·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A firearm question for you Lefties
A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow
Well those recently English-lit majors need to be preoccupied teaching 20-30 students in order to be effective.
Doesn't count, cause it wasn't a mass killing. Less than four people. But if it had been more than four people, boy, watch out!
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
The fact that four people weren't killed absolutely proves that the guns at the range stopped this from being a mass killing. I bet the shooter saw one of them and immediately thought "oh noes!" and ran away. He wasn't expecting that!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I'd actually met CPO Kyle a long time ago. Nicest guy ever, and embarrassed the hell out of me at the range. Guess my only question is whether the shmuck that got him will try to collect the bounty.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Obviously he didn't SEE anyone with a gun, it was the thought that maybe someone had a concealed weapon that scared him away.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
we can speculate
Or we can not speculate. I know that hurts your argument since it hinges entirely upon speculation but, hey, just a thought.
All discussion of potential legal changes require speculation about the impact of the proposed change (or even the effect of the current laws). Saying that it's ok to speculate about the positive effects of gun control while refusing to allow any speculation about the negative effects of such things seems hypocritical at the very least.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
That wasn't in regards to "potential legal changes", that was in regards to you weaving Mighty Gun Tales of Might out of nearly whole cloth to suit your agenda.
Are "potential legal changes" helped by made-up stories and assuming you know the minds of everyone involved?
Edited, Feb 4th 2013 5:44pm by Jophiel
Are "potential legal changes" helped by made-up stories and assuming you know the minds of everyone involved?
Edited, Feb 4th 2013 5:44pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
That wasn't in regards to "potential legal changes", that was in regards to you weaving Mighty Gun Tales of Might out of nearly whole cloth to suit your agenda.
As opposed to "If only we had better background checks" or "If only we banned assault weapons", right? Cause that's not speculative at all.
Quote:
Are "potential legal changes" helped by made-up stories and assuming you know the minds of everyone involved?
I don't know. You tell me. You seem to have no problem at all with speculation about how helpful the current laws are and how much more helpful even tighter gun control would be, but no one else is allowed to speculate about how ineffective and harmful the current laws are, and how much more ineffective the new proposed ones would be?
Again, that seems hypocritical. Argue that my speculation is unlikely or unfounded, but don't dismiss it out of hand purely because there's speculation involved.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
As opposed to "If only we had better background checks" or "If only we banned assault weapons", right? Cause that's not speculative at all.
That would be discussing macro changes and supported with stats from other nations, etc. It doesn't involve taking singular events and making up your own narrative about what everyone did, what they were thinking and the rest of it.
Quote:
Again, that seems hypocritical.
"If I'm not allowed to make up what a shooter was thinking, you're not allowed to discuss potential benefits of legislation"? Well, any port in a storm.
Edited, Feb 4th 2013 7:02pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Cause that's not speculative at all.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
As opposed to "If only we had better background checks" or "If only we banned assault weapons", right? Cause that's not speculative at all.
That would be discussing macro changes and supported with stats from other nations, etc.
As opposed to the stats showing the massive statistical death rate difference based on whether civilians intervene in a shooting before police arrive or not.
Quote:
It doesn't involve taking singular events and making up your own narrative about what everyone did, what they were thinking and the rest of it.
Except that this isn't the one singular event which shows this pattern. If it was, you'd have a point. This one is just an example of the pattern we see in shootings where civilians intervene. We're both speculating about what might have happened in that one case if things had happened differently, but while I'm speculating that it followed the pattern (when civilians intervene shooters stop shooting random people), while you're speculating that this was the exception (that the shooters actions had nothing to do with the civilian intervention).
We could also speculate that in the dozens of cases where civilians intervened in shootings that their intervention had nothing to do with the ultimate outcome, but the statistics quite clearly show a massive difference in body count. We must conclude that at least in some of those cases, the intervention did in fact affect the outcome. Again, it's not about just one instance of a shooting, but a trend that is quite consistent across a whole set of them.
Quote:
Quote:
Again, that seems hypocritical.
"If I'm not allowed to make up what a shooter was thinking, you're not allowed to discuss potential benefits of legislation"? Well, any port in a storm.
It's not about what a specific shooter was thinking, but about how his actions changed based on the conditions around him. You are also speculating about the changes potential shooters might make based on a given piece of legislation. You're assuming that if we pass law X, shooters will just say "Aw shucks. Guess I can't go on my rampage". But again, there's zero evidence to support your assumption, while there's a mountain to support mine.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
But again, there's zero evidence to support your assumption, while there's a mountain to support mine.
Shit, I was going to respond to this but it's good enough to stand on its own. Thanks.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But again, there's zero evidence to support your assumption, while there's a mountain to support mine.
Shit, I was going to respond to this but it's good enough to stand on its own. Thanks.
Isn't it? I mean, the evidence that tighter gun control in the US has any effect on overall violent crime statistics is basically zero, right? Meanwhile the evidence that gun free zones do increase both the rate of and fatality level of shootings in those zones is quite overwhelming. But don't let facts get in the way of good strong emotion!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
But don't let facts get in the way of good strong emotion!
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Sure. And let's make sure never to talk about Norway!
Sssshhhhhh.....
Sssshhhhhh.....
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But don't let facts get in the way of good strong emotion!
I'm not "trumpeting" him. I'm simply pointing out that case as an example which follows the statistical rule that when shooters are confronted with armed civilian opposition they stop shooting random people in the area. We can sit here and speculate about why the shooter did what he did, but that does not change the fact that the body count (excepting the shooter himself) after Meli pointed his pistol at the shooter was zero. And this is precisely what the statistics tell us will happen. In every case I can find of a random shooting incident (meaning the shooter is targeting people in an area at random in case you're confused), the body count after anyone (police or civilian) points a weapon at the shooter is zero.
So the result in the case of the Clackamas shooting is exactly what we'd expect. Your argument rests on the assumption that said statistic is just blind luck. So it just randomly happens that in nearly every instance where an armed civilian intervened, that shooter really was planning on only killing the one or two people he ended out killing, but in nearly every instance in which one didn't, he happened to be intending to kill a lot more. I mean, that seems like an amazingly unlikely coincidence to me, but if that's what you're going to stick with, then by all means go for it.
There's a point at which consistent correlation *does* imply causation. In the case of fatality statistics when armed civilians intervene, we're well beyond that point IMO.
Edited, Feb 5th 2013 5:40pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Gbaji wrote:
Isn't it? I mean, the evidence that tighter gun control in the US has any effect on overall violent crime statistics is basically zero, right? Meanwhile the evidence that gun free zones do increase both the rate of and fatality level of shootings in those zones is quite overwhelming. But don't let facts get in the way of good strong emotion!
I don't think you really mean that. I think you mean CERTAIN levels of gun control and not gun control in general. If that is true, you should really say what you mean and not using misleading terms to strengthen your argument, like "law abiding citizen".
gbaji wrote:
In every case I can find of a random shooting incident (meaning the shooter is targeting people in an area at random in case you're confused), the body count after anyone (police or civilian) points a weapon at the shooter is zero.
I like how you had to make sure to qualify that since you've previously cited a case (Smith County Courthouse) where a civilian pulling a gun was not only killed but failed to end the event. Guess the magic guns weren't working that day. Doesn't count though because it wasn't a "random" shooting!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
We can sit here and speculate about why the shooter did what he did, but that does not change the fact that the body count (excepting the shooter himself) after Meli pointed his pistol at the shooter was zero.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
We're SPECULATING it's true because it absolutely is!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Gbaji - how come we still have these shootings now? I mean, we haven't made any changes to the gun laws yet; it's just stuff being proposed. Why aren't there more civilians running around with their weapons stopping these shootings and being big heroes?
Your way isn't working.
Your way isn't working.
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But again, there's zero evidence to support your assumption, while there's a mountain to support mine.
Shit, I was going to respond to this but it's good enough to stand on its own. Thanks.
Isn't it? I mean, the evidence that tighter gun control in the US has any effect on overall violent crime statistics is basically zero, right? Meanwhile the evidence that gun free zones do increase both the rate of and fatality level of shootings in those zones is quite overwhelming. But don't let facts get in the way of good strong emotion!
Unless, you know, you live in a country where people don't own guns. Or where guns are strictly regulated. You know, like all of Europe.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
gbaji wrote:
There's a point at which consistent correlation *does* imply causation.
Dude, seriously?
It's because rising CO2 levels have been correlated with rising temperatures right?
Alright, fine lets just stick with it. Now we can debate endlessly about which thing is the one that causes the other thing to happen and ignore all other contributing factors.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There's a point at which consistent correlation *does* imply causation.
Dude, seriously?
It's because rising CO2 levels have been correlated with rising temperatures right?
Alright, fine lets just stick with it. Now we can debate endlessly about which thing is the one that causes the other thing to happen and ignore all other contributing factors.
No because climate scientists don't use the right data. Only gbaji does that.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Nilatai wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There's a point at which consistent correlation *does* imply causation.
Dude, seriously?
It's because rising CO2 levels have been correlated with rising temperatures right?
Alright, fine lets just stick with it. Now we can debate endlessly about which thing is the one that causes the other thing to happen and ignore all other contributing factors.
No because climate scientists don't use the right data. Only gbaji does that.
So does that mean that gbaji can only be caused by the right combination of data, or that only gbaji can cause the right data to appear?
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Recent Visitors: 333
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (333)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A firearm question for you Lefties
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC