Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
32 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (4 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,949 Year: 18,985/19,786 Month: 1,405/1,705 Week: 211/446 Day: 9/98 Hour: 3/6


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15459
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2338 of 5179 (719781)
02-18-2014 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 2336 by Coyote
02-18-2014 1:00 AM


Misleading headline
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2336 by Coyote, posted 02-18-2014 1:00 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2339 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2014 9:15 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 2341 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2014 9:57 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15459
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2345 of 5179 (719794)
02-18-2014 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2341 by New Cat's Eye
02-18-2014 9:57 AM


Re: Misleading headline
quote:

So the author was just staying on topic.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2341 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2014 9:57 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2346 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2014 10:43 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15459
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2352 of 5179 (719822)
02-18-2014 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2346 by New Cat's Eye
02-18-2014 10:43 AM


Re: Misleading headline
quote:

It looks like a retort to the previous message that was just a badly described bare link.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2346 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2014 10:43 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15459
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 3529 of 5179 (760046)
06-17-2015 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 3526 by Jon
06-16-2015 7:43 PM


Re: Daily Vehicle Deaths
quote:

I used the international figures from this website since I don't know where Dr Adequate lives.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3526 by Jon, posted 06-16-2015 7:43 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3530 by Jon, posted 06-17-2015 7:47 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15459
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 3531 of 5179 (760055)
06-17-2015 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 3530 by Jon
06-17-2015 7:47 AM


Re: Daily Vehicle Deaths
quote:

Of course it doesn't matter. The point is that it is more dangerous to go out to supper on Saturday night than it is to skip supper on Saturday night. People still go out to supper. And society's response isn't to shout at people daring to risk life and limb for good steak, but instead to make cars safer, intersections safer, improve driver education, etc.

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 ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3530 by Jon, posted 06-17-2015 7:47 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3532 by mikechell, posted 06-17-2015 8:37 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 3533 by Jon, posted 06-17-2015 8:39 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15459
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 3535 of 5179 (760061)
06-17-2015 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 3533 by Jon
06-17-2015 8:39 AM


Re: Daily Vehicle Deaths
quote:

The primary reason that guns tend to harm the people they are bought to protect more often than protect them is because the safety measures required are never seriously discussed.

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:

No. I am saying there is a cost-benefit associated with going out for supper vs. not going out for supper and a cost-benefit associated with owning a gun vs. not owning a gun.

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:

Your chance of dying is greater if you get in your car and go out for supper instead of staying home and not eating a meal that night. Much like your chance of dying is greater if you buy a gun instead of hope no one tries to break into your house and kill you.

I think you will find that very people go out for supper with the sole intention of finding sufficient nourishment to survive.

quote:

The 'purpose' of each thing has no relevancy whatsoever.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3533 by Jon, posted 06-17-2015 8:39 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3536 by Percy, posted 06-17-2015 10:21 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 3541 by Jon, posted 06-17-2015 3:34 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15459
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 3555 of 5179 (760147)
06-18-2015 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 3541 by Jon
06-17-2015 3:34 PM


Re: Daily Vehicle Deaths
quote:

Someone other than me...

But you can bet that the screams will come from the gun lobby

quote:

For simplicity's sake. But forgoing all the benefits from going out to supper is the cost of not going out, and none of those things has a risk above zero of killing you. It's still riskier going out to supper.

I guess that it's simpler to ignore facts that eviscerate your argument, but it isn't honest.

quote:

And that's irrelevant because forgoing a night of socializing has risk of death of exactly zero

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:

You're trying too hard to miss the point, which is that people often engage in risky behavior—even when the risks are well known.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3541 by Jon, posted 06-17-2015 3:34 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3556 by Jon, posted 06-18-2015 8:16 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15459
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 3557 of 5179 (760155)
06-18-2015 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3556 by Jon
06-18-2015 8:16 AM


Re: Daily Vehicle Deaths
quote:

Even if they go out for other purposes like socializing they are making that mistake because not socializing isn't going to kill them

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:

And some of those people who buy guns involved in accidental shooting buy those guns for more reasons than just protection

So? It doesn't change the fact that those who do buy guns for protection are doing the wrong thing.

quote:

If there have been any artificial limitations in the analogies, it's because they were introduced in the original argument about buying guns for protection. If you want to address the other probabilities in, then you'll have to look at all the other benefits people give up by not buying a gun, like the feeling of safety, the love of something shiny, etc.—which they give up with 100% certainty if they do not buy a gun.

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:

But this makes everything a total fucking mess; and 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, it just makes sense to ignore these other 'benefits' as everyone else, besides you, has been doing.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3556 by Jon, posted 06-18-2015 8:16 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3558 by Jon, posted 06-18-2015 11:19 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15459
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 3559 of 5179 (760176)
06-18-2015 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 3558 by Jon
06-18-2015 11:19 AM


Re: Daily Vehicle Deaths
quote:

And those who go out to supper on Saturday night for the reason of nourishing themselves are doing the wrong thing as well

But who goes out for supper - in a car - just to survive?

quote:

I added an analogy equally restrictive. That's the idea of an analogy: to be somewhat equal.

If you had been trying for equality you wouldn't have created a silly straw an that obscured the main point.

quote:

What government policies?

If you meant some other policies it's up to you to explain it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3558 by Jon, posted 06-18-2015 11:19 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3563 by Jon, posted 06-18-2015 11:53 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15459
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 3571 of 5179 (760192)
06-18-2015 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3563 by Jon
06-18-2015 11:53 AM


Re: Daily Vehicle Deaths
quote:

Who buys a gun just for protection?

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:

My guess is that folks who buy and own guns hope that they never find themselves in a situation where they have to use them to protect themselves.

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:

I did explain it; when I used the word 'policies' and not 'government policies'.

So you didn't explain it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3563 by Jon, posted 06-18-2015 11:53 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3573 by Jon, posted 06-18-2015 12:41 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15459
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 3575 of 5179 (760200)
06-18-2015 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 3573 by Jon
06-18-2015 12:41 PM


Re: Daily Vehicle Deaths
quote:

Really?

A lot of women who buy hand guns are just waiting desperately for that moment when they find themselves under a rapist and can pull that gun from their nearby purse to shoot him?


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:

Are you aware that you're more likely to spend more money, over all, on insurance than what you will ever receive in a payout?

Is buying insurance wrong?


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:

There's nothing to explain. The assumption that I was talking only about 'government' policies was your assumption.

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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3573 by Jon, posted 06-18-2015 12:41 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3576 by Jon, posted 06-18-2015 1:22 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15459
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 3577 of 5179 (760203)
06-18-2015 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3576 by Jon
06-18-2015 1:22 PM


Re: Daily Vehicle Deaths
quote:

If that's what you wanted, why didn't you just ask that from the beginning instead of trying to get me to explain why I didn't mean 'government policies' when I didn't say 'government policies'?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3576 by Jon, posted 06-18-2015 1:22 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3578 by Jon, posted 06-18-2015 1:47 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15459
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 3678 of 5179 (760536)
06-23-2015 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 3676 by Omnivorous
06-22-2015 9:12 PM


Re: 9 dead in SC
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3676 by Omnivorous, posted 06-22-2015 9:12 PM Omnivorous has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15459
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 5072 of 5179 (821284)
10-05-2017 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 5071 by Thugpreacha
10-04-2017 7:43 PM


Re: Forensic Panel Profiles Vegas Killer
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5071 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-04-2017 7:43 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5082 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-05-2017 11:16 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15459
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 5083 of 5179 (821310)
10-05-2017 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 5082 by Thugpreacha
10-05-2017 11:16 AM


Re: Forensic Panel Profiles Vegas Killer
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5082 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-05-2017 11:16 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5085 by Percy, posted 10-05-2017 11:42 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019