What's with the hostility in here? Everyone knows that you can protect yourself or hide without a gun if someone tries to break into your house. But obviously this is not the only thing the gun control debate is about. No offense to ones who think the country is fine without guns, but I don't believe that is the right course of action at this point in time of our history. Of course I'm dreaming of a fantasy world where we don't need guns to protect ourselves and politicians and honorable and worthy of the job (or a world without them), but unfortunately we live in the real world where crazy people will buy guns with or without laws and I cannot approve of a ban on something that will only affect me and not him.

I don't really get this whole tazer deal.
2 older gentlemen on the heavy side guarding a door. Seriously you needed a taser? Seems to me these guys are just not fit for the position.

I work with a few security guards downtown that deal with all sorts of drug addicts, drunks, crazy people and outright idiots. They aren't issued anything.
I hear stories of them wrestling guys to the ground almost every week.

these 2 just wanted to test their new tazer and the situation was all the green lights they need.

justified? not even the slightest.

Morgan, geeze you are the biggest moran there is. Yea teachers are going to be dropping guns all the time for kids to pick up. Are you a freaken idiot. Teachers having guns is a great idea and that might have saved lives. Someone in china killed a bunch of kids with a stick. Gun dont kill people, crazy people kill people.

it's become the fashionable way to cry out for attention and go out in a blaze of, perceived, glory.

I think part of the problem is that mental health is still largely an unknown science. There is no magic detector that goes off if you're in extreme personal turmoil and about to crack.

There are some very good mental doctors out there, but there are a ton out there who do nothing but prescribe expensive pills.

Until mental health science improves, we've got to go after the guns. As someone already mentioned, we've got the most guns per capita, so obviously "more guns" isn't working. I've heard people already arguing that we've got to arm teachers...are fucking nuts?? There's got to be some sort of increase in gun control, what it is, I cannot say, but something needs to be done.

I also think a lot of this has to fall on the parents too, probably not in all cases, but I think in many you have the issue of negligent parenting. I still remember The columbine shooting and how the parents of the shooters immediately lawyered up. Then it was discovered they had a arsenal of weapons and explosives right there in the home. The parents had to know and just didn't care.

That's the problem though, how do you correct that? how do you stop a shitty parent from being a shitty parent and stop shit like this from ever happening in the first place.

America has some deep emotional issues we need to fucking address or more shootings are going to keep occurring. I agree, banning guns isn't going to solve the problem, but the problem is that tackling the REAL reason why this shit occurs is so out of our reach that banning guns is the only realistic alternative. Yes the problem is crazy people + guns. We have absolutely no idea how to address crazy people, but we sure as hell know how we can address the gun problem.

All I know is that the "BANNING GUNS WON'T HELP!" chorus is about to start blaring their bullshit to try to drown out reality.

So to undercut that horseshit before it starts, today there was also an attack on a Chinese school, carried out by a madman with a knife. 22 were wounded, but nobody died.

Seems like using a gun really does make crazy people's killing sprees a lot more deadly.

I thoroughly enjoy watching crazy people do their thing in public for my entertainment.

The power of suggestion. Some people believe in jebus, other believe in this. The people rolling around on the floor in churches talking in tongues believe what they do too.

Crazy peoples.

>> ^notarobot:

Sigh. Bill-O isn't actually stupid. He is articulate, and well spoken, and has a toilet paper roll up to his eye of his mind when he looks at the tiny tiny piece of the world that he represents.
He is right that the world is changing, but I wish he, and people like him would take off their blinders so he (and others) could grow to change with it, instead of complaining that the changes (many of which are set in motion when his generation was young) are taking place.


You're absolutely right, America has since the 60s been becoming more civilized. This is why people talk about the 60s as the time of troubles, this horrible time where there was too much democracy and crazy people were civilizing the nation. All these new movements started happening, carrying on into the 70s. We could admit the horrible crimes we committed to take this country from it's Native population which we exterminated. Heck look at colleges...before the 60s it was white deferential males. Now it's half women, a third minorities. Heck at my college as a white guy I'm in the minority! That's unheard of 50 years ago.

So BillO does have a point, but he's talking about it like it's a bad thing. He's on the wrong side of history.

The issues here are all wrong.

He's right about "Innocence of Muslims" looking like it was made by "Rank amateurs in a basement studio, no doubt it was. It's so bad that no one would ever have seen or heard of it, if it wasn't for the hoopla it caused. I never would have. Once I did, I sought it out and watched it. Well sort of.

First of all, the quality is garbage, something less than what we would expect from a YouTube video. Past that, The editing, the writing and the acting is terrible. It's confusing and hard to follow. In all honestly, I ended up skimming large parts of it because I didn't get the point. It's that bad.

What I don't understand is why the Muslim community felt this piece of crap video was worth killing people over? What they did was promote the film, and in doing so, brought fame to it. They are just as much to blame in the distribution of said offensive material.

So, some no name, never heard of before Egyptian born person (Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) creates a 14 minute anti-muslim video. Naakoula is a graduate of the Faculty of Arts at Cairo University. Born and educated over seas, he comes to the US and creates a video called "Innocence of Bin Laden" After the film is finished, in post production, he over-dubs all the audio and changes the title to Innocence of Muslims and changes the meaning of the film altogether.

Nakoula has been arrested for the "intent to manufacture methamphetamine" for which he did prison time. Then he pleaded no contest to federal charges of bank fraud as he opened fake bank accounts in order to defraud the banks out of as much as $800,000. He was a criminal with no scruples or morals.

He went out of his way to create this movie just to piss people off. He even claimed it was funded by $5 million collected from 100 Jewish donors, and that he was an Israeli-Jew.

So, what is my point? This piece of scum set out to create an incident and he succeeded.
The Muslim world over reacted and went "Bat-shit insane" (my words). In a fit of rage, they misplaced the blame on everyone associated with the West. They held protests in almost every major country in the world. They killed people and turned this into an international state of panic. "Oh poor us, don't criticize our Mohammad." (insert screams of "oh how could you" here) and ("The western world hates us - kill them now")

Now as a result, we, the people that didn't do anything, are being told we need to be more tolerant of the bat-shit crazy people and start educating ourselves more on their religion and watch more of their movies.

Now I have no issue educating myself on other cultures, in fact I find it interesting. But what I don't like being told is that us Westerners are part of the problem and that if we'd only have educated ourselves, this insensitivity wouldn't have happened. This is so absolutely false and absurd.

I know not all Muslims are "bat-shit crazy," but I didn't see any of them standing up and pointing their finger in the right direction (at some scumbag from Egypt).

As far as I am concerned this is what I see:
1). A scumbag needs to be deported for succeeding in inciting riots causing death.
2). People should be able to have their own opinions and be able to speak them in all areas concerning religion or their lack of faith in them.
3). the Muslim people who took part in the riots and killings should all be punished to the full extent of the law and be shamed by the rest of the people.
4). Muslim people need to get over themselves, learn to accept that their way isn't the only way and learn to "turn the other cheek". (And I use the term "their way" loosely because I don't think even they can even decide and agree on what the rules of their religion are.)

>> ^Yogi:

I hope Obama destroys this country...I really want to help these crazy people feel like they're sane.


I know right? It would be very oddly reassuring to wake up some morning and Obama has a press conference brandishing an AK-47, shooting it into the air and screaming of jihad.

It would be strangly comforting to discover that the world is, in fact, black and white and straight out of a early 1950's serial fiction story.

There would be no consequences, everything would reset back to normal for the next episode.

I hope Obama destroys this country...I really want to help these crazy people feel like they're sane.

@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers

God didn't do it, my uncle frank did lighting the barbeque with gasoline. The updraft from the flame caused a reaction that butterflied into SUCKING the storm away from the place she specified her prayers and god moved them away.

Odd how crazy people can vote.

• because i've done pretty decent research on what they have to say and it's almost entirely and demonstrably horseshit (that's a scientific term)

• my agreeing with them isn't particularly important because what they say is commonly if not always outside their area of expertise (icke's area of expertise is football, chopra is technically a medical doctor, and haramein's is, well, nothing). because of this their understand of their "proof" is painfully poor and their conclusions from their proof is laughable. and as i like to say, even if they are right, the method that got them there was wrong (so to speak).

• they do seem to be crazy people who's insanity infects others. SO many people buy into this kind of wishful thinking and i think it's dangerous and damaging to the intellectual process and infrastructure we've spent so long building. it's baseless new age bullshit perpetrated by charlatans.

• babies and puppies are delicious, i don't know what's wrong with you.

• the blanket statement is due to most/all of these ideas having been completely discredited.

• i don't care what you call yourself or them but they are saying things that are untrue. if they were just making up a new mythology that didn't try to have any basis in science or facts then i wouldn't care but they pretend that certain theories mean things when they don't understand the theories in the first place.

• it can be discussed but in that discussion, like this one, it can be dismissed pretty quickly.

• i don't know anything about your "faith" so i can't really comment on it but if you're telling people your faith is an objective truth then we have a problem.


to be clear, i have seen the movie. i know who this kid is and i've seen his other movies (one i liked). just because he spent a lot of money on his informal research does give credence to said research. by volume, i could probably find more information on this type of nonsense than the science they're supposedly basing these ideas on. AKA there is SO much of this garbage out there.



>> ^enoch:

>> ^kir_mokum:
anything that takes deepak chopra, nassim haramein, and david icke seriously is not worth paying attention to.

i wasnt going to comment but curiosity has gotten the better of me.
why would you state that with such authority?
because you disagree with those people?
find their theories to be suspect?
are they crazy people whose insanity may infect others?
do they eat babies and kick puppies?
why the blanket dismissal?
because one is a spiritualist who has a different way of approaching the human condition?
or that another has wild conspiratorial theories?
does that invalidate them from participating in discussions on what we should do?
and if that is the case..
what about me?
i am a man of faith.everything i do and say is born from my faith.
yet the form my faith takes would make me an apostate and i would have been executed only a few hundred years ago.
does me being a man a faith invalidate my opinions?
the man who made this movie is from the gamble family.the proctor and gamble family.
he spent his wealth on researching and discovery and made a movie revealing his conclusions and possible solutions.
the movie has a very humanist philosophy.
and he uses many many people to help express what he sees as an end game with global elite to control us.chopra and icke are only one of many.
i guess i just dont understand absolutist thinking.
chopra and icke?
well it must be about a. b. or c. and therefore should be ignored.
that just seems so.......limiting......to me.
i found some of the claims in the movie to be questionable and other things i agreed with wholeheartedly,but i have to give gamble credit for putting his ideas out there.
that takes balls.