View Poll Results: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

Voters
4168. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2,522 60.51%
  • No

    1,646 39.49%
  1. #33681
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    Well the evidence is there for most folks to see. But accepting it is not something you want to. Even if you will not accept it, you also can not prove the great majority are not responsible. So the millions of gun owners will continue to use them with a very low rate of any of them being used in a crime or accidents, or by any other irresponsible ways.
    Sorry, thats not how things work.

    I cant just say the loch ness monster is real, and you must prove me otherwise. Its up to me to show evidence that he is real.

  2. #33682
    Quote Originally Posted by usiris View Post
    Sorry, thats not how things work.

    I cant just say the loch ness monster is real, and you must prove me otherwise. Its up to me to show evidence that he is real.
    Number of gun owners/number of gun related accidents would be your evidence.

  3. #33683
    You can't draw scientific conclusions from raw data.

  4. #33684
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    You can't draw scientific conclusions from raw data.
    You're right, if I dropped my rifle on my toe, broke it and had to go to the hospital it would be classified as a gun related accident.

  5. #33685
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolus View Post
    Get tired of the argument(s):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFVq22PY



    A study by the National Academy of Sciences (2004) reviewed over 200 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 "gun control" measures. Researchers were unable to find empirical evidence that restrictive gun laws and regulations reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents.

    Source: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241
    Will be ignored.

  6. #33686
    Quote Originally Posted by TITAN308 View Post
    Will be ignored.
    Yeah tell me what US federal "restrictive laws" they analyzed. I can think of one.

    Because this is what they said:

    Little is known about the potential effectiveness of a market-based approach to reducing criminal access to firearms.
    Because they can't tell the future.

    Oh my, such a groundbreaking link.
    Last edited by Rukentuts; 2014-06-27 at 02:10 PM.

  7. #33687
    Quote Originally Posted by usiris View Post
    Sorry, thats not how things work.

    I cant just say the loch ness monster is real, and you must prove me otherwise. Its up to me to show evidence that he is real.
    Hehe. Not a good comparison. Trying to relate something which may not even exist to data which does exists to show the number of gun owners , compared to the number of irresponsible actions speaks for itself. The law assumes a car owner is responsible until they prove they are not with a accident or a speeding, operational violation. Same is true for gun owners. If these were not true, then no citizen would get a license. :P

  8. #33688
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Yeah tell me what US federal "restrictive laws" they analyzed. I can think of one.

    Because this is what they said:

    Because they can't tell the future.

    Oh my, such a groundbreaking link.
    So in this thread we have you complaining that pro-gun nuts dismiss dozens of studies and that this indicates denialism, and here you are, dismissing a review of hundreds of studies.


  9. #33689
    Quote Originally Posted by vetinari View Post
    So in this thread we have you complaining that pro-gun nuts dismiss dozens of studies and that this indicates denialism, and here you are, dismissing a review of hundreds of studies.

    Yeah, I'm dismissing it when I quoted them that they admitted they don't know future consequences of non-existing actions in this country.

  10. #33690
    Quote Originally Posted by vetinari View Post
    So in this thread we have you complaining that pro-gun nuts dismiss dozens of studies and that this indicates denialism, and here you are, dismissing a review of hundreds of studies.

    He dismissed it on its merits and limitations. He didn't hand wave it away, which is usually what he complains about in other posters.

    The Socratic Method is alive and well.

  11. #33691
    You can't draw scientific conclusions from raw data.
    Actually, you can.

    But I wouldn't expect someone who thinks science provides proof to know that.

  12. #33692
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    Actually, you can.
    Explain to me how you can draw a scientific conclusion off of one variable (guns) off raw data which is the sum of a plethora of many uncontrolled variables.

  13. #33693
    Legendary! PRE 9-11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    6,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    Actually, you can.

    But I wouldn't expect someone who thinks science provides proof to know that.
    Can you give an example of a scientific conclusion being drawn from raw data?
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    educate your self

  14. #33694
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    that is a prime example for irresponsible gun ownership, he stole the weapons from his mother
    And yet your reply has absolutely nothing to do with the point being made, per usual.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

  15. #33695
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    The thing you're afraid of is the thing you want widely distributed so you can protect yourself from the thing you're afraid of. It's not fucking difficult.
    The thing I'm afraid of? Wierd phrasing. I guess you can't actually explain your point without resorting to the paranoia diatribe. Maybe it is "fucking difficult", because your point is off base.

    Assuming folks purchase a gun for self-defense, they are not purchasing it to be used in a firefight. They may be wanting it to equalize a gun, but moreso they are trying to protect themselves from violence/ criminals. If a woman buys a gun because there have been a lot of rapes in her neighborhood, that does not in any way have anything to do with guns among criminals, let alone your completely off the wall "I still haven't seen any gun nuts fully address my point that almost every gun used in crimes was at some point a legal gun."

    In point of fact, we do not address that because it is not a factor. We believe that social problems, recidivism, lack of enforcement, and countless other factors are the reason for the violent crimes. It does not matter if the person breaking into your house has a gun or an axe, you don't want to confront them with a cooking knife if you have other options.

    For point of reference, technically my guns are the most valuable (dollarwise) things I own. Therefor using your logic I have guns to protect my guns.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    You forgot, a bit meh, because most of the people who go batshit crazy with their guns obtained them legally.
    What's the qualifier for "went batshit crazy"? Since most guns used in crimes are not obtained legally, I assume you mean "most high profile mass shooting cases involve people that obtained their guns legally"?

    I mean, except for the Sandyhook guy that killed his mother and took her guns, that doesn't seem legal, but I'm sure there's plenty of cases, not matter how statistically insignificant the number.

  16. #33696
    "If I can't control it, it scares me"

  17. #33697
    The Insane Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    17,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    And yet your reply has absolutely nothing to do with the point being made, per usual.
    oh the irony

    of course you could´ve explained the point if i´m not getting it but no, that´s the best you can do, and i love you for that
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before.

    A bunch of times actually.

  18. #33698
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts
    Explain to me how you can draw a scientific conclusion off of one variable (guns) off raw data which is the sum of a plethora of many uncontrolled variables.
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11
    Can you give an example of a scientific conclusion being drawn from raw data?
    Here's how science works:

    1. A scientist asks questions regarding a particular phenomenon. He devises an experiment by which to test this phenomenon in order to answer these questions.

    2. The scientist then conducts his experiments (several thousands of times, typically) in order to account for a wide range of potential outcomes.

    3. During his experiments, the scientist gathers as much data as possible regarding the experiments themselves. This data includes results, variables, and unexpected outcomes.

    4. The scientist then takes this raw data and draws conclusions about his hypothesis, based on this raw data.

    That's how science works.

    Yet, you want to come here with these 'scientific' studies done on extremely small sample sizes of randomly called people (called by telemarketers, not scientists), where you think controls means 'excluding data.' None of which is the least bit scientific. A control is actually part of the experiment, not part of the data.

    Science requires data gathered from experiments, not just data you happened to have gathered through an unreliable means (such as calling random people at dinner to ask them personal questions). You can sit here and continue to claim your studies are scientific, but unless they were done in a controlled environment (laboratory), then they aren't actually scientific.

    Come back when actual scientists tackle the issue of guns in a laboratory environment, not some random poli sci majors with their terribly conducted studies.

    A real scientific experiment on the effects of gun violence and self defense would be unethical, because it would put people in situations where they can potentially lose their life.

  19. #33699
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    <snip>
    Well that explains a lot. You didn't mention control.

  20. #33700
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts
    Well that explains a lot. You didn't mention control.
    Of course I did:

    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous
    A control is actually part of the experiment, not part of the data.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •