ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gun control issues , gun control laws

Reply
Old 12th July 2017, 04:27 AM   #81
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,314
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Funny, you never asked for a citation from Mark F. Your request for citation is dishonest. I might still dig it up later, but it's clear that you're trying to apply a hypocritical standard of evidence.
"You must answer every single unsupported claim everywhere at all times, otherwise you're dishonest!" is not very convincing, Zig. He asked the question to you because he doesn't believe you. You can refuse to give him what he wants, but your chosen strategy here is ridiculous.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 04:41 AM   #82
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
"You must answer every single unsupported claim everywhere at all times, otherwise you're dishonest!" is not very convincing, Zig. He asked the question to you because he doesn't believe you. You can refuse to give him what he wants, but your chosen strategy here is ridiculous.
The fact that he doesn't believe me is precisely the point: he will believe any claim that supports his position, and disbelieve any that doesn't.

And I haven't refused, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 05:01 AM   #83
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,314
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The fact that he doesn't believe me is precisely the point: he will believe any claim that supports his position, and disbelieve any that doesn't.
Yeah but isn't that true of most people anyway? We have beliefs and opinions and of course we'd like to see evidence for the contrary before we accept it.

I'd think you'd ask for the same thing.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 06:54 AM   #84
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,114
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
In this you have just substituted your own bias ("law abiding citizen") for the NRA's (just about anybody) or the anti-gun nuts (nobody). What makes your particular criterion better than anyone else's?

And does a jay walking ticket debar someone from being able to buy a gun? After all, she is not "law abiding". Yeah, I know that's a silly question but it raises the very important question about what "law abiding" really means.

Also, what limits would you place on the definition of a "gun". Can a "law abiding" citizen care these:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5cc5c46439.jpg

Again, it's a silly question but it raises the issue of what kind of gun any "law abiding" citizen should be able to own.
How about less time wasting silly questions and more real ones?
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 07:16 AM   #85
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,396
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Are you under some sort of impression that I'm in favour of CC? Should I obsessively read every post on the forum and call absolutely every single one on their inaccuracies lest you find me guilty of hypocrisy? Or are you just miffed that someone dared to call you on your "common sense" comment, something that usually doesn't fly here?



Then don't make such silly claims.
I think your ability to read leaves a lot to be desired.

I know you haven't been around long but your claim that "common sense comments" don't fly on the ISF can only be chalked up to willful ignorance. That you always call the ones that don't support you view on gun nuttery is pretty obvious.

Back to the point made: My point was to illustrate that the poster had left out an entire set of statistical facts that rendered their point moot. Statistically speaking my common sense statement is true. I understand that you may be unable to grasp how that could be possible but it is.

The point was this: There is no way of knowing how many times the drawing of a gun diffused a situation and there is no way of knowing how many times guns were drawn inappropriately but both are irrelevant to the discussion so we can disregard them.

Carry on.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 07:17 AM   #86
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,233
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Also, what limits would you place on the definition of a "gun". Can a "law abiding" citizen care these:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5cc5c46439.jpg
Nobody can get these .. it's a photoshop
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 07:24 AM   #87
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,314
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
I think your ability to read leaves a lot to be desired.

I know you haven't been around long but your claim that "common sense comments" don't fly on the ISF can only be chalked up to willful ignorance. That you always call the ones that don't support you view on gun nuttery is pretty obvious.
Ooh! By all means: what are my views on gun nuttery? Do you even know where I stand on the topic?

Quote:
My point was to illustrate that the poster had left out an entire set of statistical facts that rendered their point moot. Statistically speaking my common sense statement is true.
Oh, cool. Where are those statistics?

Quote:
The point was this: There is no way of knowing how many times the drawing of a gun diffused a situation and there is no way of knowing how many times guns were drawn inappropriately but both are irrelevant to the discussion so we can disregard them.
Of course you're correct here. MY point was that you can't make the claim you made because you don't know either. You suspect, which is fine, but "common sense" is so often wrong that you can't really expect to bring it up without being called on it.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 07:39 AM   #88
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,396
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
This doesn't answer my question. How do you determine what would've happened in another reality?
There is a whole science behind it and it often causes a huge issue for people who like 1-1 cause and effect correlations. It isn't 100% accurate but in large populations it is statistically significant. Vegas was built on knowing what will happen in alternate realities. Understanding the science gives you the ability to have people believe billion dollar casinos are built by people breaking even and they better hurry back to Vegas so they can break even again.

Gun owners like to throw out examples of one "law abiding citizen" and extrapolate that into 55 million "law abiding citizens" which serves their purpose but is completely inaccurate. Science says the most accurate way to deal with the issue is to see it as 55 million gun owners, 3% of whom own an average of 17 guns.

The outcry from "law abiding citizens" arises when they are told what conclusions the science leads to. Then they double down on the one "law abiding citizen" fallacy.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 07:45 AM   #89
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,314
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
There is a whole science behind it and it often causes a huge issue for people who like 1-1 cause and effect correlations. It isn't 100% accurate but in large populations it is statistically significant. Vegas was built on knowing what will happen in alternate realities. Understanding the science gives you the ability to have people believe billion dollar casinos are built by people breaking even and they better hurry back to Vegas so they can break even again.
Sure, but a host of factors may come into play. You can say what happened before the change, but you can't say with any amount of certainty what would've happened had the change not occured. That's the distinction I'm making. Maybe you think it's a distinction without a difference. Maybe it is. I just thought it was important to point out. YMMV.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 07:48 AM   #90
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,396
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Ooh! By all means: what are my views on gun nuttery? Do you even know where I stand on the topic?
It is irrelevant to the discussion so I couldn't care less.

Quote:
Oh, cool. Where are those statistics?
The exact same ones the poster quoted.

Quote:
Of course you're correct here. MY point was that you can't make the claim you made because you don't know either.
That's what I said in my original post and in context to the post I was responding to. Even if there is no known number it doesn't mean there isn't a number. So neither one of us knows the actual numbers but there are numbers and evidence suggests that the statistic they ignored will be higher than the statistic they used to support their position.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 07:51 AM   #91
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,314
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
It is irrelevant to the discussion so I couldn't care less.
Finely dodged. You have no idea where I stand but because I disagree with you on one aspect of the debate you assume that I stand against you on the general topic.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 07:55 AM   #92
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,606
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
There is a whole science behind it and it often causes a huge issue for people who like 1-1 cause and effect correlations. It isn't 100% accurate but in large populations it is statistically significant. Vegas was built on knowing what will happen in alternate realities. Understanding the science gives you the ability to have people believe billion dollar casinos are built by people breaking even and they better hurry back to Vegas so they can break even again.

Gun owners like to throw out examples of one "law abiding citizen" and extrapolate that into 55 million "law abiding citizens" which serves their purpose but is completely inaccurate. Science says the most accurate way to deal with the issue is to see it as 55 million gun owners, 3% of whom own an average of 17 guns.

The outcry from "law abiding citizens" arises when they are told what conclusions the science leads to. Then they double down on the one "law abiding citizen" fallacy.
Given the "study" was about concealed carriers, how about this:
............................
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...riminals-17355

there were about 103 crimes per hundred thousand officers,” the report reads. “For the U.S. population as a whole, the crime rate was 37 times higher—3,813 per hundred thousand people.”
permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” the report says. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10. That is just one-seventh*of the rate for police officers.
..................................

So, it isn't ccw holders getting involved in crime. Which means that any increase in crime in those states must be due to other factors than concealed carry.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 07:55 AM   #93
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,396
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Sure, but a host of factors may come into play. You can say what happened before the change, but you can't say with any amount of certainty what would've happened had the change not occured. That's the distinction I'm making. Maybe you think it's a distinction without a difference. Maybe it is. I just thought it was important to point out. YMMV.
That's true.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 08:00 AM   #94
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,314
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
That's true.
Which part? The distinction without a difference?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 08:18 AM   #95
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,107
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Sure, but a host of factors may come into play. You can say what happened before the change, but you can't say with any amount of certainty what would've happened had the change not occured. That's the distinction I'm making. Maybe you think it's a distinction without a difference. Maybe it is. I just thought it was important to point out. YMMV.
If this holds then one can never, ever say if a thing (any thing at all) is a success because one can just site the above applied to any measurement ever and state "You don't know what would have happened if..."

It essentially means you have no method of evaluating any change to anything, anywhere.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 08:53 AM   #96
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
If this holds then one can never, ever say if a thing (any thing at all) is a success because one can just site the above applied to any measurement ever and state "You don't know what would have happened if..."

It essentially means you have no method of evaluating any change to anything, anywhere.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Rather, it means that observational studies without a control group often can't determine the causation behind a correlation. This isn't new, everybody should already know that. But people keep forgetting it whenever it's convenient to.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 08:57 AM   #97
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,517
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Rather, it means that observational studies without a control group often can't determine the causation behind a correlation. This isn't new, everybody should already know that. But people keep forgetting it whenever it's convenient to.
Science is the wrong tool to determine such things, that is what we have ideology for, and why statistics never matter anyway. It would be like thinking seatbelts a save lives, when all we can really say is that they correlate with saved lives.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 08:58 AM   #98
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,314
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
If this holds then one can never, ever say if a thing (any thing at all) is a success because one can just site the above applied to any measurement ever and state "You don't know what would have happened if..."

It essentially means you have no method of evaluating any change to anything, anywhere.
No, all you have to do is have a target and then see if you've hit it. You don't need a hypothetical future, just a good record of the past.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 09:01 AM   #99
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,606
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
If this holds then one can never, ever say if a thing (any thing at all) is a success because one can just site the above applied to any measurement ever and state "You don't know what would have happened if..."

It essentially means you have no method of evaluating any change to anything, anywhere.
No, it just means you can’t take two groups of people suffering from X, give one of the groups homeopathic remedies and if they do slightly better than the ‘control’, use it as proof of homeopathy working.


For the umpteenth time:
- It isn’t concealed carriers committing crimes
So what is the mechanism whereby you can link increased concealed carry to increased crime?
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 09:03 AM   #100
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,107
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
No, all you have to do is have a target and then see if you've hit it. You don't need a hypothetical future, just a good record of the past.
How do you know at that point that whatever your target was, it wouldn't have been achieved by doing nothing?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 09:09 AM   #101
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,314
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
How do you know at that point that whatever your target was, it wouldn't have been achieved by doing nothing?
You don't.

But since when has that stopped us from doing stuff? You compare with the past and say "see? Improvement!" and keep on using said solution until a better one seems to come along, and so forth.

What's the problem here?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 09:16 AM   #102
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,107
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You don't.

But since when has that stopped us from doing stuff? You compare with the past and say "see? Improvement!" and keep on using said solution until a better one seems to come along, and so forth.

What's the problem here?


Because if

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
a host of factors may come into play.
and

Quote:
You can say what happened before the change, but you can't say with any amount of certainty what would've happened had the change not occured.

Then you have no way of evaluating anything at all, ever. Every time someone says 'this worked' or 'this didn't work', the reply can be 'you have no way of knowing that, you can't know if it would have happened anyway' and the discussion is over. Every single time.

Drink driving laws lower driving driving? could have happened anyway

Instituting clinical standards in medicine improves results? - could have happened anyway.

Enforcing seat belt laws reduces road fatalities? - could have happened anyway.

You can do this, literally, every single time - complain that the experiment cannot be run again with different variables so declare that results to be not at all informative.



Quote:
That's the distinction I'm making. Maybe you think it's a distinction without a difference. Maybe it is. I just thought it was important to point out. YMMV.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 09:23 AM   #103
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,606
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post


Then you have no way of evaluating anything at all, ever. Every time someone says 'this worked' or 'this didn't work', the reply can be 'you have no way of knowing that, you can't know if it would have happened anyway' and the discussion is over. Every single time.

Drink driving laws lower driving driving? could have happened anyway

Instituting clinical standards in medicine improves results? - could have happened anyway.

Enforcing seat belt laws reduces road fatalities? - could have happened anyway.

You can do this, literally, every single time - complain that the experiment cannot be run again with different variables so declare that results to be not at all informative.
Your examples have clear mechanisms where we can see the implemented change causing perceived improvement. The concealed carriers/ increased crime rate issue lacks any such mechanism.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 09:27 AM   #104
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,314
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Because if

and

Then you have no way of evaluating anything at all, ever.
Again, no, you do. It's just that you can't say what would've happened. You can simply compare with what did.

I don't think I'm talking nonsense, here.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 09:30 AM   #105
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,107
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Again, no, you do. It's just that you can't say what would've happened. You can simply compare with what did.

I don't think I'm talking nonsense, here.
Compare what with what did happen?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 09:35 AM   #106
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,314
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Compare what with what did happen?
Compare the result with the previous data, hopefully controlling for other factors.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 09:43 AM   #107
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,107
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Compare the result with the previous data, hopefully controlling for other factors.


Okay, totally checking out now as I appear to be explaining myself very badly.

Which is a running theme lately.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 09:57 AM   #108
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,314
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Okay, totally checking out now as I appear to be explaining myself very badly.

Which is a running theme lately.
Happens to me all the time, so maybe it's me.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 10:47 AM   #109
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,426
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
I'm pretty sure you would agree that there is a world of difference between private security carrying in order to protect a person who gets death threats and some ordinary Joe carrying a concealed weapon.

You attempted comparison has no value in its attempt to portray Bloomberg as a hypocrite.
Hi there -

Ordinary Joe who has received death threats. What makes Bloomberg's life more important than mine?

It isn't of course. I'm sure he'd disagree though.

The security detail is blatant hypocrisy. He benefits from the protection of concealed weapons while claiming that no other citizens should be allowed to carry. That's like a staunch environmentalist trying to end private ownership of automobiles while preaching it from the back of a limo.
__________________
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 12:22 PM   #110
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,517
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
But you did hear the libruls scream when Trump wanted data on how they exercised their constitutional right to vote. Hypocrisy much?
The thing is that isn't data that the federal executive has ever had. This is all information they have, are legally required to have but can not legally put into a computer.

Why not just make all guns totally untrackable, outlaw serial numbers and ban gun stores from keeping records. Simple.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 01:50 PM   #111
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,221
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
The thing is that isn't data that the federal executive has ever had. This is all information they have, are legally required to have but can not legally put into a computer.

Why not just make all guns totally untrackable, outlaw serial numbers and ban gun stores from keeping records. Simple.
Put gun data on a par with vote data? No problem from me.

Want to keep track of those entitled to own a gun? Then keep track of whether Achmed Gomez is entitled to vote.

Or let ever resident own a gun, let every resident vote. I think that IS a constitutional equivalence. Or, secret ballot, secret gun ownership.

New catch phrase- Make Ballots as hard to get as guns!
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 01:53 PM   #112
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,221
Subsequent thought- Kooks can't own guns, can they vote? Shouldn't "being a hazard to yourself and others" preclude voting?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 04:59 PM   #113
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,052
Yep. This thread is going pretty much exactly how I expected it to.

Funny how some people are all about the science unless it goes against their ideology. Then suddenly good science, data and evidence are insufficient, there are confounding factors, the person reporting the evidence is blind, another reality, here are some anecdotes.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 05:00 PM   #114
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,052
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
This doesn't answer my question. How do you determine what would've happened in another reality?
Statisticians model other realities all the time. You don't question their methods when they're modelling climate change, why do you question their methods when they're modelling gun incidents?
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 05:03 PM   #115
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,561
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Funny how some people are all about the science unless it goes against their ideology. Then suddenly good science, data and evidence are insufficient, there are confounding factors, the person reporting the evidence is blind, another reality, here are some anecdotes.
Stats don't say what you want them to say? Dismiss the source, then cut and slice them until no one knows what they actually do say.
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 06:29 PM   #116
Metullus
Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,912
I am biased, as I suppose many people would be who had benefited from the action of a "good guy with a gun". Given my experience, which is admittedly anecdotal and not statistically significant (although very significant to me personally), i do not find the study cited in the OP to be terribly persuasive.
__________________
I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 - I'll miss Tim.

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy

Last edited by Metullus; 12th July 2017 at 06:36 PM.
Metullus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 06:38 PM   #117
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,361
Naive as it sounds, I think we can find rational middle-ground. The pro-gun people should just concede that an increase in firearm ownership probably leads to more fatalities, and the pro-gun control people should just shut the **** up or risk becoming one of their vaunted statistics.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 06:53 PM   #118
Thermal
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,908
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yep. This thread is going pretty much exactly how I expected it to.

Funny how some people are all about the science unless it goes against their ideology. Then suddenly good science, data and evidence are insufficient, there are confounding factors, the person reporting the evidence is blind, another reality, here are some anecdotes.
The science here seems to assume that CCW should be a deterrent, and since it is not, it should be done away with. As Giz pointed out, the CCW's were not the criminals in the first place, so there is no reason to conclude that a gangbanger will be more or less violent regarding carry laws. They just give the law-abiding a fighting chance when the bad guy points the gun (which the bad guy does regardless of law).
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 08:43 PM   #119
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Statisticians model other realities all the time. You don't question their methods when they're modelling climate change, why do you question their methods when they're modelling gun incidents?
Statisticians don't model climate change.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 09:33 PM   #120
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,396
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
That's true.
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Given the "study" was about concealed carriers, how about this:
............................
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...riminals-17355

there were about 103 crimes per hundred thousand officers,” the report reads. “For the U.S. population as a whole, the crime rate was 37 times higher—3,813 per hundred thousand people.”
permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” the report says. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10. That is just one-seventh*of the rate for police officers.
..................................

So, it isn't ccw holders getting involved in crime. Which means that any increase in crime in those states must be due to other factors than concealed carry.
Really? I can think of a ton of groups who didn't kill 722 people between 2007 and 2015. (The count is undoubtedly higher but laws prevent accurate reporting of CCW crime rates.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/o...ody-count.html
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."

Last edited by qayak; 12th July 2017 at 09:50 PM.
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.