|
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. |
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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..
|
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.
|
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 
|
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.
|
Hi, you do know about facts, right? Namely, that they exist. You could use them, instead of making up numbers.
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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?
|
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).
|
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
|
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?
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
