anonemouse

I think your mom was right, Carlene. Hopefully, Mr. P will be able to come out of this with his health intact, but with a few lessons learned.

And the same could be said of Muslims. You are allowing the ones with the loudest voice (so to speak) to speak for the rest of the people. I never said they were all violent. I said that (emphasis placed now) "You may live in an area where Christians are all lovey-dovey, well-educated, intelligent beings, but it isn't that way everywhere in the country." I know beyond a doubt that 90% of Christians aren't violent. But I also know that there are Christians out there that use their religion to excuse their hate-mongering, that aren't educated, and that aren't intelligent. I know because I have met some of them. And yes, to me they are scarier than the vague prospect of being attacked by fundamentalist Muslim terrorists. But that is not what you asked. You asked: If you were asking about radical fundamentalist Muslims vs. radical fundamentalist Christians, I would still have to go with radical fundamentalist Christians, seeing as we live in a predominantly Christian country. Our country has 300,000,000 inhabitants. The odds that a radical fundamentalist Muslim would choose rural Kentucky as a likely point of attack is really, REALLY low.

What's bigoted about it? I would think it is plain common sense. If there is one group of people that comprise 90% of the population and another group that comprises less than 10% (not saying that that is the true percentage of Christians or Muslim, but just to give an example), you are in more danger of being attacked by members of the group with the larger population. It's a matter of numbers. Is that not accurate?

Actually, I doubt that "all hecky-darn would break loose" if it were Muslims being portrayed as terrorists. After all, the people being portrayed are extreme fundamentalists, not all people of that religion. In my experience, these activities are about risk, period. If you don't train for a certain thing just because you think it is very unlikely to happen, you aren't training very well. After all, all crisis events are very unlikely to happen. To exclude an event such as this from training, just because you believe it is less likely to happen than another event is just stupid. In this country? Christians, without a doubt. After all, the people most likely to harm you are the people that are most common, and Christianity is still the most common religion here in the US. You may live in an area where Christians are all lovey-dovey, well-educated, intelligent beings, but it isn't that way everywhere in the country.

I posted a few days ago about not having seen Tired_Old_Man around. He still hasn't been back since then. I am getting really worried about him. He's not missed this many days since I've been on here. He's not posted since the 27th, and he his account hasn't had any activity since the 29th.

It can't make you fat, though, and it can help relieve some stress and pressure. So rant away! We won't attack (most of the time) unless you are really offensive or can't defend your position with logical arguments.

That's exactly what I believe. It doesn't matter which group kills more people. What matters is that bigotry against any group is wrong.

That's why I'm worrying.

Try looking online, at places like Amazon. You can probably find them (or something similar) for cheaper.

Actually, I think it should be very convincing, at least to anyone with math or stats experience, or experience doing experiments. The first thing you do when you get odd-looking data is look at the way it was generated. If you get results that look drastically different from other results that were generated recently, you first look to see what the discrepancy is. If the two sets of results were generated using two different statistical tests, you can't compare the data properly, or at least not in a way that gives you scientifically valid conclusions. In all of my classes, I've been taught that the first thing you do when designing an experiment or project is to look at similar projects that were done in the past, so that you can compare the results that you found with the results that were found in the past. Even if those other projects used statistical tests or methods that would be considered improper today, if you are wanting to compare the results, you have to use those tests. So to say that there is a whatever% difference between crime rates last year and crime rates today, you need to determine those crime rates using the same methods. Otherwise, your results are practically useless, scientifically.

Very true. Which is why I support the regulation of guns, not the banning of them. Heck, as soon as I get the time and money (and finally stay in a state for more than a couple of years), I want to get a gun license and buy a small handgun. I do think they can be very useful in certain situations.

By the way, DerickM's little post was apparently cobbled together using a quote from this website and a list of "facts" from this website. Neither cited, if you haven't noticed. And I'M the plagiarist? At least I bothered to put what I found in a quotation box, indicating that I didn't write it.

Excuse me? I was just using your own methods. I never, EVER claimed that I wrote that. If you happened to notice, I put it in a quotation box, which indicates that I DIDN'T WRITE IT. Notice anything missing in your own post? You didn't write it AND you didn't put it in a quotation box. Next time you accuse someone of an illegal offense, you might want to make sure you aren't the one breaking the law.

Here is the Snopes.com article on the material you posted, Derick.http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

It's for the hour-long seminar I have to give next Friday. It's also my thesis topic. It's not as good as it could have been, but I'm still crunching numbers for the results of the preliminary analysis (which is what I'm presenting).

We had 80-degree weather on Monday. Tonight, there's snow on the ground. If you guys ever have the chance, you should take a climatology class. For the most part, boring as hell (at least, the climatology bits I've had in my classes have been), but you can learn the whys and hows of climate change. Global warming doesn't automatically mean that everyone on Earth is suddenly experiencing balmy weather. Like Morsaille said, it changes the weather patterns (and the patterns of systems that affect weather - like ocean currents). Worsening El Nino and La Nina events are just part of the whole impact.

Jack, what I was referring to by "power" was the capability of firing large numbers of bullets. And yes, I do know the difference between revolvers, semi-automatics, and fully-automatics. I took a handgun safety course (certain wildlife biologist jobs and internships require the knowledge of and use of guns) as a PE elective during my sophomore year of college. If I had been 21 at the time, I would have gotten a license. I'm sorry, I just don't think competitive shooting as a legitimate reason to risk these dangerous (especially in the hands of untrained, inexperienced shooters) fully-automatic guns getting out on our streets. I think they should only be allowed to be used in government and police force situations and training activities. IMHO, I don't think regular citizens should be allowed to own or use these guns, and I don't think they should be used outside of regular training activities or police situations. I feel the same way about illegal-length sawed-off shotguns. To me, there isn't any use for them that a regular long-gun or handgun couldn't fulfill. If the kid was able to steal it, it wasn't properly stored.

That's actually what I was going to ask next, too, since I can't think of a single use where a different, less powerful gun couldn't be used.

I agree, in certain circumstances. But I do think that there are certain common-sense things that should be regulated, because some people are just stupid and have no common sense. If they are already law, that's great. If not, they need to be added. So, yes, I do advocate waiting periods and background checks. After all, I don't want folks with psych problems out there owning dangerous weapons. I also advocate that people be forced to store their guns in a safe manner, where kids can't get their hands on them and robbers can't break in (when the owner isn't there) and find a nice new gun to sell on the street. And one of the possible restrictions that I personally favor is forcing all gun owners to have at least a minimal alarm system in their homes. Heck, if you have enough money to buy a gun, you've got enough money to at least buy one of those magnetic alarm thingies. It might save some people from having to use their gun.

That's why we regulate motor vehicle licenses. Last time I checked, you have to pass a test and be above a certain age, not be a drunk driver, not had a seizure within 6 months, obey speed limits, yadda, yadda, yadda. We don't let six year olds drive cars. Or 90 year-olds with bad vision and Alzheimers, for that matter. Regulation is a good thing, people. I am not advocating that people not be allowed to own guns. But there should be regulations placed on it.

Does it really matter? If restrictions on guns are eased, anyone would be able to get one, even if they wouldn't have been able to legally before. Right now, at least, them owning a gun is a crime and they can be punished for it if caught.

Jack, I'd agree with you if "high speed word processors and assault-grade printing presses" were responsible for 14.24 out of every 100,000 deaths in the US, like guns are.

I have to say, I agree with the ACLU's position. While I think that sane, law-abiding, adult citizens should be able to own a gun, I do think that there should be limits. There is no legitimate reason to own an automatic machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun, IMO. I think there should be regulations on the type and number of guns a person can own, and I think there should be regulations on the way they are allowed to keep them. (At the very least, kept with a trigger lock on them or kept in a gun safe.) I also think that if you have a gun, every person in the household should be required to take gun safety courses.

And yet, your own statement implies that it is somehow more acceptable to make Muslims at target of bigotry. Why is one seemingly more acceptable to you, but not the other? Have supposed Muslims killed people in the name of Allah? Yes. Have supposed Christians killed people in the name of God? Yes. Should either group be discriminated against or become the target of bigotry? No. But let me say this: Suddenly not recieving special treatment does not necessarily equal bigotry against your religion, no matter what religion you are.

He's a politician. That's what he does for a living. That's what everyone is doing on both sides of the table. The ones you hear screeching about global warming (on both sides, mind you) are the ones who have something to gain politically. Otherwise, they just do the research, write the papers, do the presentations, and sit down.