Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Rukentuts]

Just because there are confounding variables does not mean you can't analyze raw data and come to a correct conclusion.

A conclusion that one variable is the cause? You can't get more wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

If I asked a group of 3000 people what their favorite pizza toppings were, the resulting study would be fine as an opinion piece, but would not bear out any scientific accuracy, especially when used as a sample of the entire population of the united states. This is something you guys seem to be unable to realize.

All this does it prove you've never taken an hour of statistics in your life. You should really stop posting stuff like this, it sets your credibility to nill.

Protip: Margins of error exist for a reason.

[PhaelixWW]

You didn't give a shit about the scientific method until called on your terrible nitpicking habits.

I always care about the scientific method, and my nitpicking skills are exquisite, when nitpicking is required.

I cannot tell if this hypocrisy is intentional or accidental, especially given your posting history.

Yeah, you still don't know what an ad hominem entails, it seems.

i don´t know what this has to do with your initial claim that empirical evidence equals raw data, but i´ll bite

First, I never said that empirical evidence equals raw data, but I'll go ahead and bite back anyway:

Empirical evidence is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation...

Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source.

Raw data is a term for data collected from a source. Raw data has not been subjected to processing or any other manipulation, and are also referred to as primary data.

Linking those all together, we get:

Empirical evidence is acquired by means of observation, which is the active acquisition of information from raw data.

[Mayhem]

But empirical evidence is raw data... and you can't come to a conclusion using raw data, so...

First, I never said that empirical evidence equals raw data, but I'll go ahead and bite back anyway

aha

/10char

[Rukentuts]

I always care about the scientific method, and my nitpicking skills are exquisite, when nitpicking is required.

That's why you didn't give a shit until after your antics were called on, right?

Yeah, you still don't know what an ad hominem entails, it seems.

I guess it's intentional after all.

- - - Updated - - -

aha

/10char

Just like the scientific method thing. Haha!

Maybe it just depends on what your definition of the word "is", is.

[TZucchini]

But empirical evidence is raw data... and you can't come to a conclusion using raw data, so...

Who said you can't come to a conclusion using raw data? Of course you can. The raw data is the conclusion.

What you can't do, is draw a scientific conclusion.

But what Mayhem did wasn't scientific. It's an observable fact (empirical) that Ero attributed the wrong quote.

It would be like if Bob claimed trees weren't green, and someone posted a picture of a tree. That's not a scientific conclusion, it's an observable fact. Now if someone wanted to ask why trees are green, an experiment would be necessary, which would eventually come to a scientific conclusion.

[Eroginous]

Who said you can't come to a conclusion using raw data? Of course you can. The raw data is the conclusion.

What you can't do, is draw a scientific conclusion.

But what Mayhem did wasn't scientific. It's an observable fact (empirical) that Ero attributed the wrong quote.

It would be like if Bob claimed trees weren't green, and someone posted a picture of a tree. That's not a scientific conclusion, it's an observable fact. Now if someone wanted to ask why trees are green, an experiment would be necessary, which would eventually come to a scientific conclusion.

Now you're arbitrarily trying to decide what's scientific and what's not.

'It's scientific because I said so.'

[TZucchini]

Now you're arbitrarily trying to decide what's scientific and what's not.

'It's scientific because I said so.'

No. We've argued throughout that you can't draw scientific conclusions from raw data. These statements were all in the context of the copious amounts of scientific studies we've linked. See, when scientists embark on studying a phenomenon, they do not draw their conclusions from raw data.

Remember when you claimed that they did? And then I asked you to give an example? And then you didn't?

[Ghostpanther]

In the wake of Target asking their customers not to bring guns into their stores, I found this interesting..http://money.msn.com/business-news/a...03&id=17752157 now why are they not concerned about gun fights breaking out? However they are at least smart enough not to serve any alcohol.

I would not have any issues eating at a place like that. Esp if the waitress with the .357mag Rugar Blackhawk like mine is hot. I could discuss our identical handguns.

[Rukentuts]

now why are they not concerned about gun fights breaking out?

Because Target's clientele are not Wal Mart's.

[Lyese]

In the wake of Target asking their customers not to bring guns into their stores, I found this interesting..http://money.msn.com/business-news/a...03&id=17752157 now why are they not concerned about gun fights breaking out? However they are at least smart enough not to serve any alcohol.

Yeah, in TX, you can't bring long guns or rifles into any establishment serving liquor (TABC code, probably for the best). If the owner doesn't remove you via trespassing, they can lose their liquor license.

[PhaelixWW]

aha

Well, I should have expected that the nuance was too subtle for this thread, even though I highlighted the word "equals".

The word "equals" defines a two-way relationship. The word "is" often defines only a one-way relationship.

For example:

A square is a rectangle. True. All squares belong to the superset of rectangles. (S ⊆ R is True)
A rectangle is a square. False. Not all rectangles belong to the subset of squares. (R ⊆ S is False)
A square equals a rectangle. False. The sets of squares and rectangles do not contain the same exact elements. (S = R is False)

So what does that mean in this context?

Empirical evidence is a subset of raw data.
Not all raw data is empirical evidence.
Therefore, empirical evidence is raw data, but empirical evidence does not equal raw data.

The fact that I have to spell this out to people is really just indicative of the lack of critical thinking and logical training that exists in the world today. Or at least these forums.

[Mayhem]

The word "is" often defines only a one-way relationship.

damn, my mind reading failed me again

[PhaelixWW]

damn, my mind reading failed me again

No mind-reading was necessary. I told you that I never said that they were equal. That was the clarification. And it really wasn't all that relevant to the ultimate discussion, I was just trying to make sure you didn't think I meant something that I didn't mean.

But by all means, keep focusing on this tangent instead of rebutting the rest of the post I made earlier.

[THE Bigzoman]

Because Target's clientele are not Wal Mart's.

This is rich.

[Mayhem]

No mind-reading was necessary. I told you that I never said that they were equal. That was the clarification. And it really wasn't all that relevant to the ultimate discussion, I was just trying to make sure you didn't think I meant something that I didn't mean.

But by all means, keep focusing on this tangent instead of rebutting the rest of the post I made earlier.

i have no idea why you even started this... what rest?

[belfpala]

I'm not sure if this is an English translation thing, but you seem to be missing the coordinating conjunction "or" in the first sentence:

Observation is part of experimentation. When not performed as an actual experiment, observation can lead to actual experiments. The only difference is that the latter is controlled in some way.

- - - Updated - - -

This is rich.

It's not. I will drive miles to avoid a Walmart if I know there's a Target. And nothing to do with this gun issue.

- - - Updated - - -

damn, my mind reading failed me again

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." --Bill Clinton

English is a fucked up language.

(For fun, if you're into linguistics, check out English-Prime (link)) I don't write that way, but I understand the point.

[Rukentuts]

This is rich.

It's also very very true.

[Stormdash]

It's also very very true.

It's asinine and cliche. Proximity is the biggest driver of retail preference. Probably an Nth percentage of retail big box shoppers have an exclusive preference between Wal-Mart and Target, or K-Mart, or Big Lots, etc.

I'm all for gun ownerships, own as many AR-15s as you like, open carry, all of it. But I still prefer the rights of a private property owner to set the terms under which one is invited into their property, so Target wins. Even if I think their thinking is foolish, it's still their store.

[belfpala]

It's also very very true.

But but Walmart guarantees the lowest price, so they sell Doritos at $3.48 and fuckface Target sells them at $3.49, the price listed on the package.

- - - Updated - - -

It's asinine and cliche. Proximity is the biggest driver of retail preference. Probably an Nth percentage of retail big box shoppers have an exclusive preference between Wal-Mart and Target, or K-Mart, or Big Lots, etc.

Really? No, I'll drive an extra mile to get to a Target.

And Big Lots? Lol.

[Stormdash]

Really? No, I'll drive an extra mile to get to a Target.

And Big Lots? Lol.

Driver, not absolute and definitive factor In practical terms, Retail Big Box Shopper is going to go to what's closest to them, what's closest to their other errands, what's got the specific item they need (i.e. Target has pretty much abandoned auto and home and garden, Wal-Mart has much less in terms of home decor). Target shoppers are not the Jets and Wal-Mart shoppers are not the Sharks.