Fine. Do you see the problem? The accounting between gun deaths and violent deaths is getting confused, as well as confusing violent and violence. As in, gun deaths by accidental shooting don't count as gun deaths because they're not violent, taken as violence. — tim wood

I have never been confused about what is counted as a violent crime, and suicide has never been on that list, no matter how ugly it was. Because I cannot perceive the act of taking one's own life as any kind of a crime. Accidental deaths are simple accidental, it makes no difference at all how the person died.

Better - often necessary - to go back to the roots. What, exactly, happened? What, exactly, is the significance of what happened? What, exactly, do we want to do about it, assuming we give good answer to the first two questions? — tim wood

Now this is where I agree with you 100%. But not just with suicides, with all gun deaths. The problems, as I have stated many times is not necessarily the guns but the people that use them for whatever reason.

If a person is going to kill themselves does the method make any difference? Which is easier to obtain, a gun or a piece of rope. Maybe even any one of dozens of household products under the kitchen sink are easier to get than a gun.

Any decent logic-textbook listing of forms of fallacious argumentation will seem a playbook for pro-gun advocates. Indeed for advocates of any badness or evil. Which is too bad, because many issues entangled in the fuzzy thinking or vicious arguments of advocates actually could be argued on real merits, leading to real progress, even if in the form of reasonable compromise until folks get a better understanding. — tim wood

I am not an advocate for either side of the argument, I really don't care if people in the US are allowed to have guns or not. I have my legally owned and registered gun, but I do not live in the US, and I am glad I have it because it has been useful on a couple of occasions.
But what I don't like about the discussion of the problem in the US is that everyone just wants to blame the guns. Fallacious argumentation and fuzzy thinking abound on both sides, mainly due to lack of concrete evidence. Why do some people get upset about the discussions?

I have not seen a single realistic proposal for solving the problem yet.

The first thing that ought to catch your eye is his statistics: — tim wood

Actually what caught my eye was the numbers, not the percentages. As I said I have no idea how accurate they are, and I did not have any time to check them.
After looking for further information today it turns out that this is one of many copies of the article, some published by famous people on very popular social media sites. And it does seem that someone's math sucks, I wonder why no one has called the author out on it yet?

I think that he got something else wrong as well though. According to the FBI there were 16,470 murders where gun are stated as the weapon in the USA. His numbers only add up to about 12,000.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-11

As you say, the part about suicide seems about right depending on the source. They tend to vary a bit.

The numbers for the cities also appear to be near enough to accurate, again depending on the source.

One of the parts that interested me though was the mention of these cities having the strictest gun laws. Is this true? After looking for more information I have found no really conclusive evidence of it one way or the other. Trump got hammered for a statement about Chicago, but how reliable is the other sides information?
His statement about California and Alabama also appears to be true, but what are their laws really like?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-12

And, oh yes, 900 accidental gun deaths don't count as violence. — tim wood

Not for me, it doesn't for the FBI either apparently.

Violent Crime:
Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses that involve force or threat of force.

No point in reading further. Only leaves the questions as to why, Sir2u, you bothered to bother us with this. — tim wood

Err, maybe to get some intelligent conversation about it. But then maybe I am asking for too much.

If I had stopped reading every book or article after finding an error in it I doubt that I would have read half of the things I have read.

And here is another link that probably wont interest anyone either.
http://www.romans322.com/daily-death-rate-statistics.php

Post some pics then. :wink:

Found an interesting article. Don't know exactly how accurate these numbers are, but they do seem to make it clear that gun controls wont help.

http://www.thinklikeacop.org/guncontrol.html

Depends on the mite. Some mites are 6 mm — Raven73

That would make it as big as many ants, but in the story it says

but the ant seems big to the mite. — Raven73

I jus gotta call BS on that one. :lol:

RIP Steven Hawkins.

Adult might are very small, only about 0.3 mm.

Is that visible to the human eye, or do people only see the symptoms of the infestation?

Most dictionaries include the same definition for sex and gender,

The properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles.

I all ways thought that people just used gender instead of sex because it sounds weird talking peoples "sex role" whereas "gender role" is OK. I think they still do, they just don't know it.

My minor way of contributing to this rebellion is to cross out the label 'Gender' whenever it appears on a form I am asked to fill in, and write next to it 'Sex'. Yeah, call me a dangerous radical, but somebody's got to do it. — andrewk

I remember some stupid form the embassy sent to all of the expats living around here, he got pissed of when someone wrote "yes please" as an answer to the question about sex. The next form had gender on it. I doubt he ever figured out who done it. He he.

The ant seems small to us, but the ant seems big to the mite — Raven73

Would they know about mites in those days?

Irony
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/03/07/kennesaw-gun-law-orig.cnn

He had better hope the jury isn't drawn from Yahoo user lists. — Bitter Crank

I am not sure about that, some of them, might force him to pay the teacher and ask the judge to put the idiot in jail to find out exactly what being traumatized really is.

I know that you specifically stated 17 year old SONS in your question, but in my opinion, the gender of the child shouldn't have any effect on our behavior in this instance. — Joe

But it does, most people tend to look the other way when it is a male don't they. They are more protective of the weaker sex.

Yes it is a great memory. EXCEPT when you wake up at 3:50 in the morning with the song banging away in your head and staying there for most of the day.
Funny thing was that on the way out of work I met a third grade teacher with a book under her arm. Yes, it was called "Puff the magic dragon" and it started the song rolling again.

I am a bit tired of letting it be, ya know? :naughty: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Try "Hey Jude".
It is longer but I find it more relaxing.

A few years ago I woke up with "Puff the magic dragon" running through my brain. What could that mean? Thinking about it though, it would be better suited to your situation actually. :wink:

After reading some of the posts, I noticed that many take "I know what is best for me" to imply ignorance. But it doesn't, at least not always.

A teenager goes to buy a car, who knows best what is good for the kid. The salesman says he does, and wont his friends all admire and envy him for having his own wheels. And a lot of the time the kid ends up buying a clunker even after his dad says " don't buy it". He knows what is best for him.
An older person goes to buy a car, and maybe the same thing happens. But maybe if the older person has had other cars he does know what is best for him. He knows what is best for him.

Know what is best for you should be based on your knowledge about the subject, otherwise it might be wise to listen to your friends.

Humans have free will. — Wayfarer

Yes they do.

They can create weapons of mass destruction and destroy the entire earth. — Wayfarer

Having free will do not necessarily give them the ability to do this. Birds probably have more free will than humans and they have not built a bomb yet.

I've never believed in the kind of 'God' that appears on stage, like a cop, and prevents humans from doing things. — Wayfarer

I have never believed in any type of god.

It's a very anthropomorphic belief. — Wayfarer

Yes you are right about that. We showed not suggest that a god has human like characteristics, even though his holy book says we have his.

One wonders why the good Lord would look kindly on the deployment of a weapon that literally pulverises bones and liquifies vital organs, but there it is.) — Wayfarer

But one wonders more why the hell he does nothing about it.

Just found this in the yahoo not so news.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/3011c67e-3b37-3359-ba46-0dadccbdbe06/ss_ex-student-sues-lake-forest.html

Check out the comments at the end.

There are several sources you can try if you are not overly worried about pirate stuff. PM if you are interested. :halo:

I mostly agree with that, but as with all rules there are exceptions. I doubt that most young minded 17 year old would even bother thinking about a relationship with a man twice her age. But there are quite a few more mature ones that don't like the idea of being messed around with by boys their own age that in most cases have no idea how to treat a lady correctly.

And not all dads fill the role model position very well.

What would you say if it was your 17 year old son with a very attractive woman of 40?

Where I live there are still a lot of girls that get hooked up at 16/17. It used to be 15/16 but nowadays they get jobs and just look for friends with benefits. Just kike it was back in England 50 years ago.

One of the things that is pissing me off about the comments on this thread is the absolute certainty that a man of forty could not have good intentions towards a girl of 17. A lot of men and women live with people a lot younger than they are.

Another thing thing is the absolute certainty that the younger of the two is going to suffer some form of trauma. Just a quick look at the case where older females have seduced "young innocent boys" of 14 to 17 years old. As an ex 14 year old I know for a fact that I would not have been traumatized by such an event, unless it was something violent of course. Most guys at that age would be delighted by the brag-ability of the whole thing. They only get traumatized when mom and dad start screaming. Shit, men used to be proud of their sons when they lost their virginity. Now it is a crime.

Before anyone goes accusing me of anything nasty, I am not in anyway implying that I am in favor of anyone taking advantage of other people. But I restate that I believe maturity and education should be the most important factors when considering a legal age of consent.

That is logically impossible since an imperfect being/thing doesn't change. — bahman

Hey, wait a minute there. I am imperfect, does that mean that I have no chance of changing.
Man, I am so screwed.

And now for the candidates for best responses to useless arguments.

"Fuck, man, that's a brilliant argument!"

Add yours favorite candidate below.

Yes, great idea. And I'm sure that that would in no way be seen as an attractive position for child sexual predators. — Sapientia

So when you go to get your drivers license you have no way of knowing that the people testing you are qualified to do so? I am sure that for something as important as this test there would be no way anyone with any evil thoughts would be allowed to participate.

And you don't think that that's vulnerable to exploitation? What planet are you living on? If it's happened in the Catholic Church, if it's happened in professional football youth teams, if it's happened in schools, and in the scouts, and with politicians and parents and children's TV presenters, why on earth wouldn't it happen here of all places? — Sapientia

Could you please tell me which of these positions has to go through a rigorous psychological testing to find out if they have any inclinations towards sexual abuse. What planet do you live on? So many people enter those jobs just because it is easy for them to become sexual predators. There are no checks made except for criminal records. You really do need to think about what you say.

I know that no one likes having their bright idea trashed, but you can't polish a turd. — Sapientia

But there are a whole bunch of idiots doing that right now by saying that the current system works. Do you need ant old rags, I have a big bag of them I could donate to the cause.

My goodness. It doesn't have to be tried to foresee the risks. One would expect the people responsible for these things to think about these things long and hard before jumping straight into a trial and error methodology. — Sapientia

The results of letting people drive cars does not have to be seen to gauge the risks, that is why people are made to take classes and get a license. Why do the same ideas not apply in this situation?

Where did I say that we are starting tomorrow and that we are hiring? I never said for the perverts to get in line for a juicy job.
Of bloody course things would have to be organized and set up, they would have to think long and hard about every detail. Not like the system in place that says if you are this age then no but if you are that age then yes hump away ready or not.

How did I make the comparison? Well, I thought about the one, and then I thought about the other, and then I compared the two, and then I thought some more and reached a conclusion. — Sapientia

So let me guess, the whole comparison took you maybe 20 seconds?
What problems, apart from those you mentioned above, can you foresee in establishing a system of permissible sexual activity for those that prove they are capable of it even if they have to wait until the are thirty before they are allowed to do so?
What are the benefits of allowing someone of sixteen who has had no sexual education to have sex just because he is sixteen?

Do you not have such an ability? — Sapientia

Oh yes I do, and I also know how to use it properly. Give it a try sometime.

Not if the costs outweigh the benefits, and they would in this case. — Sapientia

So now you are a tightfisted fortune teller! How did you reach the conclusion that it would cost more that treating all of the sexually transmitted problems, the unwanted pregnancies and the accompanying abortions, the welfare payments for all of the fatherless kids and the state maintenance of all of the orphans and abandoned babies. Or do you actually have the time to work out how much it would cost to set up my idea and compare it to the government costs of the items mentioned above.
Get real, you think it is not a good idea so you try to make fun of it instead of actually doing so thinking.

Yes, and at least my demolished house doesn't suffer from a leaking roof! :lol: — Sapientia

Duh, how many demolished houses actually have roofs to leak. ONLY yours. So sad. :cry:

It's been fun, as always, although I'm afraid the fun has been at your expense. No hard feelings. — Sapientia

And how did you figure that out. You being a pompous ass as usual cost me nothing. :rofl:

So perfection is not the end — bahman

The end of what?

and you need to say what is wrong with my argument. — bahman

I doubt that there is anything wrong with your argument.

The question is about ability. Does God have power to create imperfect thing? Is it logically possible. — bahman

Of course he can, he created the perfect mistake. We are the ones that see it as imperfection.

Yes, but who would be making the psychological assessments? — Sapientia

Maybe a psychologist could do it?

Or do we have have computers that can do that now? — Sapientia

That would at least be impartial and unbiased.

It would increase the risk of sexual predation on vulnerable youths. — Sapientia

How so? In what way could it increase the level of "predation"?

You've come up with the bright idea of fixing an imperfect system by replacing it with a weaker alternative — Sapientia

How is it possible to state that something that has never been tried is weaker than the present unfair system? How did you make the comparison?

What you're suggesting is a bit like trying to fix leaking roof by demolishing the house. — Sapientia

It is about time it was done as well. A system that discriminates against people needs to be removed and replaced.
At least my method would make a complete sex education for everyone obligatory so no one could claim that "I did not think she could get pregnant and she never told it it was possible"

I think that that's a terrible idea. I think that you'd have priests, scout leaders, and youth football coaches quitting their jobs en masse to apply for this job. — Sapientia

I think I specified that it would be a psychological test and that there would not be a practical part to it. And you forgot to mention politicians.

Not so much of a question type test, but more in line with psychological development and maturity. Obviously there would be a part of it that would question the person's knowledge about the risks and consequences of sex would have to be included, but it would be more important from my point of view to evaluate their ability to make rational decisions.
And I don't think that there should be a practical section to the test. — Sir2u

Although charle's usually a dumbass, he said harder, not impossible. Finding an instance of mass murder that doesn't involve semi-automatic rifles doesn't make the regulation of semi-automatic rifles a moot endeavor. — Buxtebuddha

Did I say anywhere that it was? I really do not remember saying that I think anyone and everyone should have automatic guns. I am not sure but in England it is probably easier to obtain what you need to make a bomb than it is to acquire a gun.

What I have said is that there is an issue regarding the rights of the people, an issue about the implementation and enforcement of any laws, and an issue about what qualifications someone should have to be allowed to have a gun.

So are you also in favour of people having bombs??? LOL — charleton

If you actually learned to read you would see that I did not in any way imply that I am in favor of people having bombs. But I suppose that is too much to ask for.

If a person wants to kill others he will find a way to do it. And that does not mean that I am in favor of people having automatic weapons either. I was simple pointing out that there is more than one way to kill a lot of people if that is what the person wants to do. Don't blame the hammer for the nail that is put in the wrong place.

Like I said: You are making a fool of yourself. — charleton

The kettle talking about the pan or am I following your example?

My point is that children, by definition, are not adult thinkers. — tim wood

Right, they are not. But that does not mean that they don't think.

And "should not" should not be confused with, "Do not!" Children know which is which, so don't confuse them. — tim wood

And here is an example of them thinking. As you say they do know the difference.

Most kids are smart enough from an early age to tell the difference between what is good and bad. Even without cultural influences that they are too young to understand. I will try to find the paper I read a while ago about this but for now here is an article from everyone's favorite source.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275574/Babies-know-difference-good-evil-months-study-reveals.html

Just making a fool of yourself — charleton

Ditto.

People with automatic weapons tend to be capable of exterminating several children quite easily.
People without guns find it much harder to kill children. — charleton

Tell that to the Manchester bomber, he could not find a gun because they are forbidden in England.

Anyway, to proceed we need to keep track of what "sex" we're talking about, which is, I think, not developmentally appropriate child play-sex, but rather more like what adults call sex, which by its name suggests that children can't do it - notwithstanding whether the child makes a good job of it or not. — tim wood

What exactly do you mean when you say "a twelve year old can't do it"?

And you missed an option - why did you miss it? - because Mom and Dad love me; I trust them; and they told me not to, that I shouldn't. So I won't. — tim wood

No I did not miss it, the last one includes that. Where do you think kids should get their knowledge and advice from, mom and dad, right. But as you said earlier.

"Should not," too often means can. — tim wood

Most parents either tell their kids that they cannot and had better not do it, or the leave the decision up to the kid to make. Hoping all the while that they have enough knowledge on the topic and that things wont turn out all screwed up.

An example is perhaps simplest: your twelve-year-old hears your advice and your beliefs about promiscuity (no imperative), makes her own decision, goes out and contracts Aids or gets pregnant, or fathers a child. — tim wood

Does a twelve year old Stay away from sex because they are

too scared of mom and dad finding out and them getting angry with her?
too scared of catching something or getting pregnant?
too ignorant about it, has no real idea what it is all about?
has considered all of the information given to her and decided to wait a while.

I for one would hope the last to be true.

But I am very interested to hear other interpretations, and the sentence is very open to it. — Mind Dough

It is impossible to be alone and nothing does not exist. Thus they are not.

How could God create imperfection? — bahman

Maybe he made the perfect mistake?

Or maybe it is only humans that see them as imperfections.

Or made he did not create anything at all and the imperfections came about just as the perfections did.

If you want to be taken seriously don't quote the Daily Fail. They are top of the list for reporting inaccuracies in the UK. — charleton

Whatever.

Ignorant, but not stupid. — tim wood

Ignorance is not knowing.
Stupidity is being aware that you are doing something wrong and going ahead and doing it anyway.

It is scary sometimes when you look back at the things you did. But those same things have made you what you are.

I for one would not bother going back and change things if I was given a chance. I am happy with who I am.

In some ways think I kind of fall into the category you mentioned regarding those who have to figure things out for themselves, but unfortunately it took me a long time to do so and in the process I was (e.g.) a mediocre student when I could have been exceptional, a slightly better than average athlete when I could have been much better, etc. If I had someone behind me pushing me I think the trajectory of my life may have been much different, probably even much better.

Not that I completely regret the path I've taken, but I did make some poor choices that I look back on with a sense of utter disbelief. Who was that young man who did those dumb things? Yeah, that was me. I see the person I've turned out to be, I compare that with my youthful self, and the contrast is pretty extreme. Frightening even if I'm being honest. — Erik

That sounds like I wrote it.
We hardly ever had supervision when I was growing up, mum and dad told us that we should not do this or that because of what might happen if we did. And they were not shy about being graphical in their descriptions of what could happen. Like most kids we paid attention to some things and ignored other things. I don't remember making the same mistake twice though and it was not because we got punished for doing things.

As a teen living in southern Louisiana, I and most of the kids around where I lived were like Huck Finn. We spent lots of time out on the bayous and lakes, none of the parents were overly worried about that because they made sure that the kids learned to swim early and taught them how to use boats. We built and rode go carts and mini bikes with lawnmower engines and had a few accidents. But we figured why it had happened and were careful to make sure it did not happen again. Sometimes we got into trouble, but every time we did we had to admit that we had been warned by the adults. I screwed up my leg and almost 50 years later still suffer from it, but what hurt more at the time was my friend's dad saying "I told you that would happen". I rode bikes many times after that and still do occasionally but I have never made that mistake again.
I remember when I got caught stealing cigarettes from my dad, I was almost 10. He did not say that we were doing anything wrong but invited us to join him and gave us a box each to smoke. An hour later and green around the edges my brother gave up smoking for life. I carried on a few more years until I ran out of money one day for bus fair but had a full box of smokes. Never smoked again.

There is a saying that I am rather fond of:
"He who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.
He who has never tried anything new has not lived a life but has participated in an existence"

Childhood is a time for exploring the world, for experiencing things and finding out about yourself. Too many kids nowadays have no idea about these things because the are coddled up and protect from everything. They have little idea about their own abilities and limitations.
They have not been allowed to find out the consequences of their actions because they are not allowed to act. Many parents prefer to have a bold sitting playing video and drinking soda instead of actually doing something because they are scared that the poor little darling will make the wrong choice and be hurt physically or mentally.
The parent of one of my students told me a few years ago that her son had not done a homework assignment because she had gotten home very late. Turned out that she would not let him do the work by himself in case he got it wrong. How the fuck will that poor kid survive in the real world.

It is a well known fact that telling kids not to do things does not mean that they will not do it. If they think they are big enough to do something they will try. What kids need is knowledge, not a bunch of rules that are easy to ignore and the chance to learn from their mistakes as well as from their successes.

And if there is one thing that does not fit into this it is a specific age limit for being allowed to act.