Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Orbit

Scientific American review of gun violence and control studies

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

In what should be a sensible topic.... shall we invoke Thurs Law?

 

Why is one guy allowed to wreck any thread he wants?

 

 

28 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

@orbit you asked why Americans are resistant to facts. Consider that upwards of 40% of your population rejects evolution, geology, astronomy and cosmology. Also consider that of that group the vast majority will be Republicans, and the right to bear arms is strongly pushed by the right then you have an idea of the environment we are talking about (Which I'm sure you are well aware of) 

 

Self delusion is the American way.  When you live here you can believe whatever you want, even if it makes no sense.  The same people who think our guns protect us from tyrants also think Earth is under 10k years old.

 

 

31 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

The other issue is gun culture in America. I don't know any other country in the world that celebrates weapons designed to kill as much as the US does... maybe North Korea comes a close second. You are talking about needing a huge cultural shift in order to get any sensible dialogue going. Discussing gun control is like dissing peoples favourite team and brings out raw emotional feelings.

 

Perhaps you mean other countries in the developed world.  There are some places in Africa where everybody walks around with an AK-47.  We are not quite there yet but we are trying our best to get there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

But how is death by one any different than death by another?  I thought death was death?  Or is one death bad and the other good?

 

Is this a serious question? You are equating intentional death by using a weapon designed for that purpose with tragic accidents which we often have no control over? Am I reading that right?

 

5 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 My contention is that the teachers, or at least SOME teachers or school officials should be armed.  If they were, it may not have prevented the kid from picking up the weapon and killing those students, but far fewer would have been killed. 

 

May I ask where the data comes from that supports the assertion that the answer to gun violence is more gun violence? This is like the nuke problem. The answer to the threat of being nuked.... bigger more powerful nukes! :49:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mymistake said:

Why is one guy allowed to wreck any thread he wants?

 

I'm not a mod so I cannot answer that. I have thoughts. I keep them to myself. :)

 

3 minutes ago, mymistake said:

Perhaps you mean other countries in the developed world.  There are some places in Africa where everybody walks around with an AK-47.  We are not quite there yet but we are trying our best to get there.

 

Yes, but I would argue that its a survival situation in very violent circumstances - carry a gun or die. I'm not sure that those African communities celebrate guns as part of their 'right and culture'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

YES!  It is a serious question.  How is death from one any different than death from another?  Is death by an accident any less dead than death by a gun shot? 

 

Play dense. As if you have no idea that death by gun violence at the hands of others is largely preventable, with legislation that restricts the use of firearms. And that death by going over a cliff in your car is purely accidental. Even more ludicrous is equating death by gun violence with death by natural causes. Now ask yourself, would you prefer to be shot and killed tomorrow in someone else's crossfire or outright intent, knowing that it could be prevented, or would you rather go over the cliff by accident? Equating one with the other is beyond ridiculous.

 

Here's another way to put it: would you die by gun violence tomorrow, voluntarily, so that all those "persecuted" gun owners you talk about can do their thing? Is your life really not that important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 minute ago, Burnedout said:

 

Dense?  IS DEAD BY ONE MEANS ANY LESS DEAD BY ANOTHER MEANS?  Why do you want to punish people who have never used a firearm in an unlawful act for something someone else did.  If you look at some stats, according to the last information I read, there is over 400 million KNOWN firearms and perhaps over 1Trillion rounds of ammo out there that there has been so few gun deaths in this country.  Let's look at the facts here.  Estimated 400,000,000 guns vs 33700 approx gun deaths.  That is 0.00008425 deaths per the total estimated guns.  Are you not just being knee-jerk emotional because of media bias and the fact that guns go "BANG"? 

Here's another way to put it: would you die by gun violence tomorrow, voluntarily, so that all those "persecuted" gun owners you talk about can do their thing? Is your life really not that important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

YES!  It is a serious question.  How is death from one any different than death from another?  Is death by an accident any less dead than death by a gun shot?  It is IRRELEVANT what a gun is desined for.  It is a inanimate object.  It is just as inamimate as a car, a knife, a chainsaw, a rock.  The ONLY way to get the result of someone dying is, at some point, either directly or indirectly, is a human causing the action.  Yet, you want to punish people who possess those objects peaceably and for peaceful purpose because of the nefarious actions of one or a few individuals.  That is directly and the epitomy of being guilty of a crime they did not commit.  

 

 
 

 

I agree there is a need for human action, but I find your use of the phrase "objects  peaceably and for peaceful purpose " laughably ironic. Can you please tell me what is "peaceful" about an object specifically designed to kill humans? That's what it was designed for. And in the context you are talking of (Guns in public to shoot the bad guys) no one has any peaceable intent. You can be the best person in the world and as soon as you think of pulling out your gun to shoot that bad guy you have harmful intent on the mind. So conflating guns with other objects in this instance is to ignore the reality of the situation. With a death by car accident there is generally not an intent to harm, with guns pointed at humans there is ALWAYS for EVERYONE and intent to harm.

 

In this regard it is very relevant what the gun is designed for.

 

The status of death is not different, the manner in which the death occurred is very different. It saddens me that you are a human who cannot distinguish this.

 

2 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

It is simple logic.  If there is more than one person who is armed, not attempting to harm anybody, and another person comes into the area intent on doing so, the law of averages favors the peacful ones armed.  Besides, you have seen the articles I have posted on here in TOT where a good guy/gal with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun. 

 

Yes, and I can show you news articles where a person got road rage, pulled out a gun and shot someone. We are not interested in single good or bad stories. We need meta data that shows a clear relation between increasing firearms in a population and a resulting decrease in gun deaths in that population.

 

People intent on killing will do so, and won't be dissuaded by armed teachers. What's more you run the inherent risk of friendly fire possibly resulting in more dead people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

I can turn that around for you.  Would you get behind the wheel KNOWING that you could die on the roads?  I choose to take the risk with a firearm.  

 

I will put this another way, if the Jews of WW2 Europe had been armed, do you think they would have likely been so easily exterminated in Auschwitz and other death camps? 

 You fail to see the point entirely, and and I have better uses for time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mymistake said:

Why is one guy allowed to wreck any thread he wants?

That's a good question. You should put it to the other mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 

So punishing millions of innocent people for the crime of one nut is logical.  BOY OH BOY, looks as if someone is acting emotionally. 

 

Non gun ownership = punishment. Waaaaaa. What a special snowflake you are. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Better argue with the Constitution.  ;)

 

A bit like the bible isn't it? It's the written word of the founding 'gods' and we dare not change it in light of todays world.

 

I think you might be applying a literal interpretation to a document written a long time ago :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Better argue with the Constitution.  ;)

 

Hey, no cut and paste replies :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burnedout said:

Peaceful?  Simple, protection against intruders, protection against dangerous animals, and we have some BIG ONES, hunting, self protection.  Do you have a problem with someone protecting themselves or their family?

 

No I don't, but don't try and change the definition of what is peaceful. Lets not kid ourselves, none of the examples you mention are peaceful. I am also not sure why you need a fully automatic rifle to protect your family.

 

3 hours ago, Burnedout said:

  Even my local police encourage people to be armed.  The time in a serious situation for the cops to get there is often too long to react.

 

Yes but that's in a situation where every other halfwit is armed so you need to be armed too. If there were tighter controls there would be less need for people to be armed.

 

3 hours ago, Burnedout said:

And a death by car NOT an intent to harm?  Ahh..try telling that to some of those Muslim terrorists in Europe who used cars to mow people down. 

 

Really? This is so obviously dumb that I'm not going to bother explaining why its so dumb. If you can't figure out why this example is so dumb then me explaining it to you isn't going to help. (Clue - you might have a comprehension problem)

 

3 hours ago, Burnedout said:

Oh spare me the moralizing.  You are the one who thinks it is OK for government to use the same force as the mob to take what is mine. 

 

A little off topic aren't we? I wasn't discussing morals. I was discussing your inability to understand the difference in cause of death between an intentional agent using an object designed for that intention, and someone having an accident while using an object designed to move people from A to B.

 

3 hours ago, Burnedout said:

The problem is that as it stands now, schools in this country will not allow someone to carry inside until VERY recently, not enough time for any data to come in and that is in just a very few states.  

 

You are just being hysterical in your reasoning. 

 

So you are basing your entire argument on something for which there is no data and no scientific support for?

 

Hysterical - perhaps you'd like to study up on the average Joe with a gun during a gun fight. There's this thing, its called adrenaline - it causes your brain to partially shut down during high stress times. This will cause FF incidents. I'm being realistic, not hysterical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Nope...Bible is phony.  Constitution is there and binding.  Law is valid unless it is repealed either outright or with the passage of a new law overriding it.  ;)

 

The way that is done in the Constitution is by amending it, LONG process and ends with a vote of the state legislatures. 

 

So its possible that in time the 2nd amendment will be changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

Ok...you tell me what is peaceful.  You never defined it so I went with what is deemed peaceful in this country. 

 

peaceful
ˈpiːsfʊl,ˈpiːsf(ə)l/
adjective
  1. 1.
    free from disturbance; tranquil.
    "his peaceful mood vanished"
    synonyms: tranquil, calm, restful, pleasant, quiet, still, relaxing, soothing, sleepy, silent, soundless, hushed, noiseless, undisturbed, untroubled, private, secluded, solitary, isolated, free from disturbance/interruption/interference More
  2. 2.
    not involving war or violence.
    "a soldier was shot at an otherwise peaceful demonstration"
    synonyms: harmonious, at peace, strife-free, peaceable, conflict-free, on good terms, amicable, friendly, cordial, non-violent, unwarlike; More

 

2 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

"Halfwit"....and what is your definition of that?  Gee...are you not breaking your own fallacy rules?  Down to name calling are you. 

 

A phrase generally describing thugs running around with guns intending violence.  

 

2 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

Aww...not going to give it a gander?  Afraid?

 

Certainly not, I just calculate based on previous responses from you that if you can't figure out what is wrong with your own statement then me pointing it out won't make any difference.

 

2 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

Ah..but you are moralizing.  A cause of death is still death.  You think because somebody is killed by a gun by someone who intended to do it is different than someone with a car who killed them with a car with intent.  BOTH a car and a gun are inanimate objects, it takes a person to make them kill anyone.  YOU are the one who is irrational.  You are wanting to blame an inanimate object rather than a person.

 

No. You are the person who brought up the asinine example of using a car with intent to kill when the purpose is not to kill people. (PS just gave you a clue there as to why I said in the previous post that your statement was dumb - lets see if you can figure it out.)

 

2 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

You don't have data to disprove me either.  I do have many recorded situations where a good guy with a gun stopped a bad buy with a gun.  But then you just want to ignore those.

 

We do have data that shows the US has high levels of gun violence and deaths compared to other Western countries. The US also has high numbers of guns per person.

 

No I don't ignore them, I just don't think you can use several outlier points to infer a conclusion.

 

2 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

It really doesn't matter arguing with you because the Second Amdenment is not going anywhere any time soon.  You can piss into the wind all you want:) 

 

Yeah I don't care that much. While the rest of the world moves towards peaceful coexistence you guys can keep shooting each other.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Gawd.  These were the exact same crap tricks he used and got refuted on six years ago.  And six years from now he is going to repeat the same empty tricks.  Around and around we go, never learning anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mymistake said:

My Gawd.  These were the exact same crap tricks he used and got refuted on six years ago.  And six years from now he is going to repeat the same empty tricks.  Around and around we go, never learning anything.

 

Yes I've gone round this merry go round of the difference between a designed weapon and a car before.

 

I am actually wondering what the F*** I'm doing because this is not a serious discussion insofar as it has been. The arguments put forward are so childish that no one in a proper debate would take them seriously. He thinks that death by an intentionally fire weapon is the same cause as death by a car accident.... or boat accident, or drowning, or (insert what you'd like)

 

BO ultimately does not discuss - he 'bats' for his side of a topic. (GW, guns, tax, Government, spooky NASA)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

So its possible that in time the 2nd amendment will be changed?

 

Of course it can change.  It has changed.  When it was written it meant that every state had the right to keep a private army so that they could round up escaped slaves.  Today it means that the NRA has the right to sell guns to everybody, even the insane.  Someday I hope it will mean that a well regulated militia must be well regulated.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes I've gone round this merry go round of the difference between a designed weapon and a car before.

 

 

How about the one where if only Jewish people had some bolt-action Mausers then they could have endlessly fended off wave after wave of machine gun armed Gestapo?  Because real life is just like a Call-of-Duty video game.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is "News and Current Events"  NOT "Totally Off Topic".    Post accordingly.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

And how is lawfully hunting, protecting one's home, family and property not being peaceful?  Do you want someone who is intent to do harm to have free run on you and yours?  Are you ok with having a thug, even if they are not armed with a gun but something else, doing bad things to people?  If you are, you are a SICK PUPPY. 

 

You are so way off beam here from the point of discussion its amazing you are posting in this thread.

 

Quote

You are big on formal definitions.  Please show me one that says that.  ;)

 

That was MY definition of the word in that particular context. Instead of saying "thugs that run around with guns" I said halfwits cause that's what I think they are.

 

Quote

In other words, you are afraid.  ;)

 

May I ask what you suppose I'm afraid of? I can assure you, its not a fear of being overawed by your eloquence and convincing arguments.

 

Quote

Actually you are trying to dodge the issue.   Are you saying these didn't happen?  http://www.newsweek.com/stockholm-vehicle-attacks-europe-580596 

 

No, you don't understand what purpose means. Let me help you:

 

purpose
ˈpəːpəs/
noun
  1. 1.
    the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
    "the purpose of the meeting is to appoint a trustee"
    synonyms:

    motive, motivation, grounds, cause, impetus, occasion, reason, point, basis, justification More

 

Note it says "reason" for which something is created.

 

So tell me what is the "purpose" of a gun and what is the "purpose" of a car? Lets see if you can get something right.

 

Quote

No..we were talking about teachers being armed when someone like that crazed kid did his deed.  Now YOU are trying to change the subject.

 

We have no data as to whether this would be effective at reducing gun violence, nor currently do we have reason to suppose it would be so.

 

Quote

And those stories where a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun happens frequently.  Ar e you saying they don't happen? 

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-guy-gun-stopped-bad-guy-gun/

 

No I am not saying they didn't happen. Do you know what "outlier" means in the field of statistics?

 

Someone please explain to this man the meaning of outlier in a dataset!

 

It's very hard to have a discussion when you keep on trying to make out that I've said something I didn't say while at the same time intentionally missing the point of what I am saying. Sounds like a Christian apologist... no wait a Gun Apologist! :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

So...YOUR definition involves calling people names. WOW. 

 

If you want to defend people who go into schools killing innocent people that's up to you. I call them halfwits... I should use strong language to describe such monsters.

 

5 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

The reason I used a weapon for is peaceful, you know...hunting, protecting my family, even some occasional target shooting.  The purpose is in the mind of the user.  The same way those muslim terrorists had when they purposed to use a truck to mow people down.

 

I'd disagree that you can call hunting "peaceful".

 

You failed to answer the question.

 

What is the purpose of a gun?

What is the purpose of a car?

 

Note this is not the same as asking for what purpose is a particular individual using the gun or car for. But you know this and are playing games to avoid answering.

 

5 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

Well..considering there has only been about 33700 approx deaths in a population of over 320 million, and there are over 400 million KNOWN guns, there have not been statistically hardly any.  If gun owners wanted to be a problem, the people against guns would have a REAL problem.  ;) 

 

33,700 per??? I can tell you there are a lot more than 33,700 in total, and we are not even discussing injuries caused by shootings that don't result in death.

 

Using number of deaths per gun is a poor measure. That's why they generally use deaths per 100,000 population. It gives a better baseline figure. In statistics its important to use the right stat to measure against or you end up with gibberish.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as the article quoted in the OP was great at refuting common gun apologist arguments what we could really use is a breakdown on how much money the NRA has paid to each and every US politician.  It would also be interesting to note how much the NRA spends on advertising to the public.  Their recent ads border on paranoid propaganda.  If we want our democracy to survive we need to find a way to stop the propaganda.  Our voters behave like a cat following a laser dot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. if your from another country you are in a different culture and I dont give a damn about what you think about americans and there guns. no offense it's just really not your business b/c you dont live here. just like i think we need to stay out of other countries bullshit. other countries need to stay out of ours.

2. the second amendment isn't protecting our right to self defense  as much as it is protecting our right to wage war on invaders or our own government if they try to take our rights away. There is no doubt in my mind that if the govt tried to take away guns that it would start another war here. and like burned out said. IT SHALL NOT be infringed. it is hard to get around that. It has been supported by our supreme court on many occasions.

3. If 20 elementary kids didn't make us want to give up our rights 17 highschool kids wont either. to a lot of us, including myself our rights are worth more than lives taken by an idiot who should have already had his rights taken away according to existing laws

4. when sandy hook happened there were 350 million guns in america. most of which cant be traced because we can just say we sold it privately to joe blow down the street and there is nothing illegal about it. By now it is probably up to 500 million. there will NEVER be a gun free america. So give up and join the crowd. get a gun.

5. Liberals can kiss my constitutionalist ass :-) 

 

If steps one through five dont make you feel better repeat step five until the snow flakes stop melting in your brain and you can coexist with us once again. 

 

Lovingly your friend,

Dark Bishop

 

PS I think I will go to the range tomorrow and practice my rights to puncture pieces of paper with high velocity lead.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

Wait, it is YOU who wants a bad guy to do harm to children and leave them defensless as the school officals have by not allowing teachers and administrators to be armed.  Perhaps it is YOU who is the monster? 

 

Strawman. How do you get from me explaining what I meant by halfway in the context I used it to the above?

 

Quote

Hunting not being peacful?  Do you eat meat?  That is how several people in this country get their meat in rural areas of this country.  Is there something wrong with that?

 

Are you able to hold conversation without diverting the topic or putting words in people's mouths? The last two questions are completely separate from the first and have nothing to do wether or not a particular activity is peaceful. I hunt. I kill stuff. I'm also honest and don't try and claim I'm being peaceful when I intentionally put a piece of lead into another living being.

 

Quote

Gun-a device made of metal and platic or wood, designed to expel a heavy metal object out of it at high speed in the direction it was aimed.  

 

Car-a device made of metal, plastic, rubber, glass, etc., that is designed to roll across a surface, can be a road or dry land.  

 

Both are inanimate objects require human interacting to operate.   Now, what part of that is factually incorrect? 

 

What answer are you fishing for?

 

No you are factually correct in that is what the object does. That is not their purpose. You are so desperate not to concede anything that might weaken your position that you can't even give a straight answer of what their purpose is. 

 

Quote

  Hmmm....so you say it was much higher?  Care to prove it? IF you had actually READ my first post on this thread, you would see the figures I posted.  They were from the Centers of Disease Control, the US Federal Government.  That means they are OFFICIAL.  From my haf-assed guess, I was actaully a little high, it was closer to slightly over 33,500.  The CDC records all the causes of death and items that lead up to death as an official matter, or since it does not fit your narrative, it doesn't count?  Now, YOU are the one who goes by published material.  I don't but I give you this for your reading pleasure.  If you want to TRY to prove me wrong, you can go google 'CDC, deaths in USA by firearms'.  

 

 

Next futile question? 

 

God the level of fail here is very very high. Those figures are for 2014. You (Like always) don't even bother to read your own official figures. :lmao: Hence my question. You can look up official figures per year. You can also look up the total since x year. I did hence me questioning what you meant by 33500. I'll let you do your own homework. Please post number of deaths per year by guns in the US since records began. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 2. the second amendment isn't protecting our right to self defense  as much as it is protecting our right to wage war on invaders or our own government if they try to take our rights away. There is no doubt in my mind that if the govt tried to take away guns that it would start another war here. and like burned out said. IT SHALL NOT be infringed. it is hard to get around that. It has been supported by our supreme court on many occasions.

 

Nobody is trying to infringe.  Ever.  The US has millions of cars despite the fact that every state has it's own traffic laws and every driver needs a license.  Why can't we have sensible gun laws?  Regulation does not infringe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.