Victim disarmament zones

[runlvlzero]

Originally Posted by Ryba [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They won't get it. This is still too subtle to get past the fetal alcohol damage. Fortunately, these people are easily flown over. Plus they don't realize their votes go to a party that has forsaken them in all but the most superficial issues.

EQ is a game. MQ is a program designed to cheat at said game. All players in the game agree to play by the same rules in order to not have cheating. One group of those players isn't permitted by some rule to have guns (military, police), while the rest are not.

You are making an illogical and irrational comparison between two different topics of contention. While analogous. They have no connection to each other.

We already have a well established right to bear arms that has been steadily eroded. And from the days that it was completely unregulated we didn't see any more tragedy than we do now.

We just see more tragedy per capita and guns happen to be what the media pays attention to. Rather than many other tragic deaths happening all the time.

One also is ignoring the philosophical right we who wish to bear arms bring to the table. That the purpose is not to cheat at the games, or to use them wantonly to maintain an edge on another group that is using them. Just that we have the right to have them and use them as we see fit. We see this in laws like the "castle doctrine".

Get off your self righteous high horse. You are fighting a fight for a group of people that really do want to see you powerless and helpless. They would be more than happy to sacrifice your life for a bit of extra "security" in their mind. Virtual security. Security that cannot even truly be ensured through the use of their own force.

Eliminating guns through laws will not make our society a freer, safer, happier society. It will just be one more nail in the coffin of America. Its a virtual meta safety. If you cant understand this. You truly have never been in a situation of powerlessness. I'm telling you right now. That if you allow this slippery slope to proceed just for good warm feelings that someone else told you so. You will result in shit like the holocost 2.0

[runlvlzero]

I also never have personally met a victim of violence that believes guns are evil or that removing them from our society would benefit us as a whole. Or making them illegal. Not a single survivor that I know of.

[Skittlez]

If America didn't have all the people that love their guns, the Russians and the Chinese would have invaded.

[runlvlzero]

Nah, we'd have even worse laws, Verizon would be your only internet provider. Linux would be illegal. Banks wouldn't need bailouts (they'd just right off their debt), and hunting big game would be a bitch.

Well, we'd probably be ruled by someone more like the late Hugo Chávez.

[runlvlzero]

Or we'd be British. And god knows that country has its own F'd up problems.

[Elmarnieh]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nice! Bet you can't wait to turn that burglary into a homicide. Hope you win the shootout

Eighty percent of defensive uses of firearms do not involve firing said firearm. Eighty percent of the remaining do not cause a fatality. So given that 4% of DGU's result in a fatality why would you say homicide (and it would be a legally valid use of force in all 50 states and therefore not a homicide).

[Ryba]

Originally Posted by runlvlzero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

EQ is a game. MQ is a program designed to cheat at said game. All players in the game agree to play by the same rules in order to not have cheating. One group of those players isn't permitted by some rule to have guns (military, police), while the rest are not.

You are making an illogical and irrational comparison between two different topics of contention. While analogous. They have no connection to each other.

We already have a well established right to bear arms that has been steadily eroded. And from the days that it was completely unregulated we didn't see any more tragedy than we do now.

We just see more tragedy per capita and guns happen to be what the media pays attention to. Rather than many other tragic deaths happening all the time.

One also is ignoring the philosophical right we who wish to bear arms bring to the table. That the purpose is not to cheat at the games, or to use them wantonly to maintain an edge on another group that is using them. Just that we have the right to have them and use them as we see fit. We see this in laws like the "castle doctrine".

Get off your self righteous high horse. You are fighting a fight for a group of people that really do want to see you powerless and helpless. They would be more than happy to sacrifice your life for a bit of extra "security" in their mind. Virtual security. Security that cannot even truly be ensured through the use of their own force.

Eliminating guns through laws will not make our society a freer, safer, happier society. It will just be one more nail in the coffin of America. Its a virtual meta safety. If you cant understand this. You truly have never been in a situation of powerlessness. I'm telling you right now. That if you allow this slippery slope to proceed just for good warm feelings that someone else told you so. You will result in shit like the holocost 2.0

Strawman much? Why do gun proponents equate gun control with getting rid of all the guns? Who said I trust the government to protect me? Alcohol is a regulated substance...does that mean we are on a "slippery slope" to being a dry nation?

I own a 12 gauge shotgun, two high powered rifles, a .22 for groundhogs, a .357 revolver for home defense, a .22 rimfire pistol and a black powder rifle. Yet I have no fear of gun control laws that make it nigh impossible to own ANTI-PERSONNEL WEAPONS. You don't need to have these and you can't make a convincing argument for them.

If you are about to say that all of the guns I own can kill people, you still don't get my position. It is the difference between getting into a fight in 5th grade vs. getting into a fight with a bouncer. The 5th grade bully might blacken your eye, but the bouncer might permanently change your anatomy. If that analogy isn't clear, let me bludgeon you with it: you are not entitled to easy and cheap access to the latest and greatest killing tools. There is a difference of degree that should not be glossed over.

You pay taxes? Wouldn't you rather not? But you do it, because it is better for everyone if people cooperate in this way (you hope), and because you face legal consequences if you don't. Taxes are membership dues and an example of enabling certain freedoms by compromising others. You don't get to keep all of your IHOP paycheck because someone has to maintain the roads for your piece of shit Impala. Similarly, you don't get to have any gun/gun accessory you want. No matter how responsible you think you are, that is still one more lethal weapon added to the system. What happens if you die, or sell your BFG 9000? Maybe YOU were a responsible owner, but is the next guy? And the guy after that? It is perfectly equivalent to firing a gun without knowing what lies downfield.

Should there be no regulations on who can refine uranium? What if I have my own uranium mine and centrifuge? Many things stop being your "right" when they interfere with the public good. There are firearm/cartridge/magazine combinations that cross this line, as well as paths to gun possession that dodge this line. How anyone could advocate less restriction in these matters is boggling.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by aowen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh I see what you're saying. Research is meaningless because it is impossible to determine if it is actually a cause or not, so better to just rely on your superior logic that supersedes evidence alluding to the PROBABILITY that something is causal. Since no facts concerning social issues can ever be scientifically proved causal, we should ignore everything else and concentrate solely on rational argument, never knowing if our linear logic actually is correct. Anyone failing to recognize this is a confused member of the ignorant masses and a mental dwarf.incspable of sound reasoning. Or they are attempting to manipulate all the people that you're so much smarter than. Therefore, any claims ranging from carbon dioxide emissions in part being the cause of global warming, to an increase in sales due to marketing campaigns are bogus because the data supporting them is all correlation disguised as causation.

This is why conservatives and the religious are confidently ignorant, they believe they don't need information, and that their sophisticated logic structures founded on nothing resembling reality stand proudly in the face of information and days analysis.

Again, as I have said before, statistical correlation is not meaningless. But it isn't an end product of causation that can be presented as a complete argument. It can only be used as evidence to help guide us toward fruitful lines of reasoning. We need an underlying logical framework to then help us find the causal links and deliver the proof necessary to believe we understand the relationship. You say the religious are confidently ignorant (something I won't deny), but you don't realize that by holding statistical analysis up to such a high regard, you have just as much ignorant belief as any religious person.

Your examples (CO2 -> global warming, marketing -> increased sales) show just how little you understand. We don't believe there's a link between CO2 and global warming because of the statistics alone. We believe it because we have done experiments that show CO2 traps heat. Marketing was not invented because of some statistical analysis that showed it works. It was invented because people had the logical notion that if they informed people about their product, more people would buy their product. Not exactly a giant leap of logic. Also, that particular example is far more conducive to statistical tests that come close to showing causation (there are assumptions behind those tests that are valid in that example).

It's like if we were having a debate about the best way to travel of 100 miles. One person says ride a donkey, another says ride a horse, and you say use 2 tons of steel and 4 gallons of gasoline, without ever turning those products into a car. You might be on the path to the right answer, but without development, it's the worst answer. And when you come back and say "I'm the only one showing statistics", it's like saying "but I'm using modern materials and the others are just riding animals". It doesn't make you any more right.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Ryba [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why rehash freshman philosophy? Correlation is a necessary but insufficient condition in determining causation. Causality is never entailed from statistical correlation.

But to jump from that to "all statistics should be ignored" is fucking retarded. Statistical significance tests applied to well-done research can provide useful information and suggest high confidence that a factor being examined is a direct cause.

Understanding this is the difference between being tricked by numbers, or worse yet, so confused by them that you give up and cower in ignorance with your guns, versus actually adjusting your beliefs in the light of new information.

I assume this post is directed at me. I suggest you read more than 1 page of this discussion before forming such a strong opinion on the matter. I never said all statistics should be ignored, on multiple occasions. In some instances, causal links can nearly be established with statistics alone (though not in the case of gun laws -> violent crime, as it violates many of the assumptions behind the tests). All we ever can observe in this universe is correlation, and yet we have determined causation for a great many things. But this requires something extra. Aowen presented statistics as if that alone was enough to show causation.

Also, I don't own guns, and think our laws are probably too loose, though I don't really care one way or the other since gun violence is such a small concern.

[Rellapse34]

.