Summations Only

Its all your fault. If you don't have time to write coherantly and mean what you say and say what you mean, then maybe you should wait until you do have the time to do so.I mean, look how long it took you to realize your error and admit that your original argument about the capacity to be lethal really didn't have anything to do with the "capacity". I can't help it that you write things that you don't mean. If you don't mean capacity, then don't write about capacity. I can only go by what I see written from you.And you also aren't considering the logical extensions of your arguments. If you're not condoning the crime at the expense of the victim, then you could easily answer my question:How do you grant a criminal the right to due process after breaking into a home without removing the right of the victim to defend themself against the intrusion?Further, some decent reading comprehension on your side would help as well. Your response to me saying that if someone broke into a home then we know they've committed a crime is to list a bunch of questionable home shootings.But none of them address what I've said: If you've broken into someone's home, then you have committed a crime.It doesn't matter if it was a joke, or if you thought you were at a different place, or you're retarded, breaking and entering is a crime regardless. Now, that doesn't mean its right to start shooting, but I haven't said that either.It does get cloudier when you have teenagers who are "breaking", or sneaking, into the houses that they live in. I'm not a lawyer but I'd guess that they either are not "breaking in" or if they actually are, then it is still illegal. But I don't know.So for each of the "examples" that you listed, you need to address one question to each one of them to get to my point:Did they break into the house or not?You do know what "breaking and entering" is, right?

What is your point? Is that all you are saying?

Well its certainly been dumb!But even after all your ramblings, it still all seems rather pointless.

Would you also find it interesting to introduce a bill defining "Speech" as being communication that existed at time? Yeah, just written and spoken words, no free speech in broadcasting or on the internet.

Did you see the other part?

quote:

---

For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%

---

That's over five times the correlation for gun ownership - a five-to-one relationship.How come you're not pointing out that more blacks means more gun deaths?Or is that not vapid enough for you? ABE:Look how different your argument looks if you swap in the equally justified claim:

quote:

---

There can be no doubt that more blacks means more gun deaths. Anyone who values human life above all else understands that we have to find means to reduce the number of blacks in our midst.

---

Doesn't look so good, does it?Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

Well you're wrong. Artillery existed at that time.Arms were meant to be a firearm that a single individual could use. Ah, the ol' Godwin's Law of guns...As an online discussion on the 2nd amendment grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving individuals owning nuclear weapons approaches 1.

Its called the Ecological fallacy:

quote:

---

An ecological fallacy is a logical fallacy in the interpretation of statistical data where inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from inference for the group to which those individuals belong.

---

For an example they use:

quote:

---

Assume that at the individual level, being Protestant impacts negatively one's tendency to commit suicide but the probability that one's neighbor commits suicide increases one's tendency to become Protestant. Then, even if at the individual level there is negative correlation between suicidal tendencies and Protestantism, there can be a positive correlation at the aggregate level.

---

In the above situation, the more Protestants you have the more suicides you have, but being a Protestant doesn't necessarily cause people to commit suicide.You can keep repeating it: "But the more Protestants you have the more suicides you have!" and your still not going to convince anybody because it is vapid and/or vacuous.The parallel to guns is that having a lot of gun deaths in an area causes people to go out and buy guns. So the more guns you have the more gun deaths you are going to have, but buying a gun doesn't necessarily cause people to create gun deaths.. I exemplified this with divorce, from Message 1303:

quote:

---

Look at it this way. We had the statistic that half of all marriages ended in divorce. You're telling me that I shouldn't get married because there's a 50% chance of it failing. "But we're perfect for each", I reply. "Well that's what the data shows", you retort. What we failed to consider was that not half of all first marriages ended in divorce, and that many individuals were having multiple divorces and skewing the statistic.

---

. This is particularly apparent in my home state, Illinois.

quote:

---

Now on to guns, lets consider the state I live in: Illinois. We have about 3 million people living in our biggest city: Chicago. There's about 10 million of us in the rest of the state. In Chicago, there were 436 homicides in 2010 among 3 million people. That leaves 268 homides among the other 10 million of us. So for kills per million (kpm), the entire state is at 54 kpm. But Chicago is at 145 kpm while the rest of the state is only at 27 kpm.

---

As I said:

quote:

---

That's why these gun stats you're using are not convincing. You're grouping together the urbanites with the rest of us and then trying to say that we are in more danger because they are.

​

Populations density and economic disparity should be much bigger factors than whether or not there's a gun in the vicinity. But you're telling me to ignore all that other stuff and just believe that I'm less safe because of my proximity to a gun. I'm not buying it.

---

You can keep repeating all day: "But more guns means more gun deaths", and it still doesn't address the argument.. With things like the deterrent effect, where people don't commit a crime because they suspect a gun might be present, you cannot capture that with statistics because if they don't commit a crime then there is nothing to report. You can't use statistics on non-events so this stuff doesn't get considered.

How strong do you stand by this?Do you avoid black people because the evidence you have says that they increase gun deaths by 5 times the amount that guns do?If not, why not?

The quotes from my post to Faith were taken from Message 1303, which was a post to you. That thread ended with you acknowledging my last reply to you that explained how you missed the point, Message 1307. Granted, that was a year ago.There's been a lot of different points being made and its getting pretty confusing. The stuff from the above posts was in reply to you saying that just being in the vicinity of a gun makes you less safe. It wasn't an argument about the correlation between guns and gun deaths. That's where the Ecological fallacy comes into play. I'm talking about individuals and you're bringing in statistics from the aggregate.On the individual level, if your neighbor gets shot, you may go and get yourself a gun. If there's an increase in gun deaths on the other side of the state, then its going to look like your increase in the number of guns caused the number of gun deaths to go up. But that's impossible if your gun has never shot anybody. But there will still be the correlation of an increase in the number of guns and the increase of the number of gun deaths even no there was no causation.Simply looking at the aggregate data doesn't tell this aspect of the story.Too, look at it this way. The US is, by far, the number one country in terms of the amount of guns.Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - WikipediaWe are getting close to double that of second place.But, when it comes to the number of gun deaths, we're only in 12th place.List of countries by firearm-related death rate - WikipediaIf the number of gun deaths were simply caused by the number of guns, then the U.S. would have to be way out in front on the number of gun deaths, and be like almost twice second place.Why don't you think that is the case?Its pretty obvious that one man who owns 100 guns cannot use them all at the same time, or even in any appreciable percetage where that number of guns is going to cause any appreciable increase in the number of gun deaths. The point wasn't about your actual attitude towards blacks. It was to show how vapid your argument is. That's why I asked if it wasn't vapid enough for you to actually make the argument.Face it, the evidence speaks for itself:The more blacks, the more gun deaths. Wow, what an amazing argument

There wasn't much to reply to.Artillery is run by a crew not an individual.And the 2nd amendment doesn't "allow" for anything. It just says to not infringe on the Peoples' right to have guns.Other laws are what disallow people from having grenade launchers. Google "destructive device".

It means weapons. Guns are weapons.And its a right that a person has.They're talking about personal weapons.It stems back to the English Bill of Rights:

quote:

---

no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law

---

It doesn't. Its not exclusionary at all. None. The type of arms a citizen is allowed to keep and bear is not limited by the Constitution.The Constitution doesn't even "allow" the citizens to have arms in the first place.It identifies the existence of the right, and then says to not infringe it. Well for one, some states have wildlife that can survive a 22. Honestly, the question is just nonsensical. The Constitution doesn't allow citizens to bear arms and it place no limits it the right.You should be asking the other way: what's the limitation on civilian arms that becomes unconstitutional...That really isn't clear now, is it?My opinion is that the metric for the limitation of civilian arms should be the police.The police are civilians too. Anything they are allowed to have, I should be allowed to have.And if you want to limit me from having it, then you should limit the police from having it as well.That should create a decent balance of interest.

What about it? I've never thought about it.Is it not commercially available?

You guys probably don't sell a lot of beach towels either...I'm not sure I'm getting the point.

Or maybe not.

Not at the federal level. You have to pay a $200 tax and fill out a bunch of paperwork.I've shot, iirc, three different fully automatic rifles.One was an M-16, I think, and the other was a Mac-11, for sure. That stupid thing bounced all over the place.I don't recall what the third one was.It was all 100% legal. We were in Missouri.