Gun control debate (merged)

[OHvol40]

Well you’ve convinced yourself it is anyway.

Hey look, you’re awake looking for attention already. Good Saturday morning!

 

[LouderVol]

Then it's a terribly inaccurate way to estimate the number of households that own guns.

Indeed.

This is the opposite of the following logical fallacy: I surveyed 100 people who played russian roulette. 0 of them died. Therefore russian roulette is 100% safe.

It's a built in confirmation bias and doesnt even allow for other alternatives. It's the same issue I mentioned with OH, its starts with guns being the problem, and works the data backwards from that. You can confirm anything that way.

 

[hog88]

You aren’t even interested in acknowledging a problem, and any solution is made up in your head based on what you wish was the problem lol

I’ve acknowledged we have a violence problem numerous times.

 

[LouderVol]

It’s relevant data.

That's been parsed to present an incredibly biased story. Its intellectually dishonest, and a cornerstone of the ways the anti gun groups have to lie thru stastics to make their case.

You/they arent testing a hypothesis. They are just mining data that fits their preconceived argument.

 

[LouderVol]

You aren’t even interested in acknowledging a problem, and any solution is made up in your head based on what you wish was the problem lol

Not to speak for hog but he has said multiple times that people are the problem that should be addressed. You are guilty of the same avoidance.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

You’re just repeating things you’ve heard on propaganda outlets. As I said, you’re “stance” is not productive or solution oriented, it’s meant to stoke fear and scapegoat... none of which I’m interested in engaging with.

LOL

 

[OHvol40]

Not to speak for hog but he has said multiple times that people are the problem that should be addressed. You are guilty of the same avoidance.

I haven’t avoided it at all, I’ve said multiple times that that should be one of the hundreds of variables considered, but suggesting it’s only people and ignoring any information I present as “too long, didn’t read” and “not relevant” is more than avoidance, is willful ignorance.

 

[hog88]

I haven’t avoided it at all, I’ve said multiple times that that should be one of the hundreds of variables considered, but suggesting it’s only people and ignoring any information I present as “too long, didn’t read” and “not relevant” is more than avoidance, is willful ignorance.

I did read your link and I was correct in my initial assessment.

 

[LouderVol]

I haven’t avoided it at all, I’ve said multiple times that that should be one of the hundreds of variables considered, but suggesting it’s only people and ignoring any information I present as “too long, didn’t read” and “not relevant” is more than avoidance, is willful ignorance.

and I quote "Its relevant data".

seems like if you wanted better conversation you would provide some yourself.

 

[OHvol40]

and I quote "Its relevant data".

seems like if you wanted better conversation you would provide some yourself.

I did. I bet you didn’t read the paper either. In my experience with you, you’re just here to be a contrarian, not hold an actual discussion. You’ll argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[RockyTop85]

You’re the one that usually starts slinging the mashed potatoes.

I’m sure that’s happened before, but it’s not the usual order.

 

[RockyTop85]

Indeed.

This is the opposite of the following logical fallacy: I surveyed 100 people who played russian roulette. 0 of them died. Therefore russian roulette is 100% safe.

It's a built in confirmation bias and doesnt even allow for other alternatives. It's the same issue I mentioned with OH, its starts with guns being the problem, and works the data backwards from that. You can confirm anything that way.

It was meant to test a common argument that more guns doesn’t correlate to more bad outcomes.

It’s a common theory. There have probably been half a dozen people in this thread make some variant of that argument. Of course somebody was going to look at data on it.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Hey look, you’re awake looking for attention already. Good Saturday morning!

LMAO weak sauce

 

[LouderVol]

I did. I bet you didn’t read the paper either. In my experience with you, you’re just here to be a contrarian, not hold an actual discussion. You’ll argue for the sake of arguing.

No I wont.

Sorry couldnt help myself.

I read your quotes. Didnt read the paper itself. Because at least from the snipets it wasnt data collection. But setting the story that you want told.

The paper could have said we have more TVs. And the data shows their is a link between more TVs and more suicides. Maybe it's the McDonalds, maybe it's the Kardashians, or the Canucks.

 

[LouderVol]

It was meant to test a common argument that more guns doesn’t correlate to more bad outcomes.

It’s a common theory. There have probably been half a dozen people in this thread make some variant of that argument. Of course somebody was going to look at data on it.

Correlation isnt causation. I am typically of the opinion that the situation is flipped.

Not that more guns = more violence/bad outcomes. But that instead it's more violence and bad outcomes= more guns.

The paper, at least the exercepts quoted here, did nothing to say otherwise. Which is why I commented on their methodagly and OH using it. The paper didnt tell us anything specific and set no foundation to back the premise of guns=bad outcomes. Its presenting it like its correlation, but has no data to even establish that.

 

[RockyTop85]

Correlation isnt causation. I am typically of the opinion that the situation is flipped.

Not that more guns = more violence/bad outcomes. But that instead it's more violence and bad outcomes= more guns.

The paper, at least the exercepts quoted here, did nothing to say otherwise. Which is why I commented on their methodagly and OH using it. The paper didnt tell us anything specific and set no foundation to back the premise of guns=bad outcomes. Its presenting it like its correlation, but has no data to even establish that.

It was a discussion about whether guns increase safety, so it was both relevant and effective. Seems like your grievance is that it didn’t address a conversation that nobody was having.

 

[LouderVol]

It was a discussion about whether guns increase safety, so it was both relevant and effective. Seems like your grievance is that it didn’t address a conversation that nobody was having.

If it's looking at safety then that study really doesnt help. It doesnt bring up that side of things at all.

 

[RockyTop85]

If it's looking at safety then that study really doesnt help. It doesnt bring up that side of things at all.

I think we must be talking about different posts.

 

[Ratvol]

I think we’re all in trouble now cause Biden appointed a new head of the AFT and he’s coming after our AR14’s....

WWG1WGA

Go VOLS

 

[Orangeslice13]

I think we’re all in trouble now cause Biden appointed a new head of the AFT and he’s coming after our AR14’s....

WWG1WGA

Go VOLS

What about the mini 74 and the AK 30?

 

[MG1968]

What about the mini 74 and the AK 30?

Or the phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range. I bet that gun store just outside the Chicago city limits practically gives them away.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Wtf gun, that people carry around, is phallic? Every pistol I have seen is shaped like an "L". You need to see a doctor if you think that's phallic.

I think he may have his toys mixed up.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

I'm baffled that y'all continue to engage with some of the usual clowns in this thread.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Sorry but I saw this image and now yall have to be scarred by it too.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Or the phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range. I bet that gun store just outside the Chicago city limits practically gives them away.

You mean "Plasma Guns Are Us" in Indiana, don't you? That is where ALL the guns used in Chicago come from. Everyone knows that.