The Believer’s Brain – Russ Schaade

As with many of these segments, this one began on the facebook page of a mutual friend of mine and a believer. In this case Russ Schaade and I had a bit of a back and forth which was started because of a picture and Russ’s initial comment on that picture.

It’s a commonly enough used image that makes a point about fanatical devotion to religious dogma having negative consequences. But Russ, a catholic according to his facebook profile, seemed to have a different view; which of course I felt the need to correct.

Typically I avoid commenting within these quoted conversations because I feel that adding more of my thoughts is not “fair” to the believer. But in this case I will make an exception because Russ showed that he clearly did not even try to read my comments, so adding more comments is really unlikely that it would have made any difference in how he would have responded. Also, as with all of my other segments, I will invite him to join the discussion here once it seems that the discussion on facebook is winding down.

(As always the believer, Russ Schaade , will be in black, while my thoughts are in blue):

imagine no muslim religion…

Notice here that he wants to blame all muslims for the atrocities committed by a small minority of those who follow islam. This will be a very interesting stance later when he wants to distance christians who commit violence from christianity.

Because christianity has never been used to condone violence?

not recently…over the past 100 years or so most of the violence has been caused by athiests. only 100 million deaths or so…not really much worth mentioning…

How does this count as a response to the question? If two people do something bad the one who did something less bad is not innocent… We’re only two responses in and he’s already refusing to answer direct questions. This will clearly be a trend through the encounter…

Also, how somebody can have THIS ignorant a view of history and current events is just beyond me. I understand that most people tend to whitewash the bad done by those they agree with, but to totally dismiss all violence by christians over the last 100 years is an amazing whitewash that I find just astonishing.

Really? That would be news to some people…

* Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. – Mein Kampf p.65

* This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. The great masses of a nation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people, especially faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life. The various substitutes that have been offered have not shown any results that might warrant us in thinking that they might usefully replace the existing denominations. …There may be a few hundreds of thousands of superior men who can live wisely and intelligently without depending on the general standards that prevail in everyday life, but the millions of others cannot do so. – Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 10

* Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. – Adolf Hitler, in 26 April 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933

* “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” – from John Toland [Pulitzer Prize winner], Adolf Hitler, p. 507

* “The anti-Semitism of the new [Christian Social] movement was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” – Mein Kampf, p. 119

Or if you’d prefer to ignore the FACT that Hitler and the other leaders of Nazi Germany considered themselves to be christians, we can look at other more recent examples:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_modernamerica.htm

Or scroll to the bottom where I talk about the “christian” response to the murder of George Tiller: http://thinking-critically.com/2010/09/02/the-believers-brain-patty-boland-monheim-doyle/

But don’t let something pesky like reality get in the way of your delusions…

Okay, I admit, I should not have begun using insulting terms in the conversation at this point, but in my defense I think it was funny. And as later became obvious, he wasn’t reading the whole replies anyways… But still that is no excuse, I was wrong to be dismissive and insulting.

what a man says and what he does are two different things. when an obvious athiest tries to portray himself as a religious man (as hitler did) only a fool would believe it.
and what about stalin or polpot or saddam?

Instead of addressing the facts head on he immediately jumps to the next of his many uses of logical fallacies.

Have you heard of the logical fallacy known as “No True Scotsman”?
To claim that Hitler (who was raised a catholic, professed to be a catholic both publicly and privately, who the Vatican signed political agreements with to ensure that catholicism would be the official church of Nazi Germany, who’s FIRST ACT after taking control of Austria was to go to the museum and get the “Spear of Destiny”, etc) is not a “true” christian is a logical fallacy, and one of the most simplistic and asinine ones to attempt to use in defending your own position…

So given the atrocities committed by atheists, let’s look at it this way.
You kill 20 people…
Somebody else kills 21 people…
Does that make you a moral person because somebody else killed more?
Of course not. It makes both of you gigantic douche-bags worthy of contempt.

And if you claim that you have moral superiority from god while you still commit such heinous acts, there could actually be a case made (quite easily in fact) that you are the BIGGER douche-bag of the two…

my problem is with athiests blaming religion for all the problems in the world when “non-belivers” like stalin and polpot are also responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people. as for hitler, it was obvious by his actions that he was not a religious man. however, he was very interested in religious artifacts and the occult. but in reality he was as much of a christian as bin ladin…and by your example if someone who practices a certain religion is responsible for the death of millions but claims to actually be an athiest…does that now make him an athiest since hitler did the same in reverse order?

Can you say “straw-man”? Another comment from Russ, another logical fallacy.

And again Russ states what he believes to be obvious, but provides no support for that claim or attempt at evidence of any kind. In fact he then shows he knows at least some of the evidence that contradicts his claim, does not dispute this evidence, but just dismisses it as if it’s irrelevant.

When did I “blame religion for all the problems in the world”?
Please don’t argue with me against what other people say and do. I am not those other people. And to make baseless claims about what I do or do not believe shows you to have no integrity.

I agree that many atheists have committed crimes. 0.2% of the US prison system are atheists, so it shows we commit crimes.
However 11-15% of the US population are atheists, so we’re quite underrepresented in prison. Meanwhile every major religion is the US is represented as one would expect (or higher) based on their % of the general population.

Now on to Hitler. He went to church. He spoke both publicly and privately about his respect for jesus, christianity, and the catholic church. He had a fascination with christian artifacts and believed they held mystical power. Atheists don’t believe that the cross jesus was killed on has any power. In fact it would go very much against the idea of atheism to claim that the Spear of Destiny or the “true” cross have any special power or ability.
It was not just his words, it was his actions, his childhood, his entire life that show he was not an atheist.
He also was quite vocal is his attacks against atheism, as shown in a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”
The evidence is QUITE clear that Hitler was in no way an atheist and actually quite hostile to atheism. To claim otherwise shows your ignorance of the facts, or your intentional distorting of the facts to suit your pre-conceived notions. In either case it’s quite pathetic; and if you had a genuine belief that he was an atheist it would be up to you to provide evidence (not speculation) to support that claim.

the evidence that he was not a christian is obvious to anyone when you examine his actions. however, if one were to choose to ignore his acts and only focus on his words then that individual would be inclined to believe that he was indeed a christian. so i chose to believe his acts and you chose to believe his words. i could care less what he said. it’s what he did that matters. anyone that would ignore his actions and only focus on his words is more delusional than even the most extreme of the religious fanatics.
and to ask again, what about stalin and polpot? what religions did they practice?

So I ask for evidence instead of what he find “obvious”, so what does he do, he says again that it’s obvious, and fails to provide anything resembling evidence.

And despite my already responding to his questions about Stalin he again shows that he has failed to actually read my replies, since he acts as if I have said nothing on the subject (despite the utter irrelevance to the discussion anyways).

But you’re failing to provide evidence of which acts are not christian? Did you notice how I’ve brought up not only what he said, but actual actions that he did and that he had the Nazi government do. You just keep claiming he’s not a christian, but you’re providing no evidence…
Did he attacks churches? No
Did he threaten the vatican? No
Did he burn the catholic bible? No
What SPECIFICALLY that he did “proves” he was not a christian?

If you actually LOOK at his actions, you’ll see that they were all consistent with a psychotic, yet fervent catholic idealism.

As for Stalin and others, have you actually read a word I’ve written? I’ve already said that they were not religious. But them not being religious HARDLY excuses what has been done in the name of christianity.

Since you clearly failed to comprehend this the first time, I’ll try again:

***** RUSS, YOU NEED TO READ THE SECTION BELOW *****

You kill 20 people…
Somebody else kills 21 people…
Does that make you a moral person because somebody else killed more?
Of course not. It makes both of you gigantic douche-bags worthy of contempt.

And if you claim that you have moral superiority from god while you still commit such heinous acts, there could actually be a case made (quite easily in fact) that you are the BIGGER douche-bag of the two…

***** RUSS, YOU NEED TO READ THE SECTION ABOVE *****

hitler murdered millions of innocent people. that violates the laws of Christianity. so there is the proof that he was not a christian no matter how much he professed to be one or how badly you want to believe he was in order to put the sins of an athiest on all of the good people of the world that would never have sided with him. so that settles that.
stalin and polpot (along with other communists a.k.a athiests) are responsible for the murder of over 100 million people in the last century. they were athiests. so maybe you should look into their acts. you may find that religion has been used as an excuse to fight wars that were really fought over land, resources, etc. that won’t change if religion is no longer used as an excuse.
so remember “he without sin may cast the first stone”. since athiests have just as much blood on their hands they are exempt from blaming all war and murder on the religious people.
and if the day ever comes when there is no such thing as religion (which will never happen) the athiests will fight wars to prove who believes in God less in order to cover the true reasons.

So Hitler is not a christian because he killed people. This will be quite interesting when he shows his hypocrisy soon by explaining his belief that “some people deserve to die”. It’s amazing that even in a short conversation like this it’s so difficult for many people to remain consistent in what they claim their beliefs are.

By now we’ve also seen his repeated references to the idea that Stalin and others were atheists and did bad things, therefor atheist do bad things. As with his earlier accusations against all of islam based on the actions of a few, this will be quite interesting very soon when he dismisses violence committed by christians, claiming their beliefs and motives are irrelevant.

So killing is against christianity?

Even a cursory glance at the bible shows countless examples of when it’s okay to kill, including: EX 32:27 “Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.
For more, please check out: http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

So far from “that settles that”, it shows that depending on your view of the bible, Hitler was actually a better christian than you are…

And you go back to Stalin, and yet again you seem to miss what I’ve said to you. I’m curious if you actually read it or not. I have an idea, I’m going to put a small test. If you’ve actually read what I wrote, reply with the word asparagus and nothing else. You can then respond in a second comment with whatever other asinine comments you wish.

I bet you can already guess whether he responds to this “test”. If you believe he fails to notice / respond to it at all, you win a prize.

But back to the No True Scotsman. The reason it is a logical fallacy is because it can be used to exclude anybody from “your” group on any arbitrary criteria. If the definition of a christian is one who believes in jesus as god, then killing or not killing is irrelevant to their being a christian. Much like most muslim claim islam is a religion of peace, and you showed your ignorance by dismissing them with your first comment, you do not allow them to distance themselves from the radical elements within their ranks, while you hypocritically try to distance yourself from the fringe elements within your own faith.

Again, I have never claimed religion is the cause of ALL wars. Your repeated attempts to put these words in my mouth are as pathetic as they are transparent.

As this point another friend, J.D., chimed in:

“hitler murdered millions of innocent people. that violates the laws of Christianity. so there is the proof that he was not a christian no matter how much he professed to be one or how badly you want to believe he was”

If the violation of the laws of Christianity makes one not a Christian, then the U.S. is a nation of non-Christians. And one could further conclude from this line of reasoning that Christianity is one of the smallest religions on earth.

exactly JD. my whole point is that an athiest has no room to criticize religion as the problem. just as bin ladin has bastardized the muslim faith as an excuse to murder, hitler, stalin, polpot, saddam, etc. were also mass murderers who did not follow any particular religion as evidenced by their acts. if the athiests want to take the acts of a select few nutjobs who committed atrocious acts in the name of a particular religion then they should also acknowledge the fact that a select few athiest nutjobs have also done the same.

And not surprisingly Russ fails to comprehend the point being made by J.D.

RUSS,
Have you read a fucking thing I’ve written?

funny, i was finna ax you the same thing JEFF…

I’ve responded to every “point” you’ve tried to make.
Your responses have shown quite clearly you’ve failed to read, much less comprehend my comments…

And FYI, JD was not agreeing with you. He was showing the absurdity of your “not a true christian” position…

obviously your response has shown quite clearly you’ve failed to read, much less comprehend my comments. or maybe you just have a had time swallowing the truth about your holier than thou athiest position.

Wow mimicking my words. How very 3rd grade a response…

As for my being “holier than thou”, it would be funny if it were not so ignorant a thing to say. I’ve never claimed atheists are blameless (despite his many attempts to accuse me of saying that); in fact I have pointed out that just because one side does something bad SPECIFICALLY does not make the other side blameless.

And the US is a secular nation. hence the separation of church and state and the freedom OF (not FROM) religion. so i don’t see a problem with what he wrote.

It was not the secular part of what he wrote that was the major point J.D. was making. It was the allusion to what the “No True Scotsman” fallacy leads to.

using the acts of a few nutjobs to discredit the good deeds of the multitude of other members of a particular religion is the same as using hitler or stalin as an example to prove that all athiests are murderers. both assumptions would be asinine.

But apparently using the actions of a few muslims is ok to vilify all those who follow islam?

And if bringing up some specific examples would be “asinine”, why was it that Russ was the one who brought up the atrocities of the 20th century by those he considers to be atheists.

I have not claimed atheists are blameless. A lot of atheists have done some very fucked up shit.

BUT AS I said twice before and you still have failed to respond to:

You kill 20 people…
Somebody else kills 21 people…
Does that make you a moral person because somebody else killed more?
Of course not. It makes both of you gigantic douche-bags worthy of contempt.

And if you claim that you have moral superiority from god while you still commit such heinous acts, there could actually be a case made (quite easily in fact) that you are the BIGGER douche-bag of the two…

ok so if in your statement above the athiest kills 20 and the “religious” person kill 21 or vice versa then, yes, they are both douchbags.

And it only took me pointing out this example three times to get a response…

claiming to do it in the name of a god is not really relevant since a big douchebag is still a douchebag. all this is assuming the 20 or 21 people were innocent. because there are some people out there that need killin’ and the individual(s) that take them out could be considered heroes.

So when an atheist commits a crime, it’s due to their atheism no matter their motive.
When any muslim commits a crime it’s a condemnation of all of islam.
But if a christian commits a crime, even if the motive was their religious faith, that is irrelevant?

WOW… Just wow!!!

so now that we’ve agreed that killing innocent people makes you a douchebag regardless of whether or not you do it in the name of a religion, wouldn’t the photo above be more accurate if the statement read “imagine no douchebags” instead of religion since athiests have also committed atrocious acts comparable to what has been done in the name of “religion”?

Despite this contradicting Russ’s first comment, “imagine no muslim religion…” and showing the inabilty of Russ to maintain one consistent set of beliefs for more than a few minutes, it ignores the motives behind the attacks on the WTC.

“claiming to do it in the name of a god is not really relevant”
This is where we disagree. The motives are most certainly relevant… If you don’t understand the motives, how can you hope to prevent the next douchebag from doing the same thing?

“because there are some people out there that need killin’ and the individual(s) that take them out could be considered heroes”
And here we would VASTLY disagree. I don’t believe anybody “deserves” to be killed. But what do I know, I don’t claim to get my morality from a book that condones such things…

“wouldn’t the photo above be more accurate if the statement read “imagine no douchebags” instead of religion since athiests have also committed atrocious acts comparable to what has been done in the name of “religion””
The difference is that the actions of 9/11 were done BECAUSE of their religious belief. The actions of Stalin, Pol Pot, etc were not done BECAUSE of their lack of belief…

it’s very easy to prevent the next douchebag from doing the same thing. you kill them before they get the chance. then the motive being due to a warped religious belief or lack of one becomes irrelevant.

Hitler was not a true christian because he killed people which violates christian doctrine.
Russ wants to kill people, but is a true christian.

Yet another logical fallacy; this time we see that he holds atheists and christians to a different set of standards. Earlier he kept pointing to the crimes of atheists as evidence that atheism is flawed. However once he is pushed hard enough on the crimes of christians he backs out of that claim without acknowledging his reversal.

i believe there are a lot of people out there that need killing. and if one of them ever takes the life of someone close to you i’m sure you’d agree.

This is a very christian thing to say. According to many christians George Tiller deserved to die, those who people disagree with politically deserve to die, etc.

as i mentioned above what someone does is more important than their beliefs. if they commit an atrocity it really doesn’t matter if they did it for a warped religious belief or lack of one. they deserve to hang just the same. and the sooner these bastards wind up dead the better.

Let’s not worry about the possibility of executing innocent people. Let’s kill um quick damn it… *rolls eyes*

ALTHOUGH, according to The Innocence Project, since 1992, more than 215 people in the United States have been exonerated post-conviction, including 16 who were at one time sentenced to death.

“it’s very easy to prevent the next douchebag from doing the same thing. you kill them before they get the chance. then the motive being due to a warped religious belief or lack of one becomes irrelevant.”
Except the stats don’t back that up. We’re one of the few industrialized nations in the world to have the death penalty. And we have the highest rate of violent crime of those countries. If the government killing people affects crime, it seems to create more… But don’t let silly things like facts change your opinion. It’s much more fulfilling to have them based on ignorance.

“i believe there are a lot of people out there that need killing. and if one of them ever takes the life of someone close to you i’m sure you’d agree.”
From a personal and purely emotional point of view I might want to kill somebody if they harmed somebody I care about. But from an intellectual perspective (which is how our laws should be made), the killing of a person can never be justified.

“as i mentioned above what someone does is more important than their beliefs. if they commit an atrocity it really doesn’t matter if they did it for a warped religious belief or lack of one.”
And like I said, you’re wrong. If we hope to prevent future atrocities, we know to know what lead to the past ones.

“they deserve to hang just the same. and the sooner these bastards wind up dead the better.”
That is a VERY christian thing of you to say. And very much in line with your earlier statement that Hitler could not be a christian because he killed people. Oh wait, no that is not in line at all. It’s the exact opposite. It’s almost as if you’ll say any damn thing that comes to your head in order to make a “point”…

‎”Except the stats don’t back that u…p. We’re one of the few industrialized nations in the world to have the death penalty. And we have the highest rate of violent crime of those countries. If the government killing people affects crime, it seems to create more… But don’t let silly things like facts change your opinion. It’s much more fulfilling to have them based on ignorance.”
what stats are you referring to? hopefully not the United nations report from a few years back that has already been exposed as a lie. either way i’d like to see it. i love fiction. in reality we are pretty far down on the list. as a matter of fact london has a worse violent crime rate than anywhere in this country. 1 in 4 people there will become victim of violent crime. and those numbers include gary, detroit, and d.c. basically the violent crime rate jumps wherever gun “control” runs rampant. to simplify your example, texas has the death penalty but illinois unfortunately does not. by your example we should have a lower violent crime rate but the truth is chicago has a much higher violent crime rate than any major city in texas. but that’s what common sense tell you will happen. but don’t let silly things like these facts change your opinion. It’s much more fulfilling to have them based on your ignorance.

Again resorting the 3rd grade level mimicry. How very sad. How utterly pathetic… How totally expected.

I do give Russ a tad bit of credit, since for the first time he attempts to give some type of evidence. Yet he loses that credit since fails to provide any source or actual data that can be verified or falsified.

“the killing of a person can never be justified.”
maybe not in your world but here in the real world it is more than justified when someone murders someone else. an eye for an eye. if you murder someone than you forfeit your life. and there are way more people in this country than side with my opinion than yours.

As Ghandi said, “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind“.

ok what happens if you come home and find someone twice the size of you getting started on raping your wife. or maybe strangling her to death after he has already raped her. all you have available is the revolver i left on the nightstand when i came to visit. what are you gonna do then?

I missed this when I first replied, but I’m 6’3 & 220 pounds. Who the fuck is twice my size?

and murdering innocent people is not the same thing as killing a murderer in order to stop him from committing future crimes or to enforce justice for crimes he has already committed. nice how you try to twist my words. but they are two completely different things and the bible does not prohibit self defense so saying it is unchristian is also further proof that you either have no idea what you are talking about or you’re just struggling to get out of the hole you dug.

Russ says I am “struggling to get out of the hole you dug“. Wow. This is not the pot calling the kettle black; this is the pot calling a marshmallow black.

http://potomac9499.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/thoughts-on-state-sponsored-murder/
Check the section titled: “The Ineffectiveness Of It As A Deterrent”

It shows that states within the US that have the death penalty have significantly higher murder rates than those states without the death penalty. This is important, because I use actual facts and evidence, not what “one would think” or “common sense”.
Unlike you, I’ve actually looked into the data. And it’s clear, that the death penalty does NOT prevent violent crimes, it does NOT prevent homicides, and it does NOT make citizens safer.

For country by country, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
The US is nowhere near Western European countries, where there is no death penalty. In fact we have 5-10 times more homicides than other industrialized nations…

To compare the US to the UK (since you brought up London)
US over the last 10 years: 5.54 homicides per 100k people
UK over that same time: 1.49
Could you have picked a worse example to “prove” your point? It shows the exact opposite of what you claim.

“an eye for an eye. if you murder someone than you forfeit your life.”
Coming from somebody who said that Hitler must be an atheist because he murdered people, you have a hell of a fascination with the government murdering people being a good thing.

“and there are way more people in this country than side with my opinion than yours.”
So popularity is the best way to figure out what is right? There was a time not very long ago that the majority of people in the US felt it was a bad idea for interracial marriages to be allowed. I guess all those people who fell in love with somebody outside their race were wrong because the majority felt different?
http://potomac9499.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/tyranny-of-the-majority/

“ok what happens if you come home and find someone twice the size of you getting started on raping your wife. or maybe strangling her to death after he has already raped her. all you have available is the revolver i left on the nightstand when i came to visit. what are you gonna do then?”
First of all, the odds of you being allowed inside my home (or any person with a gun) are about the same odds as the pope letting you rape him in the ass during the Super Bowl halftime show…
Also, there is a big difference between defending one’s self and the government murdering people once they are locked up and no longer a threat to society.
But in the example you give, I’d shoot the bastard in both knees and let him bleed till the police came to cart him away.

Regarding the death penalty stopping future crime, it fails to stop ANY crime as the stats show.

As for my comment about how christian it is to kill people, as the link I provider earlier show, the bible condones murder in countless situations, including the genocide of innocent children. Perhaps you missed it when you were not actually bothering to read my comments to you.

Unlike you, I’ve actually looked into the CORRECT data. And it’s clear, that the death penalty DOES indeed make citizens safer as evidenced by the fact that there has never been one case where an executed murderer has gone on to murder again. it’s simple common sense. Another things that makes citizens safer is when the law abiding are not denied their right to self defense. It is a fact within this country that the worst areas for violent crime also happen to be areas where citizens are denied their right to firearms for self defense. research that a little. see anything by John Lott. you can pick up a lot of common sense there too.

Here Russ claims to have different data than the sources I provided, yet he makes no attempt to cite those sources or link to them as I have done each time I have provided data in this conversation.

And then while talking about his data is correct, Russ again reverts to talking about what is “common sense”, as if common sense is always correct.

And as has become typical in this conversation, Russ fails to acknowledge any data or any points that contradict his pre-conceived notions.

i never said the death penalty was a deterrent. i say it is a good way of getting rid of potential repeat offenders as well as a way of making the punishment fit the crime. at least the families/loved ones of the victims can get some sense of justice.

and had you researched the correct topic you would find that I couldn’t have picked a better example than London. When you research VIOLENT CRIME (rape, robbery, and murder) and not just MURDER you will find the arrow points the other way. you can’t do the wrong homework and then expect full credit.

*Yawn* It’s getting old asking for evidence, yet it seems that no matter how many times I do, Russ reverts to his opinion, his idea of “common sense”, and unsourced claims with no evidence or data to back them up.

As for your comment about shooting the bastard in the knees that just proves you have no idea how to handle a firearm. I’d feel bad for your wife when she gets shot by the coward she married because he didn’t have the balls to shoot for the center of mass. maybe you could put that on her tombstone.

it’s obvious as this has gone on that we live in two different worlds since you obviously haven’t correctly read a word that i have put forth and you claim that i haven’t read anything that you have posted. you’ve twisted my statements on purpose or because you only read what you expect to see.

In this case at least, Russ is for once correct. We do seem to live in different worlds, one based on understanding of the best available evidence and data. And one based on pre-conceived ideas and a flawed version of “common sense”.

you can continue to live in your dream world where guns are bad, no one deserves to die, and religion is the root of all evil. hopefully you can stay there uninterrupted by the real world i live in. but trying to force those views on me and people like me will only bring you a fight that you can’t win. in the end, if shit hits the fan, people like me have a much better chance to survive than you. and for someone that doesn’t believe in an afterlife i don’t know how you can sleep at night completely ill-prepared to protect and extend the only one you have here.

“Unlike you, I’ve actually looked into the CORRECT data”
You talk about the data, yet you keep saying what you see to be as “common sense”. Show me the data. Let’s see the stats that back up your claims…
I provided data showing US states with death penalty have higher rates of homicide.
I provided data showing the US had 5-10 time higher rates of homicide than most other industrialized nations.
I showed stats showing the US has more than 4 times as many homicides as your example (the UK).

If you feel these stats don’t tell the whole picture, then show me the stats that “prove” your point. I’m not going to just take your word on it, I need sources (i.e. I gave you links to back up my claims, let’s see if you can do the same).
Provide the evidence of what you claim.

As for “right to self defense”, can you explain what you’re talking about? In what city or state are people NOT allowed to defend themselves?
And can you also provide data to back up your claim about lack of ability to defend yourself makes areas less safe?
I am sorry I can’t take your word on it, but you’ve done nothing but talk shit this entire conversation, so I’ll need to see some evidence. I know you’re not big on evidence (as seen by your failure to even attempt to provide any), but without evidence it’s just your opinion. And your opinion means nothing.

“i never said the death penalty was a deterrent”
Actually you have: “it’s very easy to prevent the next douchebag from doing the same thing. you kill them before they get the chance”
You said to prevent the NEXT person, not to stop the same person from doing it again. You implied a deterrent effect.

“at least the families/loved ones of the victims can get some sense of justice.”
Actually vengeance and justice are NOT the same thing. Not that I’d expect you to be able to tell the difference, but you can google it if you want to know the difference.

“As for your comment about shooting the bastard in the knees that just proves you have no idea how to handle a firearm”
I stopped having an interest in guns when I was a kid. I grew up. But as your premise was flawed (there would never for any reason be a gun in my home), I really could care less about “aiming for the center of mass”. The point of my response was to show you can often times stop an attack without killing somebody.

“I’d feel bad for your wife when she gets shot by the coward she married because he didn’t have the balls to shoot for the center of mass. maybe you could put that on her tombstone.”
Not a coward, just somebody who realized that violence, and specifically killing people, should not be the first response.

“it’s obvious as this has gone on that we live in two different worlds since you obviously haven’t correctly read a word that i have put forth and you claim that i haven’t read anything that you have posted.”
Can you show me what I’ve failed to respond to?

“you’ve twisted my statements on purpose or because you only read what you expect to see.”
Can you show me what I’ve “twisted”?

“you can continue to live in your dream world where guns are bad, no one deserves to die, and religion is the root of all evil.”
I have SPECIFICALLY said many times that religion is NOT the root of all evil. If you read my responses, you’d have seen this multiple times…

“hopefully you can stay there uninterrupted by the real world i live in. but trying to force those views on me and people like me will only bring you a fight that you can’t win.”
I never said you have to believe as I do. I just have pointed out the hypocrisy and asinine nature of your views. But you’re free to remain as ignorant of reality as you wish.

“in the end, if shit hits the fan,”
As in what exactly? Rapture? NWO takes over? What specifically would this be in your view?

“people like me have a much better chance to survive than you.”
Perhaps. Just because I prefer not to use a gun, does not mean I never have used one in the past. Just because I prefer to view killing a person as a tragic last resort, does not mean that if the only way to save myself or somebody I love was to kill, that I’d be unable to do so. Where as you seem to see violence and killing as a preferred method of dealing with people, I view it as a failure.

“and for someone that doesn’t believe in an afterlife i don’t know how you can sleep at night completely ill-prepared to protect and extend the only one you have here.”
The odds of me needing a gun to save my life or the life of those I care about it probably less than the likelihood of an accident involved with having a gun in my home. Perhaps you live in a war zone where you need to be armed to check the mail, I don’t…

Seeing as how you have fallen for so many lies that use common sense to dismiss I don’t always dig for “proof” since it should be obvious. But, to help you out here is the CORRECT data that you missed. The death penalty deters violent crime and saves lives.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284336,00.html

“As for “right to self defense”, can you explain what you’re talking about? In what city or state are people NOT allowed to defend themselves?”
In this country that is not much of a problem, especially since the number of states that allow concealed carry has risen from 7 in 1987 to over 40 as of this year. Also, numerous laws that required an individual to flee rather than stand his/her ground and defend themselves have also been dropped in many states since it was obvious it gave the offender an unfair advantage. However, in the UK people have gone to jail for defending their lives. There was a elderly man that got 7 years in jail for using a rifle to defend himself against to intruders who attacked him in his own home. It happened within the last 10 years but I can’t remember the name. the stories like that in the UK are rampant.

“And can you also provide data to back up your claim about lack of ability to defend yourself makes areas less safe?”
It is very simple, just look up the book “More guns, less crime” by John Lott. He uses statistical evidence and common sense to prove that areas with the strictest gun laws have the highest violent crime rates.

“at least the families/loved ones of the victims can get some sense of justice.”
Actually vengeance and justice are NOT the same thing. Not that I’d expect you to be able to tell the difference, but you can google it if you want to know the difference.”
In the case of the death penalty vengeance and justice are the same thing. The only thing that would be better would be if they let the loved ones of the victim throw the switch.

“As for your comment about shooting the bastard in the knees that just proves you have no idea how to handle a firearm”
I stopped having an interest in guns when I was a kid. I grew up. But as your premise was flawed (there would never for any reason be a gun in my home), I really could care less about “aiming for the center of mass”. The point of my response was to show you can often times stop an attack without killing somebody.
This is the funniest thing you said. I grew up also. That’s why I learned to use a firearm and get a kick out of people like you who think you could just shoot someone in the knees like they do on TV. That’s only because you have no clue how to use a firearm or what it takes to accurately fire a shot under extreme stress. So, I’d be interested in how you would stop this attacker without a firearm since you wouldn’t know how to use one in the first place. Now remember he is twice you size, armed, and could break your neck as quickly as he probably already has done to your wife in this scenario while you were to concerned about not killing him.

“I’d feel bad for your wife when she gets shot by the coward she married because he didn’t have the balls to shoot for the center of mass. maybe you could put that on her tombstone.”
Not a coward, just somebody who realized that violence, and specifically killing people, should not be the first response.
Yeah, I’m sure you’ll sleep better at night after inscribing that statement on your wife’s tombstone in this hypothetical scenario.

“it’s obvious as this has gone on that we live in two different worlds since you obviously haven’t correctly read a word that i have put forth and you claim that i haven’t read anything that you have posted.”
Can you show me what I’ve failed to respond to?
I just did. The scenario above where you would chose to do nothing but watch your wife die because you do not have the testicular fortitude to do what needs to be done.

Perhaps. Just because I prefer not to use a gun, does not mean I never have used one in the past. Just because I prefer to view killing a person as a tragic last resort, does not mean that if the only way to save myself or somebody I love was to kill, that I’d be unable to do so. Where as you seem to see violence and killing as a preferred method of dealing with people, I view it as a failure.
I never said it was the preferred method. Only that it is an available one and the correct method in certain situations and the idea that all killing is wrong is quite often the asinine stance of a coward that cannot accept the realities of the real world.

“and for someone that doesn’t believe in an afterlife i don’t know how you can sleep at night completely ill-prepared to protect and extend the only one you have here.”
The odds of me needing a gun to save my life or the life of those I care about it probably less than the likelihood of an accident involved with having a gun in my home. Perhaps you live in a war zone where you need to be armed to check the mail, I don’t…”
Since you know nothing about firearms the above statement is most likely true. However, the opposite is true for people like me. My home is significantly much safer due to the presence of firearms. But that is because I know how to handle them and am not afraid to use them to protect myself and my family.

Basically, I could care less if you choose to avoid guns. That’s your choice. You have found your flawed evidence and you believe it. I, on the other hand believe the opposite. And as long as you stay out of my business people like us can live happily ever after. Unfortunately that is usually not the case, the gun banners want to impose their warped belief on us by eliminating our rights to own firearms for self defense but I have yet to find an example where someone like me insisted on forcing someone like you to own a gun. In the end, it is a right that may or may not be executed based on the preference of the individual.

If you ever want to learn the truth, just read More Guns, Less Crime or anything else by John Lott. He uses some pretty complex statistics and references all his sources (unlike gun banners such as Michael more in his bowling for socialism movie). In the end you may still be too afraid of guns but at least you will finally know the truth.

Ok, I read your article from Fox News… It’s interesting how dismissive he is of all research and data that contradicts his preconceptions, while still managing to confuse Causation with Correlation when trying to find any possible stat to back up his claim. He puts forward a lot of his opinions, but he fails to show any real correlation between any of the data he cites.
If he is to claim that there is no link between the reduced violent crime rates in states without the death penalty (and that it is based upon other factors), then he would need to apply the same logic to the reduction of violent crimes in states that added the death penalty (that it could also be due to other factors). To claim that one set of rules should apply to the many sets of data that contradict his view, and a different set of rules apply to the one set of data that may support his view is a logical fallacy, as well as an example of hypocrisy.

If you can give me more details about the case in the UK I can look it up. Were there other circumstances (i.e. was his gun legal, did he use excessive force, etc). Without all of the data or a way to verify this story it’s worthless as part of any argument. It’s roughly on par with Reagan’s lies about welfare queens or other such ludicrous claims based upon nothing.

Re Lott’s book: I’m not going to go out and buy a book because you claim it supports your ideas (especially when I’ve already seen how pathetic his attempt at “journalism” is from the one link you provided). Give me a link that shows the data, not somebody right-winger’s opinions.

“In the case of the death penalty vengeance and justice are the same thing. The only thing that would be better would be if they let the loved ones of the victim throw the switch.”
That’s a very ignorant thing to say. I’m really not even sure where to begin.
Vengeance: infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person; violent revenge
Justice: the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness
If you can’t see that those two things are not the same, I’m not sure how to explain it to you. It’s not like you’re even saying red apples and green apples are the same thing, you’re saying red apples and a green Toyota.

“That’s only because you have no clue how to use a firearm or what it takes to accurately fire a shot under extreme stress.”
While it’s been a long time, I was actually a decent shot back in the day. Luckily I’ve never had to use one to defend myself, but if it came down to life or death I suppose I’d have to.

“So, I’d be interested in how you would stop this attacker without a firearm since you wouldn’t know how to use one in the first place. Now remember he is twice you size, armed, and could break your neck as quickly as he probably already has done to your wife in this scenario while you were to concerned about not killing him.”
Well if he’s twice my size that makes him a gigantic dude. I’m 6’3 and about 220 pounds, so I’ve not really met anybody twice my size before.
As for how I’d stop somebody who broke in to my home or was attacking somebody I care about, I’d try to incapacitate them not kill them.

“Yeah, I’m sure you’ll sleep better at night after inscribing that statement on your wife’s tombstone in this hypothetical scenario.”
I sleep just fine living a moral life based upon the idea that life is something you don’t take lightly. Obviously your christian faith tells you that killing people is ok as a first response. My ethics are a bit more evolved.

“I just did. The scenario above where you would chose to do nothing but watch your wife die because you do not have the testicular fortitude to do what needs to be done.”
Umm, I did respond to it. I may not have answered it same way you would have, but I certainly did not fail to answer it. Try again… Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of “failed to respond to”…

“I never said it was the preferred method.”
Actually you said exactly that: “an eye for an eye. if you murder someone than you forfeit your life.”

“Only that it is an available one and the correct method in certain situations and the idea that all killing is wrong is quite often the asinine stance of a coward that cannot accept the realities of the real world.”
Or somebody who has the ability to think with something other than the most base of emotional responses. I, along with many other people, have the belief that to take a human life should never be done if there is any possible alternative.

“Since you know nothing about firearms the above statement is most likely true.”
Yet again you ignore statements that don’t fit in to your pre-conceptions. As I’ve already stated, I used to be in to guns when I was younger.

“However, the opposite is true for people like me. My home is significantly much safer due to the presence of firearms. But that is because I know how to handle them and am not afraid to use them to protect myself and my family.”
In 2000, 174 children (0-18) in the United States died from unintentional firearm-related injuries.
I’m sure those kid’s parents felt the same way…

“You have found your flawed evidence and you believe it. I, on the other hand believe the opposite.”
And you have found (or at least shared) no evidence, only opinion.

“Unfortunately that is usually not the case, the gun banners want to impose their warped belief on us by eliminating our rights to own firearms for self defense but I have yet to find an example where someone like me insisted on forcing someone like you to own a gun”
And if you were arguing with somebody who wanted to ban guns that would be relevant. However I’ve never claimed you should not be allowed to have a gun. I find it idiotic, but protected by the 2nd Amendment.

“If you ever want to learn the truth, just read More Guns, Less Crime or anything else by John Lott. He uses some pretty complex statistics and references all his source”
Provide me a link to some of his data. From the one article I’ve read that you provided I find him to be a pathetic “journalist” and would not be willing to spend my money to support him. If the data checks out, then perhaps I’d be willing to read his take on it.

“unlike gun banners such as Michael more in his bowling for socialism movie”
And when did I ever advocate banning guns?

“In the end you may still be too afraid of guns but at least you will finally know the truth.”
I never said I’m afraid of guns. Just that I have no use for them in my home or my life.

It would be nice if you actually READ my comments, instead of “responding” to things that I’ve never actually said and don’t believe.

this is getting to be way too much. you ignore my statements, i apparently ignore yours,

I am still curious what part of your comments I have ignored. As I already explained, responding to your comments in a way you disagree with, is not the same as ignoring.

you discredit lott’s article,

I discredit Lott’s article for the reasons I specified earlier. He does not use consistent rules for his claims and seems to try to cherry pick any information that supports his preconception while ignoring all data that opposes it.

i find the references you made very week, especially when i see how the data is twisted by the authors.

What data specifically was “twisted”? I’m unsure how to “twist” homicide rates. They are what they are.

you claim you wouldn’t kill anyone but then say you would if you had to.

I said it would be a last resort, and ONLY done to prevent harm against myself or others.
You’ve argued for the government killing people that no longer pose harm to society. You’ve also argued for killing somebody as something other than a last resort.
These views are very much opposed to my own views.

and you do a very good job of twisting my words around.

Can you show me what I “twisted”? Where did I take your words out of context or misconstrue your meaning?

you should definitely be involved in politics.

There are many reasons I would not do well in politics. First is because I am an open atheist, and in the US we don’t have much chance of winning elections (at least according to all polls I’ve seen which show us as the most distrusted group).

most people who haven’t done their homework on the topics of firearms like i have would easily fall for your argument. i have folders full of articles at home that prove everything you posted to be an outright lie or severely flawed presentation by the authors.

Are any of these articles online so that you could link to them for others (including me) to read? If I am wrong, I’d like to see evidence of such.

i don’t know where you got the statistic of how many kids die from firearm injuries, but i have heard similar numbers posted before.

There are many places that site gun fatalities statistics, such as infoplease which states:
In 1999, there were 3,385 firearms-related deaths for children ages 0–19 years. They break down as follows: 214 unintentional, 1,078 suicides, 1,990 homicides, 83 for which the intent could not be determined, and 20 due to legal intervention. Source: 2002 edition of Injury Facts

then i found that an 18 year old gangbanger killed by police while he was firing a gun at them is counted as a child accidentally killed by a gun. so i don’t buy those stats anymore unless they come from the NRA or other honest sources.

So what are the NRA stats? If you claim my stats are flawed, yet you trust other stats, can you provide those other stats which contradict mine?

in reality more children (actual children 13 or younger) die from animals attacks, drowning, and car accidents so if you’re really concerned about safety of the children get rid of the pool, toilet, fido, and the honda.

Those things all have positive effects on society, so I would not argue for getting rid of any of them. And as I’ve already stated previously, I don’t even condone banning guns, so I find it inconceivable that any rational person would see banning these things as equivalent to my position on guns.

in the end we could go on forever. there is nothing you can say to make me believe what i have already found to be flat out lies by the gun banners.

I have not condoned banning guns, so why you insist on lumping me in with those who do, is beyond comprehension. You seemingly have a very knee-jerk reaction to the topic of guns, which has little to do with what has been said in the conversation. I’d suggest arguing against the position taken by somebody, not against a straw man you built up in your own mind. You’d have a better chance of coming across as something other than a ideological zealot.

this is a topic that i have been up to date on for a long time. through personal experiences and years of reading i have seen that firearms save lives, most of the time without a shot being fired (as in my personal experiences).

And if you had stats to contradict those I presented this might be a valid argument.

however, i am not going to scan the numerous articles and send them to you or dig them up on the internet since it won’t make a difference. the only time i have gone out of my way like that is when i am dealing with someone who is on the fence. you already believe what you want and will discredit anything that doesn’t agree with your opinions.

I will discredit things that have no credibility. I have changed my mind in the past based on evidence, and perhaps this would be another example of that. But if I don’t see the evidence for the other side it is unlikely.

but you say you are not out to support gun banners and i assume you support the right to bear arms as guaranteed in the bill of rights even if you personally don’t choose to exercise that right. if that is the case then we have no problems with each other since that is all people like me want. you stay out of my business and i stay out of yours. i choose to own firearms for my safety and those of my loved ones and you choose not to.

Yes, while I am not a fan of guns myself, the 2nd Amendment is clear in that people have the right to own guns, so there is no point in discussing the topic of if they should be legal or not. However discussing the pros and cons of guns is still a valid pursuit, because people can still CHOOSE not to own them, based on the facts.

i know there are plenty of people out there that need killin’ and i am elated whenever i find out that they got what they deserved and you believe the opposite.

Here we will never agree.

In my opinion nobody deserves to die.
And I would never be “ elated” at the death of a person.

luckily we live in a free country so that we both are entitled to our opinions.

“Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts” ~ Bernard M. Baruch

—–

Unfortunately the friend who’s page this was on not so subtly changed the subject to end the conversation, making it clear he’d prefer the conversation come to an end… So with that in mind my reply to the final comment will only be here, and if Russ chooses to continue the conversation I’d like to invite him to do so here…

‎”Except the stats don’t back that u…p. We’re one of the few industrialized nations in the world to have the death penalty. And we have the highest rate of violent crime of those countries. If the government killing people affects crime, …(tharr be more)it seems to create more… But don’t let silly things like facts change your opinion. It’s much more fulfilling to have them based on ignorance.”
what stats are you referring to? hopefully not the United nations report from a few years back that has already been exposed as a lie. either way i’d like to see it. i love fiction. in reality we are pretty far down on the list. as a matter of fact london has a worse violent crime rate than anywhere in this country. 1 in 4 people there will become victim of violent crime. and those numbers include gary, detroit, and d.c. basically the violent crime rate jumps wherever gun “control” runs rampant. to simplify your example, texas has the death penalty but illinois unfortunately does not. by your example we should have a lower violent crime rate but the truth is chicago has a much higher violent crime rate than any major city in texas. but that’s what common sense tell you will happen. but don’t let silly things like these facts change your opinion. It’s much more fulfilling to have them based on your ignorance.