|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Classic logical fallacy: correlation does not equal causation. That study is quite meaningless, since it provides no context for the people in the study (certainly gives no background information about the circumstances under which they were shot). How many were gang members? How many actually had their guns drawn when they were shot? Etc. etc. The "conclusion" at the end is laughably in its obvious bias. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PatrickGHBusan wrote: |
the fact this seems logical to some people defies understanding...good lord... |
What's not logical about it? To clarify, I don't actually think public schools should exist, but given that so many people are up in arms over these shootings, the next best thing to do (besides abolishing the public school system) is to put armed guards in schools or arm the teachers. It's unlikely to be 100% effective, but it's the only way to deter future shootings (although the media could do its part and stop advertising schools as the best, safest place for would-be mass killers to go).
It does seem rather silly, considering that shootings are actually very rare in relative terms, but if one wants to propose solutions... Increased gun control will have ZERO effect on shootings, that much is obvious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| To clarify, I don't actually think public schools should exist, but given that so many people are up in arms over these shootings, the next best thing to do (besides abolishing the public school system) is to put armed guards in schools or arm the teachers. |
Yeah shit why not.
This is like the left-singularity. Once leftist thought dominates the only answer for a problem is more leftism. More leftism makes the world more crazy and creates more problems which everybody knows only more leftism can fix. On and on it goes, until it doesn't.
You're proposing a gun-singularity. Once guns are everywhere the only answer is more guns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd rather have more guns than have more control-freak leftists trying to impose their authoritarian collectivist views on everyone.
Anyway, at least in my world you would have a choice: own a gun or not. In their world, there is not choice and the collective has to be punished for what a single Prozac-head first-person-shooter addicted crazy person does.
Last edited by visitorq on Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No happy middle? My upbringing was very Mayberry, so I'm out of the dystopic loop here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| No happy middle? My upbringing was very Mayberry, so I'm out of the dystopic loop here. |
Sorry I edited after your reply. Yeah, the happy middle is that I own a gun if I please, and you are free not to own one if you please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spartacist
Joined: 18 Feb 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Classic logical fallacy: correlation does not equal causation. That study is quite meaningless, since it provides no context for the people in the study (certainly gives no background information about the circumstances under which they were shot). How many were gang members? How many actually had their guns drawn when they were shot? Etc. etc. The "conclusion" at the end is laughably in its obvious bias. |
The sample was randomly selected amongst incidents with firearms in Philadelphia, and people under 21 were excluded which would no doubt exclude a lot of gang members. Time and place of the incidents were also randomised. Also, the study doesn't need to assert any causation, just that t there is a relationship between gun possession and being shot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| No happy middle? My upbringing was very Mayberry, so I'm out of the dystopic loop here. |
Sorry I edited after your reply. Yeah, the happy middle is that I own a gun if I please, and you are free not to own one if you please. |
How about this:
Men, who are age 25 and older, who are married and own property, who have never been bankrupt and never had trouble with the law, may own guns.
Serious question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Classic logical fallacy: correlation does not equal causation. That study is quite meaningless, since it provides no context for the people in the study (certainly gives no background information about the circumstances under which they were shot). How many were gang members? How many actually had their guns drawn when they were shot? Etc. etc. The "conclusion" at the end is laughably in its obvious bias. |
I already gave you a link to the context in another thread.
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=dennis_culhane
I think the most plausible explanation is that people with guns are less likely to exercise caution. Guns give them a false sense of security so they are less likely to avoid dangerous situations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gun control and the Second Amendment go hand in hand. In fact, the Second Amendment specifically mentions a well regulated militia. Joseph Story, a nineteenth century Supreme Court Justice, observed:
"And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see."
The Second Amendment in our own day has pretty much become a mere historical curiosity in large part due to people like Visitorq who just want the government to leave them and their guns alone. Gun control can be a part of a constitutional solution to mass shootings. More guns and thus more shootouts between the good guys and bad guys isn't the only option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ghostrider wrote: |
Gun control and the Second Amendment go hand in hand. In fact, the Second Amendment specifically mentions a well regulated militia. Joseph Story, a nineteenth century Supreme Court Justice, observed:
"And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see."
The Second Amendment in our own day has pretty much become a mere historical curiosity in large part due to people like Visitorq who just want the government to leave them and their guns alone. Gun control can be a part of a constitutional solution to mass shootings. More guns and thus more shootouts between the good guys and bad guys isn't the only option. |
The Constitution means whatever the most well funded lobby says it means. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spartacist wrote: |
| The sample was randomly selected amongst incidents with firearms in Philadelphia, and people under 21 were excluded which would no doubt exclude a lot of gang members. |
That's a pretty big assumption... I doubt it would exclude the majority of gang members.
| Quote: |
| Time and place of the incidents were also randomised. Also, the study doesn't need to assert any causation, just that t there is a relationship between gun possession and being shot. |
Causation is the only thing that is relevant. Otherwise I could say that we should have less firemen fighting fires (since more firemen correlates with larger fires) and you would have to take me seriously... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| No happy middle? My upbringing was very Mayberry, so I'm out of the dystopic loop here. |
Sorry I edited after your reply. Yeah, the happy middle is that I own a gun if I please, and you are free not to own one if you please. |
How about this:
Men, who are age 25 and older, who are married and own property, who have never been bankrupt and never had trouble with the law, may own guns.
Serious question. |
I think it's a bit simpler than that:
Anyone who is 25 (*age is debatable here) and has never had trouble with the law may own guns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you think I'm going to download your pdf to find whatever propaganda drivel you're pushing this time, you are mistaken. Feel free to quote the relevant part yourself.
| Quote: |
Gun control and the Second Amendment go hand in hand. In fact, the Second Amendment specifically mentions a well regulated militia. Joseph Story, a nineteenth century Supreme Court Justice, observed:
"And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see." |
"Well regulated" has nothing to do with "regulation" as you think of it. It simply means that it should be "well kept" or "well maintained". It certainly has nothing to do with your gun-grabbing notions.
| Quote: |
| The Second Amendment in our own day has pretty much become a mere historical curiosity in large part due to people like Visitorq who just want the government to leave them and their guns alone. Gun control can be a part of a constitutional solution to mass shootings. More guns and thus more shootouts between the good guys and bad guys isn't the only option. |
Gun control is an abomination. Any government that is as desperate as ours is to disarm the population cannot be trusted. All the spineless cowardly minions and gun-grabbing propagandists like ghostrider will continue to push their authoritarian agenda, but until they show their true colors and try to use force (i.e. sicking armed troops on the public to confiscate guns) they will never get their way.
Don't be fooled people. Ghostrider comes on here and posts in a simpering liberal fashion, but he would love to use force to achieve his aims. He is a hypocrite and nothing more (just like the rest of the liberal establishment, and the Democrat senators and people like Michael Moore who have armed entourages escorting them around while they preach that the rest of us should have our guns taken away). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
If you think I'm going to download your pdf to find whatever propaganda drivel you're pushing this time, you are mistaken. Feel free to quote the relevant part yourself. |
Your intellectual laziness is noted. I already did provide the relevant quotes in the other thread.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
Gun control and the Second Amendment go hand in hand. In fact, the Second Amendment specifically mentions a well regulated militia. Joseph Story, a nineteenth century Supreme Court Justice, observed:
"And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see." |
"Well regulated" has nothing to do with "regulation" as you think of it. It simply means that it should be "well kept" or "well maintained". It certainly has nothing to do with your gun-grabbing notions. |
A militia does not spontaneously keep and maintain itself. Someone has to do it. Read Article 1 of the Constitution to find out who is in charge of the militia.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The Second Amendment in our own day has pretty much become a mere historical curiosity in large part due to people like Visitorq who just want the government to leave them and their guns alone. Gun control can be a part of a constitutional solution to mass shootings. More guns and thus more shootouts between the good guys and bad guys isn't the only option. |
Gun control is an abomination. Any government that is as desperate as ours is to disarm the population cannot be trusted. All the spineless cowardly minions and gun-grabbing propagandists like ghostrider will continue to push their authoritarian agenda, but until they show their true colors and try to use force (i.e. sicking armed troops on the public to confiscate guns) they will never get their way.
Don't be fooled people. Ghostrider comes on here and posts in a simpering liberal fashion, but he would love to use force to achieve his aims. He is a hypocrite and nothing more (just like the rest of the liberal establishment, and the Democrat senators and people like Michael Moore who have armed entourages escorting them around while they preach that the rest of us should have our guns taken away). |
The Founding Fathers would be horrified to read some of your posts. They never intended the Second Amendment to be an obstacle to safety and sensible gun regulation. The parts of the Constitution that deal with commerce, taxation, and the militia grant the Federal Government authority over guns. The states have a right to pass gun control legislation as part of their police powers which are constitutionally protected by the Tenth Amendment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
