Now let’s be fair: he’s making himself look like a moron. Being drunk just makes it more fun on our part.
The best part is that this isn’t even that rigorous of a gun rights thread and he thinks he’s winning it. The debate thread should be fun.
No, because I understand the issue of exposure in the estimation of risk.
That’s the point of the reference to the number of accidents that occur within a mile of home.
I don’t know how many more times I can try to explain it to you. I don’t think you are ever going to grasp this issue. I don’t know if your problem is congenital or acquired through interaction with the environment, but in the end it really doesn’t matter.
Kable, man, you have a ton of patience. You can’t win an argument with folks that don’t like guns. It’s like arguing with Creationists, in a way … in the end, it doesn’t matter what you say, you won’t convince them.
The best you can hope for is to challenge factual inaccuracies and respectfully offer facts of your own. Hopefully, some readers not directly involved in the melee of insults will take away some semblance of information and perspective from both sides of the argument.
Hey, just like me with guns.
I agree with that. It’s exactly like arguing with creationists. It can still be fun though.
Given that gun rights is one of the issues on which several people on this messageboard, myself included, have admitted to having had their position changed due to the presentation of reasoned arguments by the “other side”, your assertion is not broadly true.
The problem with Kable isn’t that he’s a gun rights advocate. The problem is that he’s really bad at making an argument and even worse at understanding other people’s arguments. ExTank, for example, could come up with a better line of argument about gun rights in his sleep.
No. Just a moment ago you indicated that you moved from your house because most accidents occurred within 1 mile of it.
You’re a complete moron, and you have no idea whatsoever of the issue of exposure in the evaluation of risk.
The problem is that he’s a fucking troll, and he has no interest in listening to people’s arguments. Several times people have laid out their position on gun control and he completely ignores it because he’s incapable of making a coherent argument that doesn’t involve trotting out tired pro-gun cliches.
We should really stop feeding him.
You are out of your fucking tree. Openly carrying a serious weapon in a public space like a grocery store is waving it around. It is waving it around like the big insecure dick replacement it is. It is threatening. It doesn’t matter if it is a knife, a sword, a broken bottle, a spear or any other weapon designed for injuring others. In my country we would lock this clown up after such an action, and NOBODY would argue the point. Blaming it on media is so far from relevant it isn’t even on the map; his actions are what matters and his actions were threatening.
I really don’t know what to think of weapons bans and clip restrictions and it doesn’t matter because I do not live in the US. In Canada we have lots of guns, and hunting is as big as hockey. I used to have a couple rifles when I lived in the country, lots of people I know have guns, I was talking with my stepsons about taking them to the range for some fun recently. If you are walking around the bush with a rifle during hunting season no one is going to bat an eye, but open carry in a public place is rightfully considered FUCKING ludicrous.
That’s what I mean. The number of times his response has been along the lines of “you said X but I know you meant Y and that’s what I’m going to argue against” indicates that he’s not really interested in having a serious debate. Whether he is unable to do so or merely unwilling remains to be seen, but we’ll see when his shiny new thread debuts in the other forum.
ETA: He actually reminds me of that guy (what was his name? Howdy something?) who hijacked the thread about the theater shooting, claiming that anyone who disagreed with him was clearly a pussy afraid of guns even when several people who work with guns professionally pointed out that opening fire in a dark room full of panicked people was a recipe for disaster. Whatever happened to him? Oh yeah - he got banned for trolling.
Given that he just started a thread in Great Debates about alcohol versus firearms, I concur 100% with your assessment. This douchebag is nothing more than a troll.
Well, he did say he was going to.
cite?
What makes epidemiologists so much better qualified than the criminologists at the DoJ or the researchers at the Congressional research service? Is there some medical aspect to gun violence that makes a medical or science background particularly useful?
If the NIMH wanted to study the relationship between gun ownership and paranoia or between gun control and gun phobia, or something like that, then sure I can see how these outfits are better equipped to handle this type of research but the sort of questions that were being answered could just as easily and effectively been addressed by the FBI.
I don’t think anyone is suspicious of the raw data they collect, I think some people object to how they present that data.
Based on my experience with CDC folks, I think the problem might be the perspective that their training has given them. They don’t like people dying, and guns are very lethal. The vast majority of people who try to commit suicide survive while the vast majority of those who try to commit suicide with a gun die. Without guns, most of the encounters that we see resulting in homocide by gun would result in a couple of nights at the hospital recovering form a beating or a stabbing. This makes them prejudiced against guns and I think they would totally eliminate guns from society if they could and if they have to start with guns in the hands of legal owners, they are OK with that because it is a net gain in lives saved (largely due to a reduction in successful suicide) even if it means a few extra rapes and robberies.
I have been skeptical of the NRA since they started getting involved is issues like unions and taxation.
They tried that already, it didn’t work out so why try again, its not like an assault weapons ban that just needed more time to work. 
Its his own damn fault for being so poor. If he were a responsible upstanding citizen he would have more money and not live in a neighborhood where he has to chain the TV to the wall. Hell, he’s probably one of those 47% folks who always vote Democrat.
Gun suicides don’t count and neither should people who pull a Thelma and Louise with their car. How many more rapes are you willing to accept to significantly reduce the number of successful suicides?
I see gun suicide a little bit like smoking cigarettes. Kill yourself if you want but don’t smoke around me and affect my health.
I’m not conservative (at least I don’t think so), I am pro-bill of rights and anti- crime. My acid test for whether a rule is good or bad (once it has passed constitutional muster) is if criminals will like the rule or be indifferent.
A criminal will be indifferent to ANY ban on the sale of new guns or accessories. They don’t get their guns and magazines at gun shops for the most part.
A criminal WILL be hindered by a licensing and registration requirement. The stock of guns available to criminals will become relatively fixed (or more fixed) and as the police extract guns from this stock through confiscation from criminals, there will be fewer and fewer guns to go around. Eventually, the stock of guns in criminal hands will reach an equilibrium where guns enter the stock through theft or illegal importation and leave the system through police confiscation.
Just for fairness sake, can we agree that there are some pretty extreme statements being made on both sides of this argument?
Oh, I missed that. My bad.
We just did a Great Debate on this back in December-January.
[quote=“Damuri_Ajashi, post:1013, topic:648729”]
What makes epidemiologists so much better qualified than the criminologists at the DoJ or the researchers at the Congressional research service? Is there some medical aspect to gun violence that makes a medical or science background particularly useful?
[quote]
You keep saying this. What makes them worse? Or more to the point, why do we want issues researched from only one perspective?
How well trained do you think the FBI is in conducting science?
This isn’t as categorical an issue as you seem to believe it is. I have a colleague who has appointments in the departments of psychiatry, psychology and epidemiology, and is a senior member of the American Society of Criminology. I have an epidemiologist colleague who used a data set to examine individual and social contextual factors in explaining violence. I used the same data set and similar statistical methods to examine issues related to mental health and other outcomes.
The Kessler National Comorbidity Survey is a large data set collected in a manner typical of most epidemiological research. It provides important information about the prevalence of mental health disorders. Very little can be done with it to explain why some people develop disorders and others don’t.
You really need to step back and get some idea of what science and research are, how they are conducted, how multiple methods and perspectives inform the current knowledge base, and how funding impacts ongoing scientific efforts.
Oh sure. The question is whether they’re being made by the people being accused of making them.
You’re tying yourself into a knot trying to be logical.
If a scientist has a bias in advance of his study, that is, if he already believes he is right, he is even more motivated to do the study within strict confines of the rules. He wants to collect totally valid data and number crunch it, with every confidence that the data and the analysis will confirm his opinion. After all, if he thinks he’s right, why would he want to cheat? If he thinks the facts will bear him out, he wants the facts.
And there is nothing wrong with that so long as he plays by the rules. Because if he cheats, he’s gonna get busted for it, this study will be examined quite closely. You can take that to be bank.
And unless I am very much mistaken, the NRA doesn’t want a study done by the Justice Dept because they are less prejudiced, they want us to rely on a previous study done by them and set it in stone as the final word on the subject. I am open to correction on that if there is evidence.
IIRC, it wasn’t “Yeah, sure, lets do a brand new study with transparency and clarity. But not the CDC, we don’t trust them, let Justice do it, and we’ll be cool with it.” It was more like stopping any study at all, preferring to rely on what they already have, and claiming it would be a waste of money, because they already have the definitive study, and they like the results.
The only problem I can readily see is the problem of defining terms. What is a “defensive gun use”? If you put a sign on your house saying “Break in, and I’ll shoot you!”, and nobody breaks in, does that count? Would it count if you were bluffing, and didn’t really have a gun?
A study like this can only be truly definitive if there is a consensus in advance of the study that the terms are valid and will produce valid results. To my eye, that is the real problem. I say this keeping in mind that I am a mathtard, and had to take Algebra 1 twice to pass with a “D”. And I had to cheat.
If you ever get mugged, try showing the guy your dick.
P.S. To any and all, it’s homicide.
“HIGHLAND, N.Y. – A New York town that began assigning an armed police officer to guard a high school in the wake of the Connecticut massacre has suspended the program after an officer accidentally discharged his pistol in a hallway while classes were in session.”
Good thing this was a “good guy” with a gun. If it had been a bad guy, the bullet would have known and landed in some flesh.
Look, the occasional firearm-related mishap in our schools is a small price to pay for safer schools…