Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-05-2013, 07:23 PM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2013 02:22 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(07-05-2013 02:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  People differ in their opinions on this.
I contend that our individual rights should be maximized to the greatest extent. We should only curtail an individual's rights where they impinge on others' rights. Sort of libertarian-ish.

Others believe that we should maximize happiness or safety or wealth or something for the greatest number regardless of individuals' rights. Sort of liberal-ish.

Most people are probably somewhere in between.

That is why people should not be ideological.

The question, 'What is moral and/or just?', should be answered rationally and impartially.

By the way, rights would have to exist first. You can't "impinge" on something that doesn't exist. If you meant liberty, that would be based on how you defined liberty. It would be easier to just decide things based on what is moral or just.

I'd agree with libertarianism but it just becomes like any other ideology, especially with those who simply trade a statist ideology in order to adopt a capitalist ideology, along with their libertarianism.

Excluding the part about rights, the the latter part sounds more specifically utilitarian, than liberal, as far as maximizing certain things (e.g. happiness), without regard for individuals in certain hypothetical cases. Even if you were to pick a specific group of liberals, none of the ones I can think of operated without regard for certain individual rights, in accordance with their belief in rights.

In a civilized society, you should not have to dictate to people how to behave-- that is how we know that we don't live in a civilized society.

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
07-05-2013, 09:57 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
DOJ report on firearms violence

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2013, 10:03 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
I'm with you Chas, couldn't agree more. The limits on any freedom should be absolutely minimal, the bare bones limitations to ensure safety. As for free speech there are are a few limitations because rarely does saying (or expressing) put people in immediate danger. The common example is someone shouting "Fire!" in a crowded area without reason. However we should all have the legal right to tell each other to fuck off. I should be able to call a government official a stupid cunt without fear of being locked away or fined. With the right to bear arms it is more tricky, but I am of the opinion that everyone should have the legal right to own, and carry any firearm regardless of it's magazine capacity or caliber so long as they are not using it negligently or with criminal intent. I own several firearms, and carry a pistol on a regular basis. All of my firearms with the exception of a .22 rifle are suitable for and designed to kill humans. I generally follow the law minus some speeding in my car, I am mentally stable and I have never had an incident with firearms. Why should I be restricted in my firearm choices? I shouldn't, so long as I continue to use my firearms properly.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2013, 12:18 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2013, 08:50 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(07-05-2013 07:23 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(07-05-2013 02:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  People differ in their opinions on this.
I contend that our individual rights should be maximized to the greatest extent. We should only curtail an individual's rights where they impinge on others' rights. Sort of libertarian-ish.

Others believe that we should maximize happiness or safety or wealth or something for the greatest number regardless of individuals' rights. Sort of liberal-ish.

Most people are probably somewhere in between.

That is why people should not to be ideological.

The question, 'What is moral and/or just?', should be answered rationally and impartially.

By the way, rights would have to exist first. You can't "impinge" on something that doesn't exist. If you meant liberty, that would be based on how you defined liberty. It would be easier to just decide things based on what is moral or just.

I'd agree with libertarianism but it just becomes like any other ideology, especially with those who simply trade a statist ideology in order to adopt a capitalist ideology, along with their libertarianism.

Excluding the part about rights, the the latter part sounds more specifically utilitarian, than liberal, as far as maximizing certain things (e.g. happiness), without regard for individuals in certain hypothetical cases. Even if you were to pick a specific group of liberals, none of the ones I can think of operated without regard for certain individual rights, in accordance with their belief in rights.

In a civilized society, you should not have to dictate to people how to behave-- that is how we know that we don't live in a civilized society.

Ideologies tend to be a block to rational thinking.

I base my ethics and morality on the basic belief that I have the sole right to my person, as does each of us. That is the basis for rights.
From this, all other rights and responsibilities flow. I can cede some of my right for any reason and from this arises the notion of a social contract.

I agree to be taxed, for instance, so that I may benefit from a collective effort.

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
08-05-2013, 10:27 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...A_Facebook

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
08-05-2013, 02:01 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(08-05-2013 10:27 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...A_Facebook

This article fails in the 1st paragraph. No where in the report mentions anything of trained personnel statistics and how they are any different? How many people were"trained" and yet still ended up in the numbers he is citing?


Quote:"31,672 people died by guns in 2010"

Quote:"Of those 31,672 dead, 61 percent were suicides,"

So suicide is now the fault of "untrained citizens"? Well I guess?Undecided

Quote:died by guns in 2010,54 percent were shot by guns,

This kind of language seem to say-gun kill people. I've never seen an article about traffic fatalities that uses the verbage "killed by cars".


Quote:“Strong regulation and oversight of licensed gun dealers—defined as having a state law that required state or local licensing of retail firearm sellers, mandatory record keeping by those sellers, law enforcement access to records for inspection, regular inspections of gun dealers, and mandated reporting of theft of loss of firearms—was associated with 64 percent less diversion of guns to criminals by in-state gun dealers.”

Of which all of these things has been law in every 50 states. This isnt new.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2013, 04:23 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(08-05-2013 08:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  Ideologies tend to be a block to rational thinking.

I base my ethics and morality on the basic belief that I have the sole right to my person, as does each of us. That is the basis for rights.
From this, all other rights and responsibilities flow. I can cede some of my right for any reason and from this arises the notion of a social contract.

I agree to be taxed, for instance, so that I may benefit from a collective effort.

Ideologies are a block to rational thinking.

And you don't see your view as being ideological and irrational?

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
08-05-2013, 04:34 PM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2013 04:42 PM by Chas.)
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(08-05-2013 04:23 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(08-05-2013 08:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  Ideologies tend to be a block to rational thinking.

I base my ethics and morality on the basic belief that I have the sole right to my person, as does each of us. That is the basis for rights.
From this, all other rights and responsibilities flow. I can cede some of my right for any reason and from this arises the notion of a social contract.

I agree to be taxed, for instance, so that I may benefit from a collective effort.

Ideologies are a block to rational thinking.

And you don't see your view as being ideological and irrational?

No, I don't. It is subject to reason.

It is one simple premise.

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
09-05-2013, 08:10 AM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2013 08:19 AM by fat cat.)
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Edit: Nevermind. Need to read the whole thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: