American guns on dark web.

Duck and cover
User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:49 am

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:So you can see that you are drawing the line very arbitrarily, right?
No, I don't see that. Please explain in more detail.
Again, ignoring current legal conditions, why do you consider some weapons beneficial for the individual and society, but not others, even if they are used primarily for defence?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:57 am

One more thing, Xouper, responding to your comments of how to test the correlation between gun ownership and murders. A change in gun ownership has to be real, not fake. We know from hard and sad experience, that a state passing local laws to restrict gun ownership does not work. When the less than law abiding citizens can simply cross the state border and buy more guns, it makes a joke of the whole thing.

There are only two states in the USA where the test can be carried out. Hawaii and Alaska, which are sufficiently isolated to permit a stop to gun imports. Alaska has very lax gun laws, which could and should be tightened. It has the second highest gun ownership at 58%, and a very high murder rate at 8 killings per 100,000 people per year. From my correlation findings, it appears that gun ownership has to drop significantly below 30% to have a real impact on murder rates. So one test would be to massively tighten gun laws in Alaska till gun ownership was significantly below 30%.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:42 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:So you can see that you are drawing the line very arbitrarily, right?
No, I don't see that. Please explain in more detail.
Again, ignoring current legal conditions, why do you consider some weapons beneficial for the individual and society, but not others, even if they are used primarily for defence?
OK, apart from the legal requirements, my personal opinion about self defense is that if there is an immediate threat of harm to you and ONLY when there is such a threat, then you can take whatever action you deem will stop that threat.

But without doing a whole lot of collateral damage. By that I mean I do not consider it within the scope of self defense, for example, to blow up a whole neighborhood simply to stop someone on the street who is coming at you with a knife with an obvious intent to do you harm.

And only until the the threat is stopped. And by that I mean, for example, you cannot shoot a person running away from you, because he is obviously no longer an immediate threat to you. If he turns around and comes charging at you again, then I will have no sympathy for him if you stop the threat by blasting him with your flamethrower (if that's what you happen to have handy at the time).

In my personal opinion, self defense does not include harming someone who is not an immediate threat to anyone. I agree there is sometimes a fuzzy line as to what counts as "immediate". Each case must be judged on its specific circumstances. Reasonable people can disagree where that line should be drawn, but in my opinion, the victim should be accorded the benefit of the doubt, unless evidence requires otherwise.

So in the case of a mine, while you are correct that it is a defensive weapon (as opposed to a weapon of offense), it is nonetheless intended to stop someone who is not necessarily an immediate threat of harm to anyone. For example, if you're not at home and someone walks across your lawn and gets blown up by your mine, that is not self defense, in my opinion. (As an aside, the law also says this example is not self defense, but that's not what you asked.)

Does that answer your question?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:49 am

So if immediate self-defence is the only criterion, would you accept the ban of guns if they were replaced by drones with tazers accompanying you, shown to be even more effective at protecting you than carrying a handgun?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:20 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Correlation and causation. I want to make sure, Xouper, that you understand what I mean by causation.
Fair enough. You did say something below that might show you meant something other than what I thought you meant (re published correlations).

Lance Kennedy wrote:Using your terms, Xouper, of X and Y factors.

If X and Y are correlated, there are six possible kinds of causation relationship that might explain that correlation. Three are the positive correlations and three are negative, because negative correlations are also often a form of causation. For example, physical fitness is negatively correlated to heart disease. That is a causation relationship.

The three positive causation relationships between X and Y are.
1. An increase in X causes an increase in Y.
2. An increase in Y causes an increase in X.
3. A third factor, Z, when it increases causes both X and Y to increase.

The three negative causation relationships between X and Y are.
1. An increase in X causes a decrease in Y.
2. An increase in Y causes a decrease in X.
3. The third factor, Z, when it increases causes a decrease in X and Y.
Yes, I'm with you so far.

When scientists say "correlation", they usually mean it could be either positive or negative. That's why the coefficient ranges from -1 to 1. A coefficient near zero, from either direction, is considered to be no correlation. But you know all that already.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Now, it is true you can get a correlation where there is no causation. It can be due to the statistical work being incompetent or incomplete, or else it can be due to simple random chance.
Agreed.

Lance Kennedy wrote: But if a correlation does exist, positive or negative, then the probability that a causation relationship exists between the two factors is increased.
Not so.

Of all the possible correlations there are in the universe, most of them have a coefficient near zero.

What you seem to be claiming is that most of them are not close to zero. And that's simply is not so.

Lance Kennedy wrote:One kind of causation relationship which is often misdiagnosed as non causation is when the third factor, Z, is time. For example, rates of violence and ice cream sales may be correlated. This kind of relationship is normally described, wrongly, as non causation. But the cause is the third factor, time, due to the fact that both violence and ice cream sales increase when hot summer weather arrives.
True. Good example. The usual example with ice cream, though, is with drownings. When the weather is warmer, more people go swimming and more people buy ice cream. The causal factor in that correlation is temperature, not time.

But you are correct that in some correlations the casual factor is the third factor, time. I could post a bazillion examples of that, but you already get that point.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Once you realise the range of causation relationships, you should appreciate that most strong correlations are causation of one kind or another, assuming of course, that the research work that led to the strong correlation was competent.
Ahh, here it seems you impose the restriction that you are only talking about correlations that are published by researchers.

I was not aware you were imposing that limitation. Perhaps you thought it went without saying.

Is that what you are saying? If so, then I have more to say about that.

Lance Kennedy wrote:One more thing, Xouper, responding to your comments of how to test the correlation between gun ownership and murders. A change in gun ownership has to be real, not fake.
I agree with that.

Lance Kennedy wrote: We know from hard and sad experience, that a state passing local laws to restrict gun ownership does not work. When the less than law abiding citizens can simply cross the state border and buy more guns, it makes a joke of the whole thing.
Agreed.

However, that scenario does not apply in the cases where gun restrictions are significantly loosed, gun ownership goes up, and gun murders do not go up, as you predict it should. That is what scientists call "disconfirming evidence" that goes against your hypothesis.

Testing your hypothesis can be done in either direction:
  • Reduce the number of guns and see if gun murders go down.
  • Increase the number of guns and see if gun murders go up.
Either way is a valid test of your hypothesis that more guns means more gun murders.

Lance Kennedy wrote:There are only two states in the USA where the test can be carried out. Hawaii and Alaska, which are sufficiently isolated to permit a stop to gun imports.
OK. I will accept that. Unless you want to do the experiment on the entire US.

But wait, the US did try that experiment nationwide in 1994, and it failed to produce the effect you predicted. You will say that's because they only banned so-called "assault weapons", not handguns.

The UK did that experiment, but you dismiss it because you say the number of guns was too low to begin with. Then why bother doing the experiment if you already know it will not have the desired effect? Since gun murders did not go down, then why not let them have their guns back?

Australia tried that experiment and it seems gun murders went down, but not gun crime in general. And there is no evidence that a similar experiment would work the same in the US.

See for example:
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/ ... un-control

But wait, there's more . . .

In two other island countries that tried this experiment, Ireland and Jamaica, the number of gun murders did not go down:

Image

Lance Kennedy wrote: Alaska has very lax gun laws, which could and should be tightened. It has the second highest gun ownership at 58%, and a very high murder rate at 8 killings per 100,000 people per year.
Unless of course the number of guns is not the dominant factor in causing those murders.

Lance Kennedy wrote: From my correlation findings, it appears that gun ownership has to drop significantly below 30% to have a real impact on murder rates.
That's a possibility, but still needs to be confirmed by evidence. The correlation by itself is insufficient to make that determination.

Lance Kennedy wrote: So one test would be to massively tighten gun laws in Alaska till gun ownership was significantly below 30%.
OK.

I suspect the residents of Alaska will not be convinced to try that experiment. And I predict no one will be able to force such a test on them as long as the current Second Amendment is in place.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:36 am

ElectricMonk wrote:So if immediate self-defence is the only criterion, would you accept the ban of guns if they were replaced by drones with tazers accompanying you, shown to be even more effective at protecting you than carrying a handgun?
No.

Where has it been shown that tasers are more effective than handguns in self defense?

If you can convince the police to give up their guns in favor of tasers, I would be impressed.

Here's an example where I don't think the bad guy would have given up so easily if he had been confronted with a taser instead of a gun in his face. (No shots fired, threat stopped.)

https://patch.com/florida/stpete/3-stab ... r-deputies

Not to mention that drone technology is nowhere near what you would need for self defense. For one thing, they only have a battery life of less than an hour.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:55 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:On the second amendment.
I stated it was to enable a militia.
No, it does not state that.

What it says is the militia is a justification for the people's right to bear arms. It does not say it is the only justification.

Secondly, at the time, the militia meant all able-bodied men. So even if it was only for the militia, that would include all able-bodied men today. And women if they have anything to say about it.

Thirdly, it says the "right of the people", which means it is an individual right, just like all the other Amendments that mention a "right of the people". All of the rights in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) are individual rights. There is no evidence that the Second Amendment is not an individual right "of the people".

Lance Kennedy wrote:The other evidence for this fact is historical.
Sorry, but the written historical record clearly shows that self defense is one of the justifications for the Second Amendment.

Lance Kennedy wrote: . . . So my statement had solid historical foundation .
Sorry, the US Supreme Court does not agree with you. And neither do most historians.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:06 am

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:So if immediate self-defence is the only criterion, would you accept the ban of guns if they were replaced by drones with tazers accompanying you, shown to be even more effective at protecting you than carrying a handgun?
No.

Where has it been shown that tasers are more effective than handguns in self defense?

If you can convince the police to give up their guns in favor of tasers, I would be impressed.

Here's an example where I don't think the bad guy would have given up so easily if he had been confronted with a taser instead of a gun in his face. (No shots fired, threat stopped.)

https://patch.com/florida/stpete/3-stab ... r-deputies

Not to mention that drone technology is nowhere near what you would need for self defense. For one thing, they only have a battery life of less than an hour.
Not to mention that drones aren't likely to follow me inside most buildings.

Can you imagine the chaos if all the shoppers in Kroger each had their own drone hovering near them at all times? The noise alone would be highly irritating.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:09 am

X,

I said if the technology was proven to be more effective than the average person could be - the gun equivalent of the self-driving car.
In other words: what do you value more: being defended or having a gun?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:40 am

ElectricMonk wrote:X,

I said if the technology was proven to be more effective than the average person could be - the gun equivalent of the self-driving car.
In other words: what do you value more: being defended or having a gun?
OK, it was a hypothetical. I missed that part, sorry.

If it can be demonstrated that an automated system can defend me better than I can, then I might consider not carrying a gun around.

However, I still have mixed feelings about driverless cars. As a professional software developer, I have first hand experience with how unreliable such systems can be, especially in unforeseen circumstances.

Example: Miracle on the Hudson. The automation failed in two ways.
  1. It failed to take appropriate action when both engines went out.
  2. It failed again on the landing by taking control away from the pilot and stalling the airplane, thus causing it to hit the water at a rate exceeding its water landing design limit. If the pilot had been allowed to keep control of the airplane on landing, it's likely the airplane would not have hit the water as hard as it did (which is why the belly split open and injured the flight attendant).
So, good luck demonstrating that a drone with a taser will do a better job (or even as good a job) as a trained person with a gun. Never happen in my lifetime, so it's a moot point, really, for me.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:53 am

xouper wrote: If it can be demonstrated that an automated system can defend me better than I can, then I might consider not carrying a gun around.
so self-defense is at best a toss-up for you; more important is that you think you are in control.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:51 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:If it can be demonstrated that an automated system can defend me better than I can, then I might consider not carrying a gun around.
so self-defense is at best a toss-up for you; more important is that you think you are in control.
:roll:

Is that your professional opinion as an armchair psychologist??

I'm impressed though, you managed to combine two fallacies rolled into one, a non sequitur and a straw man.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:26 pm

How so?

If one system is better, but you can't decide to switch, self-defense is obviously not the only criterion here.
And the only other difference is personal control.

simple logic, not psychology.

But interesting that you think I was referring to your psychological state.

Tell me about your childhood...

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:09 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:How so?

If one system is better, but you can't decide to switch,
I didn't say that. That was mistake #1. A faulty inference. A non sequitur.

I said I might consider making the decision to switch. I did not say I wouldn't be able to decide.

ElectricMonk wrote:And the only other difference is personal control.

simple logic, not psychology.
And there's mistake #2. False dichotomy. And a straw man.

ElectricMonk wrote:But interesting that you think I was referring to your psychological state.
And now we get mistake #3. Declaring it is not a psychological judgement to make an observation about my motives and how I arrive at them.

Also, saying "you think you are in control" is indeed referring to my psychological state.

Here's a suggestion for the future. If there is any doubt in your mind about what I meant to say, or if you see an ambiguity in the way I phrase something, then please ask for clarification instead of assuming the worst possible (and most likely wrong) interpretation.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:05 pm

Big wall of text just to avoid having to chose...

it'S very simple: if one thing is demonstrably better for a single purpose, it should be a no-brainer to chose that thing if you are guided simply by a wish to optimize for this one purpose.

But for you it requires careful consideration, showing that self-defense isn't the only reason you want private guns.

Which is fine by me (humans never do anything for one reason only), but obviously not by you.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:25 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Big wall of text just to avoid having to chose...

it'S very simple: if one thing is demonstrably better for a single purpose, it should be a no-brainer to chose that thing if you are guided simply by a wish to optimize for this one purpose.

But for you it requires careful consideration, showing that self-defense isn't the only reason you want private guns.

Which is fine by me, but obviously not by you.
It appears your real motive for asking all these questions was not a sincere desire to have a conversation, but rather to find something to beat me over the head with and feel morally superior about.

Good luck with your delusions.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:08 pm

Xouper, you are obvious uncomfortable about the way the conversation has progressed. I'm sorry about that.

Yes, I wanted to find out what your reasons for having personal firearms are - as I have stated from the beginning.
My questions were designed to find out whether self-defense is the only reason why you want to be able to have guns - which is what you have always claimed. As I said, it's next to impossible that that is the only reason, and it seems you are starting to see that, too.

This is not a moral cudgel, though - rather a two-edged sword: I freely admit that my desire to ban as many firearms as possible is motivated not only by a desire for safety, but also for engineering a more open society. I also have a deep distrust of human nature not to see everything as a target when the most ready thing they have is a gun. I strongly believe that the State must have a monopoly on violence, and the less armed the population is, the less armed law enforcement can be.
These are not purely data-driven arguments, and I know that.

But are you entirely certain that you only want to have a weapon for protection? No other reasons?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:55 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:My questions were designed to find out whether self-defense is the only reason why you want to be able to have guns - which is what you have always claimed.
If my words gave you that impression then I apologize. That was not my intention. I have been saying for years on this forum that there are many legitimate reasons for having a gun. I have been fortunate that I have never needed a gun for self defense. Not everyone is that lucky.

ElectricMonk wrote:This is not a moral cudgel, though - rather a two-edged sword: I freely admit that my desire to ban as many firearms as possible is motivated not only by a desire for safety, but also for engineering a more open society. I also have a deep distrust of human nature not to see everything as a target when the most ready thing they have is a gun. I strongly believe that the State must have a monopoly on violence, and the less armed the population is, the less armed law enforcement can be.
Thanks for stating your opinions. I can't really argue they are "wrong", just as I can't say someone's preference for chicken fat ice cream is "wrong". I just have a different set of opinions.


Image

Fact: Police and law enforcement are convicted of gun crimes at a rate much higher than that of concealed carry permit holders.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:38 pm

Fact: an armed society is very poor/harmful/destructive social policy.

Just look.......................xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

WTF: it just occurred to me for the first time the Gun Stats in the USA should stand on their own. Why would it matter that some other country very different from the usa has lots of guns and lower death rate? THIS IS THE USA!!!! We are unique in all ways. Death from guns....just another way. No Guns ==== No Death from Guns.

The rest is blather.
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: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:49 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Fact: an armed society is very poor/harmful/destructive social policy.
That's an opinion, not a fact.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: No Guns ==== No Death from Guns.
You said that already. No one disagrees with that.

But it's a meaningless tautology, not useful for accomplishing anything useful.

Here are some more:

No cars ==== No Death from drunk drivers.

No swimming pools ==== No Death from drowning in swimming pools.

No knives ==== No Death from knives.

No paper ==== No Death from a thousand paper cuts.

No brain ==== No Death from brain diseases.

No X ==== No Death from X.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:19 pm

You are right.........its all been said.

Also said: no benefit from guns. Lots of benefits for your list of other activities. "No benefit" worth the harm.

Everything is a value statement. My values ARE better than yours....... zero death from guns.

I'll let you repeat your position now, and not respond....otherwise, we get worse than a tautology.

Anything "new" in your preception over the past few years or is the rut that well worn?
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?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:22 pm

Here's another cut at the issue: Xouper..... is the current death from guns in the USA acceptable to you or not?

If so.......then fine. Your "values" are known.

If not............what would you do to bring the numbers down? If no ideas........your values are known.
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
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:31 pm

Xouper

One more point about correlations.
I said that strong correlations mostly have a causation relationship. I stand by that, but I should clarify.
A strong correlation is one that has two special qualities.
1. It is generated by compotent researchers.
2. The coefficient is high enough to make simply random chance unlikely as an explanation. My second gun ownership/murder correlation barely sufficient. The third one, though is large enough to make random chance unlikely.

The causation, of course, could be any of the six relationships I listed.

Now, about the latest two graphs you posted. Classic cherry picking. I presume some gun lobby is the source of those two graphs ? They are correct, but you failed to remember something I told you a while back. There was a world wide surge in violent crimes starting in the late 1960's. Not just Jamaica and Ireland, but everywhere. The cause was baby boomer males reaching the age of violence. Most violent crimes are committed by males between 15 and 30 years of age. At the time your graphs show an increase in murders, this increase was also happening everywhere else that the baby boomer generation had an impact. Of course, for Ireland, it was political. Those angry young men were joining the IRA and using violence as a political tool.

I also looked up murder in Jamaica on Google. It turns out that, not only did it get the normal baby boomer surge in violence, but there was an influx of organised crime and drug dealing. So there was a MASSIVE "confounding factor " over and above that, equivalent to what happened in Mexico.

So for Ireland and Jamaica, to suggest that the rise in murders after gun control was evidence that gun control failed, is dishonest, since it ignores very potent forces that happened after the gun control measures.

One of the problems I have found in the gun control debate is that gun enthusiasts routinely get into the apples for oranges fallacy. They do not stick to comparing apples to apples and anything to support their argument, no matter how ridiculous, is permitted. Not accusing you of this Xouper. I suspect that you are drawing arguments from the gun lobby, directly or indirectly, and they have no honesty and no conscience.
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:37 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Also said: no benefit from guns.
That is factually incorrect.

Guns do indeed have a benefit, as I have explained many times in previous threads. And you know that.

I know you've seen my thread about the successful uses of a gun for self defense. That is a yuuuge benefit for the victims and their loved ones.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Everything is a value statement. My values ARE better than yours.......
Image

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Anything "new" in your preception over the past few years or is the rut that well worn?
Same question to you, bobbo.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Here's another cut at the issue: Xouper..... is the current death from guns in the USA acceptable to you or not?
Is the current death from drunk drivers in the USA acceptable to you or not?

Is the current death from drowning in swimming pools in the USA acceptable to you or not? It is the number one killer of children between 1 and 4 years old.

etc etc

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:45 pm

Xouper

4,000 young men are murdered each year in the USA by hand guns due to an argument. These deaths would not happen if hand guns were not a available. At the same time, the only clear cut cases where lives are saved through hand gun self defence is a few hundred. So the self defense argument is crap. Lives saved is negligible. Lives lost is massive.

Deaths from drunk driving and children in swimming pools.
I cannot speak for the USA, but here in NZ, the government has passed laws to reduce both, and policed those laws strongly. The lives lost from both causes has dropped massively as a result. We are suggesting the same thing happen to lives lost from gun murders.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:28 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

One more point about correlations.
I said that strong correlations mostly have a causation relationship. I stand by that, but I should clarify.
A strong correlation is one that has two special qualities.
1. It is generated by compotent researchers.
Are you saying you qualify under #1 as a "competent researcher"?

If so, then I have a lot more to say about that.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Now, about the latest two graphs you posted. Classic cherry picking.
Not so. It suffices to show a counter-example to refute your claim. In this case I showed two. They are legitimate counter-examples to your claim that if you run the experiment on any sufficiently isolated country (or state), it will show a decrease in gun murders if a gun ban goes into effect. Sorry, but not always.

Lance Kennedy wrote: I presume some gun lobby is the source of those two graphs ? They are correct, but you failed to remember something I told you a while back. There was a world wide surge in violent crimes starting in the late 1960's. Not just Jamaica and Ireland, but everywhere. The cause was baby boomer males reaching the age of violence. Most violent crimes are committed by males between 15 and 30 years of age. At the time your graphs show an increase in murders, this increase was also happening everywhere else that the baby boomer generation had an impact. Of course, for Ireland, it was political. Those angry young men were joining the IRA and using violence as a political tool.
Aha - so you admit that there can be other causal factors for the gun murder numbers and that guns had little to do with it. Just like you did with Mexico.

But you seem totally unwilling to make such an allowance for the US. Perhaps because that would ruin your narrative.

In any case, you have not (yet) explain why, in the US, other factors are not the cause of the gun murder rate. How do you know the number of guns are the cause and not some other factors? You haven't given any evidence for that.

Seems you want to say that when gun murders go down then fewer guns were the cause but if gun murders go up, then guns aren't the cause, Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

Lance Kennedy wrote:4,000 young men are murdered each year in the USA by hand guns due to an argument. These deaths would not happen if hand guns were not a available.
You said that already, more than once. But you have given no evidence for that assertion, despite repeated requests to do so.

Lance Kennedy wrote:At the same time, the only clear cut cases where lives are saved through hand gun self defence is a few hundred. So the self defense argument is crap. Lives saved is negligible.
That is factually incorrect.

There are no numbers of how many lives have been saved by self defense with a gun. There are however estimates of the number of times a gun has been used in self defense. As reported by the CDC, that number ranges from 500,000 up to a few million per year, depending on who you choose to believe.

Even taking the low end of that estimate, it is still more than the criminal uses of a gun. That's from the 2013 report commissioned by President Obama, as I posted previously.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Deaths from drunk driving and children in swimming pools.
I cannot speak for the USA, but here in NZ, the government has passed laws to reduce both, and policed those laws strongly. The lives lost from both causes has dropped massively as a result.
I'll accept your assertion at face value, unless I learn there's good reason not to. Nor do I know how much personal freedom has been lost due to those laws. But it doesn't matter to me since I don't live there (and probably never will).

Lance Kennedy wrote: We are suggesting the same thing happen to lives lost from gun murders.
You can suggest it all you want. Your opinion doesn't count for anything in the US. And as long as the Second Amendment exists in its current form, it won't happen anyway.

Lance Kennedy wrote:One of the problems I have found in the gun control debate is that gun enthusiasts routinely get into the apples for oranges fallacy. They do not stick to comparing apples to apples and anything to support their argument, no matter how ridiculous, is permitted.
On the gun issue, comparing the US to any other country is apples and oranges, or at least that's what you say whenever I do it, but when you do it, you claim it's OK. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If you get to compare the US to other countries, then so do I. And if I don't get to do it, then neither can you.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Not accusing you of this Xouper. I suspect that you are drawing arguments from the gun lobby, directly or indirectly, and they have no honesty and no conscience.
That's just plain BS.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:00 pm

Xouper

First.
I do not claim to be a "competent researcher ".
I do not need to since I did not do the research. I simply took the numbers and crunched them, which is easy to do, and 100% accurate as long as you use a good computer program (lots are available).

On other causal factors.
Come on, Xouper, I could kick your arse for suggesting I do not admit to their existence. I have mentioned them numerous times. For example, I told you of the effect of latitude in the USA on murder rates. A direct comparison between the two regions of the US known as "Dixie ", and the collection of states called New England shows such a causal factor. The dixie states have very high murder rates, while the New England states are low.

According to Prof. Pinker, this is a culture difference. Dixie states are characterised by the 'rugged individualist ' ethic, while New England states are more attuned to social cooperation. Meaning those in the former will stoop to personal "justice ", while the latter are more socially responsible and work through their police. I cannot comment from personal experience, but I respect Pinker's ideas.

On my statement that 4,000 deaths come from arguments and a hand gun used.
It has been a while since I came across that. I subscribe to the American version of Skeptic magazine (which actually makes me a member of the American Skeptic Society). There was an article on guns and their impact on American society several years back. It quotes Federal Bureau of Investigation crime statistics, and this was part of it. However, I donate all my copies to the NZ Rationalist and Humanist Society, since they have a library, and that means the magazine sees wider readership. But fhe reference is (though second hand) Federal crime stats.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:10 pm

On using a hand gun for self defense.

The only situation where this could be seen to be needed is when facing someone else who has a gun. And I have already shown you the figures there. Having a gun when facing someone with a gun actually increases the probability you will end up dead.

If you are defending yourself against someone who does not have a gun, then the options widen dramatically. I have told you previously that I have been in that situation three times during my adult life and each time escaped untouched. If you feel the need for defense, then there are numerous devices to help. Screamers (some deliver 120 decibels), pepper sprays (even a handful of pepper in your pocket to be thrown), tasers etcetera. My favored defense is called bluff. My second favored defense is called running away.

If faced by someone holding a gun when you are not, then compliance is the strategy that most likely will result in you remaining unharmed. Drawing a gun of your own is the strategy most likely to result in you being killed.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:24 pm

Xouper: disingenuous and dodging as ever:
xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Here's another cut at the issue: Xouper..... is the current death from guns in the USA acceptable to you or not?
And not remarkably, this goes unanswered by Xouper.
xouper wrote: Is the current death from drunk drivers in the USA acceptable to you or not?
its unacceptable. We need more education, legalized drugs, expanded rehab and so forth. Perhaps breathalizer start mechanisms for all kinds of justifying incidents. AI Autos...will take care of this.
xouper wrote: Is the current death from drowning in swimming pools in the USA acceptable to you or not? It is the number one killer of children between 1 and 4 years old.
yes it is. A value of mine, like yours on guns, that is misanthropic. I like the idea of incompetent parents losing their kids. but....like drunk driving...its a social problem. More education, zoning, inspections, fence designs, parenting classes...a whole range of responses possible.

See how I answered your questions.......even after you failed/refused/can't answer the same question?

Your (lack) of character is demonstrated.
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: 13227
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by JO 753 » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:29 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: If faced by someone holding a gun when you are not, then compliance is the strategy that most likely will result in you remaining unharmed. Drawing a gun of your own is the strategy most likely to result in you being killed.
That assumez their goal iz sumthing other than killing or injuring you.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:32 am

Actually, non-compliance is almost always the better option: you are already somewhat in their power, but not totally - otherwise they would have to ask. Every step after the initial demand is likely to put you more in their power and reduce your options for resistance.
But you are right: drawing a weapon will lead to people getting shot; and since they got the drop on you, chances are you will end up dead if you pose a deadly threat to them. Much better is to run away wildly, shouting at the top of your voice for help.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:26 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Xouper: disingenuous and dodging as ever:
Not so. I wanted to get a better idea what exactly you were fishing for, so I wanted to to see your answers before I gave mine. There is nothing disingenuous about it.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Here's another cut at the issue: Xouper..... is the current death from guns in the USA acceptable to you or not?
And not remarkably, this goes unanswered by Xouper.
xouper wrote: Is the current death from drunk drivers in the USA acceptable to you or not?
its unacceptable. We need more education, legalized drugs, expanded rehab and so forth. Perhaps breathalizer start mechanisms for all kinds of justifying incidents. AI Autos...will take care of this.
xouper wrote: Is the current death from drowning in swimming pools in the USA acceptable to you or not? It is the number one killer of children between 1 and 4 years old.
yes it is. A value of mine, like yours on guns, that is misanthropic. I like the idea of incompetent parents losing their kids. but....like drunk driving...its a social problem. More education, zoning, inspections, fence designs, parenting classes...a whole range of responses possible.

See how I answered your questions.......even after you failed/refused/can't answer the same question?

Your (lack) of character is demonstrated.
Insults are uncalled for, bobbo. Especially unfounded insults.

As I explained, I was waiting to see how you answered so I would have a better idea what you were looking for.

No, I do not find those deaths acceptable.

As you say it's a social problem: drunk driving, swimming pool drownings, and gun violence.

Since you agree that the solution to those problems is not to ban cars and swimming pools, then I contend the same answer applies to guns. Especially since guns are explicitly acknowledged in the Constitution as a right.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:38 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

First.
I do not claim to be a "competent researcher ".
I do not need to since I did not do the research. I simply took the numbers and crunched them, which is easy to do, and 100% accurate as long as you use a good computer program (lots are available).
OK, but it was you who chose which numbers to correlation and which numbers to ignore. That exposes you to criticisms of cherry picking. Now, I have heard your explanations for why you choose some numbers and ignore others, but I do not accept your argument.

Lance Kennedy wrote:On other causal factors.
Come on, Xouper, I could kick your arse for suggesting I do not admit to their existence. I have mentioned them numerous times.
OK, I apologize for that. You have indeed mentioned them before. I withdraw my complaint.

My other question still stands. Since you agree there are other factors than gun ownership that are more dominant in explaining the gun murder rate, then why do you insist that restricting gun ownership is the solution?

For example, in Britain, why not let the people have their guns back, since as you say, taking them away did not have the effect you predicted, reducing the gun murder rate.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by xouper » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:50 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:On using a hand gun for self defense.

The only situation where this could be seen to be needed is when facing someone else who has a gun. And I have already shown you the figures there. Having a gun when facing someone with a gun actually increases the probability you will end up dead.
That assertion is not supported by the evidence.

Lance Kennedy wrote:If you are defending yourself against someone who does not have a gun, then the options widen dramatically. I have told you previously that I have been in that situation three times during my adult life and each time escaped untouched.
Yes, some people get lucky that way. Other people do not.

Lance Kennedy wrote:I If you feel the need for defense, then there are numerous devices to help. Screamers (some deliver 120 decibels), pepper sprays (even a handful of pepper in your pocket to be thrown), tasers etcetera. My favored defense is called bluff. My second favored defense is called running away.
Those methods can sometimes be effective and many people prefer them, but none of them are as effective as having a gun for self defense.

Lance Kennedy wrote:IIf faced by someone holding a gun when you are not, then compliance is the strategy that most likely will result in you remaining unharmed. Drawing a gun of your own is the strategy most likely to result in you being killed.
The evidence does not support that assertion.

As I have posted previously, according to US government data, on average, an armed victim of an assault is less likely to be harmed than an unarmed victim.

Also, in the thread of examples of successful uses of a gun for self defense, I posted many examples of armed victims successfully defending against an armed attacker. Those examples show that it can indeed be done. And those examples show that those victims were wise not to heed your advice.

Thirdly, the police generally do not agree with your opinion that they would be better of unarmed. When faced with an attacker, they would prefer to be armed. I would be impressed if you could convince them to give up their handguns.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:34 pm

xouper: still dodges the question.
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
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:38 pm

I notice Xouper made a number of assertions, but without references. Anecdotes do not count.

When I said that compliance is the best idea, that is not because I have experience to back it up. I said that because it is the advice of the police, who are the true experts. When I said that drawing a gun is going to make it more likely you get killed, that is the result of several studies, and I have previously posted references to those studies.

EM
I am not sure that screaming and running away is the best alternative. It might alarm your assailant, and he might shoot. If I were to use a similar tactic, I would tell the assailant that he had the better of me (to reassure him and remove any feeling of threat he might have) and quietly back off before running away. My screaming would wait till I was out of effective gun shot range. But I agree that a swift pair of legs is one of your best defenses.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:45 pm

I've read taking your wallet out (assuming a theft?...or it was requested ..... don't remember) and throwing the cash up in the air and then running away was the best bet to survive. NEVER "go" with the assailant. Better to get shot in public and maybe helped than kidnapped away to who knows where.

I would hope to follow the advice above.... although I'd be prone to attack the person regardless of who they were (eg: how big). As I often post here: I'd rather die trying than die passively.
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
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:58 pm

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion- ... story.html

This reference, among other things, points out that, for every so called justifiable homicide (a claim that the person you killed was killed in self defense) there are 900 guns stolen off law abiding citizens, and thus ending up in criminal hands. It is impossible to give guns to law abiding people without, at the same time, giving them to criminals.

It also points out that in 75% of all murders , the victim knows the killer. That means that self defense does not get a chance, since the victim does not expect an attack.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 13227
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by JO 753 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:25 am

Or duz, depending on the situation.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: American guns on dark web.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:21 am

If so, Jo, the killer is seriously incompetent.