Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Ok, this is scaryFollow

#52 Mar 04 2013 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
******
49,745 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
******
35,374 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.


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
******
30,084 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 *****. 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? ***. 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
******
34,933 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
******
30,084 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 *****. 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? ***. 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
******
34,933 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
******
34,933 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
*****
13,369 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
******
34,933 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
*****
13,369 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
******
27,272 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 **** it's about again and starts shouting about ******* 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
*****
13,369 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 **** it's about again and starts shouting about ******* 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
******
34,933 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
******
34,933 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 **** 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
******
49,745 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
******
30,084 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 *****. 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? ***. 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
******
34,933 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
******
34,933 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
******
49,745 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
*****
15,952 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 **** it's about again and starts shouting about ******* 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/
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 73 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (73)