Jump to content

Shienvien

Members
  • Content Count

    3,266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shienvien

  1. If you can get out of the way, and if no one else is in danger, of course it is more sensible to - for example - retreat to the bathroom, lock the door from inside (though, again, I'd rather have a gun in hand, just in case it's the kind of madman who will break down that locked bathroom door, too), and let the robber leave unhindered. BUT, there are also the robbers who will slice your throat simply because you are a witness, especially if you happen to see their face, there are people whose aim is not the robbery, but killing firsthand... Also, are people supposed to simply 'tolerat
  2. And how could a shooter be stopped by a second gunner when it is a zone wherein guns can only be present illegally? Any such second gunner, even if the one ended up saving a dozen lives, would go to prison him/herself, I'm afraid. Also, 'I was carrying a gun just in case' would barely save them if nothing at all happened, but someone noticed the gun. On the matter of regulations - I am actually for gun registering and permits, but not for restricting access to those with no criminal background or mental instability.
  3. It could happen only due to serious neglect of gun safety rules. If the father had paid any mind to such, it would not have happened. To those people who claim that guns are only for killing: I use mine for target practice, so in the end, at least mine is meant for target practice, and not killing. What a thing is meant for only depends on what its holder intends to use it for. Nothing else.
  4. Not giving them guns will not stop them for killing. There was a serial killer who used a baseball bat and targeted completely random people in a park, for instance. Also tends to be based on interpretation - such as where does the line of 'intentional' go. Also does not take account of cultural and economical differences.
  5. This is exactly what I've been thinking of when I have been speaking of the existence of a gun on the potential target being a determining factor. Most attackers will back down when simply pulled a gun out on since they do not want to be shot.
  6. I don't think killing someone is an acceptable option unless is in the very last act of self-defense, and I am for guns. There are many people who will be lot less safe when guns are not available - is their safety less important? Pepper spray, for instance, is *not* going to stop an attacker. I know what this stuff feels like when it gets in the eyes, and I tell you, it barely did more than made my eyes watery and me blink a lot more frequently than usual. (Also, some hairsprays can make a person blind - however *not* immediately. So it is still not going to help you much if you were a
  7. Plenty of countries actually do allow it, or at the very least do with the right permit. (Of course you can't simply take a firearm along without bothering to find out the local laws first.)
  8. Same here. For me, if I get a gun out, it is for shooting at inanimate targets. However, just in case, I'll want to have the right co carry it, too, say, if I have to walk alone through the streets of some foreign country at night. I will not be pulling it out on something that looks suspicious, but only as the last resort when I am certain I would otherwise be attacked, and even then I will only fire at a person if they continue to advance.
  9. Often enough, just the fact that one is carrying a gun will prevent a fight altogether. Unless we have a suicidal maniac, a potential attacker likely does not want to be severely injured. As to why I am opposing restrictions on guns in the US - I believe it will only make the situation worse. I've got a few friends there, and I've visited the place a good few times, and might want to do so in future. As for school shootings and the reduction of the death in those - either actually scan every person entering with a metal detector or make sure that there are people present who know how t
  10. I doubt taking guns away from the citizens of the US is going to help any - the school shootings would simply be replaced by school bombings and school knife-massacres (there seems to be an entire epidemic of the latter in China). In terms of general crime, taking guns away would simply make it so that those who are physically strong and fast have a strong advantage, that's all. A petite woman and three large, muscled men? No chance. (I myself am not an US citizen, btw. My country has not had a single school shooting to date.)
  11. You can't claim that there would have been more school shootings, either. There are other countries in which the gun laws aren't even remotely as strict, but still no school shootings between 1996 and now.
  12. And abortion is taking responsibility.
  13. The water consistency would have changed so drastically with such kind of rain that the fish wouldn't have been able to survive in the water anymore. Most saltwater fish would die in fresh water and vice versa, some fish can only survive in flowing river water, some do not tolerate flowing water, some need very specific temperatures, the precise balance of various chemicals is often crucial, and so forth. Point being, a world-wide flood would be just as effective at eradicating underwater life, so your point was not a stupid one at all.
  14. My mind works as a strange amalgam of everything - all my senses mingled with words, the exact focus depending on which carries (or carry, if the focus is on several at once) the information best under the present circumstances. Add to that that I sometimes think in meanings and concepts beyond what can be sensed or which words exist for. I don't create my own words in my mind, I deal with pure meanings... EDIT@Walker: Such as you think of a specific facial expression, a person might, rather than describing it with words in one's head, simply visualize it and know what it means wi
  15. In the end, acquiring higher function is a continuous process, and tends to vary slightly from individual to individual. Rather than disprove your point, I simply wanted to bring out that behavioral signs can be easy to misinterpret, and on occasion only a scan can give a clear answer as to whether there are higher cognitive functions at play or just the basic reflexes. As I said on the last page, most valid-looking sources I've come across seem to indicate that the higher brain functions start to have an effect at about 20th week - which would, more or less, equal the first signs of hig
  16. 'Reacting' doesn't necessarily indicate the mental processing of the stimuli, though. Even single-cell living beings can have their cycles of activity and will react to their surroundings, and it cases these reactions can be quite specific (even up to 'preferring' certain frequencies in sounds, for comparison). As it is, the most definite way of determining when higher brain function is present is to monitor which parts of the brain are active and functional, and to what extent.
  17. Alternatively, it could be the mass-murderer who will kill a quarter-hundred people in thirty years. Or the dictator who will eventually initiate World War III and orchestrate the death of millions. Or perhaps the fetus will miscarry. Or perhaps the woman carrying the fetus will die (or commit suicide) because of the fetus and take the fetus with her. Point being, you don't know whether the hypothetical person will do any good to the society. People who are not loved by their parents, however, very rarely grow up to be functional members of society (see ShinyTomato's statistics).
  18. As I see it, a fetus is nothing like a baby yet. An early fetus is naught but a clump of cells with some moderate potential for developing into life - and it certainly is not a person yet. A baby, however, has a functional brain, can feel discomfort and contentment, it can be happy, can be miserable, it can feel warmth, can feel pain, it can recognize a person's face and will react positively to attention... A fetus can properly none of it, at least not before the 20th week of pregnancy or so (and third-trimester abortions are something which are typically not done unless the mother's
  19. There, however, are also certain qualities which seem to be commonly preferable in men - take a look at male models; very little actual variety to speak of. (And then there are some traits which are seen more good-looking in both men and women, such as body-symmetry). Height... Well, generally both females and males are somewhat biased as far as height goes - generally, there are few men who say that they like if a woman is much taller than him, but too short is not desirable either, and few women who will say that they like if a man is much shorter than her, though too tall is not desi
  20. They can, but nevertheless very definition of 'asexual' insists that they lack a drive to do so, so it is fairly unlikely they will do it (unless it is specifically for getting pregnant only). An asexual member of this site might be able to explain it better, but as far as I understand, even if they deeply love the other person, they still will not want to engage in sex. False. There is quite clear variety of preferences amongst men in women, beginning from which weight-category is liked. which body-type is preferable, which eye and hair-colors look good, etc, etc. (Hey, and th
  21. Monday is what we consider the start of week here. All of our calendars are likewise printed with Monday first on the left, Sunday last on the right. (Also, in my language, half seven would be 6:30 . )
  22. How is 'love' defined in this context? (Since 'love' does not necessarily equal the desire to engage in any kind of physical activities, or that physical kind of relationship with the person - or even the mere thought of it - is not highly disturbing.)
  23. Women very commonly find people physically attractive, even if those are people whose personalities they'd never find desirable, and do so no less often than men. I think there even was another research done which proved just that... And truly, it is somewhat easier for a woman to pretend she is something else as far as sexuality goes, so if society tells her that being bisexual is 'cool', she might try to act on it. It is in cases very hard to accurately 'prove' whether someone is telling something to seem 'in' or whether one truly is what one says. (Also, that test which measu
  24. I am not dyslexic, but I personally find that font rather uncomfortable to read. It's mostly fine if it is just a short text, but I'd imagine a few full pages and up would be rather unpleasant to get through. I've also heard people label the inability to use proper grammar and spelling as dyslexia (without having any issues with distinguishing the letters), including by professionals - is that a misuse of the term, or does dyslexia have multiple variants and/or does the word have multiple valid meanings? (I myself am disability-free. I do tend to get mild pain-induced motoric unea
  25. Well said! For something to develop in a living being, there has to first be the genetic potential for it. So... We can have people who are born to have the potential sliding within very strict limits (making it so that their sexuality will never shift once it has developed), and we can have people who have the potential to slide one way or another depending on the circumstances. Essentially, genetics might not only determine that you are bi, but also whether you are stably attracted to both or whether the preference changes towards male or female based on the weather, what you ea