Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Btw, does Obama officially suck?Follow

#252 Jul 26 2012 at 12:15 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Except everything in my links contradicts most of your post. But why would I expect you not to ignore statistics?

Oh, and one of the reasons for the lower number of guns in Switzerland is, from what I could find, is that they don't draft women into the military, meaning they don't get a military issued weapon that they get to keep after their term of service is over.

How about a situation showing the reverse? A place where much stricter gun control laws has not made a dent in gun violence? Because Chicago is a prime example of that.

What it boils down to is that law abiding citizens don't use guns to commit crimes. Criminals use guns to commit crimes. If you outlaw guns, the criminals will either find ways to get them illegally (Chicago) or they'll resort to some other way of committing the crimes.


"Law abiding citizens don't...commit crimes", eh? Seems a bit circular to me. Smiley: tongue

And I'm not seeing how what you linked contradicts my post.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
But why would I expect you not to ignore statistics?


Do I have a reputation for ignoring statistics? I have to say, that's a new one.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#253 Jul 26 2012 at 12:23 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
I've skipped about a dozen other posts, so I'm sure it's been said many times, but let's revisit the actual text of the second ammendment:

Quote:
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.


In the strictest sense, "arms" != guns. Arms (i.e. Armaments) means "a military or naval force" The equation of arms to guns is a more modern distinction made necessary only by the introduction of more advanced weaponry in the last 100 years or so. The 2nd ammendment does not explicitly restrict the type of arms the people are allowed to keep and bear, so it could be argued (though it may be futile to do so in today's society) that "arms" means whatever is necessary to deter an oppressive government, conventional or otherwise.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#254 Jul 26 2012 at 12:29 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
so it could be argued (though it may be futile to do so in today's society) that "arms" means whatever is necessary to deter an oppressive government, conventional or otherwise.


I'll take my personal nukes now, please.

Hey, I can't be expected to deter an oppressive government without being able to wield the threat of some sweet, sweet mutually assured destruction.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 2:29pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#255 Jul 26 2012 at 12:33 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Hey, I can't be expected to deter an oppressive government without being able to wield the threat of some sweet, sweet mutually assured destruction.


Loosely speaking, that may have been the exact thinking of the founding fathers who incorporated the statement. The ability of the citizens to respond with equal or greater opposing force is the last check against a tyrannical government.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 1:33pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#256 Jul 26 2012 at 1:02 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Hey, I can't be expected to deter an oppressive government without being able to wield the threat of some sweet, sweet mutually assured destruction.


Loosely speaking, that may have been the exact thinking of the founding fathers who incorporated the statement. The ability of the citizens to respond with equal or greater opposing force is the last check against a tyrannical government.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 1:33pm by BrownDuck
Superheros need super weapons.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#257 Jul 26 2012 at 1:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Is this a red herring?

No, it's a statement of fact. Small arms have provably failed to overthrow lesser modern militaries than ours. Saying we need a bunch of them shuffling around the civilian populace in order to stop the military makes no sense based on the available evidence.

What's the alternative? Beats me. But if the goal is stopping an armored column or maintaining control of a city against helicopter gunships, it's not more small arms. Maybe we should think of something else in that case beyond "More guns for everyone!"

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 12:28pm by Jophiel


Well, we could allow corporations to field their own minor militaries.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#258 Jul 26 2012 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
#259 Jul 26 2012 at 1:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Is this a red herring?

No, it's a statement of fact. Small arms have provably failed to overthrow lesser modern militaries than ours.


That's the red herring (or straw man, or beside the point, or whatever). Governments don't normally transit from being peaceful democracies representing the will of the people to oppressive regimes with a military force willing to use tanks and bombs against their own citizens in one step. It takes a number of steps, one of which often is the seizure of small arms from any citizens who are not part of the regime itself. That or some form of coup, again only likely to result in the aforementioned oppressive regime *if* there aren't a bunch of armed civilians refusing to follow the orders of the new leader.

Quote:
Saying we need a bunch of them shuffling around the civilian populace in order to stop the military makes no sense based on the available evidence.


Correct. But it makes perfect sense to suggest that we'll never have to use the small arms of our populace against the military if the populace has small arms in the first place.

Quote:
What's the alternative? Beats me. But if the goal is stopping an armored column or maintaining control of a city against helicopter gunships, it's not more small arms. Maybe we should think of something else in that case beyond "More guns for everyone!"


The goal is to prevent that situation in the first place. Typically, the reason that one side has armored columns and gunships while the other side has nothing but small arms is because at some point in the past, someone was able to seize all the military grade weapons and put them in the hands of just his guys, while taking them from everyone else. And that usually can only happen if no one who disagrees with him can fight back. This all happens long before we get to that situation.


Obviously, a good portion of this has to do with ideology among the population itself. In our case, the 2nd amendment basically instills an idea in people that they should not be pushed around by their government, and that they have the right to fight back. Let's not forget that currently, a pretty large percentage of the very military forces that our government would need to man those armored columns and gunships are themselves supporters of the 2nd amendment. Merely having the amendment in place reduces the odds of our military going along with such things in the first place. Eliminate it, and in a few generations, the guys in the military might not have the same view of the rights of the citizens to stand up to the government. They might be more willing to accept more authoritarian orders (apply same to police if you wish). The effect of the 2nd amendment isn't just about the physical ability of those with privately owned guns to directly win in a fight with the military. It's about forcing a government who tries to take those early steps towards oppression to have to order their military to fight those private owners long before that military has adopted a "they don't have the right to defend themselves against the government" assumption.


It's not perfect, but it's a hedge against oppression. Just like any of the other checks we have in our system. No single one is intended to be perfect, or do it all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#260 Jul 26 2012 at 1:45 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Seriously, though, most successful revolutions recieved foreign military aid, so why should a 2nd US Rev be different from Libya, the first am rev or the Boshin War.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#261 Jul 26 2012 at 1:48 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,470 posts
Smiley: looney

Oh, gbaji.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 3:49pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#262 Jul 26 2012 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Like Academi?


Man, those shifty ******* change their name every two years now, don't they?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#263 Jul 26 2012 at 1:53 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Like Academi?


Man, those shifty @#%^ers change their name every two years now, don't they?
I think they try to sound a little less like an Umbrella Corp. clone every time.
#264 Jul 26 2012 at 1:54 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Well, we could allow corporations to field their own minor militaries.

AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Like Academi?

Why hello, Umbrella corporation.

Edit: Ash beat me.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 2:54pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#265 Jul 26 2012 at 2:02 PM Rating: Good
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
What gun control advocates fail to recognise is the context in which the 2nd Amendment was written. The thirteen colonies were in the midst of a revolution against a larger, stronger, and better trained and equiped military force and a government intent on keeping them cowed and subservient. It was to this that the amendment was directed-- so that the very conditions against which the colonists were fighting would not occur within the very country they were trying to form.

It had nothing to do with hunting, sportsmanship, or any of the trappings that gun control advocates would have us believe our founding fathers really intended when penning that into our nation's core documents. It was strictly and purely a last line of defense for the freedom from tyranny from their own future government that they were experiencing at the hands of their present oppressors.

Sugarcoat it how you like, but the right to bear arms is intregal to the preservation of an individual's personal freedom, both from governmental threats and threats posed by criminals.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#266 Jul 26 2012 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
"No, it's a statement of fact. Small arms have provably failed to overthrow lesser modern militaries than ours. Saying we need a bunch of them shuffling around the civilian populace in order to stop the military makes no sense based on the available evidence. " --Jophiel

False. Just look to an armed conflict in the not-so-distant past: Vietnam. With nothing more sophisticated than small arms and tenaciousness the Viet Cong were able to defeat a far superior force. And that is just one example in recent history.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#267 Jul 26 2012 at 2:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Smiley: looney

Oh, gbaji.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 3:49pm by Eske


In this case, he's not crazy.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#268 Jul 26 2012 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Smiley: looney

Oh, gbaji.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 3:49pm by Eske


In this case, he's not crazy.


gbaji wrote:
Correct. But it makes perfect sense to suggest that we'll never have to use the small arms of our populace against the military if the populace has small arms in the first place.


What should I go with, willfully ignorant? We don't really have a good emote for that.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#269 Jul 26 2012 at 2:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
It's not the most eloquent way of saying it, but the presence of weapons in a group does deter authoritarian power grabs.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 4:22pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#270 Jul 26 2012 at 2:21 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I forgot that Vietnam lacked any backing from other nat-- oh wait. That's right it was all by themselves.

That's politely ignoring the difference between a standing local government putting down rebellion on their home turf versus attempting an overseas invasion.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 3:23pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#271 Jul 26 2012 at 2:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I forgot that Vietnam lacked any backing from other nat-- oh wait. That's right it was all by themselves.

That's politely ignoring the difference between a standing local government putting down rebellion on their home turf versus attempting an overseas invasion.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 3:23pm by Jophiel


Yeah, but without small arms being initially present, the war wouldn't have lasted long enough for intervention by a secondary power.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#272 Jul 26 2012 at 2:28 PM Rating: Good
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
I'm not following you, Jo.

My point is that in terms of armament, neither the VC or the ground forces of the NVA used much more than pistols, automatic rifles, grenades, and machine guns. Some armor was briefly used by the Communist forces, but it was destroyed quickly due to a lack of mobility in tight terrain. The US had complete air and naval superiority in the south, but could not defeat the insurgent ground forces (for a number of reasons).

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#273 Jul 26 2012 at 2:30 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,820 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Smiley: looney

Oh, gbaji.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 3:49pm by Eske


In this case, he's not crazy.


No, he's spot on, as is Totem. Unfortunately, gbaji is the proverbial poisoned well, so people will just assume he's spouting rubbish and disregard his ramblings, if they even read the post.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


World of Warcraft
Aggramar Alliance
Allizsah: 92 Human Paladin
#274 Jul 26 2012 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem wrote:
I'm not following you, Jo.

That much is obvious. Unfortunately I'm on vacation this weekend and using a tablet with a sketchy one bar unsecured wireless connection so this isn't the time for a debate. Just assume we went back and forth for a while and both declared ourselves the winner.


Edited, Jul 26th 2012 3:43pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#275 Jul 26 2012 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
"...both declared ourselves the winner." --Jo

By stating it in such a fashion, you have implicitly conceded defeat to my superior argument. I accept your conditional surrender.

Totem

____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#276 Jul 26 2012 at 2:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Any port in a storm, big guy Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#277 Jul 26 2012 at 3:00 PM Rating: Good
***
2,820 posts
Totem wrote:
"...both declared ourselves the winner." --Jo

By stating it in such a fashion, you have implicitly conceded defeat to my superior argument. I accept your conditional surrender.

Totem



I kind of understand Jophiel's argument. The US struggled mightily in Vietnam because we were extremely unfamiliar with the terrain. Not only was it literally foreign land to us, but it was a completely different type of environment than that found anywhere in the US except parts of Hawaii and Florida.

The counter to that argument is that, if putting down a rebellion here on the US, the insurgents don't have disadvantage of unfamiliar terrain. In fact, most of them will probably know their way around better than the military.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


World of Warcraft
Aggramar Alliance
Allizsah: 92 Human Paladin
#278 Jul 26 2012 at 3:05 PM Rating: Good
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
Hey, whoa there, mister. It is precisely 1 hour and 37 minutes past Man Love Thursday over here in A-stan. No ports, no storms, no taking shelter around here since it's oly-oly-all-in-free Friday now.

And for the rest of you who don't know what Man Love Thursaday is, Google it.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#279 Jul 26 2012 at 3:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's part of it. There's also the obvious differences between moving US armor to and through a foreign jungle and moving it to and through Ohio.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#280 Jul 26 2012 at 3:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
It's not the most eloquent way of saying it, but the presence of weapons in a group does deter authoritarian power grabs.


Not only that, but it also reduces the "us vs them" mentality that many authoritarian regimes foster (and arguably require in order to maintain their power) between their police/military and the civilians. When the only people allowed to use firearms are a nations security forces, then everyone else is "everyone else". Anyone else who has a firearm is a criminal, a terrorist, a rebel, a threat. They'll never meet these people at a shooting range, or gun show, or gun store. They'll never swap stories, experiences, advice, etc. In a society with greater legal access to firearms, those things don't prevent such police/military dealing with armed folks on the fringe when necessary, but it increases the likelihood that they'll think twice when dealing with people whose positions perhaps aren't that extreme and may not be much different than their own. More importantly, it decreases the likelihood of having such extreme differences in the first place (or at least the number of them).

When people can legally own firearms then you can differentiate between those who use them for illegal or extremist purposes and those who don't. When it's illegal for anyone to own firearms then everyone who has them becomes a criminal and extremist in the eyes of the authorities. It's harder to ask the question "was this guy fighting for the right reasons" when that is the case. And just to be clear: I'm not arguing that the absence of relatively easy access to legally obtained firearms among a civilian population means that a nation will become oppressively authoritarian. Just that the presence of those arms decreases the likelihood of it becoming so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#281 Jul 26 2012 at 4:57 PM Rating: Good
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
Getting back to the original topic, I'd like to put forward the opinion that the gang that has been openly raping and pillaging this country since 1990 isn't the GOP or the Democrats. It's the Ivy League. They're just different turds dropping from the same a$$hole. Can I get a witness?

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#282 Jul 26 2012 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
****
7,820 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That's part of it. There's also the obvious differences between moving US armor to and through a foreign jungle and moving it to and through Ohio.

Why Ohio huh?! Why can't it be Indiana this time.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#283 Jul 26 2012 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,136 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Switzerland would like to have a word with you.

Edit: Wait a minute. How did I end up pulling that card in this thread instead of the thread about gun crimes?

Edit 2: Yes, I know the link is wikipedia, but it was the first link to pop up on a google search and I'm at work so I don't have a ton of time to dedicate to looking into it. I'll find more reliable info when I get home and post it.

These two links also paint a similar picture.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 12:04pm by Bigdaddyjug

Just for funsies, I took the data that you linked to and scatter plotted it out. Unfortunately, not all countries had data in both tables, so the chart is limited. What you'll see from those that did have entries in both tables is that the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths (note: as lolgaxe pointed out, this is not the same as gun violence) is nearly no correlation at all.

The linear regression was the most favorable to your argument, and it still shows no statistically significant correlation. The handful of outliers are all relatively small countries like Honduras and Ecuador, and don't reflect the (lack of a) trend of the rest of the world.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#284 Jul 26 2012 at 8:35 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Getting back to the original topic, I'd like to put forward the opinion that the gang that has been openly raping and pillaging this country since 1990 isn't the GOP or the Democrats. It's the Ivy League. They're just different turds dropping from the same a$$hole. Can I get a witness?


To be fair, they do come from a very different & elite asshole.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 10:35pm by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#285 Jul 27 2012 at 3:26 AM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Totem wrote:
Getting back to the original topic, I'd like to put forward the opinion that the gang that has been openly raping and pillaging this country since 1990 isn't the GOP or the Democrats. It's the Ivy League. They're just different turds dropping from the same a$$hole. Can I get a witness?

Totem


/Raises hand. Well said.

Also. I would say that 'Belief in the Cause' is the deciding factor in the outcome of any conflict. The side that has its heart in the fight is the one who will come out on top, regardless of firepower.....It may take time and turn into a lengthy insurgency type scenario, but the side with their hearts in it will eventually come out on top. Every time.

After all, who really wants to die for something that they don't totally believe in?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#286 Jul 27 2012 at 6:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kastigir wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's part of it. There's also the obvious differences between moving US armor to and through a foreign jungle and moving it to and through Ohio.
Why Ohio huh?! Why can't it be Indiana this time.

I wanted a place someone might actually want to defend.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#287 Jul 27 2012 at 8:34 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
paulsol wrote:
Totem wrote:
Getting back to the original topic, I'd like to put forward the opinion that the gang that has been openly raping and pillaging this country since 1990 isn't the GOP or the Democrats. It's the Ivy League. They're just different turds dropping from the same a$$hole. Can I get a witness?

Totem


/Raises hand. Well said.

Also. I would say that 'Belief in the Cause' is the deciding factor in the outcome of any conflict. The side that has its heart in the fight is the one who will come out on top, regardless of firepower.....It may take time and turn into a lengthy insurgency type scenario, but the side with their hearts in it will eventually come out on top. Every time.

After all, who really wants to die for something that they don't totally believe in?


Yes, the power of heart can overcome automatic weapons, military armor and atomic fire.






























































ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... No wait, you're serious?

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
[Message shortened to adhere to formatting restrictions]
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#288 Jul 27 2012 at 9:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Those lazy *** Iranians just weren't pure enough of heart.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#289 Jul 27 2012 at 9:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Demea wrote:

Just for funsies, I took the data that you linked to and scatter plotted it out. Unfortunately, not all countries had data in both tables, so the chart is limited. What you'll see from those that did have entries in both tables is that the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths (note: as lolgaxe pointed out, this is not the same as gun violence) is nearly no correlation at all.

The linear regression was the most favorable to your argument, and it still shows no statistically significant correlation. The handful of outliers are all relatively small countries like Honduras and Ecuador, and don't reflect the (lack of a) trend of the rest of the world.


So there's no statically significant correlation between gun ownership rates and gun deaths? Now that won't get spun both ways or nothin... Smiley: lol
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#290 Jul 27 2012 at 5:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Demea wrote:

Just for funsies, I took the data that you linked to and scatter plotted it out. Unfortunately, not all countries had data in both tables, so the chart is limited. What you'll see from those that did have entries in both tables is that the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths (note: as lolgaxe pointed out, this is not the same as gun violence) is nearly no correlation at all.

The linear regression was the most favorable to your argument, and it still shows no statistically significant correlation. The handful of outliers are all relatively small countries like Honduras and Ecuador, and don't reflect the (lack of a) trend of the rest of the world.


So there's no statically significant correlation between gun ownership rates and gun deaths? Now that won't get spun both ways or nothin... Smiley: lol


I think data like this (even if it was about "gun violence" instead of just gun deaths) doesn't give us a complete picture. If someone breaks into my house, beats me with a baseball bat and steals all my stuff, that doesn't show up on a gun statistic. But if I shoot the intruder, thus preventing the crime, it shows up as "gun violence" (or even a gun death depending on whether the guy dies). Clearly, just counting up the total number of shootings (or even "gun related crimes") isn't going to answer the question we really should be asking: Does a greater rate of firearm ownership increase rates of victimhood or decrease it. I use the term "rates of victimhood", because that should presumably measure the likelihood within a given group of people that you might be the victim of a crime.


The theory proposed by gun advocates (above and beyond the whole "defend against tyranny" bit) is that guns allow people to defend themselves. Thus, we should expect to see lower rates of victimhood when greater gun ownership is present. The theory proposed by gun control advocates is that access to more guns makes it easier to commit crimes and thus should increase that rate. Same thing in reverse. The problem is that it seems like far too many people want to measure that data in ways that automatically make it appear as though guns increase violence. They count every case of someone defending themselves against a crime as an act of violence. Kinda can't have a fair debate when that is the case IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#291 Jul 27 2012 at 5:52 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,136 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Demea wrote:

Just for funsies, I took the data that you linked to and scatter plotted it out. Unfortunately, not all countries had data in both tables, so the chart is limited. What you'll see from those that did have entries in both tables is that the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths (note: as lolgaxe pointed out, this is not the same as gun violence) is nearly no correlation at all.

The linear regression was the most favorable to your argument, and it still shows no statistically significant correlation. The handful of outliers are all relatively small countries like Honduras and Ecuador, and don't reflect the (lack of a) trend of the rest of the world.


So there's no statically significant correlation between gun ownership rates and gun deaths? Now that won't get spun both ways or nothin... Smiley: lol


I think data like this (even if it was about "gun violence" instead of just gun deaths) doesn't give us a complete picture. If someone breaks into my house, beats me with a baseball bat and steals all my stuff, that doesn't show up on a gun statistic. But if I shoot the intruder, thus preventing the crime, it shows up as "gun violence" (or even a gun death depending on whether the guy dies). Clearly, just counting up the total number of shootings (or even "gun related crimes") isn't going to answer the question we really should be asking: Does a greater rate of firearm ownership increase rates of victimhood or decrease it. I use the term "rates of victimhood", because that should presumably measure the likelihood within a given group of people that you might be the victim of a crime.


The theory proposed by gun advocates (above and beyond the whole "defend against tyranny" bit) is that guns allow people to defend themselves. Thus, we should expect to see lower rates of victimhood when greater gun ownership is present. The theory proposed by gun control advocates is that access to more guns makes it easier to commit crimes and thus should increase that rate. Same thing in reverse. The problem is that it seems like far too many people want to measure that data in ways that automatically make it appear as though guns increase violence. They count every case of someone defending themselves against a crime as an act of violence. Kinda can't have a fair debate when that is the case IMO.

Of course, if there's no relationship AT ALL between gun ownership rates and gun deaths (regardless of who dies), then that kind of makes the whole "do guns increase or decrease crime" debate pointless, and instead tells you only that certain countries have higher general propensity for crime.

So both sides are wrong, except me. Smiley: tongue

Edit: I suppose it's worth noting that even if you defend yourself against an aggressor/intruder with a gun, somebody still got ******* shot. However, if you have any data that differentiates between "offensive" and "defensive" gun violence, I'll be happy to analyze it.

Edited, Jul 27th 2012 6:57pm by Demea
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#292 Jul 27 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Demea wrote:
I suppose it's worth noting that even if you defend yourself against an aggressor/intruder with a gun, somebody still got @#%^ing shot.


Of course. Hence my point about rates of victimhood. We do normally (or should) make a distinction between someone using force to avoid becoming a victim and someone using it to make someone a victim. IMO the more important thing is whether the guy who woke up one day and said "I'm going to go rob someone" succeeds or fails. I don't see the fact that he got injured (or even killed) in the attempt as a negative social statistic, but a positive one. But traditional gun statistics will *always* measure that as a negative. Which is why those methods are flawed. Surely we should make a distinction between someone shooting an intruder in their home and someone shooting someone in order to steal their property. But we don't.

Quote:
However, if you have any data that differentiates between "offensive" and "defensive" gun violence, I'll be happy to analyze it.


It's hard to find (because of the wrong way we collect the data in the first place). Fact is that most of the folks who collect gun violence statistics are (quite logically) pro gun control. That's why the collect the data. That's why they pass laws mandating certain statistics be collected and calculated. So even "official" statistics kept by various state and federal agencies will tend to use skewed methodology because those who pushed for the collection of them were almost certainly on the pro gun control side as well.

I don't feel like spending the time on a Friday afternoon tracking down all the source studies and whatnot, but here's a reasonable starting point. Of particular interest IIRC is the Kleck study (reference 1 on that page). The point is that even if Kleck's numbers are off, they aren't off by much (2.5 versus 1.5 million defensive uses a year). Even with the reduced numbers arrived at by other sources, we're still talking about guns used to defend against a crime 15 times more often than they are used to commit one. It's a pretty amazing set of statistics, which most people have simply never had presented to them (insert rant about liberal media here).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#293 Jul 27 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,136 posts
As you said, it's Friday, and the last thing I'm going to do is dig around that silly site looking for a solid data set (the first link in the footnotes leads to a page that no longer exists, btw).
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#294 Jul 27 2012 at 6:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Demea wrote:
As you said, it's Friday, and the last thing I'm going to do is dig around that silly site looking for a solid data set (the first link in the footnotes leads to a page that no longer exists, btw).


Didn't even realize there was a link on that page. Fine. I cut and pasted the first part of the first footnote into google and got this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#295 Jul 27 2012 at 10:11 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,049 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's part of it. There's also the obvious differences between moving US armor to and through a foreign jungle and moving it to and through Ohio.
Why Ohio huh?! Why can't it be Indiana this time.

I wanted a place someone might actually want to defend.

So why Ohio? We can just move the R&R HoF somewhere else.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#296Palpitus1, Posted: Jul 29 2012 at 3:47 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yep. Most American citizens including liberals could never fathom their government ever turning evil/fascist, even though it's happened to nearly 100% of the governments on Earth. (but not ever America! We special shining light!) "Revolution" in their minds is a history lesson. "Colonialism" is a quaint notion that they affect with a British accent. And so on.
#297 Jul 29 2012 at 4:31 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
599 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
Kelyvquayo wrote:
Are we in denial that stuff actually happens? or are we stuck on the fairy-tale of "it can't happen here"?
It is happening.


Yep. Most American citizens including liberals could never fathom their government ever turning evil/fascist, even though it's happened to nearly 100% of the governments on Earth. (but not ever America! We special shining light!) "Revolution" in their minds is a history lesson. "Colonialism" is a quaint notion that they affect with a British accent. And so on.

I guess too bad Poland and its Underground didn't have their virtual 2nd Amendment rights stricken in say, 1938! Silly Poles and your Warsaw Uprising, largely dependent on small arms.

America will never be so horrible that its threatened by its own citizens bearing arms. THAT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE. MY FAITH IS MY FLAG.


It says at the very top of your link that the Warsaw uprising failed, so I honestly don't know what your point is.
#298 Jul 29 2012 at 4:41 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,254 posts
Siesen wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
Kelyvquayo wrote:
Are we in denial that stuff actually happens? or are we stuck on the fairy-tale of "it can't happen here"?
It is happening.


Yep. Most American citizens including liberals could never fathom their government ever turning evil/fascist, even though it's happened to nearly 100% of the governments on Earth. (but not ever America! We special shining light!) "Revolution" in their minds is a history lesson. "Colonialism" is a quaint notion that they affect with a British accent. And so on.

I guess too bad Poland and its Underground didn't have their virtual 2nd Amendment rights stricken in say, 1938! Silly Poles and your Warsaw Uprising, largely dependent on small arms.

America will never be so horrible that its threatened by its own citizens bearing arms. THAT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE. MY FAITH IS MY FLAG.


It says at the very top of your link that the Warsaw uprising failed, so I honestly don't know what your point is.


I think that is his point. If the citizens had all been armed with 2nd Amendment rights, they would have defeated the Germans and ended WW2.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#299 Jul 29 2012 at 9:16 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
No, but it would have made occupation more difficult. Greater Poland was lacking quite a bit on the hardware end too. Poland has also historically been bouncing in and out of the German sphere of influence, with the HRE etc etc.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#300 Jul 29 2012 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Totem wrote:
Getting back to the original topic, I'd like to put forward the opinion that the gang that has been openly raping and pillaging this country since 1990 isn't the GOP or the Democrats. It's the Ivy League. They're just different turds dropping from the same a$$hole. Can I get a witness?

Totem


/Raises hand. Well said.

Also. I would say that 'Belief in the Cause' is the deciding factor in the outcome of any conflict. The side that has its heart in the fight is the one who will come out on top, regardless of firepower.....It may take time and turn into a lengthy insurgency type scenario, but the side with their hearts in it will eventually come out on top. Every time.

After all, who really wants to die for something that they don't totally believe in?


Yes, the power of heart can overcome automatic weapons, military armor and atomic fire.

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... No wait, you're serious?

[i]ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah......etc.




Unfortunately, the history of international armed conflict does not support your feeble attempt at derision.

You should run for government office. With the grasp of history that you seem to possess you'd fit right in.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#301 Jul 29 2012 at 10:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We're talking about the Warsaw uprising that came to a sudden end when the Germans sent in armor to level the place block by block, right? Or is there another uprising I didn't know about where they defeated the tanks with shotguns and pistols?

Edited, Jul 29th 2012 12:00pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 48 All times are in CST
Almalieque, Debalic, Nobby, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (44)