|
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 May 22 2018 05:05 _fool wrote:Let's do a thought experiment. There is an imaginary island. On that island, everyone carries with him a Big Red Button. If you press the Big Red Button, you kill someone of your choice. There are strict rules that you should not actually use it on actual people. It's only a) for recreational use, and b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical. Once in a while, a person decides to use his Big Red Button on innocent people. Those innocent people are killed. Everyone is upset, because it's sad that people died. They decide that it's OK to use your Big Red Button on someone who is killing people with his Big Red Button, because it prevents him from using his Big Red Button on more innocent people. So now we have 3 reasons to use the Big Red Button. It's a) for recreational use, b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical, and c) to prevent people from using Big Red Button for bad things. And now a quick questionaire: Would you feel safer on this island if you were the only one carrying a Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +You're either naieve or a masochist  Think rationally: with less Big Red Buttons, there is less chance of getting killed. Especially if you're holding the only one if Yes: + Show Spoiler +Ok. POOF! You're the only one carrying a Big Red Button, by Kings Decree. Next question: would you ever use your Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +Then why carry it around? That's right! Get rid of it. We agree that an island without any Big Red Buttons is the safest option. [Rejoicing] if Yes: + Show Spoiler +You're the only one with a Big Red Button, and you would still consider using it? You and likeminded people are the main reason people on this island feel unsafe. That makes you part of the problem. Bottom line: + Show Spoiler +I believe that a country without gun control can only move towards gun control (which in my opinion is a safer situation) if individual persons voluntarily get rid of their guns. It's a scary step, I guess, but if you're not willing to make that step you have to admit that you're part of the problem
Question 1: Everyone is going to say Yes -- But this is not a scenario ever talked about in the US and is one that will never occur. Very few people may talk about disarming the civilian population, but nobody talks about disarming the government, and there is a portion of the population that feels it is their duty to posses weapons to fight against potential government tyranny. Whether that be likely to ever occur or be effective aside.
Question 2: Every gun owner is going to say yes, and realistically 99.999% of them are not the reason that people feel unsafe. It is the 00.001% that want a gun for offensive reasons that are making people feel unsafe, not the 99.999% that want it for defensive purposes.
|
On May 22 2018 06:26 ragnasaur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 18:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2018 14:45 ragnasaur wrote:
People can 3D print a gun if they want to. (Or soon)
We need something like strong penalties for having one. Or maybe we have to reconstruct our education system Reconstruct our education system how? I don't know maybe social pedagogies or virtual reality classrooms or gun culture stuff Edit: do you address anything like this in your class DPB?
As a high school math teacher*, and especially as one who just started at a new school this year (I left a private school and started at a public school), I've been sticking mostly to curriculum and non-controversial applications of math to not ruffle any feathers just yet. I needed to feel out the new environment and learn my demographic of students and families (and administration) so that I know what's appropriate and what's not. Also, I only really get to bring up controversies in any meaningful contexts when I teach AP Statistics, which I did for the past few years (but not this year) and I'll be doing again starting next year. So perhaps next year!
*I've stopped teaching college for now, which I enjoyed for several years while simultaneously teaching high school, because my private tutoring jobs are simply far more lucrative and easier and flexible as a second job than adjuncting at Rutgers or NJIT, so I've essentially lost my college audience for conversations like these.
|
On May 22 2018 06:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 04:26 Sermokala wrote:
And there goes Dangermouse again not knowing anything about guns or technology and thinking weapons from 600 years ago is no different then guns today. We get it you don't like america and don't think theres anything to do about the issue. Now go away if you arn't doing anything but spitting on people. We were talking about 3d printing the guns you aren't even reading the thread. Come on, you know as well as I do that if 150 year old guns are perfectly servicable militarily then how servicable do you think modern self manufactured guns are to kill unarmed schoolchildren? WW1 was over 100 years ago, and their smallarms are just as lethal today to kill unarmed people. I'm not even proposing anything in particular, only discussing gun parts availability and manufacture, but for some reason it is important to you to propagate the falsehood that guns are particularily hard to manufacture. I don't know where you get the impression that I don't like USA considering that I beleive that it is an overall positive force in the world, but I guess, like supertranstan and his wild "liberals are out to get our guns", you are only capable of groupthink messages instead of discussing with the person at hand.
You're just being ignorant and trying to entrench your ignorance of the topic as much as possible. Those guns from 150 years ago don't fire as fast as a 1911 handgun. They're in a different conversation completely on how much they've able to kill people. You have shown you have no idea how firearms work and have no comprehension on how technological development can effect the conversation. You expect people to be okay with this ignorance and to agree with your ignorance. You don't even viel your ignorance on the topic.
The conversation was about 3D printed guns. I made the comment that the Barrel would be the hardest part. You made the comment that guns hadn't changed in the last 600 years so whats the difference? One of us has made gun parts and the other doesn't know the difference between a gun made 150 years ago and a gun made today.
We get it that you don't care to understand the topic please go away and leave people who want to understand the topic to debate the topic.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
The part that I'm describing the construction of, the lower receiver, is the only part tracked by the government and considered a firearm. You wouldn't have to make the rest of the stuff, you could just buy it, untracked, using cash. People regularly make AR-15s this way.
|
United States42004 Posts
On May 22 2018 05:54 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 05:05 _fool wrote:Let's do a thought experiment. There is an imaginary island. On that island, everyone carries with him a Big Red Button. If you press the Big Red Button, you kill someone of your choice. There are strict rules that you should not actually use it on actual people. It's only a) for recreational use, and b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical. Once in a while, a person decides to use his Big Red Button on innocent people. Those innocent people are killed. Everyone is upset, because it's sad that people died. They decide that it's OK to use your Big Red Button on someone who is killing people with his Big Red Button, because it prevents him from using his Big Red Button on more innocent people. So now we have 3 reasons to use the Big Red Button. It's a) for recreational use, b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical, and c) to prevent people from using Big Red Button for bad things. And now a quick questionaire: Would you feel safer on this island if you were the only one carrying a Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +You're either naieve or a masochist Think rationally: with less Big Red Buttons, there is less chance of getting killed. Especially if you're holding the only one if Yes: + Show Spoiler +Ok. POOF! You're the only one carrying a Big Red Button, by Kings Decree. Next question: would you ever use your Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +Then why carry it around? That's right! Get rid of it. We agree that an island without any Big Red Buttons is the safest option. [Rejoicing] if Yes: + Show Spoiler +You're the only one with a Big Red Button, and you would still consider using it? You and likeminded people are the main reason people on this island feel unsafe. That makes you part of the problem. Bottom line: + Show Spoiler +I believe that a country without gun control can only move towards gun control (which in my opinion is a safer situation) if individual persons voluntarily get rid of their guns. It's a scary step, I guess, but if you're not willing to make that step you have to admit that you're part of the problem Why is it everyone always believe the solution is to get rid of guns? This had already been tried; it doesn't work. D.C and Chicago already tried to ban handguns, yet they were the murder capitals in the world.
Why do people think that mosquito nets stop mosquitos. There are shittons of mosquito nets in sub-Saharan Africa and yet people get malaria all the time, whereas nobody in England uses mosquito nets and malaria isn't a problem at all.
|
On May 22 2018 10:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 05:54 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 05:05 _fool wrote:Let's do a thought experiment. There is an imaginary island. On that island, everyone carries with him a Big Red Button. If you press the Big Red Button, you kill someone of your choice. There are strict rules that you should not actually use it on actual people. It's only a) for recreational use, and b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical. Once in a while, a person decides to use his Big Red Button on innocent people. Those innocent people are killed. Everyone is upset, because it's sad that people died. They decide that it's OK to use your Big Red Button on someone who is killing people with his Big Red Button, because it prevents him from using his Big Red Button on more innocent people. So now we have 3 reasons to use the Big Red Button. It's a) for recreational use, b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical, and c) to prevent people from using Big Red Button for bad things. And now a quick questionaire: Would you feel safer on this island if you were the only one carrying a Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +You're either naieve or a masochist Think rationally: with less Big Red Buttons, there is less chance of getting killed. Especially if you're holding the only one if Yes: + Show Spoiler +Ok. POOF! You're the only one carrying a Big Red Button, by Kings Decree. Next question: would you ever use your Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +Then why carry it around? That's right! Get rid of it. We agree that an island without any Big Red Buttons is the safest option. [Rejoicing] if Yes: + Show Spoiler +You're the only one with a Big Red Button, and you would still consider using it? You and likeminded people are the main reason people on this island feel unsafe. That makes you part of the problem. Bottom line: + Show Spoiler +I believe that a country without gun control can only move towards gun control (which in my opinion is a safer situation) if individual persons voluntarily get rid of their guns. It's a scary step, I guess, but if you're not willing to make that step you have to admit that you're part of the problem Why is it everyone always believe the solution is to get rid of guns? This had already been tried; it doesn't work. D.C and Chicago already tried to ban handguns, yet they were the murder capitals in the world. Why do people think that mosquito nets stop mosquitos. There are shittons of mosquito nets in sub-Saharan Africa and yet people get malaria all the time, whereas nobody in England uses mosquito nets and malaria isn't a problem at all.
England's gathering of fire arm statistics are vastly different from how the United States gathers there statistics which leads to significant differences in how numbers are reported.
Not to mention the U.S. is a very different country from England population make up wise and culturally. It's like wondering why Mexico has so much more crime then Japan.
|
United States42004 Posts
On May 22 2018 11:29 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 10:33 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2018 05:54 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 05:05 _fool wrote:Let's do a thought experiment. There is an imaginary island. On that island, everyone carries with him a Big Red Button. If you press the Big Red Button, you kill someone of your choice. There are strict rules that you should not actually use it on actual people. It's only a) for recreational use, and b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical. Once in a while, a person decides to use his Big Red Button on innocent people. Those innocent people are killed. Everyone is upset, because it's sad that people died. They decide that it's OK to use your Big Red Button on someone who is killing people with his Big Red Button, because it prevents him from using his Big Red Button on more innocent people. So now we have 3 reasons to use the Big Red Button. It's a) for recreational use, b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical, and c) to prevent people from using Big Red Button for bad things. And now a quick questionaire: Would you feel safer on this island if you were the only one carrying a Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +You're either naieve or a masochist Think rationally: with less Big Red Buttons, there is less chance of getting killed. Especially if you're holding the only one if Yes: + Show Spoiler +Ok. POOF! You're the only one carrying a Big Red Button, by Kings Decree. Next question: would you ever use your Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +Then why carry it around? That's right! Get rid of it. We agree that an island without any Big Red Buttons is the safest option. [Rejoicing] if Yes: + Show Spoiler +You're the only one with a Big Red Button, and you would still consider using it? You and likeminded people are the main reason people on this island feel unsafe. That makes you part of the problem. Bottom line: + Show Spoiler +I believe that a country without gun control can only move towards gun control (which in my opinion is a safer situation) if individual persons voluntarily get rid of their guns. It's a scary step, I guess, but if you're not willing to make that step you have to admit that you're part of the problem Why is it everyone always believe the solution is to get rid of guns? This had already been tried; it doesn't work. D.C and Chicago already tried to ban handguns, yet they were the murder capitals in the world. Why do people think that mosquito nets stop mosquitos. There are shittons of mosquito nets in sub-Saharan Africa and yet people get malaria all the time, whereas nobody in England uses mosquito nets and malaria isn't a problem at all. England's gathering of fire arm statistics are vastly different from how the United States gathers there statistics which leads to significant differences in how numbers are reported. Not to mention the U.S. is a very different country from England population make up wise and culturally. It's like wondering why Mexico has so much more crime then Japan.
Every time you say something dumb and I refute it you pretend we had a completely different exchange. To get you back on your point, you claimed that policies enacted in response to high gun violence only occur where there is high gun violence and therefore correlate with high gun violence and therefore cause high gun violence. I illustrated the absurdity of this by replying with a similar argument attempting to imply that mosquito nets cause malaria.
Don't change the argument to some completely new topic of demographics and cultural differences, the issue is that you attempted to argue that handgun bans caused the cities where they were enacted to be murder capitals of the world.
|
On May 22 2018 11:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 11:29 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 10:33 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2018 05:54 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 05:05 _fool wrote:Let's do a thought experiment. There is an imaginary island. On that island, everyone carries with him a Big Red Button. If you press the Big Red Button, you kill someone of your choice. There are strict rules that you should not actually use it on actual people. It's only a) for recreational use, and b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical. Once in a while, a person decides to use his Big Red Button on innocent people. Those innocent people are killed. Everyone is upset, because it's sad that people died. They decide that it's OK to use your Big Red Button on someone who is killing people with his Big Red Button, because it prevents him from using his Big Red Button on more innocent people. So now we have 3 reasons to use the Big Red Button. It's a) for recreational use, b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical, and c) to prevent people from using Big Red Button for bad things. And now a quick questionaire: Would you feel safer on this island if you were the only one carrying a Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +You're either naieve or a masochist Think rationally: with less Big Red Buttons, there is less chance of getting killed. Especially if you're holding the only one if Yes: + Show Spoiler +Ok. POOF! You're the only one carrying a Big Red Button, by Kings Decree. Next question: would you ever use your Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +Then why carry it around? That's right! Get rid of it. We agree that an island without any Big Red Buttons is the safest option. [Rejoicing] if Yes: + Show Spoiler +You're the only one with a Big Red Button, and you would still consider using it? You and likeminded people are the main reason people on this island feel unsafe. That makes you part of the problem. Bottom line: + Show Spoiler +I believe that a country without gun control can only move towards gun control (which in my opinion is a safer situation) if individual persons voluntarily get rid of their guns. It's a scary step, I guess, but if you're not willing to make that step you have to admit that you're part of the problem Why is it everyone always believe the solution is to get rid of guns? This had already been tried; it doesn't work. D.C and Chicago already tried to ban handguns, yet they were the murder capitals in the world. Why do people think that mosquito nets stop mosquitos. There are shittons of mosquito nets in sub-Saharan Africa and yet people get malaria all the time, whereas nobody in England uses mosquito nets and malaria isn't a problem at all. England's gathering of fire arm statistics are vastly different from how the United States gathers there statistics which leads to significant differences in how numbers are reported. Not to mention the U.S. is a very different country from England population make up wise and culturally. It's like wondering why Mexico has so much more crime then Japan. Every time you say something dumb and I refute it you pretend we had a completely different exchange. To get you back on your point, you claimed that policies enacted in response to high gun violence only occur where there is high gun violence and therefore correlate with high gun violence and therefore cause high gun violence. I illustrated the absurdity of this by replying with a similar argument attempting to imply that mosquito nets cause malaria. Don't change the argument to some completely new topic of demographics and cultural differences, the issue is that you attempted to argue that handgun bans caused the cities where they were enacted to be murder capitals of the world.
No, I did not say that. I said that the handgun bans had no discernible affect on the firearm related crimes within those cities, which would actually be a true statement.
Keep on twisting my words to fit your agenda.
|
United States42004 Posts
On May 22 2018 12:05 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 11:55 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2018 11:29 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 10:33 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2018 05:54 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 05:05 _fool wrote:Let's do a thought experiment. There is an imaginary island. On that island, everyone carries with him a Big Red Button. If you press the Big Red Button, you kill someone of your choice. There are strict rules that you should not actually use it on actual people. It's only a) for recreational use, and b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical. Once in a while, a person decides to use his Big Red Button on innocent people. Those innocent people are killed. Everyone is upset, because it's sad that people died. They decide that it's OK to use your Big Red Button on someone who is killing people with his Big Red Button, because it prevents him from using his Big Red Button on more innocent people. So now we have 3 reasons to use the Big Red Button. It's a) for recreational use, b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical, and c) to prevent people from using Big Red Button for bad things. And now a quick questionaire: Would you feel safer on this island if you were the only one carrying a Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +You're either naieve or a masochist Think rationally: with less Big Red Buttons, there is less chance of getting killed. Especially if you're holding the only one if Yes: + Show Spoiler +Ok. POOF! You're the only one carrying a Big Red Button, by Kings Decree. Next question: would you ever use your Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +Then why carry it around? That's right! Get rid of it. We agree that an island without any Big Red Buttons is the safest option. [Rejoicing] if Yes: + Show Spoiler +You're the only one with a Big Red Button, and you would still consider using it? You and likeminded people are the main reason people on this island feel unsafe. That makes you part of the problem. Bottom line: + Show Spoiler +I believe that a country without gun control can only move towards gun control (which in my opinion is a safer situation) if individual persons voluntarily get rid of their guns. It's a scary step, I guess, but if you're not willing to make that step you have to admit that you're part of the problem Why is it everyone always believe the solution is to get rid of guns? This had already been tried; it doesn't work. D.C and Chicago already tried to ban handguns, yet they were the murder capitals in the world. Why do people think that mosquito nets stop mosquitos. There are shittons of mosquito nets in sub-Saharan Africa and yet people get malaria all the time, whereas nobody in England uses mosquito nets and malaria isn't a problem at all. England's gathering of fire arm statistics are vastly different from how the United States gathers there statistics which leads to significant differences in how numbers are reported. Not to mention the U.S. is a very different country from England population make up wise and culturally. It's like wondering why Mexico has so much more crime then Japan. Every time you say something dumb and I refute it you pretend we had a completely different exchange. To get you back on your point, you claimed that policies enacted in response to high gun violence only occur where there is high gun violence and therefore correlate with high gun violence and therefore cause high gun violence. I illustrated the absurdity of this by replying with a similar argument attempting to imply that mosquito nets cause malaria. Don't change the argument to some completely new topic of demographics and cultural differences, the issue is that you attempted to argue that handgun bans caused the cities where they were enacted to be murder capitals of the world. No, I did not say that. I said that the handgun bans had no discernible affect on the firearm related crimes within those cities, which would actually be a true statement. Keep on twisting my words to fit your agenda.
You cannot conclude that handgun bans don't have an effect on handgun violence from the fact that there is handgun violence where the bans are.
And yet that is exactly what you attempted to do.
|
On May 22 2018 12:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 12:05 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 11:55 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2018 11:29 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 10:33 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2018 05:54 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 05:05 _fool wrote:Let's do a thought experiment. There is an imaginary island. On that island, everyone carries with him a Big Red Button. If you press the Big Red Button, you kill someone of your choice. There are strict rules that you should not actually use it on actual people. It's only a) for recreational use, and b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical. Once in a while, a person decides to use his Big Red Button on innocent people. Those innocent people are killed. Everyone is upset, because it's sad that people died. They decide that it's OK to use your Big Red Button on someone who is killing people with his Big Red Button, because it prevents him from using his Big Red Button on more innocent people. So now we have 3 reasons to use the Big Red Button. It's a) for recreational use, b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical, and c) to prevent people from using Big Red Button for bad things. And now a quick questionaire: Would you feel safer on this island if you were the only one carrying a Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +You're either naieve or a masochist Think rationally: with less Big Red Buttons, there is less chance of getting killed. Especially if you're holding the only one if Yes: + Show Spoiler +Ok. POOF! You're the only one carrying a Big Red Button, by Kings Decree. Next question: would you ever use your Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +Then why carry it around? That's right! Get rid of it. We agree that an island without any Big Red Buttons is the safest option. [Rejoicing] if Yes: + Show Spoiler +You're the only one with a Big Red Button, and you would still consider using it? You and likeminded people are the main reason people on this island feel unsafe. That makes you part of the problem. Bottom line: + Show Spoiler +I believe that a country without gun control can only move towards gun control (which in my opinion is a safer situation) if individual persons voluntarily get rid of their guns. It's a scary step, I guess, but if you're not willing to make that step you have to admit that you're part of the problem Why is it everyone always believe the solution is to get rid of guns? This had already been tried; it doesn't work. D.C and Chicago already tried to ban handguns, yet they were the murder capitals in the world. Why do people think that mosquito nets stop mosquitos. There are shittons of mosquito nets in sub-Saharan Africa and yet people get malaria all the time, whereas nobody in England uses mosquito nets and malaria isn't a problem at all. England's gathering of fire arm statistics are vastly different from how the United States gathers there statistics which leads to significant differences in how numbers are reported. Not to mention the U.S. is a very different country from England population make up wise and culturally. It's like wondering why Mexico has so much more crime then Japan. Every time you say something dumb and I refute it you pretend we had a completely different exchange. To get you back on your point, you claimed that policies enacted in response to high gun violence only occur where there is high gun violence and therefore correlate with high gun violence and therefore cause high gun violence. I illustrated the absurdity of this by replying with a similar argument attempting to imply that mosquito nets cause malaria. Don't change the argument to some completely new topic of demographics and cultural differences, the issue is that you attempted to argue that handgun bans caused the cities where they were enacted to be murder capitals of the world. No, I did not say that. I said that the handgun bans had no discernible affect on the firearm related crimes within those cities, which would actually be a true statement. Keep on twisting my words to fit your agenda. You cannot conclude that handgun bans don't have an effect on handgun violence from the fact that there is handgun violence where the bans are. And yet that is exactly what you attempted to do.
![[image loading]](https://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/chicago-full.png)
Yeah man, that handgun ban sure was effective.
|
On May 22 2018 12:05 superstartran wrote:
No, I did not say that. I said that the handgun bans had no discernible affect on the firearm related crimes within those cities, which would actually be a true statement.
Keep on twisting my words to fit your agenda.
Kwark said exactly nothing about gun violence in England, to which you replied with a post doing nothing but decry comparing gun violence between England and the US. Your reply was utterly irrelevant to his argument.
|
On May 22 2018 12:13 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 12:05 superstartran wrote:
No, I did not say that. I said that the handgun bans had no discernible affect on the firearm related crimes within those cities, which would actually be a true statement.
Keep on twisting my words to fit your agenda.
Kwark said exactly nothing about gun violence in England, to which you replied with a post doing nothing but decry comparing gun violence between England and the US. Your reply was utterly irrelevant to his argument.
Probably because his argument is dumb in the first place.
Just because something doesn't show effects doesn't mean it doesn't work!
You gun control advocates will literally come up with anything at this point.
|
On May 22 2018 12:19 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 12:13 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 12:05 superstartran wrote:
No, I did not say that. I said that the handgun bans had no discernible affect on the firearm related crimes within those cities, which would actually be a true statement.
Keep on twisting my words to fit your agenda.
Kwark said exactly nothing about gun violence in England, to which you replied with a post doing nothing but decry comparing gun violence between England and the US. Your reply was utterly irrelevant to his argument. Probably because his argument is dumb in the first place. Just because something doesn't show effects doesn't mean it doesn't work!
You cannot expect anybody to treat you or your point of view with respect if you argue dishonestly, then when called out on it reply with "the argument was dumb anyway".
As to your second statement:
(1) Given that many confounding variables exist, your intentionally sarcastic statement has more truth to it than not.
(2) Even if a given policy does not work on its own, that does not mean it would not work when supported by other policies.
|
On May 22 2018 12:24 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 12:19 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 12:13 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 12:05 superstartran wrote:
No, I did not say that. I said that the handgun bans had no discernible affect on the firearm related crimes within those cities, which would actually be a true statement.
Keep on twisting my words to fit your agenda.
Kwark said exactly nothing about gun violence in England, to which you replied with a post doing nothing but decry comparing gun violence between England and the US. Your reply was utterly irrelevant to his argument. Probably because his argument is dumb in the first place. Just because something doesn't show effects doesn't mean it doesn't work! You cannot expect anybody to treat you or your point of view with respect if you argue dishonestly, then when called out on it reply with "the argument was dumb anyway". As to your second statement: (1) Given that many confounding variables exist, your intentionally sarcastic statement has more truth to it than not. (2) Even if a given policy does not work on its own, that does not mean it would not work when supported by other policies.
Funny considering that gun control advocates conveniently leave out so many other confounding variables and only look at one variable, guns.
How many times have gun control advocates tried to cross compare countries while conveniently leaving the fact that England, Australia, and other countries who have lower firearm related violence also have very different population make ups? How many times have they failed to mention that the assault weapon ban, the handgun bans, and all sorts of other restrictions don't necessarily actually work based on the statistics we have at hand?
But hey you know, why argue with facts.
|
On May 22 2018 12:26 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 12:24 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 12:19 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 12:13 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 12:05 superstartran wrote:
No, I did not say that. I said that the handgun bans had no discernible affect on the firearm related crimes within those cities, which would actually be a true statement.
Keep on twisting my words to fit your agenda.
Kwark said exactly nothing about gun violence in England, to which you replied with a post doing nothing but decry comparing gun violence between England and the US. Your reply was utterly irrelevant to his argument. Probably because his argument is dumb in the first place. Just because something doesn't show effects doesn't mean it doesn't work! You cannot expect anybody to treat you or your point of view with respect if you argue dishonestly, then when called out on it reply with "the argument was dumb anyway". As to your second statement: (1) Given that many confounding variables exist, your intentionally sarcastic statement has more truth to it than not. (2) Even if a given policy does not work on its own, that does not mean it would not work when supported by other policies. Funny considering that gun control advocates conveniently leave out so many other confounding variables and only look at one variable, guns.
So some of their arguments aren't reliable or rigorous either. That doesn't make your argument any more convincing.
|
On May 22 2018 12:27 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 12:26 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 12:24 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 12:19 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 12:13 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 12:05 superstartran wrote:
No, I did not say that. I said that the handgun bans had no discernible affect on the firearm related crimes within those cities, which would actually be a true statement.
Keep on twisting my words to fit your agenda.
Kwark said exactly nothing about gun violence in England, to which you replied with a post doing nothing but decry comparing gun violence between England and the US. Your reply was utterly irrelevant to his argument. Probably because his argument is dumb in the first place. Just because something doesn't show effects doesn't mean it doesn't work! You cannot expect anybody to treat you or your point of view with respect if you argue dishonestly, then when called out on it reply with "the argument was dumb anyway". As to your second statement: (1) Given that many confounding variables exist, your intentionally sarcastic statement has more truth to it than not. (2) Even if a given policy does not work on its own, that does not mean it would not work when supported by other policies. Funny considering that gun control advocates conveniently leave out so many other confounding variables and only look at one variable, guns. So some of their arguments aren't reliable or rigorous either. That doesn't make your argument any more convincing.
Oh no, I called someone's argument dumb because it basically said just because something isn't statistically significant doesn't mean it's not effective. You could literally apply that to almost anything. When trying to change the status quo you need to be able to show a statistical significance otherwise no one's really going to actually buy into your position. Considering gun control advocates haven't been able to do that without glossing over a ton of facts, misrepresent things, etc. do excuse me when I call some of them dumb.
|
United States42004 Posts
On May 22 2018 12:26 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 12:24 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 12:19 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 12:13 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 12:05 superstartran wrote:
No, I did not say that. I said that the handgun bans had no discernible affect on the firearm related crimes within those cities, which would actually be a true statement.
Keep on twisting my words to fit your agenda.
Kwark said exactly nothing about gun violence in England, to which you replied with a post doing nothing but decry comparing gun violence between England and the US. Your reply was utterly irrelevant to his argument. Probably because his argument is dumb in the first place. Just because something doesn't show effects doesn't mean it doesn't work! You cannot expect anybody to treat you or your point of view with respect if you argue dishonestly, then when called out on it reply with "the argument was dumb anyway". As to your second statement: (1) Given that many confounding variables exist, your intentionally sarcastic statement has more truth to it than not. (2) Even if a given policy does not work on its own, that does not mean it would not work when supported by other policies. Funny considering that gun control advocates conveniently leave out so many other confounding variables and only look at one variable, guns. How many times have gun control advocates tried to cross compare countries while conveniently leaving the fact that England, Australia, and other countries who have lower firearm related violence also have very different population make ups? How many times have they failed to mention that the assault weapon ban, the handgun bans, and all sorts of other restrictions don't necessarily actually work based on the statistics we have at hand? But hey you know, why argue with facts.
I didn't make the invalid comparison you're complaining about, I just illustrated how absurd your point was.
Again, stop trying to change the subject. You attempted to argue that the policies enacted in response to an issue cause the issue. It was dumb. Take it back and stop digging. Chicago does not prove that gun bans cause gun violence.
|
On May 22 2018 12:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 12:26 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 12:24 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 12:19 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 12:13 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 12:05 superstartran wrote:
No, I did not say that. I said that the handgun bans had no discernible affect on the firearm related crimes within those cities, which would actually be a true statement.
Keep on twisting my words to fit your agenda.
Kwark said exactly nothing about gun violence in England, to which you replied with a post doing nothing but decry comparing gun violence between England and the US. Your reply was utterly irrelevant to his argument. Probably because his argument is dumb in the first place. Just because something doesn't show effects doesn't mean it doesn't work! You cannot expect anybody to treat you or your point of view with respect if you argue dishonestly, then when called out on it reply with "the argument was dumb anyway". As to your second statement: (1) Given that many confounding variables exist, your intentionally sarcastic statement has more truth to it than not. (2) Even if a given policy does not work on its own, that does not mean it would not work when supported by other policies. Funny considering that gun control advocates conveniently leave out so many other confounding variables and only look at one variable, guns. How many times have gun control advocates tried to cross compare countries while conveniently leaving the fact that England, Australia, and other countries who have lower firearm related violence also have very different population make ups? How many times have they failed to mention that the assault weapon ban, the handgun bans, and all sorts of other restrictions don't necessarily actually work based on the statistics we have at hand? But hey you know, why argue with facts. I didn't make the invalid comparison you're complaining about, I just illustrated how absurd your point was. Again, stop trying to change the subject. You attempted to argue that the policies enacted in response to an issue cause the issue. It was dumb. Take it back and stop digging. Chicago does not prove that gun bans cause gun violence.
On May 22 2018 05:54 superstartran wrote:
Why is it everyone always believe the solution is to get rid of guns? This had already been tried; it doesn't work. D.C and Chicago already tried to ban handguns, yet they were the murder capitals in the world.
Where did I say that handgun bans caused violence in those cities? I said that the handgun bans didn't affect the violence in those cities. You obviously need to repeat basic reading.
If I said "Look, the banning of handguns caused a huge spike in violence" that would be different. My point was that these places already had high firearm violence already, and that the bans did nothing to affect that. Either you're just trolling or you are just seeing only what you want to see because of your agenda.
|
On May 22 2018 12:32 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 12:27 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 12:26 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 12:24 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 12:19 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 12:13 Aquanim wrote:On May 22 2018 12:05 superstartran wrote:
No, I did not say that. I said that the handgun bans had no discernible affect on the firearm related crimes within those cities, which would actually be a true statement.
Keep on twisting my words to fit your agenda.
Kwark said exactly nothing about gun violence in England, to which you replied with a post doing nothing but decry comparing gun violence between England and the US. Your reply was utterly irrelevant to his argument. Probably because his argument is dumb in the first place. Just because something doesn't show effects doesn't mean it doesn't work! You cannot expect anybody to treat you or your point of view with respect if you argue dishonestly, then when called out on it reply with "the argument was dumb anyway". As to your second statement: (1) Given that many confounding variables exist, your intentionally sarcastic statement has more truth to it than not. (2) Even if a given policy does not work on its own, that does not mean it would not work when supported by other policies. Funny considering that gun control advocates conveniently leave out so many other confounding variables and only look at one variable, guns. So some of their arguments aren't reliable or rigorous either. That doesn't make your argument any more convincing. Oh no, I called someone's argument dumb because it basically said just because something isn't statistically significant doesn't mean it's not effective.
Actually the argument of Kwark's you called dumb was that "bad things tend to happen in places where there are countermeasures against those bad things, because otherwise the countermeasures would not be there, and therefore bad things happening in places where countermeasures exist is not inherently an argument against the efficacy of those countermeasures". We could debate whether that is dumb or not, but...
You could literally apply that to almost anything. When trying to change the status quo you need to be able to show a statistical significance otherwise no one's really going to actually buy into your position. Considering gun control advocates haven't been able to do that without glossing over a ton of facts, misrepresent things, etc. do excuse me when I call some of them dumb.
...the problem isn't that you called the argument dumb, the problem is that you made a thoroughly dishonest argument yourself (in that you were arguing against something Kwark had not said) and then tried to excuse it by calling the other guy's argument dumb.
|
No, its mostly you railing against any discussion about the effectiveness of gun control.
Let us not forget the amazing math challenge of February, 2018, in which you tapped into TL second love beyond BW: Statistics.
https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/313472-if-youre-seeing-this-topic-then-another-mass-shooting-happened-and-people-disagree-on-what-to-do?page=689#13761
In which people pointed out that you are dead set on forcing the burden of proof onto gun control advocates at all times. Including claiming that England "gathering of fire arm statistics are vastly different" without providing any evidence or information to back up that claim. It is a weird claim because the US doesn't really collect fire arms statistics nationally in any meaningful way. People are just tired of doing all the work in this relationship.
Edit: and now the argument boils down to "His argument is dumb" vs "no its not".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
