|
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 August 28 2018 01:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 00:15 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2018 21:22 DropBear wrote:
Kids are getting shot playing video games and then we argue about the statistical likelihood of it happening. If it's happening more than zero times it's too much!
It's unlikely so never mind, you don't need to do anything. This is the argument from the John Oliver interview of that pro gun guy. "Whoop dee doo, there are so few of them!" Kids are being killed by people illegally in the country. The response to “if it’s happening more than zero times it’s too much” is generally the statistics of how rare it is. The first thing you absolutely must know is that everybody has their own “deaths by illegal alien” or “deaths by shooter going for mass killing of stranger” or “deaths by domestic terrorism” or “deaths by Islamic terrorism.” It’s sensitivity to statistics combined with political philosophy about the underlying event, not that somebody’s so heartless for bringing up the statistics in the first place. Death by shooting doesn't fit into that category though. That's where this debate should really be taking place.
May I remind you, I replied to a person that said bringing up statistics of tragedies was in and of itself wrong for this. “If it's happening more than zero times it's too much!” That falls under the broad umbrella of other politically sensitive topics where statistics regularly play a role downplaying the problem or putting it in context. Understand? Agree or disagree that citing statistical likelihood is wrong because more than zero times is too much?
|
On August 28 2018 02:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 01:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2018 00:15 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2018 21:22 DropBear wrote:
Kids are getting shot playing video games and then we argue about the statistical likelihood of it happening. If it's happening more than zero times it's too much!
It's unlikely so never mind, you don't need to do anything. This is the argument from the John Oliver interview of that pro gun guy. "Whoop dee doo, there are so few of them!" Kids are being killed by people illegally in the country. The response to “if it’s happening more than zero times it’s too much” is generally the statistics of how rare it is. The first thing you absolutely must know is that everybody has their own “deaths by illegal alien” or “deaths by shooter going for mass killing of stranger” or “deaths by domestic terrorism” or “deaths by Islamic terrorism.” It’s sensitivity to statistics combined with political philosophy about the underlying event, not that somebody’s so heartless for bringing up the statistics in the first place. Death by shooting doesn't fit into that category though. That's where this debate should really be taking place. May I remind you, I replied to a person that said bringing up statistics of tragedies was in and of itself wrong for this. “ If it's happening more than zero times it's too much!” That falls under the broad umbrella of other politically sensitive topics where statistics regularly play a role downplaying the problem or putting it in context. Understand? Agree or disagree that citing statistical likelihood is wrong because more than zero times is too much?
It is unacceptable for any woman would be murdered while jogging and efforts should be taken to combat violence against women.
|
On August 27 2018 16:03 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2018 15:07 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 14:53 DropBear wrote:
University. Mass shooting
High school. Mass shooting
Primary school. Mass shooting
Church. Mass shooting
Military base. Mass shooting
Nightclub. Mass shooting
Movie theatre. Mass shooting
Christmas party. Mass shooting
Music festival. Mass shooting
Video game tourney. Mass shooting
All of these since 2012. How are you meant to go to a public place in the US at this point? Any type of gathering has been targeted.
You are more likely to die while driving your car to work, so I guess we should all quit our jobs too. Time to close down society. I know the point you're making but gun violence in America is such a problem that your statement isn't completely true. Apparently you're more likely to die from a gun-related assault than dying inside a motor vehicle. The odds for police related death and mass shooting (incident with 3+ deaths) are also higher than they really should be.
On August 27 2018 21:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What exactly are you arguing here micronesia? It is more statistically likely that you will die from gun than from a road accident. Not only is your statements unsubstantiated, but even if it was true, it is pretty disgusting that the gist of your argument is that we, people just who happen to play broodwar are less likely to suffer death from gun than death from car, so it's ok that people who happen not to play broodwar are more likely to die from gun than car.
I'm going to stick to my guns on this one:
"Nearly 13,000 people in the US were murdered with firearms in 2015." (your source)
"38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2015, and roughly 4.4 million sustained injuries that resulted in medical consultations."
|
On August 28 2018 02:12 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2018 16:03 Womwomwom wrote:On August 27 2018 15:07 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 14:53 DropBear wrote:
University. Mass shooting
High school. Mass shooting
Primary school. Mass shooting
Church. Mass shooting
Military base. Mass shooting
Nightclub. Mass shooting
Movie theatre. Mass shooting
Christmas party. Mass shooting
Music festival. Mass shooting
Video game tourney. Mass shooting
All of these since 2012. How are you meant to go to a public place in the US at this point? Any type of gathering has been targeted.
You are more likely to die while driving your car to work, so I guess we should all quit our jobs too. Time to close down society. I know the point you're making but gun violence in America is such a problem that your statement isn't completely true. Apparently you're more likely to die from a gun-related assault than dying inside a motor vehicle. The odds for police related death and mass shooting (incident with 3+ deaths) are also higher than they really should be. Show nested quote +On August 27 2018 21:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What exactly are you arguing here micronesia? It is more statistically likely that you will die from gun than from a road accident. Not only is your statements unsubstantiated, but even if it was true, it is pretty disgusting that the gist of your argument is that we, people just who happen to play broodwar are less likely to suffer death from gun than death from car, so it's ok that people who happen not to play broodwar are more likely to die from gun than car. I'm going to stick to my guns on this one: "Nearly 13,000 people in the US were murdered with firearms in 2015." (your source) "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2015, and roughly 4.4 million sustained injuries that resulted in medical consultations."
I brought this up before, but I'll do it again.
"From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States."
By using your own logic, I could easily argue that lynchings were not a problem in the US. By simply citing the raw numbers against the total population, you effectually flatten the issue by removing all context around the shooting in question. It is an argument rooted in bad faith comparisons and correlations. You should really give up the ghost on this one and move on.
|
|
|
On August 28 2018 02:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 01:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2018 00:15 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2018 21:22 DropBear wrote:
Kids are getting shot playing video games and then we argue about the statistical likelihood of it happening. If it's happening more than zero times it's too much!
It's unlikely so never mind, you don't need to do anything. This is the argument from the John Oliver interview of that pro gun guy. "Whoop dee doo, there are so few of them!" Kids are being killed by people illegally in the country. The response to “if it’s happening more than zero times it’s too much” is generally the statistics of how rare it is. The first thing you absolutely must know is that everybody has their own “deaths by illegal alien” or “deaths by shooter going for mass killing of stranger” or “deaths by domestic terrorism” or “deaths by Islamic terrorism.” It’s sensitivity to statistics combined with political philosophy about the underlying event, not that somebody’s so heartless for bringing up the statistics in the first place. Death by shooting doesn't fit into that category though. That's where this debate should really be taking place. May I remind you, I replied to a person that said bringing up statistics of tragedies was in and of itself wrong for this. “ If it's happening more than zero times it's too much!” That falls under the broad umbrella of other politically sensitive topics where statistics regularly play a role downplaying the problem or putting it in context. Understand? Agree or disagree that citing statistical likelihood is wrong because more than zero times is too much?
Pretty strongly disagree with that. You can tell me whatever statistics you want, it will never make it okay that somebody was shot and killed.
I would've thought and hoped that this would be obvious.
|
On August 28 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 02:12 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 16:03 Womwomwom wrote:On August 27 2018 15:07 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 14:53 DropBear wrote:
University. Mass shooting
High school. Mass shooting
Primary school. Mass shooting
Church. Mass shooting
Military base. Mass shooting
Nightclub. Mass shooting
Movie theatre. Mass shooting
Christmas party. Mass shooting
Music festival. Mass shooting
Video game tourney. Mass shooting
All of these since 2012. How are you meant to go to a public place in the US at this point? Any type of gathering has been targeted.
You are more likely to die while driving your car to work, so I guess we should all quit our jobs too. Time to close down society. I know the point you're making but gun violence in America is such a problem that your statement isn't completely true. Apparently you're more likely to die from a gun-related assault than dying inside a motor vehicle. The odds for police related death and mass shooting (incident with 3+ deaths) are also higher than they really should be. On August 27 2018 21:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What exactly are you arguing here micronesia? It is more statistically likely that you will die from gun than from a road accident. Not only is your statements unsubstantiated, but even if it was true, it is pretty disgusting that the gist of your argument is that we, people just who happen to play broodwar are less likely to suffer death from gun than death from car, so it's ok that people who happen not to play broodwar are more likely to die from gun than car. I'm going to stick to my guns on this one: "Nearly 13,000 people in the US were murdered with firearms in 2015." (your source) "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2015, and roughly 4.4 million sustained injuries that resulted in medical consultations." I brought this up before, but I'll do it again. " From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States." By using your own logic, I could easily argue that lynchings were not a problem in the US. By simply citing the raw numbers against the total population, you effectually flatten the issue by removing all context around the shooting in question. It is an argument rooted in bad faith comparisons and correlations. You should really give up the ghost on this one and move on.
If you followed the discussion whatsoever, you will see that I was answering the sensationalist fearmongering that seemed to suggest that no public place is safe in America because a shooting happened at multiple locations. I brought up the statistic that far more people have died on the road than in a shooting, so by that person's logic, we should all be quitting our jobs right now unless we can walk to them. So, I was not trying to diminish the tragedy in any sense of the word - that is just how people who seek to be offended, make the discussion political, and bring up lynching statistics would see it as. I was pointing out the absurdity of changing the way you live your life based on MSM hysteria over isolated incidents that are caused by individuals.
But if you want to bait me with lynching statistics, then okay, I'll give you what you want. Lynching is despicable, and 4743 lynchings over the course of 86 years is too many. However, it is also not comparable to shootings in the USA, because the lynchings were just the most extreme cases of a systemic issue of legal and cultural inequality. One could argue that by drawing this comparison, it is you who is making immoral comparisons. However, I won't bait like you do.
How is this providing context around this shooting in question, anyway? What deep insights do you have into this incident that you would like to share with the class today? I haven't seen any.
|
On August 28 2018 02:34 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 02:12 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 16:03 Womwomwom wrote:On August 27 2018 15:07 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 14:53 DropBear wrote:
University. Mass shooting
High school. Mass shooting
Primary school. Mass shooting
Church. Mass shooting
Military base. Mass shooting
Nightclub. Mass shooting
Movie theatre. Mass shooting
Christmas party. Mass shooting
Music festival. Mass shooting
Video game tourney. Mass shooting
All of these since 2012. How are you meant to go to a public place in the US at this point? Any type of gathering has been targeted.
You are more likely to die while driving your car to work, so I guess we should all quit our jobs too. Time to close down society. I know the point you're making but gun violence in America is such a problem that your statement isn't completely true. Apparently you're more likely to die from a gun-related assault than dying inside a motor vehicle. The odds for police related death and mass shooting (incident with 3+ deaths) are also higher than they really should be. On August 27 2018 21:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What exactly are you arguing here micronesia? It is more statistically likely that you will die from gun than from a road accident. Not only is your statements unsubstantiated, but even if it was true, it is pretty disgusting that the gist of your argument is that we, people just who happen to play broodwar are less likely to suffer death from gun than death from car, so it's ok that people who happen not to play broodwar are more likely to die from gun than car. I'm going to stick to my guns on this one: "Nearly 13,000 people in the US were murdered with firearms in 2015." (your source) "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2015, and roughly 4.4 million sustained injuries that resulted in medical consultations." I brought this up before, but I'll do it again. " From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States." By using your own logic, I could easily argue that lynchings were not a problem in the US. By simply citing the raw numbers against the total population, you effectually flatten the issue by removing all context around the shooting in question. It is an argument rooted in bad faith comparisons and correlations. You should really give up the ghost on this one and move on. If you followed the discussion whatsoever, you will see that I was answering the sensationalist fearmongering that seemed to suggest that no public place is safe in America because a shooting happened at multiple locations. I brought up the statistic that far more people have died on the road than in a shooting, so by that person's logic, we should all be quitting our jobs right now unless we can walk to them. So, I was not trying to diminish the tragedy in any sense of the word - that is just how people who seek to be offended, make the discussion political, and bring up lynching statistics would see it as. I was pointing out the absurdity of changing the way you live your life based on MSM hysteria over isolated incidents that are caused by individuals. But if you want to bait me with lynching statistics, then okay, I'll give you what you want. Lynching is despicable, and 4743 lynchings over the course of 86 years is too many. However, it is also not comparable to shootings in the USA, because the lynchings were just the most extreme cases of a systemic issue of legal and cultural inequality. One could argue that by drawing this comparison, it is you who is making immoral comparisons. However, I won't bait like you do. How is this providing context around this shooting in question, anyway? What deep insights do you have into this incident that you would like to share with the class today? I haven't seen any.
The problem with your argument how we, as a culture, have treated these shootings. We have treated them as like natural disasters, something that we cannot prevent in advance and must prepare for. We teach teachers how to use school supplies as weapons. We tell children how to flee schools to avoid getting killed on the way out. And we have been doing this dance for close to 20 years and passed no national gun laws or enacted any policy changes on a national level. Even after a bunch of elementary school children were murdered in their school.
We have an entire generation of new voters that have grown up in this post Columbine era and they are slowly realizing it is all bullshit. That we could have better laws, better background checks. That we could empower police to take action before these crimes take place and that some states have passed laws increase the chances prevent these shooting.
But the real reason why your stats don’t matter is because people don’t feel safe. And perception is reality. The public has been treated to an endless cavalcade of shootings and zero action in the aftermath for decades now. They are numb to it and have grown to accept the idea that it could happen to any school at any time. So you can claim it is fear mongering, but that is how people feel. And being a longtime supporter of policy based provable data, I know which argument wins over people. It isn’t data.
|
|
|
Ya know, "pointing out the absurdity of changing the way you live your life" is a two edged sword in a thread where folks have argued that folks need easy access to guns *just in case* someone breaks into their home and seeks to do them harm. Funny that the sentiment is only pointing out that absurdity in one direction, how benevolent!
|
On August 28 2018 02:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 01:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2018 00:15 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2018 21:22 DropBear wrote:
Kids are getting shot playing video games and then we argue about the statistical likelihood of it happening. If it's happening more than zero times it's too much!
It's unlikely so never mind, you don't need to do anything. This is the argument from the John Oliver interview of that pro gun guy. "Whoop dee doo, there are so few of them!" Kids are being killed by people illegally in the country. The response to “if it’s happening more than zero times it’s too much” is generally the statistics of how rare it is. The first thing you absolutely must know is that everybody has their own “deaths by illegal alien” or “deaths by shooter going for mass killing of stranger” or “deaths by domestic terrorism” or “deaths by Islamic terrorism.” It’s sensitivity to statistics combined with political philosophy about the underlying event, not that somebody’s so heartless for bringing up the statistics in the first place. Death by shooting doesn't fit into that category though. That's where this debate should really be taking place. May I remind you, I replied to a person that said bringing up statistics of tragedies was in and of itself wrong for this. “ If it's happening more than zero times it's too much!” That falls under the broad umbrella of other politically sensitive topics where statistics regularly play a role downplaying the problem or putting it in context. Understand? Agree or disagree that citing statistical likelihood is wrong because more than zero times is too much?
Wow what's with the hostility?
I never disagreed with what you said. I would say that in the case of very rare events statistical likelihood is not where you should be looking at all, not because 'more than zero times is too much', but because the rareness of the event renders the statistics less than robust. They are susceptible to anomalies that can drastically warp any conclusions that you can make.
|
On August 28 2018 02:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 02:34 Jealous wrote:On August 28 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 02:12 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 16:03 Womwomwom wrote:On August 27 2018 15:07 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 14:53 DropBear wrote:
University. Mass shooting
High school. Mass shooting
Primary school. Mass shooting
Church. Mass shooting
Military base. Mass shooting
Nightclub. Mass shooting
Movie theatre. Mass shooting
Christmas party. Mass shooting
Music festival. Mass shooting
Video game tourney. Mass shooting
All of these since 2012. How are you meant to go to a public place in the US at this point? Any type of gathering has been targeted.
You are more likely to die while driving your car to work, so I guess we should all quit our jobs too. Time to close down society. I know the point you're making but gun violence in America is such a problem that your statement isn't completely true. Apparently you're more likely to die from a gun-related assault than dying inside a motor vehicle. The odds for police related death and mass shooting (incident with 3+ deaths) are also higher than they really should be. On August 27 2018 21:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What exactly are you arguing here micronesia? It is more statistically likely that you will die from gun than from a road accident. Not only is your statements unsubstantiated, but even if it was true, it is pretty disgusting that the gist of your argument is that we, people just who happen to play broodwar are less likely to suffer death from gun than death from car, so it's ok that people who happen not to play broodwar are more likely to die from gun than car. I'm going to stick to my guns on this one: "Nearly 13,000 people in the US were murdered with firearms in 2015." (your source) "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2015, and roughly 4.4 million sustained injuries that resulted in medical consultations." I brought this up before, but I'll do it again. " From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States." By using your own logic, I could easily argue that lynchings were not a problem in the US. By simply citing the raw numbers against the total population, you effectually flatten the issue by removing all context around the shooting in question. It is an argument rooted in bad faith comparisons and correlations. You should really give up the ghost on this one and move on. If you followed the discussion whatsoever, you will see that I was answering the sensationalist fearmongering that seemed to suggest that no public place is safe in America because a shooting happened at multiple locations. I brought up the statistic that far more people have died on the road than in a shooting, so by that person's logic, we should all be quitting our jobs right now unless we can walk to them. So, I was not trying to diminish the tragedy in any sense of the word - that is just how people who seek to be offended, make the discussion political, and bring up lynching statistics would see it as. I was pointing out the absurdity of changing the way you live your life based on MSM hysteria over isolated incidents that are caused by individuals. But if you want to bait me with lynching statistics, then okay, I'll give you what you want. Lynching is despicable, and 4743 lynchings over the course of 86 years is too many. However, it is also not comparable to shootings in the USA, because the lynchings were just the most extreme cases of a systemic issue of legal and cultural inequality. One could argue that by drawing this comparison, it is you who is making immoral comparisons. However, I won't bait like you do. How is this providing context around this shooting in question, anyway? What deep insights do you have into this incident that you would like to share with the class today? I haven't seen any. The problem with your argument how we, as a culture, have treated these shootings. We have treated them as like natural disasters, something that we cannot prevent in advance and must prepare for. We teach teachers how to use school supplies as weapons. We tell children how to flee schools to avoid getting killed on the way out. And we have been doing this dance for close to 20 years and passed no national gun laws or enacted any policy changes on a national level. Even after a bunch of elementary school children were murdered in their school. We have an entire generation of new voters that have grown up in this post Columbine era and they are slowly realizing it is all bullshit. That we could have better laws, better background checks. That we could empower police to take action before these crimes take place and that some states have passed laws increase the chances prevent these shooting. But the real reason why your stats don’t matter is because people don’t feel safe. And perception is reality. The public has been treated to an endless cavalcade of shootings and zero action in the aftermath for decades now. They are numb to it and have grown to accept the idea that it could happen to any school at any time. So you can claim it is fear mongering, but that is how people feel. And being a longtime supporter of policy based provable data, I know which argument wins over people. It isn’t data.
Going to respond directly to your last paragraph then work my way backward to an extent.
I don't care about winning people over. If you think that the emotional appeal will win ME over, then you're not going to make much progress. You've summarized the issue pretty well - that perspectives are delineating from data. In the same period of time that homicides have fallen by 50% since the 80s, MSM sensationalism concerning homicides has increased and reports crimes based on media-worthiness criteria. In other words, people's emotions are being manipulated not by the number of crimes but by their selective exposure of them, which has become an even greater issue due to social media, greater access to internet, etc. So, if your argument is that people don't care about data, I agree with you. If your argument is therefore that data is irrelevant and that we just need to operate on feels, then I disagree with you. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible for an individual to make someone else feel safe by an emotional-based approach over the internet - the only option is to point out the absurdity of their fearmongering by providing data and statistics.
I don't disagree with the fact that there could be better laws, and better background checks. I am no expert on the issue, but personally I would like to have a mental health assessment test, if we could find a practical and fair way of administering one. However, every change to legislation needs to prove that it is not unnecessarily exclusionary, and I think that is the major obstacle to improving gun regulation.
I will tie this up by saying that while a shooting at an elementary school is certainly a tragedy, the statistics don't demonstrate that the issue is trending up. It's been trending down, with slight plateaus and minor climbs, for close to 30 years. So, I can see why both gun owners and the government may be reluctant to change the status quo. I do think that the way we as a culture should approach these shootings needs to be improved, absolutely. Just not in the ways that I suspect you do.
On August 28 2018 02:47 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 02:34 Jealous wrote:On August 28 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 02:12 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 16:03 Womwomwom wrote:On August 27 2018 15:07 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 14:53 DropBear wrote:
University. Mass shooting
High school. Mass shooting
Primary school. Mass shooting
Church. Mass shooting
Military base. Mass shooting
Nightclub. Mass shooting
Movie theatre. Mass shooting
Christmas party. Mass shooting
Music festival. Mass shooting
Video game tourney. Mass shooting
All of these since 2012. How are you meant to go to a public place in the US at this point? Any type of gathering has been targeted.
You are more likely to die while driving your car to work, so I guess we should all quit our jobs too. Time to close down society. I know the point you're making but gun violence in America is such a problem that your statement isn't completely true. Apparently you're more likely to die from a gun-related assault than dying inside a motor vehicle. The odds for police related death and mass shooting (incident with 3+ deaths) are also higher than they really should be. On August 27 2018 21:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What exactly are you arguing here micronesia? It is more statistically likely that you will die from gun than from a road accident. Not only is your statements unsubstantiated, but even if it was true, it is pretty disgusting that the gist of your argument is that we, people just who happen to play broodwar are less likely to suffer death from gun than death from car, so it's ok that people who happen not to play broodwar are more likely to die from gun than car. I'm going to stick to my guns on this one: "Nearly 13,000 people in the US were murdered with firearms in 2015." (your source) "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2015, and roughly 4.4 million sustained injuries that resulted in medical consultations." I brought this up before, but I'll do it again. " From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States." By using your own logic, I could easily argue that lynchings were not a problem in the US. By simply citing the raw numbers against the total population, you effectually flatten the issue by removing all context around the shooting in question. It is an argument rooted in bad faith comparisons and correlations. You should really give up the ghost on this one and move on. If you followed the discussion whatsoever, you will see that I was answering the sensationalist fearmongering that seemed to suggest that no public place is safe in America because a shooting happened at multiple locations. I brought up the statistic that far more people have died on the road than in a shooting, so by that person's logic, we should all be quitting our jobs right now unless we can walk to them. So, I was not trying to diminish the tragedy in any sense of the word - that is just how people who seek to be offended, make the discussion political, and bring up lynching statistics would see it as. I was pointing out the absurdity of changing the way you live your life based on MSM hysteria over isolated incidents that are caused by individuals. But if you want to bait me with lynching statistics, then okay, I'll give you what you want. Lynching is despicable, and 4743 lynchings over the course of 86 years is too many. However, it is also not comparable to shootings in the USA, because the lynchings were just the most extreme cases of a systemic issue of legal and cultural inequality. One could argue that by drawing this comparison, it is you who is making immoral comparisons. However, I won't bait like you do. How is this providing context around this shooting in question, anyway? What deep insights do you have into this incident that you would like to share with the class today? I haven't seen any. I think if you were to factor in car use and gun use to your statistics they may say something different. I also think that removing cars from society would cause a lot of issues that removing guns would not.
Quick Google search has shown 363 million handguns and 269 million vehicles, so that means that homicide rate per object is higher for vehicles than handguns. I couldn't find statistics for how many people own gun licenses to compare vs. the amount of driving licenses, but I suspect that this isn't what you're getting at anyway.
Your statement is of course true. Cars have purposes beyond killing people or protecting oneself, this is fact. Also, a minority of drivers being irresponsible with their vehicles and leading to the death of others is not a reason to remove everyone's right to drive. However, I also don't think that just because a small percentage of gun owners are implicated in gun crimes, it is a reason to remove everyone's right to own a gun. It IS a reason to improve our legislation as far as who gets to own a gun, and improve how we handle media coverage of homicides, how we politicize the issue, etc.
On August 28 2018 02:47 farvacola wrote:
Ya know, "pointing out the absurdity of changing the way you live your life" is a two edged sword in a thread where folks have argued that folks need easy access to guns *just in case* someone breaks into their home and seeks to do them harm. Funny that the sentiment is only pointing out that absurdity in one direction, how benevolent!
I do think there are plenty of logically fallacious stances coming from those seeking to maintain their gun ownership. For example, the fact that guns are necessary to fight the US government if it turns on its people. That's an absurd notion. However, I don't think that owning a gun to protect yourself and your family is an absurd notion. Robberies, B&E, assaults, etc. happen far more frequently than mass shootings at public places.
|
On August 28 2018 03:07 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 02:08 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2018 01:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2018 00:15 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2018 21:22 DropBear wrote:
Kids are getting shot playing video games and then we argue about the statistical likelihood of it happening. If it's happening more than zero times it's too much!
It's unlikely so never mind, you don't need to do anything. This is the argument from the John Oliver interview of that pro gun guy. "Whoop dee doo, there are so few of them!" Kids are being killed by people illegally in the country. The response to “if it’s happening more than zero times it’s too much” is generally the statistics of how rare it is. The first thing you absolutely must know is that everybody has their own “deaths by illegal alien” or “deaths by shooter going for mass killing of stranger” or “deaths by domestic terrorism” or “deaths by Islamic terrorism.” It’s sensitivity to statistics combined with political philosophy about the underlying event, not that somebody’s so heartless for bringing up the statistics in the first place. Death by shooting doesn't fit into that category though. That's where this debate should really be taking place. May I remind you, I replied to a person that said bringing up statistics of tragedies was in and of itself wrong for this. “ If it's happening more than zero times it's too much!” That falls under the broad umbrella of other politically sensitive topics where statistics regularly play a role downplaying the problem or putting it in context. Understand? Agree or disagree that citing statistical likelihood is wrong because more than zero times is too much? Wow what's with the hostility? I never disagreed with what you said. I would say that in the case of very rare events statistical likelihood is not where you should be looking at all, not because 'more than zero times is too much', but because the rareness of the event renders the statistics less than robust. They are susceptible to anomalies that can drastically warp any conclusions that you can make.
Unless the rareness of the event is your conclusion in the first place, which is apparently an offensive stance to take according to Danglars (if I understood correctly).
|
|
|
On August 28 2018 03:20 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 02:45 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 02:34 Jealous wrote:On August 28 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 02:12 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 16:03 Womwomwom wrote:On August 27 2018 15:07 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 14:53 DropBear wrote:
University. Mass shooting
High school. Mass shooting
Primary school. Mass shooting
Church. Mass shooting
Military base. Mass shooting
Nightclub. Mass shooting
Movie theatre. Mass shooting
Christmas party. Mass shooting
Music festival. Mass shooting
Video game tourney. Mass shooting
All of these since 2012. How are you meant to go to a public place in the US at this point? Any type of gathering has been targeted.
You are more likely to die while driving your car to work, so I guess we should all quit our jobs too. Time to close down society. I know the point you're making but gun violence in America is such a problem that your statement isn't completely true. Apparently you're more likely to die from a gun-related assault than dying inside a motor vehicle. The odds for police related death and mass shooting (incident with 3+ deaths) are also higher than they really should be. On August 27 2018 21:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What exactly are you arguing here micronesia? It is more statistically likely that you will die from gun than from a road accident. Not only is your statements unsubstantiated, but even if it was true, it is pretty disgusting that the gist of your argument is that we, people just who happen to play broodwar are less likely to suffer death from gun than death from car, so it's ok that people who happen not to play broodwar are more likely to die from gun than car. I'm going to stick to my guns on this one: "Nearly 13,000 people in the US were murdered with firearms in 2015." (your source) "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2015, and roughly 4.4 million sustained injuries that resulted in medical consultations." I brought this up before, but I'll do it again. " From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States." By using your own logic, I could easily argue that lynchings were not a problem in the US. By simply citing the raw numbers against the total population, you effectually flatten the issue by removing all context around the shooting in question. It is an argument rooted in bad faith comparisons and correlations. You should really give up the ghost on this one and move on. If you followed the discussion whatsoever, you will see that I was answering the sensationalist fearmongering that seemed to suggest that no public place is safe in America because a shooting happened at multiple locations. I brought up the statistic that far more people have died on the road than in a shooting, so by that person's logic, we should all be quitting our jobs right now unless we can walk to them. So, I was not trying to diminish the tragedy in any sense of the word - that is just how people who seek to be offended, make the discussion political, and bring up lynching statistics would see it as. I was pointing out the absurdity of changing the way you live your life based on MSM hysteria over isolated incidents that are caused by individuals. But if you want to bait me with lynching statistics, then okay, I'll give you what you want. Lynching is despicable, and 4743 lynchings over the course of 86 years is too many. However, it is also not comparable to shootings in the USA, because the lynchings were just the most extreme cases of a systemic issue of legal and cultural inequality. One could argue that by drawing this comparison, it is you who is making immoral comparisons. However, I won't bait like you do. How is this providing context around this shooting in question, anyway? What deep insights do you have into this incident that you would like to share with the class today? I haven't seen any. The problem with your argument how we, as a culture, have treated these shootings. We have treated them as like natural disasters, something that we cannot prevent in advance and must prepare for. We teach teachers how to use school supplies as weapons. We tell children how to flee schools to avoid getting killed on the way out. And we have been doing this dance for close to 20 years and passed no national gun laws or enacted any policy changes on a national level. Even after a bunch of elementary school children were murdered in their school. We have an entire generation of new voters that have grown up in this post Columbine era and they are slowly realizing it is all bullshit. That we could have better laws, better background checks. That we could empower police to take action before these crimes take place and that some states have passed laws increase the chances prevent these shooting. But the real reason why your stats don’t matter is because people don’t feel safe. And perception is reality. The public has been treated to an endless cavalcade of shootings and zero action in the aftermath for decades now. They are numb to it and have grown to accept the idea that it could happen to any school at any time. So you can claim it is fear mongering, but that is how people feel. And being a longtime supporter of policy based provable data, I know which argument wins over people. It isn’t data. Going to respond directly to your last paragraph then work my way backward to an extent. I don't care about winning people over. If you think that the emotional appeal will win ME over, then you're not going to make much progress. You've summarized the issue pretty well - that perspectives are delineating from data. In the same period of time that homicides have fallen by 50% since the 80s, MSM sensationalism concerning homicides has increased and reports crimes based on media-worthiness criteria. In other words, people's emotions are being manipulated not by the number of crimes but by their selective exposure of them, which has become an even greater issue due to social media, greater access to internet, etc. So, if your argument is that people don't care about data, I agree with you. If your argument is therefore that data is irrelevant and that we just need to operate on feels, then I disagree with you. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible for an individual to make someone else feel safe by an emotional-based approach over the internet - the only option is to point out the absurdity of their fearmongering by providing data and statistics. I don't disagree with the fact that there could be better laws, and better background checks. I am no expert on the issue, but personally I would like to have a mental health assessment test, if we could find a practical and fair way of administering one. However, every change to legislation needs to prove that it is not unnecessarily exclusionary, and I think that is the major obstacle to improving gun regulation. I will tie this up by saying that while a shooting at an elementary school is certainly a tragedy, the statistics don't demonstrate that the issue is trending up. It's been trending down, with slight plateaus and minor climbs, for close to 30 years. So, I can see why both gun owners and the government may be reluctant to change the status quo. I do think that the way we as a culture should approach these shootings needs to be improved, absolutely. Just not in the ways that I suspect you do.
I am pretty sure we agree most issues revolving around guns. I don’t want to remove them or limit lawful ownership of fire arms. But I am completely unsympathetic to any argument that hinges on gun purchasers facing minor delays when buying a fire arms. Or theoretical potential abuses of laws that may or may not come to pass. I would rather live in a world where we pass updated gun laws every 4 years than one where we wait for 20-30 years to pass one overhaul that is expected to last 20-30 years.
And when it comes to data, I believe it is useful to highlight the nuances of a grounded discussion, but is not useful for changing minds of the public that something is a problem. And the best way to address something that the public feels is a problem is to debate it in the legislature through the standard public policy process. And when it comes to gun laws, we have not done that at the Federal level in any serious fashion since the 1990s.
|
On August 28 2018 03:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 03:20 Jealous wrote:On August 28 2018 02:45 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 02:34 Jealous wrote:On August 28 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 02:12 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 16:03 Womwomwom wrote:On August 27 2018 15:07 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 14:53 DropBear wrote:
University. Mass shooting
High school. Mass shooting
Primary school. Mass shooting
Church. Mass shooting
Military base. Mass shooting
Nightclub. Mass shooting
Movie theatre. Mass shooting
Christmas party. Mass shooting
Music festival. Mass shooting
Video game tourney. Mass shooting
All of these since 2012. How are you meant to go to a public place in the US at this point? Any type of gathering has been targeted.
You are more likely to die while driving your car to work, so I guess we should all quit our jobs too. Time to close down society. I know the point you're making but gun violence in America is such a problem that your statement isn't completely true. Apparently you're more likely to die from a gun-related assault than dying inside a motor vehicle. The odds for police related death and mass shooting (incident with 3+ deaths) are also higher than they really should be. On August 27 2018 21:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What exactly are you arguing here micronesia? It is more statistically likely that you will die from gun than from a road accident. Not only is your statements unsubstantiated, but even if it was true, it is pretty disgusting that the gist of your argument is that we, people just who happen to play broodwar are less likely to suffer death from gun than death from car, so it's ok that people who happen not to play broodwar are more likely to die from gun than car. I'm going to stick to my guns on this one: "Nearly 13,000 people in the US were murdered with firearms in 2015." (your source) "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2015, and roughly 4.4 million sustained injuries that resulted in medical consultations." I brought this up before, but I'll do it again. " From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States." By using your own logic, I could easily argue that lynchings were not a problem in the US. By simply citing the raw numbers against the total population, you effectually flatten the issue by removing all context around the shooting in question. It is an argument rooted in bad faith comparisons and correlations. You should really give up the ghost on this one and move on. If you followed the discussion whatsoever, you will see that I was answering the sensationalist fearmongering that seemed to suggest that no public place is safe in America because a shooting happened at multiple locations. I brought up the statistic that far more people have died on the road than in a shooting, so by that person's logic, we should all be quitting our jobs right now unless we can walk to them. So, I was not trying to diminish the tragedy in any sense of the word - that is just how people who seek to be offended, make the discussion political, and bring up lynching statistics would see it as. I was pointing out the absurdity of changing the way you live your life based on MSM hysteria over isolated incidents that are caused by individuals. But if you want to bait me with lynching statistics, then okay, I'll give you what you want. Lynching is despicable, and 4743 lynchings over the course of 86 years is too many. However, it is also not comparable to shootings in the USA, because the lynchings were just the most extreme cases of a systemic issue of legal and cultural inequality. One could argue that by drawing this comparison, it is you who is making immoral comparisons. However, I won't bait like you do. How is this providing context around this shooting in question, anyway? What deep insights do you have into this incident that you would like to share with the class today? I haven't seen any. The problem with your argument how we, as a culture, have treated these shootings. We have treated them as like natural disasters, something that we cannot prevent in advance and must prepare for. We teach teachers how to use school supplies as weapons. We tell children how to flee schools to avoid getting killed on the way out. And we have been doing this dance for close to 20 years and passed no national gun laws or enacted any policy changes on a national level. Even after a bunch of elementary school children were murdered in their school. We have an entire generation of new voters that have grown up in this post Columbine era and they are slowly realizing it is all bullshit. That we could have better laws, better background checks. That we could empower police to take action before these crimes take place and that some states have passed laws increase the chances prevent these shooting. But the real reason why your stats don’t matter is because people don’t feel safe. And perception is reality. The public has been treated to an endless cavalcade of shootings and zero action in the aftermath for decades now. They are numb to it and have grown to accept the idea that it could happen to any school at any time. So you can claim it is fear mongering, but that is how people feel. And being a longtime supporter of policy based provable data, I know which argument wins over people. It isn’t data. Going to respond directly to your last paragraph then work my way backward to an extent. I don't care about winning people over. If you think that the emotional appeal will win ME over, then you're not going to make much progress. You've summarized the issue pretty well - that perspectives are delineating from data. In the same period of time that homicides have fallen by 50% since the 80s, MSM sensationalism concerning homicides has increased and reports crimes based on media-worthiness criteria. In other words, people's emotions are being manipulated not by the number of crimes but by their selective exposure of them, which has become an even greater issue due to social media, greater access to internet, etc. So, if your argument is that people don't care about data, I agree with you. If your argument is therefore that data is irrelevant and that we just need to operate on feels, then I disagree with you. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible for an individual to make someone else feel safe by an emotional-based approach over the internet - the only option is to point out the absurdity of their fearmongering by providing data and statistics. I don't disagree with the fact that there could be better laws, and better background checks. I am no expert on the issue, but personally I would like to have a mental health assessment test, if we could find a practical and fair way of administering one. However, every change to legislation needs to prove that it is not unnecessarily exclusionary, and I think that is the major obstacle to improving gun regulation. I will tie this up by saying that while a shooting at an elementary school is certainly a tragedy, the statistics don't demonstrate that the issue is trending up. It's been trending down, with slight plateaus and minor climbs, for close to 30 years. So, I can see why both gun owners and the government may be reluctant to change the status quo. I do think that the way we as a culture should approach these shootings needs to be improved, absolutely. Just not in the ways that I suspect you do. On August 28 2018 02:47 JimmiC wrote:On August 28 2018 02:34 Jealous wrote:On August 28 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 02:12 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 16:03 Womwomwom wrote:On August 27 2018 15:07 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 14:53 DropBear wrote:
University. Mass shooting
High school. Mass shooting
Primary school. Mass shooting
Church. Mass shooting
Military base. Mass shooting
Nightclub. Mass shooting
Movie theatre. Mass shooting
Christmas party. Mass shooting
Music festival. Mass shooting
Video game tourney. Mass shooting
All of these since 2012. How are you meant to go to a public place in the US at this point? Any type of gathering has been targeted.
You are more likely to die while driving your car to work, so I guess we should all quit our jobs too. Time to close down society. I know the point you're making but gun violence in America is such a problem that your statement isn't completely true. Apparently you're more likely to die from a gun-related assault than dying inside a motor vehicle. The odds for police related death and mass shooting (incident with 3+ deaths) are also higher than they really should be. On August 27 2018 21:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What exactly are you arguing here micronesia? It is more statistically likely that you will die from gun than from a road accident. Not only is your statements unsubstantiated, but even if it was true, it is pretty disgusting that the gist of your argument is that we, people just who happen to play broodwar are less likely to suffer death from gun than death from car, so it's ok that people who happen not to play broodwar are more likely to die from gun than car. I'm going to stick to my guns on this one: "Nearly 13,000 people in the US were murdered with firearms in 2015." (your source) "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2015, and roughly 4.4 million sustained injuries that resulted in medical consultations." I brought this up before, but I'll do it again. " From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States." By using your own logic, I could easily argue that lynchings were not a problem in the US. By simply citing the raw numbers against the total population, you effectually flatten the issue by removing all context around the shooting in question. It is an argument rooted in bad faith comparisons and correlations. You should really give up the ghost on this one and move on. If you followed the discussion whatsoever, you will see that I was answering the sensationalist fearmongering that seemed to suggest that no public place is safe in America because a shooting happened at multiple locations. I brought up the statistic that far more people have died on the road than in a shooting, so by that person's logic, we should all be quitting our jobs right now unless we can walk to them. So, I was not trying to diminish the tragedy in any sense of the word - that is just how people who seek to be offended, make the discussion political, and bring up lynching statistics would see it as. I was pointing out the absurdity of changing the way you live your life based on MSM hysteria over isolated incidents that are caused by individuals. But if you want to bait me with lynching statistics, then okay, I'll give you what you want. Lynching is despicable, and 4743 lynchings over the course of 86 years is too many. However, it is also not comparable to shootings in the USA, because the lynchings were just the most extreme cases of a systemic issue of legal and cultural inequality. One could argue that by drawing this comparison, it is you who is making immoral comparisons. However, I won't bait like you do. How is this providing context around this shooting in question, anyway? What deep insights do you have into this incident that you would like to share with the class today? I haven't seen any. I think if you were to factor in car use and gun use to your statistics they may say something different. I also think that removing cars from society would cause a lot of issues that removing guns would not. Quick Google search has shown 363 million handguns and 269 million vehicles, so that means that homicide rate per object is higher for vehicles than handguns. I couldn't find statistics for how many people own gun licenses to compare vs. the amount of driving licenses, but I suspect that this isn't what you're getting at anyway. Your statement is of course true. Cars have purposes beyond killing people or protecting oneself, this is fact. Also, a minority of drivers being irresponsible with their vehicles and leading to the death of others is not a reason to remove everyone's right to drive. However, I also don't think that just because a small percentage of gun owners are implicated in gun crimes, it is a reason to remove everyone's right to own a gun. It IS a reason to improve our legislation as far as who gets to own a gun, and improve how we handle media coverage of homicides, how we politicize the issue, etc. On August 28 2018 02:47 farvacola wrote:
Ya know, "pointing out the absurdity of changing the way you live your life" is a two edged sword in a thread where folks have argued that folks need easy access to guns *just in case* someone breaks into their home and seeks to do them harm. Funny that the sentiment is only pointing out that absurdity in one direction, how benevolent! I do think there are plenty of logically fallacious stances coming from those seeking to maintain their gun ownership. For example, the fact that guns are necessary to fight the US government if it turns on its people. That's an absurd notion. However, I don't think that owning a gun to protect yourself and your family is an absurd notion. Robberies, B&E, assaults, etc. happen far more frequently than mass shootings at public places. I said use not amount, most people use their cars hours a day. Very few people do that with their guns. I would think the main reason for that is there is a much greater need to transport ones self than there is to shoot things.
You're pursuing statistics that favor your position but that are also irrationally comparing apples to oranges. Your car doesn't do much good for you if it's sitting in a locked garage for years. Your gun is doing its job by being in a locked box in your sleeping quarters, every day. If you have a license to carry and choose to do so every day, then your gun is technically serving its purpose 24/7 (being readily equipped to defend oneself) while your car is only serving its purpose when it is being driven somewhere. You could replace the car in your garage with a taxi or Uber service; mercenary/bodyguard services are much harder to come by and afford. So, your point is effectively moot.
|
|
|
On August 28 2018 03:07 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 02:08 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2018 01:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2018 00:15 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2018 21:22 DropBear wrote:
Kids are getting shot playing video games and then we argue about the statistical likelihood of it happening. If it's happening more than zero times it's too much!
It's unlikely so never mind, you don't need to do anything. This is the argument from the John Oliver interview of that pro gun guy. "Whoop dee doo, there are so few of them!" Kids are being killed by people illegally in the country. The response to “if it’s happening more than zero times it’s too much” is generally the statistics of how rare it is. The first thing you absolutely must know is that everybody has their own “deaths by illegal alien” or “deaths by shooter going for mass killing of stranger” or “deaths by domestic terrorism” or “deaths by Islamic terrorism.” It’s sensitivity to statistics combined with political philosophy about the underlying event, not that somebody’s so heartless for bringing up the statistics in the first place. Death by shooting doesn't fit into that category though. That's where this debate should really be taking place. May I remind you, I replied to a person that said bringing up statistics of tragedies was in and of itself wrong for this. “ If it's happening more than zero times it's too much!” That falls under the broad umbrella of other politically sensitive topics where statistics regularly play a role downplaying the problem or putting it in context. Understand? Agree or disagree that citing statistical likelihood is wrong because more than zero times is too much? Wow what's with the hostility? I never disagreed with what you said. I would say that in the case of very rare events statistical likelihood is not where you should be looking at all, not because 'more than zero times is too much', but because the rareness of the event renders the statistics less than robust. They are susceptible to anomalies that can drastically warp any conclusions that you can make.
I’m just putting the real question to you in the most plain way I can think of. You talked about whether something does or does not fit into categories, and I said the category as I see it is whether or not it is appropriate to call someone heartless for bringing in statistics after a class of murders, considering how routine it is to do so in the wake of murders by people who illegally entered the country prior to the crime. I’m making no claims to susceptibility to anomalies or whether you can debate statistical relevance, in case that wasn’t clear.
If he had said “x, y, and z make statistics ‘less than robust’ “ it would be a far different thing than what he actually said.
You may answer the question at your leisure. If you choose not to, I won’t hold this as some evidence that you’re trying to dodge the question.
|
Cars are more much dangerous than guns. A gun is a tool and with proper training a very effective tool for defense and recreation. Accidental gun deaths don't happen as much as you would think, which means someone decides to harm or kill, which is a misuse of the tool. Cars on the other hand will be responsible for many unintentional deaths, which means even if they are used as designed people will kill each other. It's not always a drunk or a texter either, sometimes people just make mistakes.
My point is if both these tools are used with care, cars are more dangerous than guns. Guns being a problem is more a reflection on the poor state of mental health in our society.
|
On August 28 2018 03:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 03:20 Jealous wrote:On August 28 2018 02:45 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 02:34 Jealous wrote:On August 28 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 02:12 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 16:03 Womwomwom wrote:On August 27 2018 15:07 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 14:53 DropBear wrote:
University. Mass shooting
High school. Mass shooting
Primary school. Mass shooting
Church. Mass shooting
Military base. Mass shooting
Nightclub. Mass shooting
Movie theatre. Mass shooting
Christmas party. Mass shooting
Music festival. Mass shooting
Video game tourney. Mass shooting
All of these since 2012. How are you meant to go to a public place in the US at this point? Any type of gathering has been targeted.
You are more likely to die while driving your car to work, so I guess we should all quit our jobs too. Time to close down society. I know the point you're making but gun violence in America is such a problem that your statement isn't completely true. Apparently you're more likely to die from a gun-related assault than dying inside a motor vehicle. The odds for police related death and mass shooting (incident with 3+ deaths) are also higher than they really should be. On August 27 2018 21:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What exactly are you arguing here micronesia? It is more statistically likely that you will die from gun than from a road accident. Not only is your statements unsubstantiated, but even if it was true, it is pretty disgusting that the gist of your argument is that we, people just who happen to play broodwar are less likely to suffer death from gun than death from car, so it's ok that people who happen not to play broodwar are more likely to die from gun than car. I'm going to stick to my guns on this one: "Nearly 13,000 people in the US were murdered with firearms in 2015." (your source) "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2015, and roughly 4.4 million sustained injuries that resulted in medical consultations." I brought this up before, but I'll do it again. " From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States." By using your own logic, I could easily argue that lynchings were not a problem in the US. By simply citing the raw numbers against the total population, you effectually flatten the issue by removing all context around the shooting in question. It is an argument rooted in bad faith comparisons and correlations. You should really give up the ghost on this one and move on. If you followed the discussion whatsoever, you will see that I was answering the sensationalist fearmongering that seemed to suggest that no public place is safe in America because a shooting happened at multiple locations. I brought up the statistic that far more people have died on the road than in a shooting, so by that person's logic, we should all be quitting our jobs right now unless we can walk to them. So, I was not trying to diminish the tragedy in any sense of the word - that is just how people who seek to be offended, make the discussion political, and bring up lynching statistics would see it as. I was pointing out the absurdity of changing the way you live your life based on MSM hysteria over isolated incidents that are caused by individuals. But if you want to bait me with lynching statistics, then okay, I'll give you what you want. Lynching is despicable, and 4743 lynchings over the course of 86 years is too many. However, it is also not comparable to shootings in the USA, because the lynchings were just the most extreme cases of a systemic issue of legal and cultural inequality. One could argue that by drawing this comparison, it is you who is making immoral comparisons. However, I won't bait like you do. How is this providing context around this shooting in question, anyway? What deep insights do you have into this incident that you would like to share with the class today? I haven't seen any. The problem with your argument how we, as a culture, have treated these shootings. We have treated them as like natural disasters, something that we cannot prevent in advance and must prepare for. We teach teachers how to use school supplies as weapons. We tell children how to flee schools to avoid getting killed on the way out. And we have been doing this dance for close to 20 years and passed no national gun laws or enacted any policy changes on a national level. Even after a bunch of elementary school children were murdered in their school. We have an entire generation of new voters that have grown up in this post Columbine era and they are slowly realizing it is all bullshit. That we could have better laws, better background checks. That we could empower police to take action before these crimes take place and that some states have passed laws increase the chances prevent these shooting. But the real reason why your stats don’t matter is because people don’t feel safe. And perception is reality. The public has been treated to an endless cavalcade of shootings and zero action in the aftermath for decades now. They are numb to it and have grown to accept the idea that it could happen to any school at any time. So you can claim it is fear mongering, but that is how people feel. And being a longtime supporter of policy based provable data, I know which argument wins over people. It isn’t data. Going to respond directly to your last paragraph then work my way backward to an extent. I don't care about winning people over. If you think that the emotional appeal will win ME over, then you're not going to make much progress. You've summarized the issue pretty well - that perspectives are delineating from data. In the same period of time that homicides have fallen by 50% since the 80s, MSM sensationalism concerning homicides has increased and reports crimes based on media-worthiness criteria. In other words, people's emotions are being manipulated not by the number of crimes but by their selective exposure of them, which has become an even greater issue due to social media, greater access to internet, etc. So, if your argument is that people don't care about data, I agree with you. If your argument is therefore that data is irrelevant and that we just need to operate on feels, then I disagree with you. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible for an individual to make someone else feel safe by an emotional-based approach over the internet - the only option is to point out the absurdity of their fearmongering by providing data and statistics. I don't disagree with the fact that there could be better laws, and better background checks. I am no expert on the issue, but personally I would like to have a mental health assessment test, if we could find a practical and fair way of administering one. However, every change to legislation needs to prove that it is not unnecessarily exclusionary, and I think that is the major obstacle to improving gun regulation. I will tie this up by saying that while a shooting at an elementary school is certainly a tragedy, the statistics don't demonstrate that the issue is trending up. It's been trending down, with slight plateaus and minor climbs, for close to 30 years. So, I can see why both gun owners and the government may be reluctant to change the status quo. I do think that the way we as a culture should approach these shootings needs to be improved, absolutely. Just not in the ways that I suspect you do. I am pretty sure we agree most issues revolving around guns. I don’t want to remove them or limit lawful ownership of fire arms. But I am completely unsympathetic to any argument that hinges on gun purchasers facing minor delays when buying a fire arms. Or theoretical potential abuses of laws that may or may not come to pass. I would rather live in a world where we pass updated gun laws every 4 years than one where we wait for 20-30 years to pass one overhaul that is expected to last 20-30 years. And when it comes to data, I believe it is useful to highlight the nuances of a grounded discussion, but is not useful for changing minds of the public that something is a problem. And the best way to address something that the public feels is a problem is to debate it in the legislature through the standard public policy process. And when it comes to gun laws, we have not done that at the Federal level in any serious fashion since the 1990s.
My only point of disagreement here is that I think that changing how the media handles gun-related incidents is the most effective way to alter social perception of the problem. This is a difficult problem to tackle because it deals with free speech, freedom of the press, and any regulation of MSM would be seen as government encroachment, even if it is well-founded. Any debate or changes in legislature would still be perceived by the general population through the lens of popular media.
On August 28 2018 03:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 03:39 Jealous wrote:On August 28 2018 03:34 JimmiC wrote:On August 28 2018 03:20 Jealous wrote:On August 28 2018 02:45 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 02:34 Jealous wrote:On August 28 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 02:12 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 16:03 Womwomwom wrote:On August 27 2018 15:07 Jealous wrote:
[quote]
You are more likely to die while driving your car to work, so I guess we should all quit our jobs too. Time to close down society. I know the point you're making but gun violence in America is such a problem that your statement isn't completely true. Apparently you're more likely to die from a gun-related assault than dying inside a motor vehicle. The odds for police related death and mass shooting (incident with 3+ deaths) are also higher than they really should be. On August 27 2018 21:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What exactly are you arguing here micronesia? It is more statistically likely that you will die from gun than from a road accident. Not only is your statements unsubstantiated, but even if it was true, it is pretty disgusting that the gist of your argument is that we, people just who happen to play broodwar are less likely to suffer death from gun than death from car, so it's ok that people who happen not to play broodwar are more likely to die from gun than car. I'm going to stick to my guns on this one: "Nearly 13,000 people in the US were murdered with firearms in 2015." (your source) "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2015, and roughly 4.4 million sustained injuries that resulted in medical consultations." I brought this up before, but I'll do it again. " From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States." By using your own logic, I could easily argue that lynchings were not a problem in the US. By simply citing the raw numbers against the total population, you effectually flatten the issue by removing all context around the shooting in question. It is an argument rooted in bad faith comparisons and correlations. You should really give up the ghost on this one and move on. If you followed the discussion whatsoever, you will see that I was answering the sensationalist fearmongering that seemed to suggest that no public place is safe in America because a shooting happened at multiple locations. I brought up the statistic that far more people have died on the road than in a shooting, so by that person's logic, we should all be quitting our jobs right now unless we can walk to them. So, I was not trying to diminish the tragedy in any sense of the word - that is just how people who seek to be offended, make the discussion political, and bring up lynching statistics would see it as. I was pointing out the absurdity of changing the way you live your life based on MSM hysteria over isolated incidents that are caused by individuals. But if you want to bait me with lynching statistics, then okay, I'll give you what you want. Lynching is despicable, and 4743 lynchings over the course of 86 years is too many. However, it is also not comparable to shootings in the USA, because the lynchings were just the most extreme cases of a systemic issue of legal and cultural inequality. One could argue that by drawing this comparison, it is you who is making immoral comparisons. However, I won't bait like you do. How is this providing context around this shooting in question, anyway? What deep insights do you have into this incident that you would like to share with the class today? I haven't seen any. The problem with your argument how we, as a culture, have treated these shootings. We have treated them as like natural disasters, something that we cannot prevent in advance and must prepare for. We teach teachers how to use school supplies as weapons. We tell children how to flee schools to avoid getting killed on the way out. And we have been doing this dance for close to 20 years and passed no national gun laws or enacted any policy changes on a national level. Even after a bunch of elementary school children were murdered in their school. We have an entire generation of new voters that have grown up in this post Columbine era and they are slowly realizing it is all bullshit. That we could have better laws, better background checks. That we could empower police to take action before these crimes take place and that some states have passed laws increase the chances prevent these shooting. But the real reason why your stats don’t matter is because people don’t feel safe. And perception is reality. The public has been treated to an endless cavalcade of shootings and zero action in the aftermath for decades now. They are numb to it and have grown to accept the idea that it could happen to any school at any time. So you can claim it is fear mongering, but that is how people feel. And being a longtime supporter of policy based provable data, I know which argument wins over people. It isn’t data. Going to respond directly to your last paragraph then work my way backward to an extent. I don't care about winning people over. If you think that the emotional appeal will win ME over, then you're not going to make much progress. You've summarized the issue pretty well - that perspectives are delineating from data. In the same period of time that homicides have fallen by 50% since the 80s, MSM sensationalism concerning homicides has increased and reports crimes based on media-worthiness criteria. In other words, people's emotions are being manipulated not by the number of crimes but by their selective exposure of them, which has become an even greater issue due to social media, greater access to internet, etc. So, if your argument is that people don't care about data, I agree with you. If your argument is therefore that data is irrelevant and that we just need to operate on feels, then I disagree with you. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible for an individual to make someone else feel safe by an emotional-based approach over the internet - the only option is to point out the absurdity of their fearmongering by providing data and statistics. I don't disagree with the fact that there could be better laws, and better background checks. I am no expert on the issue, but personally I would like to have a mental health assessment test, if we could find a practical and fair way of administering one. However, every change to legislation needs to prove that it is not unnecessarily exclusionary, and I think that is the major obstacle to improving gun regulation. I will tie this up by saying that while a shooting at an elementary school is certainly a tragedy, the statistics don't demonstrate that the issue is trending up. It's been trending down, with slight plateaus and minor climbs, for close to 30 years. So, I can see why both gun owners and the government may be reluctant to change the status quo. I do think that the way we as a culture should approach these shootings needs to be improved, absolutely. Just not in the ways that I suspect you do. On August 28 2018 02:47 JimmiC wrote:On August 28 2018 02:34 Jealous wrote:On August 28 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 02:12 Jealous wrote:On August 27 2018 16:03 Womwomwom wrote:On August 27 2018 15:07 Jealous wrote:
[quote]
You are more likely to die while driving your car to work, so I guess we should all quit our jobs too. Time to close down society. I know the point you're making but gun violence in America is such a problem that your statement isn't completely true. Apparently you're more likely to die from a gun-related assault than dying inside a motor vehicle. The odds for police related death and mass shooting (incident with 3+ deaths) are also higher than they really should be. On August 27 2018 21:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What exactly are you arguing here micronesia? It is more statistically likely that you will die from gun than from a road accident. Not only is your statements unsubstantiated, but even if it was true, it is pretty disgusting that the gist of your argument is that we, people just who happen to play broodwar are less likely to suffer death from gun than death from car, so it's ok that people who happen not to play broodwar are more likely to die from gun than car. I'm going to stick to my guns on this one: "Nearly 13,000 people in the US were murdered with firearms in 2015." (your source) "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2015, and roughly 4.4 million sustained injuries that resulted in medical consultations." I brought this up before, but I'll do it again. " From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States." By using your own logic, I could easily argue that lynchings were not a problem in the US. By simply citing the raw numbers against the total population, you effectually flatten the issue by removing all context around the shooting in question. It is an argument rooted in bad faith comparisons and correlations. You should really give up the ghost on this one and move on. If you followed the discussion whatsoever, you will see that I was answering the sensationalist fearmongering that seemed to suggest that no public place is safe in America because a shooting happened at multiple locations. I brought up the statistic that far more people have died on the road than in a shooting, so by that person's logic, we should all be quitting our jobs right now unless we can walk to them. So, I was not trying to diminish the tragedy in any sense of the word - that is just how people who seek to be offended, make the discussion political, and bring up lynching statistics would see it as. I was pointing out the absurdity of changing the way you live your life based on MSM hysteria over isolated incidents that are caused by individuals. But if you want to bait me with lynching statistics, then okay, I'll give you what you want. Lynching is despicable, and 4743 lynchings over the course of 86 years is too many. However, it is also not comparable to shootings in the USA, because the lynchings were just the most extreme cases of a systemic issue of legal and cultural inequality. One could argue that by drawing this comparison, it is you who is making immoral comparisons. However, I won't bait like you do. How is this providing context around this shooting in question, anyway? What deep insights do you have into this incident that you would like to share with the class today? I haven't seen any. I think if you were to factor in car use and gun use to your statistics they may say something different. I also think that removing cars from society would cause a lot of issues that removing guns would not. Quick Google search has shown 363 million handguns and 269 million vehicles, so that means that homicide rate per object is higher for vehicles than handguns. I couldn't find statistics for how many people own gun licenses to compare vs. the amount of driving licenses, but I suspect that this isn't what you're getting at anyway. Your statement is of course true. Cars have purposes beyond killing people or protecting oneself, this is fact. Also, a minority of drivers being irresponsible with their vehicles and leading to the death of others is not a reason to remove everyone's right to drive. However, I also don't think that just because a small percentage of gun owners are implicated in gun crimes, it is a reason to remove everyone's right to own a gun. It IS a reason to improve our legislation as far as who gets to own a gun, and improve how we handle media coverage of homicides, how we politicize the issue, etc. On August 28 2018 02:47 farvacola wrote:
Ya know, "pointing out the absurdity of changing the way you live your life" is a two edged sword in a thread where folks have argued that folks need easy access to guns *just in case* someone breaks into their home and seeks to do them harm. Funny that the sentiment is only pointing out that absurdity in one direction, how benevolent! I do think there are plenty of logically fallacious stances coming from those seeking to maintain their gun ownership. For example, the fact that guns are necessary to fight the US government if it turns on its people. That's an absurd notion. However, I don't think that owning a gun to protect yourself and your family is an absurd notion. Robberies, B&E, assaults, etc. happen far more frequently than mass shootings at public places. I said use not amount, most people use their cars hours a day. Very few people do that with their guns. I would think the main reason for that is there is a much greater need to transport ones self than there is to shoot things. You're pursuing statistics that favor your position but that are also irrationally comparing apples to oranges. Your car doesn't do much good for you if it's sitting in a locked garage for years. Your gun is doing its job by being in a locked box in your sleeping quarters, every day. If you have a license to carry and choose to do so every day, then your gun is technically serving its purpose 24/7 (being readily equipped to defend oneself) while your car is only serving its purpose when it is being driven somewhere. You could replace the car in your garage with a taxi or Uber service; mercenary/bodyguard services are much harder to come by and afford. So, your point is effectively moot. Bodygaurd services are readily available. Most people just do use those services because of how frequently they are actually in danger. Cars don't sit in garages for years generally because they are needed often multiple times per day. And if you really want to go down the rabbit hole, how about all the stats about being more likely to be shot by your own gun than anyone else's? When arguing for keeping guns you really don't want to go the statistical route, you want to go down the "its our right" route, because the statistics are all bad.
Yes, they are, but they are much more expensive than owning a gun. I concede that owning a car is less expensive than using an Uber or a taxi service, but the discrepancy is not as extreme. And, if you have a bodyguard to replace your own ownership of a gun, you likely want them to carry a gun - just like how you would want the person transporting you to have a car. If you really want to explore the numerous ways in which getting a bodyguard is a more unrealistic alternative to owning a gun than it is to take an Uber in place of owning a car, we can do that, but I think that this discussion is asinine and there is no way you would be able to make such an argument hold water. Two more points, though: "most people" certainly do NOT use bodyguard services. The car locked in the garage vs. the gun locked in a box comparison was to highlight the fundamental differences in how we use cars and guns, and therefore why your approach to the discussion is disingenuous.
You do mean suicide, right? The majority of gun-related deaths are suicide. Saying that "you are more likely to be shot by your own gun" is implying a completely different and foolish narrative - you are lumping deaths in which someone takes your gun and shoots you with it along with all suicides, which as I said are the undoubted majority of gun deaths. Assuming you meant to talk about suicide because the alternative would make your argument silly, then I would say that I believe that people should have the right to take their own lives. I support euthanasia and mental health awareness far more, so I believe that if people had greater access to both of those, then firearm-based suicides would decline and would not be as necessary. Still, I believe that people have a right to end their lives if they so wish. A gun is just a means to an ends in this situation.
If you will note, my argument from the get-go was not that people should be able to keep their guns. That is how you interpreted my position, and later discourse has made it more centered on that. This whole discussion stemmed from me trying to point out that fearmongering over the individual instances in which individuals have misused guns is irrational. However, given that you are trying to argue that bodyguards are a reasonable alternative to owning a gun, I would kindly ask that you don't teach me how argue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
