Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-04-2013, 12:10 PM (This post was last modified: 15-04-2013 12:43 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
My father-in-law gave me a link to this video. Telling me that maybe a 15 year old could help me understand what he was trying to say. There are so many things wrong with this, not the least of which is the claim that you are twice is likely to have died in Chicago since the Afghanistan war began than in Afghanistan.

I'll start there.
Chicago population ~2,400,000
murders from 2003 to 2012 = 4,797 (all murders, not just guns)
murders per year = 533

Total number of troops deployed to Afghanistan since 2001 = 1,400,000
Total number of troop deaths = 2,166
troops per year at that total deployment number = 116,666
troop deaths per year = 150

That gives a rate for Chicago of 22.2 murders per 100,000 people
vs
Afghanistan at 154.7 dead soldiers per 100,000 soldiers.

Uh oh, the BS statistic of being twice as likely to die in Chicago is actually that you are about 7 times more likely to die in Afghanistan. Oops.

As for the rest of the girls BS.

How exactly would stricter laws "obliterate" her chances to have ever gotten into a college based on being on a shooting team?

"Guns are not the problem, people are." And laws don't impact the inanimate object, they impact the people who are the problem.

Gun laws don't outlaw guns to take them away in an effort to violate anyone's constitutional rights.

Amending gun laws is not designed to curb violence as a whole, but to curb excessive violence via guns.

It would also positively impact suicides by gun. Something like 90% of attempts via gun are successful, vs ~10% via all other means. That is because guns are usually a compulsory attempt. In a similar way to a switch away from coal for heating in the UK. When coal ovens were replaced, the practice of suicide via carbon monoxide poisoning plummeted. And not only that, but suicide rates in general dropped, and stayed there.

She says gun laws are attempts "eliminate guns from society." This is a strawman argument she keeps making. The gun laws are not about eliminating guns from society but keeping them out of the hands of dangerous individuals with bad intentions. Which is why we already tell felons they can't have guns. Or would you rather give them guns?

Gun laws that target specific weapons that are more dangerous than another is worth it. There is a reason there are not a significant number of deaths from grenades in the US every year. Her argument would be that if a school had a grenade throwing team, then they shouldn't be outlawed since the law only punishes those who would use grenades for harm and not for recreation.

"None of the guns in the Chicago shootings were registered to those who used them." I highly doubt that. And those guns were acquired legally somewhere along the road. If the person intending to distribute those guns illegally were to have been foiled, acquiring those guns would have become much more difficult.

She brings up the guy who stabbed people in China the same day as Newtown. That guy was obviously deranged the same as Lanza (actually, that guy was under the impression the biblical Armageddon was going to occur). The difference between a madman with guns and madman without? No one died in the stabbings.

When she says that most of these crimes occur in low-income neighborhoods, she is correct. When she asserts that the only way to stop this is for people to have access to guns, she is absurdly wrong. Apparently there are plenty of guns there now, but the murder rates are still high. That solution seems to be failing in an epic way.

She is ending on her strawman that gun laws are about taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. The problem with using a 15 year old for your arguments is that she apparently did not do her fact-checking first.

If new gun laws that save lives inconvenience me, then I will gladly allow it. In very much the same way that while the DMV is awful, I gladly continue to go knowing that the DMV is helping to save lives by helping to make sure only qualified drivers are on the road. Do some people still drive illegally? Yes, and when caught, our laws hold them accountable for their actions.

Some of this I just lifted out of our facebook conversation. So some of you may be reading it again.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
15-04-2013, 01:34 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Gun law discussions bother me, because there is the anti-gun side, which believes that gun bans are a solution to crime and that it will prevent mass shootings, and the pro-gun side, which believes that guns have no effect on crime and that the government is going to go all Nazi on our asses the second assault rifles are prohibited, and then there is the middle-ground side (which I am a part of) which gets drowned out by the back-and-forth of BS statistics, generalizations, and fear-mongering from the two extremes.

And it is especially bad because the extreme pro-gun and anti-gun crowds are mostly aligned with political parties - pro-gun with 'conservative' parties, anti-gun with 'liberal' parties. So instead of finding practical solutions and making sensible laws, it becomes a mud-slinging all-or-nothing affair in the way of federal elections.

According to most people I have had the displeasure of talking to, I either can't support the right to acquire and carry arms without endangering the children for the sake of possessing 'toys', or I can't oppose the sale of assault rifles and burst-fire 20-round magazine glocks without being a Nazi.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Elesjei's post
15-04-2013, 01:39 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(15-04-2013 01:34 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  Gun law discussions bother me, because there is the anti-gun side, which believes that gun bans are a solution to crime and that it will prevent mass shootings, and the pro-gun side, which believes that guns have no effect on crime and that the government is going to go all Nazi on our asses the second assault rifles are prohibited, and then there is the middle-ground side (which I am a part of) which gets drowned out by the back-and-forth of BS statistics, generalizations, and fear-mongering from the two extremes.

And it is especially bad because the extreme pro-gun and anti-gun crowds are mostly aligned with political parties - pro-gun with 'conservative' parties, anti-gun with 'liberal' parties. So instead of finding practical solutions and making sensible laws, it becomes a mud-slinging all-or-nothing affair in the way of federal elections.

According to most people I have had the displeasure of talking to, I either can't support the right to acquire and carry arms without endangering the children for the sake of possessing 'toys', or I can't oppose the sale of assault rifles and burst-fire 20-round magazine glocks without being a Nazi.

Just because I support gun laws, does not mean I am for banning all guns.

That is the gist of what you are saying and I hear ya. Both sides build strawmen, and both sides actually support roughly equal laws. But (and I am talking mainly about the pro-gun side to be honest) the extreme view that any gun laws = nazi-like Hitler proposal to ban all guns, kills any debate to be had.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
15-04-2013, 01:43 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(15-04-2013 01:34 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  Gun law discussions bother me, because there is the anti-gun side, which believes that gun bans are a solution to crime and that it will prevent mass shootings, and the pro-gun side, which believes that guns have no effect on crime and that the government is going to go all Nazi on our asses the second assault rifles are prohibited, and then there is the middle-ground side (which I am a part of) which gets drowned out by the back-and-forth of BS statistics, generalizations, and fear-mongering from the two extremes.

And it is especially bad because the extreme pro-gun and anti-gun crowds are mostly aligned with political parties - pro-gun with 'conservative' parties, anti-gun with 'liberal' parties. So instead of finding practical solutions and making sensible laws, it becomes a mud-slinging all-or-nothing affair in the way of federal elections.

According to most people I have had the displeasure of talking to, I either can't support the right to acquire and carry arms without endangering the children for the sake of possessing 'toys', or I can't oppose the sale of assault rifles and burst-fire 20-round magazine glocks without being a Nazi.

This is why I stay out of the debate . I try to remain rational and honest to my thoughts. But that really doesn't have a place in the discussion.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
15-04-2013, 01:46 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(15-04-2013 01:43 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 01:34 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  Gun law discussions bother me, because there is the anti-gun side, which believes that gun bans are a solution to crime and that it will prevent mass shootings, and the pro-gun side, which believes that guns have no effect on crime and that the government is going to go all Nazi on our asses the second assault rifles are prohibited, and then there is the middle-ground side (which I am a part of) which gets drowned out by the back-and-forth of BS statistics, generalizations, and fear-mongering from the two extremes.

And it is especially bad because the extreme pro-gun and anti-gun crowds are mostly aligned with political parties - pro-gun with 'conservative' parties, anti-gun with 'liberal' parties. So instead of finding practical solutions and making sensible laws, it becomes a mud-slinging all-or-nothing affair in the way of federal elections.

According to most people I have had the displeasure of talking to, I either can't support the right to acquire and carry arms without endangering the children for the sake of possessing 'toys', or I can't oppose the sale of assault rifles and burst-fire 20-round magazine glocks without being a Nazi.

This is why I stay out of the debate . I try to remain rational and honest to my thoughts. But that really doesn't have a place in the discussion.

It is the only place the discussion should be happening, but people interject their emotions and primal instincts into it and ignore the rational.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
15-04-2013, 01:56 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Whoa! WTF???

How the fuck did I stumble into this thread??


......makes hasty exit.......

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stark Raving's post
15-04-2013, 02:06 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(15-04-2013 01:56 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Whoa! WTF???

How the fuck did I stumble into this thread??


......makes hasty exit.......

I'll keep their heads down while you duck out the back. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-04-2013, 03:14 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
I'm in full support of banning guns, and I would support the legislation as soon as it is written up and in Congress; but if the legislation doesn't also have, within it, laws to Ban College Football as well, I'm going to have to vehemently protest in opposition.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 03:17 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(15-04-2013 03:14 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  I'm in full support of banning guns, and I would support the legislation as soon as it is written up and in Congress; but if the legislation doesn't also have, within it, laws to Ban College Football as well, I'm going to have to vehemently protest in opposition.

I'm all for that, but only if they ban SUVs, too. Fuckin' Assault Vehicles.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 03:26 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(15-04-2013 03:14 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  I'm in full support of banning guns, and I would support the legislation as soon as it is written up and in Congress; but if the legislation doesn't also have, within it, laws to Ban College Football as well, I'm going to have to vehemently protest in opposition.

No argument from me...let's ban all college football! I hate football. Hockey too! Let's ban all violent sports!


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: