Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

[bignewt]

Gal Gadot is still way hotter, sorry. No recency bias, either.

Not even close. Gal can't hold Lyndas lasso.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Not really. Most of the people it kills are past childbearing age. Minimal change to the gene pool.

Uh... exactly. That’s why it is a Darwinian virus. It doesn’t harm the young, the ones able to pass on their genes, which is the greatest good in evolutionary worldview. Instead it kills the old, the weak. It is a Darwinian virus

 

[GojiraVol17]

Not even close. Gal can't hold Lyndas lasso.

I think we just have to agree to disagree on this one

 

[bignewt]

I agree, but there doesn't seem to be an easy answer. It seems like with most things in our life, there is always a 'down side'. But I believe with firearms, there are more positives than negatives. By far and away the great majority of deaths due to firearms are due to suicide (close to 65% almost every year) and gang violence (almost exclusively with handguns), but those major advocates for gun control never seem to worry about black kids in the inner cities killing each other. Violence by 'assault rifle is just not common; yes there were a couple in quick secession in 2019, but those have not proven to be any sort of new norm.

Something else rarely mentioned is that the number of crimes prevented annually by an armed citizen far outnumbers the number of deaths caused by firearms of all types.

While some gun control advocates claim the Second Amendment is a dangerous historical relic, even going so far as to call for its repeal, they often overlook the fact that firearms are significantly more likely to be used for self-defense than in criminal activity.

In fact, according to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost all national studies of defensive gun uses have found that firearms are used in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times every year in the United States.

Additionally, an independent analysis of the CDC’s own internal data on defensive gun uses indicates that firearms are used defensively about 1 million times a year, dwarfing the number of deaths and injuries attributable to their criminal use.

Guns Save Lives Too

The true number is likely somewhere in the middle of 500k-3m, but even say 1.0m-1.5m is still a very significant number of crimes prevented every yer by armed citizens.

The major problem in all that are mass shootings. When many innocent people are killed at once by a single person in a public space, all those stats go out the window.

 

[InVOLuntary]

I agree, but there doesn't seem to be an easy answer. It seems like with most things in our life, there is always a 'down side'. But I believe with firearms, there are more positives than negatives. By far and away the great majority of deaths due to firearms are due to suicide (close to 65% almost every year) and gang violence (almost exclusively with handguns), but those major advocates for gun control never seem to worry about black kids in the inner cities killing each other. Violence by 'assault rifle is just not common; yes there were a couple in quick secession in 2019, but those have not proven to be any sort of new norm.

Something else rarely mentioned is that the number of crimes prevented annually by an armed citizen far outnumbers the number of deaths caused by firearms of all types.

While some gun control advocates claim the Second Amendment is a dangerous historical relic, even going so far as to call for its repeal, they often overlook the fact that firearms are significantly more likely to be used for self-defense than in criminal activity.

In fact, according to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost all national studies of defensive gun uses have found that firearms are used in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times every year in the United States.

Additionally, an independent analysis of the CDC’s own internal data on defensive gun uses indicates that firearms are used defensively about 1 million times a year, dwarfing the number of deaths and injuries attributable to their criminal use.

Guns Save Lives Too

The true number is likely somewhere in the middle of 500k-3m, but even say 1.0m-1.5m is still a very significant number of crimes prevented every yer by armed citizens.

This deserves many likes. I'm going to hack @jackcrevol 's account and like it.

 

[bignewt]

Uh... exactly. That’s why it is a Darwinian virus. It doesn’t harm the young, the ones able to pass on their genes, which is the greatest good in evolutionary worldview. Instead it kills the old, the weak. It is a Darwinian virus

Love hearing a die-hard creationist throw out Darwinism. Warms my soul.

 

[WBO]

FYI, I am a gun owner with waaaay more guns than the average owner. I was raised within the gun culture and my father showed me how to shoot when I was only 6 with a 22. But I have no problem with background checks, bans on high capacity rounds and things like bump stocks One question I always have is about the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment. Even the current Supreme Court avoids discussing the phrase about "a well-regulated militia . . .". That seems to put a context on the right to bear. You can't ignore it. They put it in there for a purpose.

So what does it mean? You could make an argument that with the advent of the military grade assault rifle that it's even more applicable now, i.e. that ownership of those types of guns can only be within a state-authorized and operating militia such as the National Guard.

But even in the late 1700's there was a technological and qualitative difference between the guns used in a hunting context and those used in military organizations. The military guns were typically heavier, of higher caliber and had bayonet mounts. Was there a purposeful differentiation? For even Constitutional literalist you don't get to ignore that phrase.

 

[InVOLuntary]

It surely is. It's tough to know where to draw the line. Like I have said before rights are the most important but there is always a down side. Personal ly I wouldn't want someone on antidepressants having guns, those drugs heighten unstable behavior but what if you already have the guns and then start taking them? Yeesh.

I know people that take antidepressants that I don't worry about at all that own guns. I think they probably don't need them, btw. I think we way over medicate in this country.

 

[bignewt]

I know people that take antidepressants that I don't worry about at all that own guns. I think they probably don't need them, btw. I think we way over medicate in this country.

I've had friends be highly unstable, hurt themselves, others and even commit suicide on them and I think they just made things worse. Chemical imbalances created from them are no bueno. Sure it's fine for a few but definitely not all.

 

[SSVol]

Uh... exactly. That’s why it is a Darwinian virus. It doesn’t harm the young, the ones able to pass on their genes, which is the greatest good in evolutionary worldview. Instead it kills the old, the weak. It is a Darwinian virus

Pure Darwinian evolution would prevent the weakest from passing on their genes. If you are past childbearing years, you have already done so, so dying doesn’t affect anything.

And @bignewt, this particular creationist completely agrees with micro evolution, just not macro evolution.

 

[bignewt]

Pure Darwinian evolution would prevent the weakest from passing on their genes. If you are past childbearing years, you have already done so, so dying doesn’t affect anything.

And @bignewt, this particular creationist completely agrees with micro evolution, just not macro evolution.

Noted. Is micro the Noah's Ark strategy?

 

[InVOLuntary]

FYI, I am a gun owner with waaaay more guns than the average owner. I was raised within the gun culture and my father showed me how to shoot when I was only 6 with a 22. But I have no problem with background checks, bans on high capacity rounds and things like bump stocks One question I always have is about the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment. Even the current Supreme Court avoids discussing the phrase about "a well-regulated militia . . .". That seems to put a context on the right to bear. You can't ignore it. They put it in there for a purpose.

So what does it mean? You could make an argument that with the advent of the military grade assault rifle that it's even more applicable now, i.e. that ownership of those types of guns can only be within a state-authorized and operating militia such as the National Guard.

But even in the late 1700's there was a technological and qualitative difference between the guns used in a hunting context and those used in military organizations. The military guns were typically heavier, of higher caliber and had bayonet mounts. Was there a purposeful differentiation? For even Constitutional literalist you don't get to ignore that phrase.

There was very little difference in civilian firearms and military firearms in the revolutionary war.

 

[bignewt]

There was very little difference in civilian firearms and military firearms in the revolutionary war.

Also not a lot of mass shootings in the 1770s...

 

[InVOLuntary]

I've had friends be highly unstable, hurt themselves, others and even commit suicide on them and I think they just made things worse. Chemical imbalances created from them are no bueno. Sure it's fine for a few but definitely not all.

And that's what makes it so hard to add the mental aspect to firearms ownership.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Love hearing a die-hard creationist throw out Darwinism. Warms my soul.

Glad I’m a creationist. Otherwise, why would I care about this virus?

 

[InVOLuntary]

Also not a lot of mass shootings in the 1770s...

His point was there was a significant difference in military firearms and personal hunting rifles in the day and that's not true. Also, and AR 15 is not on the same level as the military equivalent, M4. It's a false equivalency.

 

[Kristy*]

Darwinism is callous. Survival of the fittest. Who does this virus kill?

Darwinism focuses on behavioral traits as well as physical traits. Ones that allow people to compete, not just survive. It's a little callous to refer to a disease targeting a group of people that have no control over their circumstances as Darwinism.

 

[bignewt]

And that's what makes it so hard to add the mental aspect to firearms ownership.

What I'm really conflicted about is if someone is on social media threatening to go out and kill as many as they see...and we could prevent it by arresting them and taking their guns...and one person saved is one of your loved ones...it's tough to be die hard about protecting that mass shooter's rights.

 

[bignewt]

His point was there was a significant difference in military firearms and personal hunting rifles in the day and that's not true. Also, and AR 15 is not on the same level as the military equivalent, M4. It's a false equivalency.

You can do a lot of damage in a mall with an AR15 though I bet.

 

[bignewt]

Glad I’m a creationist. Otherwise, why would I care about this virus?

Try again.

 

[InVOLuntary]

What I'm really conflicted about is if someone is on social media threatening to go out and kill as many as they see...and we could prevent it by arresting them and taking their guns...and one person saved is one of your loved ones...it's tough to be die hard about protecting that mass shooter's rights.

And maybe it's just someone spouting off with actual no intention of actually doing anything. Should we arrest someone and take their car, drivers license away for saying they're going to go to a bar and get blasted and drive home afterward? It's hard to take liberties away for potential crimes.

 

[InVOLuntary]

You can do a lot of damage in a mall with an AR15 though I bet.

I can do a lot of damage at a mall with a lot of things.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

You can't karate chop a bullet.

You have no idea what inVOLuntary's powers are.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Try again.

Why?

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear... there are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.” -William B. Provine

 

[Crazy Ivan]

I've bought firearms from individuals with no paper trails and not really knowing their name. I seldom sell firearms, (I need to, ), but I've always required a show of ID to make sure they are a resident of my state. When I've purchased them from an individual, I've always had a police buddy run them for me to make sure it's not stolen with the risk of losing it if it comes back stolen because I've got to give it to him if it comes back stolen.

That's ultra risky for the seller, assuming you are buying a legal weapon with a serial#, because if the gun is used in a crime the serial# will be traced back to the registered owner, who would be the seller.