Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: NY newspaper publishes map of legal gun owners
  • Subject: NY newspaper publishes map of legal gun owners
Subject: NY newspaper publishes map of legal gun owners


Posted by: Xplode441
Posted by: King Dutchy
Dat equivalency fallacy.
Fallacy fallacy, assuming that someone's argument is rendered moot because of the use of a fallacy. Stahp

Posted by: xODSTxDutch
Oh, only 10,000 people are losing their lives. No big deal guys, its not comparable anyways
Most guns linked to crime were purchased illegally. Yeah, let's punish the people who weren't following the law already by passing a law that hurts legal gun owners by banning guns. -blam!- genius dude.
I never once said to ban guns. I just believe, that they should be a little harder to get.

[Edited on 12.25.2012 8:47 PM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 8:45 PM PDT

*´¨)---––•(-• Dutchy •-)•–--–-(¨´*
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)••(¨*•.¸ (¨´*•.¸´•.¸
(¸.•´ (¸.•Everything fails•.¸) ´•.¸)


Posted by: xODSTxDutch

Posted by: SpartanMk18
Ok, here are my sources.

I concede that sucides do not account for 70% of firearm related deaths. It's only around 50%
Huffpo just for you dutchers.

That leaves round 40% for homicide.

Now lets put your average joe into perspective. There are 3.7 people killed per 100,000. The US has a population of 311,591,917 people.

I cannot pinpoint it, but most murders are committed against people who are connected with crime, or people the murderer knows. Be it in the drug war, or Gang v Gang. Your every day average person isn't often murdered out of the blue.

40% of 100,000 isn't 3.7 bro
No, 40% of that 3.7 is homicide using guns (or so he claims)

  • 12.25.2012 8:45 PM PDT


Posted by: xODSTxDutch

Posted by: SpartanMk18
Ok, here are my sources.

I concede that sucides do not account for 70% of firearm related deaths. It's only around 50%
Huffpo just for you dutchers.

That leaves round 40% for homicide.

Now lets put your average joe into perspective. There are 3.7 people killed per 100,000. The US has a population of 311,591,917 people.

I cannot pinpoint it, but most murders are committed against people who are connected with crime, or people the murderer knows. Be it in the drug war, or Gang v Gang. Your every day average person isn't often murdered out of the blue.

40% of 100,000 isn't 3.7 bro
I just went full retard

  • 12.25.2012 8:46 PM PDT

Posted by: Great_Pretender
Case and point: don't worry about it. Girls start getting boobies pretty soon, and then you'll have plenty of other things to think about. Being an Inheritor is not a life goal.
-TGP-

Posted by: Seggi31
Well, no, the fallacy fallacy is when it is proposed that the conclusion of an argument is false because the argument is invalid. Making use of a fallacy does, actually, invalidate the argument in which it is used.
One thing to keep in mind, is that even if someone is using a fallacy, it does not necessarily mean that their argument is not true. It merely means that they are attempting to argue for it improperly.

Posted by: xODSTxDutch
I never once said to ban guns. I just believe, that they should be a little harder to get.
As I said previously, a majority of firearms linked to crime are not purchased legally. How is making them harder to get hurting that statistic?

[Edited on 12.25.2012 8:49 PM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 8:47 PM PDT

Posted by: Baph117
This is an incredible step forward to being able to cure Downss sybndonre mn humans bineg.s

Posted by: Xplode441
Posted by: Seggi31
Well, no, the fallacy fallacy is when it is proposed that the conclusion of an argument is false because the argument is invalid. Making use of a fallacy does, actually, invalidate the argument in which it is used.
One thing to keep in mind, is that even if someone is using a fallacy, it does not necessarily mean that their argument is not true. It merely means that they are attempting to argue for it improperly.


That is almost exactly what I said, but in less precise terms.

Posted by: SpartanMk18
I cannot pinpoint it, but most murders are committed against people who are connected with crime, or people the murderer knows. Be it in the drug war, or Gang v Gang. Your every day average person isn't often murdered out of the blue.



I'd like to see a source fleshing this out, because that's really the only contentious thing to your post, since I actually acknowledged in my post that only around half of all firearm deaths are homicide.

[Edited on 12.25.2012 8:53 PM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 8:52 PM PDT


Posted by: Xplode441
Posted by: Seggi31
Well, no, the fallacy fallacy is when it is proposed that the conclusion of an argument is false because the argument is invalid. Making use of a fallacy does, actually, invalidate the argument in which it is used.
One thing to keep in mind, is that even if someone is using a fallacy, it does not necessarily mean that their argument is not true. It merely means that they are attempting to argue for it improperly.

Posted by: xODSTxDutch
I never once said to ban guns. I just believe, that they should be a little harder to get.
As I said previously, a majority of firearms linked to crime are not purchased legally. How is making them harder to get hurting that statistic?
Because it may just save someones life

  • 12.25.2012 8:53 PM PDT

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.

Posted by: xODSTxDutch

Posted by: Xplode441
Posted by: King Dutchy
Dat equivalency fallacy.
Fallacy fallacy, assuming that someone's argument is rendered moot because of the use of a fallacy. Stahp

Posted by: xODSTxDutch
Oh, only 10,000 people are losing their lives. No big deal guys, its not comparable anyways
Most guns linked to crime were purchased illegally. Yeah, let's punish the people who weren't following the law already by passing a law that hurts legal gun owners by banning guns. -blam!- genius dude.
I never once said to ban guns. I just believe, that they should be a little harder to get.

Well that's where you and I both agree. I agree that things like gun shows where people can buy guns without a background check should be illegal. But banning guns is simply not the solution. Just look at what banning drugs does. Drugs are still everywhere, but people get them illegally. The same thing would happen with guns. Criminals would just use the black market (just like drugs) to obtain their guns. Law-abiding citizens wouldn't want to break the law in order to get a gun. Therefore, and I know this argument has been used so many times before, only the criminals would have guns. It's really not that hard to see. If I want to get some drugs right now, I can literally go down to my neighbor's house and ask him to call his dealer. I could have the drugs within a few minutes. It's very easy, but the difference is that I'm doing it illegally. Banning guns would be the same thing.

  • 12.25.2012 8:54 PM PDT


Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: xODSTxDutch

Posted by: Xplode441
Posted by: King Dutchy
Dat equivalency fallacy.
Fallacy fallacy, assuming that someone's argument is rendered moot because of the use of a fallacy. Stahp

Posted by: xODSTxDutch
Oh, only 10,000 people are losing their lives. No big deal guys, its not comparable anyways
Most guns linked to crime were purchased illegally. Yeah, let's punish the people who weren't following the law already by passing a law that hurts legal gun owners by banning guns. -blam!- genius dude.
I never once said to ban guns. I just believe, that they should be a little harder to get.

Well that's where you and I both agree. I agree that things like gun shows where people can buy guns without a background check should be illegal. But banning guns is simply not the solution. Just look at what banning drugs does. Drugs are still everywhere, but people get them illegally. The same thing would happen with guns. Criminals would just use the black market (just like drugs) to obtain their guns. Law-abiding citizens wouldn't want to break the law in order to get a gun. Therefore, and I know this argument has been used so many times before, only the criminals would have guns. It's really not that hard to see. If I want to get some drugs right now, I can literally go down to my neighbor's house and ask him to call his dealer. I could have the drugs within a few minutes. It's very easy, but the difference is that I'm doing it illegally. Banning guns would be the same thing.
Agreed

  • 12.25.2012 8:56 PM PDT

Don't worry, you're still your mom's favorite Bnet member.

And I care why?

  • 12.25.2012 9:00 PM PDT

*´¨)---––•(-• Dutchy •-)•–--–-(¨´*
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)••(¨*•.¸ (¨´*•.¸´•.¸
(¸.•´ (¸.•Everything fails•.¸) ´•.¸)


Posted by: SpartanMk18
Now lets put your average joe into perspective. There are 3.7 people killed per 100,000. The US has a population of 311,591,917 people.
It's not 3.7, it's 10.1 (Pg. 74)

I'm researching your other claim, be patient.

  • 12.25.2012 9:00 PM PDT

Don't worry, you're still your mom's favorite Bnet member.

Actually, I do care. If my name and adress was published for the public for doing NOTHING ILLEGAL I'd be pissed.

  • 12.25.2012 9:01 PM PDT

Posted by: Baph117
This is an incredible step forward to being able to cure Downss sybndonre mn humans bineg.s

Posted by: AgentCOP1
But banning guns is simply not the solution. Just look at what banning drugs does. Drugs are still everywhere, but people get them illegally. The same thing would happen with guns. Criminals would just use the black market (just like drugs) to obtain their guns. Law-abiding citizens wouldn't want to break the law in order to get a gun. Therefore, and I know this argument has been used so many times before, only the criminals would have guns. It's really not that hard to see. If I want to get some drugs right now, I can literally go down to my neighbor's house and ask him to call his dealer. I could have the drugs within a few minutes. It's very easy, but the difference is that I'm doing it illegally. Banning guns would be the same thing.


A lot of drugs are really easy to manufacture, especially that particularly popular one which is legal in Colorado and Washington. It would also be pretty difficult to have large scale trafficking from Mexico since they get most of their illegal guns from the US anyway.

  • 12.25.2012 9:02 PM PDT

Still better than you.

.....most of you, at least.

Posted by: SpartanMk18
Gun owners like privacy. We don't want everyone to know what we have. We don't want people to know where we live. We just want to live our lives with out issue.

Then why do you have a gun. And people already know where you live, most of that information is easily accessible.

  • 12.25.2012 9:02 PM PDT


Posted by: Sh1n1ng Wolf
Didn't NY put in some sort of ban to large sodas as well?
Yeah i live in New York. One rite after another......

  • 12.25.2012 9:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Seggi31
Posted by: Xplode441
Posted by: Seggi31
Well, no, the fallacy fallacy is when it is proposed that the conclusion of an argument is false because the argument is invalid. Making use of a fallacy does, actually, invalidate the argument in which it is used.
One thing to keep in mind, is that even if someone is using a fallacy, it does not necessarily mean that their argument is not true. It merely means that they are attempting to argue for it improperly.


That is almost exactly what I said, but in less precise terms.

Posted by: SpartanMk18
I cannot pinpoint it, but most murders are committed against people who are connected with crime, or people the murderer knows. Be it in the drug war, or Gang v Gang. Your every day average person isn't often murdered out of the blue.



I'd like to see a source fleshing this out, because that's really the only contentious thing to your post, since I actually acknowledged in my post that only around half of all firearm deaths are homicide.


People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims.[12] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[36] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[12][37] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[38]

  • 12.25.2012 9:03 PM PDT

"If practice makes perfect" and 'nobody's perfect,' then what's the point of practice?"

Posted by: MegaMuffin16
And I care why?

Next they're gonna list everyone who owns a video game system.

[Edited on 12.25.2012 9:09 PM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 9:03 PM PDT

Bring on the business.

  • 12.25.2012 9:04 PM PDT

The Spartan Special Ops - Now with more LOLgasms!

Posted by: EnragedElite67
"The problem with quotes on the internet is 95% are made up." - Socrates


Posted by: King Dutchy

Posted by: SpartanMk18
Now lets put your average joe into perspective. There are 3.7 people killed per 100,000. The US has a population of 311,591,917 people.
It's not 3.7, it's 10.1 (Pg. 74)

I'm researching your other claim, be patient.


Then the CDC is posting contradictory information on their website.

  • 12.25.2012 9:05 PM PDT

In a nutshell, why I don't live in New York.

  • 12.25.2012 9:07 PM PDT

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.

Posted by: Doctor Genius
Education level plays a role in whether someone owns a gun. According to Gallup, 29% of college graduates say they personally own a gun, compared with 40% of those without a college degree.

Well, that's a lot of people who shouldn't have guns.

I just realized something. So they say that 47% of Americans have a gun in the household. However, they go on to say that 40% of non-graduates and 29% of graduates own one, so where did the 47 number come from? Graduates+Non-graduates=All of America. So, 40%+29%=69%. According to the poll, both 47% and 69% of Americans have a gun in the household.... so which one is it? I suspect shady polling methods.

  • 12.25.2012 9:07 PM PDT

Don't worry, you're still your mom's favorite Bnet member.

Posted by: PublicToast
In a nutshell, why I don't live in New York.
I envy you.

  • 12.25.2012 9:08 PM PDT

Posted by: Baph117
This is an incredible step forward to being able to cure Downss sybndonre mn humans bineg.s

Posted by: Murcielago00
People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims.[12] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[36] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[12][37] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[38]


Eh, that doesn't really flesh it out. I mean, for one thing, those with a criminal record aren't necessarily those committing crimes (It's entirely possible that people who live in troubled neighbourhoods happen to both be more likely to be shot and be more likely to have been convicted of a crime at some point - in fact, I'm almost certain that both of those things is true, but we don't know how it affects these statistics.), and it really only has localised statistics.

Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Doctor Genius
Education level plays a role in whether someone owns a gun. According to Gallup, 29% of college graduates say they personally own a gun, compared with 40% of those without a college degree.

Well, that's a lot of people who shouldn't have guns.

I just realized something. So they say that 47% of Americans have a gun in the household. However, they go on to say that 40% of non-graduates and 29% of graduates own one, so where did the 47 number come from? Graduates+Non-graduates=All of America. So, 40%+29%=69%. According to the poll, both 47% and 69% of Americans have a gun in the household.... so which one is it? I suspect shady polling methods.


that's not how you maths

[Edited on 12.25.2012 9:10 PM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 9:08 PM PDT

*´¨)---––•(-• Dutchy •-)•–--–-(¨´*
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)••(¨*•.¸ (¨´*•.¸´•.¸
(¸.•´ (¸.•Everything fails•.¸) ´•.¸)


Posted by: SpartanMk18

Posted by: King Dutchy

Posted by: SpartanMk18
Now lets put your average joe into perspective. There are 3.7 people killed per 100,000. The US has a population of 311,591,917 people.
It's not 3.7, it's 10.1 (Pg. 74)

I'm researching your other claim, be patient.


Then the CDC is posting contradictory information on their website.
Either they're mislabeling their information or it must be a coincidence, but according to page 11, The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2009 were suicide (59.8%) and homicide (36.7%).. And 36.7% of 10.1 is 3.7067, which rounds to 3.7.

Nvm, it clearly labels homicide as 3.7 and deaths overall as 10.1.

[Edited on 12.25.2012 9:14 PM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 9:10 PM PDT

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.

Posted by: Seggi31
Posted by: AgentCOP1
But banning guns is simply not the solution. Just look at what banning drugs does. Drugs are still everywhere, but people get them illegally. The same thing would happen with guns. Criminals would just use the black market (just like drugs) to obtain their guns. Law-abiding citizens wouldn't want to break the law in order to get a gun. Therefore, and I know this argument has been used so many times before, only the criminals would have guns. It's really not that hard to see. If I want to get some drugs right now, I can literally go down to my neighbor's house and ask him to call his dealer. I could have the drugs within a few minutes. It's very easy, but the difference is that I'm doing it illegally. Banning guns would be the same thing.


A lot of drugs are really easy to manufacture, especially that particularly popular one which is legal in Colorado and Washington. It would also be pretty difficult to have large scale trafficking from Mexico since they get most of their illegal guns from the US anyway.

How are you so sure that they wouldn't start making guns themselves? They're making drugs, so why not guns? There are plenty of extremely smart people in Central and South America. I'm sure they could figure out a way to manufacture working guns, especially considering how steep the price would be for one. They could make a crap ton of money selling guns. It's not like making a gun from scratch is impossible.

  • 12.25.2012 9:11 PM PDT

Posted by: Great_Pretender
Case and point: don't worry about it. Girls start getting boobies pretty soon, and then you'll have plenty of other things to think about. Being an Inheritor is not a life goal.
-TGP-

Posted by: AgentCOP1
Well that's where you and I both agree. I agree that things like gun shows where people can buy guns without a background check should be illegal. But banning guns is simply not the solution. Just look at what banning drugs does. Drugs are still everywhere, but people get them illegally. The same thing would happen with guns. Criminals would just use the black market (just like drugs) to obtain their guns. Law-abiding citizens wouldn't want to break the law in order to get a gun. Therefore, and I know this argument has been used so many times before, only the criminals would have guns. It's really not that hard to see. If I want to get some drugs right now, I can literally go down to my neighbor's house and ask him to call his dealer. I could have the drugs within a few minutes. It's very easy, but the difference is that I'm doing it illegally. Banning guns would be the same thing.
California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado require background checks at gun shows.

Let's see how that fares for them:
California Murders: 1,790 Firearms: 1,220
Rhode Island Murders: 14 Firearms: 5
Connecticut Murders: 128 Firearms: 94
Oregon Murders: 77 Firearms: 40
New York Murders: 774 Firearms: 445
Illinois Murders: 452 Firearms: 377
Colorado Murders: 147 Firearms:73

Now let's check a smaller size state, a medium sized state and a large sized state that don't require background checks at gun shows:
Virginia Murders: 303 Firearms: 208
North Dakota Murders: 12 Firearms: 6
Arizona Murders: 339 Firearms: 222
Texas Murders: 1,089 Firearms: 699

Based on 2011 statistics reported by the FBI
.

Woah, it's almost like the difference is negligible.

We need to focus on the mental health of the people, check more for that and not for parking tickets. That's something that's overlooked in these homicide cases, the mental health of the person and the fact that they didn't get proper treatment.

  • 12.25.2012 9:12 PM PDT