|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control III | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Kind of telling that you do not provide a source. CDC reports on guns make no mention of gangs. Hmm, care to actually support this claim. What is a source worth? Others here sometimes show their source as the NY Times. The Times editors have never made much attempt to show themselves as anything but shills for the Democrat party. The current TDR (Trump Derangement Syndrome) that has swept the country has made the Times bias more glaring than ever before. A friend posted that on Facebook, and I followed it to another Facebook page that I'd never heard of. Despite liberal sources disagreeing with the exact percentages, it's point remains valid, that is, when there are breakdowns in how guns are used, it makes it more clear that gun violence is a people problem, not a hardware problem. That's why Percy gets so angry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Why do you feel lucky? Do you feel lucky to be so totally uninformed about the gun debate and even math that those numbers didn't look a little funny to you? Do you feel lucky to be so completely clueless as to be unable to assess whether those arguments made any sense? Why do you feel lucky? Do you feel lucky to be so totally uninformed about the gun debate and even math that those numbers didn't look a little funny to you? Do you feel lucky to be so completely clueless as to be unable to assess whether those arguments made any sense? I largely feel lucky because I saw a tow truck driver not long ago with a 9mm strapped on his side. I also noticed anther guy in a restaurant similarly armed. I'm not that brave, but I admire people who are. They should know that they're more likely to be shot themselves, by a crook or by a policeman, who could claim they felt threatened because he was armed. But it's safe to say they wouldn't carry like that unless they were quite capable of confronting any nutcase who was to start shooting anywhere near them (or me, since I was close by).
Do you feel lucky to be so lacking in judgment that you couldn't even formulate a response to my actual questions? There were questions in that message? I didn't notice anything more than an emotional rant.
Let me do a little simple math for you. 1712 people divided by 0.00010256410256% is 1.6692 billion people. The population of the US isn't anywhere close to a billion, let along 1.6692 billion. Since doing the math yields an absurdly large population for the US, the percentage is clearly wrong, plus how it was calculated is not described. If you don't understand how it was calculated, why are you attempting to use it in a math calculation?
Please tell us how they calculated the 0.000008564102564% figure. Garbage-in/garbage-out, Mike, and there's a lot of garbage in your figures. As I told one of your fixers, that was just a general way to show that the likelihood of being shot in the U.S. is very low, if a person is not part of a gang, doesn't commit a crime or is suicidal. What those figures generally show, no matter if they're the conservative figures or the liberal figures, (the actual truth is probably somewhere in the middle) is that there are really only two areas where gun crimes are increasing in the U.S. One is with gang violence, some of it because of ethnicity clashes (largely because of our porous southern border) and illegal drug turf wars (largely because of our porous southern border) and the other is from the mass shootings that have happened in only the past 10 years or so. The first one or two were originally dreamed up by nutcases, while all the following ones have been copycats, inspired and recruited by our sensationalizing mainstream news media. As the NRA spokesperson said a year or so ago, the media loves mass shootings. They are ratings gold, and they are masterful at splashing the shooters picture all over the television, shoving microphones in the faces of grieving relatives, anything to give orgasms to a few dozen sick people (future shooters) who are taking all this in. They're probably not exactly overjoyed at the grief of the remaining family members, but it's business. Tobacco companies probably get similar feelings when they hear the death rates from lung cancer. An unfortunate by-product, but it's business.
Before telling us your theory perhaps you could first post a message with no incorrect figures or glaring math errors. Oh okay, I can do that. The following is from a policeman in Australia. Sorry, I got this one from Facebook too, so you won't believe it since the NY Times hasn't reported it. This is from 2015 as I recall, so try not to get too excited about the "12 months" claim.
quote: May I give you my theory now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
... gun violence is a people problem, not a hardware problem. People burning themselves from an open bucket of acid is a people problem not an acid problem until you put that bucket into a second grade classroom. Second graders are stupid when it comes to buckets of liquids. People are stupid when it comes to possessing guns. Education won't help in either case. You have to remove the bucket. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
The Ed Chenel thing has been going on and been debunked since at least 2001. You will not be able to find any sources to verify the data because it is not factual.
Ed Chenel is not a real person. https://www.truthorfiction.com/...-led-to-higher-crime-rates Gun Control in Australia - FactCheck.org Edited by Theodoric, : UrlFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
The problem with people like marc, who think that Facebook is the source of all truth, is that it's like a Gish Gallop on steroids.
You debunk one lie like that, and in the meantime, he's read and believed a hundred others. So in his mind, the one lie is outweighed by a hundred truths (technically, of course, a hundred lies that will take further time and effort to debunk) that he desperately wants to hear. No amount of reasoned logic will convince him that Facebook has no basis whatsoever for authoritative positions on the truth. On the plus side, we have patient campaigners for reason, such as yourself and others here. Hopefully a difference is being made somewhere :-)Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
marc9000 writes: Kind of telling that you do not provide a source. CDC reports on guns make no mention of gangs. Hmm, care to actually support this claim. What is a source worth? Others here sometimes show their source as the NY Times. It wouldn't have mattered if the source were Albert Einstein - the math was still wrong, the numbers were from nearly a decade ago, and there were errors of fact, such as that the numbers did not come from the CDC and 80% of homicides are not committed by gangs.
The Times editors have never made much attempt to show themselves as anything but shills for the Democrat party. The current TDR (Trump Derangement Syndrome) that has swept the country has made the Times bias more glaring than ever before. Casting unsupported aspersions at others doesn't make what you posted any less wrong.
A friend posted that on Facebook, and I followed it to another Facebook page that I'd never heard of. Passed on by your Russian handlers, no doubt.
Despite liberal sources disagreeing with the exact percentages,... Marc, how can you get things so wrong? This is simple math from 6th grade and before. There's no "disagreeing with the exact percentages." One percentage was off by orders of magnitude, the other was for the wrong thing. Those aren't subtle errors - they're glaring, but you show no hint of comprehension.
...it's point remains valid, that is, when there are breakdowns in how guns are used, it makes it more clear that gun violence is a people problem, not a hardware problem. Now you're just not paying attention. I have stated before that guns are a people problem. That's because guns are far too dangerous to be in the hands of flawed and imperfect people.
That's why Percy gets so angry. I'm more perplexed than angered at your ignorance and confusion. You're math-challenged, right? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
marc9000 writes: I largely feel lucky because I saw a tow truck driver not long ago with a 9mm strapped on his side. I also noticed anther guy in a restaurant similarly armed. I'm not that brave, but I admire people who are. They should know that they're more likely to be shot themselves, by a crook or by a policeman, who could claim they felt threatened because he was armed. But it's safe to say they wouldn't carry like that unless they were quite capable of confronting any nutcase who was to start shooting anywhere near them (or me, since I was close by). Since Kentucky open-carry permits only require a gun safety course and hitting a target 11 of 20 times, why would you think people openly carrying a firearm have any particularly special capabilities? They're just gun nuts like yourself who get a thrill from wearing a firearm on their hip out in the open. They're as likely to be the nutcase as anyone else. You didn't answer most of the questions. Why do you feel lucky? Do you feel lucky to be so totally uninformed about the gun debate and even math that those numbers didn't look a little funny to you? Do you feel lucky to be so completely clueless as to be unable to assess whether those arguments made any sense?
Do you feel lucky to be so lacking in judgment that you couldn't even formulate a response to my actual questions? There were questions in that message? I didn't notice anything more than an emotional rant. Yes, Marc, there were questions in that message. How do you know you won't be the next gun nut who goes off on a rampage? How do you know you'll never get angry or depressed or mentally ill or go postal or just get careless? If you have a gun in your pocket when you were wronged (perhaps you were fired, like Gary Martin at Henry Pratt Co. in Aurora, Illinois, who just last week murdered five fellow employees and injured five policemen), how do you know you won't pull that gun out? These are rhetorical questions. No one can make such guarantees. The roughly 24,000 gun-related suicides last year tells us that gun owners cannot guarantee they'll never become depressed, suicidal or mentally ill. Most gun owners don't act on their feelings, most that do only kill or injure themselves, but some commit murder/suicides, and some just murder others.
Let me do a little simple math for you. 1712 people divided by 0.00010256410256% is 1.6692 billion people. The population of the US isn't anywhere close to a billion, let along 1.6692 billion. Since doing the math yields an absurdly large population for the US, the percentage is clearly wrong, plus how it was calculated is not described. If you don't understand how it was calculated, why are you attempting to use it in a math calculation? You have a serious math comprehension issue. Obviously the number whose calculation was not described is the 1712 people. That the other calculation was of a proportion of the population of the US was obvious from context, and just as obviously wrong. If you could do math you'd see that.
Please tell us how they calculated the 0.000008564102564% figure. Garbage-in/garbage-out, Marc, and there's a lot of garbage in your figures. As I told one of your fixers, that was just a general way to show that the likelihood of being shot in the U.S. is very low, if a person is not part of a gang, doesn't commit a crime or is suicidal. The likelihood of being shot is much less in western countries that have fewer guns. Since you mention gangs again allow me to repeat that your figure of 80% of homicides being gang related is clearly wrong, and I cited correct information in Message 691 from the NATIONAL YOUTH GANG SURVEY ANALYSIS:
quote: Get that? 13%, not 80%.
What those figures generally show, no matter if they're the conservative figures or the liberal figures, (the actual truth is probably somewhere in the middle)... Anyone known to broadly accept "split the difference" solutions will simply be confronted with more and more outrageous propositions. I think you owe me $100. You think you owe me $0. Well, then let's just split the difference and you send me $50. Is the absurdity of your approach obvious now? You can choose your opinions, which in your case derive from your susceptibility to manipulation and your lack of critical thinking skills, but you can't choose your facts. There are not "conservative figures" and "liberal figures." There are figures that derive from hard and reliable data (such as 40,000 gun deaths last year), there are figures that are made up out of whole cloth (scuh as 80% of homicides are gang related), and there are figures in between (based upon varying amounts of truth). If you're not using figures derived from hard and reliable data then your arguments will rest on weak ground. Because your figures are simply made up your arguments are like wisps on the wind.
...is that there are really only two areas where gun crimes are increasing in the U.S. One is with gang violence, some of it because of ethnicity clashes (largely because of our porous southern border) and illegal drug turf wars (largely because of our porous southern border) and the other is from the mass shootings that have happened in only the past 10 years or so. You are correct (for the first time in this post) that gang violence is up, but you are dead wrong that mass shootings contribute significantly to the gun crime rate. Mass shootings get the bulk of the attention but are an insignificant contributor to the total number of gun crimes. Everyone is for border security, but how best to protect each particular section of border must be subject to study and analysis. We shouldn't just blindly build walls everywhere, only where they're the best solution. Building walls next to the Rio Grande, which is already a barrier, is particularly senseless. Perhaps you saw Stephen Miller (a Trump senior policy advisor, particularly on immigration) on Chris Wallace's show on Fox News this weekend where when challenged about his claims about drugs pouring across our border said that we can't know what we can't know and we can't catch what we can't catch. Here it is cued to the exact right spot, you only have to listen for about 50 seconds:
But what Stephen Miller is saying is that because we have insufficient data, because we don't know, therefore the Trump administration is justified in claiming that drugs and people are flowing across the border away from the legal points of entry. Of course the truth is that we have a very good idea where the drugs are entering because of statistical analyses by Trump's own U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics. As described by USA Today:
quote: So Stephen Miller is telling you we don't know where drugs are coming across the border, and the US Customs and Border Protection agency is telling you that we do, and they have the figures to show it. Who are you going to believe, Marc, the people with the figures or the Trump stooge who claims we can't know and therefore the truth is whatever he says it is?
Before telling us your theory perhaps you could first post a message with no incorrect figures or glaring math errors. Oh okay, I can do that. The following is from a policeman in Australia. I meant that you should post correct figures for your previous claim, not to make yet another claim full of incorrect figures. I see that Theodoric has already debunked it, so I won't respond to it. But I still would like you to post corrected figures and conclusions for your error-filled copy/paste in Message 683.
Sorry, I got this one from Facebook too,... No wonder you're so wrong again. Stop being a sucker for fake claims. Start getting your information from reliable sources. Fox News (their news, not their opinion makers) is a far more reliable source than BaselessBook.
May I give you my theory now? If your theory is based on the erroneous information you've provided so far, then no, please do not present your theory. When you're able to underpin your theory with data that is actually true then please go right ahead. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1055 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Yes, I realised that I made the same mistake as whoever made the original image in doing the percentages; so I was the one two orders of magnitude off.
Marc9000 pulled a random page of nonsense off the Internet and presented it unattributed. We've already given far too much attention to it. I disagree! I find things like this fascinating. I spent a while playing with the numbers to try and see what the 1,712 could possibly be referring to and got nothing, so I decided to try and find the original source to see if it would make anything clearer. It didn't. I found the original facebook image; and some internet forums discussing it, but none of it gives more context to the numbers. And I could find no one even venturing a hypothesis as to what 1,712 we'd been left with and how. The percentage thing is an easily comprehensible mistake, but I find it find it fascinating (and a little depressing) how widely this meme has been spread with so little questioning of this totally meaningless number in the middle of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
caffeine writes: Marc9000 pulled a random page of nonsense off the Internet and presented it unattributed. We've already given far too much attention to it. I disagree! I find things like this fascinating. I spent a while playing with the numbers to try and see what the 1,712 could possibly be referring to and got nothing, so I decided to try and find the original source to see if it would make anything clearer. Yeah, obviously you're right, I share the fascination else I wouldn't have spent any time on it, but I enjoy untangling honest mistakes more, and even when they're dishonest mistakes it feels like there's something missing if there's no explaining where they went wrong because they couldn't follow it. Sure, other people understand, but not the person who made the mistake in the first place, so they just go on believing what they believe. Ignorance and incomprehension are belief's impregnable defense. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Neither of your links said much of anything about armed robberies being up 44%. However, your first link said this;
quote: Wow! That sure proved the "Ed Chenel" link wrong, didn't it? Also from that link;
quote: So because they couldn't find it, that makes the claim probably false. Looks like your two links started with a conclusion and then did their best to make it fit. Your two links are just as biased as the "Ed Chenel" link. I also didn't see any exceptions taken to the original claim that there has been a "dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while they are at home. I'd rather live in the U.S. thank you very much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
The problem with people like marc, who think that Facebook is the source of all truth, is that it's like a Gish Gallop on steroids. And then there are those who think liberal atheist message boards are a source of truth, or have much of anything to do with mainstream thinking in the U.S.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Wait, I thought Facebook was liberal atheist....
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
It wouldn't have mattered if the source were Albert Einstein - the math was still wrong, the numbers were from nearly a decade ago, and there were errors of fact, such as that the numbers did not come from the CDC and 80% of homicides are not committed by gangs. No comments about the Australian numbers? Does a "dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while they are at home, sound comforting to you? So the link I showed made the claim, while Theodoric's links didn't really address it, I guess that makes it up to common sense to decide if that was a problem, when criminals are assured that law abiding homeowners don't have guns to protect themselves. If you don't believe that dramatic increase happened, then we just have to leave it there.
Casting unsupported aspersions at others doesn't make what you posted any less wrong. So it's "unsupported" that the NY Times is liberally biased? Uh oh, common sense difference number 2.
Passed on by your Russian handlers, no doubt. Uh, I guess you haven't heard, but sources other than the NY Times have pretty well concluded that the Trump-Russia collusion hoax is pretty well dead. You might want to consider not calling attention to it.
Now you're just not paying attention. I have stated before that guns are a people problem. To clarify, they're a people problem concerning about 1% of the population, not 100% of the population.
I'm more perplexed than angered at your ignorance and confusion. You're math-challenged, right? In the next message, we'll take a look at your history-challenged problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Ypu presented it as factual. I showed how it was a lie. You might want to look at current Australian crime figures. Robberies started dropping in 2001 and were below preban level by 2004 and have continued to drop ever since.
Here are all the official crime stats. Evidently you are incapable of doing your own research. Here they are prove me wrong. http://www.abs.gov.au/...017-18~Main%20Features~Australia~23
http://www.abs.gov.au/...0lower%20than%20a%20decade%20ago%20(Media%20Release)~1 Is Australia lying? Edited by Admin, : Fix link.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while they are at home
Then again you have no evidence that this is true do you?
If you don't believe that dramatic increase happened, then we just have to leave it there.
We believe in factual data. If you can provide a source that provides data that affirms this we will believe it. Alas, you cannot do this can you? Edited by Theodoric, : Extra wordsFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024