2nd Amendment

Duck and cover
User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:58 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Xouper: you refuse to predict: "dishonest/manipulative/whatever else I said"

Contrary to your uncivil accusation, it is not dishonest of me to refuse to make a prediction I am not qualified to make.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Last stat I heard was that Homicide by Guns rate in the Western Democracies was 1/20th the rate it is in the USA. We can quibble, but do you argue the USA Rate is not multiples higher than comparable societies?

Depends on which countries you compare. There are other Western Democracies that have fewer guns and much higher homicide rates than the US, as I have pointed out numerous times on this forum. Not only is there not a correlation between homicide rates and number of guns, but if there were such a correlation, it is not evidence of any causation. That's statistics 101: Correlation does not imply causation. The casual factors appear to be cultural, not the number of guns.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:OH....I see that is exactly what you do do. Yes, Britains homicide rate went down on the ban, but then (inexplicable) went back up. but it only went back up to its 1/20th the rate of USA homicide.

You have that backwards, but whatever. In fact, the homicide rate rose to double what it was before the ban. Also, Britain's homicide rate was already lower than the US before the handgun ban of 1997, thus destroying the conclusion you are trying to make.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:01 pm

xouper wrote:Elliot Rodger killed three people with a gun and three people with a knife.


as we discussed (and agreed) in another post - knifes are generally more heavily regulated than guns - so whatever point you were trying to make with this is moot.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:09 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:Elliot Rodger killed three people with a gun and three people with a knife.

as we discussed (and agreed) in another post - knifes are generally more heavily regulated than guns - so whatever point you were trying to make with this is moot.

Go back and read the context I made that comment. It is not moot. It was directly on point to JO's question. My point is that taking away guns will not stop people killing with knives. That point is not moot. My point is that the problem is not the choice of weapon, the problem is the person doing the killing. That point is not moot.

Also, I do not recall agreeing that knives are more heavily regulated than guns. Example: No one needs to pass a background check to buy a knife. Another example: Manufacturing knives does not require a federal license.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:12 pm

xouper wrote:In all the other countries that implemented a major gun ban, the homicide rates went up.


Such az?

You already know I have addressed that point many times before,


Addressed az in ignored the rebutl.

My owning a gun did not cause anyone to kill themselves.


Yes it did. But the consept seemz to be beyond your ability to understand, so I will stop trying.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:42 pm

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:In all the other countries that implemented a major gun ban, the homicide rates went up.

Such az?

Come on, JO, I have already told you more than once. For example, in Britain, according to official government data, homicide rates were higher in the ten years after the ban.

Image

How many times have I posted that graph now? Four? Five? How many more times do I need to post it before you stop asking questions I have already answered?

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:You already know I have addressed that point many times before,

Addressed az in ignored the rebutl.

There was no valid rebuttal. The point is you falsely accused me of "forgetting", when the evidence is clear on this forum elsewhere that I have not forgotten about suicides, etc. Just because you don't like my previous answers on this point does not mean I have never addressed them. Come on, JO, even you know better than to make that kind of faulty accusation.

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:My owning a gun did not cause anyone to kill themselves.

Yes it did.

:roll: Your argument would never hold up in a court of law for the simple reason that it is totally specious. I fully comprehend the arguments you have made in the past on this point, but they are simply wrong by any measure of logic.

JO 753 wrote:But the consept seemz to be beyond your ability to understand, so I will stop trying.

I could accuse you of the same thing, JO. I will stack my cognitive abilities against yours any day in any kind of objective scientific evaluation done by qualified experts and I will win by a landslide. Let's not stoop to this level of gutter snipe, OK?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Dec 04, 2015 2:25 pm

xouper wrote:
Also, I do not recall agreeing that knives are more heavily regulated than guns. Example: No one needs to pass a background check to buy a knife. Another example: Manufacturing knives does not require a federal license.


you don't need special permission for knives, because it is illegal to even make especially lethal ones. There are all kinds of restrictions on blade size, only one side being sharp and a total ban on spring-loaded knives.

The equivalent would be to sell guns freely, but only allow the production of small-magazine handguns.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11042
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 04, 2015 3:33 pm

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:OH....I see that is exactly what you do do. Yes, Britains homicide rate went down on the ban, but then (inexplicable) went back up. but it only went back up to its 1/20th the rate of USA homicide.

You have that backwards, but whatever. In fact, the homicide rate rose to double what it was before the ban. Also, Britain's homicide rate was already lower than the US before the handgun ban of 1997, thus destroying the conclusion you are trying to make.

If you read the bottom of your posted chart you see it does NOT SHOW THE MURDER BY FIREARM RATE in the UK. Its that plus "Firearm Offenses and Intimate Violence."
I don't know, but assume that if you ban firearms you are going to get a whole bunch of firearm offenses as guns are taken from the populace? I don't know about the Brits, but wifey and I try to have Intimate Violence as often as we can.

Here is an actual homicide report not designed to mislead and be trumpted by Gun Nuts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

It shows UK homicide from guns at 1/70th the rate of USA. So....you are right that I was wrong to point out it was only 1/20th. I was off by a factor of 350%. The point I was making?: that fewer guns equals fewer deaths from guns as common sense would assume absent other factors.

So.......you are proven wrong as your data is incompetent and on point data is overwhelming. You will of course go hysterically blind and post the same chart with the same argument next time.....like within 24 hours if the trend holds up.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:27 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:OH....I see that is exactly what you do do. Yes, Britains homicide rate went down on the ban, but then (inexplicable) went back up. but it only went back up to its 1/20th the rate of USA homicide.

You have that backwards, but whatever. In fact, the homicide rate rose to double what it was before the ban. Also, Britain's homicide rate was already lower than the US before the handgun ban of 1997, thus destroying the conclusion you are trying to make.

If you read the bottom of your posted chart you see it does NOT SHOW THE MURDER BY FIREARM RATE in the UK. Its that plus "Firearm Offenses and Intimate Violence."

You have mistaken the title of the source document for the data in the graph. If you had actually read the document, it explains that the data in the graph is indeed for homicides. The link is right there in the graph.

Here is a direct link to the pdf of that document:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf

I posted about this before. Before I even posted that graph for the first time on this forum, I had verified the graph by using the raw data from the document (table 1.01) and plotting my own graph, and my graph looks the same as the one in my earlier post. Anyone can do the same using the official British government data in table 1.01 of that document.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Here is an actual homicide report not designed to mislead and be trumpted by Gun Nuts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

It shows UK homicide from guns at 1/70th the rate of USA. So....you are right that I was wrong to point out it was only 1/20th. I was off by a factor of 350%. The point I was making?: that fewer guns equals fewer deaths from guns as common sense would assume absent other factors.

There are several errors in your argument.

1. Correlation does not imply causation. Those "other factors" are clearly not absent, and in fact are the driving factors, not the number of guns as you claim.

2. To evaluate the effectiveness of a gun ban, in order to control for the effect of those "other factors", one must look at the statistics before and after the ban within the same country. It is not valid to compare the before and after numbers to other countries in evaluating the effectiveness of a gun ban, precisely because of those "other factors".

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:35 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:Also, I do not recall agreeing that knives are more heavily regulated than guns. Example: No one needs to pass a background check to buy a knife. Another example: Manufacturing knives does not require a federal license.

you don't need special permission for knives, because it is illegal to even make especially lethal ones. There are all kinds of restrictions on blade size, only one side being sharp and a total ban on spring-loaded knives.

The equivalent would be to sell guns freely, but only allow the production of small-magazine handguns.

You have not (yet) made your case that knives are more heavily regulated than guns. Perhaps a certain small subset of knives are more regulated than other knives, but the same applies to guns. You need to do more than merely cherry pick a few examples. Overall, I remain skeptical that knives (all knives) are more regulated than guns (all guns). It's possible you are correct, but I have yet to see sufficient evidence that supports your claim.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11042
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:56 pm

"the data in the graph is indeed for homicides." /// Yep===NOT EXCLUSIVELY BY GUN. Making your chart completely irrelevant. Chart includes bombings, ferry boat drownings, hitting, kicking, strangulation, and sharp objects. (Pg 18 of pdf)

"1. Correlation does not imply causation. " ...//// YOU use correlation to prove your position but complain when others use the same. Correlation does imply causation, its just not proof of causation. Its consistent you should get this element of common sense incorrect.


2. To evaluate the effectiveness of a gun ban, ...." //// As stated, gun bans will take decades to become effective given the number of guns we have. Silly to think a problem that grows over generations will be cleaned up in just a few years.

Dishonest.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:59 pm

Had an idea wile driving around today.

Sins gun nuts like to compare gunz to carz based only on comperable yearly fatalityz, then the same lawz for carz shoud apply to gunz. Speed limits, for example. A ticket woud be issued for exeeding the 25mph rezidential limit, for example, and the fine woud be based on how much over.

Bullets go sumwhere around 700 mph, thats 675 over, soooo. hmmm. 50$ for every 10mph = 3375$ for firing a bullet in your driveway.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 05, 2015 12:54 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:the data in the graph is indeed for homicides.

Yep===NOT EXCLUSIVELY BY GUN.

I never claimed otherwise.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Making your chart completely irrelevant.

On what basis do you claim complete irrelevancy?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:1. Correlation does not imply causation.

YOU use correlation to prove your position

I have never used a correlation as evidence of causation. I have always argued the opposite.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Correlation does imply causation,

Wrong. Correlation does not imply causation. I have posted extensive evidence of that elsewhere on this forum.

Here's an introduction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:its just not proof of causation.

It is neither proof, nor evidence, nor implication. A correlation by itself says absolutely nothing about any hypothesized cause.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Its consistent you should get this element of common sense incorrect.

Perhaps you should stop accusing others of getting things wrong when the plain fact is YOU got it wrong, as any professional statistician can tell you.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:2. To evaluate the effectiveness of a gun ban, ....

As stated, gun bans will take decades to become effective given the number of guns we have. Silly to think a problem that grows over generations will be cleaned up in just a few years.

Tell that to the politicians who say otherwise. In any case, let me know when you have some long term data to back up your claim that gun bans will result in a lower homicide rate.

While we are waiting for the homicide rates to drop, I find it morally reprehensible to deprive responsible law abiding citizens the option to have an effective means of self defense against criminal assault.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 05, 2015 1:00 am

JO 753 wrote:Sins gun nuts like to compare gunz to carz based only on comperable yearly fatalityz, then the same lawz for carz shoud apply to gunz.

:lol: Total non sequitur.

Why should there be a speed limit on bullets?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Sat Dec 05, 2015 1:53 am

Same reazon az for carz. Speed killz.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Sat Dec 05, 2015 1:57 am

Then therez STOP sinez, double yellow linez, rite uv way rulez, etc.

Letting a bullet loose to go where momentum takes it coud get very expensiv. Comparable to starting your car, putting it in drive and bailing out.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 05, 2015 6:31 am

JO 753 wrote:Same reazon az for carz. Speed killz.

Speed doesn't kill.

If it did, then astronauts couldn't orbit the Earth at 17000 miles per hour and survive.

What kills is coming to a stop much too suddenly after going at high speed.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11042
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:30 am

From Xoupers wiki link: "However, in casual use, the word "implies" loosely means suggests rather than requires. The idea that correlation and causation are connected is certainly true; where there is causation, there is a likely correlation. Indeed, correlation is used when inferring causation; the important point is that such inferences are made after correlations are confirmed as real and all causational relationship are systematically explored using large enough data sets.

same with all the remaining breaks from reality.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:54 am

We went over this here.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11042
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 05, 2015 9:01 am

"Correlation does not imply causation."/// When everyone knows that it does provide a first place to look and test for proof.

Also, and perhaps in the main, the statement is statistically/casually correct but only in a vacuum.

In the real world, of surviving in a Darwinian world, on the issue at hand: add in the fact that guns are purpose designed to kill. Kinda impacts the correlations.......
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 05, 2015 9:40 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:From Xoupers wiki link: "However, in casual use, the word "implies" loosely means suggests rather than requires. The idea that correlation and causation are connected is certainly true; where there is causation, there is a likely correlation. Indeed, correlation is used when inferring causation; the important point is that such inferences are made after correlations are confirmed as real and all causational relationship are systematically explored using large enough data sets.

same with all the remaining breaks from reality.

I see you cherry picked a quote out of context. That's either dishonest or demonstrates a high level of ignorance about the relationship between causation and correlation, which is explained by the rest of the article you quoted from.

Furthermore, the casual usage you quoted is not how scientists use it. Such casual usage has no place in science, as I will demonstrate in my example below. Also, go read the thread that JO linked to where I explain in great detail how (and why) scientists consider it a fallacy to infer causation from correlation.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:"Correlation does not imply causation."/// When everyone knows that it does provide a first place to look and test for proof.

I agree that a correlation might possibly provide a place to look for causation, but then one needs to go look at more than just the correlation in order to establish the cause. In other words, without additional information, the correlation cannot say anything at all about whether there is a causal connection.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Also, and perhaps in the main, the statement is statistically/casually correct but only in a vacuum. In the real world, of surviving in a Darwinian world, on the issue at hand: add in the fact that guns are purpose designed to kill. Kinda impacts the correlations.......

That is not a valid logical inference. To establish that the number of guns is a causal factor for the homicide rate, you need more information than just the correlation number. Merely knowing a gun's purpose is not sufficient. In any case, there is no correlation between number of guns and homicide rate (as I have already shown), so the point is moot anyway.

If you still claim that correlation "suggests" a cause, then please explain your answer to the following questions:

Given that the relationship between A and B is shown to have a correlation factor of 0.95 (which is a very high correlation), then from that fact alone, what can you say about causation?

1. Can you say the correlation implies A causes B?
2. Can you say the correlation implies B causes A?
3. Can you say the correlation implies A and B have a third cause C?
4. Can you say the correlation implies any causal link whatsoever between A and B?

After you answer those questions. I will post what A and B are.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 05, 2015 9:53 am

xouper wrote:You have not (yet) made your case that knives are more heavily regulated than guns. Perhaps a certain small subset of knives are more regulated than other knives, but the same applies to guns. You need to do more than merely cherry pick a few examples. Overall, I remain skeptical that knives (all knives) are more regulated than guns (all guns). It's possible you are correct, but I have yet to see sufficient evidence that supports your claim.



I have, in another thread, and you did agree that the overall legislation of knifes is more stringent than with guns.

But to repeat: unless for pure transport (that is, not quickly accessible), all knifes beyond a certain length or two sharpened edges or especially thin blade (like stilettos) are banned - no registration, no exception.
Pocket knifes you can open with on hand are banned, like switchblades or gravity knifes. If you carny one, you are considered 'carrying it as a weapon'. Bayonets are banned. Knifes with handguards are banned.

The basic idea is that an edged weapon should not be able to get between someone's ribs (very thin blades) or long enough reach the heart from below the ribcage.

There are exceptions for hunting knifes and kitchen knifes, but these, too, can not be carried unless they are to be used for their interned purpose (like going hunting or working near your food stall).

You can check Wikipedia or online law manuals if you want. The fact remains that there are plenty of knife laws and only very few gun laws. Which is plainly absurd.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:04 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:You have not (yet) made your case that knives are more heavily regulated than guns. ...

I have, in another thread, and you did agree that the overall legislation of knifes is more stringent than with guns.

I do not recall that. If my memory is failing me, that is embarrassing. I was not able to find it after quick search, so would you be kind enough to link to that thread if you can? Thanks.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:11 am

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:You have not (yet) made your case that knives are more heavily regulated than guns. ...

I have, in another thread, and you did agree that the overall legislation of knifes is more stringent than with guns.

I do not recall that. If my memory is failing me, that is embarrassing. I was not able to find it after quick search, so would you be kind enough to link to that thread if you can? Thanks.


viewtopic.php?f=97&t=25409&p=460702&hilit=knife+laws#p460697

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Plenty of types of knifes are simply banned - you can not make them, you can not sell them, you can not buy them - pretty strong restrictions. You are almost everywhere banned from carrying them in public, unlike many open-carry laws for rifles etc. If you consider that the 2nd Amendment certainly had weapons like sabers, bayonets, stilettos etc. in mind it's confusing why banning such weapons in constitutionally ok, but banning firearms is not.

You are correct in pointing out the inconsistency. The paper I cited claims such knife bans are not constitutional, but the US Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the matter.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:39 am

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Plenty of types of knifes are simply banned - you can not make them, you can not sell them, you can not buy them - pretty strong restrictions. You are almost everywhere banned from carrying them in public, unlike many open-carry laws for rifles etc. If you consider that the 2nd Amendment certainly had weapons like sabers, bayonets, stilettos etc. in mind it's confusing why banning such weapons in constitutionally ok, but banning firearms is not.

You are correct in pointing out the inconsistency. The paper I cited claims such knife bans are not constitutional, but the US Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the matter.

Thanks for the link. I remember that. I did not intend any of my comments in that thread to be any kind of agreement that knives are more regulated than guns. I apologize if what I wrote misled you into thinking otherwise.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 05, 2015 4:49 pm

xouper wrote:Thanks for the link. I remember that. I did not intend any of my comments in that thread to be any kind of agreement that knives are more regulated than guns. I apologize if what I wrote misled you into thinking otherwise.


in that case, you used to have more sense than you do now...

Weapons necessary for "A well-regulated militia" would, even before rifles, of course include a saber and dagger of some sort or another. Any rifle would, of course, have a bayonet. This would be the very basic set of weapons the framers of the Constitution were thinking off when they wrote the Second Amendment.

All of these weapons are banned today, without any breaking the constitution in any way, except, for some unfathomable reason, the firearm. Firearm regulation seems to be unimportant compared to edged weapon regulation.

It's completely irrelevant if you agree that edged weapons are more regulated than firearms, because it is just a plain fact, whatever you tell yourself.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:11 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:in that case, you used to have more sense than you do now...

Attacking my character doesn't make your claim true, nor does it make my position unreasonable. It is entirely reasonable, especially here on a skeptic forum, to be skeptical of your claim until sufficient evidence suggests otherwise.

ElectricMonk wrote:Weapons necessary for "A well-regulated militia" would, even before rifles, of course include a saber and dagger of some sort or another. Any rifle would, of course, have a bayonet. This would be the very basic set of weapons the framers of the Constitution were thinking off when they wrote the Second Amendment.

All of these weapons are banned today, without any breaking the constitution in any way, except, for some unfathomable reason, the firearm. Firearm regulation seems to be unimportant compared to edged weapon regulation.

As I said previously, thank you for pointing out that inconsistency. I assume it goes without saying that politicians are not the shining lights of logic they sometimes think they are.

And as I also pointed out before, that situation seems to be changing, as more and more knife regulations are being rescinded on the basis that they are unconstitutional.

ElectricMonk wrote:It's completely irrelevant if you agree that edged weapons are more regulated than firearms, because it is just a plain fact, whatever you tell yourself.

You keep saying that, but you have not (yet) provided the required evidence to support your claim.

You have given some examples of knives that are banned, but you have not (yet) shown that there are more knife regulations than there are gun regulations.

It is entirely reasonable, especially here on a skeptic forum, to be skeptical of a claim until sufficient evidence warrants a change in my opinion.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:28 pm

Herez a prominent spokesman for Gun Rites explaining hiz pozition on sum political issue az calmly and clearly az he can:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-QXN4xVQrY
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11042
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:02 pm

Most facts are clearly against the Gun Nut too large minority in the USA. Everyone, even the Gun Nuts agree: "You can't kill a person with a gun, without a gun." Ha. ha. FACT! Gun advocates have problems and quibbles with objective reality that backs up the tautology of that recognition. Gun Nuts on the other hand move the argument to "Guns are just a tool, its the person behind the gun that matters." You know--like the one per week enfant death from people behind the gun playing with them.

So........... when the dust settles a bit, I have to remind myself that when FACTS DON'T MATTER: the issue is "emotional." Which is why I have asked Xouper 3-4 times what the emotional basis for his Gun Nut position is, and so far: crickets. Xouper: you don't touch upon your personal beliefs at all. Almost like there was something emotional going on????

Now...... lets observe the quibble........................should I spoiler box what I'm sure is coming? Eh...I'm losing interests. Nuts are too caloric to deal with.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:02 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Most facts are clearly against the Gun Nut too large minority in the USA. Everyone, even the Gun Nuts agree: "You can't kill a person with a gun, without a gun." Ha. ha. FACT! Gun advocates have problems and quibbles with objective reality that backs up the tautology of that recognition. Gun Nuts on the other hand move the argument to "Guns are just a tool, its the person behind the gun that matters." You know--like the one per week enfant death from people behind the gun playing with them.

So........... when the dust settles a bit, I have to remind myself that when FACTS DON'T MATTER: the issue is "emotional." Which is why I have asked Xouper 3-4 times what the emotional basis for his Gun Nut position is, and so far: crickets. Xouper: you don't touch upon your personal beliefs at all. Almost like there was something emotional going on????

Now...... lets observe the quibble........................should I spoiler box what I'm sure is coming? Eh...I'm losing interests. Nuts are too caloric to deal with.

I have no obligation to respond to requests that are not civil and respectful. If you want to have a civil dialog, then stop behaving like an ass.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11042
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:05 pm

xouper wrote:I have no obligation to respond to requests that are not civil and respectful. If you want to have a civil dialog, then stop behaving like an ass.

Of course you don't. After all, I'm not holding a gun to your head. It was my Xmas gift to you: a question that you can consider all by your lonesome.

Call it personal growth. ............... When did that last happen?????
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10319
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby Pyrrho » Sat Dec 12, 2015 4:09 pm

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

We culture-bundle when we use one political issue as shorthand for a big group of cultural and social values. Our unproductive talk about guns is rife with this. Gun control advocates don't just attack support for guns; they attack conservative, Republican, rural and religious values. Second Amendment advocates don't just attack gun control advocates; they attack liberal, Democratic, urban and secular values. The gun control argument gets portrayed as the struggle against Bible-thumping, gay-bashing, NASCAR-watching hicks, and the gun rights argument gets portrayed as a struggle against godless, elitist, kale-chewing socialists.

That's great for rallying the base, I guess, but that's about all. When you culture-bundle guns, your opponents don't hear “I'm concerned about this limitation on rights” or “I think this restriction is constitutional and necessary.” They hear “I hate your flyover-country daddy who taught you to shoot in the woods behind the house when you were 12” and “Your gay friends' getting married would ruin America and must be stopped.” That's unlikely to create consensus.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11042
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 12, 2015 4:46 pm

I didn't know Kale was now a thing. Darn, I do like my quiche.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Fri Dec 25, 2015 1:56 am

NRA looking even foolisher than usual : Military sez no to NRA
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 26, 2015 6:55 am

JO 753 wrote:NRA looking even foolisher than usual : Military sez no to NRA


that's part of the plan to take away all out guns and declare Martial Law - obviously, duh!

I'm sure the NRA is organizing a First Strike against the Army as we speak!
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:12 pm

JO 753 wrote:NRA looking even foolisher than usual : Military sez no to NRA


Ohio’s National Guard stations are no longer a gun-free zone.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2015/12/27/1-national-guard-now-is-guarding-itself.html

The men and women trusted by this nation to use heavy weaponry in battle to defend this nation may now defend themselves by carrying firearms at the state’s 72 Guard facilities.

. . .

Ohio Guard members had been unarmed in part, the Associated Press reports, because they work on state property, where guns generally are prohibited.

But any concerns about negligent discharges of firearms paled in comparison to the harm actually perpetrated upon unarmed military personnel. In September 2013, a civilian contractor killed 12 at Washington Navy Yard, and in 2009, a U.S. Army major who had been emailing an al-Qaida recruiter killed 13 in a rampage at Fort Hood.

Now that the word is out that National Guard personnel are carrying firearms, odds are better they won’t need to use them.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:50 pm

xouper wrote:
Now that the word is out that National Guard personnel are carrying firearms, odds are better they won’t need to use them.


And the oddz that they will are many timez greater.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:50 pm

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:
Now that the word is out that National Guard personnel are carrying firearms, odds are better they won’t need to use them.

And the oddz that they will are many timez greater.

1. What do you mean by that?
2. How do you know that?

3. Why are there so few mass shootings at gun shows?
4. Why are there so few armed robberies of gun stores?
5. Why are there fewer shootings at places where it is known the victims might be armed?
6. Why are so many mass shootings at places where the victims are supposed to be unarmed?

To criminals, a "gun free zone" is a euphemism for "defenseless victim zone".

http://libertyfirearmstraining.com/blog/2013/05/16/criminals-fear-armed-citizens-more-than-they-do-the-police/

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:11 pm

xouper wrote:1. What do you mean by that?

If they hav no gunz, they cant uze them. Now that they do, they will for the usual reazonz.

2. How do you know that?

Familiarity with statistics and the lawz uv chance.

3. Why are there so few mass shootings at gun shows?

Kuz everybody iz happy and afraid uv getting shot if they say anything impolite.

4. Why are there so few armed robberies of gun stores?

Kuz crooks arent usually that stupid and brave.

5. Why are there fewer shootings at places where it is known the victims might be armed?

Chicago seemz to disproov that claim.

6. Why are so many mass shootings at places where the victims are supposed to be unarmed?

Kuz its so eazy to get a gun.

To criminals, a "gun free zone" is a euphemism for "defenseless victim zone".

Maybe. But in spite uv the disproportionate media coveraj for mass shootingz, the run uv the mill every day shootingz account for the overwelming majority uv deths and injuryz.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10703
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:33 am

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:1. What do you mean by that?

If they hav no gunz, they cant uze them. Now that they do, they will for the usual reazonz.

What reasons are those?

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:2. How do you know that?

Familiarity with statistics and the lawz uv chance.

Please cite the specific statistics (empirical evidence) that supports your claim.

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:3. Why are there so few mass shootings at gun shows?

Kuz everybody iz happy and afraid uv getting shot if they say anything impolite.

Translation: Same answer as #4.

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:4. Why are there so few armed robberies of gun stores?

Kuz crooks arent usually that stupid and brave.

Bingo. We have a winner. Criminals prefer victims to be unarmed (and the liberals are happily aiding and abetting that wish).

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:5. Why are there fewer shootings at places where it is known the victims might be armed?

Chicago seemz to disproov that claim.

You are correct. I accidentally omitted a crucial word in my question. I had meant to say "mass shootings" instead of just "shootings".

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:6. Why are so many mass shootings at places where the victims are supposed to be unarmed?

Kuz its so eazy to get a gun.

Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. Guns are just as easy to get regardless whether the victims are armed or not.

The correct answer is the same as #4.

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:To criminals, a "gun free zone" is a euphemism for "defenseless victim zone".

Maybe.

The empirical evidence appears to show support my assertion. Criminals prefer victims that are unarmed.

JO 753 wrote:But in spite uv the disproportionate media coveraj for mass shootingz, the run uv the mill every day shootingz account for the overwelming majority uv deths and injuryz.

Correct. Good point.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:19 am

xouper wrote:What reasons are those?


My baby momma been cheatin with my homey.
Bastard passed me over for a promotion for the last time.
Tired uv this life. Lets try the next.
Iz this thing loaded?
Thats my parking space!
Look! Daddy left hiz gun on the desk!
They think I dont hear them laffing at me behind my bak. I'll show them. I'll show them all!
Dam gun grabber libtardz will wish they had gunz!
etc.

Please cite the specific statistics (empirical evidence) that supports your claim.

Japan vs US crime stats. Includes gun violens. I coud hav gon with just the gun deths, but this pre-empts the 'more total crime' argument.

Criminals prefer victims to be unarmed.

...and for themselvez to be armed, wich iz made so eazy here.

Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. Guns are just as easy to get regardless whether the victims are armed or not.


Bzzzzt. incomplete. Gunz are eazy to get kuz the country iz saturated with them. If all the potential victimz werent buying gunz to hopefully protect themselvez for the last 70 yirz, the gun market woud be relatively small and thus they woud be much harder to get.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest