Stabbing

Duck and cover
User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:43 pm

xouper wrote:It hasn't worked in any of the countries that have tried it so far.


Japan? Australia?

In fact, there is a growing movement in Britain, and apparently now in Germany, of people wanting their handguns back.


Peepl getting their gunz back duz not equal a lower murder rate. The oppozit in fact. And I seem to remember this claim being diluted befor in another thred. Sumthing like - yes, there are gun nuts in other countryz who want gunz, but the gun ban iz favored by the majority.

Lance has indeed made that exact claim earlier in this thread.


Did you, Lance?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:49 pm

xouper wrote:1. Do more guns cause more crime?
...This fact calls into question the claim that #1 above is the only reasonable conclusion.


JO 753 wrote:I dont recall anybody claiming that more gunz iz the only cauze uv more crime.

xouper wrote:I have not said anyone claimed that.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Sat Jan 16, 2016 5:48 pm

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:1. Do more guns cause more crime?
...This fact calls into question the claim that #1 above is the only reasonable conclusion.

JO 753 wrote:I dont recall anybody claiming that more gunz iz the only cauze uv more crime.

xouper wrote:I have not said anyone claimed that.

You did not quote the context in which I made those comments.

In that entire post, I was referring only to the choice between conclusion #1 and conclusion #2.

In that post, I was observing that Lance says #2 is not a reasonable choice.

In that post, I was not even addressing the question of whether there is more than one cause for the crime rate. I was only addressing the question of which direction the cause goes.

Does that clarification help?

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Sat Jan 16, 2016 6:10 pm

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:It hasn't worked in any of the countries that have tried it so far.

Japan? Australia?

Neither of those countries has recently banned handguns, so there is no way to make a before-and-after comparison of the crime rate.

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work – And it Wouldn’t Work in America
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-control-obama-america

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:In fact, there is a growing movement in Britain, and apparently now in Germany, of people wanting their handguns back.

Peepl getting their gunz back duz not equal a lower murder rate.

My comment was not addressing that question at all. I was addressing the question of whether crime causes more people to want handguns.

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:Lance has indeed made that exact claim earlier in this thread.

Did you, Lance?

Yes he did.

Do I really need to quote it again for you? (Apparently so, given how badly you have misinterpreted some of my recent comments.)

From page 2 of this thread: viewtopic.php?p=497789#p497789

Lance Kennedy wrote:ON the idea that high crime might cause people to buy guns.
I call bullsheet. That might explain why high crime states inside the USA have more guns, butcannot explain the correlations outside the USA, since the gun numbers there are governed by law, not demand. Yet, even though demand has no role, more guns still means more murders.

That cannot be more clear that Lance is claiming that option #2 is not a reasonable choice.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9888
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stabbing

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jan 16, 2016 6:32 pm

Xouper

THere has been no valid experiment. A valid experiment would require hand gun ownership to go down. While some states have tried to tighten gun laws, there has been no accompanying lowering of gun ownership, except Hawaii. Hand gun ownership in Hawaii is lower than anywhere else in the USA due to tight local gun laws and the difficulty of smuggling them in. The murder rate is also one of the lowest in the USA, equivalent to Canada.

As far as correlations are concerned, you ignore the fact that, not one, but three eminent universities have done suitable correlation studies, and shown that gun ownership correlates with murder rate between the 50 states of the USA (and no, one exception like Vermont does not obviate the correlation), and they have also shown that among western developed nations, the correlation holds. I have quoted, over these discussions, no fewer than 7 correlations. Pretty damn convincing if you are of reasonable mind.

In science, predictive tests are vital. I will make a testable prediction. The correlation will be even tighter between the 50 states, if hand gun ownership rather than overall gun ownership is used. This has not yet been done, and there are no hand gun ownership statistics to refer to. But a suitably qualified and resourced research team could find out via surveys.

One other thing, Xouper. Logic is a totally acceptable basis for argument. My logic is unassailable. Hand guns are far more lethal than knives, clubs, etc. Thus, if hand gun ownership is widespread, then a much higher percentage of the victims of attacks will be killed. Inevitable. More hand gun ownership will cause a higher murder rate.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stabbing

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Jan 16, 2016 11:03 pm

FYI, the "guns" Germans are getting are actually gas-powered pistols that shoot either signal flares or a kind of pepperspray - you have to be incredibly unlikely to be killed by one of those.
And not many are getting them either: a few hundred in a population of 80million so far.
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: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Sun Jan 17, 2016 1:00 am

ElectricMonk wrote:FYI, the "guns" Germans are getting are actually gas-powered pistols that shoot either signal flares or a kind of pepperspray - you have to be incredibly unlikely to be killed by one of those.

We already know that (or those who read the article). The article I cited clearly says "air pistol", which is not a "firearm". I did not say (nor did I intend to imply) that sudden increase in purchases were firearms.

ElectricMonk wrote:And not many are getting them either: a few hundred in a population of 80million so far.

It's not the total numbers that are disturbing, it is the sudden and dramatic increase in those who want weapons for self defense. It's almost as if the jump in refugee crime was driving the increase in weapon sales. That was my point.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Sun Jan 17, 2016 1:28 am

Here we go again, more dead horse flogging from Lance.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

THere has been no valid experiment.

Yes there has.

Lance Kennedy wrote:A valid experiment would require hand gun ownership to go down.

And that very experiment has been tried recently in some countries. Britain for example. You already know this.

Lance Kennedy wrote: While some states have tried to tighten gun laws, there has been no accompanying lowering of gun ownership,

OK.

Lance Kennedy wrote: ... except Hawaii. Hand gun ownership in Hawaii is lower than anywhere else in the USA due to tight local gun laws and the difficulty of smuggling them in. The murder rate is also one of the lowest in the USA, equivalent to Canada.

Again, correlation is NOT evidence of cause.

You keep using this same flawed correlation argument even though it has been thoroughly and repeatedly discredited. You have not given any evidence that the lower homicide rate is caused by lower handgun ownership.

Lance Kennedy wrote: As far as correlations are concerned, you ignore the fact that, not one, but three eminent universities have done suitable correlation studies, and shown that gun ownership correlates with murder rate between the 50 states of the USA (and no, one exception like Vermont does not obviate the correlation), and they have also shown that among western developed nations, the correlation holds.

And I have cited other studies and correlations that contradict the ones you cited.

None of your sources have justified why it is valid to exclude certain data that messes up their desired result. That is the very definition of cherry picking.

Lance Kennedy wrote: I have quoted, over these discussions, no fewer than 7 correlations. Pretty damn convincing if you are of reasonable mind.

It's only convincing to those who fall for the fallacy of appeal to popularity.

Lance Kennedy wrote: In science, predictive tests are vital. I will make a testable prediction. The correlation will be even tighter between the 50 states, if hand gun ownership rather than overall gun ownership is used. This has not yet been done, and there are no hand gun ownership statistics to refer to. But a suitably qualified and resourced research team could find out via surveys.

Even if your prediction can be shown to be accurate, you are merely predicting a correlation, which is not evidence that handguns cause more homicides.

Lance Kennedy wrote: One other thing, Xouper. Logic is a totally acceptable basis for argument.

I agree. However, logic by itself is not acceptable as scientific (empirical) evidence. Logic is useful in explaining how or why the empirical data are relevant, but first you must have some data to explain, and you have not given any such data, you have only given correlations which are not evidence of cause.

Lance Kennedy wrote: My logic is unassailable.

Wrong.

I have already thoroughly assailed it.

Lance Kennedy wrote: Hand guns are far more lethal than knives, clubs, etc. Thus, if hand gun ownership is widespread, then a much higher percentage of the victims of attacks will be killed. Inevitable. More hand gun ownership will cause a higher murder rate.

Not inevitable. Vermont is a sufficient example to disprove your claim of "inevitability".

Not only is your logic flawed, an argument is not evidence for a scientific claim. Your claim has not yet supported with any empirical evidence.

Sorry Lance, you have said nothing new above. You have still not made your case.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9888
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stabbing

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jan 17, 2016 1:43 am

Actually, we do not know how many hand guns are owned in Vermont. That is a major problem in terms of data. While there is some data on total gun ownership, there is none on hand gun ownership. Vermont is known as a state with a strong interest by many people in hunting, which would explain many long guns in ownership. But due to the idiocy of the American attitude to guns, the government has never put in place any procedure that gives good data. It is likely that the ownership of hand guns in Vermont is well below the national average. Which is another reason why quoting Vermont as an example in our argument, Xouper, is a nonsense.

Britain as an example is also a nonsense. Since gun murders are a miniscule percentage of a very small total, variations in murder rate due to changes in gun ownership cannot be separated from statistical noise.

And no, you have not countered my logic. You cannot counter the FACT that guns are far more lethal than knives, clubs etc. Nor that a gun will kill a victim when the assailant is out of reach. A person armed with a knife or similar hand weapon, and who attacks a victim, is far less likely to kill that person, compared to an assailant armed with a gun. For example, a person who is attacked and runs away will most probably escape if the assailant has a knife, but will be shot down if the assailant has a gun. Thus, making hand guns widely available inevitably leads to more murders. That logic cannot be countered, and you have not countered it.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Sun Jan 17, 2016 2:31 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:... But due to the idiocy of the American attitude to guns,

It is that kind of inflammatory rhetoric that reveals your severe prejudice on this topic. That might explain why you keep repeating the same flawed and discredited arguments over and over and over . . .

Lance Kennedy wrote:Britain as an example is also a nonsense. Since gun murders are a miniscule percentage of a very small total, variations in murder rate due to changes in gun ownership cannot be separated from statistical noise.

Wrong.

Here again is the graph which shows very clearly the homicide rate after the handgun ban, and it is not buried in some "noise" as you mistakenly claim.



I have personally verified the accuracy of that graph using official government data. Anyone can do the same, since the link to the data is given in the footnote of that graph.

In any case, it seems you are in effect saying that if Britain rescinds its handgun ban, the homicide rate will not "inevitably" go up.

This is not the first time you have contradicted yourself.

Lance Kennedy wrote:And no, you have not countered my logic.

Yes I have.

Lance Kennedy wrote:You cannot counter the FACT that guns are far more lethal than knives, clubs etc.

Correct. But that is not what I was "countering".

I merely pointed out that the conclusions you draw from that fact are not necessitated by logic. Your syllogism is severely flawed despite that one of your initial premises is true.

If you were to make that argument on a college exam in logic, the professor would mark it wrong.

I understand that you do not agree, but it's likely the professor won't care what your opinion is.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby JO 753 » Sun Jan 17, 2016 4:10 am

Wer did you find that graf?

Herez another sours:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2013-14/rpt-chapter-2.html

From the summary:
Over recent years, the number of currently recorded homicides has shown a general downward trend and the numbers for 2013/14 (526) and 2011/12 (528) were the lowest since 1989 (521).


The bottom 2 linez in the summary:
The most common method of killing continued to be by knife or other sharp instrument. In 2013/14, there were 202 victims killed in this way, accounting for over 1 in 3 (38%) homicides.

In 2013/14, 29 homicide victims (6% of the total) were killed by shooting, the same as in 2012/13 and the lowest number since 1980 (19 homicides).


Britain haz been shown to be a poor example for the effect uv firearm banz befor in another topic. Not very violent, even wen they had gunz. They just dont hav fire in the belly anymore. 526 total killingz? HA! I think we get that many gun aksident deths per yir!

You got your graf frum a pro gun sours, az usual. It iz intended to mislead.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby JO 753 » Sun Jan 17, 2016 4:14 am

Interesting thing, they seem to hav it in for their babyz:
In 2013/14, there were 9.2 offences of homicide per million population. As in previous years, children under one year old had the highest rate of homicide (23.9 offences per million population) compared with other age groups.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9888
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stabbing

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jan 17, 2016 7:31 am

Jo

Xouper ignored my point, as always. When gun homicides are such a tiny percentage of the total, an increase in overall homicide rate has nothing to do with guns. The graph Xouper posted is one I have seen before. It is replicated on web sites run by the various minions of the gun manufacturers, and they, like Xouper, ignore the massive logical fallacy involved in trying to draw conclusions from it.

Yes, the gun contribution to total murder rates in Britain is, indeed, smothered by the noise. Total homicide rate is unrelated, in Britain (not in the USA), to homicides by gun in Britain.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:14 am

JO 753 wrote:Wer did you find that graf? ... You got your graf frum a pro gun sours, az usual. It iz intended to mislead.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Shame on you JO for not even reading my post and making a blatantly false accusation.

I clearly stated the source of the data. It's from an official UK government document.

There is even a link to that data so you can verify it yourself. If you read that government report and plot the data from it, the resulting graph looks exactly like the graph I posted. I did that and personally verified that the graph is not phony or misleading.

Secondly, the source you quoted does not contradict the data in the graph I posted. The data you cited is for 2011 and later. They make no mention of the homicide rate for the period between 1997 and 2011, a period in which the homicide rate nearly doubled in the years immediately after the handgun ban.

The point is that when handguns were banned, the homicide rate did NOT go down, as Lance predicted it should.

That is the point.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Jo

Xouper ignored my point, as always.

Wrong.

That graph directly refutes your claim about handguns.

You said that if the government takes away the handguns, the homicide rate will "inevitably" go down.

In Britain, not only did the homicide rate NOT go down after the ban, it nearly doubled, and then after some 15 years it dropped back to its previous level. At no time was there a noticeable drop in homicide rate that can be attributed to the handgun ban. In fact, just the opposite.

When you look at the longer term trend of the homicide rate in Britain, it shows a slight downward trend with a huge spike in the decade after the ban. It is not statistical "noise" as you claim. It is significant and very noticeable. Based on the longer term trend (extrapolating from the data prior to 1997), the homicide rate in Britain today is exactly where you would expect it to be even if there had been no handgun ban.

Lance Kennedy wrote:When gun homicides are such a tiny percentage of the total, an increase in overall homicide rate has nothing to do with guns.

How do you know that?

You don't.

You are again making a claim about causation without any evidence for your claim.

You have made the general and unqualified claim that more handguns "inevitably" causes more homicides.

But when the correlation goes against you, you claim there is no causal relation in that case.

You are claiming that in Britain, handguns do NOT cause the homicide rate, yet you still want to compare the statistics between Britain and the US, claiming (falsely) that you are comparing apples to apples.

In the past you have claimed that the reason Britain has a lower homicide rate than the US is because  they have fewer guns. Now you are claiming that guns are not the cause of the homicide rate in Britain.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

If, as you say, there is no cause in this case, then you have just admitted that it is not "inevitable" that guns are the cause in ALL countries (or states). You have just undermined your use of the word "inevitable".

And in doing that, you have cast significant doubt that guns are the cause in ANY case. To resolve that doubt, you need actual evidence, not mere assertions and rhetoric.

You can't have it both ways.

Furthermore, since you claim that handguns are NOT the cause of the homicide rate in Britain, then you just undermined any objection you might have to letting the people have their handguns back.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Lance Kennedy wrote:... and they, like Xouper, ignore the massive logical fallacy involved in trying to draw conclusions from it.

Wrong.

I do not draw any conclusions from it.

I am merely pointing out that the data contradict your claim about guns. That data points out the fallacy in the conclusions YOU are trying to draw.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9888
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stabbing

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:36 pm

Xouper

In the USA, which has 8000 hand gun murders each year, taking away hand guns will inevitably reduce the murder toll. In Britain, which had less than 10 hand gun murders each year, taking away hand guns had an impact that was too small to be measurable. I do not want to accuse you of being stupid, but if you cannot see that, then....

The reason that hand guns were not a big factor in British murders is because there were never more than a few in the entire country. In the USA, there are an estimated 100 million hand gunds. Do you not see the difference? If you cannot see that difference, then...

My arguments about hand guns and murder relate to the USA. Hand guns were never a significant problem in Britain or in NZ, or any other 'civilised' country. Only in the barbaric USA.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby TJrandom » Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:19 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote: ... Contrary to you claim, a correlation cannot answer that question.

I did not claim this.

Yes you did.

Or are you now retracting your earlier claim that a correlation is evidence that a causation exists?

Fine - then please show where I did so.

Bobbo said correlation is evidence of causation. When I asked if you agree with him, you said "Yes." I quoted you several times on that point.



Sorry Xoup – but you fail once again, and due to your penchant for poor reading followed by substituting any strawman claim that you dream up, and then attacking that supposed claim – everything after that point is mute. Here is the post – please note that you asked an either-or question, to which I answered Yes. My answer was intentionally vague, but you chose to assume it meant something that it didn`t, and went off rails from there. The proper response to my Yes, would have been to ask for clarification, IMO.

viewtopic.php?f=97&t=26410&start=120

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:26 pm

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote: ... Contrary to you claim, a correlation cannot answer that question.

I did not claim this.

Yes you did. Or are you now retracting your earlier claim that a correlation is evidence that a causation exists?

Fine - then please show where I did so.

Bobbo said correlation is evidence of causation. When I asked if you agree with him, you said "Yes." I quoted you several times on that point.

Sorry Xoup – but you fail once again, and due to your penchant for poor reading followed by substituting any strawman claim that you dream up, and then attacking that supposed claim – everything after that point is mute. Here is the post – please note that you asked an either-or question, to which I answered Yes. My answer was intentionally vague, but you chose to assume it meant something that it didn`t, and went off rails from there. The proper response to my Yes, would have been to ask for clarification, IMO.

You were intentionally playing word games. You got caught contradicting yourself. {!#%@} off.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:36 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

In the USA, which has 8000 hand gun murders each year, taking away hand guns will inevitably reduce the murder toll.

Maybe so, maybe not.

I have asked you repeatedly for evidence to support your claim, but you have never given any. You have given only correlations, opinions, speculations, and insults.

Lance Kennedy wrote:In Britain, which had less than 10 hand gun murders each year, taking away hand guns had an impact that was too small to be measurable. I do not want to accuse you of being stupid, but if you cannot see that, then....

The reason that hand guns were not a big factor in British murders is because there were never more than a few in the entire country. In the USA, there are an estimated 100 million hand gunds. Do you not see the difference? If you cannot see that difference, then...

My arguments about hand guns and murder relate to the USA. Hand guns were never a significant problem in Britain or in NZ, or any other 'civilised' country. Only in the barbaric USA.

And with that, you just undermined your conclusions from the correlations between the US and those countries.

By claiming that handguns are not a causal factor in those countries, you just admitted it is not valid to compare them with the US to determine whether handguns cause more homicides.

Thank you for demolishing your own argument. Well done.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby TJrandom » Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:43 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote: ... Contrary to you claim, a correlation cannot answer that question.

I did not claim this.

Yes you did. Or are you now retracting your earlier claim that a correlation is evidence that a causation exists?

Fine - then please show where I did so.

Bobbo said correlation is evidence of causation. When I asked if you agree with him, you said "Yes." I quoted you several times on that point.

Sorry Xoup – but you fail once again, and due to your penchant for poor reading followed by substituting any strawman claim that you dream up, and then attacking that supposed claim – everything after that point is mute. Here is the post – please note that you asked an either-or question, to which I answered Yes. My answer was intentionally vague, but you chose to assume it meant something that it didn`t, and went off rails from there. The proper response to my Yes, would have been to ask for clarification, IMO.

You were intentionally playing word games. You got caught contradicting yourself. {!#%@} off.


Nice Xoup... {!#%@} off? as a reply to your mistake? On a skeptics forum no less?

My Yes was not a word game. Please do try to keep up and do a better job at reading comprehension, and please do stop making up strawman claims.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby TJrandom » Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:48 pm

xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Wer did you find that graf? ... You got your graf frum a pro gun sours, az usual. It iz intended to mislead.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Shame on you JO for not even reading my post and making a blatantly false accusation.

I clearly stated the source of the data. It's from an official UK government document.


Here is another case of poor reading skills, or possibly of intentional flawed interpretation.

The question was where the graph came from, and not where the data came from. There is a big difference.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:02 pm

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Sorry Xoup – but you fail once again, and due to your penchant for poor reading followed by substituting any strawman claim that you dream up, and then attacking that supposed claim – everything after that point is mute. Here is the post – please note that you asked an either-or question, to which I answered Yes. My answer was intentionally vague, but you chose to assume it meant something that it didn`t, and went off rails from there. The proper response to my Yes, would have been to ask for clarification, IMO.

You were intentionally playing word games. You got caught contradicting yourself. {!#%@} off.

Nice Xoup... {!#%@} off? as a reply to your mistake? On a skeptics forum no less?

My Yes was not a word game. Please do try to keep up and do a better job at reading comprehension, and please do stop making up strawman claims.

Nice try. I did not make a mistake. You admitted to playing word games. And I did ask for clarification, more than once, but you continued to play word games instead of stating directly what your position is.

It is not my intention to argue against a position you do not have. If you feel I have misunderstood your position, then you should correct me and not continue to play word games.

You have clearly demonstrated you are not interested having a sincere conversation. I am not interested in playing your idiotic game anymore, so . . . {!#%@} off. Yes, I said that on a skeptic forum. {!#%@} off.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:07 pm

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Wer did you find that graf? ... You got your graf frum a pro gun sours, az usual. It iz intended to mislead.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Shame on you JO for not even reading my post and making a blatantly false accusation.

I clearly stated the source of the data. It's from an official UK government document.


Here is another case of poor reading skills, or possibly of intentional flawed interpretation.

The question was where the graph came from, and not where the data came from. There is a big difference.

More word games from you.

JO clearly tried to discredit the graph, which means he is trying to discredit the data the graph is based on. The graph is merely a pictorial representation of the data, so in effect he is indeed asking me were I found the data.

Try looking past the words and look at the intent.

Oh, and . . . {!#%@} off.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby TJrandom » Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:11 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Sorry Xoup – but you fail once again, and due to your penchant for poor reading followed by substituting any strawman claim that you dream up, and then attacking that supposed claim – everything after that point is mute. Here is the post – please note that you asked an either-or question, to which I answered Yes. My answer was intentionally vague, but you chose to assume it meant something that it didn`t, and went off rails from there. The proper response to my Yes, would have been to ask for clarification, IMO.

You were intentionally playing word games. You got caught contradicting yourself. {!#%@} off.

Nice Xoup... {!#%@} off? as a reply to your mistake? On a skeptics forum no less?

My Yes was not a word game. Please do try to keep up and do a better job at reading comprehension, and please do stop making up strawman claims.

Nice try. I did not make a mistake. You admitted to playing word games. And I did ask for clarification, more than once, but you continued to play word games instead of stating directly what your position is.

It is not my intention to argue against a position you do not have. If you feel I have misunderstood your position, then you should correct me and not continue to play word games.

You have clearly demonstrated you are not interested having a sincere conversation. I am not interested in playing your idiotic game anymore, so . . . {!#%@} off. Yes, I said that on a skeptic forum. {!#%@} off.


Xoup - save yourself. Admit your mistakes.
Last edited by TJrandom on Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby TJrandom » Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:12 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Wer did you find that graf? ... You got your graf frum a pro gun sours, az usual. It iz intended to mislead.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Shame on you JO for not even reading my post and making a blatantly false accusation.

I clearly stated the source of the data. It's from an official UK government document.


Here is another case of poor reading skills, or possibly of intentional flawed interpretation.

The question was where the graph came from, and not where the data came from. There is a big difference.

More word games from you.

JO clearly tried to discredit the graph, which means he is trying to discredit the data the graph is based on. The graph is merely a pictorial representation of the data, so in effect he is indeed asking me were I found the data.

Try looking past the words and look at the intent.

Oh, and . . . {!#%@} off.


Xoup - save yourself. Admit your mistakes.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:37 pm

TJrandom wrote:Xoup - save yourself. Admit your mistakes.

Hey look, the pot is calling the kettle black.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby TJrandom » Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:39 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Xoup - save yourself. Admit your mistakes.

Hey look, the pot is calling the kettle black.


Xoup - save yourself. Admit your mistakes. (Or was that your best attempt?)

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby JO 753 » Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:06 pm

xouper wrote:JO clearly tried to discredit the graph,


I didnt just try, I did.

which means he is trying to discredit the data the graph is based on.


Never claimed it wuz inaccurate.

And I did read your entire post.

You are the wun gilty uv not reading andor intentionally misinterpretting stuff. You never bothered to look at the stats I linked to earlier, either assuming
you alredy know, or didnt care.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9888
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stabbing

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:03 pm

The point about the British graph relating murder rate to hand gun bans is that it is irrelevant. Hand gun murders were never a significant issue in Britain, and the change in murder rate after the ban had nothing to do with the ban. However, even though the graph came originally from a very obscure official source, it has been promulgated by the minions of the gun makers in the USA, and there is little doubt that is where Xouper obtained it. It is an attempt at deception, and Xouper has tried to continue the deception. The message he is presenting is utterly dishonest.

Xouper claims I do not present evidence. That is only because he redefines what I say as non evidence. Correlations are most definitely evidence, as are credible models of the mechanism. Guns are designed to kill. Long guns may be designed primarily to kill game or vermin, but they are designed to kill. Hand guns, though, are designed to kill humans. They are utterly inferior hunting weapons, but are excellent at killing humans at close range. They are also used to practise killing by putting bullets through targets, but they are for killing. Making them widely available is simply a means of increasing the number of people killed by them, and the USA has 8000 hand gun murders each year, which is half the total of all murders. The fact that Xouper cannot see this as abnormal is weird.

There are Americans who claim they keep a hand gun at home for self defense. But there are only 100 home invasions each year in which a person in that home is murdered. That is less than one for every 3 million Americans. Utterly insignificant compared to the thousands murdered each year with hand guns. So keeping a hand gun at home for self defense is just stupid. Making it legally possible to own a hand gun is even more stupid.

There is a US Dept. of Forests study which shows that hand guns as protection against bears is inferior to bear spray. It occurs to me that, if bear spray is legal to buy, it would be a much better method of self defense than a hand gun against other people, also. Devastating, but non lethal. It is idiotic to make hand guns available.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:09 pm

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:JO clearly tried to discredit the graph,

I didnt just try, I did.

which means he is trying to discredit the data the graph is based on.


Never claimed it wuz inaccurate.

If the data is accurate, then so is the graph, and thus you did NOT discredit the graph.

JO 753 wrote:You are the wun gilty uv not reading andor intentionally misinterpretting stuff. You never bothered to look at the stats I linked to earlier, either assuming you alredy know, or didnt care.

I read the stats. They do not answer the question why the stats are what they are.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:11 pm

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Xoup - save yourself. Admit your mistakes.

Hey look, the pot is calling the kettle black.


Xoup - save yourself. Admit your mistakes. (Or was that your best attempt?)

Now you're just heckling. {!#%@} off.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby TJrandom » Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:12 pm

xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:JO clearly tried to discredit the graph,

I didnt just try, I did.

which means he is trying to discredit the data the graph is based on.


Never claimed it wuz inaccurate.

If the data is accurate, then so is the graph, and thus you did NOT discredit the graph.

JO 753 wrote:You are the wun gilty uv not reading andor intentionally misinterpretting stuff. You never bothered to look at the stats I linked to earlier, either assuming you alredy know, or didnt care.

I read the stats. They do not answer the question why the stats are what they are.


Woot. I read the stats too, and agree with JO....

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby TJrandom » Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:14 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Xoup - save yourself. Admit your mistakes.

Hey look, the pot is calling the kettle black.


Xoup - save yourself. Admit your mistakes. (Or was that your best attempt?)

Now you're just heckling. {!#%@} off.


Nope, no can do. You are a rather dishonest person Xoup. You make obvious mistakes, and then accuse. Please do - save yourself. Admit your mistakes.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby JO 753 » Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:24 pm

xouper wrote:I read the stats. They do not answer the question why the stats are what they are.


No you didnt.

JO 753 wrote:But here agen iz the most telling info:

FBI crime stats compared to Japaneze crime stats


xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote: wrote:
How can you know if you never bother to look at the statistics?


I have indeed looked at the statistics.


GoCYU!
Last edited by JO 753 on Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:29 pm

Once again, Lance is merely repeating the same old flawed arguments with nothing new.

Can you say "broken record"?

Are y'all bored yet with Lance's BS?

No?

Here we go again.

Lance Kennedy wrote:The point about the British graph relating murder rate to hand gun bans is that it is irrelevant. Hand gun murders were never a significant issue in Britain, and the change in murder rate after the ban had nothing to do with the ban. However, even though the graph came originally from a very obscure official source, it has been promulgated by the minions of the gun makers in the USA, and there is little doubt that is where Xouper obtained it. It is an attempt at deception, and Xouper has tried to continue the deception. The message he is presenting is utterly dishonest.

I cited official government data. Nothing obscure about it. I was not dishonest in doing that. I stated very clearly where the data came from.

The fact that you are trying to disparage my character here is a clear sign you are losing the argument.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper claims I do not present evidence.

I make that claim because it is a fact that you have not presented any evidence.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Correlations are most definitely evidence,

The scientific consensus says your are wrong.

The fact that you keep repeating that same fraudulent claim over and over and over is yet another clear sign you are losing the argument.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Guns are designed to kill. Long guns may be designed primarily to kill game or vermin, but they are designed to kill. Hand guns, though, are designed to kill humans. They are utterly inferior hunting weapons, but are excellent at killing humans at close range. They are also used to practise killing by putting bullets through targets, but they are for killing.

Not relevant.

I have already demolished that argument. And I have repeatedly pointed out that arguments are NOT evidence.

When guns are used legally, no one gets murdered.

Lance Kennedy wrote: Making them widely available is simply a means of increasing the number of people killed by them, and the USA has 8000 hand gun murders each year, which is half the total of all murders.

That fact is not evidence that more guns cause more murders.

Lance Kennedy wrote: The fact that Xouper cannot see this as abnormal is weird.

That is merely your opinion.

Lance Kennedy wrote:There are Americans who claim they keep a hand gun at home for self defense. But there are only 100 home invasions each year in which a person in that home is murdered. That is less than one for every 3 million Americans. Utterly insignificant compared to the thousands murdered each year with hand guns. So keeping a hand gun at home for self defense is just stupid.

No, your argument is what is stupid.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Making it legally possible to own a hand gun is even more stupid.

Not as stupid as your opinion is.

Lance Kennedy wrote:There is a US Dept. of Forests study which shows that hand guns as protection against bears is inferior to bear spray. It occurs to me that, if bear spray is legal to buy, it would be a much better method of self defense than a hand gun against other people, also. Devastating, but non lethal.

Bear spray is not legal to use on people.

If handguns are inferior as you claim, then according to your argument, the police should stop using them. Let us know how they respond to your ignorant suggestion they use bear spray instead.

Lance Kennedy wrote: It is idiotic to make hand guns available.

Thank you for revealing your extreme prejudice on this issue.

Sorry Lance, you have failed to make your case.

And repeating the same BS over and over and over will never make your case.


Edited to fix a quoting typo.
Last edited by xouper on Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:31 pm

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Xoup - save yourself. Admit your mistakes.

Hey look, the pot is calling the kettle black.


Xoup - save yourself. Admit your mistakes. (Or was that your best attempt?)

Now you're just heckling. {!#%@} off.


Nope, no can do. You are a rather dishonest person Xoup. You make obvious mistakes, and then accuse. Please do - save yourself. Admit your mistakes.

Hey look, the pot is calling the kettle black. Again.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10259
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby Pyrrho » Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:55 pm

I am locking this thread temporarily.
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.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10259
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby Pyrrho » Mon Jan 18, 2016 8:40 pm

Unlocked.
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.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby JO 753 » Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:23 pm

TJ, Lance, EM, dont forget that xoup iz just here to hone hiz debating skillz.

Everybody, dont forget its just a forum.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:34 pm

JO 753 wrote:TJ, Lance, EM, dont forget that xoup iz just here to hone hiz debating skillz.

Thank you for posting yet another FALSE accusation about me personally. {!#%@} off.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby JO 753 » Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:55 pm

Hey! I ment no offens!

Now you are trying to get the topic permanently locked to hide your defeat.

Hav you seen Spartacus, the Starz orijinal seriez? Think uv this az the ludus where you train, not the arena where you emerj victorious or die.
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