Gun free zone

[Lethn]

Honestly unless you know what you are doing with statistics ( you love math) better to use your personal opinion and experiences with a dash of some expert dude who used statistics said this. Most who collect and analyze then publish the data fuck it up somehow. 8 times out 10 at least.

+100000

Many statistics are pushed by propaganda and not presented properly or people outright lie using them, so for instance, they'll present you with a poll from about 5000 people or something and then claim because 5000 people said this that automatically represents the majority of the people when that's barely going to be even a small portion of the actual country they are in. Bitcoinbitcoin113 you don't even need to understand math particularly well to understand bogus statistics when you see them, usually it's just a matter of reading through the fine print rather than just believing the simple percentages these dick heads come up with to fool people who don't know better.

[myrkul]

Honestly unless you know what you are doing with statistics ( you love math) better to use your personal opinion and experiences with a dash of some expert dude who used statistics said this. Most who collect and analyze then publish the data fuck it up somehow. 8 times out 10 at least.

+100000

Many statistics are pushed by propaganda and not presented properly or people outright lie using them, so for instance, they'll present you with a poll from about 5000 people or something and then claim because 5000 people said this that automatically represents the majority of the people when that's barely going to be even a small portion of the actual country they are in.

If it's a true representative sample, 5000 people is a good representation of at least the city that they're in. But selection bias is far, far too easy to fall into with those sorts of surveys.

[Lethn]

I've seen these kind of numbers used to represent the opinion of an entire country unfortunately and from the BBC no less.

[bb113]

Honestly unless you know what you are doing with statistics ( you love math) better to use your personal opinion and experiences with a dash of some expert dude who used statistics said this. Most who collect and analyze then publish the data fuck it up somehow. 8 times out 10 at least.

+100000

Many statistics are pushed by propaganda and not presented properly or people outright lie using them, so for instance, they'll present you with a poll from about 5000 people or something and then claim because 5000 people said this that automatically represents the majority of the people when that's barely going to be even a small portion of the actual country they are in. Bitcoinbitcoin113 you don't even need to understand math particularly well to understand bogus statistics when you see them, usually it's just a matter of reading through the fine print rather than just believing the simple percentages these dick heads come up with to fool people who don't know better.

It's much worse than even that. Really I got my data and actually tried to understand how to analyze it,(apparently this is rare amongst scientists these days) then found out pretty much no scientist knows what they are doing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing#Controversy

[Lethn]

I'm actually using this kind of thing to help me with stock trading, I have a theory about it which may make me fantastical amounts of money if I'm right lol, I'm still working through it in my head though and I hope I'm not being too confident about it but basically I think with this kind of knowledge you can get ahead of the curve so to speak more than most people. I've realised though that you need a lot of patience to wait for everything to happen because I haven't realised just how far ahead you get of everyone, should be interesting to see what happens after the crash next year.

[organofcorti]

I don't have the answers to your questions. But I have a question for you.

If statistics prove that the "strongest argument for the right to bear arms" is indeed a poor argument, would you force people to disarm?

I wouldn't force anyone to do anything. I don't think single person should. But I would be able to present the argument that "citizens must have guns or end up as slaves" as being as likely as other unpleasant occurrences that we don't spend time thinking about.

[organofcorti]

[If] the former two are more likely than the latter, then I think that fact would be the strongest argument for the right to bear arms.

Ask the JPFO what they think.

I honestly tried, but that website looks like it was created by someone for whom "user friendliness" is a foreign concept. My eyes bled a little. Mind posting a better link or a summary of what they believe and why it's relevant? My aching eyes thank you.

[bb113]

I'm actually using this kind of thing to help me with stock trading, I have a theory about it which may make me fantastical amounts of money if I'm right lol, I'm still working through it in my head though and I hope I'm not being too confident about it but basically I think with this kind of knowledge you can get ahead of the curve so to speak more than most people. I've realised though that you need a lot of patience to wait for everything to happen because I haven't realised just how far ahead you get of everyone, should be interesting to see what happens after the crash next year.

The real manipulators use real stats to determine what they do. Thats why it gets trotted out every war then the evidence it was used is suppressed, and academic use is discouraged. Look up the enigma device, origin of monte carlo methods, etc.

[Lethn]

will do, though I doubt I'll understand the math behind it very well.

[myrkul]

I don't have the answers to your questions. But I have a question for you.

If statistics prove that the "strongest argument for the right to bear arms" is indeed a poor argument, would you force people to disarm?

I wouldn't force anyone to do anything. I don't think single person should.

Do I correctly read this to mean that if you get more people together, they can?

I honestly tried, but that website looks like it was created by someone for whom "user friendliness" is a foreign concept. My eyes bled a little. Mind posting a better link or a summary of what they believe and why it's relevant? My aching eyes thank you.

Oh, wow. Ouch. You're right, sorry. Shows me not to link to a site without looking at it, even if it is the "official" one.
This is a much more readable presentation of their views and goals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPFO

[organofcorti]

Many statistics are pushed by propaganda and not presented properly or people outright lie using them, so for instance, they'll present you with a poll from about 5000 people or something and then claim because 5000 people said this that automatically represents the majority of the people when that's barely going to be even a small portion of the actual country they are in.

I hate to say this but while you could indeed be correct you're not providing any way to determine which are useful stats and which are not. I would tend to believe you more if you were able to provide an insight into how you determine which statistics are correct, and which are not. For me, if proponents of both sides of an argument agree on the data, then that's a good start. After that it's all about the analysis. Which brings us to .....

Honestly unless you know what you are doing with statistics ( you love math) better to use your personal opinion and experiences with a dash of some expert dude who used statistics said this. Most who collect and analyze then publish the data fuck it up somehow. 8 times out 10 at least.

Argh! You mean there's no provable conclusion because the data (if available) is either biased or based on faulty analysis? I don't want to have to have an opinion, dammit! I also want a simple but provable answer that tell me what I should think.

In all seriousness, though, the discussion on gun control will go no where unless there is a explanation sufficiently convincing for both sides to agree. Since it appears that both pro- and con- sides of the debate have almost no ability to comprehend the other side's arguments, such an convincing explanation is just as likely as one that convinces Christians that Allah is the one true god, and vice versa.

[organofcorti]

I wouldn't force anyone to do anything. I don't think single person should.

Do I correctly read this to mean that if you get more people together, they can?

As soon as I post I knew you were going to pick that. An anarchists and his spots, huh?

It depends on what you mean by "force" and in which circumstance. In my preferred social structure (which does not exist and probably never will) if a majority of a society thinks it's abhorrent (or necessary) to carry guns, then a person violating that societal tenet would be subject to non-violent social ostracism.

Edit: And so that is what I would do. Non-violently ostracise someone who had a belief in extreme opposition to mine.

[bb113]

Many statistics are pushed by propaganda and not presented properly or people outright lie using them, so for instance, they'll present you with a poll from about 5000 people or something and then claim because 5000 people said this that automatically represents the majority of the people when that's barely going to be even a small portion of the actual country they are in.

I hate to say this but while you could indeed be correct you're not providing any way to determine which are useful stats and which are not. I would tend to believe you more if you were able to provide an insight into how you determine which statistics are correct, and which are not. For me, if proponents of both sides of an argument agree on the data, then that's a good start. After that it's all about the analysis. Which brings us to .....

Honestly unless you know what you are doing with statistics ( you love math) better to use your personal opinion and experiences with a dash of some expert dude who used statistics said this. Most who collect and analyze then publish the data fuck it up somehow. 8 times out 10 at least.

Argh! You mean there's no provable conclusion because the data (if available) is either biased or based on faulty analysis? I don't want to have to have an opinion, dammit! I also want a simple but provable answer that tell me what I should think.

In all seriousness, though, the discussion on gun control will go no where unless there is a explanation sufficiently convincing for both sides to agree. Since it appears that both pro- and con- sides of the debate have almost no ability to comprehend the other side's arguments, such an convincing explanation is just as likely as one that convinces Christians that Allah is the one true god, and vice versa.

I agree, the data is weak no matter how you look at it. Appeals to science, statistics have no place in informing public policy at this point.

[bb113]

I wouldn't force anyone to do anything. I don't think single person should.

Do I correctly read this to mean that if you get more people together, they can?

As soon as I post I knew you were going to pick that. An anarchists and his spots, huh?

It depends on what you mean by "force" and in which circumstance. In my preferred social structure (which does not exist and probably never will) if a majority of a society thinks it's abhorrent (or necessary) to carry guns, then a person violating that societal tenet would be subject to non-violent social ostracism.

You realize that flawlessly aligns with anarchy, right?

Most people are anarchists at heart but don't realize it.

[organofcorti]

I wouldn't force anyone to do anything. I don't think single person should.

Do I correctly read this to mean that if you get more people together, they can?

As soon as I post I knew you were going to pick that. An anarchists and his spots, huh?

It depends on what you mean by "force" and in which circumstance. In my preferred social structure (which does not exist and probably never will) if a majority of a society thinks it's abhorrent (or necessary) to carry guns, then a person violating that societal tenet would be subject to non-violent social ostracism.

You realize that flawlessly aligns with anarchy, right?

I don't believe I ever mentioned my political affiliation. Why should it come as a surprise?

Edit: The novels that had the greatest effect on my political outlook was Ursula Le Guin's "The Dispossessed" and Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". I leave as an exercise to the reader to determine which of these attracted and which repelled me.

[Lethn]

I hate to say this but while you could indeed be correct you're not providing any way to determine which are useful stats and which are not. I would tend to believe you more if you were able to provide an insight into how you determine which statistics are correct, and which are not. For me, if proponents of both sides of an argument agree on the data, then that's a good start. After that it's all about the analysis. Which brings us to .....

If we're going to talk about gun control, the one thing that has been repeatedly proven in these mass shootings is that the shooters in the majority of these cases were complete maniacs and they often got their guns due to other peoples complacency and negligence. Like I said, rely on math, if you can't do that, rely on repetitive results, the more these situations repeat, even terrible situations, the more we can look at the patterns of what caused it and find a solution.

Unfortunately we can do very little to stop human negligence even if we educate them on it because that's in our very nature, we all end up doing stupid things every now and then.

[organofcorti]

I hate to say this but while you could indeed be correct you're not providing any way to determine which are useful stats and which are not. I would tend to believe you more if you were able to provide an insight into how you determine which statistics are correct, and which are not. For me, if proponents of both sides of an argument agree on the data, then that's a good start. After that it's all about the analysis. Which brings us to .....

If we're going to talk about gun control, the one thing that has been repeatedly proven in these mass shootings is that the shooters in the majority of these cases were complete maniacs and they often got their guns due to other peoples complacency and negligence. Like I said, rely on math, if you can't do that, rely on repetitive results, the more these situations repeat, even terrible situations, the more we can look at the patterns of what caused it.

If we're going to talk statistics, then some citations for your allegations would be handy.

[myrkul]

I wouldn't force anyone to do anything. I don't think single person should.

Do I correctly read this to mean that if you get more people together, they can?

As soon as I post I knew you were going to pick that. An anarchists and his spots, huh?

It depends on what you mean by "force" and in which circumstance. In my preferred social structure (which does not exist and probably never will) if a majority of a society thinks it's abhorrent (or necessary) to carry guns, then a person violating that societal tenet would be subject to non-violent social ostracism.

Edit: And so that is what I would do. Non-violently ostracise someone who had a belief in extreme opposition to mine.

I approve. I'll keep working on getting that ideal society (or at least as close as possible) into practice.

[Lethn]

If we're going to talk statistics, then some citations for your allegations would be handy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-525965.html

Shawn struggled with learning disabilities and significant emotional problems.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-arizona-shooting-gabbie-giffords-20121108,0,4209374.story

After the shooting, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and underwent forcible psychotropic drug treatments.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/seung-hui-chos-mental-health-records-released/story?id=8278195#.UNV0NjkU-Uk

Cho had been admitted overnight to the hospital after his roommate became concerned when Cho threatened to take his own life.

I'll find more if you like, but these are of the most memorable shootings and in all cases they were clearly having severe problems with their mental health before the shootings happened, when the media reports on the shootings I've noticed they barely talk about the fact these people very often have mental health problems and the people who do point it out ( I saw this on CNBC news ) are often given small segments where they are pretty much ignored.

Sensationalist and over-charged arguments about gun control get more people riled up and watching the news channels than rational talk about the fact these people all had serious mental problems and were often having people taking care of them before they decided to go on a rampage, you can even see in the news articles for the current times that the mainstream news barely talks about the mental problems they had and prefer to just scare the living shit out of people instead.

[organofcorti]

I wouldn't force anyone to do anything. I don't think single person should.

Do I correctly read this to mean that if you get more people together, they can?

As soon as I post I knew you were going to pick that. An anarchists and his spots, huh?

It depends on what you mean by "force" and in which circumstance. In my preferred social structure (which does not exist and probably never will) if a majority of a society thinks it's abhorrent (or necessary) to carry guns, then a person violating that societal tenet would be subject to non-violent social ostracism.

Edit: And so that is what I would do. Non-violently ostracise someone who had a belief in extreme opposition to mine.

I approve. I'll keep working on getting that ideal society (or at least as close as possible) into practice.

Even if that society ostracised you for gun ownership (assuming you have one, and wear it in public)? Your feelings could be hurt significantly. More to the point though, you'd probably find it difficult to have sex with other people.

Would you give up guns if a) you lived in a safe society and b) gun ownership meant that your options for having coital experiences were reduced? Or would you move to a society where the norms included mandatory gun ownership, or something similar?

I just want to see how you'd be influenced by your society - would you change your mind, or change your environment?