Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Toni]

Yes. Under 18, by law. Under 30 or so if one is thinking of emotional development.

PHYSIOLOGICALLY IMMATURE

Are you with a straight face asserting that a 17 year old human is NOT physically mature?

Their outward appearance might not change much after 17 but their brain is still developing, which in turn is reflected in their behavior. Current medical research indicates those changes are pretty much complete at 25 years of age but might take a bit longer in some individuals.

Yes, I'm aware. Thus the term "physiologically".

Brain isn’t physiologically?

Sure sure, having a brain injury is totally going to make your bones shrink in size and change your hair color, right?

Honestly, do you not understand the distinction between somatic and psychological? Your house has a foundation and a physical structure. It also has paint and furniture. All of those are "physical" things sure, but the structural components of the house is what makes it a house, the decor and design gives it personality.

Toni and Arctish are also making a bit of a heap fallacy here. Cognitive development is tied to physical development, and it's true that a 17 year old isn't completely cognitively cooked. But a normal 17 year old is far closer to a 22 year old in terms of cognitive capability, complex thought, executive function, and extrapolative ability than a 12 year old. Cognitive development is a continuum, but it's not a uniform continuum... which is the pretense embedded in Toni's argument. There are developmental stages in humans that are slow processes of building information and compiling knowledge, but there are also stages that include massive leaps in functionality. This isn't mysterious or unknown, and I'm irritated with people pretending that it is somehow magically unknowable.

Very young infants have fairly low cognitive development. For the first few months, almost all of the energy goes to physical growth, and the brain mostly stays focused on "eat, sleep, poop". There's still some cognitive development, largely focused around the parental bond and facial recognition processes, the brain learning how to control eyeballs and process visual and aural stimulation. Then the process shifts priorities for a while, with a change in the inflection of physical growth - more energy investment goes into the neural functions for controlling the body (sit up, crawl, walk, grab, hold, climb) and language acquisition (non-verbal indication and expression of emotion, toddler jargon, basic vocabulary and syntax needed for core communication). Around 2, physical growth slows and enters a fairly linear increase. Between then and about 10, energy is split between increasing size overall and acquiring functional knowledge which is largely "stored facts" about the world around them and the people in it. Between 10 and about 14, height increases a bit more quickly, and the cognitive development of friendship bonds occurs. That's a key period of psychological development, where children start to think about other people from an external perspective rather than their own, and they start to internalize that other people like things that they don't like, and vice versa - they start to understand uniqueness of personality and interest, and that leads to compatibility bonding on shared interests and likes. When puberty hits, there's a huge increase in energy consumption, because there are several really critical developmental steps as they transition from juvenile to adult. There are lots of physical changes, including significant height increases as the long bones lengthen, accretion of bone density and strength, closure of the growth plates, and maturation of the reproductive system. But there are also significant cognitive changes - extrapolative ability and executive function increase substantially, and romantic bonding develops where the communal drives shift from compatibility of personality to compatibility of reproduction and all of the attendant sexual urges. The entire process of puberty takes a few years, but a huge amount of it happens in the course of the first several months. After about 16, the remaining physical changes are really minor in the grand scheme of things, and the cognitive development tends to be focused around executive function and emotional equilibrium.

To oversimplify an analogy... a feline that has just had her first heat isn't completely matured either physically or cognitively, but she's far, far, far more similar in both to a cat than to a kitten - even if she was a kitten just two weeks ago. The impact of puberty is enormous, and it really shouldn't be understated.

My mother survived a traumatic brain injury. Long term, the injury did cause her bone mass to decrease as she was no longer able to do as much weight bearing exercise. Her hair did turn gray prematurely.

 

[TSwizzle]

and there is a strong push, seen here on this forum, to push white women back to some 1950’s or, in some cases, 1850’s model of womanhood, as depicted on black and white television shows.

My goodness that is awful!!! Who are these mysterious posters on this forum who say such terrible things?!

 

[Elixir]

My goodness that is awful!!! Who are these mysterious posters on this forum who say such terrible things?!

I confess, that was me and I’m totally contrite. But being referred to as mysterious is just too delicious to keep hidden any longer! What are you doing after work?

 

[Derec]

According to your response, there is no need for semi- automatic weaponry. So banning them is not a real issue.

There is also no good reason to ban them. Focusing on people rather than on technical particulars of firearm action is a far more fruitful approach to gun control.

 

[laughing dog]

According to your response, there is no need for semi- automatic weaponry. So banning them is not a real issue.

There is also no good reason to ban them.

Of course there is: they permit the less skilled users to quickly do real damage.

Focusing on people rather than on technical particulars of firearm action is a far more fruitful approach to gun control.

Do tell.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

According to your response, there is no need for semi- automatic weaponry. So banning them is not a real issue.

There is also no good reason to ban them. Focusing on people rather than on technical particulars of firearm action is a far more fruitful approach to gun control.

Are you talking about the suicides, the gang members, or the people that had no previous issues with the law before they bought the dangerous weapon(s) the week they shot up a school?

 

[Derec]

Of course there is: they permit the less skilled users to quickly do real damage.

Define "real damage".

I also find it interesting is how quickly your Ilk wants to ban (most) guns in the course of these discussions.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course there is: they permit the less skilled users to quickly do real damage.

Define "real damage".

Death and injury to victims. Duh.

I also find it interesting is how quickly your Ilk wants to ban (most) guns in the course of these discussions.

If most guns are semi-automatic and are unnecessary (according to you), then yes.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nobody is underestimating puberty. But by your puberty argument, suddenly 9 year old girls undergoing puberty are more similar to a 16 year old than a 6 year old cognitively and developmentally. I guess that means 11 year olds are ready to become mothers? Mary Kay Letourneau ( and Donald J Trump) did nothing wrong by having sex with very young kids? I’m certain that is not what you mean.

Is it possible to talk about any social topic without it having to be about trump? Are you capable of that? I'm really tired of this bullshit. Seriously, why is there this compulsion to make every single thing about trump, to a point where basic common sense gets tossed out a window?

You fucking know that's not what I'm saying. So why the holy fuck do you even insinuate it, other than to try to imply that I think it? Or to try to divert attention away from the core topic? It's a smokescreen and a derail, and it's a very *intentionally* insulting one at that. So please Toni, please knock it off. You're smarter than this, and you know that I am too. What do you get out of school-yard taunts and sophomoric arguments from so?

The absolute fact is that a 16 year old can be physically and sexually as mature as a 20 year old ( or conversely, only about as sexually and physically mature as a 12 year old) but that does not mean that cognitively or emotionally they are functioning at the level of a 20 year old. Or even close.

Nobody said they were functioning at a 20 year old level. YOU however, made the assertion that a 16 year old functions more like a 12 year, and that's absolute and utter bullshit - and you know it.

Yes, I am still shocked and incredulous that you seem to believe that a 16 year old reasons more like a 22 year old than like a 12 year old.

No, I don’t believe that I wrote that a 16 year old functions more like a 12 year old.

You didn’t even correctly read the part of my post you quoted.

Toni, that's literally your quote - I changed nothing at all about it.

Are you seriously quibbling that I used the term "functions" with the clear context of cognitive function, where you used the term "reason"?

At the end of the day, it makes not one whit of difference. A 16 year old's cognitive abilities, and their ability to employ extrapolative reasoning, and their executive function is far more like that of a 22 year old than it is like that of a 12 year old.

Function and reason are not the same words and have different meanings. It's not a quibble.

Well gee, forgive me for not completely typing out "functions cognitively" when I assumed it would be understood from context.

 

[Emily Lake]

Obviously, you have a right to murder someone else at a protest for being nervous about your power to murder them,

That may be Elixir's position, but you won't find many, if any, on here who agree with him on this.

but God forbid you defend yourself against an ectopic pregnancy...

Likewise with ectopic pregnancies: who on here is opposed to termination in that circumstance? Even most pro-lifers would support that.

Unfortunately, there are those, some of whom are legislators and public speakers and 'influencers' who make exactly those arguments: A termination is not required for an ectopic pregnancy and all protesters are asking to be shot and should be summarily executed if whatever law enforcement or 'law enforcement' officer believes they might be ' in danger.' If you look around you'll find at least one poster here who thinks that Renee Good was either an agitator who should have been home baking cookies or someone who was pushed into being present by her lesbian wife and should have been home baking cookies like all non-deranged white women. In general, white women who step out of their homes for any reason other than to serve their family's need for a good home cooked meal are mentally ill according to one poster here.

Can you name at least one poster here who holds that view?

I mean ACTUALLY holds that view, as opposed to you exaggerating and misrepresenting their view to make it come across as evil?

 

[Emily Lake]

Sure sure, having a brain injury is totally going to make your bones shrink in size and change your hair color, right?

My mother survived a traumatic brain injury. Long term, the injury did cause her bone mass to decrease as she was no longer able to do as much weight bearing exercise. Her hair did turn gray prematurely.

In total seriousness, have you lost the ability to have a reasoned conversation and to consider the content of an argument on its actual merits? I am aghast that you think this is somehow a reasonable rejoinder.

 

[Emily Lake]

According to your response, there is no need for semi- automatic weaponry. So banning them is not a real issue.

There is also no good reason to ban them.

Of course there is: they permit the less skilled users to quickly do real damage.

Can you explain to me why you believe more skill is needed to point and pull the trigger on a revolver than on a pistol?

 

[laughing dog]

According to your response, there is no need for semi- automatic weaponry. So banning them is not a real issue.

There is also no good reason to ban them.

Of course there is: they permit the less skilled users to quickly do real damage.

Can you explain to me why you believe more skill is needed to point and pull the trigger on a revolver than on a pistol?

I don’t believe that. Skill has nothing to the NUMBER OF BULLETS that can be fired.
Spraying more bullets means more potential damage.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

According to your response, there is no need for semi- automatic weaponry. So banning them is not a real issue.

There is also no good reason to ban them.

Of course there is: they permit the less skilled users to quickly do real damage.

Can you explain to me why you believe more skill is needed to point and pull the trigger on a revolver than on a pistol?

There appears to be confusion here. No one has stated that pulling a trigger is a skill. The suggestion is the number of bullets that are fired is directly proportional to an increase of people being harmed by bullets. More bullets fired, the greater likelihood of injury or death. This is independent of the skill of the shooter.

 

[Emily Lake]

According to your response, there is no need for semi- automatic weaponry. So banning them is not a real issue.

There is also no good reason to ban them.

Of course there is: they permit the less skilled users to quickly do real damage.

Can you explain to me why you believe more skill is needed to point and pull the trigger on a revolver than on a pistol?

I don’t believe that. Skill has nothing to the NUMBER OF BULLETS that can be fired.
Spraying more bullets means more potential damage.

Okay, then would you mind elaborating on whatever it is you were trying to say in the prior post? Because your response suggests that you think there's a good reason to ban semi-autos, and that the reason is that they require less skill than revolvers or single-action pistols do. So I have no idea what you were trying to say.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course there is: they permit the less skilled users to quickly do real damage.

Define "real damage".

Death toll, people needing surgery. If gunpowder loaded muskets were the weapon of choice, we wouldn't have these mass shootings.

I also find it interesting is how quickly your Ilk wants to ban (most) guns in the course of these discussions.

At this point, it probably wouldn't matter. The nation is saturated. All the wrong people have access.

On the other hand I find it interesting at how people interpret the Bill of Rights and think the 2nd Amendment means fuck all with avoiding tyranny.

 

[Emily Lake]

According to your response, there is no need for semi- automatic weaponry. So banning them is not a real issue.

There is also no good reason to ban them.

Of course there is: they permit the less skilled users to quickly do real damage.

Can you explain to me why you believe more skill is needed to point and pull the trigger on a revolver than on a pistol?

There appears to be confusion here. No one has stated that pulling a trigger is a skill. The suggestion is the number of bullets that are fired is directly proportional to an increase of people being harmed by bullets. More bullets fired, the greater likelihood of injury or death. This is independent of the skill of the shooter.

And once again, this is an issue of capacity, it is not an issue of semi-auto action. Were capacity limited to 6 then presumably you wouldn't have a problem with the action being semi-automatic?

On the other hand...

The Enouy Revolver

In our last post, we studied a very unusual firearm, the Girandoni Repeating Rifle , which did not use any gunpowder, but was entirely power...

firearmshistory.blogspot.com

 

[laughing dog]

According to your response, there is no need for semi- automatic weaponry. So banning them is not a real issue.

There is also no good reason to ban them.

Of course there is: they permit the less skilled users to quickly do real damage.

Can you explain to me why you believe more skill is needed to point and pull the trigger on a revolver than on a pistol?

I don’t believe that. Skill has nothing to the NUMBER OF BULLETS that can be fired.
Spraying more bullets means more potential damage.

Okay, then would you mind elaborating on whatever it is you were trying to say in the prior post? Because your response suggests that you think there's a good reason to ban semi-autos, and that the reason is that they require less skill than revolvers or single-action pistols do. So I have no idea what you were trying to say.

I did. Spraying more bullets allows less skilled people a greater chance of hitting someone than if they had fewer bullets to spray.

 

[Emily Lake]

On the other hand I find it interesting at how people interpret the Bill of Rights and think the 2nd Amendment means fuck all with avoiding tyranny.

You can interpret it however it suits you. Given the history at the time, the militias were formed quite specifically to fight against what was viewed as a tyrannical government.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

I've generally read that as "The security of a free state requires that well-regulated militias can exist; militias require that the people have arms; therefore you can't deny people the right to have arms"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

According to your response, there is no need for semi- automatic weaponry. So banning them is not a real issue.

There is also no good reason to ban them.

Of course there is: they permit the less skilled users to quickly do real damage.

Can you explain to me why you believe more skill is needed to point and pull the trigger on a revolver than on a pistol?

There appears to be confusion here. No one has stated that pulling a trigger is a skill. The suggestion is the number of bullets that are fired is directly proportional to an increase of people being harmed by bullets. More bullets fired, the greater likelihood of injury or death. This is independent of the skill of the shooter.

And once again, this is an issue of capacity, it is not an issue of semi-auto action. Were capacity limited to 6 then presumably you wouldn't have a problem with the action being semi-automatic?

Then why are asking the question? Or are you suggesting that semi-automatic weapons can exist, as long as cartridges are restricted to 4 or 6 bullets?

Why make a semi-automatic weapon in that case? Your solution, if Loren was reading this, would be to make a semi-automatic weapon pointless... therefore you are quasi-banning the gun.