The shooting death of Alison Parker

Duck and cover
User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The shooting death of Alison Parker

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 02, 2015 12:45 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:No that is not the point. Your argument is not at all rational. The blame belongs on the criminals, not the laws.

Of course its rational. You just don't like the consequences. You already have agreed that you have to have a gun to be killed by a gun. Take the guns out of the equation and Mass Shootings drop to zero. That would be a good thing with the cost being restrictions on permitted uses of guns....which would and should be greatly restrictied and more restrictive as time went on.

You would be mentally impaired not to agree that what laws you have, and what weapons you have, will affect how people get killed.

It's not a question whether I like the consequence, your argument is still not rational. The blame belongs on the criminal, not on the good guys and you would be mentally impaired not to agree with that.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Cars are weapons and people get charged using them as such. The value of having cars outweighs the deaths their use causes. The application of the direct consequences of the weapon and law is just as valid for the drunk driver as it is for the criminal with a gun.

I agree the value of cars outweighs the cost from those who misuse them to harm people. I say the same thing about guns.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Before I repeat: "Your position kills innocent people."==> Are you working on what restrictions you would accept or did your mind blank totally on its even being asked?

I already answered that question in the opening post. I've told you that twice now. Why are you still asking it.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The shooting death of Alison Parker

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 02, 2015 12:48 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:xouper--I'm a bit confused why you would post about a criminal homicide done by gun and ask what laws could change the result and then with every response complain that you already know that and you've had the discussions before.

Apparently you did not understand the part in the opening post where I clearly explained that I was willing to hear new ideas if anyone has them. But apparently no one does. In which case, this thread simply becomes vehicle for exposing the hypocrisy of the gun grabbers, who have used Alison's death to grab more guns from responsible law abiding citizens. They say Alison's death proves we need more gun control, but there is no law that they could pass that would have prevented her death. It is merely an opportunistic attempt to further infringe civil liberties.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Do you expect every reader to go read 10 links before you tell them you don't care about the facts related to the issue: "You just want your guns." Ha ha.

What I expect is that when you challenge something I say, is that you go read the explanation why your objections are wrong instead of continuing to run your mouth from a position of ignorance.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I've read from several sources that more home occupiers are killed by home owner guns than are criminals invading the home.

I don't believe you. Cite your source for that claim.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Once you agree on the numbers and the value of the benefit, then you are left with the deciding issue: the individual value you put on that risk/benefit analysis. And as you say: you don't care about anything except your right to have a gun. You even will say that "Guns don't kill people." The very definition of a Gun Nut.

Just because I value my civil liberties does not make me a gun nut. Calling me names like that does not help your case, it only makes you look petty. Do you do the same thing to people who defend their right to free speech or their right to same sex marriage? Perhaps you might wish to reexamine your double standard there.

I stand by my claim that "guns don't kill people", because as I explained rather thoroughly that my claim is in fact literally true. Guns do not kill people, people do. Speaking the truth does not make me a gun nut.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:So....there is not a single reference I know of that says guns save more lives than they kil.

I posted it several times, but just for you here it is again. In 2013, Obama commissioned the CDC to produce a report on gun violence and one of the conclusions from that study is that guns are used to prevent more harm than they cause.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Absent that, only you know how sensitive you are about your civil rights. Do you have any laws you can think of to reduce death from guns that would be acceptable to you given that any restriction would be a deep cut to your Freedoms?

I already answered that question in the opening post. Did you not read it?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The shooting death of Alison Parker

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 02, 2015 12:50 am

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:Let's focus on the arguments and leave the ad homs behind, shall we, xoups?

OK, I'll follow your lead. You stop attacking me personally and I'll will do likewise.

supervitor wrote:You challenged me to tell "those victims {!#%@} their right to have a gun". And I did. Your response?

I'm surprised you can say to someone they have no right to defend themselves with a gun, but at least you're honest about your preference that victims should be defenseless for the bad guys to take advantage of. All I can say to that is I strongly disagree. Fortunately, you do not have the right to take away anyone's civil liberties.

I say the best is not allow anyone to have a gun, then there's no moral dilema on "defending" against "bad guys".

That is factually incorrect. We have already had this conversation. Bad guys will still attack innocent people even if they don't have guns. I have already explained this to you earlier in this thread, but here you are repeating the same falsehood despite that I have already demolished it.

supervitor wrote:By your use of language, Xouper, I'd say you see the world on a very simplistic fashion. Good guys vs Bad guys. You are aware that's a point of view used to facilitate plot development in fiction production with no resemblance with reality, aren't you xouper?

Is that your idea of how to "leave the ad homs behind"? You're not setting a very good example.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The shooting death of Alison Parker

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 02, 2015 12:53 am

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Before I repeat: "Your position kills innocent people."==> Are you working on what restrictions you would accept or did your mind blank totally on its even being asked?

I already answered that question in the opening post. I've told you that twice now. Why are you still asking it.

Oops, sorry, I got ahead of myself. I had that other reply already composed but forgot I had not yet posted it.

The thing is, I already answered that question in the opening post.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: The shooting death of Alison Parker

Postby supervitor » Fri Oct 02, 2015 12:57 am

xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:Let's focus on the arguments and leave the ad homs behind, shall we, xoups?

OK, I'll follow your lead. You stop attacking me personally and I'll will do likewise.

supervitor wrote:You challenged me to tell "those victims {!#%@} their right to have a gun". And I did. Your response?

I'm surprised you can say to someone they have no right to defend themselves with a gun, but at least you're honest about your preference that victims should be defenseless for the bad guys to take advantage of. All I can say to that is I strongly disagree. Fortunately, you do not have the right to take away anyone's civil liberties.

I say the best is not allow anyone to have a gun, then there's no moral dilema on "defending" against "bad guys".

That is factually incorrect. We have already had this conversation. Bad guys will still attack innocent people even if they don't have guns. I have already explained this to you earlier in this thread, but here you are repeating the same falsehood despite that I have already demolished it.

And I told you that's a simplistic world view. You just need to find out about the roots of violence and address those issues instead of facilitating the "bad guys" job.
supervitor wrote:By your use of language, Xouper, I'd say you see the world on a very simplistic fashion. Good guys vs Bad guys. You are aware that's a point of view used to facilitate plot development in fiction production with no resemblance with reality, aren't you xouper?

Is that your idea of how to "leave the ad homs behind"? You're not setting a very good example.

Again? It's not an ad hom. I'm characterizing your world view and saying it doesn't fit with the real world. It sounds more like Hollywood. Hence, your simplistic reasoning and conclusions regarding gun control. How do you expect to engage in an argument if you consider this an ad hom? You sound like a primmy bitch, xouper.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The shooting death of Alison Parker

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 02, 2015 12:59 am

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:So....there is not a single reference I know of that says guns save more lives than they kil.

I posted it several times, but just for you here it is again. In 2013, Obama commissioned the CDC to produce a report on gun violence and one of the conclusions from that study is that guns are used to prevent more harm than they cause.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence


From the summary on the links first page: "In 2010, more than 105,000 people were injured or killed in the United States as the result of a firearm-related incident. Recent, highly publicized, tragic mass shootings in Newtown, CT; Aurora, CO; Oak Creek, WI; and Tucson, AZ, have sharpened the American public's interest in protecting our children and communities from the harmful effects of firearm violence. While many Americans legally use firearms for a variety of activities, fatal and nonfatal firearm violence poses a serious threat to public safety and welfare."

Doesn't sound like guns are a benefit. As stated: if they were, I would get one.

You got some some copy and paste from that link or any other that doesn't say the opposite of what you posted?
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: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The shooting death of Alison Parker

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:16 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You got some some copy and paste from that link or any other that doesn't say the opposite of what you posted?

I found a previous post where I explained this and quoted from the CDC report.

viewtopic.php?p=464493#p464493

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The shooting death of Alison Parker

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:26 am

Well, thanks for that effort. The only "hard" number is the 108K hurt or killed. The rest is wild guesses about undefined categories....IOW: worthless. Its a real issue though, of unknown statistical relevance. I personally just don't hear about people scaring bad guys away with guns. They do it by dogs, turning on the lights, and calling the cops.

I quick googled the homeowners killed by guns. The results page shows that everyone disagrees with large percentages of unknown offsets assumed. I won't insult you by posting the links that agree with me.
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: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The shooting death of Alison Parker

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:58 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Well, thanks for that effort. The only "hard" number is the 108K hurt or killed. The rest is wild guesses about undefined categories....IOW: worthless. Its a real issue though, of unknown statistical relevance.

I cited an official government source for that data. If you disagree with it, you are disagreeing with the scientists who wrote that document.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I personally just don't hear about people scaring bad guys away with guns.

That's why I started this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25360

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The shooting death of Alison Parker

Postby xouper » Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:07 am

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:I say the best is not allow anyone to have a gun, then there's no moral dilema on "defending" against "bad guys".

That is factually incorrect. We have already had this conversation. Bad guys will still attack innocent people even if they don't have guns. I have already explained this to you earlier in this thread, but here you are repeating the same falsehood despite that I have already demolished it.

And I told you that's a simplistic world view.

That's not a very good rebuttal to my arguments against your claims. Calling it "simplistic" does not prove it's wrong.

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:By your use of language, Xouper, I'd say you see the world on a very simplistic fashion. Good guys vs Bad guys. You are aware that's a point of view used to facilitate plot development in fiction production with no resemblance with reality, aren't you xouper?

Is that your idea of how to "leave the ad homs behind"? You're not setting a very good example.

Again? It's not an ad hom.

Yes it is. You made a direct and disparaging comment about me personally.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The shooting death of Alison Parker

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:11 am

xouper says: "
I cited an official government source for that data. If you disagree with it, you are disagreeing with the scientists who wrote that document." //// I did the exact opposite: I accepted the findings and relayed what they meant just as you cherry picked the ramblings for what you wanted. Any estimate from 108K or 500K to 3 Million lacks specificity/meaning right on its face. The confidence level (a statistical term measuring the usefulness of a survey) approaches zero here instead of the 95% usual minimum requirement to get published. This applies to ANY STUDY about anything. Not just guns.

2. That's why I started this thread: /// Yep, anectdotal stories are about worthless.

How about a link to where you stated what invasion of your civil rights you would accept on the assumption that such restructions would reduce death by guns? I do suspect your anwere is none, for a variety of reasons.
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
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: The shooting death of Alison Parker

Postby supervitor » Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:23 am

xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:I say the best is not allow anyone to have a gun, then there's no moral dilema on "defending" against "bad guys".

That is factually incorrect. We have already had this conversation. Bad guys will still attack innocent people even if they don't have guns. I have already explained this to you earlier in this thread, but here you are repeating the same falsehood despite that I have already demolished it.

And I told you that's a simplistic world view.

That's not a very good rebuttal to my arguments against your claims. Calling it "simplistic" does not prove it's wrong.

Now you're back at cutting your adversary's arguments. I explained why it is simplistic. It stands to reason that someone who understands the world through TV might not get things right.. Like.. like.. your argumentation method: quoting only half your opponents answers and then saying something is missing is simplistic (and a bit misleading). You should try to do better..
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:By your use of language, Xouper, I'd say you see the world on a very simplistic fashion. Good guys vs Bad guys. You are aware that's a point of view used to facilitate plot development in fiction production with no resemblance with reality, aren't you xouper?

Is that your idea of how to "leave the ad homs behind"? You're not setting a very good example.

Again? It's not an ad hom.

Yes it is. You made a direct and disparaging comment about me personally.

It's part of the argument: if your approach is simplistic (world=good guys vs bad guys) you're bound to be wrong; it's my job to point that out

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: The shooting death of Alison Parker

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:50 am

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I've read from several sources that more home occupiers are killed by home owner guns than are criminals invading the home.


I don't believe you. Cite your source for that claim.


He might be referring to sources like the very one you quote in response to him on a separate issue:

Between the years 2000 and 2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting
for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States.


xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:So....there is not a single reference I know of that says guns save more lives than they kil.

I posted it several times, but just for you here it is again. In 2013, Obama commissioned the CDC to produce a report on gun violence and one of the conclusions from that study is that guns are used to prevent more harm than they cause.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence


Where does the study indicate guns are used to prevent more harm than they cause?

An excerpt from your study:

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a
gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry— may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use.


I'm not sure the study you're citing says what you think it does.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The shooting death of Alison Parker

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:00 pm

Watching the aftermath of the Oregon shootings. Lots of handwringing with no offered suggestions except "close the loopholes" and increased background checks, which all immediately say cannot be passed because of the fanatical single issue voting group that Gun Nuts present.

Obama says he will speak up on the issue trying to create a countervailing single issue voting block for "Reasonable Gun control"...I presume.... I disagree with Obama as the countervailing single issue voting block should be for: A TOTAL BAN on handgun ownership. I mean..... that is the "balance" he says is needed...not another Obama Compromise right from the start?

Anyhoo, I review the OP. What laws could be passed without infringing civil rights? I hope a response to each issue and assuming no agreement a statement as to what compromise/accommodation could be imagined?

1. Close all the Loopholes--all gun sales and transfer to be subject to background checks. This closes the gun show exception and intra family gift giving.

2. Annual Licensing of All Guns. the fee to include the cost of caring for all gun shot victims in the ER rooms across America. Ha. ha........such lincensing fees are upheld all the time. In this case, I assume the fee would be totally prohibitive to all but the mega rich. But no violation of civil rights....I mean.... you do want to pay for your freedoms don't you?

3. Biological Linked Trigger Guards so that only the owner of the gun can fire it. This was widely agreed to until the technology actually became available. Ha, ha.

4. Clip size limitations. You've got your gun....and up to six single shots. No drums holding 300 rounds on semi automatically or easily modified to full automatic.

Well, there's four.
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