Victim disarmament zones

[aowen]

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

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.

No, I presented statistics and evidence to contribute to my argument for stricter gun laws. Then you assumed that I believed this evidence alone justified making a causal link, and that I had no logic to apply to how that link is made. If you actually wanted to have a debate about it, you would have never even started talking about correlation/causation, and demonstrated how this statistics are not indicative of a causal link, rather than act like an idiot, and start talking about Russia, China, and then rehashing shit about welfare from a different forum.

[Hasbinbad]

pbs made possible by viewers liek u

[aowen]

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

I'd give my left nut to not have to pay a trillion fucking dollars for the right to broadcast a show not full of propaganda on a not state owned fucking TV system.

Though What you say makes sense. Its the socialist way of doing it. Can't say its bad. But its not great either.

I take it anything like PBS is illegal in the UK. I learned a lot from PBS as a kid.

The BBC is chartered by the government and is primarily funded by this fee, as it is a public service network, and was originally created to deliver impartial information to the public, but has obviously expanded into other programming. It is basically the British equivalent of PBS, so why would something like PBS be illegal? It similarly has children's programming. They have plenty of other stations, channel 4 being the second largest there, which is privately owned and has commercials.

[runlvlzero]

PBS is an opt in system.

[runlvlzero]

And less government controlled. Except by the FCC. So the British just combine the FCC with their PBS's and make it mandatory.

From what I can tell. That is less free still.

[runlvlzero]

Anyway my arguments still stand IMO. I don't want to copy 'gun free places' I don't like how they do their business in Britain. I've listed to many British commoners talk about their country. And while its certainly not a hell hole. Shit like self defense is a major problem there. Even when it doest' involve guns.

Not the slippery slope I want to be slippery slidin.

[Orruar]

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

No, I presented statistics and evidence to contribute to my argument for stricter gun laws. Then you assumed that I believed this evidence alone justified making a causal link, and that I had no logic to apply to how that link is made. If you actually wanted to have a debate about it, you would have never even started talking about correlation/causation, and demonstrated how this statistics are not indicative of a causal link, rather than act like an idiot, and start talking about Russia, China, and then rehashing shit about welfare from a different forum.

I was talking about correlation/causation because that is all about showing how your statistics don't show any kind of causal link. I even gave an example of how causation could be the reverse of what you believe (people who live in countries with less crime feel less of a need for a right to carry weapons).

[aowen]

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

And less government controlled. Except by the FCC. So the British just combine the FCC with their PBS's and make it mandatory.

From what I can tell. That is less free still.

Actually, the BBC is quite autonomous now, but kind of lumps all public broadcasting into 1 place. I think you have a bigger option in the case of the BBC, as PBS is funded through tax (aside from the ways it generates other revenues, similar to what the BBC does). Tax is mandatory, whereas the license is only mandatory if you want to own a TV and watch broadcasted television. I suppose the only problem with this is that you can't watch stations that don't receive any benefit from the license fee. However, BBC broadcasting there has many of the good shows, plus no ads, so everyone watches it.

[Hasbinbad]

wait, you're making relative judgements based on what is more or less "free" and then brag about not sliding on slippery slopes?

[Vadd]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

God bless the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution