Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Ok, this is scaryFollow

#52 Mar 04 2013 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
******
41,272 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
How did that terrible name make it through the bureaucratic process?
Same people that probably titled "Operation New Dawn."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#53 Mar 04 2013 at 12:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,612 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I don't see how your point is relevant given the context of what you quoted.

Then you need to take a class in basic rhetoric or something, because it couldn't be fucking clearer. In populations full of people who all look the same and live a mile apart, gun violence is less of an issue than it is in a population of different looking people living on top of one another. 10 guns per person in Manhattan leads to more per capita violence than 10 guns per person in Casper (or in this case, Medicine Hat). Not complicated.


Again, completely irrelevant to the comment being made when I made the post. The post I responded to was a crack at the Canadian Military not having any guns and using sticks and stones. At no point, was gun violence ever discussed.

It's not that your comments aren't clear, it's that your comments are irrelevant. Maybe you should start posting in the correct thread.

____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#54 Mar 04 2013 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
It's not that your comments aren't clear, it's that your comments are irrelevant

Yes, like the Canadian military. Glad you got there at long last.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#55 Mar 05 2013 at 4:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I don't see how your point is relevant given the context of what you quoted.

Then you need to take a class in basic rhetoric or something, because it couldn't be fucking clearer. In populations full of people who all look the same and live a mile apart, gun violence is less of an issue than it is in a population of different looking people living on top of one another. 10 guns per person in Manhattan leads to more per capita violence than 10 guns per person in Casper (or in this case, Medicine Hat). Not complicated.


So basically, you're agreeing with the point I've made numerous times in the past about the fallacy of trying to simply compare gun ownership rates to violent crime rates without taking into account geography and population makeup. Shocking!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Mar 06 2013 at 1:56 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
So basically, you're agreeing with the point I've made numerous times in the past about the fallacy of trying to simply compare gun ownership rates to violent crime rates without taking into account geography and population makeup. Shocking!

Sort of. If you draw some sort of conclusion that the US is a homogenous society where gun ownership doesn't contribute to violence, then no. I think the opposite is fairly clearly true if you look at the data without an outcome starting point. However, I'm all for regulating gun ownership based on population density and median income disparity. If a guy in Helena or Presque Isle wants 50 guns, that's fine with me. If a guy in Riverside does, that's an issue.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#57 Mar 07 2013 at 2:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
So basically, you're agreeing with the point I've made numerous times in the past about the fallacy of trying to simply compare gun ownership rates to violent crime rates without taking into account geography and population makeup. Shocking!

Sort of. If you draw some sort of conclusion that the US is a homogenous society where gun ownership doesn't contribute to violence, then no.


But what if the conclusion is that the US is *not* a homogeneous society and it's a society where gun ownership doesn't contribute to violence? Cause you know, complex statement and all that.

Quote:
I think the opposite is fairly clearly true if you look at the data without an outcome starting point. However, I'm all for regulating gun ownership based on population density and median income disparity. If a guy in Helena or Presque Isle wants 50 guns, that's fine with me. If a guy in Riverside does, that's an issue.


Is it? I'd suggest that the relevant difference between Helena or Presque and Riverside is far more about how homogeneous the population is than the density of the population. Obviously, this is hard to determine simply because higher population density and a less homogeneous population tend to go hand and hand. Let's also not forget geography. Not sure how many undocumented folks wander through Presque, but I'm betting it's not very many. There are a host of factors far more relevant to violence than how many guns are owned.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Mar 07 2013 at 3:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Excluded middle and all that. No one is saying that gun ownership is the sole decider (although it's difficult to shoot someone without a gun). But, as previously shown, you can chart 15-20 different nations which are all different from one another and plot a pretty linear path between them suggesting that gun deaths increase as gun ownership increases.

Turning a blind eye to that is pretty foolish. But, as also previously mentioned, I'm willing to suggest that things such as education, social welfare programs, etc play a role as well. But that's not really the answer you want either, is it? Keep looking and you'll find something that fits the GOP party li--- oh, wait. you already said it. It's all those illegal aliens.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 Mar 07 2013 at 3:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Excluded middle and all that. No one is saying that gun ownership is the sole decider (although it's difficult to shoot someone without a gun).


And we're back to that again. It's difficult to stab someone with a gun too. Do we get to arbitrarily restrict the form of violence to suit the argument we're trying to make? Or can we please speak broadly of "violent crime" instead?

Quote:
But, as previously shown, you can chart 15-20 different nations which are all different from one another and plot a pretty linear path between them suggesting that gun deaths increase as gun ownership increases.


But not all nations. And not when we replace "gun deaths" with "homicides". So basically you have no more correlation than the incredibly simplistic fact that if people physically can't get their hands on a given weapon, they'll switch to a different type of weapon to commit their crimes/homicides. Which doesn't tell us anything at all about the overall effect of said specific type of weapon as it relates to crime as a whole.

Quote:
Turning a blind eye to that is pretty foolish.


Ignoring the massive logical flaw in that is even moreso.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Mar 07 2013 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,387 posts
Is this the part where I make some irrelevant analogy to China and link stuff? Just want to make sure I'm doing this deja vu thing right and all.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#61 Mar 07 2013 at 5:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Is this the part where I make some irrelevant analogy to China and link stuff? Just want to make sure I'm doing this deja vu thing right and all.


If your purpose is to just toss irrelevant stuff into the conversation, sure. Knock yourself out.

What makes my point relevant (as opposed to the whole "knife crime in China" bit) is that we were talking about whether gun ownership by itself is a determinant of violent crime (or whatever negative effects you might wish to limit them based on), or whether other factors like population density, population makeup, proximity to a porous border with a country with a very high crime rate (geography), etc are more significant. Smash contrasted two small towns, both with low and relatively homogeneous populations and both located over a thousand miles from said porous border to Riverside, pretty much the opposite on all counts. Smash seemed to suggest that high population combined with gun ownership is "bad", and I argued that other factors might be more significant (If we could magically ensure that zero private citizens could own firearms in Riverside, does anyone really think that crime rates would go down?).

Into this, Joph injected the same tired/flawed bit about focusing on "gun deaths" while ignoring overall crime, violent crime, and homicide statistics. I would hope by now that at least some of you can see how using gun death comparisons between the US and other countries is not a valid way to make the argument that guns should be limited more in the US. That argument is circular.

Edited, Mar 7th 2013 3:20pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Mar 07 2013 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,387 posts
gbaji wrote:
If your purpose is to just toss irrelevant stuff into the conversation, sure. Knock yourself out.


Sorry that's what I thought we were all doing. Smiley: rolleyes

If we really want to just go for it, why don't we just say we don't know what would happen if we banned guns? Because no other place is enough like America to warrant an accurate comparison anyway. We have a fairly unique entrenched gun culture here and there's enough regional diversity to make any extension of data tenuous at best.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#63 Mar 07 2013 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
25,541 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If your purpose is to just toss irrelevant stuff into the conversation, sure. Knock yourself out.


Sorry that's what I thought we were all doing. Smiley: rolleyes
You failed on the part where you pretend it's really super relevant and then engage in a game of yes vs no until everyone's forgotten what the hell it's about again and starts shouting about goddamn commie liberals and greedy money whoring republicans.
____________________________
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.
#64 Mar 07 2013 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,387 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If your purpose is to just toss irrelevant stuff into the conversation, sure. Knock yourself out.


Sorry that's what I thought we were all doing. Smiley: rolleyes
You failed on the part where you pretend it's really super relevant and then engage in a game of yes vs no until everyone's forgotten what the hell it's about again and starts shouting about goddamn commie liberals and greedy money whoring republicans.

When do we get to the part where all the Eurotrash shows up to tell us we suck at running a country?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#65 Mar 07 2013 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
If we really want to just go for it, why don't we just say we don't know what would happen if we banned guns? Because no other place is enough like America to warrant an accurate comparison anyway. We have a fairly unique entrenched gun culture here and there's enough regional diversity to make any extension of data tenuous at best.


I've already made that argument, and followed it up with "since we don't know what would happen, we shouldn't do it because we have the 2nd amendment, so maybe we shouldn't violate it on the off chance something good will come of it". So yeah. I'm fine with that. We don't know what will happen. No stats from other countries, which are *cough*different*cough*, will tell us what will happen in terms of violence and crime rates in the US if we tighten our gun control laws. Therefore, we should err on the side of *not* violating the 2nd amendment to our constitution.

Good enough? I thought so when I made that argument like a month or so ago.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#66 Mar 07 2013 at 5:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
Quote:
Therefore, we should err on the side of *not* violating the 2nd amendment to our constitution.


So allow things to continue as they are. You know mass shootings and whatnot? Going to then say "should have made laws, but since we didn't you know its accepting mass shootings as common place."?

Quote:
Good enough?


Edited, Mar 7th 2013 6:55pm by Zymunn
#67 Mar 07 2013 at 6:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
Therefore, we should err on the side of *not* violating the 2nd amendment to our constitution.


So allow things to continue as they are. You know mass shootings and whatnot?


Or... Wait for it... How about we look at options that don't involve infringement of the 2nd amendment? Where the hell does the whole "we either limit gun ownership or we can do nothing!!!" come from? Can't you see how starting with the assumption that the only way to reduce the number and severity of mass shootings is with more gun control is both stupid and incredibly limiting? You aren't even considering other options.


Quote:
Going to then say "should have made laws, but since we didn't you know its accepting mass shootings as common place."?


And yet, at the risk of tossing out statistics myself, the rate and severity of mass shootings has gotten worse as we've passed more restrictive gun control in the US, not better. Specifically, mass/random school shootings have skyrocketed since the passing of the "safe school gun free zone" law. Perhaps the correct solution is to undo bad laws we've already passed rather than lumping more bad laws on top of them?


The question I'm trying to get people to think about is whether the actions they're proposing (or supporting) are aimed at restricting gun ownership or aimed at preventing mass shootings? I would hope the latter would be true, but it really seems like for many people, they just start with the assumption that doing the first is the same as doing the second and they never stop and think that said assumption might just be wrong. I'm asking people to challenge that assumption.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Mar 07 2013 at 6:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
Quote:
Or... Wait for it... How about we look at options that don't involve infringement of the 2nd amendment?


You asked others to provide something, and I don't follow all the threads, so if you have provided ideas to not infringe on the 2nd amendment and have better gun control. Link it.
#69 Mar 07 2013 at 6:30 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,272 posts
Oh boy, he's going to suggest NICS again.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#70 Mar 07 2013 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But not all nations. And not when we replace "gun deaths" with "homicides".

No, but the nations most like the US. And since you wet yourself screaming about how DARE we compare ANY nation to the United States, this should make you happy that we're narrowing it to nations closest to the US in economic development and government. Except that then you get data that doesn't support the conclusions you wanted so... "Wait! We need ALL nations!"

And I already did a raw homicide comparison in the other thread. The US didn't come out too well in that one either.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Mar 07 2013 at 8:27 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
But what if the conclusion is that the US is *not* a homogeneous society and it's a society where gun ownership doesn't contribute to violence?

That'd be great. Unfortunately no data, at all, indicates that in any way.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#72 Mar 07 2013 at 9:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
Or... Wait for it... How about we look at options that don't involve infringement of the 2nd amendment?


You asked others to provide something, and I don't follow all the threads, so if you have provided ideas to not infringe on the 2nd amendment and have better gun control.


No, I haven't, because I'm not arguing for "better gun control". It's interesting that you translated my statements in this thread into that though. It's the exact sort of assumption I mentioned in the other thread, in fact.

What I'm arguing for is ways to reduce violent crime, homicides, and even mass shootings *without* implementing more restrictions on gun ownership. And yes, I've listed numerous methods to accomplish this in past threads. Enforce the laws that already exist. Make concealed carry easier to obtain, not harder. Repeal "gun free zone" legislation. Stop treating merely owning a firearm as some kind of social disease that must be treated and start educating people on the proper and safe way to own and use firearms.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Mar 07 2013 at 9:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But not all nations. And not when we replace "gun deaths" with "homicides".

No, but the nations most like the US.


Only when you ignore geography. Exactly how many of those nations "most like the US" share a long and porous border with a nation with a 22/100k homicide rate? None you say? Those nations are not exactly like the US then.

Quote:
And since you wet yourself screaming about how DARE we compare ANY nation to the United States, this should make you happy that we're narrowing it to nations closest to the US in economic development and government.


And every single time you trot this out, I point out that geography has a massive effect on homicide rates within a country. I'll once again point out the lists of countries by homicide rate and guns per-capita. There is close to zero correlation between the two. What is quite obvious? Homicide rates tend to group together by geographical proximity. Obviously, factors like ease of movement between nations modify this, but as a general rule, if your country borders another country with a high homicide rate, you'll have a higher homicide rate than another neighbor which doesn't.

But hey! Ignore data in favor of rhetoric if you want.

Quote:
Except that then you get data that doesn't support the conclusions you wanted so... "Wait! We need ALL nations!"


Which is strange given that you're the one cherry picking data. You're intentionally restricting your data set to just those that support your point, while ignoring all the other data out there that doesn't. So in your world, there's some magical thing that happens in just advanced/developed nations which makes their citizens kill each other based on whether they have access to guns, but in the entire rest of the world, there's not only no correlation at all, but most have a reverse correlation (lower gun ownership often results in high homicide rates).

That's a strange assumption to make, let alone use to justify such a cherry picking of the data. It makes far more sense to assume that developed European nations have lower homicide rates because they are relatively distant (and isolated) from nations with high homicide rates and it's sheer coincidence that they almost all happen to have adopted relatively strict gun control laws. There's no evidence to tell us what would happen if tomorrow every European nation adopted less stringent gun control like in the US. Do you honestly think they'd all just lose their minds and go on killing sprees because they could more easily buy guns? That's pretty silly.

Similarly, there is more or less zero reason to think that making gun laws more strict in the US would have any positive effect on violent crime or homicide. I mean, there's lots of arguments by people who assume it would, but not actual solid evidence to support those arguments. People don't kill because they have a gun. They kill (or commit other crimes) for a host of different reasons. Having a gun may make some crimes easier to commit, or may be a weapon of choice, but the idea that someone is going to choose to kill or not kill based on access to a gun is also incredibly silly. Why would you think that? Yet, that's essentially what your argument rests on.

Quote:
And I already did a raw homicide comparison in the other thread. The US didn't come out too well in that one either.


And you also ignored the geographical factors, despite me pointing it out to you repeatedly. I'm not sure how many times I can do the equivalent of pointing to the answer right there in the book before it'll sink in here Joph. I also pointed out that when you index gun ownership rates and homicide rates, the US actually comes out quite well compared to many European nations. Certainly, it's not off the charts in any real way. Folks in the UK actually commit homicides at a higher rate relative to the rate of guns they have access to than folks in the US (I think that's the nation I used in my comparison, don't feel like re-doing the math right atm). Point being that this is strong evidence that there's no correlation at all between gun ownership rates and homicide rates. If there was (as I pointed out about the graph you linked earlier), we'd see all the nations fall more or less in a line. We don't. They're all along widely divergent slopes, indicating no correlation.

But I guess data analysis is not your strong suite.

Edited, Mar 7th 2013 7:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Mar 07 2013 at 9:36 PM Rating: Good
******
41,272 posts
gbaji wrote:
Only when you ignore geography. Exactly how many of those nations "most like the US" share a long and porous border with a nation with a 22/100k homicide rate? None you say?
Only if you ignore that the areas in our country that are the most dangerous aren't actually near that border.
gbaji wrote:
But hey! Ignore data in favor of rhetoric if you want.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#75 Mar 07 2013 at 9:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Those nations are not exactly like the US then.

No one made that claim. In fact, I said exactly how they were comparable to the US. I guess it's easier for you to argue when you just make up things no one said and argue against them instead.

Quote:
And every single time you trot this out...

You scramble to start trying to compare the US to Zimbabwe and Columbia because comparisons to developed democratic nations make your argument look weak and foolish. I know.

Quote:
Which is strange given that you're the one cherry picking data.

No, "cherry picking" would be selecting only nations that work for me by no basis except "these work best for me". Instead, I'm using a neutral standard and showing the results while you wave your arms around and say "What about Cuba! Nigeria!?!?!"

Quote:
And you also ignored the geographical factors

Ah, yes... the magic geographic factors. The ones that apparently matter far, far FAR more than anything else because... HEY! No other country is geographically identical to the US so we can ignore every single bit of data while we stomp our feet and pout and say "Geography!!" over and over again.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Mar 07 2013 at 9:58 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If your purpose is to just toss irrelevant stuff into the conversation, sure. Knock yourself out.


Sorry that's what I thought we were all doing. Smiley: rolleyes
You failed on the part where you pretend it's really super relevant and then engage in a game of yes vs no until everyone's forgotten what the hell it's about again and starts shouting about goddamn commie liberals and greedy money whoring republicans.

When do we get to the part where all the Eurotrash shows up to tell us we suck at running a country?

Sorry I'm late. Different time-zone...

Edit: You Suck.

Edited, Mar 7th 2013 11:02pm by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#77 Mar 08 2013 at 5:33 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,699 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If your purpose is to just toss irrelevant stuff into the conversation, sure. Knock yourself out.


Sorry that's what I thought we were all doing. Smiley: rolleyes
You failed on the part where you pretend it's really super relevant and then engage in a game of yes vs no until everyone's forgotten what the hell it's about again and starts shouting about goddamn commie liberals and greedy money whoring republicans.

When do we get to the part where all the Eurotrash shows up to tell us we suck at running a country?

Sorry I'm late. Different time-zone...

Edit: You Suck.

Edited, Mar 7th 2013 11:02pm by Aripyanfar


You're not Eutotrash, Euroga(o)l !

Edited, Mar 8th 2013 6:37am by Timelordwho
____________________________
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."
#78 Mar 08 2013 at 6:33 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
But you must admit I've got the whole telling you you suck at running a country down pat. Ad nauseum. Smiley: grin

Sorry for dissing your team so much, babe.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#79 Mar 08 2013 at 7:05 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,612 posts
I figured it was so obvious at this point, that it no longer needed to be pointed out to them.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#80 Mar 08 2013 at 9:16 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,244 posts
Wait...you don't know?
#81 Mar 08 2013 at 2:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
Quote:
No, I haven't, because I'm not arguing for "better gun control"


So you want worse control? Make it easier for these "bad" people to get guns and shoot up others?

Quote:
Enforce the laws that already exist


It's America, you want us to acctually work.... Are you sure you're from this country?

Quote:
Make concealed carry easier to obtain, not harder.


How is that suppose to make things safer for the general public? A person wants to shoot up people so you want to make it easy for that person to conceal carry?
#82 Mar 08 2013 at 2:40 PM Rating: Good
******
41,272 posts
That was a funny argument. He tried to pass off CC as being a key factor in stopping mass shootings, and managed to actually prove it was luck.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#83 Mar 08 2013 at 3:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Those nations are not exactly like the US then.

No one made that claim. In fact, I said exactly how they were comparable to the US.


Sure. But the fact that bagels are comparable to doughnuts isn't terribly relevant when on the subject of frosting.

Quote:
Quote:
Which is strange given that you're the one cherry picking data.

No, "cherry picking" would be selecting only nations that work for me by no basis except "these work best for me".


Um... That's precisely what you're doing though.

Quote:
Instead, I'm using a neutral standard and showing the results while you wave your arms around and say "What about Cuba! Nigeria!?!?!"


Or, what about say Russia, Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania, or Moldova? All developed European nations. All with homicide rates equal or higher than the US. All with gun ownership rates vastly lower than the US. Hell, those countries tend to have lower gun ownership rates lower than most of the other nations in Europe which have much lower homicide rates.

How much data do you need before you concede that there's no strong correlation between gun ownership rates in a country and that countries homicide rate. That claim isn't even supported among the data you choose to use (unless you compare some average of "all Europe" to "The US"). Among other developed nations, there's no correlation. Some nations have less gun ownership and higher homicide rates. Some have higher gun ownership and lower homicide rates. Some are higher and higher. Some are lower and lower. There is no pattern at all.

But yet, you continue this bizarre argument, apparently purely because you want it to be true.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 Mar 08 2013 at 3:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The difference is that I'm using a set of developed nations created independently (for another body) and you're combing the sheets trying to find countries that support your end goal and declaring them "developed" and insisting I include them. "Ohh! Moldava! This one is good! Hey, how come you didn't include Moldova!!"

But I'm the one cherry-picking Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 Mar 08 2013 at 4:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
No, I haven't, because I'm not arguing for "better gun control"


So you want worse control?


Let's change the term to "more stringent gun control" then, since "better" and "worse" are subjective. What I'm saying is that I don't think making it harder for everyone to own a gun or to obtain a concealed carry permit is the right approach. Similarly, I don't think that restrictions based on size of magazines, or various cosmetic features is the right approach. Whether we call those "better" or "worse" is really beside the point. They are attempts to solve the problem at hand by passing *more* controls on gunn ownership.

Quote:
Make it easier for these "bad" people to get guns and shoot up others?


No. But what I don't want is to make it harder for everyone to get guns. The problem isn't with the intent as you frame it, but with the method. As I mentioned earlier we *could* prevent "bad people" from committing crime by locking everyone in jail, but that would be unfair to everyone who hasn't committed a crime, right? For better or worse, our legal system rightly waits until someone commits a crime before punishing them for precisely the reason that it's unreasonable and unfair to restrict the freedom of everyone simply because some people will abuse those freedoms and do something "bad".

Gun ownership should not be treated any differently. For that reason, I reject solutions which require placing restrictions on everyone so as to also restrict those who might abuse the freedom of owning a gun. As I've said, we need to look at other ways of doing this.

Quote:
Quote:
Enforce the laws that already exist


It's America, you want us to acctually work.... Are you sure you're from this country?


/shrug. Laugh it off if you want, but there are a whole lot of protections in place that aren't being used, or haven't been implemented, or coordinated sufficiently.

Quote:
Quote:
Make concealed carry easier to obtain, not harder.


How is that suppose to make things safer for the general public? A person wants to shoot up people so you want to make it easy for that person to conceal carry?


Um... Do you really think the guy who's planning on shooting a bunch of people in a crowded public place is going to worry about violating the laws about carrying a concealed weapon? Making it harder for him to get a permit (or making it impossible for anyone to) doesn't prevent him from concealing his weapons. It just makes it illegal for him to do so. Um... Shooting and killing a crowd of people is more illegal, so that's never going to deter him.

Who it does deter is everyone else in the crowd who might be able to stop him before he kills a bunch of people. Do you understand that laws do not prevent criminals from committing crimes? They only punish them after the fact. Your argument is completely laughable. He's already planning on committing mass murder. Do you really think he's worried about an administrative fine? LOL!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Mar 08 2013 at 4:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,387 posts
gbaji wrote:

Um... Do you really think the guy who's planning on shooting a bunch of people in a crowded public place is going to worry about violating the laws about carrying a concealed weapon? Making it harder for him to get a permit (or making it impossible for anyone to) doesn't prevent him from concealing his weapons. It just makes it illegal for him to do so. Um... Shooting and killing a crowd of people is more illegal, so that's never going to deter him.


I didn't think it was so much of a punishment argument. IIRC, the thought was more along the lines of getting past some sort of security. So instead of the policeman stopping you at the gate, you could take the gun into the crowded stadium and go on a killing spree or something.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#87 Mar 08 2013 at 5:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The difference is that I'm using a set of developed nations created independently (for another body) and you're combing the sheets trying to find countries that support your end goal and declaring them "developed" and insisting I include them.


No. I'm looking at the full set of European nations.

Quote:
"Ohh! Moldava! This one is good! Hey, how come you didn't include Moldova!!"


Why not Moldova? Why not Estonia? Why not Lithuania? Why not Russia?

Quote:
But I'm the one cherry-picking Smiley: laugh


Yes, you are. You can laugh all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you are the one cherry picking your data set. You're ignoring the whole world except for a select few European nations (and one or two Asian nations maybe) that happen to fit the conditions you're trying to prove.

Here's the problem, even within the set you're looking at, your argument doesn't hold water. Your claim is that among developed nations increased access to guns is associated with an increase in homicide rate. Yet, when we look at the data for private gun ownership rates and homicide rates, there is no correlation. This list is sorted by gun ownership rate. If your assumption is correct, the homicide rate should generally increase as the homicide rate does. But it doesn't:

 
NAME                    Guns/100    Homicide/100k 
Lithuania               .7          6.6 
Romania                 .7          2.0 
Poland                  1.3         1.1 
Netherlands             3.9         1.1 
Hungary                 5.5         1.3 
Bulgaria                6.2         2.0 
Ukraine                 6.6         5.2 
Moldova                 7.1         7.5 
Belarus                 7.3         4.9 
Georgia                 7.3         4.3 
Slovakia                8.3         1.5 
Portugal                8.5         1.2 
Albania                 8.6         4.0 
Ireland                 8.6         1.2 
Russia                  8.9         10.2 
Estonia                 9.2         5.2 
Spain                   10.4        0.8 
Italy                   11.9        0.9 
Malta                   11.9        1.0 
Denmark                 12          0.9 
Slovenia                13.5        0.7 
Luxembourg              15.3        2.5 
Czech_Republic          16.3        1.7 
Belgium                 17.2        1.7 
Bosnia_and_Herzegovina  17.3        1.5 
Latvia                  19          3.1 
Croatia                 21.7        1.4 
Greece                  22.5        1.5 
Montenegro              23.1        3.5 
Macedonia               24.1        1.9 
Germany                 30.3        0.8 
Iceland                 30.3        0.3 
Austria                 30.4        0.6 
France                  31.2        1.1 
Norway                  31.3        0.6 
Sweden                  31.6        1.0 
Serbia                  37.8        1.2 
Finland                 45.3        2.2 
Switzerland             45.7        0.7 



There's no correlation. Even if we limit this to Eurozone rather than all European nations, there's no clear pattern to be seen:

 
NAME                    Guns/100    Homicide/100k 
Netherlands             3.9         1.1 
Slovakia                8.3         1.5 
Portugal                8.5         1.2 
Ireland                 8.6         1.2 
Estonia                 9.2         5.2 
Spain                   10.4        0.8 
Italy                   11.9        0.9 
Malta                   11.9        1.0 
Slovenia                13.5        0.7 
Luxembourg              15.3        2.5 
Belgium                 17.2        1.7 
Greece                  22.5        1.5 
Germany                 30.3        0.8 
Austria                 30.4        0.6 
France                  31.2        1.1 
Finland                 45.3        2.2 


Again. No correlation. You simply cannot rationally claim that even among "developed European nations" there's a correlation between gun ownership rate and homicide rate. It simply does not exist.

The data does not lie. Look at it your own damn self. Private gun ownership has nothing to do with homicide rate. Zero. Zip. Nada. It's a myth that gun control advocates have invented to get people to accept and support their agenda. But it's simply not true. Again, the facts are right in front of you.

Edited, Mar 8th 2013 3:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Mar 08 2013 at 5:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Um... Do you really think the guy who's planning on shooting a bunch of people in a crowded public place is going to worry about violating the laws about carrying a concealed weapon? Making it harder for him to get a permit (or making it impossible for anyone to) doesn't prevent him from concealing his weapons. It just makes it illegal for him to do so. Um... Shooting and killing a crowd of people is more illegal, so that's never going to deter him.


I didn't think it was so much of a punishment argument. IIRC, the thought was more along the lines of getting past some sort of security. So instead of the policeman stopping you at the gate, you could take the gun into the crowded stadium and go on a killing spree or something.


What policeman? What gate? Crowded stadium? When has there been a mass shooting in a stadium? We have security at stadiums Joph. We don't have them checking everyone who walks onto a school, or in a park, or in a shopping mall, or a fast food restaurant, or just a busy street corner. Are you proposing we turn ourselves into a police state, with checkpoints every block in order to pat everyone down to make sure they're not carrying an illegal weapon? Perhaps we'll make it illegal to congregate into groups so as to reduce the likelihood of being targeted? Hell. Let's divide our cities into zones, and require papers and authorization to move into an area you aren't supposed to be. I mean, while we at it, why not?

Seriously? You'd rather go the path of greater police power and authority over our lives instead of giving people greater freedom to defend themselves and their neighbors? That's insane. How irrationally afraid of guns do you have to be to allow this or even think this? Crazy!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Mar 08 2013 at 5:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,387 posts
Smiley: dubious

Relax dude, it was just an example. You can choose another if that helps. If you were going to write a wall of text figured you might actually want to address a concern left-leaning people have. As a rule of thumb though, I'd say there's probably lots of people who would trust a police officer with a gun over a stranger with a gun.

I know, I know big government. I should be ashamed of myself for saying that... Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#90 Mar 08 2013 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
******
41,272 posts
gbaji wrote:
You'd rather go the path of greater police power and authority over our lives instead of giving people greater freedom to defend themselves and their neighbors?
I just want to point out that of the last ten mass shootings in the United States, six of them were in Shall Issue Permit states, two were California so "three" were May Issue, and one was in a state that doesn't even require permits to carry concealed. Maybe if they were actually defending themselves you might have a point.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#91 Mar 08 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The data does not lie.

I know. Which is why you have to scramble to confuse it as much as possible with as much noise as possible. "Wait! We need... umm.. Moldova! Russia! Wait! Let me check my list and I have more!..."

I gave a simple set of nations based off an independent rationale and which includes nations most like the US in development, stability and governance. I understand that you need to try to cast as wide a net as possible to try and confuse that data set. I get it. I get why you're doing it. I'm not really interested in saying it over and over again so if you want to comfort yourself with Moldova, knock yourself out.

"You're right, Gbaji! No correlation there at all!"

There, now you can sleep tonight. Also, your second chart is all fucked up with the columns reversed. So the nation with the actual lowest gun ownership (Netherlands at 3.9) does not have remotely near the second highest homicide rate (1.1 per 100k, which would make it #9 on your list). Just FYI, Data Master Smiley: laugh

gbaji wrote:
We have security at stadiums Joph.

Smiley: confused

...that's nice?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Mar 08 2013 at 6:09 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
someproteinguy wrote:

Relax dude, it was just an example. You can choose another if that helps.


An example of a guy planning a shooting spree changing his mind because it was illegal for him to carry his weapons concealed? There are no examples of that happening. Which is why it's a silly claim to make.

Quote:
If you were going to write a wall of text figured you might actually want to address a concern left-leaning people have.


It's a completely irrational concern though. And I did address it. I said it's silly because no one who's planning a mass shooting is going to be deterred because it's illegal to carry his weapons concealed. The only people deterred by such things are people who *aren't* planning to do anything illegal with their guns.

Quote:
As a rule of thumb though, I'd say there's probably lots of people who would trust a police officer with a gun over a stranger with a gun.


Sure. But that's not the point here. I'd trust a police (patrol) officer with a car over a stranger too. But that doesn't mean I'd support making it illegal for anyone but trained police pursuit drivers to drive cars on public streets. That's just not a good enough argument IMO. Part of living in a free society is the risk that someone might harm you while enjoying their freedom. A kid might run into your with his skateboard or bike. You might get beaned in the head with a baseball while enjoying a local park. You can get hit by a car that jumps the curb. The point is that we don't outlaw any behavior that *might* result in you getting hurt, or we'll end out with no freedom at all. There has to be a balance and strong consideration of the impact to liberty when even considering such sorts of restrictions and regulations.


Allowing concealed weapons is only really dangerous if we assume the person with the concealed weapon deliberately decides to shoot someone. The odds of an accidental shooting from someone carrying a concealed firearm is about as close to zero as you can get. I'm sure it's happened, but when compared to your odds of getting hit by a car, or having a meteor fall on you or something, you're really quite safe. And the intentional thing is pretty silly. Again, the guy who's going out to commit a crime with his gun isn't going to bother with getting a concealed permit. He's just going to carry his gun illegally. He's the one you should be worried about. The people who go and get their permits are far less likely to harm you than the average person on the street because they have a lot more to lose if they do so.

It's an irrational fear. Restricting concealed carry to an extreme degree does nothing to protect you from being attacked on the street (via firearm or otherwise). I guess I just really don't get why anyone would think that loosening restrictions on CC would somehow make it easier for a mass/random shooting to occur. That makes no sense at all. If anything, it'll reduce the likelihood of such things because there is a greater chance that someone else might be in the area to interfere with a shooting. A total ban on concealed weapons means that the criminal who's carrying illegally anyway is almost certainly the only person in the area with a gun. Is that really what you want?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Mar 08 2013 at 6:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I gave a simple set of nations based off an independent rationale and which includes nations most like the US in development, stability and governance.


And there was no correlation among that set. I'm just trying to get you to understand this.

Tell you what. Go list the nations in the set you want to look at and compare to the US, and we'll compare them internally and see if there's any pattern with regard to gun ownership rate and homicide rate. There wont be, but apparently you're unwilling to admit this unless (and even when) there's data right in front of you.

Give me the set. I'll generate a list for you and we'll see if there's a pattern. You're free to do the work yourself, but I doubt you will, and if you do, you wont post it (cause it proves you wrong).


There is no correlation (much less causation) between gun ownership rate and homicide. Period. This is not speculation, it's a fact.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#94 Mar 08 2013 at 6:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I did data crunching earlier in the other thread. You should probably go re-read it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 Mar 08 2013 at 6:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,387 posts
gbaji wrote:

An example of a guy planning a shooting spree changing his mind because it was illegal for him to carry his weapons concealed? There are no examples of that happening. Which is why it's a silly claim to make.

I don't think anyone's making that claim, or has that fear. It's more along the lines of having a permit opens up more opportunity to do greater harm. Like you've said before a shooting is likely reaching a climax when the shooter is confronted by someone else with a gun. Now does that happen on a perimeter when a security guard notices the guy has a weapon, or can he bypass that security a hit the soft target it's protecting before someone can respond?

I dunno, needless worry perhaps? Maybe, but that doesn't make it go away.

gbaji wrote:
A total ban on concealed weapons means that the criminal who's carrying illegally anyway is almost certainly the only person in the area with a gun. Is that really what you want?

Personally I could care less either way.

If I was really pushed I'd like to see more effort spent tracking the guns we have (think better enforcement of existing laws, and better sharing of information between different areas), but it's no skin off my back if it doesn't happen. Mostly I just think it's fun watching the knee-jerk reaction from the left set off the paranoia on the right.

Popcorn material my friend, popcorn material.

Smiley: popcorn
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#96 Mar 08 2013 at 6:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
And yes, I dorked up the columns initially and changed them (before I'd seen your response btw). Interestingly enough, the lack of correlation is much easier to see when you sort by homicide rate rather than gun ownership rate because the gun ownership rate differences are much more stark and thus stick out. In the Eurozone, for instance, we get something like this:

 
NAME                    Guns/100    Homicide/100k 
Austria                 30.4        0.6 
Slovenia                13.5        0.7 
Germany                 30.3        0.8 
Spain                   10.4        0.8 
Italy                   11.9        0.9 
Malta                   11.9        1.0 
France                  31.2        1.1 
Netherlands             3.9         1.1 
Ireland                 8.6         1.2 
Portugal                8.5         1.2 
Greece                  22.5        1.5 
Slovakia                8.3         1.5 
Belgium                 17.2        1.7 
Finland                 45.3        2.2 
Luxembourg              15.3        2.5 
Estonia                 9.2         5.2 


High gun ownership rates are all over the list. The second highest gun ownership rate results in the lowest homicide rate. The second lowest gun ownership rate has the highest homicide rate. Of the 5 nations which have single digit gun ownership rates, 4 of them are in the highest half in terms of homicide rate. Again, there's just no correlation.

But by all means, you come up with a list of nations that have some magical socio-economic correlation to the US, and I'll be more than happy to show you that there's no correlation among them between their gun ownership rates and homicide rates. It just doesn't exist. As I said earlier, it's a myth.

Edited, Mar 8th 2013 4:30pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#97 Mar 08 2013 at 6:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I did data crunching earlier in the other thread. You should probably go re-read it.


Lol. Averaging all of Europe and comparing it to the US isn't a fair comparison. You're arguing for a correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates. If that argument is true, then we should see that correlation within any set of (similar) nations we look at. Your "data crunching" is meaningless since it doesn't actually test the claim you are making. If the US has a higher homicide rate *because* it has a higher gun ownership rate, then the same trend needs to be present when comparing any nation you are claiming to be otherwise similar. You test this by doing what I just did. You look at the set and you see if there's a pattern.


But there isn't. Therefore, we can discount high gun ownership rate in the US as the cause of a higher homicide rate in the US.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#98 Mar 08 2013 at 6:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
Make concealed carry easier to obtain, not harder.


How is that suppose to make things safer for the general public? A person wants to shoot up people so you want to make it easy for that person to conceal carry?


someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:

An example of a guy planning a shooting spree changing his mind because it was illegal for him to carry his weapons concealed? There are no examples of that happening. Which is why it's a silly claim to make.

I don't think anyone's making that claim, or has that fear.


You don't think? Smiley: rolleyes

It was exactly that claim to which I was responding.

Quote:
It's more along the lines of having a permit opens up more opportunity to do greater harm.


How? It's easy to claim this, but I want you to back it up with more than vague fears you've been taught to have.

Quote:
Like you've said before a shooting is likely reaching a climax when the shooter is confronted by someone else with a gun. Now does that happen on a perimeter when a security guard notices the guy has a weapon, or can he bypass that security a hit the soft target it's protecting before someone can respond?


The issue of security perimeters was not part of the initial claim. I'll again point out that someone planning to shoot a bunch of people is unlikely to have or obtain a concealed weapon permit first. Additionally, he'll pick a location where there isn't security searching people to commit his crime. So our options are to make all places subject to security searches *or* acknowledge that this is a really stupid direction to go and decide to let people who can prove they're not criminals to carry guns around.

Quote:
I dunno, needless worry perhaps? Maybe, but that doesn't make it go away.


Which is pretty much the definition of an irrational fear.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
A total ban on concealed weapons means that the criminal who's carrying illegally anyway is almost certainly the only person in the area with a gun. Is that really what you want?

Personally I could care less either way.


I suspect if you were in such a situation, you'd care a lot whether the shooter was the only armed person in the area or not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 Mar 08 2013 at 6:47 PM Rating: Good
Maybe I missed this in an earlier post/thread, but:

For the record, gbaji, are you a gun owner and if so, do you have a CC permit?
____________________________
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.
#100 Mar 08 2013 at 6:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Maybe I missed this in an earlier post/thread, but:

For the record, gbaji, are you a gun owner and if so, do you have a CC permit?


Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. Why would that matter? The data I'm looking at pretty clearly and objectively disproves the claim that high gun ownership causes higher homicide rates (among otherwise similar nations). That data is the same regardless of what my status is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 Mar 08 2013 at 7:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,387 posts
gbaji wrote:
It was exactly that claim to which I was responding.

Fair enough.
gbaji wrote:
How? It's easy to claim this, but I want you to back it up with more than vague fears you've been taught to have.

*shrugs*
I'm just building strawmen here to noodle out your thought process. Not really trying to convince you of anything so much as am just curious to how the right-wing of the country views these issues. It's hard to get a good handle on that information if you don't make arguments and ask questions.
gbaji wrote:
I suspect if you were in such a situation, you'd care a lot whether the shooter was the only armed person in the area or not.

Except in all likelihood I'll never be in this situation, none of us will. If I am, I doubt I'll even know how many people have guns, just that I want to get myself and my family as far away as I can as fast as possible. I imagine beyond that everything else will be a blur.

You can't spend your life worrying about things that have such a small percentage chance of happening. Or you can, but I think you should be wearing a shiny hat at that point. Smiley: wink

Smiley: tinfoilhat

Edited, Mar 8th 2013 5:05pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 44 All times are in CDT
BonYogi, Debalic, Demea, Nobby, Anonymous Guests (40)