Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,820 Year: 3,077/9,624 Month: 922/1,588 Week: 105/223 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   for the record (re: guns thread)
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 286 of 305 (400448)
05-13-2007 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by crashfrog
05-13-2007 11:06 PM


Re: Bump for Question
crashfrog writes:
I gave the source; the source is the Bureau of Justice Statistics webpage, like I said. I don't have time to find it again. If you come across different or better numbers, I'd appreciate knowing what they are.
Try here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm
Notice that all firearm related deaths in the US were 29,573 in 2001.
As a reminder, this is what you posted in message 220:
Well, one single example of a person convicted of involuntary manslaughter with use of a firearm would be sufficient to prove you wrong, but according to BJS sources about 100,000 such crimes were prosecuted in 2001.
It is true we are not exactly talking about the same thing here being prosecuted vs actual cause of death, but I believe the figure concerning actual cause of death is more relevant to the discussion.
After all, you seem to be implying that there are over three perpetrators for each victim, including suicide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by crashfrog, posted 05-13-2007 11:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2007 2:30 PM anglagard has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 287 of 305 (400454)
05-14-2007 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by ICANT
05-13-2007 4:21 PM


Re: Icant - go back and read
I notice you didn't mention the 170,000,000 people killed in the 87 years from 1900-1987 by their own governments.
You're right, I didn't mention it, as it's not something for serious consideration.
If you honestly believe that the "Government" intends genocide within the US, then you are already a member of one of those militias, and you're not really going to be able to add much to this debate other than bumber sticker wisdom like "pry it from my cold dead hands", a statement I give equal weight to as "My other car is a piece of shit, too" and "honk if you like fat chicks".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by ICANT, posted 05-13-2007 4:21 PM ICANT has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 288 of 305 (400458)
05-14-2007 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by crashfrog
05-13-2007 7:04 PM


Re: whose strawman is it anyway?
See, that's the logic-chopping that I'm talking about. If he's both misrepresented his opponents position and failed to defend his rebuttals with argumentation, that's two strikes against him - not two wrongs that make a right.
OR there has been a misunderstanding. You can hardly attack someone for building a strawman if he never attacks it can you?
He doesn't get a pass on arguing against a strawman just because he wasn't even able to argue against his own strawman.
Yes you do. Simply because the very idea of constructing a strawman is to show how easy it is to knock down! It is constructing a weak argument to make it look like you defeated your opponent. The truth is that Jon was attacking a much stronger position. He attacked a position regarding a specific type of violence, viz murder.
Incompetence is no defense.
No it isn't. Again you'd have to show that it was incompetence and not poor communication. Seems to me like the latter. My version certainly seems more consistent.
If he doesn't know how to make arguments for or against positions, he needs the help to learn.
Well he certainly argued against a position. Have you read the post in question? He pulls out a bunch of statistics about gun ownership and murder rates and procedes to show why he does not believe they are related.
Defending him in his ignorance does him no favors.
What ignorance?
This post, then, should be more than sufficient. Again, his inability to demolish the strawman he erected is not evidence that it was never supposed to be a strawman in the first place. Call it "attempted strawman", if you will.
You still haven't demonstrated how I am wrong. Do you honestly think that Jon really meant that his opponents were arguing that guns lead to increased violence? Do you think he tried to present that as their argument to make it easier to defeat his opponent?
Why did he never rebut or debate that position?
Because it was not a strawman and nobody has been able to show it without quote mining. Sure - you can pull one sentence out of a huge post and make it look like in that brief sentence in which he misses out a key word (lethal) - he is creating a strawman. I'd rather read the whole post and see what Jon is arguing against to get a sense of what he believes his opponents position is.
And you don't see how rising to his defense against charges of misrepresenting the positions of others undermines your explanation?
Explaining how someone has not misrepresented his opponents undermines my explanation? What on earth does that even mean crash? I would have thought my calling Jon out for his poor communication skills and debate tactics and rebutting his positions would strengthen my position. I guess if you really want to believe Jon is creating strawmen for no reason and ignore his actual rebuttals perhaps it is you that needs help with making arguments against positions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by crashfrog, posted 05-13-2007 7:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Nuggin, posted 05-14-2007 2:27 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 294 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2007 2:39 PM Modulous has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 289 of 305 (400461)
05-14-2007 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Modulous
05-14-2007 2:16 AM


Re: whose strawman is it anyway?
You still haven't demonstrated how I am wrong. Do you honestly think that Jon really meant that his opponents were arguing that guns lead to increased violence?
Actually that wasn't frog, that was me saying that I thought you were wrong.
And yes, I do honestly think that Jon REALLY means that his opponents are saying that "guns lead to increased violence". I just went back and read the tail end of the previous thread, as well as a good portion of this thread and some of the admin thread.
He is consistantly trying to corner people into some sort of "more guns = more violence" argument, while Nator and myself have had to repeatedly state: "More powerful guns make existing violence more lethal."
If Nator had said it 1x, or hand to say it a 2nd time some 50 posts later, that would be one thing. But Jon has repeatedly called for an explaination.
Further, when Nator answered his demand for information with a refrence to an earlier post in which she had already answered the question she got a flurry of f-bombs and a personal attack.
1 mistake is an oversight, 2 mistakes is a busy poster typing to fast, but this has been systematic and ongoing.
I don't care if Jon NOW says that he meant murder. He was mischaracterizing the argument at the time, as he had already done, and as he continued to do.
Further, the way he makes the statement is also misleading. There is a difference between: "More guns cause more murders" and "More powerful guns cause existing violence to yield more lethal results."
The simplistic one implies that the guns are causing the acts resulting in the murder, whereas that later one only describes the lethality of the act.
Go back and read Jon's posts - particularly the one about how lakes don't kill people.
He's talking about the object being the cause of the result, not the object being a tool influencing the outcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Modulous, posted 05-14-2007 2:16 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Modulous, posted 05-14-2007 3:48 AM Nuggin has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 290 of 305 (400470)
05-14-2007 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Nuggin
05-14-2007 2:27 AM


Re: whose strawman is it anyway?
Go back and read Jon's posts - particularly the one about how lakes don't kill people.
I have done. Twice. Can somebody provide an example of Jon arguing against the position increased guns=increased violence - I don't fancy wading through all those posts a third time.
He's talking about the object being the cause of the result, not the object being a tool influencing the outcome.
In case you missed it - I spent a long time arguing against Jon on this position. It is not what I am talking about. I am talking about violence and murder not object causation versus object influencing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Nuggin, posted 05-14-2007 2:27 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Nuggin, posted 05-14-2007 11:54 AM Modulous has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 291 of 305 (400508)
05-14-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Modulous
05-14-2007 3:48 AM


catch me in chat
Hey Mod,
As per admin orders, gonna stop this line of discussion. But I still want to discuss with you, will look for you in chat some time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Modulous, posted 05-14-2007 3:48 AM Modulous has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 292 of 305 (400519)
05-14-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
05-03-2007 9:21 PM


Sorry for the late entry here.
quote:A claim that has been made here over and over again is that increased guns = increased violence
That is a strawman.
I agree with you nator.
quote:
* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12
Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives | GOA
There are also other web-sites that explain how people use guns to defend themselves, 2.5 million people a year.
And to address your statement directly, I do not think that guns themselves increase violence, people will be violent no matter what. But guns may when used properly, can actually decrease violence.
Maybe what he is trying to say is, that given two identical circumstances, one with guns, and one without, that the one with the guns, may wind up in more severe consequences, if shots were fired, but that doesn't make it more violent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 05-03-2007 9:21 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by nator, posted 05-14-2007 9:33 PM riVeRraT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 293 of 305 (400524)
05-14-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by anglagard
05-13-2007 11:44 PM


Re: Bump for Question
Notice that all firearm related deaths in the US were 29,573 in 2001.
That can't be right. The number I was looking at was very clear.
Maybe it was for a wider period than just one year? I assumed they were talking about 2001 because it was a report about 2001, I think, but I could be wrong about it. Since I can't find the information again, who knows.
Like I said, though, the existence of even one person is sufficient to prove Jon wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by anglagard, posted 05-13-2007 11:44 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Jon, posted 05-14-2007 3:00 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 294 of 305 (400525)
05-14-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Modulous
05-14-2007 2:16 AM


Re: whose strawman is it anyway?
OR there has been a misunderstanding. You can hardly attack someone for building a strawman if he never attacks it can you?
Sure I can. Incompetence is not a defense.
It is constructing a weak argument to make it look like you defeated your opponent.
Indeed. But one's own inability to attack even one's own weak misrepresentation is not evidence that one has not been disingenuous. It's evidence that one has been both disingenuous and incompetent.
You still haven't demonstrated how I am wrong.
No, I have. You've just asserted with no evidence that you're right. Of course, it's not possible to win a debate about what words mean, and as you insist on having that debate, you've set yourself behind a bulwark of invincible ignorant. It's not possible to demonstrate to your satisfaction that you're wrong, because there's no objective rules on which to make a legitimate claim of victory.
So your repeated protestations of never having been shown wrong are quite specious. Of course you won't admit to having been shown wrong. On what basis could we possibly force you to do so in a debate about what words mean?
Why did he never rebut or debate that position?
Because he doesn't know what he's doing, clearly.
I'd rather read the whole post and see what Jon is arguing against to get a sense of what he believes his opponents position is.
Then you need to relax, and realize that other people are going to be responding to his words and not your holistic interpretation. But trying to defend him according to what you interpreted him to say, rather than what he did say, is an ultimately fruitless and ridiculous position - which you seem abundantly eager to take. Why is that?
Explaining how someone has not misrepresented his opponents undermines my explanation?
You've explained no such thing. You've just made assertions about your interpretation. My question for you is - why are you so determined to stretch his words into the maximally charitable interpretation? Why not simply take the most obvious and reasonable interpretation, instead?
I would have thought my calling Jon out for his poor communication skills and debate tactics and rebutting his positions would strengthen my position.
Can you show me where you've done that in, say, the past 50 posts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Modulous, posted 05-14-2007 2:16 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Modulous, posted 05-14-2007 9:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 305 (400527)
05-14-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by crashfrog
05-14-2007 2:30 PM


Re: Bump for Question
Like I said, though, the existence of even one person is sufficient to prove Jon wrong.
It would prove my claim of all or nothing, so to speak, wrong. However, if there are 40 incidents a year, do you think that justifies reducing the militia's arsenal down to only hunting rifles and muskets? You seem to want to chop down the whole damn tree just to get rid of the couple branches weighing on the power lines.
Also, statistics for involuntary manslaughter by other means than just guns would also be helpful in proving that the easy access to these guns is really behind it all. I mean, maybe guns are the least frequently used weapon for such circumstances.
However, seeing as how you cannot produce even your original statistics, I doubt you will be able to produce those.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2007 2:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2007 6:10 PM Jon has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 296 of 305 (400540)
05-14-2007 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Jon
05-14-2007 3:00 PM


Re: Bump for Question
However, if there are 40 incidents a year, do you think that justifies reducing the militia's arsenal down to only hunting rifles and muskets?
No, but I think the very large number of suicides, murders, and unintentional homicides does. I mean, c'mon. Do you think if Canada invades, it's going to be that hard to get your hands on a gun? They'll all be down at the Nat Guard armories, or else we can bring them up from Mexico.
However, seeing as how you cannot produce even your original statistics, I doubt you will be able to produce those.
No, I did produce them - the Bureau of Justice Statistics webpage. Everybody's acting like I haven't cited a source, but I've mentioned it at least 3 times, now. I suspect you're just grasping about for some tenuous reason to dismiss my whole argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Jon, posted 05-14-2007 3:00 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Jon, posted 05-14-2007 7:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 305 (400550)
05-14-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by crashfrog
05-14-2007 6:10 PM


Re: Bump for Question
No, but I think the very large number of suicides, murders, and unintentional homicides does. I mean, c'mon. Do you think if Canada invades, it's going to be that hard to get your hands on a gun? They'll all be down at the Nat Guard armories, or else we can bring them up from Mexico.
Errm... as has been discussed in other parts of these two threads, the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so that people wouldn't have to wait for their government to provide them with weapons before they go to deffending their homes. Do you know how remote some of the border areas are? Not everyone lives down the street from an armoury.
No, I did produce them - the Bureau of Justice Statistics webpage. Everybody's acting like I haven't cited a source, but I've mentioned it at least 3 times, now. I suspect you're just grasping about for some tenuous reason to dismiss my whole argument.
No, you said you couldn't find the exact place. Angla also said he couldn't find the stats you were talking about. So far, no one can locate exactly where your information is coming from, unless you did provide a link somewhere back that I missed. I'll go check.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2007 6:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2007 12:15 AM Jon has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 298 of 305 (400559)
05-14-2007 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by riVeRraT
05-14-2007 1:08 PM


Do you happen to know the population density of anywhere in Vermont compared to, say, Los Angeles?
Vermont is mostly mountains and trees, rat.
Burlington is the largest city and it has just under 40,000 people in 15 square miles.
The next largest city in Vermont has only 17,000.
LA has over 4 million people in 500 square miles.
According to Wiki, the population densities for the two cities are:
Burlington: 3,682.0/sq mi
LA: 8,567/sq mi
In fact, the population of the entire state of Vermont is only just over 600,000.
That means that the population of the single city of Los Angeles is over six and a half times the size of the population of the whole state of Vermont.
Compare apples to apples if you want to make your case.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2007 1:08 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 05-14-2007 10:01 PM nator has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 299 of 305 (400560)
05-14-2007 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by crashfrog
05-14-2007 2:39 PM


Re: whose strawman is it anyway?
Sure I can. Incompetence is not a defense.
Well go right on ahead. I'd rather get down to debating people's actual opinions than discuss a lone quote mine of theirs.
Indeed. But one's own inability to attack even one's own weak misrepresentation is not evidence that one has not been disingenuous.
Can you demonstrate that Jon was incapable of attacking his own weak misrepresentation? Since Jon rebutted a much stronger position than just 'violence' I'd imagine it would be trivial of him to rebut the 'violence' claim.
No, I have. You've just asserted with no evidence that you're right
I've laid down my position as to why I do not believe that Jon created and attacked the guns->violence position. You have simply asserted that I've got it all wrong and repeated the position in the OP. If you think that is adequate in demonstrating me wrong, then so be it.
. Of course, it's not possible to win a debate about what words mean, and as you insist on having that debate, you've set yourself behind a bulwark of invincible ignorant.
I'm not debating what words mean though, not in the sense you are implying. I am debating what the context of Jon's rebuttals were, and why it was clear he knew that the position he was arguing against wasn't simply 'guns->violence'. The evidence of that is in the fact that he never argued against that position.
It's not possible to demonstrate to your satisfaction that you're wrong, because there's no objective rules on which to make a legitimate claim of victory.
All you have to do is show that the context of a debate is irrelevant, or that Jon was arguing against the violence strawman and that it wasn't an error in communication. At least provide some reason and rationale. Some argument of some kind.
Because he doesn't know what he's doing, clearly.
Right. I thought that at first, but I took a step back and realized that Jon isn't as deranged as some of his one liners make him out.
Then you need to relax, and realize that other people are going to be responding to his words and not your holistic interpretation.
Of course they are. I did. Tthen he clarified. I pointed out it was sloppy communication.
But trying to defend him according to what you interpreted him to say, rather than what he did say, is an ultimately fruitless and ridiculous position - which you seem abundantly eager to take. Why is that?
Actually I am defending him according to what he says, not what others says he says. I read his posts and came to the conclusion that his explanation was consistent with all the evidence, and that the idea that he is completely misrepresenting his opponents, that he repeatedly ignored the guns->violence point...does not gel with what I read at all.
You've explained no such thing. You've just made assertions about your interpretation.
I made a post explaining this position, I used quotes from the same post of Jon's quoted in the OP that the contention was about. I demonstrated the full context and how Jon's statement that he was referring to murder when he wrote violence is clearly indicated by plainly reading what he wrote. I'm basing my view of my opponent based on my opponents words.
My question for you is - why are you so determined to stretch his words into the maximally charitable interpretation? Why not simply take the most obvious and reasonable interpretation, instead?
a) I find stretching words to the minimally charitable interpretation absolutely abhorent. I prefer benefit of the doubt. I am prepared to admit when I was wrong about someone, and I am always prepared to give the benefit of any doubt. I find it useful to conducting civil discourse.
b) The most obvious and reasonable interpretation is not that Jon created a strawman that he never attacked. That would require Jon to be deluded, insane, or stupid betyond belief. The reasonable interpretation is not that he ignored his opponents time and again. It is that he slipped up what he was saying, as evidenced how in all the following references to his opponents position he replaces the word 'violence' with 'murder'.
Can you show me where you've done that in, say, the past 50 posts?
Is there any reason for the arbitrary 50 posts number? I have discussed with Jon and debated him and berated him several times on this thread. The topic specifically is regards to his supposed repeated misrepresentations viz violence vs murder. I discussed it with Jon, examined the evidence he presented with a truly open mind and realized that I had been wrong. As far as Jon and I, I believe we have basically come to the end of our debate on the issue and it happened more than 50 posts ago.
I still disagree with many of Jon's points, but none of those points are on topic, so there is no need to keep debating Jon here. Do I have to oppose my opponents constantly on all things just to retain credibility as a person with an open mind?
However, as close as I can get it, I give you Message 277 where I said:
quote:
Now if you want to say that Jon was attacking a straw man, that is fine - but make sure you know what strawman he was actually attacking. It is a sturdier model than the one you claim he is attacking.
or perhaps Message 253 where I said:
quote:
As we can see - he did say murder. It was sloppy to use the terms so loosely given his opponents position, but now that is cleared up why can't we just drop it?
We have to go back about 100 posts to get to the end of the debate between Jon and I. Message 202

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2007 2:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 300 of 305 (400561)
05-14-2007 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by nator
05-14-2007 9:33 PM


Burlington: 3,682.0/sq mi
LA: 8,567/sq mi
In fact, the population of the entire state of Vermont is only just over 600,000.
That means that the population of the single city of Los Angeles is over six and a half times the size of the population of the whole state of Vermont.
Then it sounds to me like population density has more to do with violence than guns. That certainly goes with the point he just made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by nator, posted 05-14-2007 9:33 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by nator, posted 05-14-2007 10:22 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied
 Message 303 by Nuggin, posted 05-15-2007 2:44 AM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024