#186  Edited By ProteusXManRxis

Sad.

Avatar image for boschepg
boschePG

6325

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

#187  Edited By boschePG

@streak619:

there are 300 million guns in America

15 million AR 15s (its a popular gun)

7 mass shootings with the AR15

you going to force Americans to turn in all their guns even though they paid for them with their own money out of the kindness of their heart?

Australians had an amnesty plan - but, how many of that fraction turned in their guns?

NY had a semi register semis and only 4% turned their stuff in.

the numbers arent matching up in your favor cuz though the 7 mass shootings with AR15s, you are now punishing the other 14million that know how to use their gun

it isnt majority math. you dont make a policy that negatively effects the majority

if society itself would be better then there wouldnt be shootings. ITs not the guns. its the person with the guns.

Avatar image for heroup2112
HeroUp2112

18402

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for streak619
Streak619

8456

Forum Posts

36

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#189  Edited By Streak619

@boschepg:

you going to force Americans to turn in all their guns even though they paid for them with their own money out of the kindness of their heart?

Unhesitantly, anyone who is found to possess gun should be sent to jail to ensure that people return everything, heck they should honestly give set percentage of the selling price if thw guns to the owners.

Whatever, lives of humdreds of teenagers and civillians are heavier than a small dent in economy, that would cover itself over a few years.

if society itself would be better then there wouldnt be shootings. ITs not the guns. its the person with the guns.

A virtually impossible task to change that. Your priority is citizens of America, everyrhing else comes after. B/w the public and your economy, sacrificing safety of public to maintain economy is ridiculous. If guns are threatening the public, then get rid of it no matter the cost.

Your priorities are messed up.

Avatar image for boschepg
boschePG

6325

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

#190  Edited By boschePG

@streak619: my priorities arent messed up. I know facts. 13 thousand people died of gun shootings. 64 thousand died of opioid overdoses. The rate of yearly deaths increase is also higher on opioid over doses. opioid over doses are higher than gun deaths (some are suicides too) by around 400% but I dont see you crying for death there. Im tired of this faux outrage cuz it isnt death that many are upset about, its guns. Your logic is flawed cuz you are using the few to justify punishing the many and stats dont back your case in anything. Please dont go into politics - ever or Starfleet Academy

Gun deaths suck. Drug deaths outnumber gun deaths by a huge amount. I dont mean to antagonize you on the subject though

Avatar image for streak619
Streak619

8456

Forum Posts

36

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@boschepg:

my priorities arent messed up.

You were essentially saying stability of economy > civillian lives. So yes you have messed up priorities.

13 thousand people died of gun shootings. 64 thousand died of opioid overdoses. The rate of yearly deaths increase is also higher on opioid over doses. opioid over doses are higher than gun deaths (some are suicides too) by around 400%

Not sure why you brought up something that has literally nothing to do with our discussion or this thread.

but I dont see you crying for death there

Hmmm, maybe it's because this thread has nothing to with it? Oh wait my bad, I guess I'll start complaining about that as well, and a million other forms of death that have nothing to do with this thread. Sure that makes sense.

Im tired of this faux outrage cuz it isnt death that many are upset about, its guns

No genius, it's unnecessary death due to guns. No one hates guns themselves, if a country didn't have guns, it would be a sitting duck for any foreign invasion or danger. But what people are upset about, is that 17 teenagers died because some moron got his hand on an automatic.

Your logic is flawed cuz you are using the few to justify punishing the many and stats dont back your case in anything

Punishment? Baning guns so that no one has to die unnecessary deaths is a punishment? If no one had guns, no one would need one. Getting rid of guns is no more of a punishment than I am Trump.

So I guess leaving guns with the public is a boon?

Avatar image for biteme_fanboy
BiteMe-Fanboy

8950

Forum Posts

454

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#192  Edited By BiteMe-Fanboy

lol, if you think the millions of law abiding gun owners are going to happily hand in their guns you are sadly mistaken. When the police, or whoever else, comes knocking on your door too take them by force and perhaps arrest you, chaos will begin. It won't happen. The only thing America can do is make it harder to purchase a gun legally.

Even then, it's still sooooo easy to privately purchase a firearm. I own well over 10 guns, and probably only bought one from a gunstore.

America is way too far up the creek with their gun rights. I just can't see it being possible that they decide to ban guns and somehow get all the law abiding owners to hand them over. It wont happen, and honestly, a war would begin over it.

It just won't happen. Yes, you can make it nearly impossible to purchase a gun that would be under your name. But still, it would be simple to go purchase one elsewhere.

Avatar image for supergoku17
SuperGoku17

7220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Gun Control would make things a lot better in USA

Avatar image for mimisalome
mimisalome

5951

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

US can't even employ a common sense-base practical solution to a very fundamental security issue.

You have this kind of tragic security breach problem in school because your school security is non-existent.

You don't even need to be that smart, schools in developing countries already resolved this issue by putting up a wall, and hiring security guard that will inspect incomers for deadly weapons and apprehend trespassers and intruders.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22269

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

US can't even employ a common sense-base practical solution to a very fundamental security issue.

You have this kind of tragic security breach problem in school because your school security is non-existent.

You don't even need to be that smart, schools in developing countries already resolved this issue by putting up a wall, and hiring security guard that will inspect incomers for deadly weapons and apprehend trespassers and intruders.

And yet the safest countries in the world have schools without shootings, without any armed security guards or walls around their schools.

Avatar image for mainjp
MainJP

7739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#196  Edited By MainJP

Gun Control would make things a lot better in USA

Just saw a bit about bulletproof backpacks on the news. It's really gone this far, huh.

Avatar image for mimisalome
mimisalome

5951

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#197  Edited By mimisalome

@willpayton said:

@mimisalome said:

US can't even employ a common sense-base practical solution to a very fundamental security issue.

You have this kind of tragic security breach problem in school because your school security is non-existent.

You don't even need to be that smart, schools in developing countries already resolved this issue by putting up a wall, and hiring security guard that will inspect incomers for deadly weapons and apprehend trespassers and intruders.

And yet the safest countries in the world have schools without shootings, without any armed security guards or walls around their schools.

Flawed logic.

Criminality is a complex social issue and your comparative example may not apply in the case of the US.

Meanwhile enforcing basic security procedures against unwanted trespassers and contrabands are fundamentals even in the absence of rampant criminality

Avatar image for citizensurfer
CitizenSurfer

2642

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Australia's last mass shooting occurred in 1996.

Can you guess when they banned guns?

Avatar image for mimisalome
mimisalome

5951

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Australia's last mass shooting occurred in 1996.

Can you guess when they banned guns?

Gun related mass murder/hostage taking in Australia:

Monash University Shooting - 2002 - 2 dead 5 injured

Hectorville Siege - 2011 - 3 dead 3 injured

Hunts Family Murder - 2014 - 5 dead including suspect

Sydney Siege - 2014 - 3 dead including suspect (1 was killed accidentally)

Non-gun related Mass Murder in Australia since Port Aurthur Massacre (1996):

Childer Palace Backpackers Hostel Fire - Arson 15 dead

Churchhill Fire - Arson 10 dead

Kin Family Murder - Blunt force attack 5 dead

Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire - Arson 11 dead

Rozelle Fire - Arson 3 dead

Cairns Child Killing - stabbing 8 dead

Melbourne Car Attack - Vehicular attack 6 dead

Avatar image for supergoku17
SuperGoku17

7220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mainjp said:
@supergoku17 said:

Gun Control would make things a lot better in USA

Just saw a bit about bulletproof backpacks on the news. It's really gone this far, huh.

Yes it has