Bak

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-wife-beating-koran-4-34.htm i know it's a christian site, but at least the passage is probably accurate.

0nUI3TUdFCkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUI3TUdFCk

that's a linear relationship nbvegita, ten times as many metropolitan areas with ten times the population.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/w...f-life-map.html I wouldn't say it's MUCH higher... marginally at best... don't they pay like 60% taxes too?

nbvegita, I don't think you don't understand that deaths per 100,000 people already take population differences into account (hence the per 100,000 people part)? If you want sheer numbers it's (!@#$%^&*uming your population numbers are right): canada 1,439 usa 42,882

wait, so are you saying that canada's gun policy isn't working? Gun deaths per 100,000 people: United States 14.24 Canada 4.31

aha good point. I agree with you now.

Did you add in "flawed"? nonono, i was quoting from the article you posted, didn't even see that. The author was claiming that the study was flawed because it counted suicides as deaths of family members. I don't believe you. Can you post a source for that?

Did you add in "flawed"? nonono, i was quoting from the article you posted, didn't even see that.

your theory doesn't make any predictions that aren't known to be true before you make them. Scientific theories must make such predictions or they can't be disproven.

sever your application of genetic theory doesn't make accurate predictions as is needed by a science. You say there are `attention seeking' genes. One might predict that people should walk around with megaphones all day to seek attention, however you don't see that. Unless you can make predictions and not just explain things after the fact, your theory is about as scientific as creationism.

Aha, I see what you're saying now. I think many more things are environmental, whereas you say many more are genetic. Let's agree that not everything is genetic. I remember being told (I can't find the source for the life of me, sry) of this island that was isolated from the rest of the world where there was practically no suicide. Then at some point one kid committed suicide and left a suicide note and everyone heard about it. Suddenly suicides started happening all over the island. I'd say this is evidence for saying that suicide is environmental and not genetic. Again, hopefully this story isn't fiction and I wish I had the source(searching for "island suicide" on google doesn't really work; if someone knows what I'm talking about please say so). also, small apples but "multiple" and "as many as possible" do not mean the same thing.

sorry to burst your bubble, but guns are not enough let the PEOPLE to overrun the US government. they have tanks and nukes. should the PEOPLE have the right to own tanks and nukes too? if everyone was carrying a firearm I would not go into any bar. also, that source is very biased... if you just jump in any random section you'll find problems. So here's the part of that source that deals with the study I posted: So basically I think he's saying that a suicide shouldn't count as killing a family member? Also... how many "other deaths" account for criminal activity between family members? 1% 50%? why say when it might hurt your argument? same goes for fact #2. The remaining dead include criminals... o noes... how many criminals isn't said. Here's another one: How can Canada (a country) "say" anything? Any logical person would track the amount of crimes committed with guns from the US inside Canada. Instead, he just quotes a Canadian attorney. A quote is not proof! Anyone who's watched doctors give testimonials on infomercials knows this. These are just the first two things I looked at closely, I'm sure it's littered with such non-arguments.

You said "males are programmed to have sex with as many individuals as possible". Acquiring multiple mates and having sex with as many individuals as possible are not the same thing. Gawd, an old man can have sex with a young girl because he can have a !@#$%^&*. An old woman can't do the same because the young boy can't have a !@#$%^&*... what are you saying? Aha, I was remembering incorrectly about the whale backbones; I meant whale pelvises. Why do whales have pelvises? Why do crabs have tails? why do humans have ear muscles? Ideas are NOT genetic. They may enhance survival and be subject to natural selection, but you're claiming that everything is genetic. So let's say two hindus have a kid and put him up for adoption right as he's born... you're saying that the child, adopted by Christian parents, is likely to become hindu? That's absolutely absurd. genetics can enhance survival and effect natural selection. ideas can enhance survival and effect natural selection. your conclusion: ideas = genetics. snow is white. your momma is white. your conclusion: snow = your momma.

TJ, you pointed out the argument I was making: just because something exists doesn't mean it has genetic benefit. I agree with you! most animals don't kill each other (murder) much less do it on a large scale (war). "Without murder and war we would have died out as a species by now." is simply wrong. Funny, I thought it was because you can't have sex with someone that doesn't have a !@#$%^&*. please do! Also, SeVeR, you can't make !@#$%^&*umptions like "Genetically, males are programmed to have sex with as many individuals as possible," because they're simply not true. There's a trade off between having lots of children and having a few that you can hunt for and feed. Even among animals there are examples of species which have single mate for their entire lives. Who knows how humans are genetically programmed? Not everything is justifiable genetically and when you search for explanations for everything it ends up making genetics look bad. But if you don't believe here's some more things for you to find genetic explanations for: necrophilia, belief in lepercons, vestigial structures (ex: whale backbones), cinema.

that source clearly says that there are more murders in the cities of the United States than Toronto. The gap's gotten narrower in the past 10 years, but it's still quite sizable. Anyways it says crime is 50% higher in canada but it doesn't specify what type of crime (murder, muggings, jaywalking). Here's another source that makes the distinction: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

can you repost the link to the article? the one in the quote got messed up.

what's the genetic benefit of whales having backbones?

you're !@#$%^&* right the government is interfering with the bar owner's business. he should provide a safe environment for his workers. you're basically saying we shouldn't interfere with the bar owner's way of running his business but we should interfere with the construction owner's way of conducting business. What businesses should the government interfere in? who decides? the government should either make all businesses provide safe environments for workers or don't regulate safety for any businesses.

Could you please post a source for that.The paper is "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home." (New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.) by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Don Reay. Basically they tracked gun deaths in King County, Washington, from 1978 to 1983 and got the following results: Type of Death No. Unintentional deaths 12 Criminal homicide 41 Suicide 333 Unknown 3 Self-protection homicide 9 which gives a 43:1 ratio that the gun will kill someone the owner knows rather then a stranger. Admittedly there are some problems with this study, it is fairly dated and doesn't take into situations like the one mentioned here, where the intruder is deterred from doing anything without being killed. Here's another article from the university of washington: http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=1910 The ratio they cite is 22:1 (although sadly they don't say from which study). another interesting tidbit from that article: Perhaps so but how was she to know he had a knife and was planning to kill someone?

so we should protect construction workers but not workers at a bar? what's the difference?

so like one of those taser sticks or those police guns that shoot tasers would have worked too. also I remember hearing statistic that a gun in the home is more likely to be used against the family than an intruder.

liar (what is this the 1920s?) also with smoking in cars... it's not nearly as distracting as a cell phone. I'd say it probably even prevents road rage as people are more relaxed when they smoke.

I think the problem is that 99.999% of people with guns don't go murder people, so we're trying to create an amendment for the 0.001% that do which affects all 100% of gunowners. It's a sucky situation.

So you're saying we shouldn't force a construction company to use safety equipment because workers will flood away from that company?