truth on hold Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 (edited) Google chief urges action to regulate mini-drones http://m.bbc.co.uk/n...nology-22134898 Edited April 15, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Next weapons debate?I am guessing you are going to compare drones with a 10 round clip? So predicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted April 15, 2013 Author Share Posted April 15, 2013 (edited) Next weapons debate?I am guessing you are going to compare drones with a 10 round clip? So predicable. So what are you saying: Guns don't kill people, people do .... but drones DO kill people? Edited April 15, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 (edited) http://www.liveleak....=dac_1181365176 I think you would enjoy living in South Africa. It's gun laws are just what you like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_South_Africa Edited April 15, 2013 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Joe? hello? Where are you? Don't like cracking tuff nut's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted April 16, 2013 Author Share Posted April 16, 2013 Joe? hello? Where are you? Don't like cracking tuff nut's? Perhaps you could try replying on subject rather than posting a diversionary, non sequitur link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 (edited) Perhaps you could try replying on subject rather than posting a diversionary, non sequitur link. You're drones next weapons debate thread title is clearly a bad mask to cover you're desire to disarm Americans. It's the old, tired rant of should bazookas be legal. All emotion. Looks like you care not to respond to you're dream world of gun control in South Africa. Surprise. Edited April 16, 2013 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanGuzman Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 You're drones next weapons debate thread title is clearly a bad mask to cover you're desire to disarm Americans. It's the old, tired rant of should bazookas be legal. All emotion. Looks like you care not to respond to you're dream world of gun control in South Africa. Surprise. Just quickly on the debate on Gun control, your comparison of South Africa is risible, it's a red herring fallacy.... The place to start would be comparing a similar sub-group of developed countries, in this case the OECD would be a good group. Slice it anyway you like it, the U.S., has a way higher percentage deaths from guns than any other countries. Something needs to be done to reduce the number of gun deaths, too many lost lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Just quickly on the debate on Gun control, your comparison of South Africa is risible, it's a red herring fallacy.... The place to start would be comparing a similar sub-group of developed countries, in this case the OECD would be a good group. Slice it anyway you like it, the U.S., has a way higher percentage deaths from guns than any other countries. Something needs to be done to reduce the number of gun deaths, too many lost lives. So, should we outlaw all firearms for everyone, knowing that the bad/sick guys don't give a schit about laws and will do their thing anyways knowing that "gun free zones" are "fun free zones" in their minds or mandate that everyone carry a gun for self protection? When you say "something has to be done", would you actually consider mandating arming everyone, or are you just proposing eliminating all private ownership of firearms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 So, should we outlaw all firearms for everyone, knowing that the bad/sick guys don't give a schit about laws and will do their thing anyways knowing that "gun free zones" are "fun free zones" in their minds or mandate that everyone carry a gun for self protection? When you say "something has to be done", would you actually consider mandating arming everyone, or are you just proposing eliminating all private ownership of firearms? I thought he was recommending banning guns based on an ambiguous and vague statistical correlation he pulled out of his ass... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanGuzman Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 (edited) So, should we outlaw all firearms for everyone, knowing that the bad/sick guys don't give a schit about laws and will do their thing anyways knowing that "gun free zones" are "fun free zones" in their minds or mandate that everyone carry a gun for self protection? When you say "something has to be done", would you actually consider mandating arming everyone, or are you just proposing eliminating all private ownership of firearms? Slippery slope fallacy for you. I thought he was recommending banning guns based on an ambiguous and vague statistical correlation he pulled out of his ass... here have a look see at the numbers for yourself: http://www.nytimes.c...stands-out.html Maybe the USA is an outlier and relatively easy access is in fact making the country safer. Maybe the counterfactual is that there would, more deaths of innocents, more crime, lawless if gun control is put the place. i just don't think it's very plausible argument looking at the data. But feel free to make that argument, I just ask that consider the otherside. Edited April 16, 2013 by JuanGuzman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Slippery slope fallacy for you. here have a look see at the numbers for yourself: http://www.nytimes.c...stands-out.html Maybe the USA is an outlier and relatively easy access is in fact making the country safer. Maybe the counterfactual is that there would, more deaths of innocents, more crime, lawless if gun control is put the place. i just don't think it's very plausible argument looking at the data. But feel free to make that argument, I just ask that consider the otherside. "Sometimes I think the best argument is raw data. This is one of those times" ,,,and then goes on to provide data he stomped all over to make his point. Here's the thing I was getting at: you give me the actual raw data on gun ownership, assaults, and deaths and injuries (didn't notice that was missing, did you?), and I can slice-and-dice it a half-dozen ways to draw almost any conclusion I want from it, easily. For example: that chart displays "Average firearms per 100 people," and shows the US as a very high outlier at some 80+ guns per 100 people...but does that actually mean anything? Do 80 out of every 100 people in America really own guns? Would the ratio of gun owners per 100 people be more meaningful (in which case, I'd bet the US would be lower than Switzerland and Finland, at least - I'd bet that most US gun owners own more than one gun, and there's hence only 20-40 gun owners per 100 people). Or is gun ownership understated in that chart - does it include unregistered and illegally owned firearms? If it doesn't, is it making a false comparison - deaths by illegally owned firearms compared to legal ownership of firearms? And is it truly accurate to treat the US as a single homogeneous entity like Switzerland or Estonia? I highly doubt that lumping together Montana's gun homicide rates (low population density, lax gun laws) with California's (high population density, restrictive gun laws, drug/gang/border problems) is truly honest - there's a lot of variance in a large, populous, diverse country. So maybe "pulled out of your ass" was overly harsh. But "ambiguous and vague statistical correlation?" Yeah, I pretty much nailed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Slippery slope fallacy for you. here have a look see at the numbers for yourself: http://www.nytimes.c...stands-out.html Maybe the USA is an outlier and relatively easy access is in fact making the country safer. Maybe the counterfactual is that there would, more deaths of innocents, more crime, lawless if gun control is put the place. i just don't think it's very plausible argument looking at the data. But feel free to make that argument, I just ask that consider the otherside. Nice, so you have no argument but you think you can pull your own weight here? Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Nice, so you have no argument but you think you can pull your own weight here? Try again. You like the way I'm giving him a chance to make himself look stupid, BEFORE I call him an idiot? Awfully generous of me, I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted April 16, 2013 Author Share Posted April 16, 2013 (edited) You're drones next weapons debate thread title is clearly a bad mask to cover you're desire to disarm Americans. It's the old, tired rant of should bazookas be legal. All emotion. Looks like you care not to respond to you're dream world of gun control in South Africa. Surprise. Why is citizen drone regulation not a legitimate question? In the face of emerging technology its a question that will increasingly need to be addressed. In the case of drones its not just weapons its also a surveillance/privacy matter. Edited April 16, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanGuzman Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 "Sometimes I think the best argument is raw data. This is one of those times" ,,,and then goes on to provide data he stomped all over to make his point. Here's the thing I was getting at: you give me the actual raw data on gun ownership, assaults, and deaths and injuries (didn't notice that was missing, did you?), and I can slice-and-dice it a half-dozen ways to draw almost any conclusion I want from it, easily. For example: that chart displays "Average firearms per 100 people," and shows the US as a very high outlier at some 80+ guns per 100 people...but does that actually mean anything? Do 80 out of every 100 people in America really own guns? Would the ratio of gun owners per 100 people be more meaningful (in which case, I'd bet the US would be lower than Switzerland and Finland, at least - I'd bet that most US gun owners own more than one gun, and there's hence only 20-40 gun owners per 100 people). Or is gun ownership understated in that chart - does it include unregistered and illegally owned firearms? If it doesn't, is it making a false comparison - deaths by illegally owned firearms compared to legal ownership of firearms? And is it truly accurate to treat the US as a single homogeneous entity like Switzerland or Estonia? I highly doubt that lumping together Montana's gun homicide rates (low population density, lax gun laws) with California's (high population density, restrictive gun laws, drug/gang/border problems) is truly honest - there's a lot of variance in a large, populous, diverse country. So maybe "pulled out of your ass" was overly harsh. But "ambiguous and vague statistical correlation?" Yeah, I pretty much nailed that. So your reply is that it's possible to to lie with statistics? Thanks for enlightening me you really nailed it. This just in data has imperfections but statistical evidence is generally preferred to narratives. As i acknowledged earlier, your welcome to construct all types of narratives you want as to why the USA has by far the highest rate of homicides by firearms of any developed country. My narrative is this, the USA has too many guns and the country would be a safer to place to live if there were less guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 So your reply is that it's possible to to lie with statistics? Thanks for enlightening me you really nailed it. This just in data has imperfections but statistical evidence is generally preferred to narratives. As i acknowledged earlier, your welcome to construct all types of narratives you want as to why the USA has by far the highest rate of homicides by firearms of any developed country. My narrative is this, the USA has too many guns and the country would be a safer to place to live if there were less guns. So your proposal to reduce the number if guns it what exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted April 16, 2013 Author Share Posted April 16, 2013 So your proposal to reduce the number if guns it what exactly? Your proposal is status quo/do nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 So your reply is that it's possible to to lie with statistics? Thanks for enlightening me you really nailed it. This just in data has imperfections but statistical evidence is generally preferred to narratives. As i acknowledged earlier, your welcome to construct all types of narratives you want as to why the USA has by far the highest rate of homicides by firearms of any developed country. My narrative is this, the USA has too many guns and the country would be a safer to place to live if there were less guns. No, my reply was that it's impossible to tell the truth with your statistics. Gotta work on that reading comprehension thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Just quickly on the debate on Gun control, your comparison of South Africa is risible, it's a red herring fallacy.... The place to start would be comparing a similar sub-group of developed countries, in this case the OECD would be a good group. Slice it anyway you like it, the U.S., has a way higher percentage deaths from guns than any other countries. Something needs to be done to reduce the number of gun deaths, too many lost lives. You should probably check some facts in that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts