published Saturday, February 23rd, 2013

Gun control fantasy: NRA keeps fear alive among gun owners

This is the South. This is a place where guns are part of everyday culture.

So the fact that only 5 in 100 Hamilton County residents have handgun carry permits while just one store here sells more than a dozen guns a day speaks volumes to the fantasy that there already is too much gun control in our country.

The real Remington reality here -- and around the country -- is that we have a lot of gun disconnect.

Here are some facts:

• You don't need a permit to own or buy a handgun or long gun in Tennessee.

n If you're buying from a dealer, you have to show a driver's license and let them run a background check to see if you have ever been convicted of a felony.

• If you buy from an individual, you don't even have to do that. You just have to fork over the money.

• You only need the handgun carry permit if you intend to carry the weapon on your person in public. And according to state records, far more people in the suburbs think they need that protection than people living in the heart of the city, where crime is supposed to be so bad that you should be afraid, very afraid.

Here is a falsehood manufactured by a National Rifle Association, which is perhaps more interested in fear-mongering to raise membership and money than in any real effort to help law-abiding people feel safe -- with or without guns: "They [the government] only care about their decades-old gun control agenda -- ban every gun they can." ... This comes straight from the National Rifle Association's website.

The only proposed legislation from the government seeks common-sense gun laws limiting firearms like assault weapons that are a threat not just to citizens but also to police.

"No law-abiding citizen in the United States of America has any fear that their constitutional rights will be infringed in any way," said Vice President Joe Biden Jr. in Connecticut on Thursday. "None. Zero."

But let's get back to the numbers:

Shooters Depot on Shallowford Road sells guns six day a week, and averages 360 firearms sales a month, according to records. That's about 15 guns a day. And it's just one of 1,100 licensed firearms dealers in the state.

There are a lot of guns out there.

NRA says the government should focus on keeping guns from criminals.

So where are gang members getting all their guns? Standard answer: The guns are stolen. Current gun law seems pretty loose here, too

Guns are tracked with their serial numbers and the license dealer you bought yours from records that number and your purchase and name. You've gotten your permit and bought two new handguns. You decide in a few weeks you really only like one of them, so you sell the other to your neighbor. The neighbor doesn't have a permit, but he doesn't need one because he only plans to keep the gun in a locked box in the chest beside his bed. He dies of a heart attack in a few weeks and his son-in-law sells the gun to a woman he works with. The woman's home is burglarized while she's away, and the gun is taken.

But the serial number tracking on that gun stops with you.

If a punk uses it to shoot a rival -- or maybe his teacher -- and drops the gun running from school, police will have to start with you and hope to work down the chain of people who had it to find the woman it was stolen from.

Even if it would be helpful and illuminating to know where gang members and criminals are getting their guns, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives -- which is charged with enforcing federal firearms laws -- is forbidden by law to release it.

That helpful nugget, by the way, is also compliments of the NRA, which pushed through that law.

And consider the present permitting and tracking system in light of the Newtown school shootings' new scrutiny of guns and mental health concerns.

How exactly are we to ensure that someone who is mentally ill can't get a carry permit for a gun, since hospital and mental health records are not public?

The only way a gun dealer could possibly decline a sale to you on mental health grounds would be if a court somewhere has adjudicated you mentally ill and it was noted in an available database.

People need to stop listening to the NRA's fear machine.

It's time to find some solutions. Isn't that what the Constitution embodies -- cooperative checks and balances to enable a presumption of liberty?

90
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
aae1049 said...

In the south, we love guns. Most of us were raised in homes with alot of guns, and we never gave it a thought. Guns were always viewed as a last resort intervention. That is the correct view point. The south will continue to carry guns regardless of fear mongering from Dems, who simply obsess about their gun fears.

Gun permits should not be required at all. In the 70's, 80's, alot of women carried hand guns because if you broke down in your car, you had a defense mechanism. The idea that all these women should have to get permission to carry a gun after prior years is not acceptable.

Only 15,000 citizens in Hamilton County have gun permits, which indicates to me that there are still a ton of baby boomers packing a gun, and ignoring government encroachment on gun rights.

Exempt the 40 year old plus crowd and keep the guns out of the hands of the 30 and under crowd that are responsible for most crime shootings in Chattanooga.

February 23, 2013 at 12:14 a.m.
heston223 said...

Maybe we should all move to Chicago where they have strong gun laws and less gun violence? well, on second thought.. maybe not.

Also, no state in the south will support a so called "Assault Weapons ban" because There is no such thing as an assault weapon (scary looking black guns don't count).

February 23, 2013 at 1:51 a.m.
conservative said...

The silly writer inserted this large bit of laughter in the middle of his piece. I don't want you to miss it, it is soo good.

"No law-abiding citizen in the United States of America has any fear that their constitutional rights will be infringed in any way," said Vice President Joe Biden Jr. in Connecticut on Thursday. "None. Zero."

February 23, 2013 at 6:47 a.m.
TirnaNOG said...

Exempt the 40 year old plus crowd and keep the guns out of the hands of the 30 and under crowd

Don't see how the above suggestion would have helped in the Adam Lanza tragedy since he used his over 40 something mother's guns to carry out his deadly shooting spree.

Like the underage drinkers often break into maw, paw and gramps, grandpaw's liquor cabinet to get their liquor, the under 30 something will get their hands on guns the same way.

P.S. Part of Ronald Reagan's legacy is that he did support gun control. Even Mitt Romney once supported gun control, but that green-eyed devil can change minds.

__DON'T BLAME THE LIBERALS FOR GUN CONTROL __

Ronald Reagan: "As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. After leaving the presidency, he supported the passage of the Brady bill that established by federal law a nationwide, uniform standard of a 7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to enable background checks on prospective buyers. He urged then President Bush to drop his opposition to the bill."

"As reported in the media, after mentioning he was a member of the NRA, President Reagan stated the following at a George Washington University ceremony on March 28, 1991, marking the 10th anniversary of his near assassination: "With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases. And it's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law-enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to purchase handguns." Enough said.

Source___Baltimore Sun, Feb. 10, 2012

February 23, 2013 at 9:31 a.m.
timbo said...

I really don't know what the big deal about all this is. Those of us who need to be armed, already are. A large part of those weapons are unregistered. There are millions of guns that the government knows nothing about, thank God.

As far as the law goes, It is immoral to follow laws that aren't valid. Just like you liberals choose to ignore laws that you don't agree with like illegal immigration. I have an unalienable right to protect myself in any way that I see fit. It really doesn't matter what it says in the constitution or the Second Amendment. To protect one's life, family, and property is a natural right.

So you Liberals just keep bloviating about increasing laws for gun owners. There are already so many out there, That horse has already left the barn.

February 23, 2013 at 10:58 a.m.
aae1049 said...

This was joke, "Exempt the 40 year old plus crowd and keep the guns out of the hands of the 30 and under crowd that are responsible for most crime shootings in Chattanooga."

I don't think any adult should have to get gun permits.

February 23, 2013 at 11:19 a.m.
EaTn said...

Obama-phobia has sold more guns and ammunition to the gullible than any media advertisement could have possibly done.

February 23, 2013 at 1:12 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Is America a better country because of guns?

February 23, 2013 at 1:53 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

To all the gun lovers/fetishists/nuts/wackos:

The regulations mentioned in this article are entirely practical and reasonable. There is nothing unduly restrictive about them and they do not infringe on your holy, sacrosanct, more-precious-than-the-air-you-breathe second amendment rights in any way. Nor are they indicative of leading us down that "slippery slope" of gun confiscation which exists only in your sick, paranoid little minds in the first place. Every gun sold, from the smallest to the biggest and baddest, is a lethal weapon and there is nothing at all unreasonable about requiring people who buy one to register it and be expected to use it properly and safely. Yes, there are many guns out there unaccounted for and that will never be accounted for, but that’s no excuse for going forward with the status quo of all the loopholes and gaps that have rendered our regulations so ineffectual.

You conservatives are as stupid and unreasonable about your effin’ guns as you are about your trickle-down BS and your “liberalism is a disease” nonsense. It’s a waste of time even trying to have discussions or debates about the issues with you. I really wish we could just go ahead and have a major split between the libs and rabid righties and be done with it. Go live in your la-la land of guns, God, no taxes, and no government and we’ll live in peace our way. And it would be a wonderful peace indeed without you Bible thumpers and gun humpers.

February 23, 2013 at 4:08 p.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck said...

Is America a better country because of guns?

===================

Better than the alternative.

February 23, 2013 at 5:29 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

What, no Bibull quotes, con-man? Gonna take yore guns with ya to heaven? I hear God don't allow no liberal heathens and peace-niks up thar. Only gun-totin', Bibull believin', government hatin', real Amurikans are 'llowed 'tween them pearly gates. I'm shore you won't have no problem gettin' in 'cuz you is such a good little krischun soldier and all. Halley-loo-ya. Now why don’ t ya go to the firin’ range and shoot a few righteous rounds for God's army. Praise Jeezus.

February 23, 2013 at 6:08 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Rickaroo, I'll make ya a southern bet. If you are ever in ICU with no hope, your mockery of Jesus will terminate at the end of your life. After watching the ventilator taken off of two family members, your absence of respect for others faith will disappear like road runner when you are challenged on your faith. Your mockery of Jesus, makes you a jerk.

February 23, 2013 at 6:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Matthew 5:38-42

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

Defending yourself against evil people is against the teachings of Jesus. Conservative is a heretic.

Revelation 13:10

"He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword."

Matthew 26:52

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

The Bible preaches against weapons. Again, conservative is a heretic.

February 23, 2013 at 6:28 p.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

"your mockery of Jeezus will terminate at the end of your life."

I bet you're wrong.

"your absence of respect will disappear like road runner when you are challenged on your faith."

Christians tend to only prey on the weak of mind and fearful i.e. the sick and dying, children, etc. They know they have less of a chance converting someone who is of sound mind. I have a feeling Rickaroo won't be having any deathbed conversions.

"Your mockery of Jesus, makes you a jerk."

And your blind acceptance of the divinity of a human being written about in a 2,000 year old book filled with Bronze-age barbarism, egregious contradictions, historical inaccuracies and immoral teachings makes you gullible and ignorant.

February 23, 2013 at 6:32 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Easy 123, and Rickaroo.

I bet you are wrong. I want to hear both of you spit in the face of God like both of you are doing at the end. I am certain after a brush with the end, that both of you are wrong. Even if you disagree, you should not mock others faith like Rickaroo did above.

While you can be an atheist, agnostic, or a Christian......, you have no right to mock my faith, like he did. That is objectionable.

February 23, 2013 at 8:11 p.m.
aae1049 said...

These experiences have been occurring since recorded history. These are not few in numbers. "Where medicine ends, God begins." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0JVX6U0YOc

February 23, 2013 at 8:39 p.m.
TirnaNOG said...

Easy123, it's disturbing to see how some people will spew hate from one end to the other, then run and hide behind religion and their god when called out. Guess they use god as a convenience to be tossed aside at will too. They couldn't possibly be the faithful servants they claim to be. Otherwise, they'd fear that wrath of their god they're always warning others about.

February 23, 2013 at 8:44 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

aae1049, it is awfully presumptuous of you to think that I haven't faced death in all of my 62 years. I have lost my mother, father, sister, and various friends, and twice I have faced what I thought was my own certain death. Never have I called out to Jesus to "save" me or my loved ones from hell. Whenever I make fun of God, it is that absurd God that you Christians have reduced to a laughable entity that defies belief by any rational person. I do not believe in a sky daddy who actually sits in wait of our prayers and decides whether or not they are worth his responding to. I don't say with any certainty that there is no God whatsoever, but whatever or whoever God is or isn't, I'm certain that she/he/it is not so petty as to command or demand my love and obedience at the risk of being cast into hell for all eternity for my personal non-Christian beliefs. It is only a small minded and malevolent God, not worthy of even being called God, that would demand that we love and worship him/her. That is the God that you Christians choose to worship and I rid myself of that despicable, childish concept of God a long time ago.

Life is fraught with pain, heartache, loneliness, and many unanswered questions. I do not begrudge anyone their right or need to believe in something or someone greater than themselves. If you Christians want to believe in your God, then great - believe with all your heart and soul. But whenever you tell me that your God is going to cast me into hell just because I don't share your exact beliefs, then I'm going to continue to make fun of that preposterous, despicable God you worship, because I know better than to think your despicable God exists in the first place. Nor do I believe in a mythical "savior" to save my soul from that fiery hell. Jesus is as mythical as Santa Claus. There is a wide range of literature expounding upon the mythicism of Jesus but you Christians prefer to keep your heads so buried in your fictitious Bible that you don't dare to dig for the real truth, preferring instead to place your blind faith above reason and common sense. You wouldn't recognize the truth if it kicked you in the butt.

I was raised a Christian and I know the Bible well. It's fairly obvious to even a halfway intelligent 15-yr.-old that it makes no sense at all as a book of history or fact. It is a compilation of tales told my primitive man in their limited understanding of who and what God is/was. Only a fool tries to read any more into it than that.

I have come to my beliefs after many years of soul searching and life experiences. I don't expect for my beliefs to work for everyone but they work for me. It is up to each individual to determine what works for him/her. Anyone who says that we all must believe just alike and that hell awaits those who dare to believe differently, I will continue to give them the mockery, disdain, and ridicule that they - and their make-believe God and Jesus - deserve.

February 23, 2013 at 8:54 p.m.
aae1049 said...

The language of liberals, disagreeing causes them to take shelter behind the work "hate."
I notice that Rickaroo, Easy123 limit their hate language to Jesus. Interesting, in all fairness, why are you faith haters limiting yourself to Jesus bashing.

For equal billing, Rickaroo and Easy, please share your thoughts on Hinduism or Muslims.

February 23, 2013 at 8:55 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Rickaroo, let's reexamine what you posted initially that prompted my objection, here is your initial post in its entirety. It is you that is a hater.

"What, no Bibull quotes, con-man? Gonna take yore guns with ya to heaven? I hear God don't allow no liberal heathens and peace-niks up thar. Only gun-totin', Bibull believin', government hatin', real Amurikans are 'llowed 'tween them pearly gates. I'm shore you won't have no problem gettin' in 'cuz you is such a good little krischun soldier and all. Halley-loo-ya. Now why don’ t ya go to the firin’ range and shoot a few righteous rounds for God's army. Praise Jeezus."

February 23, 2013 at 9:03 p.m.
nucanuck said...

I try to imagine Jesus with an assault rifle and extra magazines to ward off a home invasion. BTW, was Jesus a Mexican? So many Mexicans seem to be naned after him. Maybe that is where the "hasta la vista, baby" came from just before blowing away a money changer.

Christians wouldn't be so violent and gun loving if Jesus didn't want them to belong to the NRA and pack heat, even in church.

February 23, 2013 at 9:16 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Nutcanuck, how do you feel about Hinduism or Muslims? Or, do you just hate Christians? waiting.

February 23, 2013 at 9:25 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

About Hinduism, Islam, monotheistic religions, etc.:

Any religion that thinks of itself as exclusive and its followers feel the need to evangelize and "save souls" is ridiculous and is not worthy of being taken seriously. Hinduism and Buddhism are not evangelical, tending to focus more on how to live a moral, peaceful, and harmonious life rather than being so concerned with converting the masses. There seems to be a growing number of Christians - and I think some Muslims, too, but I don't know any personally - who focus more on love, compassion, and living a moral life and who do not take their Bible (or Koran) literally. For those people I have respect. Jihadist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians, on the other hand, are still stuck in the Dark Ages and are creepy, dangerous people. At least most fundamentalist Christians today are a little more evolved than the jihadist Muslims in that they do not think themselves to be sanctioned by God to behead the non-believers! But they are still back-assward insofar as they hang on to the primitive notion of a God who punishes the non-believers in the afterlife.

Now, I've said all I'm going to say on this subject, at least for today. I don't believe in going round and round with you fundie Christian nitwits. It's a waste of time trying to argue with pig-headed blind-faith fools. If I'm going to hell according to your beliefs, then so be it. I don't want to go to the same place you're going anyway. And especially not for all eternity!

February 23, 2013 at 9:25 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Rickaroo,

Just as I suspected, you will only attack Christians. Oh how you have back peddled, how funny.

Now you claim, "Hinduims and Buddhism are no non evangelical, promoters of peace and love...Muslims too seem to focus on love;..."

If I understand your logic, only Christians are bad. You are only against Christians, interesting. What do you call people that are only against people of color? Just asking.

February 23, 2013 at 10:12 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Can you not read?? I said that I have respect for those Christians and Muslims or anyone who strives to promote peace, love, and harmony and they do not focus on evangelizing - though those Christians and Muslims seem to be a rarity. I have NO respect for fundie Christians, Muslims, or anyone who thinks that their religion is supreme and exclusive and all other believers are going to hell.

If you lack basic reading comprehension skills, that's too bad. But a word of advice: if you can't understand what you're reading, don't bother responding to it. You won't sound as stupid that way.

February 23, 2013 at 10:29 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Rickaroo,

You and Easy enjoy calling everyone stupid....The fact is both of you will not answer basic questions about your amplified targeting of people of Christian faith, but give Muslims and Hindus a free pass. Why? It is reasonable question, since you both mock my faith.

You did indeed write that Hinduism was non evangelical and more love and peace, and Muslins the same. You reserve hate solely for Christians and mock Jesus, what is an appropriate term for faith haters that hold Christians as their sole target?

February 23, 2013 at 11:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

"The fact is both of you will not answer basic questions about your amplified targeting of people of Christian faith, but give Muslims and Hindus a free pass."

Rickaroo answered you extensively. I don't give anyone a pass. When a Muslim or Hindu starts prostletyzing in the TFP comments section, I will engage them. The majority of people in the United States and on these threads are Christians. I'm dealing with the people I'm presented with.

"Why? It is reasonable question, since you both mock my faith."

Your question is moronic. Do you expect us to address every religion when someone comes on here using Christian dogma and rhetoric? It doesn't make sense. There is no "amplified targeting". We are simply addressing Christians because that's what we are presented with.

"You reserve hate solely for Christians and mock Jesus,"

That is a lie. If you had actually read what Rickaroo posted, you would know that, but apparently your reading comprehension isn't very good.

"what is an appropriate term for faith haters that hold Christians as their sole target?"

What is the term for liars that completely misrepresent the situation and feign indignation?

I hold every religion in the same regard. Every religion is patently false and based on lies and ignorance. I respect people's right to worship however they want and whoever they want but religion is not taboo to me. I will mock and ridicule any religion. I just happen to encounter more Christians here. But, as is the Christian way, you want equal time in ridicule too.

February 24, 2013 at 12:34 a.m.
Lr103 said...

The fact is both of you will not answer basic questions about your amplified targeting of people of Christian faith, but give Muslims and Hindus a free pass. Why?

This can be answered quite easily.

  1. How many Muslim or Hindu have posted inflammatory, derogatory and hateful language about anyone and everyone such as Latino, blacks, Middle Easterners, and Islam and other religious and ethnic groups then run and hide, claiming to belong to a religion, such as Christianity, that's supposedly peaceful, inclusive, loving and non-violent?

  2. How many Muslim and Hindu verses people claiming Christianity on this and other local forums have referred to people they don't like as bitch, whre and used ugly language then run and hide claiming I'm a Christian? They've referred to Muslims as anything from "rag-heads" to "sandnigrs" and thought it was cute and hilarious. Those individuals don't need any help. They alone give Christianity* a bad name.

I know many people of many faiths-non-faiths, ethnicities, religions and race, but I've never known any to use or portray themselves in such an ugly manner in recent times as some individuals claiming to be Christian. This is not an indictment of all Christians either. I've known real Christians, and believe me when I say, these individuals are imposters, hypocrit Christians who use religion as a cover.

February 24, 2013 at 8:28 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Easy and Rickaroo,

It is very well established in this thread that you both are faith haters. Without provocation, Rickaroo posted a spit in the face of Jesus indictment with absurd language.

Both of you have mocked Christianity without provocation on this thread. You both raised started mocking Jesus, but will not apply the same standard measure to other religions, such as Muslims or Hindus.

Sure, throw rocks at the Christian faith, but Muslims are off limits, because they show "more peace and love." You both are selective faith haters.

February 24, 2013 at 9:36 a.m.
Lr103 said...

I've not witnessed any attacks from the side of Muslims and Hindu the way some individuals claiming to be Christians have openly attacked people of other religions, ethnicities or race, class and social standings. They've attacked the poor the homeless and most anyone they could find. In fact, if memory recalls correctly, all those forum attacks originated from individuals claiming their Christian faith. They created a hostile atmosphere where others were bound to react. Real Christians should take a stand and stand up to these imposters who are exploting and ruining their religion.

February 24, 2013 at 10:47 a.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

"It is very well established in this thread that you both are faith haters."

More like logic and reason lovers. I don't necessarily hate religion. I think it served it's purpose but it's no longer needed in the modern world.

"Both of you have mocked Christianity without provocation on this thread."

I don't need provocation to mock anything. I just told you that religion is not taboo to me. I have no reservations in mocking, ridiculing, or criticizing any religious belief. Your reading comprehension is terrible.

"but will not apply the same standard measure to other religions, such as Muslims or Hindus."

False. Everything Rickaroo and myself have said to this point does not coincide with that statement. I said: "I hold every religion in the same regard. Every religion is patently false and based on lies and ignorance.".

If you aren't going to actually read what I say, just shut up. You are lying. What does your holy book say about lying?

"Sure, throw rocks at the Christian faith, but Muslims are off limits, because they show "more peace and love."

You're a liar. I have explained myself thoroughly and anyone can read it. Your ignorance, illiteracy, reading comprehension problem is rearing it's ugly head.

"You both are selective faith haters."

When a Muslim or Hindu starts prostletyzing in the TFP comments section, I will engage them. The majority of people in the United States and on these threads are Christians. I'm dealing with the people I'm presented with.

Do you expect us to address every religion when someone comes on here using Christian dogma and rhetoric? It doesn't make sense. There is no "selective faith hating". We are simply addressing Christians because that's what we are presented with.

I hold every religion in the same regard. Every religion is patently false and based on lies and ignorance. I respect people's right to worship however they want and whoever they want but religion is not taboo to me. I will mock and ridicule any religion. I just happen to encounter more Christians here. But, as is the Christian way, you want equal time in ridicule too.

You're only making yourself look dishonest and/or stupid by ignoring what we're actually saying. You have yet to represent what I've said accurately.

You need to read your holy book a little more in depth. You're currently breaking one of the major commandments. Exodus 20:16- “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

February 24, 2013 at 11 a.m.
nowfedup said...

Some more "Facts" the nra and nra owned legislators and gotta have my gun" lovers NEVER discuss. A.CCL folks are checked and trained. FACT many states, includes GA has ZERO requirement to fire on shot, nor attend any class on laws of CCL shooting etc. FL DOES NOT do background checks and like many states you shoot 10-20 rds, and then are "Qualified to "Defend self" in any area, now does'nt it sound great to have a GA or FL or others opening up in Mall with 20rd mags? B. NRA blocked reporting and central data collection point on those with CCL arrested for gun or other issues. AKA "no report so no problems as CCL are angelic patriotic hero's. C. Fact is ONLY felons and others would be prevented from buying guns if 100% background check, Would have ZERO impact on 2nd or honest folks getting guns. D. Does anyone really believe that "silencers needed on hunting rifles to protect hunters hearing" as NRA claimed. Has ANYONE ever met a hunter with earplugs to "Protect self"? F. What other nation has to arm it's schools from gun dangers from it's own citizens. How come money now pops up for armed schools, but not much to improve education standing in world from 37th? G. What is the caliber and type guns needed to stop a shooter wearing a level III bullet proof vest, Will it penetrate school walls? What is alternate solution to protect schools as this is insane as to arm schools says we have lost control of our own citizens with guns.

Lastly, is more guns out there really the solution, as if it is, we can only end up with a nation where most heavily armed rule, there is no alternative if the gun is that badly needed to be safe? Do you really want someone who never attended a class as to the legal responsibility-laws and fired no or less then 50rd running about armed? What is minimum number of shots it takes to safely manage a handgun in public areas. Does anyone honestly think a silenced hunting gun or AR/AK 30rd mag will not soon be "stolen" and what will happen then? What is the real world solutions to the gun problem that has made USA nr1 in gun violence. NOTE Gun injury has increased each year, deaths may be down but likely due to small cal used, like 9MM and vastly improved medical care. LASTLY exactly what part of 2nd Amd is now being endangered, exactly?

February 24, 2013 at 11:21 a.m.
Plato said...

Two ideas no politicians are talking about.

  1. There are 300 million guns out there already. Restricting future sales to law abiding citizens by requiring universal background checks will help but it won't do anything about the guns already floating around in society. A better and much more effective law would be to require a background check to buy ammunition. Of course that will crate a black market in ammunition but they just have to put some legal teeth into the law. To streamline the process citizens could get a one time BG check and then get issued an ID card that permits them to buy ammo.

  2. When a person is convicted of a felony, or declared mentally incompetent, they should be required to surrender all their guns to law enforcement. Failure to do so would constitute another felony and add time to their sentence.

February 24, 2013 at 4:51 p.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck said...

I try to imagine Jesus with an assault rifle and extra magazines to ward off a home invasion. BTW, was Jesus a Mexican? So many Mexicans seem to be naned after him. Maybe that is where the "hasta la vista, baby" came from just before blowing away a money changer.

Christians wouldn't be so violent and gun loving if Jesus didn't want them to belong to the NRA and pack heat, even in church.

==========================

Sooner or later their own words will will condemn them. I hope you will repent of this blasphemy and seek forgiveness nucanuck.

That earth god you worship can never save you from the judgment that awaits you if you don't.

February 24, 2013 at 5:28 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Ignorance and superstition is the name of the game with conservative.

Your imaginary sky god can't save you from death, conservative. Truth, honesty, logic, reason, and knowledge escapes you.

February 24, 2013 at 5:34 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Conservative,

The arrogance of Easy and Rickroo enables them to spit in the face of God. They are both Christian Faith Haters, abd they deem Muslims and Hindus as "more peaceful and loving." oh yeah, Sharia Law is loving. Ill informed they are.

February 24, 2013 at 7:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

"The arrogance of Easy and Rickroo enables them to spit in the face of God."

What arrogance? You claim to be able to talk directly with a deity, know the mind of god, debase modern science and know the origins of the universe, yet I'm arrogant? You display the ULTIMATE arrogance by making outrageous claims without even the slightest shred of evidence and then expect people to take you seriously. Common for your ilk and very laughable. The Christian god is easily disprovable, as are nearly all of the man-made gods throughout the years. I'm not spitting in the face of "god", I'm spitting in your face.

"They are both Christian Faith Haters,"

Not necessarily. Faith is gullibility with a pretty name. Faith is the least of the virtues. I have already stated that my distaste for religion is not exclusive to Christianity. But, per usual, your severe reading handicap probably didn't allow you to grasp that part despite the numerous times I've said it. Rickaroo even gave some very cordial remarks about "some Christian" that don't adhere to the mindless dogma of religion.

"abd they deem Muslims and Hindus as "more peaceful and loving."

I never said such a thing. Rickaroo didn't either. Here is the direct quote: "Hinduism and Buddhism are not evangelical, tending to focus more on how to live a moral, peaceful, and harmonious life rather than being so concerned with converting the masses."

No mention of the word "Muslim" in the quote. Learn to read all the words and comprehend them better. As you'll see below, Rickaroo only referred to "some" Muslims (and Christians) as "focusing more on love".

"oh yeah, Sharia Law is loving."

You either misread what Rickaroo said or you're a liar. Rickaroo clearly mentioned "Hinduism and Buddhism" in referring to them as "moral, peaceful and harmonious". Rickaroo actually referred to some Christians (and some Muslims) as "focusing more on love":

"There seems to be a growing number of Christians - and I think some Muslims, too, but I don't know any personally - who focus more on love, compassion, and living a moral life and who do not take their Bible (or Koran) literally." - Rickaroo

"Ill informed they are."

Seriously, you're a moron. Nothing you've said to this point is true. It's very strange and comical. I don't know if you're just a liar or if there is actually something wrong with you. Either way, you're not competent enough to engage in any kind of discussion with a sentient, serious human being. Talking to conservative is right up your alley.

February 24, 2013 at 7:44 p.m.
shen said...

Rickaroo and Easy123, you're being baited. This individual will try and trip you into saying something then likely attempt to have you investigated claiming you made a threat. Spouse maybe L.E. {investigations}

WARNING!!!!* WARNING!!! IGNORE! IGNORE!

February 24, 2013 at 9:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

shen,

Thanks for the warning. What Rickaroo and myself have stated is in print for everyone to see. The individual you speak of is the one being blatantly dishonest. My comments speak for themselves, as do Rickaroo's.

February 24, 2013 at 9:34 p.m.
shen said...

Easy123, I know. Believe me when I say I KNOW!!

It's obvious you and Rick are well read and quite knowledgeable on the subject matters of which you speak. I find what your information quite interesting and inspiring. Enough so that I'm inspired to read and research more.

In research I came across the story of Cesare Borgia; quite an intersting fella, and eerily familiar too. ;)

Just be careful.

February 24, 2013 at 9:42 p.m.
Easy123 said...

shen,

"Enough so that I'm inspired to read and research more."

Never stop learning! The quest for knowledge should never end.

"In research I came across the story of Cesare Borgia; quite an intersting fella, and eerily familiar too. ;)"

The Borgia's are very interesting; very strange as well. The Renaissance provided some of the most infamous historical characters of all time.

"Just be careful"

I will heed your warning.

February 24, 2013 at 9:50 p.m.
joneses said...

I am not afraid of anyone taking my guns because I have guns to protect me from a tyrannical government.

February 25, 2013 at 7:43 a.m.
patriot1 said...

The gun-grabbers are going nowhere fast with their attempted legislation.

February 25, 2013 at 7:54 a.m.
jjmez said...

joneses said... I am not afraid of anyone taking my guns because I have guns to protect me from a tyrannical government.

So joneses has a couple of F-16, F-35A-B fighter jets just lying around in his backyard? A couple drones in his basement and a tank or two in his garage to stave off some alleged tyrannical government? Marvelous!! And we're left to wonder where shooters like Adam Lanza developed their paranoid obsessions. It wasn't his mental illness as much as it was likely a product of his mother. A mother who, like you and some other gun nuts, have an unhealthy, unrealistic and unnatural obsession and hate of the world in which you co-exist; for the government and a fear criminals are lurking around every corner waiting to pounce. An unhealthy view of the world brought on by some unstable gun rights nuts and hate talk radio, along with faux news hosts and hosteses.

Believe me when I say, if the government wanted to come in and take your, my or anyones guns away it could easily do just that without even having to fire that first shot. But that's not the goal or intent.

February 25, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.
conservative said...

aae1049:

There are several atheist, even super heathens who often comment here. They are miserable people who want to trap others in their web of hate. Misery does love company

For the most part just ignore them. I own own a few of them. They waste their day looking for my comments hoping to engage me. At least 95% of the time I have no idea what there latest hate fit is even about.

I often want to make more than one comment but I don't want all of mine to be consecutive, so I just wait for one to post something then make another.

I make my living over the net so I can often go back and forth. This gives me a break plus I get my say in.

There is no doubt but that only the most hardened fool would ever take their advice or pay any further attention to them after reading a couple of their comments.

February 25, 2013 at 8:43 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

conservative and aae: reality check. Connie gets his a$$ handed to him here almost every day, even on topics he claims to know better than anyone. As far as being miserable? Nothing is further from the truth. Is my life perfect? Of course not, but I find meaning in the everyday, from people I know to the natural world I live in. No sky fairies necessary. I recommend you stop worrying about other peoples' beliefs and enjoy your life, living it according to your version of morality. No one will stop you or interfere. It is not your job or anyone else's to "save" people like us. Frankly, I am already saved, from the shackles of religion. The last thing I want is to go back, and have to listen to people like you.

BTW: "super heathen" I like that. May I use it?

They waste their day looking for my comments hoping to engage me.

Don't flatter yourself. You are pretty easy to find, because you post the same crap on multiple threads that are unrelated (like this one)

There is no doubt but that only the most hardened fool would ever take their advice or pay any further attention to them after reading a couple of their comments.

Rich, considering you pursue alprova day after day and thread after thread with the same inane challenge.

February 25, 2013 at 8:59 a.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck said...

Is America a better country because of guns?

===============

Now why wouldn't a person who wants or even thinks such a thing is possible not put forth his plan how to accomplish this?

Did I answer my own question?

February 25, 2013 at 9:46 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative's post at 8:43 AM is the best, observable proof of his delusion and psychosis that I have seen. Truly one of the most deluded, maladapted, psychotic individuals I've ever observed.

February 25, 2013 at 10:46 a.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck said...

Is America a better country because of guns?

===========================

If there were no guns, the choice would be knives.

Can't you see the disadvantage a weaker person would have against a stronger person with a knife who meant harm?

February 25, 2013 at 10:53 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Fallacious and non-sensical argument from conservative. Conservative's beliefs about guns are completely contrary to the teachings of his holy book. There are a plethora of verses that speak against using weapons and even condemn personal protection/revenge/retaliation. Conservative is a heretic.

February 25, 2013 at 11:01 a.m.
dao1980 said...

Yep, Connie is pretty much the senior "village idiot" here on the TFP page.

Many of my buddies whom are in fact(honest and humble) church goer's check in to laugh at his nonsense quite regularly.

I would advise that anyone who feels as though they have a valid point to make, distance themselves far far from any semblance of a friendship with Conny (servative), Kenny (Orr), or Andy (Lohr)... also known as the "Holy Trinity of Blatant Stupidity".

I've read some decent points from aae1049 in the past, but she's all over the place in this thread, and chumming up with Conny is a sure sign of a struggling stance.

It's often true that reading and comprehending what others are actually trying to say can get very difficult very quickly when you attempt to defend and emotion based belief with an emotion based argument.. not a whole lot of room for logic in there with all of those "feelings"...

February 25, 2013 at 12:21 p.m.
Leaf said...

Can't we all just get along? Wait. . . what am I saying? Idiots, all of you. Baal is the most powerful god, and he will devour all you heathens soon. Anyone who doesn't believe in Baal will surely perish. All your guns and bibles won't help you when he returns to earth to eat the unbelievers.

February 25, 2013 at 1 p.m.

Criminals are in favor of gun control. Laws don't control them as is proven every day in Chicago, D.C., etc... Defenseless sheeple are easier to rob, rape, kill and enslave. That would make those who propose gun control laws either partners in crime or too dumb to let out of the house. If (insert word) bans worked, that long standing ban we have on murder would have rendered weapons useless long ago. Gun control laws only work against law abiding men and women. Some lawmakers seem to have declared war on us.

February 25, 2013 at 2:49 p.m.
conservative said...

Sheeple:

"That would make those who propose gun control laws either partners in crime or too dumb to let out of the house."

Good line!

The " too dumb to let out of the house" part cracked me up because it reminded me of an old John Wayne western where Wayne walks up to his co star for the first time and tells her that he wants to marry her. She starts looking behind him, Wayne asks what she is looking for and she says something like "surely they don't let you out alone."

February 25, 2013 at 6:02 p.m.
Easy123 said...

FPSE,

"Laws don't control them as is proven every day in Chicago, D.C., etc.."

You're very stupid. Without laws, criminals would cease being criminals. We have laws to keep society in check. By your logic, we should get rid of every law because "laws don't control them (criminals)". The vast majority of mass murders had no criminal record. How do you explain that? Surely, according to your logic, criminals are always criminals!

Laws really do help despite what your misguided mind is telling you.

"Defenseless sheeple are easier to rob, rape, kill and enslave."

Strawman. Who is espousing the idea to leave people "defenseless"?

"If (insert word) bans worked, that long standing ban we have on murder would have rendered weapons useless long ago."

This is another "anti-law" rant. It's moronic. Nothing more to say.

"Gun control laws only work against law abiding men and women."

You forgot to mention criminals.

"Some lawmakers seem to have declared war on us."

What does the "law abiding" citizen stand to lose in an assault weapons ban? You would still have a selection of over 2,000 different guns.

February 25, 2013 at 7:11 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Easy states, "What does the "law abiding" citizen stand to lose in an assault weapons ban? You would still have a selection of over 2,000 different guns." Ok so let's ban the saying of all cuss words everywhere. I mean what do you have to lose? Or let's ban speaking out against the President. I mean what do you have to lose? Solid logic.....your law classes teach you this one?

February 25, 2013 at 8:26 p.m.
Lr103 said...

No NirvanaFallacy didn't! Say it ain't so, joe! I don't know if I should laugh or feel sorry for such an idiotic comparison.

Nirva, how many people do you know ever went on a mass cussing spree, killing over 2 dozen people? Surely, you're smarter than to make such an idiotic comparison.

Speaking out against any president? Well there are limitation even on free speech. You can't enter a theater and shout fire!!* And you can't threaten the president or anyone for that matter without consequences. Freedoms do come with responsibilities, you know.

February 25, 2013 at 8:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"Ok so let's ban the saying of all cuss words everywhere. I mean what do you have to lose? Or let's ban speaking out against the President."

You don't realize that there are regulations and limits on free speech, do you? There are situations where you can be arrested for using curse words. Try cursing out a police officer during a speeding stop. Try doing the same to a judge in a court room. Try making a threat against the President, as Lr103 said, or anyone for that matter. There are regulations and limits to our that majority of our rights except the 2nd Amendment. This is where an assault weapons ban would fit very nicely.

"Solid logic.....your law classes teach you this one?"

I didn't actually make a statement. I was asking a question. I'd really like to know how an assault weapons ban would affect "law-abiding" citizens at all. However, it is very sound logic. Did your idiocy teach you that you actually presented a logical, intelligent rebuttal? You might want to rethink that.

Lr103 is correct in saying that the comparison between gun laws and banning cursing is an absolutely false, baseless, moronic comparison.

February 25, 2013 at 9:16 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Well not surprisingly Lr103 didn't understand the point of my examples was to show the flaw in Easy's logic. You can use the whole "I mean what does law abiding citizen stand to lose in a ban of X" for a wide range of things. I'd say most people disagree with the Westboro Baptist Church but they just keep showing up protesting funerals.

In other words, there are a lot of good arguments that can be made for banning assault weapons, but arguing to ban them because the average citizen doesn't have much to lose just isn't one of those good arguments.

February 25, 2013 at 9:20 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"Well not surprisingly Lr103 didn't understand the point of my examples was to show the flaw in Easy's logic."

There was no flaw. The logic is completely sound.

"You can use the whole "I mean what does law abiding citizen stand to lose in a ban of X" for a wide range of things."

Probably. However, the way you used it was completely asinine and fallacious. That still doesn't mean there was a flaw in my logic. Actually, being able to objectively apply that statement to other subjects and situations would prove the logic was sound.

"In other words, there are a lot of good arguments that can be made for banning assault weapons, but arguing to ban them because the average citizen doesn't have much to lose just isn't one of those good arguments."

You don't get it. The point I was trying to make was that "average citizens" have nothing to lose by banning assault weapons. No existing guns will be confiscated. Nothing will change for people that currently own assault weapons. Therefore, there is no war on "law-abiding" citizens, as was previously stated by FPSE. It's a very good argument despite what your misguided mind may think.

Would you like to keep going or would you prefer to quit while you're behind?

February 25, 2013 at 9:25 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

There is no point. You are clearly just too smart. I mean you use words like asinine and fallacious. Please share more of your wisdom.

February 25, 2013 at 9:47 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"There is no point. You are clearly just too smart. I mean you use words like asinine and fallacious. Please share more of your wisdom."

You must be a moron. I mean, you use words like "is" and "of".

I'll take that sarcastic (weak) ad hominem as your way of accepting your incorrectness and bowing out. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

February 25, 2013 at 9:53 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

And you use phrases like "ad hominem."

February 25, 2013 at 10:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

And you use phrases like "and you use phrases like.."

Come on, little fella, keep going! Let's see how stupid you can make yourself look. Here, boy, here!

February 25, 2013 at 10:02 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Everyone is stupid compared to you. I mean you obviously are an expert in theology, the American legal system, and the English language. You must have been like a child prodigy or something to have amassed such knowledge.

February 25, 2013 at 10:14 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Shen, you are paranoid at a minimum. I am with a local citizen watch group. wwww.littlechicagowatch.com oohhhhhh be scared, really, we are bad to the bone. You better watch out, we may file on open records request on you silly rabbit.

I do strongly contend the Easy and Rickaroo are faith haters. Their posts speak to this fact, and clearly they missed part of the early education.

February 25, 2013 at 10:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"Everyone is stupid compared to you."

I don't believe that. But you're free to believe whatever you wish.

"I mean you obviously are an expert in theology, the American legal system, and the English language."

Not quite and I never claimed to be either. But you're free to believe whatever you wish.

"You must have been like a child prodigy or something to have amassed such knowledge."

I credit any knowledge I've gained over the years to Thunderbird wine and Country Club malt liquor. Revelation comes to those in times of stupor.

February 25, 2013 at 10:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

"I do strongly content the Easy and Rickaroo are faith haters."

More like logic and reason lovers. I don't necessarily hate religion or faith. I think it served it's purpose but it's no longer needed in the modern world. Faith is gullibility with a pretty name. Faith is the least of the virtues. There are very few situations in life where faith is even necessary. There is so much knowledge out there. Why submit to ignorance and rely on faith?

"I do strongly contend the Easy and Rickaroo are faith haters. Their posts speak to this fact, and clearly they missed part of the early education."

My posts speak volumes in proving how much of an incompetent liar you are. You have no clue what you're talking about, crazy lady. I missed no part of my early education. It appears, however, that you may have missed the reading comprehension part of your entire scholastic endeavor.

February 25, 2013 at 10:28 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Easy, your only skills are resorting to attacking others faith. The mockery of Jesus and God, by both of you, speaks to your lower education attainment.

Without cause or provocation, both you and Rickroo and posted very inflammatory mockery of other's faith.

February 25, 2013 at 11:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

aae1049,

"your only skills are resorting to attacking others faith."

That is demonstrably false. Try again, crazy lady.

"The mockery of Jesus and God, by both of you, speaks to your lower education attainment."

That statement is false and a moronic non sequitur.

Facts actually prove otherwise as well. Atheists are much more intelligent than the religious.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201004/why-atheists-are-more-intelligent-the-religious

"Without cause or provocation, both you and Rickroo and posted very inflammatory mockery of other's faith."

And? Go cry to someone else. Your incessant whining is getting you nowhere with me. Religion is the cause and provocation for my criticism and mockery. You don't have to proclaim your religion for me to mock or criticize it. Get used to it, crazy lady.

February 26, 2013 at 12:11 a.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Wow Easy, so you are claiming that it is a fact that "[a]theists are much more intelligent than than the religious." Not only does this claim make you sound like you have an inferiority complex, it also shows you must have missed the class that explained correlation and causation.

February 26, 2013 at 11:35 a.m.

Easy, If the other 2000 guns are equal to the Assault rifle, why ban the assault rifle? Why are the police exempt from the ban if they can also choose from these other 2000 guns? I didn't say anything about not needing laws. I just stated criminals don't obey laws. It is a known fact that states that allow people to carry concealed weapons are safer than states with strict gun control. Most criminals don't want to die. I know you said my comment about defenseless people was a strawman, but history says otherwise. Chicago and D.C. Show otherwise.

Why did the police still need assault rifles when the assault rifle ban was in place?

February 26, 2013 at 1:11 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"so you are claiming that it is a fact that "[a]theists are much more intelligent than than the religious."

I was referencing the study I linked to.

"Not only does this claim make you sound like you have an inferiority complex, it also shows you must have missed the class that explained correlation and causation."

I didn't make the claim. There was study done on it. Check the link. Also, I didn't miss any class that explained correlation and causation but, apparently, you did. The study didn't say atheism caused them to be more intelligent. It simply found that atheists were, in fact, more intelligent than religious people. Might want to do a little more research on correlation and causation.

Your reading comprehension skills are very poor. You should really work on them before you put your foot in your mouth again. Your attempts to make yourself appear intelligent have all failed.

February 26, 2013 at 5:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

FPSE,

"If the other 2000 guns are equal to the Assault rifle, why ban the assault rifle?"

I never said they were equal. However, there are still several reasons to ban the assault rifle. The main one being they are killing machines that cannot be used for hunting and hold a sizable amount of ammunition that allow criminals to kill many people at one time.

"Why are the police exempt from the ban if they can also choose from these other 2000 guns?"

Because their job can involve engaging multiple assailants/criminals at one time. The vast majority of police DO NOT use assault rifles.

"I didn't say anything about not needing laws. I just stated criminals don't obey laws."

It can be implied using your logic. And I'm fully aware of what you said. However, you used that argument in an attempt to demonize gun laws/bans. That is when it become fallacious. Laws should not be eliminated simply because people don't obey them. That's kind of the point of a law anyway. People that don't obey laws are criminals. Without laws there would be no criminals.

"It is a known fact that states that allow people to carry concealed weapons are safer than states with strict gun control."

No, that is not a fact. Only one state doesn't allow concealed carry permits: Illinois. Washington D.C. doesn't either. D.C. has a pretty high crime rate. However, Illinois ranks 13th in violent crime behind 12 other concealed carry states.

You should do research before you talk.

"I know you said my comment about defenseless people was a strawman, but history says otherwise. Chicago and D.C. Show otherwise."

You don't get it. Your comment was a strawman because no one is trying to render anyone defenseless. No one is trying to confiscate guns. No one is trying to take away your ability to defend yourself.

What about Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, or Canada? They have strict gun laws and very few guns at all, yet those countries have some of the lowest crime rates in the world.

Also, being afraid of the rise of imaginary Hitler is psychotic.

"Why did the police still need assault rifles when the assault rifle ban was in place?"

I've already answered this question. The fact that you're dense enough to ask it twice is scary. Do you also wonder why the military gets to use automatic weapons when they are illegal here?

February 26, 2013 at 7:46 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

So Easy, you think that all atheists are more intelligent than religious people because of this one study? Really? You don't think that maybe there is a possibility that there are other factors that influenced that study.

Maybe like the fact that atheism is based on science. And science is more prevalent in developed countries where the population has higher average IQ's.

Here's a fact, Easy does not have a college degree and it shows.

February 26, 2013 at 8:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"So Easy, you think that all atheists are more intelligent than religious people because of this one study? Really?"

No, I believe that because the majority of highly intelligent people tend to be atheist or agnostic. For example, only 7% of the 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in a personal god. The study I mentioned only adds to the mounting proof. There is a lot more proof if you would like me to provide links to it as well.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

"You don't think that maybe there is a possibility that there are other factors that influenced that study."

No.

"Maybe like the fact that atheism is based on science."

100% false. Atheism is simply the suspension of belief in any deity; nothing more. Science plays no part in atheism and atheism is not based on science.

"And science is more prevalent in developed countries where the population has higher average IQ's."

The study is not directly related to science knowledge. It measure's Intelligence Quotient (IQ). And atheists in the U.S. and U.K. score significantly higher than religious people in the U.S. and the U.K.. The study isn't comparing people from developed and non-developed countries.

"Here's a fact, Easy does not have a college degree and it shows."

Wrong again. Your idiocy and severe ignorance is palpable. Your ad hominem arguments serve as proof of that, as does your inability to type anything factual or accurate. If you think about it, it would make you look really bad and completely incompetent if I didn't actually have a college degree. Don't get me wrong, you still look really bad and incompetent but even more so if I wasn't properly educated.

And, as usual, you're oblivious to your own ignorance. I'm sure you'll have something even more moronic to say with your next post. Personally, I have no problem with you incessantly sticking your foot in your mouth and looking ignorant. It only makes my job that much more simple.

Proceed with your inane response.

February 26, 2013 at 9:37 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

100% Fact: Assuming Easy actually has a college degree, he shows just how far the American Education system has declined.

How do you determine if someone is highly intelligent? Is IQ going to be the sole determining factor? Or will people with a lower IQ be considered highly intelligent if they are also a member of the Academy of Sciences? Are scientists the only people that can be considered highly intelligent? What about doctors, lawyers, priests, CEO's, teachers ......etc.? So you see, it gets a little tricky, if not impossible, to actually determine the highly intelligent people in society.

Oh wait, I got it, you have to be an atheist to be considered highly intelligent. Right......try looking up inferiority complex because that's you.

February 26, 2013 at 11:50 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"100% Fact: Assuming Easy actually has a college degree, he shows just how far the American Education system has declined."

Your psychosis has been duly noted. Believe what you must, you most idiotic of idiots.

"How do you determine if someone is highly intelligent? Is IQ going to be the sole determining factor?"

Yes, considering IQ is the only testable measure of intelligence. IQ tests are the only accepted and accurate tests human beings have to measure intelligence. There are no determining factors. IQ is the measure of human intelligence.

I'm blown away by your idiocy.

"Or will people with a lower IQ be considered highly intelligent if they are also a member of the Academy of Sciences?"

Sorry to burst your moron bubble, but one cannot become a scientist, much less a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, with a low IQ. It just doesn't work that way.

Also, that is one of the most ridiculously irrational sentences I've read in a while.

"Are scientists the only people that can be considered highly intelligent?"

No. As I said, I was using them as an example.

"What about doctors, lawyers, priests, CEO's, teachers ......etc.?"

Absolutely. But you would have to measure their IQ before you could actually determine if they are highly intelligent.

"So you see, it gets a little tricky, if not impossible, to actually determine the highly intelligent people in society"

No, it doesn't get tricky at all nor is it impossible. Intelligence is very easy to determine. You give someone an extensive test and score their IQ.

That sentence, along with the one I mentioned above, is the most ignorant, ill-informed thing I've ever read from an adult human.

"Oh wait, I got it, you have to be an atheist to be considered highly intelligent."

Strawman. I never stated anything of the sort. However, according to several studies, atheists/agnostics are, on average, more intelligent than religious people. Those are simply the facts.

"Right......try looking up inferiority complex because that's you."

Gene Wilder described my sentiments towards you perfectly:

Again, you are completely incompetent. You are intellectually and logically bankrupt. Everything you type is either fallacious or patently false. It gives me utter joy to watch you to continue to stumble over your own ignorance over and over again. Your attempts at insult are even more comical because they appear to have been conjured up by a grade-school child.

I thoroughly enjoy proving your ignorance. I implore you to continue with your harebrained responses.

February 27, 2013 at 1:05 a.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

"'When we looked at the data, the bottom line is the whole concept of IQ — or of you having a higher IQ than me — is a myth,' said Dr. Adrian Owen, the study’s senior investigator... 'There is no such thing as a single measure of IQ or a measure of general intelligence.'" http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273%2812%2900584-3

"Researchers have long debated what IQ tests actually measure, and whether average differences in IQ scores--such as those between different ethnic groups--reflect differences in intelligence, social and economic factors, or both." http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/04/what-does-iq-really-measure.html

"IQ tests, like all tests, are agglomerate measures of many things. They are not pure measures of some kind of "intelligence" or anything else." http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-20057536.html

These quotes speak for themselves.

February 27, 2013 at 9:56 a.m.
Easy123 said...

"Nevertheless, the Duckworth team concludes that IQ tests are measuring much more than just raw intelligence--they also measure how badly subjects want to succeed both on the test and later in life. Yet Duckworth and her colleagues caution that motivation isn't everything: The lower role for motivation in academic achievement, they write, suggests that "earning a high IQ score requires high intelligence in addition to high motivation."

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/04/what-does-iq-really-measure.html

"Regardless of the answer, studies have repeatedly shown that people who achieve higher scores in IQ tests are more likely to do well in school, perform well in their jobs, earn more money, avoid criminal convictions, and even live longer. Say what you like about the tests, but they have predictive power."

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-20057536.html

MDs, JDs, or PhDs 125+ (WAIS-R, 1987)

College graduates 112 (KAIT, 2000; K-BIT, 1992), 115 (WAIS-R)

1–3 years of college 104 (KAIT, K-BIT), 105-110 (WAIS-R)

Clerical and sales workers 100-105

High school graduates, skilled workers (e.g., electricians, cabinetmakers) 100 (KAIT, WAIS-R), 97 (K-BIT)

1–3 years of high school (completed 9–11 years of school) 94 (KAIT), 90 (K-BIT), 95 (WAIS-R)

Semi-skilled workers (e.g., truck drivers, factory workers) 90-95

Elementary school graduates (completed eighth grade) 90

Elementary school dropouts (completed 0–7 years of school) 80-85

Have 50/50 chance of reaching high school 75

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellig...

What about these quotes, some from the same sources you cited? Do they speak for themselves as well? Or is that limited to the cherry-picked quotes that you deem relevant?

I'm baffled that you're still trying to argue this moronic premise, but proceed with your inane pedantry.

February 27, 2013 at 11:26 a.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Wow. Let me guess, in college you majored in something like art or philosophy.

Obviously you have to be intelligent to score high on an IQ test. But guess what, just like very smart people can do bad on the SAT, they also can do bad on an IQ test. So yes, an IQ test does well at predicting future success. However, that doesn't mean it should be the sole determining factor of your overall intelligence like you have advocated.

Plus those studies you are bragging about showed the atheists had like 4 higher IQ points. You really think there is some huge difference between someone with a 108 IQ and someone with a 112 IQ?

You are a joke.

February 27, 2013 at 12:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"Wow. Let me guess, in college you majored in something like art or philosophy."

Wrong again.

"Obviously you have to be intelligent to score high on an IQ test."

Finally! You speak the truth! This is my whole premise and you just affirmed it!

"But guess what, just like very smart people can do bad on the SAT, they also can do bad on an IQ test."

That's why they take averages, moron. There will always be outliers in any test. The average is the more accurate value.

"However, that doesn't mean it should be the sole determining factor of your overall intelligence like you have advocated."

You don't get it. The study I cited and many others like it used IQ. You're moving the goalposts. You can have your opinion on IQ and how to measure intelligence, I couldn't care less. But, when using IQ tests, atheists score higher, on average, than religious. Thus, atheists are more intelligent than religious people.

"Plus those studies you are bragging about showed the atheists had like 4 higher IQ points."

I didn't brag at all. I stated facts. You have a tremendous reading comprehension problem.

You're also being misleading. The 4 point difference was between atheists and slightly religious people. There was a 5 point difference between atheists and moderately religious people, and a 6 point difference between atheists and very religious people.

And yes, there is a difference between someone with a 103 IQ and a 97 IQ. The difference is around 6 IQ points. I never said the difference was huge. I just stated the facts.

"You are a joke."

Wrong again. I've proven over and over how illogical and ignorant you are. I've shown over and over how you rarely say anything factual or honest. You can believe whatever you like, but the facts are clear about what I have stated and about your ignorance.

I encourage you to keep going. Exposing your idiocy is becoming very entertaining. The floor is yours, Most Idiotic of Idiots!

February 27, 2013 at 12:49 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

What a surprise, Easy doesn't understand.

You stated, "when using IQ tests, atheists score higher, on average, than religious. Thus, atheists are more intelligent than religious people." Really? No, it means atheists do better on IQ tests. Just b/c you have to be intelligent to score high on an IQ test, doesn't mean that an IQ test is the only way to determine intelligence.

"'When we looked at the data, the bottom line is the whole concept of IQ — or of you having a higher IQ than me — is a myth,' said Dr. Adrian Owen, the study’s senior investigator... 'There is no such thing as a single measure of IQ or a measure of general intelligence.'"

February 27, 2013 at 3:08 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"What a surprise, Easy doesn't understand."

No surprise, you're still a dumbass.

"Really? No, it means atheists do better on IQ tests."

Not exactly. IQ tests measures intelligence. You stated yourself that one must have a high IQ to score well on one of these tests. Thus, a high score on an IQ test, using your stated opinion, would correlate with higher intelligence.

"Just b/c you have to be intelligent to score high on an IQ test, doesn't mean that an IQ test is the only way to determine intelligence."

Yet, the IQ test was the method used to determine intelligence in the studies I mentioned. The IQ test is used to determine intelligence in many other studies like it as well. You have even confirmed the validity of the IQ test in regard to how it correlates with intelligence:

"Obviously you have to be intelligent to score high on an IQ test."

You have no argument anymore. You have affirmed my premise. You no longer have a contrary position to argue from. I don't know if it's your stupidity or your pride that won't allow you to admit that you are argument has absolutely no point anymore. If I were to guess, I'd say it was a little of both.

Keep going. I'm enjoying watching you put your foot in your mouth over and over.

February 27, 2013 at 7:04 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Shocker - Easy fails to understand.

Let's try looking at a hypothetical. So there is 2 guys, Kenny Know-it-all and Danny Diligent. Kenny made straight A's in high school and was thought of as a smart guy but lazy. Danny made good grades in high school, making B's and A's, because he was highly motivated to succeed in life.

Both went to college, but only Danny graduated. Kenny quit school because he hated getting up in the mornings and hated that classes took away from his blogging time. Danny graduated and went on to medical school to become a doctor.

Now, fast forward to when the guys are both in their forties. Danny is now a very successful doctor and has been published in numerous medical journals. Kenny has moved around from job to job. Currently, he flips burgers at a local fast food restaurant during the day and blogs at night. Kenny never went back to school and never reads anything except huffingtonpost and drudgereport articles. In fact, he hasn't read a single book since high school.

They both had there IQs tested in high school. Kenny scored a 128 and that dummy Danny scored a 120. Then, just last week, they both got re-tested. And can you believe it, Dr. Danny scored 120 again and Kenny scored a 128 again. So who is more intelligent?

Well, Easy, with his double digit IQ, thinks Kenny Know-it-all is more intelligent than Dr. Danny since Kenny scored higher on an IQ test. Obviously, Dr. Danny is a heck of lot more intelligent than Kenny, but not according to Easy. So I repeat, what a joke.

Also, I apologize if Kenny hits a little close to home with you.

February 28, 2013 at 2:29 p.m.
dao1980 said...

N.V. did you really just administer the... shocker?? In public no less?!

February 28, 2013 at 3:37 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

The mental retardation is strong with you.

"Let's try looking at a hypothetical."

Of course. Hypotheticals are common for people that can't argue from facts, but proceed with your made up story.

"Well, Easy, with his double digit IQ, thinks Kenny Know-it-all is more intelligent than Dr. Danny since Kenny scored higher on an IQ test."

So do you, remember this:

"Obviously you have to be intelligent to score high on an IQ test."

Which is it? Do IQ's have a positive correlation with intelligence or not?

"Obviously, Dr. Danny is a heck of lot more intelligent than Kenny, but not according to Easy."

False. The doctor would simply be more successful, not more intelligent. That is your problem. You have no idea what intelligence actually is. You equate intelligence with success (a high IQ is a good predictor of scholastic/monetary success), but that isn't what intelligence is. Your hypothetical situation means absolutely nothing. It is entirely made up.

"So I repeat, what a joke."

You're currently trying to argue against a premise which you already agreed with. You already said that IQ has a positive correlation with intelligence. You already admitted that. You're trying to argue against yourself. You're obviously too dense and oblivious to even understand that. You have been the joke the entire time, you're simply too stupid to be aware of that fact.

"Also, I apologize if Kenny hits a little close to home with you."

Why would your biography hit home with me?

It is truly baffling how ignorant and completely oblivious you are. You are literally trying to argue against something you already admitted was true.

Keep going. This just keeps getting better and better.

February 28, 2013 at 3:54 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Super Shocker - Easy still can't understand.

Someone that scores a 130 and someone that scores a 120 can both be considered intelligent. Now is the person that scored a 130 more intelligent than the person that scored a 120. --- NO. In the above hypo, both Danny and Kenny could be considered intelligent. However, Danny is obviously MORE intelligent than Kenny.

So, are saying that lawyers who argue cases and judges who issue opinions don't use hypotheticals to better explain their positions, but only use them when they can't argue from facts?

Also, just to clarify, you believe that a college drop out, who's a burger flipping blogger, and has not read a single book since college; is more intelligent than a doctor that has been published in numerous scholarly journals. Seriously, this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Starting to think you might be in the single digit IQ range.

February 28, 2013 at 6:03 p.m.
Easy123 said...

You're bonafide mentally handicapped.

"Someone that scores a 130 and someone that scores a 120 can both be considered intelligent."

Yet, according to their IQ, the one with the higher score is considered more intelligent.

"Now is the person that scored a 130 more intelligent than the person that scored a 120. --- NO."

You're wrong. What don't you understand about that? You admitted yourself that IQ and intelligence has a positive correlation:

"Obviously you have to be intelligent to score high on an IQ test."

That's you admitting my point. The one with the higher score is considered more intelligent. It's simple math.

"However, Danny is obviously MORE intelligent than Kenny."

Wrong again. The doctor is simply more successful. That's it.

"So, are saying that lawyers who argue cases and judges who issue opinions don't use hypotheticals to better explain their positions, but only use them when they can't argue from facts?"

Courts do not rule on hypotheticals. Never have, never will. Facts are facts. Your made up situation isn't, in any way, factual. You have framed the situation to suit your argument. It can be dismissed just as easily as you have presented it.

"Also, just to clarify, you believe that a college drop out, who's a burger flipping blogger, and has not read a single book since college; is more intelligent than a doctor that has been published in numerous scholarly journals."

I believe that the person with the higher IQ is more intelligent. The descriptions mean nothing to me because you have conjured them up from your mind to suit your argument. I can do the same thing. That doesn't change the fact that you already admitted that IQ is positively correlated with intelligence. You admitted it. That has been my premise all along, yet you are trying to argue based on a made up situation. The monetary success of someone has no bearing on their IQ. You hypothetical doesn't even coincide with reality. MD's average 125+ on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. People with 1-3 years of college average 105-110 on the same scale.

You've already conceded my point. Now you're just scrambling to keep the argument going. It isn't working. You're just digging your hole deeper and deeper; all the while looking exceedingly idiotic.

"Seriously, this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard."

You're too stupid to realize that you affirmed the same premise/logic that I'm using to come to that conclusion. You're arguing against a position that you already admitted was true. At what point do you cut your loses and stop looking like a dumbass?

"Starting to think you might be in the single digit IQ range."

As long as I'm more successful than you, according to your misguided logic, I can be deemed more intelligent!

But I'll take that as a compliment coming from someone that shows signs of mental disability.

February 28, 2013 at 8:28 p.m.
harleyjack0518 said...

Thanks for sharing! I have been wanting some firearms in Easton, PA for a while now, for protection and recreation!

July 9, 2013 at 2:06 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.