Orlando / Gun Control

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Paul Anthony on July 20th, 2016, 2:20 pm 

Braininvat » Wed Jul 20, 2016 6:00 am wrote: See Biowizard's thread this morning on the computer messing up MRI tests.


Can't find it. What is the name of the thread?
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Braininvat on July 20th, 2016, 2:59 pm 

User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5672
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby msklystron on July 20th, 2016, 7:16 pm 

Paul Anthony Interesting article. Garbage in garbage out. Berk's program wouldn’t catch budding mass murderer types. As a tool for criminal justice, it would be a poor workaround for admittedly ‘messy’ human judgement and psychology. Apparent efficiencies found may have been the result of the problem being highlighted as a problem. Given a nudge humans can come up with solutions like, lighter restrictions for low-risk offenders. As for prediction at an individual level, there’s a Magic 8 Ball around my house somewhere… Minority Report style pre-emptive arrest, as mentioned, is a risk. The British ‘Up’ series also came mind. The documentarian and documentary series itself skewed the predicted class-related outcomes. This program could produce a similar observer effect.
“Reply hazy, try again”.
User avatar
msklystron
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 31 Jan 2014
Location: canada


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Paul Anthony on July 20th, 2016, 9:28 pm 

msklystron » Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:16 pm wrote:Paul Anthony Interesting article. Garbage in garbage out. Berk's program wouldn’t catch budding mass murderer types. As a tool for criminal justice, it would be a poor workaround for admittedly ‘messy’ human judgement and psychology. Apparent efficiencies found may have been the result of the problem being highlighted as a problem. Given a nudge humans can come up with solutions like, lighter restrictions for low-risk offenders. As for prediction at an individual level, there’s a Magic 8 Ball around my house somewhere… Minority Report style pre-emptive arrest, as mentioned, is a risk. The British ‘Up’ series also came mind. The documentarian and documentary series itself skewed the predicted class-related outcomes. This program could produce a similar observer effect.
“Reply hazy, try again”.


I agree. It's all a little to Orwellian for my tastes, but I fear it is the future.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ
msklystron liked this post


Re: Orlando

Postby kidjan on July 21st, 2016, 12:48 am 

Paul Anthony » Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:04 pm wrote:kidjan.

You've said "no" to most everything...and you may be right (I agree with you for the most part).

But enough negatives, Let's hear something positive. What changes would you recommend that (1) will reduce the chances of criminals getting guns and (2) not be a burden on the rights of law-abiding citizens?


A fair response. So let's start with the obvious suggestions. What's wrong with Obama's recommendations? Do they seriously undermine second amendment rights? If you're a law abiding citizen, the only fallout would be it may be harder to own high capacity magazines, assault weapons or armor piercing bullets. And honestly, I'm flexible. I would happily strike those three if I could get even a single other item on the list.

One might argue these measures may be ineffective, and I'll be honest: you are not incorrect. They may be ineffective. But is there seriously harm in trying them? Can we at least pass them with an explicit charter to assess their efficacy, and allow them to expire if they are shown not to impact gun death?

The only other item I'd add to the list is a law mandating "toy" and "pellet" guns may not be manufactured or sold in anything but bright colors, as well as the inverse (real guns may not be manufactured in bright colors).
User avatar
kidjan
Active Member
 
Posts: 1944
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Location: Earth.


Re: Orlando

Postby Paul Anthony on July 21st, 2016, 1:29 pm 

kidjan » Wed Jul 20, 2016 9:48 pm wrote:

A fair response. So let's start with the obvious suggestions. What's wrong with Obama's recommendations? Do they seriously undermine second amendment rights? If you're a law abiding citizen, the only fallout would be it may be harder to own high capacity magazines, assault weapons or armor piercing bullets. And honestly, I'm flexible. I would happily strike those three if I could get even a single other item on the list.

One might argue these measures may be ineffective, and I'll be honest: you are not incorrect. They may be ineffective. But is there seriously harm in trying them? Can we at least pass them with an explicit charter to assess their efficacy, and allow them to expire if they are shown not to impact gun death?

The only other item I'd add to the list is a law mandating "toy" and "pellet" guns may not be manufactured or sold in anything but bright colors, as well as the inverse (real guns may not be manufactured in bright colors).


Thanks for your response.

If you have been following this thread, you already know I agree with much of this. I've recommenced extending the waiting period to allow time for in depth background checks. As it stands, if a check can't be performed in the time allotted, the applicant is automatically approved. That provision is necessary to ensure enforcers don't just run out the clock to avoid approval, but there must be sufficient time allotted to make background checks possible.

But, some of the President's points are vague to the point of being meaningless.

We can't pass a "new, stronger ban on assault weapons" until we have properly defined "assault weapons". For most people, that term describes rifles that look scary. Most weapons are semi-automatic. What makes one an assault weapon and another not?

"Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates". I have no idea what that would entail or whether it would accomplish anything. To me, that is an example of political rhetoric. It sounds impressive, but what does it mean, precisely?

"Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds". I know this one is very popular for many people. I don't know what good it would do, other than to make some people think they had accomplished something. It doesn't take but a few seconds to eject a magazine and insert another. Anyone who has fired such a weapon will tell you a larger magazine makes the weapon more unwieldy. A smaller magazine could improve the shooter's aim. But if it makes some feel safer, why not?

Maybe we should require that our legislators read this thread. I suspect we have discussed this issue in greater depth than most politicians have. :)
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ
msklystron liked this post


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Paul Anthony on July 21st, 2016, 3:49 pm 

On the lighter side, a tongue-in-cheek commentary with an important message, by Bill Bonner...

DUBLIN – Dublin is a delightful city. But it is backward.

It was warm last night. From the vent, no Arctic air issued at gale force.

So, we did something retrograde… something that you can’t do in most U.S. business hotels: We opened the window.

In through the window drifted a soft, cool breeze from St. Stephen’s Green.

But we couldn’t sleep.

Some people like the comforting sound of church bells ringing in the wee hours. Others wilt into sleep by their grandmothers’ bedtime lullabies. But when you are from Baltimore, you just can’t relax without the noise of police sirens and occasional gunshots; otherwise, you feel something is wrong.

What’s the matter with Dublin?

In Baltimore, our murder rate for the past year hit a record high – 49 per 100,000… or about 25 times higher than here in Dublin. Dublin’s murder rate of 2 per 100,000 seems hardly enough.

What’s the problem here?

Have they no deranged Muslims? No trigger-happy police? No drug wars? No scarred veterans?

“We are not giving in to this violence,” said Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, as the killings reached to an average of one voter per day.

No… we are aiding and abetting it!

Somewhere in Tennessee fly-over country at this very moment, a preacher must be connecting the dots. He reads the news. He prepares his sermon.

“Galatians 6:7,” he begins grimly, his finger eager to wag at the front pew. “As ye sow, so shall ye reap.”

Meanwhile, down in Georgia, a Baptist pastor has basically the same idea, but more of a Cassandra tone:

“Hosea 8:7,” he begins. “Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.”

The problem with these Biblical insights is that they are hard to apply.

What is the wind?

We don’t know… but there is an eerie and unsettling absence of whirlwind here in Dublin. Like a pot of water without a flame, it refuses to boil.

The streets are quiet. As far as we know not a single person was murdered – neither by a citizen, nor a cop, nor by a returned veteran, nor even by a crazed follower of the Prophet Muhammad.

The police here seem especially inactive.

In 2012, to take a year for which we have a number, 410 people were gunned down by police in the U.S. One source claims that a black man is killed by police once every 36 hours.

In all of Britain, in the same year, only one shot was fired by police. No one was hurt.

And here in Ireland, a Google search reveals only three Gardaí shot dead in the last 20 years... all by Republican terrorists...

As for police killing civilians, we were only able to find nine cases going back a quarter of a century. Surely, Enda Kenny, Ireland’s top man, can do better.

This can be fixed.

Mr. Kenny needs to get some drugs and handguns on the streets. Then crack down hard… and build a gulag of prisons from Donegal to Cork.

Since the 1970s, spending on prisons in the U.S. has gone up three times as fast as spending on education.

A young black man is more likely to get his advanced training in a cellblock than a university.

For more ideas, Mr. Kenny should tune into the Republican National Convention.

There he can get some clues on how to develop a real culture of enemies, fear, and violence.

Specifically, he should identify some groups – protestants? – as rapists and thieves and suggest expelling them from the country.

He might pick up the idea of a “wall,” too, or an “Irexit” – to keep out the immigrants from Eastern Europe who seem to do all the work in the hotels, restaurants, and bars of Ireland.

He needs to muscle up his rhetoric too… add a little vitriol… a little over-the-top fanaticism.

Take former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, for example, who spoke on the first day of the Republican Convention.

“Islamic extremist terrorists,” he shouted, addressing people who surely weren’t in the audience and were not listening, “you know who you are… and we’re coming to get you!”

There, that gust of hot air ought to get the wind moving!

One thing noticeably missing in Ireland is mass murder. We could find no case of it since the 1916 Easter Rising, when British troops killed more than 300 Irish men, women, and children.

Kenny could probably bring a little of America’s mass-murder pizzazz to the Emerald Isle by backing the Coalition of the Damned in the Mideast.

Send some young men and women to Afghanistan so they can be hardened to violence. When they come back… they won’t be able to find jobs. (Who wants to hire someone who only knows how to kill people?)

Instead, the vets kill themselves at twice the rate of the population… and take aim at the police and others, too.

Good luck, Mr. Kenny. We can’t say that this program will be better for Ireland, but at least we’ll be able to sleep better when we visit.

Regards,

Bill
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando

Postby kidjan on July 21st, 2016, 8:05 pm 

Paul Anthony » Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:29 pm wrote:
If you have been following this thread,


I have not been following this thread.

We can't pass a "new, stronger ban on assault weapons" until we have properly defined "assault weapons". For most people, that term describes rifles that look scary. Most weapons are semi-automatic. What makes one an assault weapon and another not?


The difference between an AR-15 and other weapons is muzzle velocity and design. You square velocity in the formula for kinetic energy. Combine that with a design specifically made for tactical operations, confined spaces, rapid reloading and rapid semi-automatic operation, and you have your qualities there. It uses a type of ammunition specifically designed for military operations.

A home defense weapon would be a 12-gauge shot-gun loaded with buckshot, because you won't accidentally kill your neighbors.

In any event, my point is: it's possible to get military style weapons off our streets.

"Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates". I have no idea what that would entail or whether it would accomplish anything. To me, that is an example of political rhetoric. It sounds impressive, but what does it mean, precisely?


See making schools safer.

"Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds". I know this one is very popular for many people. I don't know what good it would do, other than to make some people think they had accomplished something. It doesn't take but a few seconds to eject a magazine and insert another. Anyone who has fired such a weapon will tell you a larger magazine makes the weapon more unwieldy. A smaller magazine could improve the shooter's aim. But if it makes some feel safer, why not?


It seems pretty obvious to me that a shooter would shoot fewer rounds between reloads, making it more difficult to commit mass carnage.

Lastly, I should stress: I don't care if we skipped these three items. Fine. Whatever. But for the love of God, can we at least do something? Do we have to continue doing nothing about these problems while a gun violence epidemic rages on in our country?
User avatar
kidjan
Active Member
 
Posts: 1944
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Location: Earth.
BioWizard liked this post


Re: Orlando

Postby Paul Anthony on July 21st, 2016, 8:36 pm 

kidjan » Thu Jul 21, 2016 5:05 pm wrote:
Paul Anthony » Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:29 pm wrote:
If you have been following this thread,


I have not been following this thread.

Lastly, I should stress: I don't care if we skipped these three items. Fine. Whatever. But for the love of God, can we at least do something? Do we have to continue doing nothing about these problems while a gun violence epidemic rages on in our country?


I appreciate your input, but I recommend you read what others have had to say. No one is suggesting we do nothing.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby BioWizard on July 21st, 2016, 10:05 pm 

Predictive psychology and mass behavioral interventism are nor tangible in the foreseeable future, Paul. And that's not just a question of computing power.

So at some point we need to stop using those as valid alternatives (they're nothing more than an unrealistic distraction) and actually start talking about things that can be tried in our lifetime. Otherwise we are doing nothing.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12579
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Paul Anthony on July 21st, 2016, 11:46 pm 

BioWizard » Thu Jul 21, 2016 7:05 pm wrote:Predictive psychology and mass behavioral interventism are nor tangible in the foreseeable future, Paul. And that's not just a question of computing power.

So at some point we need to stop using those as valid alternatives (they're nothing more than an unrealistic distraction) and actually start talking about things that can be tried in our lifetime. Otherwise we are doing nothing.


Perhaps you misunderstood the reason I provided a link to that article. My final comment on the subject should make my position clear. It was "It's all a little too Orwellian for my tastes, but I fear it is the future".
I certainly wasn't recommending it as a valid alternative.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby BioWizard on July 21st, 2016, 11:54 pm 

Paul, I was more commenting on the thread as a hole. I think you (and maybe NCE ?) rallied for that flavor of solution for some time, and argued that other measures suggested would be ineffective, antifreedom, unfair, uprising-inducing, or all of the above. I haven't been paying attention to the thread for some time, and when I came back I saw that post. So I assumed not much has changed. Has it?
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12579
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Paul Anthony on July 22nd, 2016, 12:05 am 

BioWizard » Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:54 pm wrote:Paul, I was more commenting on the thread as a hole. I think you (and maybe NCE ?) rallied for that flavor of solution for some time, and argued that other measures suggested would be ineffective, antifreedom, unfair, uprising-inducing, or all of the above. I haven't been paying attention to the thread for some time, and when I came back I saw that post. So I assumed not much has changed. Has it?


Well, I could answer by providing a recap of everything that has been said or...I might suggest you read the thread when you have a chance.

I will say that we occasionally drifted off-topic as we are known to do, but somehow came back to the topic more or less each time. :)
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby BioWizard on July 22nd, 2016, 12:11 am 

Well that's good to read. I'll try to catch up and also look at subsequent posts.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12579
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby SciameriKen on July 22nd, 2016, 10:16 am 

As I've been following this thread, I think an important distinction has been missing throughout. The common retort to solutions involving gun control is that such solutions only take guns away from the law abiding, criminals will be unaffected.
I agree with this statement, but the distinction is that we are dealing with at least three separate sources of gun violence: criminality, terrorism, and mental illness. Tight gun control measures may have no effect on the foremost, but could very well reduce rates of teenagers who shoot up their schools.

I have long been anti gun control, but the world has changed. The founding fathers did not foresee suicidal mass murderers.
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY
BioWizardBraininvat liked this post


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Paul Anthony on July 22nd, 2016, 1:04 pm 

SciameriKen » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:16 am wrote:
I have long been anti gun control, but the world has changed. The founding fathers did not foresee suicidal mass murderers.


They didn't foresee flash mobs, either, but I wouldn't suggest a ban on the Internet. The world has changed in many ways. I am in favor of tighter gun control and training as a prerequisite, but not a ban.

As to teenagers shooting up their schools...Parents may want to teach their children how to use a gun, but the parents should be held entirely responsible for misuse of guns by their minor children. If that doesn't get them to lock up their guns, nothing will.

After typing that, it occurred to me that there can be a problem defining a minor. At what age does a minor become an adult? When I was growing up in RI, we could legally drive at 16 but couldn't drink until we were 21. We would drive to NY where the drinking age was 18. Interestingly, NY's driving age was also 18. No point in letting them drive sober, right? :)
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby BioWizard on July 22nd, 2016, 1:51 pm 

Ah, I see that little has changed about Paul's narrative after all.

Paul, I don't dislike you, and I even enjoy reading some of your more thoughtful posts quite a bit. But I don't know it I can elevate posts like that last one above verbal garbage.

You constantly say you're in favor of stricter regulations. Let's hear those stricter regulations you're in favor of (the ones that don't involve the very long term -and potentially unrealistic- predictive psychology and mass behavioral interventionism that is).
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12579
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Paul Anthony on July 22nd, 2016, 2:19 pm 

BioWizard » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:51 am wrote:Ah, I see that little has changed about Paul's narrative after all.

Paul, I don't dislike you, and I even enjoy reading some of your more thoughtful posts quite a bit. But I don't know it I can elevate posts like that last one above verbal garbage.

You constantly say you're in favor of stricter regulations. Let's hear those stricter regulations you're in favor of (the ones that don't involve the very long term -and potentially unrealistic- predictive psychology and mass behavioral interventionism that is).


Well, for starters, I said this on page 1:

In most cases, there is no urgent need to buy a gun. The waiting period could be lengthened. In fact, it should be lengthened because, as it stands, if a background check can't be performed in the allotted time the applicant is approved. That's ridiculous. If a proper background check can't be performed in the allotted time, the allotted time is too short. As with any regulation, I can think of exceptions, but laws can include exceptions. One that comes to mind is when a woman takes out a restraining order against someone who has threatened her. Maybe she should be moved to the front of the line. Maybe. Even that could be abused, but it does seem to have merit.

If the FBI finds it justifiable to open an investigation, the subject of that investigation should not be allowed to buy a gun. If, because of existing restraints, the FBI is required to close that investigation maybe the person that was investigated should continue to be prevented from buying a gun for a specific additional time. And, any application for a permit by that person should be a signal to the FBI to re-open their investigation.

If a person is found to be a threat to themselves or to others, they should not be allowed to purchase a gun. This one needs clarification because I see many ways it could be abused. by "found" I mean by a court - not merely by a psychiatrist or a relative or a neighbor. Require the accuser to bring the matter before a judge before the accusation gains the power of law.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Paul Anthony on July 22nd, 2016, 4:10 pm 

Biowizard,

I suspect you remain unconvinced as to my "narrative" as you put it. Allow me to make my position clearer.

Laws are necessary for a functioning society, but they are only useful if they are followed. They will be followed by the majority if they are perceived as just. Most people obey traffic signals, but when the national speed limit was 55MPH - even on roads that had been engineered for safe travel at higher speeds - many ignored the law. The law, then, did not accomplish its goal because people did not see it as reasonable.

A good law is one that imposes the minimum restriction necessary to accomplish its goal and is enforced equally without bias. Compliance rates increase when the purpose of the law is well verbalized, but if the explanations fail to convince a majority, the law will fail.

No law has the power to prevent crime. If understood and agreed upon by a majority, it can serve as a deterrent, but it cannot prevent the actions of those who choose to violate it. The best it can do in those circumstances is dole out punishment. The War on Drugs did not reduce drug use, it only imprisoned a lot of people.

I am in favor of reasonable gun laws that have a fair chance of being obeyed. I oppose laws that are not likely to accomplish their goal, while imposing unnecessary restrictions. Such laws will be flaunted, rendering them both an annoyance and at the same time, ineffective.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby SciameriKen on July 23rd, 2016, 9:07 am 

Paul,

You did not read my post - did I say ban guns anywhere in my post?
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Paul Anthony on July 23rd, 2016, 1:09 pm 

SciameriKen » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:07 am wrote:Paul,

You did not read my post - did I say ban guns anywhere in my post?


I did read your post.

I did not accuse you of suggesting a ban on guns. Although I quoted you and responded to that quote, my additional comments were more general. I apologize for the confusion. It would have been better had I split that into two posts. Sorry.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Paul Anthony on July 23rd, 2016, 2:07 pm 

Okay, this post will probably upset some of you.

This happened in Munich:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mu ... story.html

The shooter had no political or religious ties. He was just mentally unstable and a follower of other mass shooters in Europe (Strange that he didn't follow shootings in the US). He used a hand gun.

This didn't happen in Cleveland:

We have all heard the predictions. Ohio is an open carry state. People were free to carry guns at the GOP convention. A blood-bath was predicted. Let's tally the devastation. How many were killed? How many were wounded? How many shots were fired?
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Braininvat on July 23rd, 2016, 4:46 pm 

Why would anyone be upset, Paul? The post is entirely anecdotal, and you don't have any hypothesis derived from your 2 anecdotes. Also, what is your source for "A bloodbath was predicted." Who made such a prediction and would anyone have given it credence?

Want to know my reaction to Munich's shooting? "If it had been a US city, he would have had an AR-15, and the death toll would have been triple what it was."
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5672
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
BioWizard liked this post


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Paul Anthony on July 23rd, 2016, 5:24 pm 

Braininvat » Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:46 pm wrote:Why would anyone be upset, Paul? The post is entirely anecdotal, and you don't have any hypothesis derived from your 2 anecdotes. Also, what is your source for "A bloodbath was predicted." Who made such a prediction and would anyone have given it credence?



I don't view news reports as anecdotal, but we have disagreed on the definition of that term before.

I didn't derive hypotheses intentionally. No one can tell another what to think. Everyone is always entitled to draw their own conclusions. I chose to keep mine to myself.

As far as the predictions of mayhem, the Cleveland police chief asked the Governor to rescind the law that allowed guns. (The Governor refused). Most of the media told us how dangerous it was. If you missed all that, well...no one can tell you to watch or read the news. :)
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Serpent on July 24th, 2016, 12:49 am 

Just a quick amendment, for the4 record.
SciameriKen » July 22nd, 2016, 9:16 am wrote:.... the distinction is that we are dealing with at least three separate sources of gun violence: criminality, terrorism, and mental illness.

A fourth, fairly large category of casualties is accident due to carelessness, and that, like the crazies and terrorists, is mostly done with legally obtained weapons. In fact, criminally obtained guns used in criminal activity is probably the second smallest category, body-count-wise; the smallest would be a fifth: legal weapons used in self-defense or crime prevention, while one of the largest is the sixth category: inept or rogue law-enforcement.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
SciameriKen liked this post


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby BioWizard on July 24th, 2016, 6:51 am 

Paul, Brainvat's point was about deductive rigor, not about whether or not somebody somewhere said something, or whether or not something happened with an n of one (neither of which count as hypothesis testing). This isn't the first time I see you confuse anecdote with evidence, and use anecdote to "argue" against research conducted over time. I wonder if you do so knowingly, or simply can't tell the difference? I don't blame you if it's the latter and setting up hypotheses and testing them scientifically is just not something you do/are used to in your line of work. And granted, we may feel one way or another about a particular research. But that still doesn't mean we let this kind of hodgepodge pass for scholarly discussion.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12579
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby BioWizard on July 24th, 2016, 7:04 am 

And to better demonstrate the uselessness of anecdotal evidence, revisit Braininvat's comment: "If it had been a US city, he would have had an AR-15, and the death toll would have been triple what it was."
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12579
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby BioWizard on July 24th, 2016, 7:12 am 

Paul,

Thinking this some more, you said you understand that no law will completely prevent anything. But you still accept that laws are important for a functioning society. Which suggests that you understand the difference between prevention and reduction, and that n=1000 makes for a very different case from n=1, or 2, or 3 etc. Right?
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12579
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Paul Anthony on July 24th, 2016, 12:41 pm 

BioWizard » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:04 am wrote:And to better demonstrate the uselessness of anecdotal evidence, revisit Braininvat's comment: "If it had been a US city, he would have had an AR-15, and the death toll would have been triple what it was."


I do understand that my comments do not constitute scientific evaluation. I don't claim to be writing a thesis.
But I am confuse by your statement (above).

Are you suggesting Braininvat's comment is an example I should emulate? If it had been a US city, it seems to me, he could have also used a hand gun, as has been the case in other US mass shootings. It could also have been explosives, as has also occurred. Although we haven't seen anything like what occurred in Nice, there is no reason to conclude that no deranged person in the US will ever use a truck.

I have nothing against Braininvat. I usually enjoy his posts, but this one seems to me to be nothing but conjecture.

Or, did you mean it as an example of useless anecdotal evidence?
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Braininvat on July 24th, 2016, 4:45 pm 

I think he meant the latter. And that was my point, that a single instance (or data point) is not a basis for any meaningful analysis.

To give an example of a more useful data set, one could look at the number of fatalties in mass shootings in a country with strict gun control laws on rapid-fire high-capacity magazine weapons, compared with the number in more loosely regulated countries. Of especial interest might be average number of fatalities per mass shooting event, as well as overall totals.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5672
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


PreviousNext

Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests