Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Joker Killer" Case of Misleading Vividness

mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 5:50:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, the conversation is getting somewhat heated on other threads about this, but I think I have a different perspective. Every time there is a mass shooting spree, the gun control conversation comes up. But have you noticed how it's much more sedated in between? I think is why:

Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1) Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
2) Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.[1]

When we take that into consideration and note that 25% of American adults own at least one gun, for a total of 192 million firearms, of which 65 million are handguns, and then consider that only 12,996 murders were committed with firearms in 2010 in the United States, we then see that the base rate for a legal gun owner to commit a murder with said gun is equal to 12,996murders/77,897,979gun owners=0.0001% of gun owners using them to murder, or possibly even fewer of those gun owners committing more than one murder.[2][3][4]

Therefore, all the worrying about gun control every time there is a random shooting spree is irrational.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[4]http://quickfacts.census.gov...
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 5:54:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 5:50:00 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
Well, the conversation is getting somewhat heated on other threads about this, but I think I have a different perspective. Every time there is a mass shooting spree, the gun control conversation comes up. But have you noticed how it's much more sedated in between? I think is why:

Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1) Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
2) Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.[1]

When we take that into consideration and note that 25% of American adults own at least one gun, for a total of 192 million firearms, of which 65 million are handguns, and then consider that only 12,996 murders were committed with firearms in 2010 in the United States, we then see that the base rate for a legal gun owner to commit a murder with said gun is equal to 12,996murders/77,897,979gun owners=0.0001% of gun owners using them to murder, or possibly even fewer of those gun owners committing more than one murder.[2][3][4]

Therefore, all the worrying about gun control every time there is a random shooting spree is irrational.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[4]http://quickfacts.census.gov...

Wait, only 12,966 murders were committed with handguns in 2010? That's all?! Gee, what's all the fuss about?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 5:57:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For accuracy's sake, it'd be better to refer to violent crimes. This boosts the number up to 350,000. However, the importance isn't on the absolute crime rates, but relative crime rates: the difference between the legalisation and criminalisation.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 5:59:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 5:54:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:50:00 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
Well, the conversation is getting somewhat heated on other threads about this, but I think I have a different perspective. Every time there is a mass shooting spree, the gun control conversation comes up. But have you noticed how it's much more sedated in between? I think is why:

Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1) Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
2) Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.[1]

When we take that into consideration and note that 25% of American adults own at least one gun, for a total of 192 million firearms, of which 65 million are handguns, and then consider that only 12,996 murders were committed with firearms in 2010 in the United States, we then see that the base rate for a legal gun owner to commit a murder with said gun is equal to 12,996murders/77,897,979gun owners=0.0001% of gun owners using them to murder, or possibly even fewer of those gun owners committing more than one murder.[2][3][4]

Therefore, all the worrying about gun control every time there is a random shooting spree is irrational.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[4]http://quickfacts.census.gov...

Wait, only 12,966 murders were committed with handguns in 2010? That's all?! Gee, what's all the fuss about?

Yeah, I mean comparing that to the 59 firearm crimes in Britain, and then the four times larger amount of knife crimes in Britain... I don't know what's wrong with these Brits either! It's horrible! They've got what, 5 times less population? They should have no crime whatsover! America is great! USA! USA! USA!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 6:02:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 5:57:15 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
For accuracy's sake, it'd be better to refer to violent crimes. This boosts the number up to 350,000. However, the importance isn't on the absolute crime rates, but relative crime rates: the difference between the legalisation and criminalisation.

That would leave it still at about 0.004%. Assuming that all of those violent crimes were committed with guns owned by Americans in America.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 6:05:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 5:59:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:54:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:50:00 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
Well, the conversation is getting somewhat heated on other threads about this, but I think I have a different perspective. Every time there is a mass shooting spree, the gun control conversation comes up. But have you noticed how it's much more sedated in between? I think is why:

Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1) Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
2) Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.[1]

When we take that into consideration and note that 25% of American adults own at least one gun, for a total of 192 million firearms, of which 65 million are handguns, and then consider that only 12,996 murders were committed with firearms in 2010 in the United States, we then see that the base rate for a legal gun owner to commit a murder with said gun is equal to 12,996murders/77,897,979gun owners=0.0001% of gun owners using them to murder, or possibly even fewer of those gun owners committing more than one murder.[2][3][4]

Therefore, all the worrying about gun control every time there is a random shooting spree is irrational.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[4]http://quickfacts.census.gov...

Wait, only 12,966 murders were committed with handguns in 2010? That's all?! Gee, what's all the fuss about?

Yeah, I mean comparing that to the 59 firearm crimes in Britain, and then the four times larger amount of knife crimes in Britain... I don't know what's wrong with these Brits either! It's horrible! They've got what, 5 times less population? They should have no crime whatsover! America is great! USA! USA! USA!

I reject nationalism actually, but that's what I mean, Britain bridges the gap that's left with the lack of firearms with knives and other means. So regulating the means truly isn't a way to prevent the end in this case. I mean there are "1000 ways to die" after all, and equally as many ways to kill, so if you want to kill, you can always figure it out with a little imagination.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 6:12:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 5:54:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:50:00 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
Well, the conversation is getting somewhat heated on other threads about this, but I think I have a different perspective. Every time there is a mass shooting spree, the gun control conversation comes up. But have you noticed how it's much more sedated in between? I think is why:

Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1) Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
2) Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.[1]

When we take that into consideration and note that 25% of American adults own at least one gun, for a total of 192 million firearms, of which 65 million are handguns, and then consider that only 12,996 murders were committed with firearms in 2010 in the United States, we then see that the base rate for a legal gun owner to commit a murder with said gun is equal to 12,996murders/77,897,979gun owners=0.0001% of gun owners using them to murder, or possibly even fewer of those gun owners committing more than one murder.[2][3][4]

Therefore, all the worrying about gun control every time there is a random shooting spree is irrational.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[4]http://quickfacts.census.gov...

Wait, only 12,966 murders were committed with handguns in 2010? That's all?! Gee, what's all the fuss about?

That's 0.0004% of the population. We have more guns than any country in the world and our murder rate is 34th on the list, I tend to think that we're spoiled, pampered babies when it comes to this. We could live in the countries we've bombed in recent years. How would that be?
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 6:16:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 5:54:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Wait, only 12,966 murders were committed with handguns in 2010? That's all?! Gee, what's all the fuss about?

With a large population, you get large numbers.

http://www.newbieshooter.com...

It's pretty low on the list for causes of deaths.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 8:20:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 6:16:44 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:54:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Wait, only 12,966 murders were committed with handguns in 2010? That's all?! Gee, what's all the fuss about?

With a large population, you get large numbers.

http://www.newbieshooter.com...

It's pretty low on the list for causes of deaths.

Every non-gun death on that list is either a disease or an accident lol.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 8:35:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 8:20:39 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 6:16:44 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:54:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Wait, only 12,966 murders were committed with handguns in 2010? That's all?! Gee, what's all the fuss about?

With a large population, you get large numbers.

http://www.newbieshooter.com...

It's pretty low on the list for causes of deaths.

Every non-gun death on that list is either a disease or an accident lol.

The point is, gun-related deaths are a small number compared to the population.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 8:48:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 8:35:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:20:39 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 6:16:44 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:54:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Wait, only 12,966 murders were committed with handguns in 2010? That's all?! Gee, what's all the fuss about?

With a large population, you get large numbers.

http://www.newbieshooter.com...

It's pretty low on the list for causes of deaths.

Every non-gun death on that list is either a disease or an accident lol.

The point is, gun-related deaths are a small number compared to the population.

0 is better than 13k.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 8:54:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 6:05:00 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:59:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:54:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:50:00 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
Well, the conversation is getting somewhat heated on other threads about this, but I think I have a different perspective. Every time there is a mass shooting spree, the gun control conversation comes up. But have you noticed how it's much more sedated in between? I think is why:

Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1) Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
2) Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.[1]

When we take that into consideration and note that 25% of American adults own at least one gun, for a total of 192 million firearms, of which 65 million are handguns, and then consider that only 12,996 murders were committed with firearms in 2010 in the United States, we then see that the base rate for a legal gun owner to commit a murder with said gun is equal to 12,996murders/77,897,979gun owners=0.0001% of gun owners using them to murder, or possibly even fewer of those gun owners committing more than one murder.[2][3][4]

Therefore, all the worrying about gun control every time there is a random shooting spree is irrational.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[4]http://quickfacts.census.gov...

Wait, only 12,966 murders were committed with handguns in 2010? That's all?! Gee, what's all the fuss about?

Yeah, I mean comparing that to the 59 firearm crimes in Britain, and then the four times larger amount of knife crimes in Britain... I don't know what's wrong with these Brits either! It's horrible! They've got what, 5 times less population? They should have no crime whatsover! America is great! USA! USA! USA!

I reject nationalism actually, but that's what I mean, Britain bridges the gap that's left with the lack of firearms with knives and other means. So regulating the means truly isn't a way to prevent the end in this case. I mean there are "1000 ways to die" after all, and equally as many ways to kill, so if you want to kill, you can always figure it out with a little imagination.

I'd take a criminal with a knife over a criminal with a gun any day lol.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 9:10:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 8:48:39 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:35:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:20:39 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 6:16:44 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:54:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Wait, only 12,966 murders were committed with handguns in 2010? That's all?! Gee, what's all the fuss about?

With a large population, you get large numbers.

http://www.newbieshooter.com...

It's pretty low on the list for causes of deaths.

Every non-gun death on that list is either a disease or an accident lol.

The point is, gun-related deaths are a small number compared to the population.

0 is better than 13k.

Yes, it is.

But throwing a stink over gun laws because of a relatively low number of murders, in a country with high homicide rates no matter the weapon, while ignoring data that shows how many murders are averted because of guns, is irrational.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 9:12:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I even made a mistake in the math, well in the fact variable, only 8,775 of the 12,996 were carried out with a gun.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 9:16:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 8:54:33 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 6:05:00 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:59:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:54:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:50:00 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
Well, the conversation is getting somewhat heated on other threads about this, but I think I have a different perspective. Every time there is a mass shooting spree, the gun control conversation comes up. But have you noticed how it's much more sedated in between? I think is why:

Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1) Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
2) Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.[1]

When we take that into consideration and note that 25% of American adults own at least one gun, for a total of 192 million firearms, of which 65 million are handguns, and then consider that only 12,996 murders were committed with firearms in 2010 in the United States, we then see that the base rate for a legal gun owner to commit a murder with said gun is equal to 12,996murders/77,897,979gun owners=0.0001% of gun owners using them to murder, or possibly even fewer of those gun owners committing more than one murder.[2][3][4]

Therefore, all the worrying about gun control every time there is a random shooting spree is irrational.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[4]http://quickfacts.census.gov...

Wait, only 12,966 murders were committed with handguns in 2010? That's all?! Gee, what's all the fuss about?

Yeah, I mean comparing that to the 59 firearm crimes in Britain, and then the four times larger amount of knife crimes in Britain... I don't know what's wrong with these Brits either! It's horrible! They've got what, 5 times less population? They should have no crime whatsover! America is great! USA! USA! USA!

I reject nationalism actually, but that's what I mean, Britain bridges the gap that's left with the lack of firearms with knives and other means. So regulating the means truly isn't a way to prevent the end in this case. I mean there are "1000 ways to die" after all, and equally as many ways to kill, so if you want to kill, you can always figure it out with a little imagination.

I'd take a criminal with a knife over a criminal with a gun any day lol.

So would I, but a criminal, by definition, is someone who violates the law, and thus creating new laws won't necessarily stop them from obtaining guns.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 9:21:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 9:16:41 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:54:33 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 6:05:00 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:59:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

Yeah, I mean comparing that to the 59 firearm crimes in Britain, and then the four times larger amount of knife crimes in Britain... I don't know what's wrong with these Brits either! It's horrible! They've got what, 5 times less population? They should have no crime whatsover! America is great! USA! USA! USA!

I reject nationalism actually, but that's what I mean, Britain bridges the gap that's left with the lack of firearms with knives and other means. So regulating the means truly isn't a way to prevent the end in this case. I mean there are "1000 ways to die" after all, and equally as many ways to kill, so if you want to kill, you can always figure it out with a little imagination.

I'd take a criminal with a knife over a criminal with a gun any day lol.

So would I, but a criminal, by definition, is someone who violates the law, and thus creating new laws won't necessarily stop them from obtaining guns.

I'm replying to what you said immediately prior (see bold). Saying they'll obtain guns anyway is a different argument and I'd point you toward the Britain example in that case.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 9:24:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 9:10:58 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:48:39 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:35:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:20:39 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 6:16:44 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:54:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Wait, only 12,966 murders were committed with handguns in 2010? That's all?! Gee, what's all the fuss about?

With a large population, you get large numbers.

http://www.newbieshooter.com...

It's pretty low on the list for causes of deaths.

Every non-gun death on that list is either a disease or an accident lol.

The point is, gun-related deaths are a small number compared to the population.

0 is better than 13k.

Yes, it is.

But throwing a stink over gun laws because of a relatively low number of murders, in a country with high homicide rates no matter the weapon, while ignoring data that shows how many murders are averted because of guns, is irrational.

So we should consider the non-gun homicide numbers high but the gun homicide numbers low, even though the former outnumbers the latter?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 9:37:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 9:21:28 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 9:16:41 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:54:33 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 6:05:00 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:59:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

Yeah, I mean comparing that to the 59 firearm crimes in Britain, and then the four times larger amount of knife crimes in Britain... I don't know what's wrong with these Brits either! It's horrible! They've got what, 5 times less population? They should have no crime whatsover! America is great! USA! USA! USA!

I reject nationalism actually, but that's what I mean, Britain bridges the gap that's left with the lack of firearms with knives and other means. So regulating the means truly isn't a way to prevent the end in this case. I mean there are "1000 ways to die" after all, and equally as many ways to kill, so if you want to kill, you can always figure it out with a little imagination.

I'd take a criminal with a knife over a criminal with a gun any day lol.

So would I, but a criminal, by definition, is someone who violates the law, and thus creating new laws won't necessarily stop them from obtaining guns.

I'm replying to what you said immediately prior (see bold). Saying they'll obtain guns anyway is a different argument and I'd point you toward the Britain example in that case.

Oh I see. But the U.K. is an island (or two), so they don't have, say, a Mexico where they can smuggle black market items from.

What do you think about the "Fast and Furious" case then?
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 9:39:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 9:37:08 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/21/2012 9:21:28 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 9:16:41 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:54:33 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 6:05:00 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:59:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

Yeah, I mean comparing that to the 59 firearm crimes in Britain, and then the four times larger amount of knife crimes in Britain... I don't know what's wrong with these Brits either! It's horrible! They've got what, 5 times less population? They should have no crime whatsover! America is great! USA! USA! USA!

I reject nationalism actually, but that's what I mean, Britain bridges the gap that's left with the lack of firearms with knives and other means. So regulating the means truly isn't a way to prevent the end in this case. I mean there are "1000 ways to die" after all, and equally as many ways to kill, so if you want to kill, you can always figure it out with a little imagination.

I'd take a criminal with a knife over a criminal with a gun any day lol.

So would I, but a criminal, by definition, is someone who violates the law, and thus creating new laws won't necessarily stop them from obtaining guns.

I'm replying to what you said immediately prior (see bold). Saying they'll obtain guns anyway is a different argument and I'd point you toward the Britain example in that case.

Oh I see. But the U.K. is an island (or two), so they don't have, say, a Mexico where they can smuggle black market items from.

What do you think about the "Fast and Furious" case then?

I'm not familiar. I'm not familiar with this entire issue, really. I'm mostly waxing romantic.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 11:39:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 8:48:39 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:35:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 7/21/2012 8:20:39 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/21/2012 6:16:44 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:54:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Wait, only 12,966 murders were committed with handguns in 2010? That's all?! Gee, what's all the fuss about?

With a large population, you get large numbers.

http://www.newbieshooter.com...

It's pretty low on the list for causes of deaths.

Every non-gun death on that list is either a disease or an accident lol.

The point is, gun-related deaths are a small number compared to the population.

0 is better than 13k.

What's your plan on how to cut that number to 0?
#BlackLivesMatter
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 4:10:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What's your plan on how to cut that number to 0?

The answer is simple. Not easy, but simple.

Clearly, we need to petition politicians to draft legislation to construct a time machine. (Funding can be provisional as per the national health care plan, as a tax, seeing as survival is critical to good health.) Then someone would need to go back in time to before firearms existed, and figure out how to get back to our world today---only our world would then exclude the following: guns, hatred, conditional love, evil, mental illness, ambition, jealousy, depression, and... cyclists who ride in the road even when there is a bike path or sidewalk 5-10 feet to their right.

If that cannot happen, we need to summon celebrities together ASAP to sing a song, host a telethon, or campaign for someone who speaks well. By Jehovah, we have to try something.

Long story short: Pretty much, I agree with the host of this thread.
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 4:38:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 4:10:05 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
What's your plan on how to cut that number to 0?

The answer is simple. Not easy, but simple.

Clearly, we need to petition politicians to draft legislation to construct a time machine. (Funding can be provisional as per the national health care plan, as a tax, seeing as survival is critical to good health.) Then someone would need to go back in time to before firearms existed, and figure out how to get back to our world today---only our world would then exclude the following: guns, hatred, conditional love, evil, mental illness, ambition, jealousy, depression, and... cyclists who ride in the road even when there is a bike path or sidewalk 5-10 feet to their right.

If that cannot happen, we need to summon celebrities together ASAP to sing a song, host a telethon, or campaign for someone who speaks well. By Jehovah, we have to try something.

Long story short: Pretty much, I agree with the host of this thread.

I like your brand of sarcasm. lol
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 5:13:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Another way I could have put it in the first place, is that the U.S. is #1 in terms of private gun ownership rates and #33 in terms of murder rates.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 5:28:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 4:10:05 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
What's your plan on how to cut that number to 0?

The answer is simple. Not easy, but simple.

Clearly, we need to petition politicians to draft legislation to construct a time machine. (Funding can be provisional as per the national health care plan, as a tax, seeing as survival is critical to good health.) Then someone would need to go back in time to before firearms existed, and figure out how to get back to our world today---only our world would then exclude the following: guns, hatred, conditional love, evil, mental illness, ambition, jealousy, depression, and... cyclists who ride in the road even when there is a bike path or sidewalk 5-10 feet to their right.

If that cannot happen, we need to summon celebrities together ASAP to sing a song, host a telethon, or campaign for someone who speaks well. By Jehovah, we have to try something.

Long story short: Pretty much, I agree with the host of this thread.

+1/
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 5:34:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Someone explain this then: if making guns illegal causes more gun crimes, then why is it that the majority of crimes in countries where guns are illegal caused by knives or similar weapons, instead of guns?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 5:04:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 5:50:00 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
Well, the conversation is getting somewhat heated on other threads about this, but I think I have a different perspective. Every time there is a mass shooting spree, the gun control conversation comes up. But have you noticed how it's much more sedated in between? I think is why:

Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1) Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
2) Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.[1]

When we take that into consideration and note that 25% of American adults own at least one gun, for a total of 192 million firearms, of which 65 million are handguns, and then consider that only 12,996 murders were committed with firearms in 2010 in the United States, we then see that the base rate for a legal gun owner to commit a murder with said gun is equal to 12,996murders/77,897,979gun owners=0.0001% of gun owners using them to murder, or possibly even fewer of those gun owners committing more than one murder.[2][3][4]

Therefore, all the worrying about gun control every time there is a random shooting spree is irrational.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[4]http://quickfacts.census.gov...

The problem here, like all the other mass shootings, was not ENOUGH guns: had a couple of Americans been exercising their constitutional right to bears arms that night someone could have taken him out and saved lives/injuries.. to prove my point, he didn't wander into 'the hood' to live out his fantasies, right?
The Cross.. the Cross.
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 4:35:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 5:04:13 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:50:00 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
Well, the conversation is getting somewhat heated on other threads about this, but I think I have a different perspective. Every time there is a mass shooting spree, the gun control conversation comes up. But have you noticed how it's much more sedated in between? I think is why:

Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1) Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
2) Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.[1]

When we take that into consideration and note that 25% of American adults own at least one gun, for a total of 192 million firearms, of which 65 million are handguns, and then consider that only 12,996 murders were committed with firearms in 2010 in the United States, we then see that the base rate for a legal gun owner to commit a murder with said gun is equal to 12,996murders/77,897,979gun owners=0.0001% of gun owners using them to murder, or possibly even fewer of those gun owners committing more than one murder.[2][3][4]

Therefore, all the worrying about gun control every time there is a random shooting spree is irrational.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[4]http://quickfacts.census.gov...

The problem here, like all the other mass shootings, was not ENOUGH guns: had a couple of Americans been exercising their constitutional right to bears arms that night someone could have taken him out and saved lives/injuries.. to prove my point, he didn't wander into 'the hood' to live out his fantasies, right?

What the holy f*ck? You really think adding more people with guns in a dark, tear gassed filled theater would have helped? And you're blaming the victims?! "Well if you had a gun you could have stopped him". Because the Average citizen is John McClane. You're an idiot. Furthermore, not everyone 'in the hood' has a gun. Believe it or not, not every nigger is a gangbanger. You disgust me.
#BlackLivesMatter
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 9:11:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 4:35:23 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/23/2012 5:04:13 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:50:00 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
Well, the conversation is getting somewhat heated on other threads about this, but I think I have a different perspective. Every time there is a mass shooting spree, the gun control conversation comes up. But have you noticed how it's much more sedated in between? I think is why:

Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1) Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
2) Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.[1]

When we take that into consideration and note that 25% of American adults own at least one gun, for a total of 192 million firearms, of which 65 million are handguns, and then consider that only 12,996 murders were committed with firearms in 2010 in the United States, we then see that the base rate for a legal gun owner to commit a murder with said gun is equal to 12,996murders/77,897,979gun owners=0.0001% of gun owners using them to murder, or possibly even fewer of those gun owners committing more than one murder.[2][3][4]

Therefore, all the worrying about gun control every time there is a random shooting spree is irrational.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[4]http://quickfacts.census.gov...

The problem here, like all the other mass shootings, was not ENOUGH guns: had a couple of Americans been exercising their constitutional right to bears arms that night someone could have taken him out and saved lives/injuries.. to prove my point, he didn't wander into 'the hood' to live out his fantasies, right?

What the holy f*ck? You really think adding more people with guns in a dark, tear gassed filled theater would have helped? And you're blaming the victims?! "Well if you had a gun you could have stopped him". Because the Average citizen is John McClane. You're an idiot. Furthermore, not everyone 'in the hood' has a gun. Believe it or not, not every nigger is a gangbanger. You disgust me.

You have substituted an emotional outburst for a reasoned response.

YES, I, personally, would rather have had a gun on me in that cinema than not, it could have saved my life and the lives of others..

I never said or implied that everyone in the hood has a gun, but there ARE guns in the hood and that why these cowards never go there to live out their geek fantasies..

The truth disgusts you, not I.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 12:46:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 9:11:31 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/25/2012 4:35:23 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/23/2012 5:04:13 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:50:00 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
Well, the conversation is getting somewhat heated on other threads about this, but I think I have a different perspective. Every time there is a mass shooting spree, the gun control conversation comes up. But have you noticed how it's much more sedated in between? I think is why:

Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1) Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
2) Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.[1]

When we take that into consideration and note that 25% of American adults own at least one gun, for a total of 192 million firearms, of which 65 million are handguns, and then consider that only 12,996 murders were committed with firearms in 2010 in the United States, we then see that the base rate for a legal gun owner to commit a murder with said gun is equal to 12,996murders/77,897,979gun owners=0.0001% of gun owners using them to murder, or possibly even fewer of those gun owners committing more than one murder.[2][3][4]

Therefore, all the worrying about gun control every time there is a random shooting spree is irrational.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[4]http://quickfacts.census.gov...

The problem here, like all the other mass shootings, was not ENOUGH guns: had a couple of Americans been exercising their constitutional right to bears arms that night someone could have taken him out and saved lives/injuries.. to prove my point, he didn't wander into 'the hood' to live out his fantasies, right?

What the holy f*ck? You really think adding more people with guns in a dark, tear gassed filled theater would have helped? And you're blaming the victims?! "Well if you had a gun you could have stopped him". Because the Average citizen is John McClane. You're an idiot. Furthermore, not everyone 'in the hood' has a gun. Believe it or not, not every nigger is a gangbanger. You disgust me.

You have substituted an emotional outburst for a reasoned response.
You know what? You're absolutely right. And I sincerely apologize.

YES, I, personally, would rather have had a gun on me in that cinema than not, it could have saved my life and the lives of others..
I agree. You could have. If you were immune to tear gas. And could see through thick clouds of smoke. And through the darkness of the theater. And you somehow don't get knocked over by the stampeding crowd trying to escape. And are you going to shoot at him? Because even if your vision isn't impaired by the previous factors, there are people bumping into you and running in front of you. You'd probably shoot them before you shoot him. And what if someone sees you and think your an accomplice? He tackles you, or worse, shoots you. Assuming the guy with the automatic weapons hasn't done it already. He doesn't want to aim. He sprayed indiscriminately. So....yeah too bad YOU weren't there....

I never said or implied that everyone in the hood has a gun, but there ARE guns in the hood and that why these cowards never go there to live out their geek fantasies..
Are there not guns in white neighborhoods? In fact I'm not a gambling man but I'd be willing to bet more white people have guns than blacks.

The truth disgusts you, not I.

Apparently.
#BlackLivesMatter
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 1:11:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 12:46:39 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Apparently.

Chill out.

We still don't know what happened, what was used, what he was wearing.

From some of the stories, it sounds more like there was less stampeding, and more ducking. Some said he only shot people who stood up or tried to run away. Others said he walked right past them. He had on a gas mask, which limits visibility.

I'm not saying someone would have stopped him, but someone definitely could have.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13