It's bad logic all right. Too bad I'd probably have to explain why.
No, no, don't ruin it. Gbaji never gets math wrong, ask Allegory...but not Mitt Romney, obviously, he doesn't have time for the likes of you.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- If only anyone in the Navy had a gun...
If only anyone in the Navy had a gun...Follow
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
I can name a lot of contractors who own guns who didn't commit mass murder though. If there was a 100% overlap between them, then 100% of all contractors with guns would commit mass murder. But that's not the case, right?
Similarly (and I thought this wasn't so hard to figure out), while 100% of mass shooters also ate food within a few days of committing their crimes, 100% of people who've eaten food within a few days do not commit mass shootings. See how that works? It's bad logic. Hopefully, I don't have to explain why.
Weird, the 8 year old got it right away. You still don't see the problem? Hard to fathom.
Similarly (and I thought this wasn't so hard to figure out), while 100% of mass shooters also ate food within a few days of committing their crimes, 100% of people who've eaten food within a few days do not commit mass shootings. See how that works? It's bad logic. Hopefully, I don't have to explain why.
Weird, the 8 year old got it right away. You still don't see the problem? Hard to fathom.
I see the problem Smash. I'm using these examples to illustrate the problem with your own logic. Again, it's your logic that's flawed. I'm just using the same logic with a different example in order to help you see it more clearly. Because apparently, you have a blind spot for grossly incorrect logic when that logic supports a position you hold.
To be more clear: Do you understand that the fact that 100% of setA exists within setB does not tell us anything about a potential causative relationship between setB and setA. All dogs are mammals, but we don't argue that all mammals should be kept on a leash when in public, do we? Do you see where your argument fails?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I see the problem Smash. I'm using these examples to illustrate the problem with your own logic.
I've asserted this numerous times, but let me do so once again. It's pretty much never the case that I don't understand what you're trying to do. When I point out you've failed at it, it's certainly possible I'm mistaken. It's largely impossible I misunderstood.
That said, Hannah happened by, read your post, and asked about it. I explained it to her and she said "but that doesn't make sense because..." after understanding the two cases. Honestly. She's off in the other room playing Skyrim now so I'm not going to pull her away to see what clued her in. It's ok if you don't get it. If I explained it to you, you'd make up some arbitrary thing you left out of your post that was "obvious" to attempt to qualify it. Not interested. Let's just say you're right. The kid just asked me to play Borderlands, so I'm going to do that because, honestly, her killing psychotic midgets is more important to me than your continuing remedial rhetoric lessons. Have a good night.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I hope you're at least setting her up with Borderlands 2.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Smasharoo wrote:
That said, Hannah happened by, read your post, and asked about it. I explained it to her and she said "but that doesn't make sense because..."
Because why Smash? Why don't you just finish the sentence if you're so sure that you and an 8 year old have determined at a glance that I'm wrong and you're right. It was funny the first couple times you pulled the "8 year old kid can see why you're wrong" bit, but when that becomes a replacement for making any sort of argument at all, it's not funny anymore. It's you not wanting or being able to actually explain why anyone should think you're correct. You just hope that if you make a joke about it, people wont realize that you are basically hiding behind a child so as not to have to support what you're saying.
I accept that an 8 year old will just say "because" and think that's a good argument. But aren't you a bit older? I'd hope by now you'd have learned to use your words and be able to express yourself. So. Is there anything following "because" in your argument? Or is that all there is?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
.
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
The scale is off on that though. The mass murders circle should be a nearly impossible to see dot.
Which is kinda the point. Smash made a point of mentioning a correlation between a very large group of people and an incredibly tiny sub set of that group. Sure. There's a correlation, but an incredibly insignificant one. So what's the point of bringing it up? It is precisely as useless as the one I countered with (food eating contractors). Currently, about 1 in 3 households in the US has a gun. If we assume that employees of government contracted companies are typical with regard to this statistic (and there's no reason to assume they aren't), then we can assume that 1 in 3 of those employees has direct access to a firearm. The ratio between gun owning employees and "food eating" employees is relatively small (1/3), while the ratio between either of those and "mass shooting" employees is massive (like 1/10,000,000).
Smash was barking up the wrong tree. Looking at the wrong side of the equation. Whatever. There are a number of factors which correlate far better to mass shooters than mere gun ownership. Perhaps we should be looking at those instead?
Which is kinda the point. Smash made a point of mentioning a correlation between a very large group of people and an incredibly tiny sub set of that group. Sure. There's a correlation, but an incredibly insignificant one. So what's the point of bringing it up? It is precisely as useless as the one I countered with (food eating contractors). Currently, about 1 in 3 households in the US has a gun. If we assume that employees of government contracted companies are typical with regard to this statistic (and there's no reason to assume they aren't), then we can assume that 1 in 3 of those employees has direct access to a firearm. The ratio between gun owning employees and "food eating" employees is relatively small (1/3), while the ratio between either of those and "mass shooting" employees is massive (like 1/10,000,000).
Smash was barking up the wrong tree. Looking at the wrong side of the equation. Whatever. There are a number of factors which correlate far better to mass shooters than mere gun ownership. Perhaps we should be looking at those instead?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
[A crazy obsessive person is going to find a way to accomplish their goals one way or another. Should we ban propane tanks and gasolene? Maybe we should ban aluminum so no one can file it into aluminum powder? Of ban fuel oil because someone could make a bomb out of it. Maybe ban containers with lids, or clocks that could be used as detonators?
Terrible, lazy argument. Might as well say "They're going to kill someone anyway if they really want to so why not sell RPGs, .50 cal machine guns and sarin gas at Walmart? The lack of those won't stop anyone from just knifing people to death."
The wait period on my AH-64 is a killer. Why do they need to make this so hard?
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
gbaji wrote:
But the number of contractors who own guns does not overlap 100% with the number of mass murders by contractors, does it?
gbaji wrote:
sub set of that group. Sure. There's a correlation...
gbaji wrote:
The scale is off on that though.
Typed in between rounds of vomiting up bad sushi, while simultaneously pissing out of my ***
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Can we skip a couple of steps and just get to the part where gbaji goes apeshit about how we simply can't do anything like registration because it's a constitutional right? We all know it's going there, and we all know the script so can we just go there?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
how i read it thus far
ze left: ban guns
ze right: give secret police more secret rights so that it NEVER happens again
ze reg.peoples: now that's horri...ooh, sleepy hollow is out ( ooh, and insidious too, or was it 2 ?)
busybody ******: think of the children
relatively minor silent minority: but there were no children...
busybody ******: but there coulda been..
asylum: what stage of media circus are we on?
ze left: ban guns
ze right: give secret police more secret rights so that it NEVER happens again
ze reg.peoples: now that's horri...ooh, sleepy hollow is out ( ooh, and insidious too, or was it 2 ?)
busybody ******: think of the children
relatively minor silent minority: but there were no children...
busybody ******: but there coulda been..
asylum: what stage of media circus are we on?
Your soul was made of fists.
Jar the Sam
Jar the Sam
er, n/m
Edited, Sep 18th 2013 11:19pm by Debalic
Edited, Sep 18th 2013 11:19pm by Debalic
gbaji wrote:
The scale is off on that though. The mass murders circle should be a nearly impossible to see dot.
Which is kinda the point. Smash made a point of mentioning a correlation between a very large group of people and an incredibly tiny sub set of that group. Sure. There's a correlation, but an incredibly insignificant one. So what's the point of bringing it up? It is precisely as useless as the one I countered with (food eating contractors). Currently, about 1 in 3 households in the US has a gun. If we assume that employees of government contracted companies are typical with regard to this statistic (and there's no reason to assume they aren't), then we can assume that 1 in 3 of those employees has direct access to a firearm. The ratio between gun owning employees and "food eating" employees is relatively small (1/3), while the ratio between either of those and "mass shooting" employees is massive (like 1/10,000,000).
Smash was barking up the wrong tree. Looking at the wrong side of the equation. Whatever. There are a number of factors which correlate far better to mass shooters than mere gun ownership. Perhaps we should be looking at those instead?
Which is kinda the point. Smash made a point of mentioning a correlation between a very large group of people and an incredibly tiny sub set of that group. Sure. There's a correlation, but an incredibly insignificant one. So what's the point of bringing it up? It is precisely as useless as the one I countered with (food eating contractors). Currently, about 1 in 3 households in the US has a gun. If we assume that employees of government contracted companies are typical with regard to this statistic (and there's no reason to assume they aren't), then we can assume that 1 in 3 of those employees has direct access to a firearm. The ratio between gun owning employees and "food eating" employees is relatively small (1/3), while the ratio between either of those and "mass shooting" employees is massive (like 1/10,000,000).
Smash was barking up the wrong tree. Looking at the wrong side of the equation. Whatever. There are a number of factors which correlate far better to mass shooters than mere gun ownership. Perhaps we should be looking at those instead?
No, no.. Gbaji; you have it all wrong. The point is to ban human males, obviously the main culprit of almost all crimes.
In order to achieve real equality, you gals better start trying to one up men.
Your soul was made of fists.
Jar the Sam
Jar the Sam
Jophiel wrote:
I feel that the notion that people will just make their own guns in any significant quantity (esp. compared to manufactured weapons) is a tad overblown anyway. Tell someone to build their own computer and they freak out and buy a shitty Dell instead. Hell, the other day I was talking to someone with literally no clue how to check their tire pressure -- but I'm supposed to believe that they'll become Vulcan at the forge next time they get a hankerin' to shoot someone.
Just my own impression but I'm personally confident that shootings by people milling their own weapons or building it IKEA style would be far below the current people using traditionally purchased firearms.
Just my own impression but I'm personally confident that shootings by people milling their own weapons or building it IKEA style would be far below the current people using traditionally purchased firearms.
Ignoring the sane individuals who build guns for the moment, the type of crazy person who builds guns is usually someone with some form of military background who already knows enough about how to shoot, assemble clean and disassemble a general gun to consider it as a weapon, has a paranoid and extreme distrust of the government (often caused by their prior military experiance), are often involved with extremist factions of some sort where some level of training might be available (think militia) and are often actually fairly bright to begin with for some reason. These are the types of people that might be inclined to say, build a Kalishnakov 74. The lower reciever for one of thsoe, which is the part that is tracked and is considered the "gun" by the government, is something that someone could make with a piece of sheet metal, a vice, a hammer, and a drill arguably, Or, you can buy one that just requires the drill for $26 http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/ak-74-receiver-blank.aspx?a=1034079 . The rest of the parts cost a few hundred at the most ($244.99 to be precise https://www.k-var.com/shop/BP-AK74-1.html), aren't tracked, don't have serial numbers and can be obtained by a 10 year old with access to an online funding source and a mailbox. Building one of those would take less effort than building a computer, and there are literally billions of parts for them floating around. They can be put together in about an hour and a half, require about $20 worth of tools, and it's not a stretch to say that anyone who could install a new faucet on a sink has about the same level of skill required.
Most of the ones that enter the crime world are used in robberies, But I hardly think it's a stretch that someone willing to prepare a premeditaed mass killing would go to the effort of building one to bypass a background check.
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
anyone who could install a new faucet on a sink
You think kind of highly of Americans, don't you?
Edited, Sep 19th 2013 12:51am by TirithRR
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
it's not a stretch to say that anyone who could install a new faucet on a sink has about the same level of skill required.
So a distinct minority?
Again, anyone who could assemble a Lego set from a Happy Meal could put a computer together but most folks still approach it as though it was some form of wizardry. I'm sure there are people perfectly capable and willing to assemble their own firearms. Can we agree that they don't make up a majority of people? I would bet that they don't even make up a majority of people who have used firearms in violent crimes in the past year. I just don't see it as a good argument. A hurdle to overcome, sure. A reason to just not bother? Not really.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
The rest of the population doesn't really matter. It's the segment of the population most likely to commit the mass murder crimes that are driving the increased regulation that you need to examine to see if such regulation would be effective. if you look at the last 10 years worth of mass shootings, the weapons used, and where they came from, you'll find a significant percentage of them were sourced and assembled that way. Possibly not a majority, and for crime overall, especially the domestic ones its not as much of a factor, but for the one crime that seems to be the driving force for all the extra regulation, it's an issue. Adding a few billion dollars worth of extra paperwork and monitoring costs (ignoring the whole purpose of the second amendment argument entirely for now) when it probably isn't going to stop that significant fraction in the first place, is a waste. If spending a billion dollars is going to prevent maybe what, 16 people from getting shot, then it's a complete waste of money. Put that same billion towards improving dangerous automobile intersections and you'll save alot more lives overall. And yes i totally just pulled that number out of thin air, but you get my point.
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
The rest of the population doesn't really matter. It's the segment of the population most likely to commit the mass murder crimes that are driving the increased regulation that you need to examine to see if such regulation would be effective.
Mass murder crimes drive the narrative but the goal is reducing firearm deaths in general. Really, it's reducing homicide deaths in general with firearms making up a significant percentage of it. So whether or not Captain Crazypants is going to make his own gun out of Legos and Silly Putty isn't especially significant unless everyone else is going to be doing the same.
Quote:
if you look at the last 10 years worth of mass shootings, the weapons used, and where they came from, you'll find a significant percentage of them were sourced and assembled that way.
An admittedly brief survey of mass shootings in the US in the past decade doesn't seem to bear this up.
Edited, Sep 19th 2013 12:31am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
lolgaxe wrote:
Can we skip a couple of steps and just get to the part where gbaji goes apeshit about how we simply can't do anything like registration because it's a constitutional right? We all know it's going there, and we all know the script so can we just go there?
"Watch out he has an anvil!
Look! The rope, the rope!
Nooo, it's going to fall on your head!
Well I totally saw that one coming. Why does the coyote even try?"
On that thought, this forum needs more anvils.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe, age 8, watching Looney Toons in his living room:
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Reducing firearm deaths isn't the same thing as reducing deaths with regard to violent crimes. The method simply changes.
/shrug the ones from Columbine were extensively modified and specifically sourced to avoid background checks, Santa Monica, Calif used a home built assault rifle, One of the assault rifles used in that California police shootout a half dozen years ago was a kit build, etc. I can go look them up and make a table I suppose, but I really don't want to.
/shrug the ones from Columbine were extensively modified and specifically sourced to avoid background checks, Santa Monica, Calif used a home built assault rifle, One of the assault rifles used in that California police shootout a half dozen years ago was a kit build, etc. I can go look them up and make a table I suppose, but I really don't want to.
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Reducing firearm deaths isn't the same thing as reducing deaths with regard to violent crimes. The method simply changes.
Nonsense and this was the same argument you made earlier: "Oh, they'll just use bombs/knives/whatever". Random items are not equivocally lethal, portable or easy to use. Look at the failed bomb attempts over the years. Hell, even the Boston Marathon bomb was considered to be a pretty shitty device from a technical point of view and 'only' killed three people (not to discount the additional injuries). And these were dudes who received specific instructions to make their weapon.
Setting aside mass killings, I already ran the numbers and chart in a previous thread for the US homicide rate based against its gun ownership rate reflected against other developed nations. The idea that everyone just starts killing at the same rate using knives and clubs is simply unsupported.
Quote:
/shrug the ones from Columbine were extensively modified and specifically sourced to avoid background checks, Santa Monica, Calif used a home built assault rifle, One of the assault rifles used in that California police shootout a half dozen years ago was a kit build, etc. I can go look them up and make a table I suppose, but I really don't want to.
I don't either but a look over entries in Wiki for mass shootings (inc school shootings, workplace shootings, etc) showed very few examples of this. The primary weapons used were handguns in probably 75%+ of them. And it's not as though the remaining shotguns and rifles were all (or even majority) home builts. And, not to mention the obvious, but Columbine was well over a decade ago.
You're welcome to not provide any evidence for your claims but you can't expect anyone to just accept them either.
Edited, Sep 19th 2013 9:43am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe, age 8, watching Looney Toons in his living room:
Kids these days...
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Recent Visitors: 336
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (336)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- If only anyone in the Navy had a gun...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC