Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Gun Control ?


docyabut2

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

I'm getting rather tired of my recent trend of long-winded responses that involve dissecting every single point from someone's post. So I'll just focus on the one thing that alarmingly stood out the most.

I can somewhat understand the argument that overpopulation is a problem. However what you're suggesting here is downright scary. Of course Eugenics was popular a hundred years ago. So were Jim Crow laws, and a myriad of other abhorrent things that we can for the most part look back on with disdain. I mean, it sounds as if you're literally flirting with the idea of outright Nazism here. Overpopulation is undoubtedly a problem that needs addressing, however I don't believe in any way that Eugenics is really the desired solution, nor is it the only solution.

 

I think you took his post wrong.   I don't think he was advocating for eugenics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 If a person is too dangerous to have a gun, that person is dangerous enough to arrest or commit. Taking people's guns on the say-so of a jilted lover or crazy neighbor isn't a slippery slope, it's a cliff.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

That is probably just due to a lot less jobs being physically taxing. You don't have to be strong if you live in a city of 3 to 5 million, and the heaviest things you lift are packages of stuff you ordered on Amazon.

That might explain hand grips. That doesn't explain testosterone levels.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Kismit said:

What about alcohol purchases and gambling?

Just a note, according to your well researched post, legal age for tobbacco sales in Florida is 19. 

Shouldn't a standard set age for adulthood, based on research, be agreed on before the NRA is given the right to decide.

What if it where the alcohol and drug lobby groups fighting to change the age limit or the tobbacco industry. Or indeed the Casino industry?

A standard set age for responsibilty and rights is set, based on research  for mental ability,  in countries like New Zealand and Australia.

That bank account thing seems more restrictive to me. I don't think there is a limit to the age you have to be to open a bank account in either Australia or New Zealand. Legal working age is 14. I was 12 when I first started work and needed an account.

I think that "18" should be the youngest age for (fill in the blank). It certainly would simplify things. I'm not sure how it would fit into consent or driving, though. Work would be an exception too. It should not be illegal to buy alcohol and tobacco at that age since you can die and kill in wars at that age. You can vote at that age too. It seems contradictory, as well as hypocritical, to have such different laws. Maybe "16" would work for the three things I mentioned, but "18" would work for the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Myles said:

I think you took his post wrong.   I don't think he was advocating for eugenics. 

Difficult to tell, given that there are people on here who support things like torture and murdering the innocent wives and children of terrorists.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I'm getting rather tired of my recent trend of long-winded responses that involve dissecting every single point from someone's post. So I'll just focus on the one thing that alarmingly stood out the most.

I can somewhat understand the argument that overpopulation is a problem. However what you're suggesting here is downright scary. Of course Eugenics was popular a hundred years ago. So were Jim Crow laws, and a myriad of other abhorrent things that we can for the most part look back on with disdain. I mean, it sounds as if you're literally flirting with the idea of outright Nazism here. Overpopulation is undoubtedly a problem that needs addressing, however I don't believe in any way that Eugenics is really the desired solution, nor is it the only solution.

Anyway, with that I think I'm done with this thread. I keep getting off-topic anyway, and I've already made my point in regards to the topic many times over. No need to repeat myself essentially...

Hey, I am not condoning, or promoting anything, I am simply saying that I understand where someone could rationalize doing such to themself.

I think it more telling that you are unable to put yourself in others boots, then it is that I can put myself in those boots. It is a result of conditioning to believe. Belief that your side of things is the correct side of things. 

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Difficult to tell, given that there are people on here who support things like torture and murdering the innocent wives and children of terrorists.

It wasn't difficult at all.   You are viewing everything through a distorted lens.   I hope you do not own a gun.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think it more telling that you are unable to put yourself in others boots, then it is that I can put myself in those boots. It is a result of conditioning to believe. Belief that your side of things is the correct side of things.

Imagine if you were a flat-earther and you said this ^ to a round-earther. See how ridiculous that sounds given the proper context? The same applies here.

My refusal to accept your delusional BS has nothing to do with me being 'unable to put myself in other's boots', or my inability to see alternative points of view. It has to do with the fact that I actually care about what's factually correct, whereas others (like yourself) continue to perpetuate a proven lie. Yes, I am unable to see the flat-earth theory as being the least bit correct, because I know damn well that it isn't. I can give you a million and one reasons as to why it isn't right, and even more reasons as to why it is flat-out wrong. The same applies to the issue of gun control. I know damn well that more guns = more gun violence and that stricter gun control laws will for the most part solve this mass-shooting problem here in America, because all of the statistics bear it out. I have presented said statistics from numerous sources again and again, over and over, and it does no good. You people continue to believe whatever the F you want to believe regardless of whatever objectively verified scientific facts and data is presented to you. You don't care about facts, you only care about whatever political ideologies you already have, and how best to perpetuate them in spite of the evidence.

If you want to call me 'closed-minded' or 'unable to see other points of view' for refusing to acknowledge that 2+2 could ever possibly equal anything other then 4, then so be it. I am closed-minded to any possible alternative to already scientifically and statistically objectively verified facts.

If you expect me to ever consider 'your personal opinion' on the matter to be anything more than just straight-up delusional, then I'm sorry, but that just simply will never happen. If you truly believe that more guns and less gun control laws will lead to less mass-shootings, or that lax gun control laws are an irrelevant factor in regards to mass shootings in America in spite of all the data overwhelmingly proving otherwise, then you are just simply delusional. It's as simple as that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

That might explain hand grips. That doesn't explain testosterone levels.

Nor has a single study cited so far in this thread mentioned them so, you know... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Imagine if you were a flat-earther and you said this ^ to a round-earther. See how ridiculous that sounds given the proper context? The same applies here.

My refusal to accept your delusional BS has nothing to do with me being 'unable to put myself in other's boots', or my inability to see alternative points of view. It has to do with the fact that I actually care about what's factually correct, whereas others (like yourself) continue to perpetuate a proven lie. Yes, I am unable to see the flat-earth theory as being the least bit correct, because I know damn well that it isn't. I can give you a million and one reasons as to why it isn't right, and even more reasons as to why it is flat-out wrong. The same applies to the issue of gun control. I know damn well that more guns = more gun violence and that stricter gun control laws will for the most part solve this mass-shooting problem here in America, because all of the statistics bear it out. I have presented said statistics from numerous sources again and again, over and over, and it does no good. You people continue to believe whatever the F you want to believe regardless of whatever objectively verified scientific facts and data is presented to you. You don't care about facts, you only care about whatever political ideologies you already have, and how best to perpetuate them in spite of the evidence.

If you want to call me 'closed-minded' or 'unable to see other points of view' for refusing to acknowledge that 2+2 could ever possibly equal anything other then 4, then so be it. I am closed-minded to any possible alternative to already scientifically and statistically objectively verified facts.

If you expect me to ever consider 'your personal opinion' on the matter to be anything more than just straight-up delusional, then I'm sorry, but that just simply will never happen. If you truly believe that more guns and less gun control laws will lead to less mass-shootings, or that lax gun control laws are an irrelevant factor in regards to mass shootings in America in spite of all the data overwhelmingly proving otherwise, then you are just simply delusional. It's as simple as that.

You speak like a flat Earth believer.   Maybe you should modify your example. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Setton said:

Nor has a single study cited so far in this thread mentioned them so, you know... 

Nice try. Will you be man enough to apologize to me if I post links to the studies? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paranormal Panther said:

Nice try. Will you be man enough to apologize to me if I post links to the studies? 

I will apologise if you can show me the posts in this thread that show this. 

If you can't, will you be man enough to apologise for setting up the above strawman? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Setton said:

I will apologise if you can show me the posts in this thread that show this. 

If you can't, will you be man enough to apologise for setting up the above strawman? 

That's weak. I can post links to studies that prove my claims, but you weasel out of it by posting nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

That's weak. I can post links to studies that prove my claims, but you weasel out of it by posting nonsense.

I thought you couldn't. 

Shame. Thought you might be approaching maturity. 

will apologise for overestimating you. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

double post

 

 

Edited by Paranormal Panther
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

That's just evolution. 

Take the manly man of the 60's and place him in todays corporate environment which the vast majority of us are forced to operate in and he would be just as lost as todays IT guy would be skinning a raccoon. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Setton said:

I thought you couldn't. 

Shame. Thought you might be approaching maturity. 

will apologise for overestimating you. 

Grip Strength: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/13/481590997/millennials-may-be-losing-their-grip

Testosterone Level: http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/you're-not-the-man-your-father-was/#59d29c84b7f

Google "you're not the man your father was" to take you to the Forbes story. The link is messed up for some reason.

Edited by Paranormal Panther
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

That's just evolution. 

Take the manly man of the 60's and place him in todays corporate environment which the vast majority of us are forced to operate in and he would be just as lost as todays IT guy would be skinning a raccoon. 

 

It's nature and nurture. Young men are weaker for varied reasons. They don't have to do some things that other generations had to do. There are all kinds of contaminants in the environment. Radical feminists hate males. It's a combination of factors. I'm not saying that Generation X is superior or inferior. I'm just stating facts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Grip Strength: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/13/481590997/millennials-may-be-losing-their-grip

Testosterone Level: http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/you're-not-the-man-your-father-was/#59d29c84b7f

Google "you're not the man your father was" to take you to the Forbes story. The link is messed up for some reason.

A number of problems (as expected) with this. 

1. First link has nothing to do with testosterone, as you know perfectly well so irrelevant fluff to make your point seem better supported. 

2. Second link, the JAMA study,  cited by forbes, says:

Quote

From 2010 to 2013, prescriptions more than doubled, which researchers partially attribute to ubiquitous drug marketing campaigns urging older men to boost “low T” levels. The swell of interest reflects a genuine physiological shift: Across the population, men today have less testosterone compared to men of the same age a generation ago

On 20/03/2018 at 11:29 PM, Paranormal Panther said:

 

This does not support your original claim which was:

Quote

I do know that Millennial men have lower testosterone levels

The JAMA report does not mention this anywhere. It is making comparisons across the population. Indeed the only age group it singles out is older men being recommended testosterone therapy by drug companies. 

3. And still none of this addresses my original point - when I posted, no one had provided a single piece of evidence to support the claim. They still haven't but at least you had a go (eventually). Perhaps time for you to man up and apologise for the strawman now? 

 4. Now why couldn't you provide evidence when Kismit first asked? 

I can only see two possibilities here. Either you haven't read/understood the studies yourself and are simply parroting others or you know perfectly well what they say but are hoping people won't actually read them and check. 

If it's not either of these reasons, do please enlighten me as to why you take three pages of arguing before eventually providing evidence that doesn't support your argument. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Myles said:

It wasn't difficult at all.   You are viewing everything through a distorted lens.   I hope you do not own a gun.

5 hours ago, Myles said:

You speak like a flat Earth believer.   Maybe you should modify your example. 

1307316260256.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Setton said:

A number of problems (as expected) with this. 

1. First link has nothing to do with testosterone, as you know perfectly well so irrelevant fluff to make your point seem better supported. 

2. Second link, the JAMA study,  cited by forbes, says:

This does not support your original claim which was:

The JAMA report does not mention this anywhere. It is making comparisons across the population. Indeed the only age group it singles out is older men being recommended testosterone therapy by drug companies. 

3. And still none of this addresses my original point - when I posted, no one had provided a single piece of evidence to support the claim. They still haven't but at least you had a go (eventually). Perhaps time for you to man up and apologise for the strawman now? 

 4. Now why couldn't you provide evidence when Kismit first asked? 

I can only see two possibilities here. Either you haven't read/understood the studies yourself and are simply parroting others or you know perfectly well what they say but are hoping people won't actually read them and check. 

If it's not either of these reasons, do please enlighten me as to why you take three pages of arguing before eventually providing evidence that doesn't support your argument. 

The *first* link deals with hand grip, and the *second* link deals with testosterone level, which is why I labeled them as such. These, as well as other studies, back up my claims, so don't play games with someone who sees through your routine. The rest of your post just shows that you're full of the predictable and repetitive crap for which you're known and "loved". You're a punk troll who isn't honest enough to apologize for your mistake. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Setton said:

Nor has a single study cited so far in this thread mentioned them so, you know... 

I posted the first two studies that I found via Google. I can and will link to more sites. I will include incontrovertible support for my claims (as I just did). I know that you lack the character to acknowledge a correction of your gibberish, but some individuals might find the articles to be of some interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one you missed while you were being a hater because CNN and the Bill Kristols of the world told you it was "over".

The FIX NICS bill which was passed expands and modernizes the background check system for firearms purchases. It FORCES local law enforcement to report arrests for an entire list of things that would make it illegal for you to purchase a firearm.

Here's a list of things that bar you from buying a gun. Things that now MUST be input into the database.

-Convicted of a crime that received a sentence of over a year
-Discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
-Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
-Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States

Record scratch. Say what?

Are you saying that the State of California MUST indicate that someone is in the US illegally to the NICS database in order to be in compliance? Regardless of the City or State's "Sanctuary" policy?

Yep. That's what it means. The local law enforcement, must report anybody that's here illegally to the NICS. 

The NICS is maintained by the FBI. It's not like they are reporting them to ICE anyway.

Except for the fact that ICE issues green cards, and green card holders CAN purchase firearms so the NICS database is also accessed by ICE to validate those green cards.

So now, the Feds can fine, withhold funding and take other, punitive legal action against cities that do not comply with the background check system. 

A system that will be used to locate illegal immigrants.

-Leigh Scott for Senate California!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, acidhead said:

Another one you missed while you were being a hater because CNN and the Bill Kristols of the world told you it was "over".

The FIX NICS bill which was passed expands and modernizes the background check system for firearms purchases. It FORCES local law enforcement to report arrests for an entire list of things that would make it illegal for you to purchase a firearm.

Here's a list of things that bar you from buying a gun. Things that now MUST be input into the database.

-Convicted of a crime that received a sentence of over a year
-Discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
-Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
-Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States

Record scratch. Say what?

Are you saying that the State of California MUST indicate that someone is in the US illegally to the NICS database in order to be in compliance? Regardless of the City or State's "Sanctuary" policy?

Yep. That's what it means. The local law enforcement, must report anybody that's here illegally to the NICS. 

The NICS is maintained by the FBI. It's not like they are reporting them to ICE anyway.

Except for the fact that ICE issues green cards, and green card holders CAN purchase firearms so the NICS database is also accessed by ICE to validate those green cards.

So now, the Feds can fine, withhold funding and take other, punitive legal action against cities that do not comply with the background check system. 

A system that will be used to locate illegal immigrants.

-Leigh Scott for Senate California!

that has been in nyc gun laws from as far as i can remember, i first applied for permit about 30 years ago. 

yea gvmnt needs to get their sht together and make sure their databases cross, agents are trained, and existing common sense laws we have for decades are enforced

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

The *first* link deals with hand grip, and the *second* link deals with testosterone level, which is why I labeled them as such.

The fact that you labelled one as irrelevant to your point doesn't make it less so. 

Quote

These, as well as other studies, back up my claims, so don't play games with someone who sees through your routine.

Then you will have absolutely no trouble doing the same as I did. 

Copy the part of the JAMA study that backs up your point. 

Quote

The rest of your post just shows that you're full of the predictable and repetitive crap for which you're known and "loved". You're a punk troll who isn't honest enough to apologize for your mistake. 

The predictable crap of actually reading your sources and calling you out on misrepresentation and fabrication? Glad I'm predictable in that.  

7 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I posted the first two studies that I found via Google. I can and will link to more sites. I will include incontrovertible support for my claims (as I just did).

Please do. It would be a novelty. 

Although the fact that you admit you're just googling these studies is interesting when you made the assertion days ago. 

Perhaps make sure what you're posting is supported by evidence before posting it next time? 

Or just fly off the handle on a rant when someone calls you out. Either way. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • This topic was locked and unlocked

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.