Point to what? Just listen to her testimony??? Is she telling the truth or not? If she is telling the truth, then later victims could have been saved by her pressing charges...

what are you actually asking?

That is pretty simple, actually... the workings of the body are concrete and well defined. The workings of the brain are still a matter of conjecture. In fact, there are many that believe the mind doesn't actually exist. How can you have a mental illness without the mind?

There are no real ways to test the "mind". Most "mental" disorders are diagnosed via interview.

Since nature itself can't be responsible for nature (by definition), whatever caused the situation in which nature exists would be (by definition) supernatural.

Of course, that is not the definition you are working with. It is a semantic issue at that point.

The only way an anti gun advocate could possibly use the 2nd Amendment AGAINST gun owners is to interpret it something like
"We grant the right to militia to keep and bear arms...but no one else"

"Well regulated meant something that works properly at the revolutionary time"
So, your contention is that they intended to never be done "revolting"?

Personally, I like that part where it refers to "the right"... something that, by the way, was never previously established. The question is, WHAT RIGHT??? No right to arms had been established in any text. It is almost like they thought that right existed before they got there!