Making overall inferences about a policy from one single incident? I'll agree that you're wrong.
In fact, since we need at least 3 samples to calculate an error rate, you're so wrong that it's mathematically impossible to quantify how wrong you are.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Las Vegas Shooting
- Thread starter Onyx
- Start date
In fact, since we need at least 3 samples to calculate an error rate, you're so wrong that it's mathematically impossible to quantify how wrong you are.
Making overall inferences about a policy from one single incident? I'll agree that you're wrong.
In fact, since we need at least 3 samples to calculate an error rate, you're so wrong that it's mathematically impossible to quantify how wrong you are.
That wasn't the point. You said it was misleading, and it wasn't. The link was provided and anyone could have checked it. If you think that the source is faulty or the data incorrect, then that's different. But you haven't shown that it is "wrong."
Are you just playing around, or are you being serious here?
It wouldn't be so simple as that. There are already millions of guns out there.
Also, on the other issue about population, Canada has a much smaller population to manage. Cities are smaller. No ghettos I know of. I don't know how poverty compares, but I'm sure you're in better shape with better social services and healthcare.
Again, the better explanation is economic, not just the simplistic argument that "guns exist," as if that should settle it. It doesn't. The issue is far more complex than you're making it out to be.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
They found materials to build bombs in his indirect possession. He could have easily gotten more than 50 with those.
The point is, there are a lot of ways to kill people. The problem isn't the choice of weapon, there will always be more weapons. Gun control is using a band-aid on a heart condition.
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
I agree banning anything does not work, it just creates a worse, more dangerous black market with no controls.
Any approach to sensible gun control is inhibited in America, as it is saturated with firearms already, making it almost impossible to control - the genie is out of the bottle. This means criminals have unlimited access to almost any firearm. This gives credence to the argument for self defense. Coupled with an American culture of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, frontier cowboys, zombies and gangster movies, fostering the concept that the only way to solve a problem is with a bullet. But as one officer said "Its not the criminals to worry about, they just want your money rather than kill you, its the crazies out there you have to worry about they just want to kill you indiscriminately because its fun!"
It is a management of risk problem.
Many people would love to jump in a helicopter and fly like bird, hover like a dragon fly and land where ever it looked good but wanting and doing are to different things. As a commercial pilot I have to jump through a lot of hoops before I get to play with a multi million dollar ton of jet turbine powered, people carrying, helicopter.
That's because it requires a certain set of skills and aptitude to fly these things safely which if mishandled can lead to very lethal conclusions.
Surely a system can be implemented along the lines of a tiered approval system. So if you a tired of your .22cal peashooter and want to play with a 50Cal you can do it, but you have to prove a genuine interest, have Police Check, national criminal check, medical certificate, join a club where amongst peers you are continually assessed by each other, regular meets and competition attendance, weapons safely secured at club premises rather than members homes. A gun license with different categories which can only be obtained after careful safety assessment and training, basically being harder to obtain an endorsement, the more dangerous the weapon, with a closer watch at each level. Then to gradually educate the public, reduce the paranoia, reduce the number of guns in circulation with amnesties and buy backs.
In Australia we have had several amnesties and buy backs where weapons are handed into the police for cash at market value and then crushed and destroyed. This process has pulled 100s of thousands of guns from circulation here. *It doesn't cure the problem but certainly reduced gun deaths generally. This was triggered by our last mass murder by Martin Bryant at Port Arthur Tasmania April 28, 1996, 35 killed. And since "the draconian federal anti gun legislation" was introduced shortly after by PM John Howard and in the 7827 days since, there has not been a single repeat of this type of incident here.
Finally from my reading of the 2nd Amendment it allows individual state authorised militias to hold arms against the threat of a nasty Federal Government in order to maintain state autonomy, but this was in response to the political situation centuries past and hardly has relevance today.and NO WHERE does it mention OR imply, any right for any citizen individually to own arms.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
ie the states can have armed authorised peoples militia does not imply all the people should own arms, otherwise why the need of the first two phrases. Why not just say "It is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" without qualifying it.
Cheers
Any approach to sensible gun control is inhibited in America, as it is saturated with firearms already, making it almost impossible to control - the genie is out of the bottle. This means criminals have unlimited access to almost any firearm. This gives credence to the argument for self defense. Coupled with an American culture of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, frontier cowboys, zombies and gangster movies, fostering the concept that the only way to solve a problem is with a bullet. But as one officer said "Its not the criminals to worry about, they just want your money rather than kill you, its the crazies out there you have to worry about they just want to kill you indiscriminately because its fun!"
It is a management of risk problem.
Many people would love to jump in a helicopter and fly like bird, hover like a dragon fly and land where ever it looked good but wanting and doing are to different things. As a commercial pilot I have to jump through a lot of hoops before I get to play with a multi million dollar ton of jet turbine powered, people carrying, helicopter.
That's because it requires a certain set of skills and aptitude to fly these things safely which if mishandled can lead to very lethal conclusions.
Surely a system can be implemented along the lines of a tiered approval system. So if you a tired of your .22cal peashooter and want to play with a 50Cal you can do it, but you have to prove a genuine interest, have Police Check, national criminal check, medical certificate, join a club where amongst peers you are continually assessed by each other, regular meets and competition attendance, weapons safely secured at club premises rather than members homes. A gun license with different categories which can only be obtained after careful safety assessment and training, basically being harder to obtain an endorsement, the more dangerous the weapon, with a closer watch at each level. Then to gradually educate the public, reduce the paranoia, reduce the number of guns in circulation with amnesties and buy backs.
In Australia we have had several amnesties and buy backs where weapons are handed into the police for cash at market value and then crushed and destroyed. This process has pulled 100s of thousands of guns from circulation here. *It doesn't cure the problem but certainly reduced gun deaths generally. This was triggered by our last mass murder by Martin Bryant at Port Arthur Tasmania April 28, 1996, 35 killed. And since "the draconian federal anti gun legislation" was introduced shortly after by PM John Howard and in the 7827 days since, there has not been a single repeat of this type of incident here.
Finally from my reading of the 2nd Amendment it allows individual state authorised militias to hold arms against the threat of a nasty Federal Government in order to maintain state autonomy, but this was in response to the political situation centuries past and hardly has relevance today.and NO WHERE does it mention OR imply, any right for any citizen individually to own arms.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
ie the states can have armed authorised peoples militia does not imply all the people should own arms, otherwise why the need of the first two phrases. Why not just say "It is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" without qualifying it.
Cheers
That can be addresed too. For example, Australia used a buy-back program when it got rid of semi-auto rifles: basically, they gave gun owners a grace period and cash for banned guns that were turned in, and then after the grace period, it became illegal to possess those guns.
Irrelevant to the point I was making.
It almost seems like you're trying to pull the conversation away from the topic at hand.
No, it really isn't. And I haven't been making the solutions out to be simple, just that America's gun problems aren't insurmountable.
I'm making a serious point.
Let me put it this way: the stats for Montserrat were from 2012, which was the one year in recent memory that Montserrat has had a murder. Since then, there have been no murders at all on the island. Does this mean that their gun control policy has been working perfectly for the past 4 years? Does it mean that US law should follow Montserrat's example?
After all, your argument before was that because their murder rate was "high", their gun control policy wasn't working and therefore bad. Now that their murder rate is as low as is humanly possible, it stands to reason that their policy is as good as we could possibly get, right?
(Of course, neither conclusion is rational. I'm hoping that when you see your "logic" applied against your position, you'll realize that it was wrong when you used it)
Whichever officer said that, I think it demonstrates an attitude which is totally wrong and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the problem at hand. These "crazies" are not out for fun. They're lashing out and striking back against a society that (they believe) has wronged them. A society which treats people as commodities whom they chew up and spit out and expect them to "deal with it." If that's how our society wants to be, then we have to expect these things to happen every so often. It's a consequence of cause and effect. If we really want to be tough like John Wayne or Clint Eastwood, then we shouldn't run around afraid of a bloody nose.
They've had voluntary buy-back programs here, too.
No, I'm not. What is the point you are making? Your point seems to be that the only reason for criminal violence is because "guns exist" and nothing else. My statement is not irrelevant because it points up other possible explanations for criminal violence and why there might be more crime in America than in Canada.
You keep citing Canada and Australia as some kind of "paragons of virtue" and that we evil and violent Americans should do what those countries did. That's the point you're making here, and that's the point I was addressing. Not irrelevant.
We have much bigger problems (mostly economic) which should take a higher priority. The premise of your argument is putting the cart before the horse.
The thing is, you're making far too much of an issue over what was essentially an afterthought and a side point. It really had very little to do with the overall argument I was making. I was just noting it "for the record," but you've been reading far too much into it.
With all due respect, I don't believe you're in any position to presume to lecture me on "logic."
The whole point of a buy-back program is to take guns that have been banned out of circulation. It defeats the whole purpose if you have a buy-back without a ban.
That isn't my point, and I'm starting to get fed up with you continually strawmanning what I'm saying.
I understand that. I'm saying that this was irrelevant to the point we were talking about: whether American police would be able to enforce gun control laws. Just because Brazil or Mexico - countries with deep societal problems and relatively low budgets for policing - have problems in this department doesn't mean that America would, especially when we can look around the world and find comparable (and before you go off on another tangent: not identical, just comparable) countries that do a generally good job of enforcing sometimes very strict gun control laws, even those - such as Canada - that have relatively porous borders with countries where guns are easily obtainable.
They're not paragons of virtue; they're just examples of countries that have done what you keep insinuating is impossible.
I'd be interested to find out what argument you think I'm making.
I understand that you believe this.
You're fed up? I'm sorry if you think I'm "strawmanning" what you're saying, but perhaps if you'd state your own position with better clarity, rather than concentrating so heavily on insisting that I'm "wrong," then maybe our discussion could be more productive and amicable. The inordinate amount of time you spent on Montserrat while ignoring 99% of everything else I wrote gives me cause to wonder.
We have deep societal problems here in America, too. We have problems with our police departments. Haven't you noticed? We have social and economic problems; a population ten times the size of Canada or Australia. We have massive poverty, probably far more than is generally known or reported. Apart from that, we have large segments of the population who are quite angry, disaffected, and angst-ridden.
But you're just focusing on the process, not the goal. The goal here is to reduce criminal violence, correct? We're talking about a very complex issue, one that can't be easily solved with simple "feel good" solutions. The "gun control" solution is too narrow-minded and is indicative of tunnelvision.
Why should I? You've already expressed your irritation with my "strawmanning," but in all honesty, it's not intentional.
Is there some reason you feel the need to be so condescending?
- I'm under no obligation to respond to everything you post.
- it's not useful to go off on a long discussion based on a set of premises when we don't agree on the premises.
- if you mean "productive" in terms of convincing you, then you should know that this isn't my goal. You seem pretty set in your position; my goal is to convince other people reading the thread.
As for strawmanning, you gave a new example just now by trying to twist my point that Mexico and Brazil have relevant societal issues that the US doesn't share into a claim that the US has no societal issues. I didn't say anything like what you implied I did.
You don't have the corruption rampant in the Mexican police and your police chiefs don't get beheaded when they try to enforce the law. Your issues are different enough for me to believe that American police would be much more effective at enforcing gun control laws than the police in the developing world are.
... who you think should have easy access to deadly weapons.
Not entirely. The goal is to reduce all gun deaths. Murder is awful, of course, but the problem of gun deaths in the United States is mostly about suicide, mostly using handguns.
Banning semi-auto rifles makes sense, and banning devices that make semi-auto rifles effectively like full-auto rifles makes even more sense, but until we talk about major restrictions on who can own a handgun and how and where they're carried and stored, we're really just dancing around the edges of the gun problem.
Why's that?
Frankly, it seems like you're operating with some misconceptions of what I'm trying to say, and this is leading to you "reading between the lines" by inferring things you think I mean but don't. You saying what you think my argument is would help to clear up confusion.
But if you don't want to do that, you could also avoid confusion by just responding to what I actually say and not what you assume I mean.
Frustration, mainly.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I watched a BBC presenter interviewing the Director of a Californian gun association.
This poor sad belaboured director just hung on hopefully to the old old stories, about how the villains will always be able to get guns, how folks need to be able to protect their homes..... blah blah blah. So many guns out there that nothing can be done. Sad sad sad......
If 1000 lives had been lost it would be the same old story. Here is another:-
This is the price of Freedom!
Can you believe that?
For us in the UK the handgun ban was all about the value of children's lives, first and foremost. We talk about values here, not costs, it would seem.
If folks need so desperately to protect their homes then by all means issue 'em with a handgun or two, but they would be banned from taking them beyond their own borders without good reason. We allow that in parts of our country as well.
But no civilian, not one, needs a semi-automatic assault rifle for any reason. There is no reason for them. Clear 'em all out and melt 'em down, and then, after the amnesty, put anybody found with one on hard labour for 5-10 years. How about that? You see, it's all about the value of the lives of innocents.
This poor sad belaboured director just hung on hopefully to the old old stories, about how the villains will always be able to get guns, how folks need to be able to protect their homes..... blah blah blah. So many guns out there that nothing can be done. Sad sad sad......
If 1000 lives had been lost it would be the same old story. Here is another:-
This is the price of Freedom!
Can you believe that?
For us in the UK the handgun ban was all about the value of children's lives, first and foremost. We talk about values here, not costs, it would seem.
If folks need so desperately to protect their homes then by all means issue 'em with a handgun or two, but they would be banned from taking them beyond their own borders without good reason. We allow that in parts of our country as well.
But no civilian, not one, needs a semi-automatic assault rifle for any reason. There is no reason for them. Clear 'em all out and melt 'em down, and then, after the amnesty, put anybody found with one on hard labour for 5-10 years. How about that? You see, it's all about the value of the lives of innocents.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Could you explain that to me? The Founding Fathers didn't rely on Christian ideology when declaring war/independence, and certainly did not include it in the Constitution. We do however find traces of various Enlightenment thinkers, with Jefferson having practically plagiarized John Locke at points. Thomas Paine even wrote about even nature saying the time has come for American independence from England.
Fishing and hunting are rights in Indiana. You still have to get your license and stamps though. And it is a right in this state because the citizens voted to amend the state constitution to include those things as rights, not because of the philosophical implications of natural law and consent of the governed and social contracts.
Probably they know it's a gesture in the desired direction, just as they know silencers don't give guns the "pew pew" sound Hollywood gives them and their actually much louder than that and have more a "bang" instead of a "boom."
Dang, someone sure wears a tight government held leash.
I never said tou were, but I was just trying to help clarify things. You're the one who said you were "fed up."
You need not interact with anyone to do that, if that's your goal.
Well, again you're reading too much into what I say.
Different issues, but the problems still exist.
Now who's strawmanning?
Suicide is another issue. We were talking about violent murder.
Perhapd, but by focusing on guns alone, we're missing the forest through the trees. A gun is just a tool, an inanimate object. Both sides are dancing around the edge of problems they're in denial about. There are deeper problems, but you refuse to discuss them and incorrectly assume it's "irrelevant" or"going off on a tangent."
I explained in the parts you claim to be tangents and that you're under no obligation to respond to.
Problems that would make enforcement of American gun control laws as ineffective as Mexican enforcement of their gun control laws?
There's no straw man AFAICT. You're arguing against stricter rules than the status quo, right?
I can't say what you're talking about, but I've been talking about firearm deaths across the board.
Exactly who do you think has been saying we should focus on guns alone?