While the North Carolina House of Representatives has finally killed the bill to allow the state to establish a state religion, a new study found that 34 percent of adults would favor establishing Christianity as the official state religion. While 47 percent opposed the establishment of state religion, it was less than a majority.
Another 11 percent thought that the Constitution allowed for the establishment of an official religion. Thus, they are entirely unaware of the workings of the first amendment or the prior rulings of the Supreme Court.
Republicans were the most likely to favor the establishment of a state religion with 55 percent favoring it in their own state and 46 percent favoring a national constitutional amendment.
While the poll reportedly included 1000 people (a sizable group), I still want to believe that it is skewed and that most people recognize the danger of religious-based government in a world torn apart of sectarian violence. Even if these people lack knowledge of the Constitution, they are given a daily lesson on the dangers of state-sponsored religion in their newspapers and news broadcasts. For those advocating such a change, they leave us with the chilling view that, for some, the problem with abusive theocratic regimes like Iran is simply the disagreement with the choice of the religion.
Source: HuffPost
G.Mason:
Your argument was elegant, and quite persuasive. Until the point where you mentioned lemmings. Lemmings do not actually commit suicide. A Disney film crew made the whole thing up.
Your argument collapsed at that point, sorry. You could perhaps try reconstructing, with fact-based references. Just a thought.
Rafflaw,
And the Word would be “Bird, bird, bird”?
TonyC.:
“You can disagree, but then you would be wrong.”
Wish I’d said that. I probably will, when you’re out of earshot.
Blouise,
You can’t argue with the Word! 🙂
WHOA!
I’m afraid to look at how that one developed!
Blouise, I am glad you found that. It is one of the sockpuppets that has directed negative comments in my direction. We will keep on fighting the fight.
Guardian of Truth
1, February 12, 2013 at 7:15 pm
Some deserve beating. The scripture says that it is justifiable. The word is more important than what any woman has to offer.
———————————————————————————-
Wanna beat me, sweetheart?
Tony,
“In general, there is a strong correlation between unemployment and property crimes, in many studies a 1% increase in unemployment produces a 1% to 2% increase in property crimes. However, there is little correlation or evidence of unemployment increasing violent crimes; those two series are not strongly correlated.”
That is not too surprising either, but I’d want to take a closer look at the data and the methodology still. I’m assuming you’re referring to his paper “Alternative Strategies for Identifying the Link Between Unemployment and Crime”?
Tony,
“My argument is with what should be the law and regulation based upon the best we know of how human brains and emotions work; because what we know is that guns, as currently manufactured and regulated, defeat the natural mental mechanisms that would otherwise drastically reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by guns.”
There you go arguing for what you want rather than what is and engaging in correlation without causation. Where’s your proof that “guns, as currently manufactured and regulated, defeat the natural mental mechanisms that would otherwise drastically reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by guns”? You have a supposition that by making it more difficult to kill in the heat of the moment that you’ll accomplish anything substantive. People get bludgeoned to death with furniture and accessories in the heat of passion and their still dead. You act as if crimes of passion didn’t exist before guns. I think Othello, Iago and Desdemona would like to have a word with you about that. Even if what you assert is true, do you have proof that it would save a statistically significant number of people? Or would people still get pissed off and emotionally hurt and kill people with whatever is at hand? Sure, you might see a drop in gun deaths (I’ll omit for now that handguns, not any kind of long gun, are used in the vast majority of these crimes), but you might see a corresponding rise in “deaths by other weapons”. Just because a premise may flow logically doesn’t mean it will create the desired effect in reality.
“And thus you ignore my argument entirely, preferring instead to argue what I never disputed. Isn’t that the very definition of a straw man?”
No. A straw man is deliberately misrepresenting an argument, like you did when you asserted I was working from sole cause instead of prime cause. If you knew what one actually was, maybe you’d stop using them. I ignore your argument because its irrationally based on the idea that tools use themselves.
“My argument is to reject the simplistic idea that guns are just tools like any other tool and people are the problem, because that implicitly makes the ridiculous assumption that people have infinitely fine control over their actions in any emotional state.”
And your argument fails because tools still don’t use themselves. The only implicit ridiculous assumption is that anyone said “that people have infinitely fine control over their actions in any emotional state.” The degree of control is irrelevant once action is taken (unless you are arguing to a lesser charge of some form of manslaughter). Your lips move, but you really don’t seem to grasp the difference between mens rea and actus reus. FACT: You cannot legislate mental states. Your assumption is that “if they have a chance to cool down, maybe the won’t kill”. Maybe the won’t. Or maybe they’ll pick up a lamp and go to town. Intent is largely irrelevant. Action is always relevant. Your premise is that by creating some kind of barrier you will create a substantive change in mental states that will result in fewer deaths. You have no proof of this, only logic, and you certainly have no evidence of correlative causation.
“I do not care if the law recognizes that fact or not; it remains a fact, and I am not trying to argue what is in the law, but what is in the brain.”
Just like you tried to argue that the social compact isn’t a valid theory of government? Good luck with that. You weight intent far too much when the law doesn’t generally care about intent except as mitigation, but the law always cares about action. Intent is the sideshow. The play is the thing.
“I believe if simple modifications to a product would effect large changes in the death rate due to that product, both intentional and unintentional, then it is fair to say the problem was in the product, not the people.”
You naively assume that people will not modify their tools to do what the law prohibits. Again, the prime problem is people. Making a safer product is a mitigation, not a remedy. I’ve already said that safer designs is a reasonable step, but it is purely mediation and then it applies primarily to accidental deaths, not homicides of any sort. The only cure for violence is changing people. You can take away all the tools and they’d still want to and actually kill one another.
You can disagree, but then you would be wrong.
I know this because history tells me so.
We’re a violent primitive species. Chimps with science. Any solution that doesn’t address our primal violent nature directly is always going to be mitigation and not remedy.
And I’m not saying mitigation is bad. In this instance, I’m saying it’s futile. Guns are simple technology. Too easy to make. This combined with the fact that long guns of all sorts only account for 4% of all violent crimes involving guns makes an effort to control long guns not only futile, but seeking to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist in a statistically significant manner.
All because some kids got shot with an AR-15 by one lone freak.
Your argument, like a lot of the arguments around this issue, are ultimately grounded in emotion. Something horrible happened and it got a lot of attention so you feel compelled to do something – anything. It’s a normal reaction. It’s also a irrational and a sure fire way to get talked into going too far with limitations on liberties. Limitations that take away liberties are rarely restored. So is it better to proceed with caution, facts and solutions and mitigations that are practical rather than sacrifice more of the already besieged and tattered Bill of Rights. Sandy Hook was horrific and it defies explanation. But we should no more critically impair the 2nd as a solution than we should have abandoned the 4th Amendment in the name of “the War on Terror” by adopting (read: being force fed) the manifestly unconstitutional Patriot Act.
The Constitution is a good blue print.
We should be careful about how we disregard it.
If only you were not so stupid you would see what has already been taken away you foolish woman. You blabber about such nonsense.
G.Mason: It is not hypocritical to believe that society should help those in need, and also believe that one’s personal assets should not be selectively damaged to help those in need.
I can believe the minimum wage should be $10 an hour, and I can be willing to pay the higher prices that would result from that across the board increase, without being the only one to pay those wages to my employees.
There is a difference, and it isn’t hypocrisy: If my competitors have to pay $10 an hour, the same as me, then we can both charge higher prices to cover the greater expense. If my competitor is not forced by law to pay the higher wage, then I am soon out of business if I try to pay the higher wage.
Your mother in law is not a hypocrite to want to protect her personal property values, she can still be sincere about her support (both in words and willingness to pay higher taxes) for aide programs, health programs, job training programs, public school and other education programs, and crime protection for the economically disadvantaged.
Our belief is that society as a whole should strive to level the playing field and develop its human resources instead of wasting them. We believe in a collective shared contributions of those doing better than average to help those doing worse than the average; not individual sacrifice.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html
Gene: It would be useful to see such data broken down to a more granular level to see if the rises in violence corresponds with locality for rises in unemployment and whether or not those were proportionate.
I believe Steven Levitt has studied this; here are his papers on crime (scroll down to ‘Crime’).
In general, there is a strong correlation between unemployment and property crimes, in many studies a 1% increase in unemployment produces a 1% to 2% increase in property crimes. However, there is little correlation or evidence of unemployment increasing violent crimes; those two series are not strongly correlated. He uses state-by-state data, typically, which is reported with fairly consistent definitions from 1950-(latest available year).
Btw allow me to relate a story that reflects the mindset that is now pervasive through the democratic party.
My mother-in-law is like some of you here. A anti-gun, progressive democrat always complaining about the Republicans, the plight of the illegals and the worlds woes etc etc. She is well-to-do and lives in a nice area.
A few years back when the local city was doing revitalization in its downtown it was looking to move the housing projects there. Their first target area? On the edge of the city in an empty field…right near my in-laws development. Oh how she complained then. It was absolutely unacceptable. No way she was going to have the crime ridden projects move next to her and destroy the home values of her and her neighbors. They spent alot of money on their homes and this wasnt right yadda yadda yadda queue violins.
Well her and her neighbors, most of whom are exactly like her in political thought, basically organized and hounded some local government guys that one of them was connected with behind the scenes until they got the projects relocated. Yeah. Hypocrites. All about the poor until they live near them. It amuses me every time she complains about how alot of local places have poor english speaking workers. Then she sits at her pool party along with her progressive friends complaining how the big bad evil GOP blocks immigration.
I love my mother-in-law but I have no tolerance for her hypocrisy. She and her friends are typical progressive democrats of today. Btw, the thought of her and her friends dictating policy in our government scares the crap out of me and that is coming from a Liberal who is typically along side them on many issues.
GeneH. Guess you’re right http://abcnews.go.com/US/14-people-stabbed-lone-star-community-college-texas/story?id=18915596#.UWSKwnTD_GI
A stabbing spree at a Lone Star College campus in Texas has left 14 people injured, including two who are listed in critical condition
rafflaw
Elaine,
I like that idea. We should try it for awhile. But I am guessing the NRA will still be against any research into its effectiveness.
———————————————————————————
The realization of how much of our freedom to explore and investigate has been taken from us by the gun merchants is staggering.
Gene: That you don’t like the answer is irrelevant.
Yet another straw man from you; because you assume your ‘answer’ is right, when it isn’t even an answer to my argument.
I never claimed you said “sole” cause: I said, “…when in the same paragraph you reject anything other than your “prime” cause (i.e. people); you have made a de facto claim of “sole” cause.”
I know you don’t need to look up “de facto,” Gene.
Gene says: I specifically answered about how intent operates at law and “fleeting intent” hasn’t got squat to do with it nor does ease of action – only action taken.
And thus you ignore my argument entirely, preferring instead to argue what I never disputed. Isn’t that the very definition of a straw man?
In fact, I said earlier that I presumed this was the case. So again you purposely avoid the actual point, preferring to invent fictions to vehemently defend against instead. I am not the one throwing up straw men, here, you are, one after another. My argument is not with the existing law or existing second amendment; so your arguments are irrelevant. My argument is with what should be the law and regulation based upon the best we know of how human brains and emotions work; because what we know is that guns, as currently manufactured and regulated, defeat the natural mental mechanisms that would otherwise drastically reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by guns.
My argument is to reject the simplistic idea that guns are just tools like any other tool and people are the problem, because that implicitly makes the ridiculous assumption that people have infinitely fine control over their actions in any emotional state. They do not; there are biological limits to self control that are stressed when a product allows the instantaneous translation of thought into lethal action. I do not care if the law recognizes that fact or not; it remains a fact, and I am not trying to argue what is in the law, but what is in the brain.
I believe if simple modifications to a product would effect large changes in the death rate due to that product, both intentional and unintentional, then it is fair to say the problem was in the product, not the people.
You can disagree, but then you would be wrong.
My apologies. I simply have no patience for lemmings anymore.
This country is on a one way path to hell. The Bill of Rights has been under assault from both parties and the judicial. The 2nd is all that stands between the Bill and the corporate fascism that has been taking over both parties.
Now some of you may disagree that is the case. All I need to do is merely point to J Edgar Hoover and show you the power of what someone like he and/or Nixon could do in todays technology. Though I feel as if Holder and Obama/Bush are not far off from that.
What is truly sad is how quickly people are to trust the government solely based upon what party is in the White House. It is completely and utterly asinine. It is like clockwork as well. Every 4 to 8 years, 50% of the country flips out and screams tyranny when the entire time it should be 100%.
We have become so divided as a nation by petty partisan politics that we can no longer make rational decisions politically. The entire time both parties are royally screwing us.
I am a Liberal. i am no longer so blind as to trust the Democratic party. While I still see the Republican for what they are, I now see the democrats for what they are. Anyone who believes in either party is the one who is delusional. I am neither an anarchist, nor a violent person, I am not psychotic nor delusional. I am however fully aware of how close we are to becoming indentured servants to Wall Street.
It is a tragedy that we allow social issues to now dictate who we vote for. What is even sadder is when the President you vote for is nothing but a lying hypocrite. Obama lies to your face every single time he opens your mouth. How can you not see it.
As I said earlier, I have np guessing that people like Bob probably rant and rave far more about gun control then he does holding the President accountable for killing little innocent kids with Drone strikes. That is sheer hypocrisy. When you can say truly and honestly state that you spend more time complaining about Obama blowing up little kids, then you can complain about gun control without being a hypocrite.
G. Mason,
I agree with Gene that you should take a breath and leave the personal attacks at home.
Elaine,
I like that idea. We should try it for awhile. But I am guessing the NRA will still be against any research into its effectiveness.