Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2013, 07:04 AM
Re: RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(28-04-2013 05:26 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(27-04-2013 07:08 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  Dude, it's right in front of you. Read the 2nd Amendment, re-read the US code I cited. It may not be what you agree with, but that's not the point.

The National Guard is no longer a militia, they are a reserve branch of the army, and they use state supplied evil baby killing assault rifles in Foreign WARS on temporary ACTIVE DUTY.

There isn't an argument that you have an individual right to own a gun.

What you posted has absolutely no connection to what I said. Completely irrelevant and pointless.

Yes there is, our bill of rights does. They all insure individual rights. Why would the government need to ensure it dosent take it's own guns away?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 10:32 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(28-04-2013 08:27 PM)Julius Wrote:  Bro, I am not here to put a label on you. I am not here to call you names. Peace.

Now, if you think the gun debate has become hysterical, then I agree.

Can we agree on this point and move on?

Julius

I think you took that the wrong way.

I was only trying to say that the debate is hysterical.

I wasn't trying to imply that there was any name calling or labeling going on. I didn't interpret what you wrote as doing that.

It tends to only be those that feel a word directly applies to them, especially implying something negative about their character, who get upset when they here names being thrown around, and I wasn't one of those people in this particular case.

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
29-04-2013, 11:30 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(29-04-2013 07:04 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  Yes there is, our bill of rights does. They all insure individual rights.

Really?

The whole thing represents the benefit of governance, toward collectivism, effective democracy and the people (not individuals).

Does the word 'individual' or 'individuals' even appear? The word 'person' or similar things appear. There are implications of individual rights, but all of those are only implications from rights granted to a collective of people, those responsible for the governance of the States and the Union, to ensure an effective government and a more fair and just system. The entire tone of the Constitution is directed at collectivism, democracy, republicanism and an effective government, not individual freedoms, individual rights and individual liberties.

Definitely not in the Bill of Rights. The Fourteenth Amendment is really the first thing that pops up that would appear to have given explicit protections to rights, i.e. broadly and directly applicable to states, but even that is still applicable to collectives, just with more focus toward minorities.

Republicanism should most definitely not be confused with individualism or any kind of right-wing, conservative or libertarian ideology, as that would be completely absurd.

Quote:Why would the government need to ensure it dosent take it's own guns away?

That looks like a bad, rhetorical question, that you should have directed at yourself.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TrulyX's post
29-04-2013, 09:05 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(29-04-2013 11:30 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 07:04 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  Yes there is, our bill of rights does. They all insure individual rights.

Really?

The whole thing represents the benefit of governance, toward collectivism, effective democracy and the people (not individuals).

Does the word 'individual' or 'individuals' even appear? The word 'person' or similar things appear. There are implications of individual rights, but all of those are only implications from rights granted to a collective of people, those responsible for the governance of the States and the Union, to ensure an effective government and a more fair and just system. The entire tone of the Constitution is directed at collectivism, democracy, republicanism and an effective government, not individual freedoms, individual rights and individual liberties.

Definitely not in the Bill of Rights. The Fourteenth Amendment is really the first thing that pops up that would appear to have given explicit protections to rights, i.e. broadly and directly applicable to states, but even that is still applicable to collectives, just with more focus toward minorities.

Republicanism should most definitely not be confused with individualism or any kind of right-wing, conservative or libertarian ideology, as that would be completely absurd.

Quote:Why would the government need to ensure it dosent take it's own guns away?

That looks like a bad, rhetorical question, that you should have directed at yourself.

I am trying to figure out the disconnect here, but I can't. What the fuck do you mean it protects the people, but not the individuals? What do you think comprises 'the people'? The Bill of Rights is created to protect the people, which is comprised of individual Americans from the government, full stop.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 10:33 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Why question when the professor is saying what the target audience wants to hear?

When the Westboro Baptist comes and applies for a permit to petition, and the city grants permit, makes arrangement for security and such, they are literally protecting those few individual's 1st Amendment right's because it's like 14 inbred retards that most people fucking hate.

When a LEO reads you your "miranda" rights in the back of his car, he is reminding you of your 5th amendment rights, he dosent announce it to the crowd thats possibly watching.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2013, 04:39 AM
Re: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
He may be saying it encompasses the group "the people" instead of just each individual. Laws and regulations are necessarily for the people by addressing the actions of individuals and/or groups.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2013, 05:28 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
If we, the U.S., were to implement a law similar to that of Australia's that would yield similar numbers to these posted below would that sway the opinion of the people here arguing against this type of control?

"In Australia, gun owners were compensated when they handed in previously legal weapons. Almost 700,000 guns were destroyed, halving the number of homes with a gun. That would be equal to taking 40 million guns out of action in the United States.

Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.

Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/0...C720130403

My position on this matter is still nebulous.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
30-04-2013, 06:23 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(30-04-2013 05:28 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  If we, the U.S., were to implement a law similar to that of Australia's that would yield similar numbers to these posted below would that sway the opinion of the people here arguing against this type of control?

"In Australia, gun owners were compensated when they handed in previously legal weapons. Almost 700,000 guns were destroyed, halving the number of homes with a gun. That would be equal to taking 40 million guns out of action in the United States.

Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.

Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/0...C720130403

My position on this matter is still nebulous.

I've presented these stats before to no avail.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2013, 06:30 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(30-04-2013 06:23 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-04-2013 05:28 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  If we, the U.S., were to implement a law similar to that of Australia's that would yield similar numbers to these posted below would that sway the opinion of the people here arguing against this type of control?

"In Australia, gun owners were compensated when they handed in previously legal weapons. Almost 700,000 guns were destroyed, halving the number of homes with a gun. That would be equal to taking 40 million guns out of action in the United States.

Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.

Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/0...C720130403

My position on this matter is still nebulous.

I've presented these stats before to no avail.

I suppose I should have read the entire thread but I'm not going to so I'll just be on my way.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2013, 06:56 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(30-04-2013 06:30 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(30-04-2013 06:23 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I've presented these stats before to no avail.

I suppose I should have read the entire thread but I'm not going to so I'll just be on my way.

I have not presented them again on this thread. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that.

I said this "Take Australia for example. They changed their gun laws in the late 90's and while they have seen a drop in crime over that time, it is similar to that seen in places like the US over the same time interval. But they have not had a single mass shooting in over 10 years. Gun laws will not affect crime because guns are an instrument of criminals, not the cause of criminal behavior, but gun laws do change the nature of guns and how guns are viewed and any change that can keep us from hearing about an Alabama man taking a kid hostage and shooting a bus driver, or someone luring firemen to their death, or the shooting of a congresswoman, is fine by me." here.

And then I said this "Like I said, let's just take from the 80's onward. There is more than one, there were 8 in that span that I mention and 9 if we take it back to the mid-70's. The reason that is important is that if we plot shooting incidents over time, they were averaging around 1 every 2 years from 1980 to 1995 (8 incidents divided by 15 years equals a rate of 0.5 incidents per year). Since the gun laws changed, they have been shooting-free for >10 years. " here.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: