Are you pro life?

[Atlanticmike]

We wear two pair of garments when going outside, do you think that will help? Gee whiz dude!!

What about this video? An elderly woman in a poor neighborhood protecting herself with a pistol. In "your world" she wouldn't have the ability to protect herself with a highly effective weapon. You do realize if we ban guns, criminals don't all of sudden start working 9 to 5 and give up their criminal behavior? Again, what about this grandma, what would you have her do in this situation?
https://youtu.be/dWtdKhCYjCE

You think my lightning scenario is absurd, and that people don't generally need to worry about being struck by lightning as long as they aren't standing on mountain tops in major electrical storms.

But the probability of someone getting struck by lightning and someone having to use a gun is about the same.

Has your wife ever killed a home invader? Has anyone you personally know had to kill a home invader?

Like I said before, my wife has never needed to use a gun for self defense. But I do know people who have. Years ago I had a distant relative that was being strangled by a ex boyfriend and her new boyfriend shot the guy. I know a cop who used his gun to beat the crap out of his daughters boyfriend while the kids was drunk and in a jealous rage. Thankfully the guy was much smaller than my buddy and he didn't shoot him. It happens all the time even though you won't admit it.

There's 400 million guns in the USA and around 30 billion rounds of ammunition in civilian households. Since you think America is so "scary" because of guns, would you tell us how many times you have been shot at? It's got to be at least a couple dozen considering how many guns us crazy gun owners have, no? Are you constantly ducking for cover while walking down the street because bullets are whizzing by?

What did you think of the 12 year old kid shooting the intruder? What should she of done differently? Did you watch that video?

[Chap]

As we saw earlier in this thread, US homicide rates per 100,000 population are four to five times those in comparable advanced European countries where gun control is much stricter. But how far might that be the effect of the extreme ease of killing people with a gun, as opposed to using a knife or some kind of blunt instrument?

This chart is quite interesting:

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_viole ... ted_States)



Clearly, there are quite a few countries whose rates of non-gun homicide are not greatly less than those in the US. But in the US there is this huge dose of extra killing by lovely quick effective 'pull it and plug'em' guns. A dose of killing much greater than in other countries.

Doesn't that look like the extra special factor that keeps the US homicide level so high is the guns? Why, so it does.

[Cultellus]

Everyone is welcome. Every opinion is welcome.* Therefore, do not "de-invite" anyone or suggest that they go elsewhere.

[Sledge]

A-Mike, are you now ready to see the truth and give up guns? We’ve proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they aren’t necessary and cause much more harm than good (the good is essentially nil).

So will you join me?

[Gunnar]

A-Mike, are you now ready to see the truth and give up guns? We’ve proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they aren’t necessary and cause much more harm than good (the good is essentially nil).

So will you join me?

You're probably wasting your time, Sledge. A-Mike seems to be a prime example of "backfire effect."

What is the backfire effect

The backfire effect is a cognitive bias that causes people who encounter evidence that challenges their beliefs to reject that evidence, and to strengthen their support of their original stance. Essentially, the backfire effect means that showing people evidence which proves that they are wrong is often ineffective, and can actually end up backfiring, by causing them to support their original stance more strongly than they previously did.

As such, the backfire effect is a subtype of the confirmation bias, which is a cognitive bias that can cause people to reject information which contradicts their beliefs, or to interpret information in a way that confirms those beliefs.

Most (probably all) of us are prone to this effect to at least some extent, which is why it behooves us all to honestly reexamine our deepest convictions (especially our deepest convictions) to purge ourselves of irrational and unsupported convictions. That is the only way I managed to eventually arrive at the conclusion that Mormon foundational truth claims are not nearly as incontrovertible as I once desperately believed, and that the Republican party, of which I once was a proud member, has become the party of anti-science, misinformation, anti-democracy, corruption and bigotry.

[Sledge]

I have problems with the institutional church and Utah Mormon culture, for sure. But the foundational truth claims? Still true.

[Gunnar]

I have problems with the institutional church and Utah Mormon culture, for sure. But the foundational truth claims? Still true.

I guess we'll just have agree to disagree on the foundational truth claims part. We are both certainly entitled to that. At least that doesn't materially endanger the health and well being of others who don't share our beliefs, like denial of the the importance of vaccination, masking and social distancing as the pandemic continues is rampage, and refusing to consider stricter gun regulations to reduce our country's horrible homicide rate due to firearms would, which are subjects on which we two seem to agree.

I have to say this in favor of the LDS Church: its leadership, most notably President Nelson, a highly renowned thoracic surgeon, has come out very strongly in favor of vaccination, masking and social distancing, as recommended by the CDC and other medical authorities, as long as this pandemic continues to rage. This has apparently already caused an uptick in Utah's vaccination rate and masking, despite its being a red state. This can only be a good thing.

[Gunnar]

COVID-19: Rejecting the false choice of science or spirit, faith or reason.

One New York Times opinion writer went so far as to blame the entirety of the virus’s devastation at the feet of President Donald Trump’s Christian supporters with the sweeping generalization that all believers must be science deniers. That is false. It’s also a false choice. If anything, the pandemic has painted a new paradigm connecting science and spirituality, faith and reason.

One world-renowned heart surgeon, who also happens to be a world religious leader, is proving the point. Russell M. Nelson is president of the 16 million-member global faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He also spent decades as a pioneer of treating the heart. To him, things of science and things of the spiritual are inseparable.

In a video message sent to members and posted on social media, President Nelson invited all who were able to participate in a day of fasting and prayer. A faith leader calling people to faith in a time of trial is nothing new.

Interestingly President Nelson began his message: “As a physician and surgeon, I have great admiration for medical professionals, scientists, and all who are working around the clock to curb the spread of COVID-19.”

President Nelson has called for prayer and issued calls for people to follow local and national governments along with world health expert guidelines.

[Chap]

Agreed. There is nothing about being an Abrahamic theist that, in itself, should make you anti-science.

When I was a theist, it seemed to me that the huge success of science in making sense of the world and giving us power over it could be seen as a consequence of God's utterance in Genesis "Let us make man in our own image". He actually made the universe so that it would be comprehensible and gave us the capacity to discover its inner workings in more and more detail. I was by no means alone in this attitude, and during my time at university, my impression was that there were rather more believers amongst students studying science than amongst those studying the arts.

Let us recall that in the medieval European university curriculum - at the summit of which lay theology - the starting point for students was the quadrivium, the four 'arts' of arithmetic, geometry, music (meaning harmonics), and astronomy. The journey towards knowledge of the creator began with the rational understanding of his works. Should that be any surprise?

[Atlanticmike]

A-Mike, are you now ready to see the truth and give up guns? We’ve proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they aren’t necessary and cause much more harm than good (the good is essentially nil).

So will you join me?

Have you ever really thought about why the first two amendments explain why we should protect our right to free speech and our right to bear arms? Our founding fathers understood that when a government gets too big for its britches the first thing they try to do is limit free speech and the ability to protect yourself. Once the government steals your freedom of speech and your freedom to protect yourself, you become a slave to the system. What's so heart breaking to me, is there are so many people like yourself who are willing to trade freedom for a temporary comfort. Benjamin Franklin said """ they that give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."" Thomas Jefferson said "" I prefer dangerous Freedom over peaceful slavery."'

You also used Europe as an example of what America should be. Here's what the founding fathers said about Europe over 200 years ago. Noah Webster said ""Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the Sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force Superior to any band of regular troops.""

James Madison said ""besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate government, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the Enterprises of ambition, more unsurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.""

In 1803, St George Tucker explained how governments always end up limiting your God given right to protect yourself. ""this may be considered as the true palladium of Liberty, the right of self-defense is the first law of Nature, and most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color of pretext whatsoever, prohibited Liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of Destruction.""


You see, I prefer dangerous freedom!! In fact, true freedom is always dangerous because the government is limited in what it can force you to "obey." Correct me if I'm wrong please, but you seem to take comfort in peaceful slavery?