|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,415 Year: 3,672/9,624 Month: 543/974 Week: 156/276 Day: 30/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
What a surprise.
All quotes from the article.
the annual risk of gun-related death in school is "well below one in two million,"
(Bolding mine) So not the number of youngsters killed by guns, just the subset who happen to get killed by guns at school, against the total number killed in cycling accidents. And the number killed in school is:
"lower than two decades ago when gang violence was especially problematic at school settings."
One wonders just how much of that decline is due to anti-gun measures installed in schools.Oddly, the article doesn't address that question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That doesn't make the headline any less misleading. 'Criminologist says: "Schools are Safe"' would be far more accurate. And, really, it does look as if Coyote was mislead. Why else link to the article at all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Doing poor imitations of your opponent's posts is hardly a winning strategy. And citing a misleading headline, if you know that it is misleading, is a little less than entirely honest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Did you ? The global figures from the website say:
Each year nearly 400,000 people under 25 die on the world's roads, on average over 1,000 a day.
You said Message 3516:
You and I both know that over 3000 people are going to die in car accidents today.
A bit of a difference there. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given. Edited by PaulK, : minor tidyups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Aside from the specific problems with that analogy there is one very basic difference that is being ignored. The purpose of owning and using a car is very different from the purpose of owning a gun. Buying a gun to protect your life and your families lives has - on average - the opposite effect. The car does what it is meant to do but the gun does not. A better analogy might be skipping vaccinations to protect your child's health. Due to scaremongering there are people who believe that is a good idea, but it isn't. Are you really saying that we should try to make things safer for those who mistakenly refuse to vaccinate instead of countering the misinformation and encouraging vaccination ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That may or may not be true. But if, say, the equivalent of a driving test were introduced before you were permitted to own a gun, who do you think would scream loudest against it?
quote: Except you don't seem to consider the benefits that people seek in going out for supper - or offer any benefits other than "protection" in the case of the gun.
quote: I think you will find that very people go out for supper with the sole intention of finding sufficient nourishment to survive.
quote: You can't do a cost-benefit analysis without considering the benefits that are actually being sought. So purpose is very relevant. The benefits of owning a gun for protection are more likely to be achieved by not owning a gun. The desired benefits of going out for supper are rather less likely to be achieved by staying in. Thus there is no analogy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: But you can bet that the screams will come from the gun lobby
quote: I guess that it's simpler to ignore facts that eviscerate your argument, but it isn't honest.
quote: And that is obviously untrue. It is relevant because it shows that your comparison is highly misleading and dishonest. Your argument merely shows that people who go out for supper - and drive to do so - for the sole purpose of survival are making a mistake comparable to buying a gun for protection. To which the obvious reaction is "so what?" Because nobody does that. It would be a silly thing to do.
quote: That is a nice example of projection. The bare fact of the risks of gun ownership is not the point. The point that owning a gun for protection increases the risks it is meant to reduce is the point. And you know it - that is why you try to "simplify" going out for supper into a question of survival ignoring the expected benefits, the real reasons for going out to supper. So you do not have even the excuse of an honest failure to understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Since they will more likely fulfil those purposes by going out than staying in they are NOT making that mistake. An action that has the opposite of the desired effect is very different from one that happens to carry a very small risk of death. The nurses and doctors who went out to treat Ebola patients in Africa took a larger risk, but their action is not a mistake because of that.
quote: So? It doesn't change the fact that those who do buy guns for protection are doing the wrong thing.
quote: Really this level of dishonesty isn't helping your case. Even if the restriction was artificial (and it arguably is not) you didn't point that out. You just went ahead and added your own silly restrictions. If you post stupid bullshit that is your fault. Not anybody else's. But in reality those points can be addressed. The feeling of safety is false. There are other shiny things. Maybe, for some people, the other things do justify buying a gun. But knowing that would require a real cost-benefit analysis.
quote: Funny how you suddenly switch from individual decisions to government policies. And funny how you consider freedom to lack meaning. Or recognise that, far from simplifying things this move complicates them more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: But who goes out for supper - in a car - just to survive?
quote: If you had been trying for equality you wouldn't have created a silly straw an that obscured the main point.
quote: If you meant some other policies it's up to you to explain it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: A lot of people seem to think that it is an important reason - especially for handguns. How many people think that avoiding starvation is an important reason for going out for supper ?
quote: People who buy insurance policies hope that they never have to claim on them. But still that's a major reason for buying them - and often enough the only reason.
quote: So you didn't explain it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That isn't what I said. In fact I think that it is seen more like insurance - something that you hope not to need, but are glad to have if you do need it.
quote: Yes, I am aware of that. But then I understand the concept of insurance. The point of a good insurance policy is to cushion serious blows, turn them into something that is at least financially survivable. People buy insurance policies to reduce the risk of things going REALLY bad, not to make a profit. Fraud excepted.
quote: Of course there is something to explain,. What "policies" were you talking about ? Here's the text again:
...since policies usually aren't directed at nonsense like improving satisfaction from owning shiny things or socializing but instead at meaningful stuff like keeping people safe...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I did ask that as soon as you told me that - despite the context suggesting otherwise - you didn't mean government policies. You evaded the issue. But OK. I'm satisfied now that you did mean government policies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
It's funnier than that,in a very sad way, if you know the history of China in the first half of the 20th Century.
Suffice to say that the Chinese government establishing gun control in 1935 would be a bit of a joke - at least when it's held to affect the availability of weapons in 1948 - and the Chinese government of 1935 did not have much to do with the Chinese government of 1948. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Reading that I have to ask if the guy is even a real forensic psychiatrist. It looks like a nasty attempt to forestall any call for restrictions on gun ownership, and suppress criticism of the far right. Even a veiled threat that verges on terrorism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I doubt he bothered to gather much information at all.
I would add that those who kill to publicise a cause generally advertise their cause. He didn't. He may have intended to kill people at an earlier musical event, too, so I don't think we can assume that he particularly cared who he killed. Notoriety seems a more likely motivation since he would get that just by killing enough people. It may not be his actual motive, but it seems likelier than killing for a cause.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024