Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

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?

[Tinykong]

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.

[Svifnymr]

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 - - -

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.

[TITAN308]

"If I can't control it, it scares me"

[Mayhem]

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

[Eroginous]

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.

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.

[Rukentuts]

<snip>

Well that explains a lot. You didn't mention control.

[Eroginous]

Well that explains a lot. You didn't mention control.

Of course I did:

A control is actually part of the experiment, not part of the data.

[Rukentuts]

And now tell me what part of raw data is controlled that one can make experimental conclusions based on one variable off of it.

[Eroginous]

And now tell me what part of raw data is controlled that one can make experimental conclusions based on one variable off of it.

Raw data isn't controlled. A control is a part of the experiment that is not subject to the parameters of the experiment. If you wanted to see how a pesticide affects a particular plant, you would set up a series of experiments where you test that pesticide on a specific type of plant, and the control in the experiment would be a plant you don't give the pesticide to.

A control proves the experiment. That's what they are for.

[Rukentuts]

Raw data isn't controlled.

Hence you can't make conclusions based off one variable from it. Thanks.

[Eroginous]

Hence you can't make conclusions based off one variable from it. Thanks.

What?

You don't make conclusions off of a single variable. You make conclusions based on the entirety of the raw data.

[Rukentuts]

What?

You don't make conclusions off of a single variable. You make conclusions based on the entirety of the raw data.

Which was the result of an experiment in which all variables except one were controlled, not uncontrolled observations in nature.

[cuafpr]

just some FYI since i know there will be know changing of minds on this topic:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...ublic-unaware/

[Tinykong]

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

It needs to be explained to you that non-gun owners kill people with firearms?

[Eroginous]

Which was the result of an experiment in which all variables except one were controlled, not uncontrolled observations in nature.

What the hell are you talking about.

It needs to be explained to you that non-gun owners kill people with firearms?

I guess he thinks if you have a gun in your possession, even if it isn't actually yours, you are technically a 'gun owner.'

[Rukentuts]

What the hell are you talking about.

The scientific method, which dictates an experiment is in which dependent variables are all controlled and the independent variable is adjusted and results are recorded.

What we learned in 8th grade.

[Endus]

What the hell are you talking about.

He's talking about how pretty much everything in your description of the scientific method is describing exactly how science goes beyond just the raw data.

You need controls to determine what parts of the data are relevant, rather than being affected by unrelated factors. You need testing to establish those factors. You need confirming data sources. Etc.

[belfpala]

The scientific method, which dictates an experiment is in which dependent variables are all controlled and the independent variable is adjusted and results are recorded.

Independent Variable will be the 15th band I've started this year. Techno punk, I think.

[Mayhem]

It needs to be explained to you that non-gun owners kill people with firearms?

no, you have to explain what this has to do with what i wrote?

how does a non-gun owner come into possession of a gun if not because of irresponsible gun owners?

and at what point does someone become a gun owner?