Guns

[westkybitcoins]

Myrkul,

Here are some shootings for you: www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-shootings.pdf

Why don't you get to tallying, graphing, calculating, and hypothesizing?

Or, you could just be honest and admit that you already know all the numbers in the world won't convince you.

In my experience, the side that can't address their points with serious intellectual honesty is usually the wrong one. You don't need cheap tactics and underhanded behavior when logic and facts are in your favor.

[1715371817]

1715371817

[1715371817]

1715371817

[vampire]

Or, you could just be honest and admit that you already know all the numbers in the world won't convince you.

In my experience, the side that can't address their points with serious intellectual honesty is usually the wrong one. You don't need cheap tactics and underhanded behavior when logic and facts are in your favor.

In my experience, people who says this are usually the guilty ones.

[vampire]

Go right ahead. Here, this link, and the pages connected to it, should help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Americas

Should be enough data there to weave a rope to hang yourself with. I'll even allow three categories: stopped by cop (arrested, killed by police), Stopped by citizen (or mob), and Not stopped (suicide, escaped). Have fun,  and remember, I'll be checking your data.

Really? Learn to read first. Go back to the page and read. Now collect all of the data that I need - each incident must have a compete story. (And don't forget to include school massacres, workplace killings, hate crimes)

No, no, no.... You said you were countering my useless statistics with your useless statistics. My useless statistics have already been posted: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1063729#msg1063729 We're waiting on yours, now. All the links are there to collect all the data you want to make an average. Go on, I'll wait.

I already countered that with two shootings where cops stopped a guy with only 1 victim each. Your statistics failed to include that, and it's useless.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1064328#msg1064328

Selectively picked statistics (by a third party) is a huge LOL.

[FirstAscent]

Myrkul,

Here are some shootings for you: www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-shootings.pdf

Why don't you get to tallying, graphing, calculating, and hypothesizing?

Or, you could just be honest and admit that you already know all the numbers in the world won't convince you.

Whatever it is you said, it doesn't apply to me.

For example:

In my experience, the side that can't address their points with serious intellectual honesty is usually the wrong one. You don't need cheap tactics and underhanded behavior when logic and facts are in your favor.

Hence the reason that myrkul needs to be intellectually honest, instead of selective in his data choices.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Myrkul,

Here are some shootings for you: www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-shootings.pdf

Why don't you get to tallying, graphing, calculating, and hypothesizing?

Or, you could just be honest and admit that you already know all the numbers in the world won't convince you.

Whatever it is you said, it doesn't apply to me.

For example:

In my experience, the side that can't address their points with serious intellectual honesty is usually the wrong one. You don't need cheap tactics and underhanded behavior when logic and facts are in your favor.

Hence the reason that myrkul needs to be intellectually honest, instead of selective in his data choices.

Perhaps he is biased in his data choices, and simply is not aware of it.  That's not intellectually dishonest, just normal bias.  We all have bias, expecially journalists.  So rather than argue that his data is cherry picked (which it certainly is, but not necessarily with an intent towards biasing the data set) why don't you run down that list of rampages that he provided for you (from Wikipedia, not exactly a source known to pick sides) and do the average for the entire thing and let's see what the whole data set says.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Myrkul,

Here are some shootings for you: www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-shootings.pdf

Why don't you get to tallying, graphing, calculating, and hypothesizing?

Now that's a bias fail.  The Brady Campaign isn't exactly a neutral data source, and one known for huge cherry picking of data sets in their own right. 

[westkybitcoins]

Myrkul,

Here are some shootings for you: www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-shootings.pdf

Why don't you get to tallying, graphing, calculating, and hypothesizing?

Or, you could just be honest and admit that you already know all the numbers in the world won't convince you.

Whatever it is you said, it doesn't apply to me.

For example:

In my experience, the side that can't address their points with serious intellectual honesty is usually the wrong one. You don't need cheap tactics and underhanded behavior when logic and facts are in your favor.

Hence the reason that myrkul needs to be intellectually honest, instead of selective in his data choices.

Perhaps he is biased in his data choices, and simply is not aware of it.  That's not intellectually dishonest, just normal bias.  We all have bias, expecially journalists.  So rather than argue that his data is cherry picked (which it certainly is, but not necessarily with an intent towards biasing the data set) why don't you run down that list of rampages that he provided for you (from Wikipedia, not exactly a source known to pick sides) and do the average for the entire thing and let's see what the whole data set says.

Don't bother. FirstAscent has no intention of doing that much work. Why would he? He doesn't care about the actual influence of guns on crime anyway. Again, for him, the real desire is to strictly control the average, peaceful, innocent citizen's gun ownership. The fact that he won't address this moral angle (probably because he knows he'd lose the argument,) but instead attempts to get others running in circles producing data that he knows won't convince him, and knows will always be able to be nitpicked, speaks volumes.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

That Silver Circle movie seems like something I might be willing to contribute towards, but they don't take Bitcoins it seems.  Which is kind of strange, since they are obviously fine with taking US $.

[FirstAscent]

Myrkul,

Here are some shootings for you: www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-shootings.pdf

Why don't you get to tallying, graphing, calculating, and hypothesizing?

Now that's a bias fail.  The Brady Campaign isn't exactly a neutral data source, and one known for huge cherry picking of data sets in their own right. 

It's more data. Certainly 62 pages of data for seven or so years trumps myrkul's one page of data for forty some years. You think?

Merge the data, if you so please.

[westkybitcoins]

That Silver Circle movie seems like something I might be willing to contribute towards, but they don't take Bitcoins it seems.  Which is kind of strange, since they are obviously fine with taking US $.

A lot of people in the hard money camp (gold/silver over fiat) have a hard time with Bitcoin. They think that because it's unbacked, it must be just another type of fiat, and destined for worthlessness. Convincing them of the cryptographic integrity of the 21-million cap is probably the best way to get around that sentiment, but it's a slow, difficult process, especially for those who are not very math/tech savvy.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Myrkul,

Here are some shootings for you: www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-shootings.pdf

Why don't you get to tallying, graphing, calculating, and hypothesizing?

Now that's a bias fail.  The Brady Campaign isn't exactly a neutral data source, and one known for huge cherry picking of data sets in their own right. 

It's more data. Certainly 62 pages of data for seven or so years trumps myrkul's one page of data for forty some years. You think?

Merge the data, if you so please.

Not me, I've no interest in trying to prove any such thing.  I think that whether or not a armed population limits rampages or not is statistically insignificant overall, even though I'll admit up front that my own life's experiences bias myself toward believeing that mykerl is correct.  I don't think that the practical argument is what really matters, as the results in either direction are not significant enough to overcome the predispositions on either side; as both yourself and myself are evidence of.

My argument is more basic.  Self defense is a basic human right, and if I, as an average citizen, are denied access to the most effective forms of defense that I can afford by any reason whatever, then my basic human right has been infringed.  Sure, I'm still responsible for what I do with those tools, but they are just tools.  If I never need to use it, then it's still worked for me; but if I should be so unlucky as to have to use a weapon in my own defense, I'm okay with being required to justify my actions to an impartial jury.  But not one that is predisposed to beleive that the mere act of ownership of a tool is criminal, regardless of it's design characteristics.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Now that's a bias fail.  The Brady Campaign isn't exactly a neutral data source, and one known for huge cherry picking of data sets in their own right.  

It's more data. Certainly 62 pages of data for seven or so years trumps myrkul's one page of data for forty some years. You think?

And no, more data does not equal to less bias.  Wikipedia is limiting itself to 'rampages' or 'mass killings' wherein one nutter goes off and starts shooting multiple people with whom s/he has no prior contact.  The Brady Campaign includes a great deal of events that involved crimes of passion, career criminals with guns, organized crime, inter-famililar violence (such as spouse abuse), etc.  In other words, they include a great deal of data on events that had causes/triggers having little or nothing to do with whether or not guns were used as the means to the end.  Nor do they bother to gather the same data on such events that did not include a firearm.  Again, the weapon is just a tool with a deliberate purpose.  The most successful career muggers are almost invariablely those who use weapons other than a firearm within juristictions that make it difficult for an average citizen to carry a firearm.  Usually knives.  Ironically, we even have the effects of such events in US law, as it's illegal to import, manufacture or sell a knife that is intended to be opened with a single action; thus switchblades & 'butterfly' knives are banned in the US.  I'm still waiting for the one armed war vet to sue for discrimination.  They didn't blame the criminal element for using the best tools (in this case, switchblades & butterfly knives) available to them for their crimes, they again blamed the manufacturers of such tools for making their products too easy to use.

[FirstAscent]

And no, more data does not equal to less bias.  Wikipedia is limiting itself to 'rampages' or 'mass killings' wherein one nutter goes off and starts shooting multiple people with whom s/he has no prior contact.  The Brady Campaign includes a great deal of events that involved crimes of passion, career criminals with guns, organized crime, inter-famililar violence (such as spouse abuse), etc.  In other words, they include a great deal of data on events that had causes/triggers having little or nothing to do with whether or not guns were used as the means to the end.  Nor do they bother to gather the same data on such events that did not include a firearm.  Again, the weapon is just a tool with a deliberate purpose.  The most successful career muggers are almost invariablely those who use weapons other than a firearm within juristictions that make it difficult for an average citizen to carry a firearm.  Usually knives.  Ironically, we even have the effects of such events in US law, as it's illegal to import, manufacture or sell a knife that is intended to be opened with a single action; thus switchblades & 'butterfly' knives are banned in the US.  I'm still waiting for the one armed war vet to sue for discrimination.  They didn't blame the criminal element for using the best tools (in this case, switchblades & butterfly knives) available to them for their crimes, they again blamed the manufacturers of such tools for making their products too easy to use.

From the above quote, it seems clear to me that your focus with regard to data is mass shootings, essentially deeming crimes of passion, career criminals with guns, family violence, and, I would add firearm accidents, as being irrelevant to the argument regarding gun control.

And yet, you write this as well:

I think that whether or not a armed population limits rampages or not is statistically insignificant overall, even though I'll admit up front that my own life's experiences bias myself toward believeing that mykerl is correct.  I don't think that the practical argument is what really matters, as the results in either direction are not significant enough to overcome the predispositions on either side; as both yourself and myself are evidence of.

Here, you state that mass shootings are statistically insignificant.

You seem to be contradicting yourself as to what is relevant with regard to gun injuries. Myrkul wishes to be selective. You wish to be entirely indifferent, or contradictory at best.

Tell me now, would you be so indifferent or contradictory if you were one of the injured on Brady's list, or a friend or family member of one of the casualties on Brady's list? Certainly you wouldn't mind trading places with one of the affected in the theater shooting, given that you think such shootings are insignificant. Or perhaps you might wish to trade places with any of the affected on Brady's list that aren't designated a mass shooting, as you've said that that kind of data doesn't really count. 

[myrkul]

From the above quote, it seems clear to me that your focus with regard to data is mass shootings

Think that might be because the discussion is focusing on mass shootings? 

[FirstAscent]

From the above quote, it seems clear to me that your focus with regard to data is mass shootings

Think that might be because the discussion is focusing on mass shootings?  

No. The title of the thread is "Guns". Are other gun deaths and injuries somehow not deaths and injuries?  

[myrkul]

From the above quote, it seems clear to me that your focus with regard to data is mass shootings

Think that might be because the discussion is focusing on mass shootings?  

No. The title of the thread is "Guns". Are other gun deaths and injuries somehow not deaths and injuries?  

The thread is entitled "Guns", but the discussion is currently focusing on mass shootings, just like before, it focused on other aspects of the topic. Perhaps, one day, you may be brave enough to address the moral aspect. But I doubt it.

[FirstAscent]

From the above quote, it seems clear to me that your focus with regard to data is mass shootings

Think that might be because the discussion is focusing on mass shootings?  

No. The title of the thread is "Guns". Are other gun deaths and injuries somehow not deaths and injuries?  

The thread is entitled "Guns", but the discussion is currently focusing on mass shootings, just like before, it focused on other aspects of the topic. Perhaps, one day, you may be brave enough to address the moral aspect. But I doubt it.

Is it focused on mass shootings because you have somehow deemed that mass shootings are the only relevant data with regard to gun control? What if others feel compelled to point out specifically that guns as they relate to society actually should factor in other gun related deaths and injuries?

Is the reason that other related gun deaths are not relevant to gun control because you feel it's appropriate that such gun death data and injuries are simply not important? That's a tautology.

[myrkul]

Is it focused on mass shootings because you have somehow deemed that mass shootings are the only relevant data with regard to gun control?

No, it's focused on mass shootings because we are talking about mass shootings.

[FirstAscent]

Is it focused on mass shootings because you have somehow deemed that mass shootings are the only relevant data with regard to gun control?

No, it's focused on mass shootings because we are talking about mass shootings.

And thus your attempt to explain why you are only talking about mass shootings is essentially a tautology.

[myrkul]

Is it focused on mass shootings because you have somehow deemed that mass shootings are the only relevant data with regard to gun control?

No, it's focused on mass shootings because we are talking about mass shootings.

And thus your attempt to explain why you are only talking about mass shootings is essentially a tautology.

And your point is...?