That’s ... not what I’m telling you? I think we’re on the same page here, actually, or maybe just potentially, at least as far as testing and licensing.

I get what you’re saying, but a few things: (a) you can read the 2nd Amendment in lots of ways that support gun control issues: “well-regulated militias” could be stressed more, “militia” and “people” could be understood to mean the population as a whole rather than individual people within it (basically interpreting…

It is criticism. It may not be particularly useful criticism, but, yes, that’s criticism.

Right, so... more than one shooting at a school per week, on average. And, yes, that includes colleges. Which are schools? I’m not sure what your point is here. School shootings are only meaningful if they happen at elementary schools? Or if someone dies? If my kid was playing at someone’s house and that someone…

The thing that blows my mind in regards to gun control is how little middle ground it feels like gun enthusiasts are willing to cede. Like, okay, we’re not going to get rid of guns in this country, I’m willing to grant that, however unhappily, but why can’t we make sure that we have the best trained and educated gun…

“I’m not going to buy your game, I’m going to kill people and eat them instead.”

I’m not sure why intent necessarily matters in the discussion? I don’t think the bullet cares about whether it was fired in outrage or by accident, it’s just going to deliver its freight of Newtonian hell regardless. Fewer guns in the system means fewer people are around guns and therefore fewer people are given…

Yeah, that’s around what I’ve seen, too. The BBC article I linked to uses 4 people as a baseline, which seems simultaneously too high AND too low at the same time. Why four? I’m guessing that lifts it out of murder-suicide territory, but either way that’s a grim, grim definition to have to sit down and parse out.

He misspoke. There’s a school shooting every week, though, which is still damn high. And we averaged at least one mass shooting per day throughout 2015, so there’s a lot of gunfire being thrown around willy-nilly. Here’s a BBC article with the juicy, juicy data: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-…

Yes, I too would enjoy living in a society where only the creative were allowed to speak, and the only form of criticism was oblique and allusive.

Every day is a bit of an overstatement — it’s more like every week. (Which, holy christ, a school shooting every week?!) There’s an average of one mass shooting per day, though, depending on how you define “mass.” Here’s a BBC article that hits the high points, if you really want to see the statistics: http://www.bbc.c…

I wonder if the researchers have looked into orcas at all? There’s this bit from an article in The Stranger that seems pertinent:

Yes, but doesn’t ensuring the survival of her genetic relatives bolster her own genetic legacy? That’s basically what I’m trying to get at. If you have a seven daughters, and only two of them have children, but all of those grandchildren of yours survive because of the support you and the aunts provide, doesn’t that…

I think... I agree? You’re saying that menopause wouldn’t be neutrally adaptive is post-menopausal women just... left, for whatever reason? Or were otherwise inert lumps. You have to assume that older women have some benefit to the group, evolutionarily, that offsets their inability to reproduce. Which could be…

Right, but people past their reproductive years might enable children to survive that otherwise would not, thus allowing their traits to remain present or flourish in a population. That’s not influencing evolution? Worker bees are sterile, but their ability to function is key to a hive surviving and fertile bees…

Yes, because society never has an effect on biological science, which is why animal researchers openly discussed homosexuality in penguins, bighorn sheep, and elks as soon as they first noted it. (this is sarcasm, i am being sarcastic, science happens in a social context and is framed and conducted by people bringing…

What? No, they totally do, since they enable greater population survivability, which is pretty crucial. Personal reproduction isn’t the only way to contribute to evolution; that’s the whole evolutionary benefit to forming societies in the first place. Or were you being sarcastic?

Sure, but a family that lives until 65 and stops reproducing at 45 on average can produce more successful and surviving offspring than a single individual who produces children until 65. It’s not just about producing as many offspring as possible — it’s about how many survive. Mutations occur at an individual level,…

Yes, person on the internet who is literally paid to write articles about things, why are you writing an article about a thing?

Some things happened, and different people felt different ways about them.