Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#602 Feb 03 2013 at 10:01 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,799 posts
Well those recently English-lit majors need to be preoccupied teaching 20-30 students in order to be effective.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#603 Feb 03 2013 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,405 posts
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.
#604 Feb 03 2013 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
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.
#605 Feb 03 2013 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
******
41,278 posts
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.
#606 Feb 03 2013 at 12:55 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,799 posts
Obviously he didn't SEE anyone with a gun, it was the thought that maybe someone had a concealed weapon that scared him away.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#607 Feb 04 2013 at 5:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
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
#608 Feb 04 2013 at 5:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
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
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#609 Feb 04 2013 at 5:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
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
#610 Feb 04 2013 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
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.
#611 Feb 05 2013 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
******
41,278 posts
gbaji wrote:
Cause that's not speculative at all.
Maybe more people would take your speculation seriously if your methodology wasn't intensely laughable at best.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#612 Feb 05 2013 at 5:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
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
#613 Feb 05 2013 at 6:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But again, there's zero evidence to support your assumption, while there's a mountain to support mine.

Smiley: laugh

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.
#614 Feb 05 2013 at 6:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But again, there's zero evidence to support your assumption, while there's a mountain to support mine.

Smiley: laugh

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
#615 Feb 05 2013 at 6:46 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,278 posts
gbaji wrote:
But don't let facts get in the way of good strong emotion!
You sure haven't let facts get in your way of trumpeting for Nick Meli. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#616 Feb 05 2013 at 6:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sure. And let's make sure never to talk about Norway!

Sssshhhhhh..... Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#617 Feb 05 2013 at 7:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But don't let facts get in the way of good strong emotion!
You sure haven't let facts get in your way of trumpeting for Nick Meli. Smiley: laugh


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
#618 Feb 05 2013 at 8:05 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,799 posts
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".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#619 Feb 05 2013 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
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.
#620 Feb 05 2013 at 8:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,278 posts
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.
That's assuming Meli's account is accurate, since it seems to be the only one. But the news says it's true, so it must be.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#621 Feb 05 2013 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We're SPECULATING it's true because it absolutely is!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#622 Feb 06 2013 at 9:37 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,956 posts
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.
#623 Feb 06 2013 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But again, there's zero evidence to support your assumption, while there's a mountain to support mine.

Smiley: laugh

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
#624 Feb 06 2013 at 9:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,391 posts
gbaji wrote:
There's a point at which consistent correlation *does* imply causation.


Dude, seriously? Smiley: dubious

It's because rising CO2 levels have been correlated with rising temperatures right? Smiley: nod

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. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#625 Feb 06 2013 at 9:42 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There's a point at which consistent correlation *does* imply causation.


Dude, seriously? Smiley: dubious

It's because rising CO2 levels have been correlated with rising temperatures right? Smiley: nod

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. Smiley: rolleyes

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
#626 Feb 06 2013 at 9:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,391 posts
Nilatai wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There's a point at which consistent correlation *does* imply causation.


Dude, seriously? Smiley: dubious

It's because rising CO2 levels have been correlated with rising temperatures right? Smiley: nod

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. Smiley: rolleyes

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
#627 Feb 06 2013 at 10:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
25,549 posts
The right data only exists in Gbaji's imagination and we'll all just have to believe him when he says it's just obvious.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#628 Feb 06 2013 at 11:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nilatai wrote:
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.

We're not allowed to compare the US to European countries because those are, like, completely different countries and way different from the US.

Comparisons to Brazil and Venezuela are completely okay though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#629 Feb 06 2013 at 11:27 AM Rating: Good
******
41,278 posts
Maybe there's something to his theory, though. I have a concealed license and my house has never been the site of a mass shooting of two or less people.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#630 Feb 06 2013 at 11:57 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,405 posts
Yes, but my house is a no guns allowed zone and no mass killings have happened there, either.

I am so confused.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#631 Feb 06 2013 at 12:10 PM Rating: Good
******
41,278 posts
There's nothing to be confused about. We just ignore your data point and further emphasis mine.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#632 Feb 06 2013 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,405 posts
Oh, of course! It's obvious!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#633 Feb 06 2013 at 12:21 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
25,549 posts
You're the exception that confirms the rule Stupidmonkey.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#634 Feb 06 2013 at 12:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,391 posts
Clearly sample size is too limited to draw any real conclusions. If anything we should be encouraging more mass shootings so we can find out how best to stop them.

Fast and furious was just a drop in the ocean.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#635 Feb 06 2013 at 12:31 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,818 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
There's nothing to be confused about. We just ignore your data point and further emphasis mine.

You're an outlier.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#636 Feb 06 2013 at 12:33 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,278 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Clearly sample size is too limited to draw any real conclusions.
No, what we do to get the correct conclusion is to continuously shrink the sample size by eliminating any contradictory data points until it fits with our hypothesis. That's how science works.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#637 Feb 06 2013 at 12:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Clearly sample size is too limited to draw any real conclusions.
No, what we do to get the correct conclusion is to continuously shrink the sample size by eliminating any contradictory data points until it fits with our hypothesis. That's how science works.

Smiley: schooled
____________________________
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
#638 Feb 06 2013 at 12:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,391 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Clearly sample size is too limited to draw any real conclusions.
No, what we do to get the correct conclusion is to continuously shrink the sample size by eliminating any contradictory data points until it fits with our hypothesis. That's how science works.

That's crazy talk, you can't get funding that way. All the money is in big data these days. What you need is to get someone to give you obscene amounts of money so you can spend years creating a ginormous database with so many datapoints it becomes virtually useless. Besides the more people who can find what they want in your data the more citations you get, and easier it is to make money! As long as you keep publishing updates and additions to the dataset grant renewals are a breeze and you're on easy street.


Edited, Feb 6th 2013 10:44am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#639 Feb 06 2013 at 12:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Cook County (where Chicago is) just passed a regulation that failure to report a firearm lost, stolen or sold comes with a $2,000 fine. Something like a third of firearms in Chicago taken by police in investigations originate from gun shops in southern Cook County, outside city limits. A lot of straw purchases followed by "Gee, I guess I lost that gun" when the police come asking about the pistol you bought being used in a shooting.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#640 Feb 06 2013 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,528 posts

Just came across this: http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

People on the NRA's enemy list:
Old people
Unions
Doctors
Nurses
Teachers
Women
Blacks
Mexicans
Catholics
Jews
Protestants including:
-Brethren
-Episcopalians
-Mennonites
-Lutherans
-UCC
-Methodists
and
National Association of Police Organizations
Police Foundation
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#641 Feb 06 2013 at 2:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Those dicks at the National Spinal Cord Injury Association Smiley: glare
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#642 Feb 06 2013 at 2:18 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
trickybeck wrote:

Just came across this: http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

People on the NRA's enemy list:
Old people
Unions
Doctors
Nurses
Teachers
Women
Blacks
Mexicans
Catholics
Jews
Protestants including:
-Brethren
-Episcopalians
-Mennonites
-Lutherans
-UCC
-Methodists
and
National Association of Police Organizations
Police Foundation



You know who's not on there?



Terrorists.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#643 Feb 06 2013 at 2:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,391 posts
Such a long list. Would have been easier just to say 'Democrats' and save your secretary some typing.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#644 Feb 06 2013 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good
******
41,278 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
You know who's not on there?

Terrorists.
It's a list of nothing but terrorists.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#645 Feb 06 2013 at 2:36 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Those dicks at the National Spinal Cord Injury Association Smiley: glare
Not dicks, Joph.

Traitors.Smiley: mad
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#646 Feb 06 2013 at 2:37 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,847 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Those dicks at the National Spinal Cord Injury Association Smiley: glare
Not dicks, Joph.

Commies!Smiley: mad

____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#647 Feb 06 2013 at 4:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Torrence wrote:
Gbaji - how come we still have these shootings now?


That's a strange phrasing. Removing the "still" makes it more accurate. The Gun Free School Zones Act was passed in 1990. It had some constitutional issues and was modified in 1995 to comply with court rulings. It was then adopted in 1996 as federal law. Since 1996, the rate of random style shootings (someone shooting random people on campus rather than going there to specifically shoot one or two people) on school campuses has skyrocketed. It's night and day. The attempt to prevent gangs from bringing guns to schools (or loitering near them) backfired in that it also made schools prime targets for mass shootings.

Quote:
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?


Because we passed a federal law in the mid 90s which makes it illegal for those civilians to be in the vicinity of schools with their weapons, thus making it extremely hard for them to stop these shootings and be big heroes.

Quote:
Your way isn't working.


You've missed what isn't working. What isn't working is the idea that passing a law making it illegal to have a gun in a given location provides any disincentive at all to someone already planning a mass shooting followed by a likely suicide. That person isn't concerned about breaking the law. But anyone who might stop him is. Hence, why it's something that sounds great at first glance, but is actually causing these sorts of large scale mass shootings to occur.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#648 Feb 06 2013 at 4:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Nilatai wrote:
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!

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.


Apples and oranges though. Do you know what the relative violent crime rate would be in Europe if they didn't have such strict gun control? The question isn't whether one part of the world has more or less violence than another, but what effect a specific legal change in a single country would have on that country's violent crime rate. European nations would have lower violent crime rates even if they had the exact same gun laws as in the US because there are a host of socio-economic and geographical factors that are massively more relevant to the rate of violent crime than how easy guns are to obtain.

Correlation is not causation. European nations happen to have stricter gun control laws. But there's no evidence that they enjoy lower violent crime rates because of those laws.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#649 Feb 06 2013 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,700 posts
This just in from Gbaji-land, armed gangs loitering around schools deter school shooters.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#650 Feb 06 2013 at 4:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
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.
gbaji wrote:
Correlation is not causation. European nations happen to have stricter gun control laws. But there's no evidence that they enjoy lower violent crime rates because of those laws.

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Screenshot


Edited, Feb 6th 2013 4:41pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#651 Feb 06 2013 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,391 posts
Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 49 All times are in CDT