Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Stormdash]

Pretty much the only thing that doesn't, is a 200-year-old document that's been taken hostage by special interest groups.

The prevailing progressive complaint about the Constitution -- be it the 2nd Amendment, or its general framing as (properly) a list of restraints and limits on the power of the government -- is that it's taken hostage by its text. And worse, it's gone full Stockholm syndrom for its text.

[TZucchini]

Whee, appeals to authority and strawmen, wheeeeeee.

Again. The evidence supports my position. Confirmation bias isn't needed to accept said evidence. Just common sense, and a good dose of science-acceptance.

[lockedout]

Again. The evidence supports my position. Confirmation bias isn't needed to accept said evidence. Just common sense, and a good dose of science-acceptance.

But you said above that "I perfectly willing to admit that statistics don't support my side, but I'm also unwilling to wait until statistics do support my side in order to take action.

Are you a science denier?

[PhaelixWW]

There's a tremendous amount of evidence that supports my position.

Not really. There's evidence that you think supports your position. That's the sticky difference between correlative and causative.

To be more precise, you take any evidence that purports to support a correlative relationship as if it's evidence that therefore supports a causative relationship.

[Rukentuts]

Not really. There's evidence that you think supports your position. That's the sticky difference between correlative and causative.

To be more precise, you take any evidence that purports to support a correlative relationship as if it's evidence that therefore supports a causative relationship.

Probably because he knows that studies have established a relationship between these variables, and changing one would mean an observation in the change in another as per the relationship. And he takes that evidence to heart, probably because it's the only evidence presented in this thread.

[lockedout]

Probably because he knows that studies have established a relationship between these variables, and changing one would mean an observation in the change in another as per the relationship.

Which is why they massage the numbers to make sure the outcome is the one they want. Like calling 5k people in a state like California then you and your buddy try to tell people it is indicative of the entire nation.

[PhaelixWW]

Probably because he knows that studies have established a relationship between these variables, and changing one would mean an observation in the change in another as per the relationship.

Classic cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I don't think anybody is surprised at you making this false logical assertion, however.

[lockedout]

Classic cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I don't think anybody is surprised at you making this false logical assertion, however.

It would need the word "scientific" in front of it.

[Mayhem]

Not really. There's evidence that you think supports your position. That's the sticky difference between correlative and causative.

To be more precise, you take any evidence that purports to support a correlative relationship as if it's evidence that therefore supports a causative relationship.

oh the irony

[Invrlose]

Can someone tell me what is an assault weapon? And which gun is more deadly?

[Mayhem]

Can someone tell me what is an assault weapon? And which gun is more deadly?

the one on the left

[Invrlose]

the one on the left

Left? There's a top and bottom.

[Zoranon]

Can someone tell me what is an assault weapon? And which gun is more deadly?

Neither of them. Assault weapon is a stupid, meaningless buzzword created by the anti-gun movement to demonise a certain subset of weapons. A better and more accurate name would be "scary looking weapon". Mind you scary looking for anti-gunners who know nothing about guns...

[Mayhem]

Left? There's a top and bottom.

So your question wasn´t a joke? oh

[Zoranon]

It sure is..

The posts here are earlier and there are more I have saved.

Now that is what I call KO.

[Eroginous]

Well that seems to be a problem on both sides of the discussion. I´m apparently on ignore too. I´m also of course accused of the most ridiculous things, but hey it´s still fun to read the posts.

In your situation, you're likely on ignore because you don't live here and you don't really have a dog in the race either way. Gun control in the US can't possibly matter enough to you in order for you to have a legitimate opinion on it one way or another. It's like if I wanted to talk about gun laws in Africa. I don't live there. I can't possibly understand their situation enough for me to have a legitimate opinion on their gun laws. So I just don't involve myself to save myself and anyone who actually does live there some headache and embarrassment.

You say, yes a hypothesis does imply science and then explain how you need context. So for you it´s redundant, but it doesn´t make it wrong. What´s your point?

We're talking about the English language, where many words have multiple uses and the definitions change based on context. Context is always important. That doesn't change the fact that hypothesis implies science. You're never going to hear the word 'hypothesis' and think 'oh he must be talking about that thing that has nothing to do with science.'

This is what happens during a debate, people just get more entrenched in the opinion they had when they started.

My opinion about guns has stayed fairly consistent throughout this whole thread. It's the people who continue to post the same bullshit ad nauseam that my opinion has changed about.

[Zoranon]

In your situation, you're likely on ignore because you don't live here and you don't really have a dog in the race either way. Gun control in the US can't possibly matter enough to you in order for you to have a legitimate opinion on it one way or another. It's like if I wanted to talk about gun laws in Africa. I don't live there. I can't possibly understand their situation enough for me to have a legitimate opinion on their gun laws. So I just don't involve myself to save myself and anyone who actually does live there some headache and embarrassment.

My opinion about guns has stayed fairly consistent throughout this whole thread. It's the people who continue to post the same bullshit ad nauseam that my opinion has changed about.

Well as for my reasons for participating in this thread, I am considering moving to the US if things continue to go badly in Europe. Also gun laws in the US are a great inspiration for gun rights people all around the world.

Heh pretty much that, but I cannot understand why would anyone who is in this thread for some time continue to debate with Rukentuts, whose posts are frankly an insult to my intelligence. After all the ignore list is here for a reason.

[Rukentuts]

Classic cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I don't think anybody is surprised at you making this false logical assertion, however.

Classic no argument. Maybe you should learn what a statistical correlation is, and how they compute coefficients. Because it would appear you lack the most basic knowledg on the subject. I linked it for you. Read up.

In statistics, dependence is any statistical relationship between two random variables or two sets of data. Correlation refers to any of a broad class of statistical relationships involving dependence.

Familiar examples of dependent phenomena include the correlation between the physical statures of parents and their offspring, and the correlation between the demand for a product and its price.

Because in my link you didn't read, you'd see, in plain diction even the most unqualified minds could understand, that causation isn't required for an observed mathematical relationship.

[Mayhem]

In your situation, you're likely on ignore because you don't live here and you don't really have a dog in the race either way. Gun control in the US can't possibly matter enough to you in order for you to have a legitimate opinion on it one way or another. It's like if I wanted to talk about gun laws in Africa. I don't live there. I can't possibly understand their situation enough for me to have a legitimate opinion on their gun laws. So I just don't involve myself to save myself and anyone who actually does live there some headache and embarrassment.

We´re debating gun control, you can have an opinion on gun control without being a US citizen. Why do you think an issue from another country can´t matter enough for me to have an opinion? Well if you wanted to discuss gun control in Africa (pretty broad if you ask me) you´d have to discuss it with people that live there to understand their situation, don´t you think?

We're talking about the English language, where many words have multiple uses and the definitions change based on context. Context is always important. That doesn't change the fact that hypothesis implies science. You're never going to hear the word 'hypothesis' and think 'oh he must be talking about that thing that has nothing to do with science.'

Hypothesis doesn´t imply science, it might sound sciency, but it doesn´t imply it. Just like research and scientific research.

[Eroginous]

We´re debating gun control, you can have an opinion on gun control without being a US citizen. Why do you think an issue from another country can´t matter enough for me to have an opinion? Well if you wanted to discuss gun control in Africa (pretty broad if you ask me) you´d have to discuss it with people that live there to understand their situation, don´t you think?

Discussing gun control in a generic sense is fine. Discussing it as it pertains to a specific region of the world where you can't experience it firsthand is irrelevant.

Hypothesis doesn´t imply science, it might sound sciency, but it doesn´t imply it. Just like research and scientific research.

Like I said, you're never going to hear the word 'hypothesis' and think someone is talking about something non scientific. Adding the word 'scientific' is pointless and redundant.