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

"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
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

Then tell me what I'm doing wrong.

  • 12.25.2012 9:13 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
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.


It's not impossible, but it's pretty damn difficult. The idea that a black market for guns would be particularly strong without an initial, legal source seems pretty dubious to me.

  • 12.25.2012 9:13 PM PDT


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.
40%+29%=69%
69%/2=34.5
still doesnt make sense, but closer

  • 12.25.2012 9:14 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
Then tell me what I'm doing wrong.


I'm sorry, I just can't be bothered.

  • 12.25.2012 9:15 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
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.
lol
Also here's where Dutchy says it invalidates the argument: Posted by: King Dutchy
Posted by: Xplode441
Fallacy fallacy, assuming that someone's argument is rendered moot because of the use of a fallacy. Stahp
Well...it kinda does.

  • 12.25.2012 9:15 PM PDT

WALL OF SHAME-Posting stupidity since 2010
__________________
Posted by: Maximus Decimus
Agreed. All the changes are good and add variety. Do we really want another Halo 3? Just running around with one gun and no armor abilities? It's good that 343 wants to try something new. Do we really want the same thing for three more games?

I'm sick of seeing retard after retard not knowing what they're talking about and falling for obvious trolls.

A lot of people that made a serious post in this thread are stupid people who should probably stop arguing about gun control.

[Edited on 12.25.2012 9:16 PM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 9:15 PM PDT

OMG
Master Chief w/o his Helmet!


Stosh <3's me vicariously... at least someone does...

lol.

Gunwank exposed.

  • 12.25.2012 9:16 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: Xplode441
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.

You and I are on the same side, but I'm not as strong on my opinion about the background checks. It just makes sense to me because why would you be legally selling a gun to a known criminal? That makes no sense. Don't sell them a gun. That way, they can go buy an illegal gun (or steal one) and then if/when they do something illegal, that's just one more thing that can get them behind bars for a longer period of time.

  • 12.25.2012 9:16 PM PDT

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


Posted by: Xplode441

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.
lol
Also here's where Dutchy says it invalidates the argument: Posted by: King Dutchy
Posted by: Xplode441
Fallacy fallacy, assuming that someone's argument is rendered moot because of the use of a fallacy. Stahp
Well...it kinda does.
Well...BLAH

I put "Kinda" in there for a reason.

  • 12.25.2012 9:17 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
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.
lol
Also here's where Dutchy says it invalidates the argument: Posted by: King Dutchy
Posted by: Xplode441
Fallacy fallacy, assuming that someone's argument is rendered moot because of the use of a fallacy. Stahp
Well...it kinda does.


Yes, it does invalidate the argument, but the point of the "fallacy fallacy" is that the conclusion of an invalid argument isn't necessarily false. An invalid argument is (roughly speaking) one that doesn't prove anything.

[Edited on 12.25.2012 9:18 PM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 9:17 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
Then tell me what I'm doing wrong.


I'm sorry, I just can't be bothered.

Well if you can't back up your claims, then I'll just take my victory.

  • 12.25.2012 9:18 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
Posted by: Seggi31
Posted by: AgentCOP1
Then tell me what I'm doing wrong.


I'm sorry, I just can't be bothered.

Well if you can't back up your claims, then I'll just take my victory.


lol, go for it

Posted by: xODSTxDutch
40%+29%=69%
69%/2=34.5
still doesnt make sense, but closer


It's closer, but I think it's only about twenty or twenty five percent of Americans who've graduated, not fifty, so the number would be higher still. The more likely explanation is that these were two different studies.

[Edited on 12.25.2012 9:21 PM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 9:19 PM PDT

WALL OF SHAME-Posting stupidity since 2010
__________________
Posted by: Maximus Decimus
Agreed. All the changes are good and add variety. Do we really want another Halo 3? Just running around with one gun and no armor abilities? It's good that 343 wants to try something new. Do we really want the same thing for three more games?

Surprised I haven't seen some idiot post a link about Britain followed by "I'm glad I don't live in America".

  • 12.25.2012 9:19 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: King Dutchy

Posted by: Xplode441

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.
lol
Also here's where Dutchy says it invalidates the argument: Posted by: King Dutchy
Posted by: Xplode441
Fallacy fallacy, assuming that someone's argument is rendered moot because of the use of a fallacy. Stahp
Well...it kinda does.
Well...BLAH

I put "Kinda" in there for a reason.

It's okay to contradict yourself every once in a while. It's not an entirely bad thing.

  • 12.25.2012 9:19 PM PDT

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

-redacted-

[Edited on 12.25.2012 9:20 PM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 9:19 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
lol, go for it

So you're admitting that you're wrong.

  • 12.25.2012 9:20 PM PDT

WALL OF SHAME-Posting stupidity since 2010
__________________
Posted by: Maximus Decimus
Agreed. All the changes are good and add variety. Do we really want another Halo 3? Just running around with one gun and no armor abilities? It's good that 343 wants to try something new. Do we really want the same thing for three more games?


Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Seggi31
lol, go for it

So you're admitting that you're wrong.
Standard idiot turning an argument into a flame-war.

Do the internet a favor and smash your computer.

  • 12.25.2012 9:21 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
Posted by: Seggi31
lol, go for it

So you're admitting that you're wrong.


Nopers. This just isn't really a point worth arguing.

[Edited on 12.25.2012 9:21 PM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 9:21 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
Yes, it does invalidate the argument
Prove this argument. Burden of proof.

I've already proved that a fallacy does not invalidate an argument, it just misrepresents it. Simply pointing out a fallacy in an argument without touching any other part of the argument makes you look like you can't touch the argument and are merely attacking what you can.

  • 12.25.2012 9:21 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
Posted by: Seggi31
lol, go for it

So you're admitting that you're wrong.


Nopers. This just isn't really a point worth arguing.

All right well whatever.

Posted by: NavG123

Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Seggi31
lol, go for it

So you're admitting that you're wrong.
Standard idiot turning an argument into a flame-war.

Do the internet a favor and smash your computer.

>calls me an idiot for arguing valid points
>can't even formulate his own arguments

I love how people like you call anyone who says anything against you an idiot. Doesn't speak well for your character.

If you have something to say, now's the time to say it. I'm certain that you have the ability to argue things (no sarcasm).

  • 12.25.2012 9:26 PM PDT

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


Posted by: Xplode441
Posted by: Seggi31
Yes, it does invalidate the argument
Prove this argument. Burden of proof.

I've already proved that a fallacy does not invalidate an argument, it just misrepresents it. Simply pointing out a fallacy in an argument without touching any other part of the argument makes you look like you can't touch the argument and are merely attacking what you can.
To be fair, AgentCop's entire argument was a equivalency fallacy. I did touch his entire argument by pointing out that it was a single fallacy.

[Edited on 12.25.2012 9:27 PM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 9:27 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: King Dutchy

Posted by: Xplode441
Posted by: Seggi31
Yes, it does invalidate the argument
Prove this argument. Burden of proof.

I've already proved that a fallacy does not invalidate an argument, it just misrepresents it. Simply pointing out a fallacy in an argument without touching any other part of the argument makes you look like you can't touch the argument and are merely attacking what you can.
To be fair, AgentCop's entire argument was a equivalency fallacy. I did touch his entire argument by pointing out that it was a single fallacy.

Oh dear

I don't even know what to say to you guys lol.

  • 12.25.2012 9:29 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
Yes, it does invalidate the argument
Prove this argument. Burden of proof.

I've already proved that a fallacy does not invalidate an argument, it just misrepresents it. Simply pointing out a fallacy in an argument without touching any other part of the argument makes you look like you can't touch the argument and are merely attacking what you can.


It wasn't an argument, it was a statement. Anyway, an invalid argument is one whose conclusions do not follow from its premises. The statements represented below:

Guns can kill people
Guns should be banned
Knives can kill people

Do not entail the conclusion that knives should be banned. Since the conclusion does not follow from the premises, an argument attempting to claim that it does is invalid. That's simply what it means for an argument to be invalid, and I'm not arguing that, I'm explaining it.

[Edited on 12.25.2012 9:32 PM PST]

  • 12.25.2012 9:31 PM PDT


Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Seggi31
Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Seggi31
lol, go for it

So you're admitting that you're wrong.


Nopers. This just isn't really a point worth arguing.

All right well whatever.

Posted by: NavG123

Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Seggi31
lol, go for it

So you're admitting that you're wrong.
Standard idiot turning an argument into a flame-war.

Do the internet a favor and smash your computer.

>calls me an idiot for arguing valid points
>can't even formulate his own arguments

I love how people like you call anyone who says anything against you an idiot. Doesn't speak well for your character.

If you have something to say, now's the time to say it. I'm certain that you have the ability to argue things (no sarcasm).
Already did bro, look back at the posts

  • 12.25.2012 9:34 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: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Seggi31
Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Seggi31
lol, go for it

So you're admitting that you're wrong.


Nopers. This just isn't really a point worth arguing.

All right well whatever.

Posted by: NavG123

Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Seggi31
lol, go for it

So you're admitting that you're wrong.
Standard idiot turning an argument into a flame-war.

Do the internet a favor and smash your computer.

>calls me an idiot for arguing valid points
>can't even formulate his own arguments

I love how people like you call anyone who says anything against you an idiot. Doesn't speak well for your character.

If you have something to say, now's the time to say it. I'm certain that you have the ability to argue things (no sarcasm).
Already did bro, look back at the posts

His past three posts just consisted of calling people in this thread retards and idiots. If you have to resort to that, I don't even know if I want to hear an argument from him.

  • 12.25.2012 9:37 PM PDT