"Such a group"? That is, a group that wants people to be shot to promote their prejudices?

I'm aware of only one group in this case who was seeking to shoot people to promote their prejudices... so that must not be what I meant.

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear, here, let me break it down for you a little more:

You too appear to be keen on feeing your own "hate-filled little mind" with your oh so profound "Fuck all of them."

Want more?

You are quick to label Both sides here are perfect and utter shitheads and clearly trying to demonstrate that you are in fact above the fray and superior to them... yet your very tone an attitude puts you in the same gutter as those you appear to despite.

In the old days one might say "pot, meet kettle"... however your invocation of two different groups needs something else.

Was that clear enough?

Since we have freedom of movement within the US, local regulations don't really mean much.

Only to law abiding citizens who happen reveal they do have a firearm with them when traveling out of state:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014...
http://www.gunnews.com/new-jer...

It's not like you have to go through a checkpoint on your way into Detroit where they'll take your guns away. The only meaningful comparisons are between the nation as a whole compared to other nations - and the numbers are pretty damn clear when you do that.

*face palm*

1. Except that in a good chunk of Europe, there are no border checkpoints.

2. So just because we have this wonderful freedom of movement sans checkpoints... low crime areas (regardless of firearm ownership) also benefit from the freedom of movement of blame from higher crime areas where more often than not, legally acquiring a firearm is difficult? I think not.

The amount of gun violence in this country is nothing short of catastrophic. You're less likely to get shot in a goddamn war zone.

Care to cite your baseless & clearly emotionally driven claim?

Remember that even in a warzone, the flying lead is not equally distributed so not all in the area have an equal change of getting shot. Take a virtual warzone like Chicago (a weekend with only a dozen shootings is a rarity) where there are clearly understood lines as to where your likelihood of getting shot is significantly greater on one side of the line than the other.

I'm sorry to see/hear that you really don't care about cumulative statistics and don't try to understand what areas may be affecting the total. I'll give you one... did you know that with the exception of the 2011 Tucson shooting, every single mass shooting in this country in which 3 or more people were killed occurred in a place where the shooter was not permitted to carry a weapon? That's a rather puzzling fact, isn't it? It's unlikely that a gun free zone suddenly causes people within to go shooting, but just maybe those areas where people are not generally able to defend themselves happen to attack those looking for unarmed victims. Ever consider that?

There's no nice way to put this: You are totally fucking stupid.

You have no idea how much dedicated scientists get paid (damn little, especially when you consider the education required to become one). Or how much actual work is involved (a huge amount, one that only someone truly dedicated to their field could ever possibly tolerate).

I know this because I came extremely close to heading back to grad school for a Ph.D., and I would have taken an 85% pay cut for the privilege (for a minimum of four years). And those I know who did take the plunge, got the three letters, endured the low-paying post-doc fellowship, and managed to latch onto an associate professorship.. got very tired very quickly. Tired of hustling for whatever precious grant money they could, and not doing the work they were trained to do, and left academia altogether.

So, Sparky, I would strongly recommend turning off Fox News, leaving your trailer, and enjoying some fresh air.

Nice attempt at diversion, alas I'm all too used to your kind.

Know what most 'gun deaths' stats like yours have in common? They include suicide, which is a bit of a misnomer when trying to prevent 'gun violence' and including those who harmed no one but themselves... or do we also include those who use pills or sharp objects in the statics for 'sleeping pills violence' & 'knife violence'?

Know what happens when you subtract suicides where a gun was used from broader 'gun death' statics... you know, when looking at crime? You end up with quite a few less gun deaths. Don't believe me? Go back to GP's Wikipedia links, here in the US we have a gun related suicide rate that is nearly 70% of all gun related deaths.

I'd ask you to stay on topic... but you are an AC so hardly worth the effort.

- ha, if by one step from 'anarchy' you mean the Federal Reserve bank, the IRS, FDA, EPA, FCC, FBI, FDIC, DHS, FHA, departments of agriculture, business, interior, education, health care, labour, etc. Sure, 1 step being 99% of what governments (federal and state and municipal) do.

A single incident, no. Multiple, consistent incidents of murder/assassination over such speech is, however, a pattern that cannot be ignored or isolated.

The 'muh sexism!' cry is unnecessary, especially in this case. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison(!!), and others have also (credibly) been accused of having monster-sized egos...

Seriously, when it comes to big egos, Scott McNealy (dude who used to run Sun Microsystems) had an ego large enough to carry it's own gravitational pull.

You can be a CEO without having an ego large enough to require its own zip code... tons of examples out there (even deep within the Fortune 500), but you don't hear about them as much because they tend to focus on their work, not their public image.

Actually very few really understand how it works today, which is why it will not be fixed, because the way that people think they understand it is wrong, they don't see the actual problem so the solution cannot be understood if people don't understand the problem in the first place.

Atheists don't believe in ANY shared mythos in general. They tend to be independent thinkers. Nice try equating drones with independent thinkers though.

You don't think that qualifies as a shared mythos? The idea that they tend to be 'independent thinkers'?

As an example, in my experience most people who call themselves an 'independent' politically are actually quite easy to peg as to where they actually sit on the political spectrum, they only believe themselves 'independent'.

I keep seeing that singular case being held up as some sort of counter-proof... always lacking though is a sense of proportionality and scale.

Lemme guess, if a single Amish individual happened to stab a few people, you'd hold it up as proof that even the Amish can be violent and deadly and that blame should not be just focused on Muslims?

Your point though is largely baseless as you are talking theory, not actual reality.

No they don't, though that has long been a bigger beef for Protestants than Catholics.

Nice of you though to attempt to dictate how others should interpret their faith.

And any other hunter who sees evidence of such a thing will be quick to call the game warden, happily.

Both sides here are perfect and utter shitheads. Both sides wanted this fight, which benefits nobody except feeding their own hate-filled little minds.

And with such an eloquent reply, you are clearly a member of such a group.