http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/arizona-girl-fatal-shooting-accident/index.html?hpt=hp_t2.
"a 9-year-old girl learning to fire a submachine gun accidentally killed her instructor at a shooting range when the weapon recoiled over her shoulder, according to arizona authorities.
another reason to go against those arguing that young children should be taught how to use guns.
It was an accident which could only happend because someone gave this girl a loaded uzi and told her to shoot it.
A law preventing something this outrageously stupid would also very likely have prevented this accident.
I've stated a number of times that this was an avoidable accident, I do not advocate that children shoot this kind of weapon, and I have no problem with laws that say as much.
What the hell are you still arguing about???????
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/arizona-girl-fatal-shooting-accident/index.html?hpt=hp_t2.
"a 9-year-old girl learning to fire a submachine gun accidentally killed her instructor at a shooting range when the weapon recoiled over her shoulder, according to arizona authorities.
another reason to go against those arguing that young children should be taught how to use guns.
What I would say is that you do seem to be defending the indefensible by claiming this was just an accident
If it wasn't an accident, then the only other option is that it was deliberate. I guess we'll soon read a story about the authorities charging this 9 year-old girl for murder in the first degree.
So far it looks like the only people who have a say in the US is irresponsible gun owners and their knee-jerk aversity to any kind of gun controls whatsoever.
Do your homework, Caedes. The states that have the most stringent gun control laws also have the highest gun crime rates. And, to refute your ridiculous assertion, by and large responsible, law abiding gun owners are the majority...they just don't make the evening news like the nutjobs do.
You were the one claiming that an accident with a nail gun or car or skis is the same as one with a military grade weapon.
I'm not going to argue with you about something I didn't say. You're too obtuse to get it (or it doesn't serve your purpose to get it).
1) take meds for your megalomania and delusions of grandeur.. .
suggestions welcome.. .
dd.
Viv: Can you cite any specific examples?
DOT: As Viviane said, I too would like to see a specific example from FlyingHighNow.
..
Guys: anecdotes, heresay and off-the-cuff comments (aka, "bulls**t) are evidentiary examples. This thread is rife with them from FHN and others. The only thing that is categorically ignored by FHN, et al, is the hard evidence presented (which has been amply supplied) undermining their baseless claims.
Don't hold your breath. Theists have a strong aversion to evidence.
BTW- I'm with On The Way Out: unless asked, I don't share my views on atheism or Bible subjects unless asked. Even then I say very little.
FHN: we know you base your conclusion on more than the statistics of what scientists believe or don't believe, so why the hysteria over the statistics? Edited to add, maybe "spazzing out" is more accurate then the word hysteria.
Statistics were supplied as part of the discussion. Posting them hardly constitutes "hysteria" or "spazzing out".
FHN: "maybe "spazzing out" is more accurate then the word hysteria": No, it isn't. It's equally as absurd.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/arizona-girl-fatal-shooting-accident/index.html?hpt=hp_t2.
"a 9-year-old girl learning to fire a submachine gun accidentally killed her instructor at a shooting range when the weapon recoiled over her shoulder, according to arizona authorities.
another reason to go against those arguing that young children should be taught how to use guns.
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean their logic is faulty, however there may be a fault in your logic if you cannot see that indiscrimate military grade weapons do not sit in the same category as cars, motorbikes, power tools or any of the other things that could potentially cause a fatal accident.
I didn't say that.
Try reading all of my posts before blasting me:
"Regardless, after watching the video, it's obvious she was not qualified to handle this gun and the instructor should have seen that. A tragedy."
"I'm not advocating that 9 year-olds should be firing automatic weapons. I think some are assuming that I am."
jw.org pins, on the kh's, etc, how soon before they are making jw.org altar pieces, necklaces, etc to hold and pray with?
.
I AGREE 100%. I saw a pic on JW Instagram where some poor dude just got baptized (or right before) and some brother is pinning a JW.ORg pin on his ADDIDAS T-SHIRT http://instagram.com/p/sGX8CYnIYE/?modal=true
It is like some sort of initiation or coronation now. This is getting completely & utterly out of control.
---
The description right next to the pic says he was a hotel staff person attending the convention for the day. He's not a newly baptized person.
1) take meds for your megalomania and delusions of grandeur.. .
suggestions welcome.. .
dd.
FHN: If you're an atheist, I ask you, does your atheism hinge on believing most scientists are atheists?
What a ridiculous question.
Are you a believer because most believers believe?
1) take meds for your megalomania and delusions of grandeur.. .
suggestions welcome.. .
dd.
NHAH: Anddpntcallmeshirley:- what do ypu say we lighten things up...most of my friends are educated and intelligent people. ( Jehovets witnesses)
I think and this is origional " the greatest kind of knowledge is knowledge to things people would never have knowldge of"
I rest my case.
1) take meds for your megalomania and delusions of grandeur.. .
suggestions welcome.. .
dd.
@Sunny23...
I watched the video. Thank you.
The claim was made by certain person(s) here that 7% of elite scientists are believers (confirmed in your video). My point made in response was, that means 93% are not believers/atheists, which took the wind out of whatever argument the believer was making.
Early in the thread certain individuals took issue with the idea that atheists, overall, are more educated and intelligent than religious people. Athesis were called immoral and, in so many words, stupid for being atheists and for putting sincere questions to the believers. DJS, myself and others posted information substantiating that fact (that atheists are more educated/intelligent), and, again, it took the wind out of the sails of the baseless claims of the believers.
Rather than acknowledge the information presented, the believers interpreted it as we are know-it-all people who denigrate theists and think we are superior. We said nothing of the sort. We merely proved by reference that the biased, uninformed opinions of the believers were wrong. Facing facts appears to be very traumatic for these individuals, so they reverted to their familiar stronghold: ad hominen attacks, strawman arguments and childish silliness.
1) take meds for your megalomania and delusions of grandeur.. .
suggestions welcome.. .
dd.
NHAH: But i must say most of the real wisdom i have learnt has come from simple and uneducated people.
It depends wholly on the context.
However, when we get into the fields of science and similar subjects, Joe the auto mechanic is probably not the best source for getting your education. Ask a scientist.
Ask Joe how to get your 2005 Volvo to idle more smoothly. Ask an astrophysicist about physics.
NHAH: Sorry i missed the word unsabstansiated...but i still stand by my post ADCMS
And I'm the one you say is not open to learning? In other words, you'll just blow off my comments as irrelevant and stay with your original opinion.
1) take meds for your megalomania and delusions of grandeur.. .
suggestions welcome.. .
dd.
NHAH: AndDontCallMeShirley:/ I think by understanding everyones point of view, no matter how misinformed or arcane , i can better understand myself
That's why I'm asking for FHN's research. Or does part of your learning process involve never asking questions? I can't understand someone's "point of view" if they don't articulate why they have adopted that point of view. Heresay is not valid data.
NHAH: And having said that i am sure Flyinghoghnows dad and his buddies opinion is of better value than mine on most subjects.
Why? Other than FHN's claims (with no evidence to back them up), you have no reason to accept FHN's or her dad's buddies opinions as valid. Do you often surrender your own thinking processes based solely on the unsubstantiated claims of people you've never met?
