Posts by AndDontCallMeShirley

137

9yr old girl kills her gun instructor with an uzi

by EndofMysteries in

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.

AndDontCallMeShirley

Caedes: I hate to break it to you but comparing levels of gun control between states in the US is laughable, try comparing with japan or the UK if you want to see the effects of genuine gun control.

Are we talking about gun control as it relates to overall violent crime rates? I hate to break it to you, Caedes, but the availability of guns does not correlate to more crime. You cite the UK as an example. Okay, it is true that they have stricter gun control laws than the USA. But, their violent crime rates are greater than the USA.

Unless, of course, you are arguing that gun crime is bad while any other violent crime is acceptable, so we should only focus myopically on gun crime and turn a blind eye to overall violent crime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&feature=player_embedded

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Furthermore, my comparison between states [in the USA] is not "laughable", as you claim. If I want to know how much sushi people in Boston eat only compared to how much sushi people in Los Angeles eat, it is irrelevant how much sushi people in Tokyo eat. It has nothing to do with the comparison I'm making.

I'm comparing apples to apples; you are comparing apples to oranges.

For example: DC (has a handgun ban, 35.8 murders per 100,000)... Vermont has the least restrictive gun laws in the country (don't even need a permit to conceal carry) and their murder rate is 2.6 per 100,000

137

9yr old girl kills her gun instructor with an uzi

by EndofMysteries in

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.

AndDontCallMeShirley

if people asked for gun control it was the same as asking for cars or skiing to be banned. Would you like me to quote your posts 3266, 3267 and 3268 as evidence?

Yes, you may quote what I said if you think it'll help you, caedes. I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or simply can't see the point I'm making.

What I'm saying is this: the knee-jerk reaction when an incident like this occurs is: guns are dangerous, therefore no one should have guns.

My point is, how far does the argument go? If people want to outlaw guns because they are "dangerous", then what else will be banned based solely on that criteria? If something is banned simply because it is perceived by special interest groups as "dangerous", then almost anything could be banned, right?

I'm not saying that the instructor or parents exercised good judgment. This incident will perhaps result in some changes, either by legislation or other means, that will prevent a repeat of this type of tragedy in the future. I hope it does.

I think one thing is true, caedes: you are going to believe whatever you want to believe despite what I say. I'm not going to box with you.

caedes: TD, I would be interested to know what the effects of the lower powered cartridge have on the mechanism, presumably a lower power cartridge results in less muzzle climb? Is there a mechanism in the uzi to minimise the muzzle climb problem? Is it possible that a lower power cartridge somehow makes the weapon less controllable?

Why ask TD this question? You've already made plain what your retort will be, so nothing TD explains should make any difference to you:

caedes: This was not an accident, any reasonable person can see that it could have been forseen that giving a child an uzi was going to result in this kind of incident. Any kind of health and safety management assessement should have asked the question what could possibly go wrong if we give small children automatic weapons.

If TD answers that the weapon is controllable for this or that reason, will you change your position? Doubtful.

"This was not an accident, any reasonable person can see that it could have been forseen". -- caedes

If this was true the authorities would be pressing charges for negligent homocide or manslaughter. The authorities are not pressing any charges. They see it as an unfortunate, arguably avoidable, accident.

The instructor's widow and family are not blaming anybody either. They see it as an unfortunate accident.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Unless you have a crystal ball, Caedes. Do you?

--

caedes...read my posts rather than reading into them. You'll see things much clearer. Any alleged 'switching of position' is your perception, and I can't do anything about that.

34

If you still believe in God, what are your thoughts on the Bible?

by ilikecheese in

jw
friends

do you believe it's inerrant?

do you believe it's based on things that happened, but a lot of it may just be stories and it's not perfect because men wrote it?

do you think it's just a good guide?

AndDontCallMeShirley

"That makes it impossible to know for certain what he wrote in every passage (or arguably, in any passage). "

As Ehrman points out, there are more textual errors and variations in the extant manuscripts than there are words in the NT. Even if god existed and did inspire the Bible, that fact alone (the number of errors) reveals his ineptitude, or perhaps outright apathy, in making sure the message was preserved intact.

All that is available are copies of copies of copies. Interestingly, professional, educated Christian scribes did not make an appearance until the 4th century. Their work was based on the existing manuscripts produced by uneducated, non-professional Christian "scribes" who scribbled copies of letters to be read to all the illiterate Christians (90% or more).

At best, what professional Christian scribes had as source material was the already hopelessly flawed material produced by amateurs.

147

Your views and ideas on forum areas and organization?

by Simon in

this may come as a shock to some people, but the current forum structure was kind of thrown together without much real thought and then evolved a bit over time.

there are a few things that particularly grate on me and areas where i don't think the subjects work particularly well.

'friends' is a bit vague and becomes a dumping ground, news & world events vs politics & current affairs is hard to decide sometimes, child abuse is a scandal but isn't contained withing 'scandals & coverups' etc.... with a new forum platform imminent, it's a good time to solicit ideas to improve things.

AndDontCallMeShirley

Paris: Having more time to think through a post or being able to edit it anytime, even the next day, like you can on Facebook ?

(I'm repeating what Phizzy alluded to):

Sounds exactly like what WT does. WT wants to revise and/or delete it's own history when the reality of it's absurdity sets in, then, rather than man-up and acknowledge, "yes, we said that", they choose to delete it altogether and pretend it never existed. Well, thinking people can see right through that tactic and recognize it for what it is: dishonest Revisionism. You may rant ad nauseum about WT, Paris, but it seems you still retain admiration for some of WT's methodologies that suit your needs.

The only reason I can see for a person wanting this feature added is for the same purpose: when you begin to feel the heat for the words you write, you can go back, delete or edit them, then claim you never said it and everyone got it all wrong.

"Having more time to think through a post"- Try doing this before you post. It makes all the difference in the world.

I'm with Phizzy on this:

Again I say, be careful what you write, then let it stand, even if it does make you look silly later.

34

If you still believe in God, what are your thoughts on the Bible?

by ilikecheese in

jw
friends

do you believe it's inerrant?

do you believe it's based on things that happened, but a lot of it may just be stories and it's not perfect because men wrote it?

do you think it's just a good guide?

AndDontCallMeShirley

I am not motivated enough to be a serious sinner.

You're not trying hard enough, JB.

If you can just switch the 51%/49% thing, I think you've got it. LOL.

147

Your views and ideas on forum areas and organization?

by Simon in

this may come as a shock to some people, but the current forum structure was kind of thrown together without much real thought and then evolved a bit over time.

there are a few things that particularly grate on me and areas where i don't think the subjects work particularly well.

'friends' is a bit vague and becomes a dumping ground, news & world events vs politics & current affairs is hard to decide sometimes, child abuse is a scandal but isn't contained withing 'scandals & coverups' etc.... with a new forum platform imminent, it's a good time to solicit ideas to improve things.

AndDontCallMeShirley

Paris:

The best sites are brilliantly simple to use. Like Amazon.

I find the site a bit confusing and often end up places I do not want to be.*

Maybe the solution is two have only two areas to go to on JWN:

* 1. The "Free and Open Discussion On Any Topic" forum, where a person can exchange ideas with a wide variety of people and actually learn something. Agreement or disagreement with posted views is irrelevant, as expanding your knowledge is the objective of the forum.

2. The "People Who Have the Same Exact Opinion As Me" forum, where you learn absolutely nothing new at all but feel damn good about yourself anyway.

147

Your views and ideas on forum areas and organization?

by Simon in

this may come as a shock to some people, but the current forum structure was kind of thrown together without much real thought and then evolved a bit over time.

there are a few things that particularly grate on me and areas where i don't think the subjects work particularly well.

'friends' is a bit vague and becomes a dumping ground, news & world events vs politics & current affairs is hard to decide sometimes, child abuse is a scandal but isn't contained withing 'scandals & coverups' etc.... with a new forum platform imminent, it's a good time to solicit ideas to improve things.

AndDontCallMeShirley

I thought this thread was about forum areas and organization, but I see it's all about Paris.

Apparently only one opinion counts here.

147

Your views and ideas on forum areas and organization?

by Simon in

this may come as a shock to some people, but the current forum structure was kind of thrown together without much real thought and then evolved a bit over time.

there are a few things that particularly grate on me and areas where i don't think the subjects work particularly well.

'friends' is a bit vague and becomes a dumping ground, news & world events vs politics & current affairs is hard to decide sometimes, child abuse is a scandal but isn't contained withing 'scandals & coverups' etc.... with a new forum platform imminent, it's a good time to solicit ideas to improve things.

AndDontCallMeShirley

@ Paris:

It must be hell having to go through life knowing not everyone agrees with your beliefs and opinions. Even among those who may agree with you, none will agree with 100%. It's a sad fact of life: not everyone is you.

I'm sure your hoped-for solution would be simply to nuke humanity into non-existence so the only survivor would be...you. Just you and your own thoughts...what a lovely world that would be. Oh, and of course, the cockroaches. I hear tell they can survive a nuclear holocaust. But I'm sure before long they too would mourn the fact that they survived the apocolypse, as now they are subject to your tireless rants with no way out...not even death.

Maybe Simon should just change the name of his website to Paris/VG.net. That way you could post every comment yourself, then congratulate yourself on how much smarter you are than the the rest of us. And, of course, you would not need to face the insufferable fact that people have views that differ from yours. The horror of it !

147

Your views and ideas on forum areas and organization?

by Simon in

this may come as a shock to some people, but the current forum structure was kind of thrown together without much real thought and then evolved a bit over time.

there are a few things that particularly grate on me and areas where i don't think the subjects work particularly well.

'friends' is a bit vague and becomes a dumping ground, news & world events vs politics & current affairs is hard to decide sometimes, child abuse is a scandal but isn't contained withing 'scandals & coverups' etc.... with a new forum platform imminent, it's a good time to solicit ideas to improve things.

AndDontCallMeShirley

Paris: However name calling is never appropriate. Refutation can be accomplished without name calling.

Like calling atheists a "pack of wolves"? Is that what you mean?

34

If you still believe in God, what are your thoughts on the Bible?

by ilikecheese in

jw
friends

do you believe it's inerrant?

do you believe it's based on things that happened, but a lot of it may just be stories and it's not perfect because men wrote it?

do you think it's just a good guide?

AndDontCallMeShirley

The Bible- this is what happens when you don't raise the minimum wage....

LOL.

Or maybe more accurately, this is what happens when you don't have a minimum wage at all.