Summations Only

Redirected replyEdited by Jon, : delete msg.

I just never realized how all these things go together before:The Corporate demons of WalMart open a store in a small town and drive out all the other business; they realize their business is going poorly and close down themselves, forcing everyone to drive fifteen miles to get to the nearest WalMart.Liberal democrats attempt to restrict popular access to guns.An increasing economy brings about more rail traffic.And to the conspiracy loons this means that the evil liberal democrats are shutting down WalMarts to make room for military store houses, taking away people's guns to disarm them, and rolling out prisons on rails across the country. All to build up to the day when swarms of big gub'ment soldiers march out of abandoned WalMarts to rape and pillage.

Whether you're right or wrong doesn't matter if you aren't willing to present supporting evidence.

A nonsense comparison.The bartender's responsibility is the same as the responsibility of someone who tries to enforce a contract signed by someone clearly intoxicated, or the person who tries to defend herself from the rape charge by claiming that the thirteen year old boy gave consent.

Much like if he is killed in a car that his parents bought to drive him to boy scouts?

People do protect themselves with guns.Nobody who buys a gun for protection thinks it will end up killing their own child.Nobody who buys a car to go to boy scouts think they'll be in an accident that kills them.

To make the statistics meaningful and fair of course, we have to correct for the number of crimes that would happen with some other weapon were no gun available; likewise we must figure out how many times someone would defend themselves with something other than a gun.This would tell us the true impact removal of guns from the equation would have on the ability of people to defend themselves and the ability of others to commit crimes.

My bad.I thought you wanted an adult conversation.

And these have nothing to do with the initial serving of alcohol.They relate, specifically, to the establishment serving alcohol to someone already intoxicated, the presumption being that an already intoxicated person lacks the faculty to weigh, properly, the risks of consuming additional alcohol. Both situations deal with whether the person involved is capable of giving consent.Don't cry at me just because you can't connect the dots.

If we all based everything we did on statistical probabilities, we'd sit at home all day doing nothing.Instead, though, we ignore the dangers of the world, real or imaginary, in favor of living our lives in a manner of our choosing.

And that argument applies to pretty much everything that has risks.When you went to pick up supper, did you really weigh the risks that you were more likely to die in a car accident than you were to die from not eating supper tonight?Statistics are good, but it is pretty ridiculous to think we can all live our lives by themor, indeed, that we do.

Are you literate?The bartender is liable when serving alcohol to someone already intoxicated.The bartender isn't liable when he serves alcohol to someone who isn't clearly intoxicatedhe isn't liable for the first drink, but he does become liable for the drinks in excess of your intoxication past the point of being able to consent to further drinks.

But that's not what I said, Percy. What I said (at least in the part you quoted) is that you are more likely to die in a car accident when going to pick up supper than you are to die from skipping supper that night.Yet we all go to pick up supper.And some of us actually do end up dying in a car accident on our way to do so.My point is that we don't live our lives according to the golden rules of statistical probabilities. Sometimes we weigh in the probabilities, but other timesmany other timeswe simply ignore them.So citing statistics of how likely someone is to shoot off their own foot with a gun vs. defend themselves is no more effective at deterring gun ownership than citing statistics that someone is more likely to die in a car accident picking up supper is effective at deterring people from eating supper.Bottom line: there is more involved in the decision to own a gun than just the probabilities of XYZ. Absolutely. And people could be trained to use them more safely too, as they are with automobiles.

What argument?I am simply pointing out that real people don't live their lives by the strict standards of statistical probabilities.The statistics that owning a gun is more likely to get you shot than protect you have as little bearing on some folks' decisions to own guns as the statistics that you're more likely to die in a car accident than starve to death skipping one meal have on the decision to go get supper, i.e., none.Folks bringing statistics into the debate need to be honest about the relevancy of the statistics and their overall weight in the decision-making process of regular human beings.