Ohio, Chardon High School shooting, 3 dead.

Post Reply New Topic

I remembered that gun fanatics cannot be reasoned with, so I stopped bothering. Not hypocrisy, just common sense. Message ends

What I mentioned is motivated by hate......and its good you haven't murdered anyone due to hate. I was only arguing murder does not necessarily indicate mental illness. Sure Westborough baptist church members have not murdered anyone yet but yes the crap they promote could certainly lead to violence. And under the right conditions I am sure most of them would have no problem actually acting on their hate.

But everyone mentally ill or not can hate, and in turn take that hatred to far.......at least in my opinion.

Oh I see, all my questions were worth the trouble until one of them involved a statistic you couldn't refute. Because a lowly gun fanatic like myself must not dare avoid your questions while you're too good to answer mine. How convenient. But that's okay, unlike you I'm not going to insist that you respect my authorita and answer my question this instant. I had the integrity to answer all your questions while you've established yourself as an arrogant hypocrite so it's settled.

The fact that we are animals, is just a scientific fact, it's not a judgement on behavior, or which animal has superior capabilities. However, we all share a capricious world, where none of us has the priveledge of knowing how our worldview will change in the future.

That said, the homicide rate is about 5 out of 100,000, in the US. So statistically, speaking homicide is a rare occurence.

Our experiences in the future are as relevant as our experiences in the past in changing our world views. And, we are not fully in control of our experiences in the future, which contribute to our world view.

I'm not questioning what you will do in the future, no one could possibly know that better than you. I'm only stating the fact that we don't have full control of our future experiences, or what our future world views will be.

The bottom line is, there is no guarantee that any human being's understanding of themself will be the same in the future, as it is today.

That's just a fact.

aghogday: I have stated it every way possible, so I am returning to simple.

You can only speak for yourself. I am not capable of murder.

The circumstances that would be required to cause me to kill would not result in a murder conviction. A murder conviction requires malice, forethought and action. The only situation in which I will willingly kill is self defense of defense of another. These do not result in a murder conviction. If my actions were to result in the death of another and it was not one of these two situations, it would be via manslaughter.

I believe that everyone that insists that I am capable of it is mistaking harm and killing for murder. I have readily admitted that I am more capable of either of these things than anyone else I know.

http://www.babcockpartners.com/resource ... murder-law <-- homicide statute (first degree murder)
http://www.babcockpartners.com/resource ... murder-law <-- homicide statute (second degree murder)
The definitions of murder cite intent, but that is not what is being said here.


Every one who has stated that "EVERY" person can be pushed t o a point of breaking and pushed into killing someone is referring to manslaughter. Which, by definition, is different from murder.
http://www.babcockpartners.com/resource ... ughter-law

There is also negligent homicide (http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/loui ... utes_14-32) and vehicular homicide in Louisiana (http://www.babcockpartners.com/resource ... micide-law)...

I cannot be pushed to the point that, with malice and forethought, I would seek out another human being and kill them. It is not in my psychological make up. That is all I am saying, and there is no way you can contradict that with any logical footing - ESPECIALLY when I have made it abundantly clear that I have no compunctions about killing.

Having made my case, you can disagree, or agree as you will, but I will not be discussing this further as the conversation has become circular and all it will amount to is "yes you can" and "No, I can't."

I wonder if you ever hear of someone using a car instead of a gun to kill people at a school, as you can get more people at the same time, and the punishment is less, at least in New YorK State. The coach was brave to drive that shooter out of the school, I mean most people would have stood there or ran away and let him spray. I wonder if anybody will find that somebody will ever try to kill the shooter with a car, as a car is harder to stop than a person, especially one with an Automatic Transmission or a CVT, as it's just a matter of one foot on the gas and the other behind the brake pedal, so the gas goes to the floor if you slump and avoid pushing on the brake. The college I go to policy for dealing with a violent person is to barricade yourself in a classroom. There are two problems with that policy, one of them is that the doors to the classrooms, or at least some of them, open out which makes an effective barricade impossible, and most of the large objects in the rooms are tables, that may or may not be bolted down. If I was in a situation with a violent person in one the campus, I would violate the policy as criminals don't follow rules, and try to stop the person, even if it involved damaging college property, as in that situation it's best to come out swinging, and not hide. I would prefer to try to stop some one with a vehicle bigger than a GEM, or at least intended to be driven on a public road somewhere (Japanese Mini Truck come to mind), as you can hit things without completely demolishing the vehicle after your first hit, as GEMs aren't exactly crash-worthy.

Thanks for the clarification that you are speaking of the legal defintion of homicide, in reference to murder. I would argue that the evidence as it exists, indicates most people are not capable of homicide, per the pre-meditation factor, and I've presented evidence for this, from the study from Harvard. The distance from the action to the harmful event is relative to the potential of any human being killing by another.

It's part of the danger of having a gun inside one's home; no matter what the intent is by having a gun, some people will freeze up no matter what the danger to them is, when it comes time to defend themselves with a gun. It's not just an issue of being afraid, it's the normal human aversion to killing another human being.

So, therefore, in my opinion the facts as they exist, are on your side when you state it's not in your psychological makeup to commit homicide as a premeditated act. I made it clear in my post that you know your capabilities better than anyone else.

I did not suggest that you, or any other individual here has the capability of killing someone. Not within the parameters of homicide or the loosest parameters supporting a legal action that might result in it.

I'm discussing the topic, the issues, and facts relating to them, evidenced by research; nothing I am saying is directed at anyone on a personal level.

Guns make it easier, but the fact that about half the households have one in the US, and that about 5 homicides occur per every hundred thousand persons; is pretty good evidence that not everyone has the capability of committing homicide, even with a readily available tool that is a very efficient one to get the job done.

My point with animals, is that the human animal shares the same capricious world, and while it is part of the human animal's nature to find order in the world, there are no guarantees for the future, for a human being's psychological or material reality.

Statistical probabilities, yes; but no certainties.

There is a rare statistical probability that someone will be killed within the household when a gun is introduced into the household, but the risk is low enough, where close to 50% of households are willing to take that risk. That's a statistical risk though, not a capability, evidenced for every human being.

It is also low enough, where it is legal to carry a concealed weapon. Statistics and research don't bear out that the majority of human beings have this capability to kill, within the parameters of the legal definition of homicide.

Within the loosest of parameters the statistics are entirely different. But, the definition of what one means by murder or killing, is essential.

Some consider only legal homicide as murder, some consider the killing by a legally insane individual as murder, and some consider an unwarranted war as murder. I'm not suggesting that either of the three are my opinion; it is part of the murky waters of the issue.

Most criminals intend on getting away with the crimes they commit. In order to do this they have to play by some rules.

Shooting Sprees are more in the category of serial killing, however, even serial killers play by rules, not to get caught.

But, thank goodness shooting sprees and random killings are rare. It's really not a normal part of human nature.

If it were, your point is a good one.

There would be plenty of opportunities to go on a random killing spree with a vehicle, but it's extremely rare to hear of one anywhere or anytime, with the millions of cars and crowded sidewalks, that exist around the world.

It's hard to break some basic rules of human nature, and random killing sprees with cars, seem to fall on a level of human taboo, higher than firearms.

I think, I remember a report of a terrorist attack like this overseas, but these individuals look at it as a defensible action within their cultural norm, rather than a random act of killing, outside of their cultural norm.

Even at that level, it seems to be pretty uncommon. But, would be a terrifying method of terrorism, if used on a widespread basis. Even, terrorists play by rules, strange ones, but never the less, not every method appears to be on the table.

OK, I'll accept that you can't see any event that would have you premeditate and then execute a killing.

The Columbine event shows that hiding may not be that good strategy. Better to get out through windows etc. Or stack furniture so you can break a hole in the ceiling and get out that way.

Most school ceilings are suspended anyway, so breaking a hole should be easy, if you can't shift a tile or two. Escape if you can seems to be best, though going on a kamikaze mission is best if you can't escape. I wonder if anybody has survived by playing dead. I think it would be easier to fake death for a larger person, as they could plausibly fake a heart attack.

And as expected, WBC plans to picket.

From 1967 until 1990, Albania, under the leadership of Enver Hoxha, banned religion and created what has so far been the world's only officially atheist state. Clergymen of all faiths were imprisoned, and often executed, regardless of whether they spoke ill of Hoxha or not.

I would strongly encourage President Obama to emulate Enver Hoxha in every way and ban religion, to ensure that no funeral will be protested by WBC or any other group ever again, and the rights of women, LGBT, and racial minorities will be guaranteed.

I won't even say what I immediately thought about doing about when I read WBS plans to picket...that was a bad thought. I hope they come picket something in my town so I can organize a counter protest or be part of one someone would probably get to organizing before me.

And the sad part is that the only way to shut them up is to kill them all.

I think we should pass legislation to silence them (even if it means killing them), take shows like the 700 Club off the air for good, and forbid both right-wing and left-wing extremists from expressing their views in public.

In addition, we should edit the Bible and delete verses such as Leviticus 18:22 and 1 Corinthians 14:34, that can be considered "hate speech". Also, the entire book of Revelation should be taken out, so people will be convinced that everybody gets into heaven, no matter what (in other words, hell doesn't exist). We should also remove similar verses from the Quran and other texts.

We should also legalize marijuana, same-sex marriage, and abortion. Also, in the Bible Belt and states like Utah and Idaho, we should start disbanding select law enforcement agencies. In Idaho in particular, law enforcement is notorious for abuse of power.

Governors such as Rick Perry, Mary Fallin, Sam Brownback, Robert Bentley, Nathan Deal, and Butch Otter should be unseated and replaced with Lutherans.

Reminds me of this :

Jake the Snake , now as a bible thumper : "3:16........"

Austin : "Well Austin 3:16 says I just kicked your ass !"

*chuckles*

Here's the thing.

The USA is founded on this little thing called the constitution. Part of which are the amendments. The first ten of which are called "The bill of rights."

The first one states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If we do as you suggest, we are not living in the united states anymore...

Ninian Smart's Seven Dimensions of Religion actually place atheism squarely as a religion.

1) Narrative. Religions have stories that explain the nature of the universe and our part in it. Evolution is a story about how we came about from the cosmos.

2) Experience. According to Smart, there are two aspects to this. First is the events that happened before the religion was founded. Charles Darwin's observations and the book (by his grandfather Erasmus) Zoonomia. Faith is included in this "dimension".
Smart also seems to include “faith” as part of the experiential dimension. The word faith is often taken by Atheists to mean an blindly believing the impossible. According to Hebrews 1:11 as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”
Most atheists put faith in science. The World English dictionary defines faith as "any set of firmly held principles or beliefs." By that definition, the most faithful people I have met are atheists.

3) Social. Social This covers the structures present within. In atheism, this starts with the researcher, who posits a theory, then proves it experimentally, passes it on to his colleagues who confirm it, then it is passed on to the instructors, schools, text books and television. A lot like modern Christianity. Like many religious orders, scientists hold conferences and come together to share their knowledge and faith and decide what should be believed... I still, for the record, believe Pluto is a planet.

4) Doctrine. Muslims have the Quran. Christians have the bible. Atheists have Unified field theory, string theory and evolution.

5) Ethics. The bible, Quran, torah and other religious books are full of them. Scientific method, MLA citation and accreditation are those of the atheist. By not following these rules a religious person can and will be ostracized. The same is true for scientists and atheists... politically correct speech, proper lab procedures, giving proper credit in your work... fail to do these things and you are ridiculed and can lose your job, your friends and be forever discredited.

6) Ritual. On the surface, it seems atheism is lacking in ritual. Primarily because of it being a newer movement with a lack of history. Many Atheists do perform rituals however. Birthdays, and anniversaries, personal little rituals shared between lovers, valentines day, the public celebration of Darwin's birthday in February, paying taxes, watching their "Shows." In Autistics and Aspies, these rituals are even more prevalent in many cases.

7) Material. Buildings, texts, art, and the like. The things that people who wish to learn and advance in the religion will see, experience and visit. The Smithsonian, the Natural History Museum in New York, Origin of the Species, A Brief History of Time, artists renditions of extinct species... Atheism has them.

So... according to your argument, all religious people should be jailed, killed or expelled... Ok... That means... everyone...