2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Have you finished the Bible?  Have you finished the thread?

Havent read the whole thread, but a bit of it and I’ve read a good part of the Bible, all of the Koran, and spent time as a Muslim, Catholic, and Christian. Also, spent time with meditation and eastern religions/philosophies. Why do you ask?

 I resonated with that passage based upon my personal experiences, but I apologize if it came across as challenging or bull in a china shop in any way.  

The way I see it, people tend to project their limitations onto God or whatever is the substance or impetus of the universe and build sometimes unhealthy stories from it as a result. In my experience it is better to experience or live spirituality and explore the mysteries of life, let it change you, and then start drawing theories, rather than overly cling to religion to the point where it dilutes that unveiling process. 

If you dont don’t mind me asking, have you had any deep spiritual experiences that changed your life and played a part in who you currently are?

I saw this on my wife's FB page and thought of this thread. The point in bold is where I'm at in my life. What need have I for a bible or koran or any man-made ideation of a flawed God crafted by human limitations, when I have the universe right in front of me? I don't need a bible to learn about morality and love and trust, I can feel it working in real life. I can see how it's tied to health, how mutuality, cooperation, and the expansion of more complex and progressive forms of human civilization require it. How our very humanity requires we act and behave in certain ways in order to maintain access to those parts of who we are.

Personally, I can feel my soul and that has nothing to do with Jesus or Mohammed or going to church, and everything to do with risking myself for things that mean something. Opening my ability to feel, considering more than just myself, and expanding my spiritual capacitance. These actions have no direct tie to religion, but direct ties to humanity and emotion and energy moving in certain patterns, manifested through behavior and intent. Interacting and connecting with the mystery of life, each step unfolding more and more of what really is.

I have a spirit because of what I care about and what I accept and reject in this world, not solely because of what I believe or who I ask for forgiveness from.

What's the point of religion when you have spirit? In my experience, it's an ill-fitting shell, that can't contain all that comes forth when you have an authentic relationship with the world around you and the spirit inside you and those around you.

Thomas Paine wrote this in 1797 in response to a friend that had been trying to convert him to Christianity.
 

"In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.
 

"But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? for this is the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so. The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.
 

"The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as they made a living by their religion, they had a self-interest in the vote they gave.
 

"You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself.
 

"It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No.
 

"Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?
 

"For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the Word of God, or not. It is therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: -
 

"You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.
 

"The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea - that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness.
 

"The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in the creation claims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and the creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions of a mortal, and the creation proclaims him with all the attributes of a God.

"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (I Sam. xv. 3) `Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
 

“That Samuel or some other impostor might say this, is what, at this distance of time, can neither be proved nor disproved, but in my opinion it is blasphemy to say, or to believe, that God said it. All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.
 

“What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus xvii. (but which has the appearance of fable from the magical account it gives of Moses holding up his hands), had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death; and to complete the horror, Samuel hewed Agag, the chief of the Amalekites, in pieces, as you would hew a stick of wood. I will bestow a few observations on this case.
 

“In the first place, nobody knows who the author, or writer, of the book of Samuel was, and, therefore, the fact itself has no other proof than anonymous or hearsay evidence, which is no evidence at all. In the second place, this anonymous book says, that this slaughter was done by the express command of God: but all our ideas of the justice and goodness of God give the lie to the book, and as I never will believe any book that ascribes cruelty and injustice to God, I therefore reject the Bible as unworthy of credit.
 

“As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case.
 

“You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.
 

“When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done (for I do not think you know much about it), and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it."[1]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

 

Well, Zonneys point I think is that end the end of there are no results and no justice then what's the point. I can see where he is coming from on that. But I still want dude yo go down in flames if I had a choice. 

I feel you. I'm just not that doom and gloom about it being pointless and there being no results/no justice.

 

1 minute ago, HOF44 said:

I wouldn't bank on to much happening even if the Dems sweep.  You have Pence waiting in the wings which is a whole other kinda tuuurrible.  

Eh, if the Dems sweep he ain't doing much of anything with his remaining tenure. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if his hands are dirty in some way as well. But, who knows we'll see what happens.

5 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

Zoony's correct.  The ONLY entity that can do anything about Trump is Congress.  If there is no spine to do it there, which there isn't, you can have any evidence you want come out and it won't matter.  He can be a criminal in office and if Congress doesn't see fit to impeach him he will remain.  

Well, let's not focus so much on the end link of the chain, that we forget there are other links that precede it. The credibility of the case and the credibility of congress are reliant, but distinctly different.

Let's see how the elections play out in November and then hedge our bets on what may or may not happen.

10 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

Get mad all you want, lash out at me if it makes you feel better.  Just pointing out that none of this matters.  Because it doesnt

Well, considering that one of Mueller's four finding in the obstruction case has to do with the firing of Comey, I would say it does matter. His credibility vs Trump's matters. The weight Comey's testimony may have on proving corrupt intent on Trump's part matters. With that in mind, his characterization of Trump operating like a mob boss matters. If his anecdote about John Kelly calling Trump dishonarable gets him fired, it does matter.

It's not the whole wall by any means, but it's definitely a brick in the wall.

This has been a really cool thread to read. I'm glad Renegade7 started it.

From the perspective of working with tension, stress, pressure, and van der waals forces as they express internally, there are some interesting things to consider when it comes to the human desire for proof, especially absolute proof or absolute certainty.

In my experience it is actually a human flaw or an inability to deal with the mental tension of uncertainty, especially as it relates to deeply internalized beliefs that influence our experience of internal consistency on a fundamental level. Absolutes are comforting, but overly simplistic and come from a closed circuit state of conceptualization, rather than a an open and live state with building levels of capacitance. 

An absolute is a static conceptualization (in near all cases), but since the universe has dynamic characteristics, it will not allow for a state to exist that is so absolute, that it cannot be changed, and therefore have no potentiality (or maybe it is accurate to say, even that state has the potential to exist as a peak state, but the probability is so low, because the energy required to restrain reality into a singular state would dissipate over time, creating a slide back into higher probability states of dynamism).

There are always degrees of change, even if not immediately available and that's why absolute proof or absolute certainty exists with only the lowest of probabilities and why that's also a good thing. A degree of fluidity and a degree of solidity is nearly always potentially available, both directions that can express, commingle, and superimpose to create paths for both the simplification and complication of different shapes of life. 

Also, on a somewhat related note, how would people feel about a thread recounting spiritual experiences? We've heard what people believe, but what have people personally experienced and how has it informed their view of reality?
 

Some snippets from the article Vis posted above

“If order and authority are to be maintained in the face of the erosion of the social safety net—and without even the dream of social mobility to mitigate the hardships—then the state must become more coercive, the exercise of state power more brutal.”

In Everything You Love Will Burn, journalist Vegas Tenold reveals that Heimbach was trained at the Leadership Institute, a think tank in Washington, DC, whose alumni include Mitch McConnell, Grover Norquist, and James O’Keefe; that Heimbach is hugely influenced by Pat Buchanan; and that, on Inauguration Day, Heimbach was introduced to a room full of GOP strategists and state legislators at the Capitol Hill Club, directly across from the Capitol building. “A few years ago the GOP wouldn’t be able to even sit in the same room as you, but things have changed, and now we need each other,” Heimbach’s Republican contact told him, as quoted by Tenold. “This is a big day.”

Successful fascist movements have historically taken power not in coups d’état, but in coalitions—namely, historian Robert Paxton has shown, in coalition with weakening center-right liberals and conservatives seeking allies against a rising left. This way lies power for the American fascist, though without an organized street movement behind him he is little more than a particularly ambitious racist.

“I’ve been around for a long time,” Bob Day, the Solidarity and Defense organizer from Detroit, told me. “The election of Trump and the blatant expression of white supremacy, hatred of women, and anti-immigrant bigotry—I mean hell, I lived through Nixon and George Wallace and Reagan, and this is different. He’s speaking to a base. There’s a real base for fascism in this country. So we got our work cut out for us.”

But...
 

The paradox of the neoliberal dynamic, whereby the state abdicates its authority, opening up space for corporations and fascists to move with impunity, is that it also offers working people the chance to realize the power they hold to shape their own worlds.
 

“What people are seeing is that trying to wait on Democrats or union bureaucrats is a losing proposition,” Day told me. “Whatever’s gonna get done we’re gonna have to do it ourselves, we’re gonna have to rely on ourselves, so in these fights like in West Virginia, or against the fascists, or against ICE, or against police violence, it’s coming from the bottom. That’s where the fight’s gonna come from. If we can do something to fight this system, it’s gonna be ordinary people getting together to do it. And it’s gonna be ordinary people that’s gonna have an alternative.”

This past march was the one I was most worried about something popping off. We almost didn't go because of that reason, but there was a visible police and military/national guard? presence this time and big ass trucks blocking the major avenues someone would use to drive a car through people. I think if it does go down, it'll be at one of the satellite marches, rather than DC, because of all that security.

1 hour ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

I will say I never understood the glee that some atheists get in mocking religion or trashing it.  Ok, we get it.  Religion ain't for you, you don't believe.  No need to be a douche.

 

 

A lot of people never bother to differentiate between their "perceived truth" and the global or "complete truth" (which no one has), and from that false sense of entitlement, they gleefully paint others as delusional and destroy for others what they've rejected for themselves.

Lack of self-awareness and an over-abundance of certainty in their beliefs, perpetuates that bad behavior.

7 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

I'm fine with movements. Often they can accomplish needed (or unneeded) change in society, that otherwise would not be possible. This isn't that. We all know Laura was wrong in her mockery and insult. It was trollish and mean. We should be above this.

 

But his response smells of rage or revenge. It's the same kind of immaturity that drove a boy to shoot his former GF down the street from me. (I'm not comparing the two acts, only the general feelings behind them)

 

"You want to insult me? I'll ruin you and take away everything!" It's disturbing.

I read it. See my post I just posted about my feeling about Ingraham. She's a known entity, and everybody knows she is that way. I hate it and I've previously made known how I feel about Conservatives who act that way. I was just using prejudice as generic term such as would be used such as "terminated with extreme prejudice." Nothing more.

Should there be negative consequences for Laura's behavior? Why does she get a pass, because you're used to her acting like this?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you have a problem with the severity of his response, but I don't see the rage, that's a huge reach in my opinion. I see savvy and an understanding that the uglier sides of  the right-wing machine run on money and the attacking of the "other" or those who don't conform. He didn't threaten her, didn't insult her, or evince any other characteristics of a possible shooting suspect.

I mean jeez, if you truly feel what you wrote above, how did you feel about all the people wanting to boycott the NFL and who claimed so in much louder, violent, and sometimes hateful ways?

21 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

Do you think that a person should be able to withstand criticism without retaliating? Even if its not legitimate? Sadly, today's culture, especially through social media, perpetuates the concept that every criticism or insult demands a response with strong prejudice.

You call mocking as bullying?

She didn't criticize him, she mocked him, there was nothing constructive or worthwhile in her tweet about him.

Did you read the article she cited in her tweet or the response from TMZ's Producer? What is in there to criticize or even mock, that a reasonable person would agree with? He wasn't whining at all, in fact he used the opportunity to include and talk about others. The kid has a 4.1 GPA, is dealing with deep, deep trauma, all the while trying to make sure that same trauma doesn't happen to another student.

Why should he have to silently accept that? How is openly mocking a kid who recently saw his peers killed in front of him acceptable and not the main focus of re-probation from you? Personally, I don't think we should accept behavior like she showed and as a consumer it is within my rights to not support companies that sponsor people who show that kind of behavior. These kids aren't stupid, they know to follow the money if they want things to change.

And finally, where is the prejudice in this situation that you are attributing to David Hogg?



 

Cool thread and answers so far

I was baptized Catholic when I was born, baptized as a Christian Baptist when I was a teen, and took my Shahada as a Muslim in my twenties.

Now in my thirties, I have such a deep spiritual connection to LIFE in all shapes and forms that I feel no need for the smaller shapes and forms of religions, while still appreciating and including/honoring the underlying patterns within them.

Life is full of stuff crashing into other stuff, some breaking and simplifying, some joining together and becoming more complex... all the while, the potential for previous patterns and combinations await to be activated again. Death as an absolute doesn't exist, it's just an event where the bonds that hold a particular complex shape disconnect and shift into something else. In fact hardly any absolutes exist, most of them are conceptions created from a human mind that couldn't handle the energetic load of nuance at a particular time and instead created an extreme... It's like the hierarchy of communication - flight/fight - freeze, with nuanced superposition based thought - dualistic thinking - absolutism/extremism. Your capacity for both behavior and thought, conditioned upon your ability to handle the impact of a given stimulus and process it with a given degree of harmony and complexity.

I see the universe as different threads that can mix together and some mixtures can be ****ty and only do so much, while other mixtures are incredible and filled with loads of possibility, via their synergy, cooperation, and connectedness. Humans are a particular mixture of those threads, while still moving in different directions of harmony and potential or conflict and failure, depending upon a particular context. The point being, that both directions are always available, can mix, and superimpose on each other, or break each other down and go to war with each other.

What do I believe in? Universal patterns of motion/life and a universal level of balance that protects the potential for everything, despite the nearly insurmountable degrees of separation that must be dealt with to get there (they only feel insurmountable, because our brain/awareness can only contain so many of the necessary steps).

Like how a human orgasm is in a way similar to the creation of light, via the excitation of electrons and release of photons. Two different shapes, with different levels of complexity, acting along the same patterns.

18 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

1) So what you are saying is you want EVERY semi auto weapon in the country banned? Good luck with that if true.

 

2) That whole second amendment thing might be an issue here? We will see I guess.

 

3) Kudo's to you for changing your life around!

 

And with that, thanks for the spirited debate fellow Skins fans. It is nice to know that we are still capable of having civilized debate regardless of how the media tries to portray otherwise. Need sleep for a long day at work tomorrow. I will continue sometime tomorrow. HTTR!

 

 

Thanks, but you’re misreading my words. It’s not about banning semi automatics. It’s about regulation which is in the 2nd amendment. Regulating magazine size, the velocity at which rounds fire so as to limit destruction to a human body, and removing access to automatic weapons via conversion and other means. 

As well as all the other stuff I mentioned and a culture change that will take at least a generation and is too much of a pipe dream to deeply discuss right now. 

2 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

Not accurate at all. ONE gun death is too many. But the only way to stop that is to get rid of ALL guns in the US. There are over 300 MILLION guns in this country. That option is gone. You can pass laws and take them from law abiding citizens. But do you honestly think criminals will be turning theirs in?

Damn, please don’t de-rail this thread into extremes. 

The goal-posts you put here are not what reasonable people are focused on. 

There is a mobilizing group of people who will want to limit capacity, velocity, and rate of fire. This puts a cap on the intensity of a violent action. 

We want to limit access, especially when it comes to the violent, isolated, low impulse control, toxic masculinity, having individuals who evince the dark triad of previous school shooters. Namely self-delusion, arrogance, and resentment. This puts a limit on access for the highest danger population groups in this country. If a person has a problem being in that category, change your behavior and fix your ****. Prove you can be better. 

We want background checks enforced at all times a purchase is made, that reaches across a country wide database. That includes at gun shows and all individual transactions. 

Do you see the constant theme of limits? Maybe you dont want that and will come up with reasons why, but who cares. All that matters is getting enough people to stay committed long enough to vote people into office on these platforms and hold them accountable, till these become law. 

I say this as a person who already has his gun rights taken away. I’m doing alright, the world hasn’t ended for me. If I can deal with no access, you can deal with limited access. People need to be adults here and see the wisdom of the above self-restraints. 

Why Is U.S. Health Care So Expensive? Some of the Reasons You’ve Heard Turn Out to Be Myths

In a new, detailed international comparison, the United States looks a lot more like its peers than researchers expected.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/upshot/united-states-health-care-resembles-rest-of-world.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

I think ole Sam had some of that booger sugar, before going on some of those shows. He was sniffing something fierce during that Ari Melber interview.

3 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Regarding the No Fly, No Buy proposal, has ANY of the mass shooters been on that list? 

 

Note: I'm not saying that is an argument for/against the bill.  Just curious.

Omar Mateen, Pulse night club shooting.

He was on it at one point and then taken off for whatever reason.

41 minutes ago, Burgold said:

And as expected, when the dust clears and the blood dries... nothing much will get done. Mitch McConnell just canceled next week's debate on gun control. Trump has backed down after meeting with the NRA. Florida voted to not even allow debate on the subject.

 

Let's hope prayers, thoughts, and adding ever more guns does the trick.

I think we've all known, nothing substantive was going to get done right now. We'll have to see what things look like after the dust clears around the midterm elections.

Will mobilization and enthusiasm last that long? I think it will this time, especially since there is an unfortunate chance that another shooting occurs between now and then.

1 minute ago, tshile said:

remember when obama said the people in PA cling to their guns and religion?

 

i mean most of us knew he was right at the time... (and PA isn't the only place)

I mean yea, but damn this is some next level **** isn't it? Do y'all normally come into contact with folks like this in gun country?

Jesus ****ing Christ on a Christmas tree, what in the holy hell is that **** going on in Newfoundland PA?

Why are a bunch of geriatrics dressing in drag and rocking rifles with bullet and burger king crowns?

Pennsylvania is some scary ass ****.

 

53 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I think if you ran the poll rigth now you would definitely see that.

 

I think if you ran it not in the immediate aftermath of an event... well, i don't know what I think would happen, but i'm not convinced it would be significantly different.

 

It's february of 2018, so all the real studies and research are going to be dated 2017 - or the writeup might be dated 2018 but the data is going to come from 2017. It's going to be a while before we have anything reliable on what people thought in 2018.

 

If the reactions going to be different in the wake of this event, that means something about this event made it different.  What would that be, exactly?

 

Unless it's just an "enough is enough" moment?

 

We've had polls for years telling us majority support increased background checks. It's not happening though. There's a reason for that. 

 

Right, but that was his job.

 

Don't take the job then. 

 

Not everyone can be a firefighter, police, military, or any number of jobs frankly. Taking the job then not performing when needed most... it's not excusable to just say "well it's hard and i wasn't ready for it"

I feel you, data takes time to compile.  

Why is now different? Personally, I think it's a mixture of different things. You have a gradually increasing base of progressives who are no longer apathetic and disconnected from each other. Our country has become too openly volatile and incompetent for greater swaths of people to ignore. This reaction is building and creating nodes or vehicles of mobilization that are multi-faceted and synergistic with the issues they are investing in. And each event, whether it's mass shootings, sexual harrasment, racism, nazis, Russian Hacking/Collusion leads to the creation and inter-connection of more vehicles like the Women's March, the MeToo movement, Indivisible, The Science March, Pro-Immigration/Travel Ban Protests, Charlottesville, etc.

Each messed up thing that now happens in this country is being responded to with activism rather than apathy and defeatism to a gradually increasing degree. It's out in the open now, that it's up to us, because our government has failed in it's responsibilities (this is the perception at least).  And people are adapting to that greater awareness and inserting it into the narrative. For example, before politicians could get away with thoughts and prayers, but now people are hip to it as a delaying tactic and call BS. The old tropes aren't working as well anymore, and the response to the tax bill will be an interesting barometer to this as well. Will people get lulled by the breadcrumbs and ignore the greater issues waiting down the road, or will they remember and not be fooled again?

People were pacified, because their individual lives were still comfortable, but now... things are tense and tension is like an itch, in that it moves you to scratch it. To act to relieve it.  

So... way more people are looking to scratch this itch to change, than ever before, because they feel more threatened than ever before. Why do you think republicans tend to have better voter turn-out? It's because they feel more threatened by the status quo or at least their perception of it and that motivates them.


And I hear you, regarding it being his job. Understanding his failings, doesn't mean I accept or condone his failings, but I didn't communicate that in my previous post. Humans on the whole suck when it comes to tensile fitness, but that's because it's not clearly understood that what makes people able to handle those jobs can be trained and developed. And the process of identifying degrees of capability for each tension threshold has not yet been created (that I'm aware of).


 

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I don't know that interesting is the right word.

 

I would say it's deplorable that the person who puts on a gun, a badge, and a vest every day, and was assigned to a school, hid outside when he was needed most. I wish terrible things upon that person.

Eh, most people can't handle the tension and stress of a shoot-out. One day, if things work out, I hope to create systems that give people better training that will increase their tensile resiliency, so they can properly shunt it's load across their nervous system and not freeze. Plus, be able to better identify people's base level resiliency and who is or is not qualified for certain duties.

I remember when Homeland Security, ICE, and the DEA jumped out on me with all their guns and ****. They thought I was crazy because it made me laugh, but really I was just riding high on adrenaline, rather than shutting down like other people would.





 

Just now, tshile said:

 

source: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/

 

We can all sit around and talk about how we want increased background checks, increased age restrictions, decreased magazine capacity, and even banning semi automatic guns all day long.

 

But until we deal with the fact that 55% of americans think the NRA has the right amount or too little (can you believe 15% think it's too little? I mean wtf) influence in gun policy... i don't know where you expect to get any traction.

 

I'd be curious to see if those numbers would be different if they did that poll again this year.

I personally think things are sustainably swinging towards a direction that will engender greater gun-control mobilization and hopefully a shift in November towards more democrats and also more republicans who are less tied to gun interests. Too much of the narrative of what can and can't be done is poised amidst this backdrop of gun control apathy, that really seems to be shifting.


Regarding this thread I'd like to see boundaries or lines of demarcation created between immediate solutions and long-term substantive solutions, along with a kind of order or operations in place, to prioritize each individual solution along it's respective line of demarcation. Maybe that would make this thread more focused and less contentious and repetitive?
 

I wonder how feasible it would be to bullet-proof classroom doors in conjunction with restricting guns to the level where there would be no issue penetrating CMU walls (I have no idea what the current class of weapons penetrative power is).

4'x8' Lvl 3 Ballistic Shielding is around $575 a sheet, plus the 4" batten strips at $6.25 a lnft at the seams... it would be too expensive to encase every single room in a school if they were using drywall partitions, but maybe we could have centralized locations on each floor, where students and teachers could congregate in case of these shootings? You wouldn't need to have the shielding from floor to deck, just ceiling height or 8' at minimum would offer sufficient protection.