If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Bill Clinton to Democrats: Don't trivialize gun culture   (politico.com) divider line 1115
    More: Advice, Bill Clinton, gun culture, Democrats, GOP House  
•       •       •

16578 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2013 at 5:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 07:28:47 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: unfortunately, it's going to be pretty near impossible to get rid of the "gun culture"

It's just too ingrained into the heads of the gullible and others lacking critical thinking skills due to lobbying by a business with an extremely profitable business model.

And those in the industry (and their goddamn greedy bastard shareholders!) and the politicians who benefit from the lobbying don't give two shiats about people dying from their products.

Just like the tobacco industry.

Fark these disgusting excuses for humanity with a red-hot poker.


You know how I know you didn't read the article? Maybe not even the headline?
 
2013-01-20 07:32:58 PM

Xcott: GUTSU: Keizer_Ghidorah: GUTSU:

At least they're not neon pink. I also find it amusing that two of them have guns nearly as big as they are.
True, at least they aren't completely tasteless.

Says you. If rifles were all pink with Hello Kitty decals, a lot of the people who shouldn't have guns, wouldn't.

Instead of banning weapons, we should simply mandate that firearms look as girly as possible. You can choose between pink or lilac, accessories will be made to look like dildos and have names like "the ticklemaster rabbit 3000."

Add to this the requirement that high-capacity magazines be renamed "handicap magazines" with big wheelchair logos printed on them, and you'll probably get all the ITGs to take up bowling instead. People who really do view a rifle as a tool, like a shovel, will just shrug whatever: this year's shovel is blue, last year's was yellow, and when I'm clearing my driveway at 6AM I couldn't give half a crap whether the shovel is pink with ponies on it.


www.glamguns.com

www.horsenation.com

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-01-20 07:34:02 PM

Xcott: GUTSU: Keizer_Ghidorah: GUTSU:

At least they're not neon pink. I also find it amusing that two of them have guns nearly as big as they are.
True, at least they aren't completely tasteless.

Says you. If rifles were all pink with Hello Kitty decals, a lot of the people who shouldn't have guns, wouldn't.

Instead of banning weapons, we should simply mandate that firearms look as girly as possible. You can choose between pink or lilac, accessories will be made to look like dildos and have names like "the ticklemaster rabbit 3000."

Add to this the requirement that high-capacity magazines be renamed "handicap magazines" with big wheelchair logos printed on them, and you'll probably get all the ITGs to take up bowling instead. People who really do view a rifle as a tool, like a shovel, will just shrug whatever: this year's shovel is blue, last year's was yellow, and when I'm clearing my driveway at 6AM I couldn't give half a crap whether the shovel is pink with ponies on it.


That would be great for thwarting those unfamiliar with a spray paint can, but sure why not. I could buy one for my five year, lets make it happen.
 
HBK
2013-01-20 07:36:21 PM

Xcott: GUTSU: Keizer_Ghidorah: GUTSU:

At least they're not neon pink. I also find it amusing that two of them have guns nearly as big as they are.
True, at least they aren't completely tasteless.

Says you. If rifles were all pink with Hello Kitty decals, a lot of the people who shouldn't have guns, wouldn't.

Instead of banning weapons, we should simply mandate that firearms look as girly as possible. You can choose between pink or lilac, accessories will be made to look like dildos and have names like "the ticklemaster rabbit 3000."

Add to this the requirement that high-capacity magazines be renamed "handicap magazines" with big wheelchair logos printed on them, and you'll probably get all the ITGs to take up bowling instead. People who really do view a rifle as a tool, like a shovel, will just shrug whatever: this year's shovel is blue, last year's was yellow, and when I'm clearing my driveway at 6AM I couldn't give half a crap whether the shovel is pink with ponies on it.


Could we make one with Abby Cadabby? I'm trying to get my five year old niece into shooting. Thanks.
 
2013-01-20 07:37:31 PM

Mrtraveler01: Amos Quito: gimmegimme: Amos Quito: gimmegimme: Looking at an unloaded machine gun isn't scary. Walking into a Wal-Mart and seeing some random wingnut packing an assault rifle IS scary.

[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Only because you're not used to it,

Where is that, Somalia? Libya?


The Promised Land.

Ah, Israel.

Where every citizen is required to be in the military for a couple of years and receives training on how to properly handle a gun,

Brilliant comparison...(sarcasm)



I had a feeling you would be of two minds about this issue.

Goose =/= Gander


/Because they're special
 
2013-01-20 07:40:24 PM

Amos Quito: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Now is not the time to discuss increased gun regulation, AGAIN.


That's sad. Shall we get all emotional?

It's a long thread, so I'm sure you missed this:

Total number of homicides committed with rifles in 2011: 323  (This would include but is not limited to "Assault Rifles")

Compare to:

Knives or cutting instruments: 1,694
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc): 496
Personal weapons (hands, feet, etc): 726

In spite of the emotionally hyped recent events, knives, blunt objects and HANDS AND FEET have all proven to be FAR more deadly than all rifles.

What shall we ban next?

Lend a hand?


Might not want to mention hammers while saying something stupid.
 
2013-01-20 07:40:41 PM

whidbey: hubiestubert: THAT was example of an unsafe carry, and the girls pictured are FAR more professional and safe, which should tell you something...

That's right...the women are smarter. The women are smarter, that's right. :)


In fairness, I was more referring to their age, but the wimminfolks are often clearer headed on some things...
 
2013-01-20 07:53:25 PM

BigBooper: Lsherm: At this point, I think the gun show loophole has a real shot at getting closed.  As long as the Democrats don't stack a bill with a bunch of other unpopular proposals, it should be relatively easy to make the Republicans look ridiculous if they don't pass it.

The Republicans claimed that Obama was going to seize guns with executive orders, and had the far right whipped into a frenzy about it. Then Obama gave his speech, and his actions turned out to be limited, reasonable, and undoubtedly constitutional. Now Democrats need to do the same thing in the Senate. Come up with a law that only the far right can argue with. Something that will get some Republican votes. I know that the house wouldn't pass such a bill. They won't pass anything that has anything to do with guns. But a reasonable and modest bill with bipartisan support that gets killed by the radical right in the house will give the American people one more reason to throw out the tea party Republicans.

Or has gerrymandering in Republican states made that impossible?


Gerrymandering, period, has resulted in a split House.  The problem is that as time goes on, the models are getting better and better to game the system.  Some states have independent review boards for drawing up district lines, but those can be gamed as well.  Ideally, maps would be drawn at random using a computer model based on population.  Neither party wants that.
 
2013-01-20 08:00:08 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Alonjar: There are over 2 million home invasion/burglaries commited in the United States every year

It's about 3.7 million burglaries, about a quarter of which someone was present for. About 7% (259,000) involved violence against a member of the household. That's about .082% of the population. [pdf]

TERROR! TERROR EVERYWHERE! QUICKLY! WET YOUR PANTS AND GRAB YOUR AK!

/ you're almost 6 times as likely just to be injured in a car crash as injured OR killed in a burglary
// but I'm sure the only thing you worried about when buying your car was safety and every second you spend on the road is spent maximizing your safety....


Statistics manipulation is fun.

You hear someone breaking into your home. Are they there to impregnate your wife, fark your daughters throat until she chokes to death, and set you on fire while you are still alive... or are they just there for your TV? No way to tell? OK, so you must automatically assume that anybody who breaks into your home is accepting the fact that a person could be home, or come home, during the robbery, and thus are prepared to deal with said residents, which requires violence. So we must go with the full 3.7m incident number, not your filtered 7% statistic.

So there are currently 310 million people living in the united states. Using your statistic of 3.7m burglaries, that means 1.1% of the population is burglarized every year. On average, americans live 2.6 people per household. So you actually have a 2.86% chance of having your household broken into in any given year.

Average life expectancy in the United States is currently about 78 years. This means in your lifetime, there is a 223% chance that you will be burglarized.

Go ahead, check my math.

/In reality, people in the ghetto will be burglarized multiple times, and people in suburbia will experience it far less... but thats how the average works out
 
2013-01-20 08:01:42 PM
Is there a Bill Clinton "Miss Me Yet?" meme?
 
2013-01-20 08:02:02 PM

Evil High Priest: Amos Quito: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Now is not the time to discuss increased gun regulation, AGAIN.


That's sad. Shall we get all emotional?

It's a long thread, so I'm sure you missed this:

Total number of homicides committed with rifles in 2011: 323  (This would include but is not limited to "Assault Rifles")

Compare to:

Knives or cutting instruments: 1,694
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc): 496
Personal weapons (hands, feet, etc): 726

In spite of the emotionally hyped recent events, knives, blunt objects and HANDS AND FEET have all proven to be FAR more deadly than all rifles.

What shall we ban next?

Lend a hand?

Might not want to mention hammers while saying something stupid.


If you're pretending to "do something!" to prevent gun violence, you can't get much STOOPIDER than to go after weapons that are used in less than 4% of the incidents.
 
2013-01-20 08:10:46 PM

Alonjar: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Alonjar: There are over 2 million home invasion/burglaries commited in the United States every year

It's about 3.7 million burglaries, about a quarter of which someone was present for. About 7% (259,000) involved violence against a member of the household. That's about .082% of the population. [pdf]

TERROR! TERROR EVERYWHERE! QUICKLY! WET YOUR PANTS AND GRAB YOUR AK!

/ you're almost 6 times as likely just to be injured in a car crash as injured OR killed in a burglary
// but I'm sure the only thing you worried about when buying your car was safety and every second you spend on the road is spent maximizing your safety....

Statistics manipulation is fun.

You hear someone breaking into your home. Are they there to impregnate your wife, fark your daughters throat until she chokes to death, and set you on fire while you are still alive... or are they just there for your TV? No way to tell? OK, so you must automatically assume that anybody who breaks into your home is accepting the fact that a person could be home, or come home, during the robbery, and thus are prepared to deal with said residents, which requires violence. So we must go with the full 3.7m incident number, not your filtered 7% statistic.

So there are currently 310 million people living in the united states. Using your statistic of 3.7m burglaries, that means 1.1% of the population is burglarized every year. On average, americans live 2.6 people per household. So you actually have a 2.86% chance of having your household broken into in any given year.

Average life expectancy in the United States is currently about 78 years. This means in your lifetime, there is a 223% chance that you will be burglarized.

Go ahead, check my math.

/In reality, people in the ghetto will be burglarized multiple times, and people in suburbia will experience it far less... but thats how the average works out


Whatever, you know you sit around in your house all day just waiting for the chance to legally kill someone for breaking in. Just admit it Rambo Jr.

/kidding
 
2013-01-20 08:13:10 PM

Xcott: Yes, that's why we only had one Sandy Hook, compared to like five mass killings where a schizo kid forced his way into an elementary school and killed a couple dozen kids using dim mak, the touch of death.

That's why we have so many problems with murderers going on punching sprees in movie theaters. And then there was all those people who died in Tuscon when that guy started giving out noogies.

Clearly when we count up all the killing sprees of the last few years, almost all of them are accomplished using hands and feet, and maybe one of them might have involved a firearm. Anyone who stares at numbers on the Internet to the exclusion of all else can tell you that.


You realize the reason we all, regardless of where we live, know about Newtown and Aurora and Tuscon is because they were spectacular, out of the ordinary, events.  You don't hear about every death - by knife, fist, car, OR gun - unless you are local to the crime or it is a "holy shiat, that is something so insanely out of the ordinary, it's newsworthy in the entire country."   I think of it like this: living in CT, I don't hear about a rainy day in Louisiana, but I hear about a massive hurricane hitting the area. Just like all of you heard about Hurricane Sandy up here, but probably had no idea it rained last Thursday.
 
2013-01-20 08:13:21 PM

Alonjar: Average life expectancy in the United States is currently about 78 years. This means in your lifetime, there is a 223% chance that you will be burglarized.


This has got to be a joke, right?
 
2013-01-20 08:17:05 PM

Biological Ali: Alonjar: Average life expectancy in the United States is currently about 78 years. This means in your lifetime, there is a 223% chance that you will be burglarized.

This has got to be a joke, right?


Are you saying my math is wrong?
 
2013-01-20 08:21:43 PM

Alonjar: Biological Ali: Alonjar: Average life expectancy in the United States is currently about 78 years. This means in your lifetime, there is a 223% chance that you will be burglarized.

This has got to be a joke, right?

Are you saying my math is wrong?


If you're joking, you need to make the setup and punchline more recognizable. Right now it almost reads as though you were actually being serious.

If you're not joking... then, well, the only prudent course of action would be to immediately stop posting and enroll in a statistics class.
 
2013-01-20 08:32:10 PM

Amos Quito: Evil High Priest: Amos Quito: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Now is not the time to discuss increased gun regulation, AGAIN.


That's sad. Shall we get all emotional?

It's a long thread, so I'm sure you missed this:

Total number of homicides committed with rifles in 2011: 323  (This would include but is not limited to "Assault Rifles")

Compare to:

Knives or cutting instruments: 1,694
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc): 496
Personal weapons (hands, feet, etc): 726

In spite of the emotionally hyped recent events, knives, blunt objects and HANDS AND FEET have all proven to be FAR more deadly than all rifles.

What shall we ban next?

Lend a hand?

Might not want to mention hammers while saying something stupid.

If you're pretending to "do something!" to prevent gun violence, you can't get much STOOPIDER than to go after weapons that are used in less than 4% of the incidents.


Probably the best way to "do something" about gun violence is to ban hammers. And cars and bath tubs. Anything but guns, right?
 
2013-01-20 08:35:05 PM

Evil High Priest: Amos Quito: Evil High Priest: Amos Quito: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Now is not the time to discuss increased gun regulation, AGAIN.


That's sad. Shall we get all emotional?

It's a long thread, so I'm sure you missed this:

Total number of homicides committed with rifles in 2011: 323  (This would include but is not limited to "Assault Rifles")

Compare to:

Knives or cutting instruments: 1,694
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc): 496
Personal weapons (hands, feet, etc): 726

In spite of the emotionally hyped recent events, knives, blunt objects and HANDS AND FEET have all proven to be FAR more deadly than all rifles.

What shall we ban next?

Lend a hand?

Might not want to mention hammers while saying something stupid.

If you're pretending to "do something!" to prevent gun violence, you can't get much STOOPIDER than to go after weapons that are used in less than 4% of the incidents.

Probably the best way to "do something" about gun violence is to ban hammers. And cars and bath tubs. Anything but guns, right?


Remember kids, if you don't have a "one size fits all" solution that fixes everything, it's not worth doing.
 
2013-01-20 08:35:22 PM

Biological Ali: Alonjar: Biological Ali: Alonjar: Average life expectancy in the United States is currently about 78 years. This means in your lifetime, there is a 223% chance that you will be burglarized.

This has got to be a joke, right?

Are you saying my math is wrong?

If you're joking, you need to make the setup and punchline more recognizable. Right now it almost reads as though you were actually being serious.

If you're not joking... then, well, the only prudent course of action would be to immediately stop posting and enroll in a statistics class.


Show me my error. I'm an engineer.. it will be fun.

Perhaps you're just absurdly blind to how common certain crimes are. I'm 27, and Ive experienced at least two burglaries that i can remember. When I was a teenager, some people broke into my parents $700,000 house, and when I was 23, I had 3 drug addicts force their way past me into my $800 a month apartment. So ive already met the 2x robbed statistic i presented above.

Crime happens everywhere, regardless of income, all the time.
 
2013-01-20 08:35:35 PM

Evil High Priest: Probably the best way to "do something" about gun violence is to ban hammers. And cars and bath tubs. Anything but guns, right?


Or ban none of those things and start addressing the underlying social conditions that lead to gun violence, but that's too much work and would improve the country too much I guess.
 
2013-01-20 08:39:04 PM

TheJoe03: Evil High Priest: Probably the best way to "do something" about gun violence is to ban hammers. And cars and bath tubs. Anything but guns, right?

Or ban none of those things and start addressing the underlying social conditions that lead to gun violence, but that's too much work and would improve the country too much I guess.


That would be my vote, but that's too HARD. Both sides are guilty of going for the easy solutions - ban certain types of guns, or status quo in the case of the NRA, but I tend not to sympathize much with the latter, not because I think gun control is going to be that effective, but because the lobbyists are heartless assholes looking for coin and their constituents are petulant children.
 
2013-01-20 08:39:13 PM

Alonjar: Show me my error. I'm an engineer.. it will be fun.


With a fair coin, the odds of getting a heads in one flip is 0.5. What are the odds of getting at least one heads in two flips? Three flips?
 
2013-01-20 08:39:44 PM

TheJoe03: Evil High Priest: Probably the best way to "do something" about gun violence is to ban hammers. And cars and bath tubs. Anything but guns, right?

Or ban none of those things and start addressing the underlying social conditions that lead to gun violence, but that's too much work and would improve the country too much I guess.


Won't someone think of the prison industry? Oh, right, they are, and the gun grabbers are the useful idiots this round.
 
2013-01-20 08:40:39 PM

doglover: Also, do you think Marine Sniper Scouts just magically train up in six weeks of basic? You want good soldiers, you kids growing up shooting. On top of that hunting is a good way to manage game levels now that apex predators are mostly dead in the wild. Self defense is an added bonus, but unless you're a cop or a gangster, the chances of it actually happening for you are nil. But the one time you need a gun, if it ever happens, you'll be glad you had it or sorry you didn't.


None of that changes the fact that guns are designed to kill.  That's not a value statement, it's a fact.  It's the first thing I was taught beforeI handled my first weapon.  Don't aim it at any living thing that you don't intend to kill.  That's what I taught my son this past fall when I took him shooting for the first time.
 
2013-01-20 08:42:20 PM

Biological Ali: Alonjar: Show me my error. I'm an engineer.. it will be fun.

With a fair coin, the odds of getting a heads in one flip is 0.5. What are the odds of getting at least one heads in two flips? Three flips?


He didn't say the chance of one specific person being robbed, he said the overall average per lifetime.
 
2013-01-20 08:48:41 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali: Alonjar: Show me my error. I'm an engineer.. it will be fun.

With a fair coin, the odds of getting a heads in one flip is 0.5. What are the odds of getting at least one heads in two flips? Three flips?

He didn't say the chance of one specific person being robbed, he said the overall average per lifetime.


It doesn't matter who he was talking about since it's literally impossible for this:

there is a 223% chance that you will be burglarized

...to be valid in any context. Any time you've wound up with a probability greater than 1 (or greater than 100%), it's an immediate indication that somebody got their math wrong.
 
2013-01-20 08:51:03 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: TheJoe03: Evil High Priest: Probably the best way to "do something" about gun violence is to ban hammers. And cars and bath tubs. Anything but guns, right?

Or ban none of those things and start addressing the underlying social conditions that lead to gun violence, but that's too much work and would improve the country too much I guess.

Won't someone think of the prison industry? Oh, right, they are, and the gun grabbers are the useful idiots this round.


So now your conspiracy theories have expanded to "The gun grabbers run the prison industry and seek to throw all gun users in jail"?
 
2013-01-20 08:51:09 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: BraveNewCheneyWorld: gimmegimme: So did you have a problem with any of the President's executive orders?

Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

As long as they keep this to safety, and not propaganda designed to instill fear of certain types of guns.

Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Should we be limiting this to gun violence? Shouldn't we be looking at the root causes and prevention of all violence regardless of weapon used?

Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Unless you're eating your guns, a physician doesn't have a need to know about them.

Mental health concerns are for more than just feeling suicidal.


You are forgetting that the NRA "talks" about addressing mental health issues but they don't really mean that they want to do anything about it. It's just a convenient way to move the topic to something other than guns.
 
2013-01-20 08:52:28 PM

Pincy: You are forgetting that the NRA "talks" about addressing mental health issues but they don't really mean that they want to do anything about it. It's just a convenient way to move the topic to something other than guns.


They lost me when they started talking about video games and movies.
 
2013-01-20 08:52:56 PM

Babwa Wawa: None of that changes the fact that guns are designed to kill. That's not a value statement, it's a fact.


But that sort of conflicts with the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing and thus it can not be true.
 
2013-01-20 08:54:32 PM

Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali: Alonjar: Show me my error. I'm an engineer.. it will be fun.

With a fair coin, the odds of getting a heads in one flip is 0.5. What are the odds of getting at least one heads in two flips? Three flips?

He didn't say the chance of one specific person being robbed, he said the overall average per lifetime.

It doesn't matter who he was talking about since it's literally impossible for this:

there is a 223% chance that you will be burglarized

...to be valid in any context. Any time you've wound up with a probability greater than 1 (or greater than 100%), it's an immediate indication that somebody got their math wrong.


100% doesn't mean the absolute maximum in all formulas and statistics. For example, increasing something by 100% means you doubled it, 200% means you tripled it, 300% means you quadrupled it, etc. And yes, you can have more than 100% of a chance of something happening to you than something else. For example, you have a 600% chance of catching a cold than being eaten by a great white shark.
 
2013-01-20 08:57:49 PM

Pincy: Babwa Wawa: None of that changes the fact that guns are designed to kill. That's not a value statement, it's a fact.

But that sort of conflicts with the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing and thus it can not be true.


Guns are designed solely to inflict damage and harm. But, they need a human to operate them since they can't aim themselves and pull their own triggers. Both statements are correct.
 
2013-01-20 08:59:05 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: 100% doesn't mean the absolute maximum in all formulas and statistics. For example, increasing something by 100% means you doubled it, 200% means you tripled it, 300% means you quadrupled it, etc. And yes, you can have more than 100% of a chance of something happening to you than something else. For example, you have a 600% chance of catching a cold than being eaten by a great white shark.


Except none of those are probabilities. 100% (or 1 as it's more commonly referred to in stats courses) is indeed a hard cap for probabilities. The post I responded to was referring to probabilities as opposed to some comparison between two other things.
 
2013-01-20 09:00:24 PM

Biological Ali: Keizer_Ghidorah: 100% doesn't mean the absolute maximum in all formulas and statistics. For example, increasing something by 100% means you doubled it, 200% means you tripled it, 300% means you quadrupled it, etc. And yes, you can have more than 100% of a chance of something happening to you than something else. For example, you have a 600% chance of catching a cold than being eaten by a great white shark.

Except none of those are probabilities. 100% (or 1 as it's more commonly referred to in stats courses) is indeed a hard cap for probabilities. The post I responded to was referring to probabilities as opposed to some comparison between two other things.



There is a 412% chance that Biological Ali is correct here.
 
2013-01-20 09:06:09 PM

Biological Ali: Alonjar: Show me my error. I'm an engineer.. it will be fun.

With a fair coin, the odds of getting a heads in one flip is 0.5. What are the odds of getting at least one heads in two flips? Three flips?


yeah... i see your point, i definitely wasnt using an appropriate metric when I said 223%... im too used to reading percentages in relation to capacity.

It still averages to every persons household being robbed 2.23 times though.
 
2013-01-20 09:06:45 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Better mental health care.
Tackle the roots of the problem, not the symptoms: poverty, health, education.
Mandatory licensing and registration for all firearms, along with tracking their buying, selling, and traveling history.
Mandatory police-level gun training and safety instruction for all owners.
Better removing of guns from gangs and criminals (hell, better removing of gangs and criminals).
Develop and implement technology that prevents guns from working for anyone but their owner.


Sounds great. The GOP is actively against every one of those proposals, so they have not a prayer in hell of seeing daylight. Pity, that.
 
2013-01-20 09:20:10 PM

Alonjar: Biological Ali: Alonjar: Show me my error. I'm an engineer.. it will be fun.

With a fair coin, the odds of getting a heads in one flip is 0.5. What are the odds of getting at least one heads in two flips? Three flips?

yeah... i see your point, i definitely wasnt using an appropriate metric when I said 223%... im too used to reading percentages in relation to capacity.

It still averages to every persons household being robbed 2.23 times though.


Fair enough. The 2.23 number still isn't appropriate in the context of the discussion, however (though this time for reasons other than math).

Ultimately, it's houses that get broken into, not people. It may be true that any given house is broken into an average of 2.23 times (taking this at face value - not sure how accurate it would be), but that would include all burglaries, including ones where nobody was home, or ones where somebody may have been there but no confrontation took place (they didn't wake up perhaps).

The only number here that serves as an indication of the risk of physical harm is the one that Vegan Meat Popsicle referred to (i.e. the proportion of break-ins that involved some harm to a member of the household), and dividing it by the total population would give you a very rough idea of the risk per person.
 
2013-01-20 09:28:12 PM
I'm hoping we have this whole gun thing licked by 1000 posts.
 
2013-01-20 09:31:04 PM

Alonjar: So you actually have a 2.86% chance of having your household broken into in any given year.


If this was true, then more than half the population would have experienced a break-in by age 25. I'm pretty sure that break-ins aren't that common.

It still averages to every persons household being robbed 2.23 times though.

Yes, your mathematics would have been appropriate if you were computing an expected value instead of a probability. However, using the same operation---simple multiplication---to get a probability is mathematically illiterate.

If there's a 2.86% probability of experiencing a break-in per year, there is an expectation of N*.0286 break-ins in N years. However, the probability of a break-in is not N*.0286; assuming independent events, it would be 1-(1-.0286)**N.

Show me my error. I'm an engineer.. it will be fun.

I guess that's another solution to our firearms predicament: just let today's crop of engineers design firearms, when they're not busy designing burning batteries, collapsing balconies, and phone antennas that stop working when you hold the phone in your left hand.
 
2013-01-20 09:34:15 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: First, they came for the Big Gulps and I said nothing because I don't need that much soda. Then they came for the Snickers bars and I said nothing because I try not to each that much chocolate. Then they came for the handguns and there was no one to speak up for me.

Well, there is a bit of a fallacy here: Big Gulps and Snickers bars only affect you (until someone develops either a mutant power or a special machine that transfers body fat from themselves to other people). A gun ejects projectiles at velocity that harm anything in a range around it.



Wasn't the whole rationale behind the ban that your Big Gulps and Snickers bars affect the rest of us because healthcare? It was? OK. Just checking.
 
2013-01-20 09:40:53 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Pincy: Babwa Wawa: None of that changes the fact that guns are designed to kill. That's not a value statement, it's a fact.

But that sort of conflicts with the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing and thus it can not be true.

Guns are designed solely to inflict damage and harm. But, they need a human to operate them since they can't aim themselves and pull their own triggers. Both statements are correct.


Ya, I'm not disagreeing. But I've run into many pro-gun people who can not bring themselves to admit that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill things, and I think it is because they see that as a conflict with the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" motto.
 
2013-01-20 09:57:53 PM

Pincy: Ya, I'm not disagreeing. But I've run into many pro-gun people who can not bring themselves to admit that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill things, and I think it is because they see that as a conflict with the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" motto.


The primary point (and one that can help communicate with gun nuts) is that guns are designed to kill things.  That's something most people will agree on.

You can also point out that rifles and shotguns are used in fewer homicides than knives in the US.  As a result, most gun control advocates (at least the sane ones) don't really want to touch rifles or shotguns.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-20 09:58:25 PM

Pincy: Ya, I'm not disagreeing. But I've run into many pro-gun people who can not bring themselves to admit that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill things, and I think it is because they see that as a conflict with the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" motto.


Primary purpose of a gun, throughout history, was to kill people.  Most guns are the children of guns being improved to kill people.  They figured out how to do breech-loaders to kill people faster.  They figured out how to make bolt-actions because they wanted to kill people faster.  The M-16 was developed in order to figure out how to kill people faster.

So my objection to, "The AR-15 is designed solely to kill people," is that EVERY firearm family was designed solely to kill people.  They may have been adapted to other purposes, but the innovations were the result of trying to maximize killing of people.
 
2013-01-20 10:05:31 PM

vygramul: Pincy: Ya, I'm not disagreeing. But I've run into many pro-gun people who can not bring themselves to admit that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill things, and I think it is because they see that as a conflict with the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" motto.

Primary purpose of a gun, throughout history, was to kill people.  Most guns are the children of guns being improved to kill people.  They figured out how to do breech-loaders to kill people faster.  They figured out how to make bolt-actions because they wanted to kill people faster.  The M-16 was developed in order to figure out how to kill people faster.

So my objection to, "The AR-15 is designed solely to kill people," is that EVERY firearm family was designed solely to kill people.  They may have been adapted to other purposes, but the innovations were the result of trying to maximize killing of people.


I say "things" instead of "people" because you will always get the people who say "I depend on my gun to feed myself", so I try to take them into account. Maybe I should say "living beings" or "things with a pulse"? But you are right, the vast majority of guns today are designed to kill people. And a lot of pro-gun people can't bring themselves to say that for some reason.
 
2013-01-20 10:06:17 PM

vygramul: Primary purpose of a gun, throughout history, was to kill people.  Most guns are the children of guns being improved to kill people.  They figured out how to do breech-loaders to kill people faster.  They figured out how to make bolt-actions because they wanted to kill people faster.  The M-16 was developed in order to figure out how to kill people faster.


I wouldn't go that far. A lot of firearms evolved for killing animals of different kinds. Hunting wasn't just a tangental use for firearms like target shooting, but one major driver of rifle and shotgun design.

It's probably better to say that guns are for killing things. On the other hand, the 2nd amendment is ostensibly justified by the utility of firearms for killing people, unless they meant the security of a free state from an invasion of rabbits or paper targets.
 
2013-01-20 10:31:14 PM

Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali: Alonjar: Show me my error. I'm an engineer.. it will be fun.

With a fair coin, the odds of getting a heads in one flip is 0.5. What are the odds of getting at least one heads in two flips? Three flips?

He didn't say the chance of one specific person being robbed, he said the overall average per lifetime.

It doesn't matter who he was talking about since it's literally impossible for this:

there is a 223% chance that you will be burglarized

...to be valid in any context. Any time you've wound up with a probability greater than 1 (or greater than 100%), it's an immediate indication that somebody got their math wrong.


This says something interesting about you. Either, you can't follow basic statistics and understand what someone intended to convey with the numbers provided, or you followed along, knew what they meant, and decided to be a willfully obtuse dick for no real reason. Either way, I'm not remotely surprised.
 
2013-01-20 10:38:09 PM

Pincy: Keizer_Ghidorah: Pincy: Babwa Wawa: None of that changes the fact that guns are designed to kill. That's not a value statement, it's a fact.

But that sort of conflicts with the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing and thus it can not be true.

Guns are designed solely to inflict damage and harm. But, they need a human to operate them since they can't aim themselves and pull their own triggers. Both statements are correct.

Ya, I'm not disagreeing. But I've run into many pro-gun people who can not bring themselves to admit that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill things, and I think it is because they see that as a conflict with the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" motto.


Almost anything can be used as a weapon, but some things are more effective than others.
Some guns are not designed to be weapons. Just as with knives, you've got your hunting swords and then you've got your box cutters, but the later isn't intended to be used to kill things.
That doesn't mean it can't be dangerous or that it can't kill, but its simply not meant to be a weapon.
No engineer at ruger came to work on their mki II line thinking "what those gang bangers want is a massive metal framed pistol with a six inch barrel and limited magazine that weights a FARK ton and shoots a bullet barely strong enough to kill a dog".

/flawed argument overall in my opinion tho,when we start talking about limiting guns based on the designers supposed intention.
/223 Remington was not designed for war, the government adopted it because it wanted soldiers to carry more ammunition.
/government usually makes a good point about keeping war weapons to itself, because governments are like that, but it won't pass up existing technology in the civilian market.
/it believed the future was nuclear weapons and the ar was about keeping the communists heads down while they waited for the bright flash.
/the question here is if people have the right to defend themselves with lethal force under certain circumstances.
/If you accept that is true, they have a right to arms optimized for killing other people.
/this would protect guns with far more ballistic power than the ar-15.
/2nd amendment says we all have a right to bear bear arms for making war, which is a further step into destructive force than anyone is talking about here.
/but since we've already infringed on the spirit of that law, any further discussion is easily a step too far.
/the people already acquiesced their war making ability for safety with the NFA and GCA, now the side selling safety is coming back to ask for another concession.
/the gun owning public is expectantly upset over that, having not received the safety they were promised from earlier.
/guns don't kill people, people kill people, and now the people with both unrestricted guns and the authority to use them are coming for what little power they left you with the last time.
/it doesn't take much if a conspiracy theorist to see how this story goes.
/or that I've abused slashies as much as the media abuses our common sense.
 
2013-01-20 10:47:33 PM

way south: Pincy: Keizer_Ghidorah: Pincy: Babwa Wawa: None of that changes the fact that guns are designed to kill. That's not a value statement, it's a fact.

But that sort of conflicts with the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing and thus it can not be true.

Guns are designed solely to inflict damage and harm. But, they need a human to operate them since they can't aim themselves and pull their own triggers. Both statements are correct.

Ya, I'm not disagreeing. But I've run into many pro-gun people who can not bring themselves to admit that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill things, and I think it is because they see that as a conflict with the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" motto.

Almost anything can be used as a weapon, but some things are more effective than others.
Some guns are not designed to be weapons. Just as with knives, you've got your hunting swords and then you've got your box cutters, but the later isn't intended to be used to kill things.
That doesn't mean it can't be dangerous or that it can't kill, but its simply not meant to be a weapon.
No engineer at ruger came to work on their mki II line thinking "what those gang bangers want is a massive metal framed pistol with a six inch barrel and limited magazine that weights a FARK ton and shoots a bullet barely strong enough to kill a dog".

/flawed argument overall in my opinion tho,when we start talking about limiting guns based on the designers supposed intention.
/223 Remington was not designed for war, the government adopted it because it wanted soldiers to carry more ammunition.
/government usually makes a good point about keeping war weapons to itself, because governments are like that, but it won't pass up existing technology in the civilian market.
/it believed the future was nuclear weapons and the ar was about keeping the communists heads down while they waited for the bright flash.
/the question here is if people have the right to defend themselves with le ...


Again, another person who seems to not be able to admit that guns are designed to kill things. Sorry if I'm not reading you correctly, but it seems to me that you did a lot of typing on the subject and never were able to bring yourself to say it. If I'm wrong then I apologize.

But I have been noticing this for quite a while now. Why is it that so many people who own guns can't admit that the primary purpose their gun was designed for is to kill someone (or some animal if you are a hunter)? I don't need to hear about all the other things that can be used as a weapon. I just want to hear you be honest about your guns. That's all. I don't want to take them away. I don't want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I am just having a hard time believing anything you say since I feel like you can't even be honest about what your gun is for?
 
2013-01-20 11:03:31 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali: Alonjar: Show me my error. I'm an engineer.. it will be fun.

With a fair coin, the odds of getting a heads in one flip is 0.5. What are the odds of getting at least one heads in two flips? Three flips?

He didn't say the chance of one specific person being robbed, he said the overall average per lifetime.

It doesn't matter who he was talking about since it's literally impossible for this:

there is a 223% chance that you will be burglarized

...to be valid in any context. Any time you've wound up with a probability greater than 1 (or greater than 100%), it's an immediate indication that somebody got their math wrong.

This says something interesting about you. Either, you can't follow basic statistics and understand what someone intended to convey with the numbers provided, or you followed along, knew what they meant, and decided to be a willfully obtuse dick for no real reason. Either way, I'm not remotely surprised.



Guess where my money is.
 
2013-01-20 11:05:36 PM

Amos Quito: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Biological Ali: Alonjar: Show me my error. I'm an engineer.. it will be fun.

With a fair coin, the odds of getting a heads in one flip is 0.5. What are the odds of getting at least one heads in two flips? Three flips?

He didn't say the chance of one specific person being robbed, he said the overall average per lifetime.

It doesn't matter who he was talking about since it's literally impossible for this:

there is a 223% chance that you will be burglarized

...to be valid in any context. Any time you've wound up with a probability greater than 1 (or greater than 100%), it's an immediate indication that somebody got their math wrong.

This says something interesting about you. Either, you can't follow basic statistics and understand what someone intended to convey with the numbers provided, or you followed along, knew what they meant, and decided to be a willfully obtuse dick for no real reason. Either way, I'm not remotely surprised.


Guess where my money is.


In Glenn Beck gold coins under your mattress?
 
Displayed 50 of 1115 comments

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report