• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 01:36
CEST 07:36
KST 14:36
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting10[ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent11Team TLMC #5: Winners Announced!3[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On9Maestros of the Game: Live Finals Preview (RO4)5
Community News
BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET6Weekly Cups (Oct 6-12): Four star herO85.0.15 Patch Balance Hotfix (2025-10-8)80Weekly Cups (Sept 29-Oct 5): MaxPax triples up3PartinG joins SteamerZone, returns to SC2 competition32
StarCraft 2
General
Revisiting the game after10 years and wow it's bad The New Patch Killed Mech! TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting Stellar Fest: StarCraft II returns to Canada herO Talks: Poor Performance at EWC and more...
Tourneys
INu's Battles#13 < ByuN vs Zoun > Tenacious Turtle Tussle SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $1,200 WardiTV October (Oct 21st-31st)
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 496 Endless Infection Mutation # 495 Rest In Peace Mutation # 494 Unstable Environment Mutation # 493 Quick Killers
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion BSL Season 21 BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW caster Sayle BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET
Tourneys
[ASL20] Semifinal B Azhi's Colosseum - Anonymous Tournament [Megathread] Daily Proleagues SC4ALL $1,500 Open Bracket LAN
Strategy
Current Meta BW - ajfirecracker Strategy & Training Relatively freeroll strategies Siegecraft - a new perspective
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Dawn of War IV Nintendo Switch Thread ZeroSpace Megathread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Men's Fashion Thread Sex and weight loss
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club! The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Series you have seen recently... Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion!
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2026 Football Thread MLB/Baseball 2023 NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
The Heroism of Pepe the Fro…
Peanutsc
Rocket League: Traits, Abili…
TrAiDoS
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1409 users

If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 141 142 143 144 145 891 Next
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
Leth0
Profile Joined February 2012
856 Posts
July 24 2012 17:52 GMT
#2841
On July 25 2012 02:45 AdamBanks wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 25 2012 02:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On July 25 2012 02:21 AdamBanks wrote:
On July 25 2012 02:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On July 25 2012 02:01 Aunvilgod wrote:
1. Compare the number of deaths by guns in the US to this number in the EU
2. ???
3. Profit

It is just really obvious.


So basically your argument (err...4chan meme?) is that correlation = causation. Nope. Although it seems like strong reasoning, it's really not enough to make any definitive point.


Correlation=Correlation, what you call causation is simply the gathering and examining of correlations o.o


No, that does not make sense, unless you are reading his 4chan meme differently. He is saying that because of the gun policy in the US, more people are killed by guns (than in Europe). That's not the full story though. It's far more complex.


yea ur right, but had he developed his thought he might have added that the current policy encourage the proliferation of firearms o.o He didnt tho, oh well touche.

edit: hopefully someday we will look back at guns like were starting to look at cigarettes.


It's ironic that you mention tobacco. Without the tobacco plant the United States of America would probably never of existed. America was built on the tobacco industry. If the entire world quit smoking tomorrow and that sounds like a good thing to anybody then you need to think a bit more critically about what that would actually entail.
typedef struct
Profile Joined January 2011
United States84 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-24 17:59:49
July 24 2012 17:54 GMT
#2842
On July 25 2012 01:36 Focuspants wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 25 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:
On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote:
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference.


Unbelievable.

Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not.


And if it's your child they're taking?

Seems like a lot of people here are making the arguement that less guns means less gun crime, with no facts to back it up. The research I've seen says the opposite (see More Guns, Less Crime)

EDIT: We should be focusing on the 30-40% of gun transactions that take place on the black market.
ikh
Profile Joined May 2010
United Kingdom251 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-24 18:01:50
July 24 2012 17:57 GMT
#2843
On July 25 2012 02:54 typedef struct wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 25 2012 01:36 Focuspants wrote:
On July 25 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:
On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote:
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference.


Unbelievable.

Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not.


And if it's your child they're taking?

i wonder if you guys making up these hypothetical situations actually think they would pass as real arguments even if they were anything but hypothetical. what you're doing is obfuscating the subject and that's quite frustrating especially since two to three people will actually play along to your bullshit

also even from the ever-so-americentric and biased pro-gun pov (2nd amendment!!!!!), it's not very hard to think of a couple reasons why it's impossible to find reliable sociological studies on the effect of gun control or lack thereof has on violent crime in american society.
Leth0
Profile Joined February 2012
856 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-24 18:02:09
July 24 2012 17:59 GMT
#2844
On July 25 2012 02:57 ikh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 25 2012 02:54 typedef struct wrote:
On July 25 2012 01:36 Focuspants wrote:
On July 25 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:
On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote:
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference.


Unbelievable.

Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not.


And if it's your child they're taking?

i wonder if you guys making up these hypothetical situations actually think they would pass as real arguments even if they were anything but hypothetical. what you're doing is obfuscating the subject and that's quite frustrating especially since two to three people will actually play along to your bullshit


Because every time there is / has/ or ever will be a home invasion, the only thing the intruder is there for is your TV. Every one of you anti gun people has the same 'hypothetical' and it's hilarious. Hypocrites.

Are you actually naive enough to believe that no innocent people have ever been hurt due to their home getting invaded? That no women has ever been raped? That no child has ever been abducted? That no family has ever been murdered? Maybe you should inform yourself.
dp
Profile Joined August 2003
United States234 Posts
July 24 2012 18:02 GMT
#2845
On July 25 2012 02:36 Kahlgar wrote:

I would love to see other factors that could explain a difference that huge mentioned itt rather than reading "it's far more complex" over and over again.


Ok, explain to me why the state of Vermont which has lax gun control and no permit for concealed carry also has comparable gun related homicide rate as countries with much more stringent gun control laws? Plus the fact is has a higher rate of knives related homicide than guns?

Yes.. other factors can play a role..
:o
typedef struct
Profile Joined January 2011
United States84 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-24 18:04:25
July 24 2012 18:03 GMT
#2846
No, ikh is right. Kidnapping, sex trafficking, rape, murder, etc don't exist in the US. And if it did, no one would ever want to harm or take YOUR special child.
ikh
Profile Joined May 2010
United Kingdom251 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-24 18:09:53
July 24 2012 18:04 GMT
#2847
On July 25 2012 02:59 Leth0 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 25 2012 02:57 ikh wrote:
On July 25 2012 02:54 typedef struct wrote:
On July 25 2012 01:36 Focuspants wrote:
On July 25 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:
On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote:
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference.


Unbelievable.

Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not.


And if it's your child they're taking?

i wonder if you guys making up these hypothetical situations actually think they would pass as real arguments even if they were anything but hypothetical. what you're doing is obfuscating the subject and that's quite frustrating especially since two to three people will actually play along to your bullshit


Because every time there is / has/ or ever will be a home invasion, the only thing the intruder is there for is your TV. Every one of you anti gun people has the same 'hypothetical' and it's hilarious. Hypocrites.

ok so home invasions:
1) government attacking you and your family, let's say 20%
2) crazy murderer coming to kill your family, 20%?
3) kidnapper coming to steal away your child to either ransom you or kill him/her later, 25%?
4) burglar coming to steal your shit, 10%?
5) other, 25%?

or maybe it's 4) 99% making mention of anything else stupid and even worse, irrelevant for any discussion whatsoever.

vvv e: after digging up five random posts of yours in this thread, trust me, i'm happy to hear you say that
Leth0
Profile Joined February 2012
856 Posts
July 24 2012 18:05 GMT
#2848
On July 25 2012 03:04 ikh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 25 2012 02:59 Leth0 wrote:
On July 25 2012 02:57 ikh wrote:
On July 25 2012 02:54 typedef struct wrote:
On July 25 2012 01:36 Focuspants wrote:
On July 25 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:
On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote:
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference.


Unbelievable.

Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not.


And if it's your child they're taking?

i wonder if you guys making up these hypothetical situations actually think they would pass as real arguments even if they were anything but hypothetical. what you're doing is obfuscating the subject and that's quite frustrating especially since two to three people will actually play along to your bullshit


Because every time there is / has/ or ever will be a home invasion, the only thing the intruder is there for is your TV. Every one of you anti gun people has the same 'hypothetical' and it's hilarious. Hypocrites.

ok so home invasions:
1) government attacking you and your family, let's say 20%
2) crazy murderer coming to kill your family, 20%?
3) kidnapper coming to steal away your child to either ransom you or kill him/her later, 25%?
4) burglar coming to steal your shit, 10%?
5) other, 25%?

or maybe it's 4) 99% making mention of anything else stupid and even worse, irrelevant for any discussion whatsoever.


You're not worth wasting energy on having a conversation with.
typedef struct
Profile Joined January 2011
United States84 Posts
July 24 2012 18:08 GMT
#2849
Hi, you do know about facts, right? Namely, that they exist. You could use them, instead of making up numbers.
EmperorKira
Profile Joined February 2012
United Kingdom107 Posts
July 24 2012 18:09 GMT
#2850
The reality is america will always have guns. The real question is how do we make sure that these madmen don't get these guns. Do we have people be vetted before owning a gun, have a database that can track suspicious transactions, clamp down harder on the black market for guns, etc... Also, certain guns should be harder to get. It shouldn't be just as easy to get a handgun as an assault rifle. Should we have armed guards in every public area such as movies? These are the things we should be discussing, not should we ban guns totally cos that's not going to happen in the US. Pandora's box has already been opened, it can't be closed.
AdamBanks
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
Canada996 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-24 18:14:00
July 24 2012 18:11 GMT
#2851
On July 25 2012 02:54 typedef struct wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 25 2012 01:36 Focuspants wrote:
On July 25 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:
On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote:
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference.


Unbelievable.

Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not.


And if it's your child they're taking?

Seems like a lot of people here are making the arguement that less guns means less gun crime, with no facts to back it up. The research I've seen says the opposite (see More Guns, Less Crime)

EDIT: We should be focusing on the 30-40% of gun transactions that take place on the black market.


Well if u cant follow the logic that less guns being around usually means less people getting shot than try this; the likelihood of being shot is greatly increased for individuals carrying a gun.

edit: almost 5x more likely according to some dude with a phd. x,x
I wrote a song once.
Leth0
Profile Joined February 2012
856 Posts
July 24 2012 18:15 GMT
#2852
On July 25 2012 03:11 AdamBanks wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 25 2012 02:54 typedef struct wrote:
On July 25 2012 01:36 Focuspants wrote:
On July 25 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:
On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote:
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference.


Unbelievable.

Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not.


And if it's your child they're taking?

Seems like a lot of people here are making the arguement that less guns means less gun crime, with no facts to back it up. The research I've seen says the opposite (see More Guns, Less Crime)

EDIT: We should be focusing on the 30-40% of gun transactions that take place on the black market.


Well if u cant follow the logic that less guns being around usually means less people getting shot than try this; the likelihood of being shot is greatly increased for individuals carrying a gun.

edit: almost 5x more likely according to some dude with a phd. x,x


Then don't carry one.
typedef struct
Profile Joined January 2011
United States84 Posts
July 24 2012 18:16 GMT
#2853
On July 25 2012 03:09 EmperorKira wrote:
The reality is america will always have guns. The real question is how do we make sure that these madmen don't get these guns. Do we have people be vetted before owning a gun, have a database that can track suspicious transactions, clamp down harder on the black market for guns, etc... Also, certain guns should be harder to get. It shouldn't be just as easy to get a handgun as an assault rifle. Should we have armed guards in every public area such as movies? These are the things we should be discussing, not should we ban guns totally cos that's not going to happen in the US. Pandora's box has already been opened, it can't be closed.


Good points. The main problem I see is that there was no way to know it was going to happen and no way to use legislation to prevent it.

Mr. Holmes is a ferociously intelligent guy with a background in chemistry who went off the deep end.

Had stricter gun control laws been in place, would Mr. Holmes have been deterred by his inability to purchase weapons and ammunition or would he have used his knowledge of chemistry to devise an alternate plan of attack?

Had fewer gun control laws been in place, would Mr. Holmes have been deterred by the prospect of facing movie-goers with firearms or would he have used his knowledge of chemistry to devise an alternate plan of attack?
flexgd
Profile Joined September 2011
183 Posts
July 24 2012 18:18 GMT
#2854
On July 25 2012 03:09 EmperorKira wrote:
The reality is america will always have guns. The real question is how do we make sure that these madmen don't get these guns. Do we have people be vetted before owning a gun, have a database that can track suspicious transactions, clamp down harder on the black market for guns, etc... Also, certain guns should be harder to get. It shouldn't be just as easy to get a handgun as an assault rifle. Should we have armed guards in every public area such as movies? These are the things we should be discussing, not should we ban guns totally cos that's not going to happen in the US. Pandora's box has already been opened, it can't be closed.


so true. the mistakes have been made in the past (read: loose gun laws in the first place). tough luck for you u.s. guys now you are in a constant arms race against a potential 299.999.999 criminals in your country (obviously its not accurate im trying to make a point here).
AdamBanks
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
Canada996 Posts
July 24 2012 18:20 GMT
#2855
On July 25 2012 03:15 Leth0 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 25 2012 03:11 AdamBanks wrote:
On July 25 2012 02:54 typedef struct wrote:
On July 25 2012 01:36 Focuspants wrote:
On July 25 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:
On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote:
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference.


Unbelievable.

Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not.


And if it's your child they're taking?

Seems like a lot of people here are making the arguement that less guns means less gun crime, with no facts to back it up. The research I've seen says the opposite (see More Guns, Less Crime)

EDIT: We should be focusing on the 30-40% of gun transactions that take place on the black market.


Well if u cant follow the logic that less guns being around usually means less people getting shot than try this; the likelihood of being shot is greatly increased for individuals carrying a gun.

edit: almost 5x more likely according to some dude with a phd. x,x


Then don't carry one.


Waaaaay ahead of you, Not even allowed in my country :O
I wrote a song once.
Leth0
Profile Joined February 2012
856 Posts
July 24 2012 18:21 GMT
#2856
On July 25 2012 03:20 AdamBanks wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 25 2012 03:15 Leth0 wrote:
On July 25 2012 03:11 AdamBanks wrote:
On July 25 2012 02:54 typedef struct wrote:
On July 25 2012 01:36 Focuspants wrote:
On July 25 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:
On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote:
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference.


Unbelievable.

Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not.


And if it's your child they're taking?

Seems like a lot of people here are making the arguement that less guns means less gun crime, with no facts to back it up. The research I've seen says the opposite (see More Guns, Less Crime)

EDIT: We should be focusing on the 30-40% of gun transactions that take place on the black market.


Well if u cant follow the logic that less guns being around usually means less people getting shot than try this; the likelihood of being shot is greatly increased for individuals carrying a gun.

edit: almost 5x more likely according to some dude with a phd. x,x


Then don't carry one.


Waaaaay ahead of you, Not even allowed in my country :O


Then I guess you got nothing to worry about. What's the problem?
ikh
Profile Joined May 2010
United Kingdom251 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-24 18:27:57
July 24 2012 18:25 GMT
#2857
On July 25 2012 03:08 typedef struct wrote:
Hi, you do know about facts, right? Namely, that they exist. You could use them, instead of making up numbers.

y'know when the whole thread of 140-some pages is based on biased (poor) rhetoric, ad hominem-laced you vs i arguments and very little cohesive discussion/debate... there isn't much room for facts or dialectics, and if some of either is presented, it's faced with intellectual dishonesty, obfuscation, illogical mumbo jumbo and bias. there are precious few people capable of debating their points of view in this thread and when two people of sound mind collide, it can be a fun read.

on the other hand when the most heated arguments are about whether guns and knives are comparable to each other in terms of how they should be legislated and regarded as, and when we're re-re-re-warming up retarded discussions about what-would-you-do-if-your-tv-got-stolen by changing the "tv" to "daughter"... i'm left wondering whether some usernames in this thread are real or just fakeposting.

e: case in point just above me.
typedef struct
Profile Joined January 2011
United States84 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-24 18:37:00
July 24 2012 18:28 GMT
#2858
On July 25 2012 03:11 AdamBanks wrote:
Well if u cant follow the logic that less guns being around usually means less people getting shot than try this; the likelihood of being shot is greatly increased for individuals carrying a gun.

edit: almost 5x more likely according to some dude with a phd. x,x


Please read this: Correlation does not imply causation

EDIT:
People who live/work in dangerous areas are more likely to get shot.
People who live/work in dangerous areas are more likely to carry a gun.
Therefore, people who carry a gun are more likely to get shot.

Do you see the fallacy here?
ikh
Profile Joined May 2010
United Kingdom251 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-24 18:53:54
July 24 2012 18:36 GMT
#2859
On July 25 2012 03:28 typedef struct wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 25 2012 03:11 AdamBanks wrote:
Well if u cant follow the logic that less guns being around usually means less people getting shot than try this; the likelihood of being shot is greatly increased for individuals carrying a gun.

edit: almost 5x more likely according to some dude with a phd. x,x


Please read this: Correlation does not imply causation

uhh. correlation MAY imply causation, and in a case where we're comparing two very related issues (gun carriers vs likelihood of getting shot by a gun), it is likely it SHOWS causation. here's a quick link i found about the study in point, feel free to bring up a few points to criticise it: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html
i'll take a look if i can find the actual study publically available.
e: here, though i doubt you'll read it much less comment it worth any more than the post above (i definitely noticed the fallacy, exactly what i was talking about when i said facts don't belong to this thread!) :/ http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099

correlation->causation
A likes apples, so it's quite likely he'll B like apple pie. if a study shows a connection between apple enthusiasts enjoying apple pies, it's likely the two things are connected.
correlation != causation
A detests porridge, that's got nothing to do with whether he'd enjoy a shot of vodka! a study might still show a statistical relevance between the two things, even if it is unlikely there is any connection between the two.
Morton
Profile Joined July 2012
United States152 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-24 18:42:46
July 24 2012 18:41 GMT
#2860
Anyone else think current gun control in the U.S. is fine?

I mean, if you don't have a criminal record, and have received basic training to get a license, its fairly easy to obtain a gun legally.

More of an issue to me than criminals having guns vs law abiding citizens having guns (criminals will always get guns and drugs, no matter what) is IDIOTS getting guns. With absolutely no gun control I would worry mostly about people with no knowledge of how to maintain and use a gun buying one for "self defense" and then doing something stupid.

Basically as long as people buying guns have to know how to use them (that sounds bad but you know what I mean), I am happy.
Prev 1 141 142 143 144 145 891 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 4h 24m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
WinterStarcraft735
PartinGtheBigBoy 225
Nina 140
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 2748
PianO 127
sorry 63
Bale 49
League of Legends
JimRising 752
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K710
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox523
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor155
Other Games
summit1g15635
C9.Mang0165
ViBE149
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• practicex 27
• OhrlRock 3
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• Diggity8
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Rush1684
• HappyZerGling107
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
4h 24m
Monday Night Weeklies
10h 24m
Replay Cast
17h 24m
WardiTV Invitational
1d 5h
WardiTV Invitational
1d 8h
PiGosaur Monday
1d 18h
Replay Cast
2 days
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
RSL Revival
5 days
WardiTV Invitational
5 days
Afreeca Starleague
6 days
Snow vs Soma
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
WardiTV Invitational
6 days
CrankTV Team League
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #4 - TS2
WardiTV TLMC #15
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
EC S1
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual

Upcoming

SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
RSL Offline Finals
RSL Revival: Season 3
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
CranK Gathers Season 2: SC II Pro Teams
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Disclosure: This page contains affiliate marketing links that support TLnet.

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.