Guns again...

Duck and cover
User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby JO 753 » Thu Oct 15, 2015 8:32 am

You assume we can remember everything we rote and where it iz.

There are hundredz uv pajez scattered over dozenz uv thredz containing a larj % uv digressionz and garbaj posts. It woud probably amount to a good size newzpaper article if trimmed uv all the repetition and junk.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 15, 2015 9:12 am

I reject the whole notion. The very opposite of assuming what you say.

How does that 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?

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby Tom Palven » Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:02 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Does remind me of that joke about the guys in prison all remembering the number of the joke from a joke book and some dude would yell out "73!" and everyone would laugh. Then the newbie wanting to play read the book and remembered the best joke was No 47, so he yelled that out and no one cracked a smile. He asked his cellmate what was wrong and got the answer: "It was how you told it.".... or timing. Ha, ha.....whatever the punch line was.

Yep..........no reason to think about it: "My mind is made up." See #42.


Punch line: "Well, some people just know how to tell a joke."
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 15, 2015 4:32 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
xouper wrote: :roll: :roll: :roll: Same old irrational {!#%@} from the anti-gunners. I assume you are sincere in your desire to rid the planet of guns, but your arguments are deeply flawed.

Isn't this a site to debate our views? I can respect you better for at least attempting to argue why rather than 'tweeting' a stance of dissent. ...

I have since had a good nap and I no longer feel so pissed off at your post. I have no hard feelings against you personally, and so I apologize for my aggressive reply. My intent was mostly just to get my dissent on the record.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby landrew » Thu Oct 15, 2015 5:19 pm

I'm old enough to remember when mass-shootings were mostly a yearly occurrence, and not the routine occurrence as they are now. Quite often in those days, the cause was found to be a brain tumor or some other form of diagnosed mental illness. Guns were certainly not more scarce in those days than they are now. Would tighter guns laws really make a difference?

Nowadays, the shooters are more often than not, taking SSRIs or some other form of psychotropic drug. Coincidence? What do you think, and I do stress the word "think."
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Thu Oct 15, 2015 8:48 pm

landrew wrote:I'm old enough to remember when mass-shootings were mostly a yearly occurrence, and not the routine occurrence as they are now. Quite often in those days, the cause was found to be a brain tumor or some other form of diagnosed mental illness. Guns were certainly not more scarce in those days than they are now. Would tighter guns laws really make a difference?

Nowadays, the shooters are more often than not, taking SSRIs or some other form of psychotropic drug. Coincidence? What do you think, and I do stress the word "think."

References to your presumed and unquantified claim?

Here's my own in contrast to the concern:

From Is There a Link Between Mental Health and Gun Violence? BY MARIA KONNIKOVA
When Swanson first analyzed the ostensible connection between violence and mental illness, looking at more than ten thousand individuals (both mentally ill and healthy) during the course of one year, he found that serious mental illness alone was a risk factor for violence—from minor incidents, like shoving, to armed assault—in only four per cent of cases. That is, if you took all of the incidents of violence reported among the people in the survey, mental illness alone could explain only four per cent of the incidents. When Swanson broke the samples down by demographics, he found that the occurrence of violence was more closely associated with whether someone was male, poor, and abusing either alcohol or drugs—and that those three factors alone could predict violent behavior with or without any sign of mental illness. If someone fit all three of those categories, the likelihood of them committing a violent act was high, even if they weren’t also mentally ill. If someone fit none, then mental illness was highly unlikely to be predictive of violence. “That study debunked two myths,” Swanson said. “One: people with mental illness are all dangerous. Well, the vast majority are not. And the other myth: that there’s no connection at all. There is one. It’s quite small, but it’s not completely nonexistent.”
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby landrew » Thu Oct 15, 2015 9:47 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
landrew wrote:I'm old enough to remember when mass-shootings were mostly a yearly occurrence, and not the routine occurrence as they are now. Quite often in those days, the cause was found to be a brain tumor or some other form of diagnosed mental illness. Guns were certainly not more scarce in those days than they are now. Would tighter guns laws really make a difference?

Nowadays, the shooters are more often than not, taking SSRIs or some other form of psychotropic drug. Coincidence? What do you think, and I do stress the word "think."

References to your presumed and unquantified claim?

Here's my own in contrast to the concern:

From Is There a Link Between Mental Health and Gun Violence? BY MARIA KONNIKOVA
When Swanson first analyzed the ostensible connection between violence and mental illness, looking at more than ten thousand individuals (both mentally ill and healthy) during the course of one year, he found that serious mental illness alone was a risk factor for violence—from minor incidents, like shoving, to armed assault—in only four per cent of cases. That is, if you took all of the incidents of violence reported among the people in the survey, mental illness alone could explain only four per cent of the incidents. When Swanson broke the samples down by demographics, he found that the occurrence of violence was more closely associated with whether someone was male, poor, and abusing either alcohol or drugs—and that those three factors alone could predict violent behavior with or without any sign of mental illness. If someone fit all three of those categories, the likelihood of them committing a violent act was high, even if they weren’t also mentally ill. If someone fit none, then mental illness was highly unlikely to be predictive of violence. “That study debunked two myths,” Swanson said. “One: people with mental illness are all dangerous. Well, the vast majority are not. And the other myth: that there’s no connection at all. There is one. It’s quite small, but it’s not completely nonexistent.”
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby landrew » Thu Oct 15, 2015 9:54 pm

landrew wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
landrew wrote:I'm old enough to remember when mass-shootings were mostly a yearly occurrence, and not the routine occurrence as they are now. Quite often in those days, the cause was found to be a brain tumor or some other form of diagnosed mental illness. Guns were certainly not more scarce in those days than they are now. Would tighter guns laws really make a difference?

Nowadays, the shooters are more often than not, taking SSRIs or some other form of psychotropic drug. Coincidence? What do you think, and I do stress the word "think."

References to your presumed and unquantified claim?

Here's my own in contrast to the concern:

From Is There a Link Between Mental Health and Gun Violence? BY MARIA KONNIKOVA
When Swanson first analyzed the ostensible connection between violence and mental illness, looking at more than ten thousand individuals (both mentally ill and healthy) during the course of one year, he found that serious mental illness alone was a risk factor for violence—from minor incidents, like shoving, to armed assault—in only four per cent of cases. That is, if you took all of the incidents of violence reported among the people in the survey, mental illness alone could explain only four per cent of the incidents. When Swanson broke the samples down by demographics, he found that the occurrence of violence was more closely associated with whether someone was male, poor, and abusing either alcohol or drugs—and that those three factors alone could predict violent behavior with or without any sign of mental illness. If someone fit all three of those categories, the likelihood of them committing a violent act was high, even if they weren’t also mentally ill. If someone fit none, then mental illness was highly unlikely to be predictive of violence. “That study debunked two myths,” Swanson said. “One: people with mental illness are all dangerous. Well, the vast majority are not. And the other myth: that there’s no connection at all. There is one. It’s quite small, but it’s not completely nonexistent.”

You're asking me for references for a personal anecdote? I was there; I lived it. BTW, your citation there might well be an exercise in proving a negative by someone on the Big Pharma payroll, for all we know.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:12 pm

I linked the source which itself links a Swanson's throughout the years and data. But you still require proving your own statement. I only used this in anticipation and is not required before you could even prove your own.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:29 am

landrew wrote:You're asking me for references for a personal anecdote? I was there; I lived it. BTW, your citation there might well be an exercise in proving a negative by someone on the Big Pharma payroll, for all we know.

"personal anecdote"==ie, not even a form of evidence most often telling us more about the person than the experience. Shame to find that argument presented on a skeptic forum. As to the Pharma payroll bias....a supposition the product of imagination. Imagination is good, but again, just shows us the possible instead of any actual counter to what is presented.

Bad form.
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
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby landrew » Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:22 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
landrew wrote:You're asking me for references for a personal anecdote? I was there; I lived it. BTW, your citation there might well be an exercise in proving a negative by someone on the Big Pharma payroll, for all we know.

"personal anecdote"==ie, not even a form of evidence most often telling us more about the person than the experience. Shame to find that argument presented on a skeptic forum. As to the Pharma payroll bias....a supposition the product of imagination. Imagination is good, but again, just shows us the possible instead of any actual counter to what is presented.

Bad form.

Do you think I'm making a legal claim? I'm providing rationale for my opinion. There's nothing here for you to attempt to falsify through absence of evidence.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:41 am

landrew wrote: I'm providing rationale for my opinion. There's nothing here for you to attempt to falsify through absence of evidence.

Well, there is no poorer basis for forming personal opinions than one's own experience.

Know what I mean?
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?

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby Tom Palven » Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:54 am

landrew wrote:I'm old enough to remember when mass-shootings were mostly a yearly occurrence, and not the routine occurrence as they are now. Quite often in those days, the cause was found to be a brain tumor or some other form of diagnosed mental illness. Guns were certainly not more scarce in those days than they are now. Would tighter guns laws really make a difference?

Nowadays, the shooters are more often than not, taking SSRIs or some other form of psychotropic drug. Coincidence? What do you think, and I do stress the word "think."


My goodness. Landrew. Good to see you back again.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby landrew » Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:24 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
landrew wrote: I'm providing rationale for my opinion. There's nothing here for you to attempt to falsify through absence of evidence.

Well, there is no poorer basis for forming personal opinions than one's own experience.

Know what I mean?

Not at all. Speak for yourself.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:31 am

Your rationale for your opinion is close to worthless. Best Case: So worthless, its probably not even true. You incorporate "facts' from outside yourself so seamlessly, you think this outside information is your own personal experience. Worse Case: just what you say as in: xyz is true or false because in 2007 I had the following experience:....

Most likely truth: somewhere in the middle.

Know what I mean?.......because in my personal experience, anyone who doesn't know what I mean .......... is .......... (general insult here).

See how that works?
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?


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest