|
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. |
|
|
Why the hell are we still comparing cars with guns? You know what else has a high death rate? Space shuttles!
Besides, cars requires a lot of practice + written and a practical exam before you're allowed to drive one. If you implement that for guns, the deaths, both accidental, intentional and mass killings, would drop drastically. If that is what we're arguing here I'm all for it.
|
On August 28 2018 03:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 03:07 Jockmcplop wrote: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.
I answered the question in my last post if you care to read it. I'll copy paste it here:
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.
As you can see, i agree with your original proposition.
I don't think its heartless to bring statistics into it. I think its futile.
|
On August 28 2018 04:15 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 03:35 Plansix 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: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.
Yellow journalism is not a new problem for the Republic, so I don’t give politicians much leeway due to the coverage of any public debate. The government has regulated the media before through the Fairness Doctrine and other FCC regulations. It is a problem they could tackle if they felt it was serious enough.
And I would further argue that the lack of debate has only created increased pressure to do something, even if the laws that are passed are straight up bad. The fact that Sandy Hook didn’t even get a debate on the House floor only increase the expectations of the public for when the government does act. Kicking the can down the road only makes the problem worse, as the public becomes more desperate for someone to take action against their perceived problem.
|
On August 28 2018 04:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 03:55 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2018 03:07 Jockmcplop wrote: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. I answered the question in my last post if you care to read it. I'll copy paste it here: Show nested quote +
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.
As you can see, i agree with your original proposition. I don't think its heartless to bring statistics into it. I think its futile.
Thank you for the clarification. I originally took it to mean you had a greater reason to not use statistics, without rendering judgement on people who don’t. All good.
|
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."
Just in case someone didn't address it:
there's a difference between murders by gun, and deaths by gun. (also not sure if that source is bein careful about it's use of the term murder to use the legal definition, it might use gun homicides rather than gun murders)
if you go by deaths by gun, the numbers amount to fairly equal to traffic accident deaths.
suicide by gun adds around 20k
accidental gun deaths around 1k
legally justified homicide around 1k or 1.5k for the police, and a similar amount for private citizens. Note that the finding here is the law decided it was justified, but police shootings can be pretty egregious violations and still not be found guilty.
|
You cant just plop suicides by gun onto the number of gun deaths per year. Although Im sure it would be much less than 20k, a number of those people would have used other means had they not had a gun.
|
On August 28 2018 04:21 Excludos wrote:
Why the hell are we still comparing cars with guns? You know what else has a high death rate? Space shuttles!
Besides, cars requires a lot of practice + written and a practical exam before you're allowed to drive one. If you implement that for guns, the deaths, both accidental, intentional and mass killings, would drop drastically. If that is what we're arguing here I'm all for it.
It's the common anti-gun control argument that popps up every now and then. That there is so much more legislation for car ownership and dribing is always missed by those same proponents.
|
On August 28 2018 05:15 solidbebe wrote:
You cant just plop suicides by gun onto the number of gun deaths per year. Although Im sure it would be much less than 20k, a number of those people would have used other means had they not had a gun.
Yes, and unfortunately there's no way of knowing how many. However it is true that a large number of people who suicide by gun would not have if they didn't have access to "easy means". Committing suicide is very difficult, and a large portion of people (those who doesn't do it as a cry for help) regret it half way through. The problem with guns is that you can't really regret a bullet to the head.
Due to missing data I wouldn't really use that as an argument for gun control, but it's a nice added bonus.
|
On August 28 2018 05:15 solidbebe wrote:
You cant just plop suicides by gun onto the number of gun deaths per year. Although Im sure it would be much less than 20k, a number of those people would have used other means had they not had a gun.
Decreasing instant access to fire arms has lowered the successful suicide rate in many states and one of the main talking points of Moms Demand Action.
I believe they address it and other states in the podcast below. I don’t have the numbers right in front of me.
https://www.npr.org/2016/06/17/482343185/a-million-mom-army-and-a-billionaire-take-on-the-nra
|
|
|
On August 28 2018 05:15 solidbebe wrote:
You cant just plop suicides by gun onto the number of gun deaths per year. Although Im sure it would be much less than 20k, a number of those people would have used other means had they not had a gun.
ofc we can plop it in there. If the criterion is "deaths where the cause of death was a firearm", suicide via firearm is certainly a death caused by a firearm.
The number is what it is. raw data is a necessary component from which to make conclusions.
There's a large number of related statistics, and it's reasonable to ask about any of them.
|
United States42775 Posts
On August 27 2018 16:51 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2018 10:15 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2018 09:03 thePunGun wrote:On August 27 2018 08:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 27 2018 08:21 SetStndbySmn wrote:On August 27 2018 07:38 Sent. wrote:
Can anyone who used to or still does frequent gaming tournaments in the US describe how do security measures at those events look like? I'm guessing they're minimal at smaller tournaments, I'm mostly curious about bigger titles. The MLG event I went to in Raleigh a number of years ago had a decent amount of security. I can't remember if there were metal detectors, but there was a noticeable amount of security personnel. Nearly all sporting events have the works though. The smaller stuff- i.e. events that take place in stores/bars- generally has next to nothing as far as security goes. The Jacksonville Landing is a mall area, so may have had mall security. Just keep in mind the US is a pretty darn big place and the variance in violent occurrences can be night and day. I've heard from relatives who live in the area that violence in Jacksonville has been a problem recently, but that's hearsay. i'm going to Tecmo Madison in April next year. I hope there is zero security. it preserves the fun of the event. I advise you to reconsider your priorites, getting home alive from an event and not in a casket is pretty high up in my list.... A gaming event does not need backpack searching etc. If you reach the point where searching backpacks is preferable to gun control then something has gone badly wrong. Similar to putting toddlers in body armour etc. Gun control won't prevent anyone from bringing a knife or a bag of coke in their bag. Interesting how it's normal to search bags at all cultural events in Europez despite our already strict gun laws and USA seems against either.
Knives and coke are much less likely to facilitate mass murder. Also I’ve been to a few big LANs in the U.K. and exactly none of them had backpack searching. I stand by my point.
There has to be a point where the effort put into mitigating the impact of the problem is so obviously disproportionate to the problem that everyone can see it.
|
This reminds me of when it was argued in TL that it doesn't count as a shooting in a school, if no one died from a discharge of a firearm.
|
On August 28 2018 06:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2018 16:51 Ej_ wrote:On August 27 2018 10:15 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2018 09:03 thePunGun wrote:On August 27 2018 08:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 27 2018 08:21 SetStndbySmn wrote:On August 27 2018 07:38 Sent. wrote:
Can anyone who used to or still does frequent gaming tournaments in the US describe how do security measures at those events look like? I'm guessing they're minimal at smaller tournaments, I'm mostly curious about bigger titles. The MLG event I went to in Raleigh a number of years ago had a decent amount of security. I can't remember if there were metal detectors, but there was a noticeable amount of security personnel. Nearly all sporting events have the works though. The smaller stuff- i.e. events that take place in stores/bars- generally has next to nothing as far as security goes. The Jacksonville Landing is a mall area, so may have had mall security. Just keep in mind the US is a pretty darn big place and the variance in violent occurrences can be night and day. I've heard from relatives who live in the area that violence in Jacksonville has been a problem recently, but that's hearsay. i'm going to Tecmo Madison in April next year. I hope there is zero security. it preserves the fun of the event. I advise you to reconsider your priorites, getting home alive from an event and not in a casket is pretty high up in my list.... A gaming event does not need backpack searching etc. If you reach the point where searching backpacks is preferable to gun control then something has gone badly wrong. Similar to putting toddlers in body armour etc. Gun control won't prevent anyone from bringing a knife or a bag of coke in their bag. Interesting how it's normal to search bags at all cultural events in Europez despite our already strict gun laws and USA seems against either. Knives and coke are much less likely to facilitate mass murder. Also I’ve been to a few big LANs in the U.K. and exactly none of them had backpack searching. I stand by my point. There has to be a point where the effort put into mitigating the impact of the problem is so obviously disproportionate to the problem that everyone can see it.
Bag searches don't seem disproportionate to me. I go to alot of gigs and if I have a bag it gets searched every time. I do look like a right dodgy geezer though.
|
On August 28 2018 06:08 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 06:03 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2018 16:51 Ej_ wrote:On August 27 2018 10:15 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2018 09:03 thePunGun wrote:On August 27 2018 08:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 27 2018 08:21 SetStndbySmn wrote:On August 27 2018 07:38 Sent. wrote:
Can anyone who used to or still does frequent gaming tournaments in the US describe how do security measures at those events look like? I'm guessing they're minimal at smaller tournaments, I'm mostly curious about bigger titles. The MLG event I went to in Raleigh a number of years ago had a decent amount of security. I can't remember if there were metal detectors, but there was a noticeable amount of security personnel. Nearly all sporting events have the works though. The smaller stuff- i.e. events that take place in stores/bars- generally has next to nothing as far as security goes. The Jacksonville Landing is a mall area, so may have had mall security. Just keep in mind the US is a pretty darn big place and the variance in violent occurrences can be night and day. I've heard from relatives who live in the area that violence in Jacksonville has been a problem recently, but that's hearsay. i'm going to Tecmo Madison in April next year. I hope there is zero security. it preserves the fun of the event. I advise you to reconsider your priorites, getting home alive from an event and not in a casket is pretty high up in my list.... A gaming event does not need backpack searching etc. If you reach the point where searching backpacks is preferable to gun control then something has gone badly wrong. Similar to putting toddlers in body armour etc. Gun control won't prevent anyone from bringing a knife or a bag of coke in their bag. Interesting how it's normal to search bags at all cultural events in Europez despite our already strict gun laws and USA seems against either. Knives and coke are much less likely to facilitate mass murder. Also I’ve been to a few big LANs in the U.K. and exactly none of them had backpack searching. I stand by my point. There has to be a point where the effort put into mitigating the impact of the problem is so obviously disproportionate to the problem that everyone can see it. Bag searches don't seem disproportionate to me. I go to alot of gigs and if I have a bag it gets searched every time. I do look like a right dodgy geezer though.
There are bag searches at all of the tiny, hole in the wall venues my wife plays at. I've never seen it as abnormal, especially if there is booze involved.
|
|
|
United States24690 Posts
On August 27 2018 21:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2018 21:21 micronesia wrote:
I never said it was ok or not okay. Look back at the original conversation. My first point was to suggest a better comparison be made. My second point was that even if you make the less appropriate comparison, when you take into account that the person in question is a TL user, the claim is likely false since gun violence is far from homogeneous in American society. That does not make high gun death rates okay somehow. Then what's your point? To beleive your argument, then we, the average American TL user, are personally are less likely to die from gun than car, whilst for other people the statistics are skewed even worse for them to die from gun than car. The claim is still true It may be true (someone else cast some doubt on it later), but it depends on what Womwomwom meant when the word 'you' was used. If 'you' meant the average American, then if the source is correct, then yes, the point is correct. However, it's not unreasonable to discuss how our community here is affected (i.e., the person who "you" was being directed at). That does not mean the rest of the world or the rest of the country is unimportant, but to some extent I do care more about you than a random person and will at least focus somewhat on the ramifications to you and me, everything else being equal (complicated by the fact that we are really only talking about American statistics right now).
and nothing has changed other than your belief that the statistic is wrong for you personally. The thing that changed is that either perspective was added (which you are free to ignore if you don't care about it), or a misconception was corrected. Again, unless Womwomwom were to clarify the original intention, we can't actually say which it is.
The comparison is apt, yours that you only care about people who play BW is not. I clearly did not make this claim. You are free to assume it, I suppose, since you are clearly pissed off at the mass shooting and need to direct your anger at someone, but I suggest you aim it at someone else.
Yours is unsubstantiated anyways, and to take your assertation as truth gives the pretty disgusting viewpoint that since other people don't play BW, it doesn't matter if they are more likely to die from gun than car.
My assertion is probably right. Your decision to characterize me as not caring if people die or not because they don't play broodwar is the somewhat disgusting thing, if anything, in this discussion.
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! I agree with the second part, but don't agree with the first part for a few reasons. I'll focus on the fact that people making statistical claims should expect others to weigh in with perspective or corrections, because otherwise, statistics tend to lead people astray.
On August 27 2018 21:50 Plansix wrote:
Statistically, one could argue that very few black men were lynched from 1900 to 1970. The number is quite small compared to the overall population of black men through out those times. It’s not a useful way to discuss lynchings, however.
You still need a way to put the prevalence into perspective. I agree you can't just say "more people die from Polio than from lynchings in the USA so lynchings aren't a big deal." However, the comparisons can still be useful, sans poor conclusions. Although 1 lynching is too many, if 1 happens once every 15 years, I'm still going to focus more on some other forms of non-natural death with my attention and power to effect change (if I'm able to). It's just tricky to make apples to apples comparisons due to a variety of other factors. Hate crimes are punished more severely than non-hate-based equivalent crimes for this reason, and it took me a while to begin to understand why.
On August 27 2018 21:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
And of course micronesia just basically ignored that a bunch of gamers just got shot so it's hard to take his assertation at face value anyways. I'm not sure what your expectation is here. Because gamers got shot I have to add a "thoughts and prayers" to the family, or something? This is a discussion thread where the goal is to pool thoughts from several people to create meaning that is more useful than what we previously understood. Part of what I try to do is watch out for statements that I think are misleading or misinformed to avoid going down some destructive rabbit hole in the name of saving lives. I'm all for realistic solutions that reduce unnecessary gun deaths and can actually be implemented.Oh it occurred to me that you were actually arguing that because gamers were killed by guns in the recent event that there's an issue with my earlier thoughts that some gamers are less likely to die due to gun violence than other people in the USA. A bit absurd.
But even if it was true, my family and friends (bad taste in friends I know) doesn't visit TL. They don't play BW. Apparently we should just not care about them either. Their lives don't matter if they are more likely to die from gun than car.
Clearly the solution is for you to get them to play broodwar.
|
On August 28 2018 04:12 affect wrote:
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.
comparing cars with guns to make a point is pretty weird.
when used with care cars are more dangerous then guns. Where this leads to I don't see,yes cars are more dangerous then guns when used with care.
Doctors or medicine might also be more dangerous then guns,maybe more people die by medical mistake then by accidental gun use. I have no clue but I can imagine it being the case.
I don't see how this is an argument in favor or against gun control,cars or doctors.
"which means someone decides to harm or kill, which is a misuse of the tool"
Its not misuse of the tool. Maybe an illegal use but it is used for what it was intended to do.
When killing someone people generally pick a gun and not a car. Guns are tools to harm or kill,thats the whole point of the gun. It is the best tool for harming and killing someone. Sometimes this is legal and maybe even morally justified,sometimes it is not.
|
On August 28 2018 10:47 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 04:12 affect wrote:
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.
comparing cars with guns to make a point is pretty weird. when used with care cars are more dangerous then guns. Where this leads to I don't see,yes cars are more dangerous then guns when used with care. Doctors or medicine might also be more dangerous then guns,maybe more people die by medical mistake then by accidental gun use. I have no clue but I can imagine it being the case. I don't see how this is an argument in favor or against gun control,cars or doctors. "which means someone decides to harm or kill, which is a misuse of the tool" Its not misuse of the tool. Maybe an illegal use but it is used for what it was intended to do. When killing someone people generally pick a gun and not a car. Guns are tools to harm or kill,thats the whole point of the gun. It is the best tool for harming and killing someone. Sometimes this is legal and maybe even morally justified,sometimes it is not.
It is true that medical error does kill more people than guns, cars, and pretty much anything but cancer and heart disease by basically any metric (given the numbers aren't extremely solid)
Analyzing medical death rate data over an eight-year period, Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S. Their figure, published May 3 in The BMJ, surpasses the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) third leading cause of death — respiratory disease, which kills close to 150,000 people per year.
The Johns Hopkins team says the CDC’s way of collecting national health statistics fails to classify medical errors separately on the death certificate. The researchers are advocating for updated criteria for classifying deaths on death certificates.
www.hopkinsmedicine.org
In case I'm unclear on this, I agree with the premise pmh is putting forth. I probably shouldn't encourage this...meh, cigarettes would be the best comparison, but the whole being banned almost everywhere now doesn't bode well for the argument that typically accompanies this stuff.
EDIT: I'd add there are guns specifically for targets, display, or small game (not intended to bring down humans) where a non-gun weapon could be preferable but that's pretty far from the point I think was being made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
