Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 2:22 PM
44 online now:
Diomedes, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 37 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,554 Year: 3,591/19,786 Month: 586/1,087 Week: 176/212 Day: 18/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4546
47
484950Next
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 692 of 742 (848939)
02-18-2019 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 684 by Theodoric
02-17-2019 6:32 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Kind of telling that you do not provide a source. CDC reports on guns make no mention of gangs. Hmm, care to actually support this claim.

What is a source worth? Others here sometimes show their source as the NY Times. The Times editors have never made much attempt to show themselves as anything but shills for the Democrat party. The current TDR (Trump Derangement Syndrome) that has swept the country has made the Times bias more glaring than ever before.

A friend posted that on Facebook, and I followed it to another Facebook page that I'd never heard of. Despite liberal sources disagreeing with the exact percentages, it's point remains valid, that is, when there are breakdowns in how guns are used, it makes it more clear that gun violence is a people problem, not a hardware problem. That's why Percy gets so angry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 684 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2019 6:32 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 694 by AZPaul3, posted 02-18-2019 8:31 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 697 by Percy, posted 02-19-2019 1:01 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 693 of 742 (848940)
02-18-2019 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 685 by Percy
02-18-2019 8:06 AM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Why do you feel lucky? Do you feel lucky to be so totally uninformed about the gun debate and even math that those numbers didn't look a little funny to you? Do you feel lucky to be so completely clueless as to be unable to assess whether those arguments made any sense? Why do you feel lucky? Do you feel lucky to be so totally uninformed about the gun debate and even math that those numbers didn't look a little funny to you? Do you feel lucky to be so completely clueless as to be unable to assess whether those arguments made any sense?

I largely feel lucky because I saw a tow truck driver not long ago with a 9mm strapped on his side. I also noticed anther guy in a restaurant similarly armed. I'm not that brave, but I admire people who are. They should know that they're more likely to be shot themselves, by a crook or by a policeman, who could claim they felt threatened because he was armed. But it's safe to say they wouldn't carry like that unless they were quite capable of confronting any nutcase who was to start shooting anywhere near them (or me, since I was close by).

Do you feel lucky to be so lacking in judgment that you couldn't even formulate a response to my actual questions?

There were questions in that message? I didn't notice anything more than an emotional rant.

Let me do a little simple math for you. 1712 people divided by 0.00010256410256% is 1.6692 billion people. The population of the US isn't anywhere close to a billion, let along 1.6692 billion. Since doing the math yields an absurdly large population for the US, the percentage is clearly wrong, plus how it was calculated is not described.

If you don't understand how it was calculated, why are you attempting to use it in a math calculation?

Please tell us how they calculated the 0.000008564102564% figure. Garbage-in/garbage-out, Mike, and there's a lot of garbage in your figures.

As I told one of your fixers, that was just a general way to show that the likelihood of being shot in the U.S. is very low, if a person is not part of a gang, doesn't commit a crime or is suicidal.

What those figures generally show, no matter if they're the conservative figures or the liberal figures, (the actual truth is probably somewhere in the middle) is that there are really only two areas where gun crimes are increasing in the U.S. One is with gang violence, some of it because of ethnicity clashes (largely because of our porous southern border) and illegal drug turf wars (largely because of our porous southern border) and the other is from the mass shootings that have happened in only the past 10 years or so. The first one or two were originally dreamed up by nutcases, while all the following ones have been copycats, inspired and recruited by our sensationalizing mainstream news media. As the NRA spokesperson said a year or so ago, the media loves mass shootings. They are ratings gold, and they are masterful at splashing the shooters picture all over the television, shoving microphones in the faces of grieving relatives, anything to give orgasms to a few dozen sick people (future shooters) who are taking all this in. They're probably not exactly overjoyed at the grief of the remaining family members, but it's business. Tobacco companies probably get similar feelings when they hear the death rates from lung cancer. An unfortunate by-product, but it's business.

Before telling us your theory perhaps you could first post a message with no incorrect figures or glaring math errors.

Oh okay, I can do that. The following is from a policeman in Australia. Sorry, I got this one from Facebook too, so you won't believe it since the NY Times hasn't reported it. This is from 2015 as I recall, so try not to get too excited about the "12 months" claim.

quote:
Australian Gun Law Update
Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts....
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real
figures from Down Under.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to
surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers
more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria.....
lone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that
while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not
and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns....' You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the
hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it's too late!

May I give you my theory now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by Percy, posted 02-18-2019 8:06 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 695 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2019 9:44 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 698 by Percy, posted 02-19-2019 2:31 PM marc9000 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3810
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 694 of 742 (848941)
02-18-2019 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 692 by marc9000
02-18-2019 7:41 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
... gun violence is a people problem, not a hardware problem.

People burning themselves from an open bucket of acid is a people problem not an acid problem until you put that bucket into a second grade classroom.

Second graders are stupid when it comes to buckets of liquids. People are stupid when it comes to possessing guns. Education won't help in either case. You have to remove the bucket.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by marc9000, posted 02-18-2019 7:41 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 695 of 742 (848943)
02-18-2019 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 693 by marc9000
02-18-2019 8:26 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
The Ed Chenel thing has been going on and been debunked since at least 2001. You will not be able to find any sources to verify the data because it is not factual.

Ed Chenel is not a real person.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/...-led-to-higher-crime-rates

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

Edited by Theodoric, : Url


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 693 by marc9000, posted 02-18-2019 8:26 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 696 by vimesey, posted 02-19-2019 7:22 AM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 701 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2019 8:16 PM Theodoric has responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 933
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 696 of 742 (848946)
02-19-2019 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 695 by Theodoric
02-18-2019 9:44 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
The problem with people like marc, who think that Facebook is the source of all truth, is that it's like a Gish Gallop on steroids.

You debunk one lie like that, and in the meantime, he's read and believed a hundred others. So in his mind, the one lie is outweighed by a hundred truths (technically, of course, a hundred lies that will take further time and effort to debunk) that he desperately wants to hear.

No amount of reasoned logic will convince him that Facebook has no basis whatsoever for authoritative positions on the truth.

On the plus side, we have patient campaigners for reason, such as yourself and others here. Hopefully a difference is being made somewhere :-)


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2019 9:44 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 702 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2019 8:18 PM vimesey has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 697 of 742 (848955)
02-19-2019 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 692 by marc9000
02-18-2019 7:41 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
marc9000 writes:

Kind of telling that you do not provide a source. CDC reports on guns make no mention of gangs. Hmm, care to actually support this claim.

What is a source worth? Others here sometimes show their source as the NY Times.

It wouldn't have mattered if the source were Albert Einstein - the math was still wrong, the numbers were from nearly a decade ago, and there were errors of fact, such as that the numbers did not come from the CDC and 80% of homicides are not committed by gangs.

The Times editors have never made much attempt to show themselves as anything but shills for the Democrat party. The current TDR (Trump Derangement Syndrome) that has swept the country has made the Times bias more glaring than ever before.

Casting unsupported aspersions at others doesn't make what you posted any less wrong.

A friend posted that on Facebook, and I followed it to another Facebook page that I'd never heard of.

Passed on by your Russian handlers, no doubt.

Despite liberal sources disagreeing with the exact percentages,...

Marc, how can you get things so wrong? This is simple math from 6th grade and before. There's no "disagreeing with the exact percentages." One percentage was off by orders of magnitude, the other was for the wrong thing. Those aren't subtle errors - they're glaring, but you show no hint of comprehension.

...it's point remains valid, that is, when there are breakdowns in how guns are used, it makes it more clear that gun violence is a people problem, not a hardware problem.

Now you're just not paying attention. I have stated before that guns are a people problem. That's because guns are far too dangerous to be in the hands of flawed and imperfect people.

That's why Percy gets so angry.

I'm more perplexed than angered at your ignorance and confusion. You're math-challenged, right?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by marc9000, posted 02-18-2019 7:41 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 704 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2019 8:34 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 698 of 742 (848956)
02-19-2019 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 693 by marc9000
02-18-2019 8:26 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
marc9000 writes:

I largely feel lucky because I saw a tow truck driver not long ago with a 9mm strapped on his side. I also noticed anther guy in a restaurant similarly armed. I'm not that brave, but I admire people who are. They should know that they're more likely to be shot themselves, by a crook or by a policeman, who could claim they felt threatened because he was armed. But it's safe to say they wouldn't carry like that unless they were quite capable of confronting any nutcase who was to start shooting anywhere near them (or me, since I was close by).

Since Kentucky open-carry permits only require a gun safety course and hitting a target 11 of 20 times, why would you think people openly carrying a firearm have any particularly special capabilities? They're just gun nuts like yourself who get a thrill from wearing a firearm on their hip out in the open. They're as likely to be the nutcase as anyone else.

You didn't answer most of the questions. Why do you feel lucky? Do you feel lucky to be so totally uninformed about the gun debate and even math that those numbers didn't look a little funny to you? Do you feel lucky to be so completely clueless as to be unable to assess whether those arguments made any sense?

Do you feel lucky to be so lacking in judgment that you couldn't even formulate a response to my actual questions?

There were questions in that message? I didn't notice anything more than an emotional rant.

Yes, Marc, there were questions in that message. How do you know you won't be the next gun nut who goes off on a rampage? How do you know you'll never get angry or depressed or mentally ill or go postal or just get careless? If you have a gun in your pocket when you were wronged (perhaps you were fired, like Gary Martin at Henry Pratt Co. in Aurora, Illinois, who just last week murdered five fellow employees and injured five policemen), how do you know you won't pull that gun out?

These are rhetorical questions. No one can make such guarantees. The roughly 24,000 gun-related suicides last year tells us that gun owners cannot guarantee they'll never become depressed, suicidal or mentally ill. Most gun owners don't act on their feelings, most that do only kill or injure themselves, but some commit murder/suicides, and some just murder others.

Let me do a little simple math for you. 1712 people divided by 0.00010256410256% is 1.6692 billion people. The population of the US isn't anywhere close to a billion, let along 1.6692 billion. Since doing the math yields an absurdly large population for the US, the percentage is clearly wrong, plus how it was calculated is not described.

If you don't understand how it was calculated, why are you attempting to use it in a math calculation?

You have a serious math comprehension issue. Obviously the number whose calculation was not described is the 1712 people. That the other calculation was of a proportion of the population of the US was obvious from context, and just as obviously wrong. If you could do math you'd see that.

Please tell us how they calculated the 0.000008564102564% figure. Garbage-in/garbage-out, Marc, and there's a lot of garbage in your figures.

As I told one of your fixers, that was just a general way to show that the likelihood of being shot in the U.S. is very low, if a person is not part of a gang, doesn't commit a crime or is suicidal.

The likelihood of being shot is much less in western countries that have fewer guns.

Since you mention gangs again allow me to repeat that your figure of 80% of homicides being gang related is clearly wrong, and I cited correct information in Message 691 from the NATIONAL YOUTH GANG SURVEY ANALYSIS:

quote:
The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/....s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.

Get that? 13%, not 80%.

What those figures generally show, no matter if they're the conservative figures or the liberal figures, (the actual truth is probably somewhere in the middle)...

Anyone known to broadly accept "split the difference" solutions will simply be confronted with more and more outrageous propositions. I think you owe me $100. You think you owe me $0. Well, then let's just split the difference and you send me $50. Is the absurdity of your approach obvious now?

You can choose your opinions, which in your case derive from your susceptibility to manipulation and your lack of critical thinking skills, but you can't choose your facts. There are not "conservative figures" and "liberal figures." There are figures that derive from hard and reliable data (such as 40,000 gun deaths last year), there are figures that are made up out of whole cloth (scuh as 80% of homicides are gang related), and there are figures in between (based upon varying amounts of truth). If you're not using figures derived from hard and reliable data then your arguments will rest on weak ground. Because your figures are simply made up your arguments are like wisps on the wind.

...is that there are really only two areas where gun crimes are increasing in the U.S. One is with gang violence, some of it because of ethnicity clashes (largely because of our porous southern border) and illegal drug turf wars (largely because of our porous southern border) and the other is from the mass shootings that have happened in only the past 10 years or so.

You are correct (for the first time in this post) that gang violence is up, but you are dead wrong that mass shootings contribute significantly to the gun crime rate. Mass shootings get the bulk of the attention but are an insignificant contributor to the total number of gun crimes.

Everyone is for border security, but how best to protect each particular section of border must be subject to study and analysis. We shouldn't just blindly build walls everywhere, only where they're the best solution. Building walls next to the Rio Grande, which is already a barrier, is particularly senseless.

Perhaps you saw Stephen Miller (a Trump senior policy advisor, particularly on immigration) on Chris Wallace's show on Fox News this weekend where when challenged about his claims about drugs pouring across our border said that we can't know what we can't know and we can't catch what we can't catch. Here it is cued to the exact right spot, you only have to listen for about 50 seconds:

But what Stephen Miller is saying is that because we have insufficient data, because we don't know, therefore the Trump administration is justified in claiming that drugs and people are flowing across the border away from the legal points of entry.

Of course the truth is that we have a very good idea where the drugs are entering because of statistical analyses by Trump's own U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics. As described by USA Today:

quote:
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics, 90 percent of heroin seized along the border, 88 percent of cocaine, 87 percent of methamphetamine, and 80 percent of fentanyl in the first 11 months of the 2018 fiscal year was caught trying to be smuggled in at legal crossing points.
...
Gil Kerlikowske, who headed CBP and the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Barack Obama, said intelligence received from arrested smugglers and law enforcement partners in Mexico indicate that cartels clearly prefer moving high-profit narcotics through the busy ports of entry because their chances of success are better there.

He used the example of the San Ysidro Port of Entry in southern California, the busiest port with 100,000 people crossing through each day. Port officials recently completed a multi-year, $750 million upgrade to add more Customs officers and inspection technology, but Kerlikowske said the sheer volume of traffic means smugglers' odds are still better going through there than other parts of the border.

"Regardless of the number of drug dogs and technology and intelligence, the potential of smuggling the drugs in through a port of entry is far greater. Your ability to be captured coming across between a port of entry is much greater," said Kerlikowske, now a professor of practice in criminology and criminal justice at Northeastern University. "It's very clear that (drugs) come through the ports."


So Stephen Miller is telling you we don't know where drugs are coming across the border, and the US Customs and Border Protection agency is telling you that we do, and they have the figures to show it. Who are you going to believe, Marc, the people with the figures or the Trump stooge who claims we can't know and therefore the truth is whatever he says it is?

Before telling us your theory perhaps you could first post a message with no incorrect figures or glaring math errors.

Oh okay, I can do that. The following is from a policeman in Australia.

I meant that you should post correct figures for your previous claim, not to make yet another claim full of incorrect figures. I see that Theodoric has already debunked it, so I won't respond to it.

But I still would like you to post corrected figures and conclusions for your error-filled copy/paste in Message 683.

Sorry, I got this one from Facebook too,...

No wonder you're so wrong again. Stop being a sucker for fake claims. Start getting your information from reliable sources. Fox News (their news, not their opinion makers) is a far more reliable source than BaselessBook.

May I give you my theory now?

If your theory is based on the erroneous information you've provided so far, then no, please do not present your theory. When you're able to underpin your theory with data that is actually true then please go right ahead.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 693 by marc9000, posted 02-18-2019 8:26 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 707 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2019 9:23 PM Percy has responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1600
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 699 of 742 (848957)
02-19-2019 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 690 by Percy
02-18-2019 11:46 AM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Yes, I realised that I made the same mistake as whoever made the original image in doing the percentages; so I was the one two orders of magnitude off.

Marc9000 pulled a random page of nonsense off the Internet and presented it unattributed. We've already given far too much attention to it.

I disagree! I find things like this fascinating. I spent a while playing with the numbers to try and see what the 1,712 could possibly be referring to and got nothing, so I decided to try and find the original source to see if it would make anything clearer.

It didn't. I found the original facebook image; and some internet forums discussing it, but none of it gives more context to the numbers. And I could find no one even venturing a hypothesis as to what 1,712 we'd been left with and how.

The percentage thing is an easily comprehensible mistake, but I find it find it fascinating (and a little depressing) how widely this meme has been spread with so little questioning of this totally meaningless number in the middle of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by Percy, posted 02-18-2019 11:46 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 700 by Percy, posted 02-19-2019 8:06 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 700 of 742 (848971)
02-19-2019 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 699 by caffeine
02-19-2019 2:39 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
caffeine writes:

Marc9000 pulled a random page of nonsense off the Internet and presented it unattributed. We've already given far too much attention to it.

I disagree! I find things like this fascinating. I spent a while playing with the numbers to try and see what the 1,712 could possibly be referring to and got nothing, so I decided to try and find the original source to see if it would make anything clearer.

Yeah, obviously you're right, I share the fascination else I wouldn't have spent any time on it, but I enjoy untangling honest mistakes more, and even when they're dishonest mistakes it feels like there's something missing if there's no explaining where they went wrong because they couldn't follow it. Sure, other people understand, but not the person who made the mistake in the first place, so they just go on believing what they believe. Ignorance and incomprehension are belief's impregnable defense.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 699 by caffeine, posted 02-19-2019 2:39 PM caffeine has not yet responded

    
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 701 of 742 (848972)
02-19-2019 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 695 by Theodoric
02-18-2019 9:44 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Neither of your links said much of anything about armed robberies being up 44%. However, your first link said this;

quote:
Assaults Are Up 8.6%-Fiction! & Misleading! The number of assaults in Australia has actually increased more than 8.6% since the 1990s. In 1996, there were 789 assaults, and by 2010 there were 972. Over that time, the number of assaults jumped about 19%, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology.

Wow! That sure proved the "Ed Chenel" link wrong, didn't it?

Also from that link;

quote:
Gun Deaths have climbed 300% in Victoria-Unproven! We weren’t able to find recent statistics on the number of gun deaths in Victoria.

So because they couldn't find it, that makes the claim probably false. Looks like your two links started with a conclusion and then did their best to make it fit. Your two links are just as biased as the "Ed Chenel" link. I also didn't see any exceptions taken to the original claim that there has been a "dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while they are at home. I'd rather live in the U.S. thank you very much.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2019 9:44 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 705 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2019 8:42 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 702 of 742 (848973)
02-19-2019 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 696 by vimesey
02-19-2019 7:22 AM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
The problem with people like marc, who think that Facebook is the source of all truth, is that it's like a Gish Gallop on steroids.

And then there are those who think liberal atheist message boards are a source of truth, or have much of anything to do with mainstream thinking in the U.S.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by vimesey, posted 02-19-2019 7:22 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 703 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-19-2019 8:26 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 708 by vimesey, posted 02-20-2019 2:05 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1994
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 703 of 742 (848975)
02-19-2019 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 702 by marc9000
02-19-2019 8:18 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Wait, I thought Facebook was liberal atheist....

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2019 8:18 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 704 of 742 (848976)
02-19-2019 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 697 by Percy
02-19-2019 1:01 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
It wouldn't have mattered if the source were Albert Einstein - the math was still wrong, the numbers were from nearly a decade ago, and there were errors of fact, such as that the numbers did not come from the CDC and 80% of homicides are not committed by gangs.

No comments about the Australian numbers? Does a "dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while they are at home, sound comforting to you? So the link I showed made the claim, while Theodoric's links didn't really address it, I guess that makes it up to common sense to decide if that was a problem, when criminals are assured that law abiding homeowners don't have guns to protect themselves. If you don't believe that dramatic increase happened, then we just have to leave it there.

Casting unsupported aspersions at others doesn't make what you posted any less wrong.

So it's "unsupported" that the NY Times is liberally biased? Uh oh, common sense difference number 2.

Passed on by your Russian handlers, no doubt.

Uh, I guess you haven't heard, but sources other than the NY Times have pretty well concluded that the Trump-Russia collusion hoax is pretty well dead. You might want to consider not calling attention to it.

Now you're just not paying attention. I have stated before that guns are a people problem.

To clarify, they're a people problem concerning about 1% of the population, not 100% of the population.

I'm more perplexed than angered at your ignorance and confusion. You're math-challenged, right?

In the next message, we'll take a look at your history-challenged problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 697 by Percy, posted 02-19-2019 1:01 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 706 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2019 9:09 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 709 by Percy, posted 02-20-2019 10:33 AM marc9000 has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 705 of 742 (848977)
02-19-2019 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 701 by marc9000
02-19-2019 8:16 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Ypu presented it as factual. I showed how it was a lie. You might want to look at current Australian crime figures. Robberies started dropping in 2001 and were below preban level by 2004 and have continued to drop ever since.

Here are all the official crime stats. Evidently you are incapable of doing your own research. Here they are prove me wrong.

http://www.abs.gov.au/...017-18~Main%20Features~Australia~23

http://www.abs.gov.au/...0lower%20than%20a%20decade%20ago%20(Media%20Release)~1

Is Australia lying?

Edited by Admin, : Fix link.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 701 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2019 8:16 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 706 of 742 (848978)
02-19-2019 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 704 by marc9000
02-19-2019 8:34 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while they are at home

Then again you have no evidence that this is true do you?
If you don't believe that dramatic increase happened, then we just have to leave it there.

We believe in factual data. If you can provide a source that provides data that affirms this we will believe it. Alas, you cannot do this can you?

Edited by Theodoric, : Extra words


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 704 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2019 8:34 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
4546
47
484950Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019