|
twodot posted:Finally, jeez. Ok so mass shooting "incidents" are 346 in 2017. Gun violence "incidents" are 61,522 in 2017. I'll just go ahead and concede we should definitely care about "incidents" even though I don't know what that means. That means we're talking about 0.6% of the problem (I would normally argue it's actually less than this, but for this purpose, I'll go ahead and also concede that "gun violence incidents" are a thing we should care about more than "violence incidents"). This is still too small a number to care about. Spending any amount of time talking about 0.6% of the problem is a waste of effort. Where are you getting .6% from? The definitions and statistical methods of those numbers are available at the Gun Violence Archive, if you want clarification on how these numbers were reached. I'm glad we agree that we should care about 61,000 incidents, but is your "should" informed purely by some statistical threshold of care-ability? Does absolutely nothing else factor in to your should / ought value judgment? twodot posted:How do you plan to convince people that we should do a thing without offering statistics that suggest we should do a thing? Like you've identified the problem: people don't think we should do the thing you want us to do. What sort of plan to change their minds could exist without statistics? Is your plan literally to use emotional appeals to sway their policy opinions? Emotional appeals work. We are (mostly) not robotic, non-empathetic, non-sympathetic beings, we humans. But they're only part of it. When I'm trying to persuade someone of something, I usually work to establish a common vocabulary, some common ground from which we can build, because while our conclusions are wildly divergent, you and I agree on some fundamentals, some shared foundation, though at some point our beliefs and arguments diverge which lead us to divergent (and sometimes opposite) opinions. I think it's possible, more possible anyway, to reach some sort of accord if we can break down the fundamentals and sort of, chew on smaller ideas first. I also ask lots of questions of people because 1. I'm annoying and 2. Lots of times when you force someone to work step-by-step through their logic chain and say it out loud, and follow ideas to their natural conclusions, you can better see where the logic has broken down, identify fallacies better, etc. twodot posted:You've misunderstood my question you said: It wasn't my intention to imply anti-asbestos-regulation forces in society, just that up until some point, there were insufficient pro-asbestos-regulation forces to result in serious regulatory action. It doesn't take anti-forces for inaction, just insufficient pro-forces. It wasn't an NRA-analogy. It was an attempt to establish that there is a value judgment to be made between the utility / harm of a [thing] and it's not just a dispassionate numbers game. Your numbers-only value calculus is... robotic at best, monstrous at worst. twodot posted:Should's a weird word. Should is a philosophical word.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
patonthebach posted:Seriously, why are we building these murder water pits just so you have somewhere to sit while you drink your margaritas? Just for you sick hobby? People are dying by the thousands each year. So you're just going to ignore all of the existing safety laws regarding pools where people that are found to be negligent are charged with crimes if they're reported before something bad happens, eh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Okay, pretend that you are the child in question. Would you like something to be done to prevent your death, or would it just be a waste of time and 10,000 other better things could be done instead?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:Seriously, why are we building these murder water pits just so you have somewhere to sit while you drink your margaritas? Just for you sick hobby? People are dying by the thousands each year. It's actually illegal to have a backyard pool in my home city without a locked fence around it to keep neighborhood children from swimming without supervision, so good job making the case for life-saving regulation, idiot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:Seriously, why are we building these murder water pits just so you have somewhere to sit while you drink your margaritas? Just for you sick hobby? People are dying by the thousands each year. gently caress you and the bad faith argument you rode in on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:Let me understand the scenario. I am in imminent danger of dying. I somehow got control of Congress and the Presidency. Do I spend my remaining time crafting federal policy to personally save my own life or dealing with the 17 million food insecure children (for example)? Of course I choose food security, what's 1 life against 17 million? Oh my god. Twodot, what do you even want? Or do you literally just want to argue and derail this thread? Because I have loving zero sense of your actual beliefs/ethics/etc from all of the posts you've made in this thread. WHAT DO YOU WANT? Predicting your response - "I just want perfect sensible gun control that literally everyone can agree on. And a pony. Why would this be unreasonable?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You're being flippant with people's loving lives to score cheap points on a dying forum. Im trying to make a point in that the issue isn't simply "lives saved". There are lots of different way people are dying. We should be doing effective things to help. There is a reason we don't ban swimming pools, because even with the risks that some people will drown, we accept as a society they are worth having. Even with regulations and bylaws still some 3500 die a year in the USA from drowning. But we as a society accept that. We could ban it, but we don't. I think the right to protect yourself with a firearm is important, you don't. It's ok to disagree on that. We can both agree there is so much more we could do to help prevent firearms deaths beside banning pistols. How about background checks that actually get enforced, having to talk to spouses of gun purchases, mental health evaluations, reduce the war on drugs, etc etc. Just saying "BAN ALL THE GUNS" will get you nowhere with the government or with the citizenry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:So you're just going to ignore all of the existing safety laws regarding pools where people that are found to be negligent are charged with crimes if they're reported before something bad happens, eh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:Let me understand the scenario. I am in imminent danger of dying. I somehow got control of Congress and the Presidency. Do I spend my remaining time crafting federal policy to personally save my own life or dealing with the 17 million food insecure children (for example)? Of course I choose food security, what's 1 life against 17 million?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:Im trying to make a point in that the issue isn't simply "lives saved". There are lots of different way people are dying. We should be doing effective things to help. There is a reason we don't ban swimming pools, because even with the risks that some people will drown, we accept as a society they are worth having.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:durr what's the secret service do again?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:I think the right to protect yourself with a firearm is important, you don't. It's ok to disagree on that. No, you loving dumbass, this is the stupid part, statistics prove that owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning one. So it's not okay to disagree on that, you're being objectively wrong but you defend guns because they're a culture thing to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:That article makes a salient point about acknowledging the need to prevent draconian measures from disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations. If they got rid of putting shoes through x-ray machines and then someone succeeded in using their shows to attack an airplane then whoever was responsible for ending the shoe scanning would be in deep poo poo is probably why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:I think the right to protect yourself with a firearm is important, you don't. It's ok to disagree on that. no it's not, go gently caress yourself
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No, you loving dumbass, this is the stupid part, statistics prove that owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning one. Im aware of those stats. I still think the 2A is good. Lots of other people agree. Hell the majority of americans agree it should exist. If we really just wanted to save as many people as possible we should ban alcohol and cigarettes tomorrow. And cheeseburgers
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:Im aware of those stats. I still think the 2A is good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:If we really just wanted to save as many people as possible we should ban alcohol and cigarettes tomorrow. And cheeseburgers What is different about those things? Oh right, they aren't flung at you at supersonic speeds and implanted into your body without your consent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
I see what Twodot is saying. Twodot is concluding that if the issue we are talking about is .3 / .6 % of "the problem" then it deserves .3 to .6 of the regulatory effort, which is to say, almost nothing. See earlier, the reference to proportionately low-effort measures to address a low-priority problem, in reference to, wait for it, mass shootings in schools. It's a purely numbers based valuation and it's honestly, monstrous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:What is different about those things?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:It's a purely numbers based valuation and it's honestly, monstrous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:If they got rid of putting shoes through x-ray machines and then someone succeeded in using their shows to attack an airplane then whoever was responsible for ending the shoe scanning would be in deep poo poo is probably why. Pretty much. Lawmakers wouldn't have an issue so long as somebody else's name was on it. That's true of a lot of issues, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:If we really just wanted to save as many people as possible we should ban alcohol and cigarettes tomorrow. And cheeseburgers The drug war doesn't work, holmes
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The drug war doesn't work, holmes I wonder how banning guns would work out. Maybe more illegal gun networks?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:I wonder how banning guns would work out. Maybe more illegal gun networks? if only we had studies on that topic
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:Where are you getting .6% from? quote:
quote:It wasn't my intention to imply anti-asbestos-regulation forces in society, just that up until some point, there were insufficient pro-asbestos-regulation forces to result in serious regulatory action. It doesn't take anti-forces for inaction, just insufficient pro-forces. WampaLord posted:Twodot, what do you even want? Or do you literally just want to argue and derail this thread? Elizabethan Error posted:durr what's the secret service do again - twodot
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
twodot posted:One thing I would definitely like if for people to stop talking about mass shooting as though they were a thing that mattered for the purpose of crafting policy. Do you honestly think this is a likely thing to happen given that it's only mass shootings that actually get people interested in pushing for gun control?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:I wonder how banning guns would work out. Maybe more illegal gun networks? No it works fine probably has something to do with guns being an unnecessary durable good and not a physiologically addictive consumable commodity but that is just spitballing I'm not a sociologist I can't explain precisely why it's different, I can only refer you to proof that it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Do you honestly think this is a likely thing to happen given that it's only mass shootings that actually get people interested in pushing for gun control? r.y.f.s.o. posted:I see what Twodot is saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:I think the right to protect yourself with a firearm is important, you don't. Would you agree to these statements? 1. I acknowledge that I am, generally speaking, not less likely to die with a gun. 2. I still however feel safer with a gun. 3. This feeling of safety for myself is more important than demonstrable harm to others. edid: Edited "without" to "with" because I got lost in all the negatives in the sentence, but it seems everyone understood anyway. r.y.f.s.o. fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Mar 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
In the US people have the right to kill someone else in self-defense, and the supreme court has ruled that everyone has the right to own a handgun for that purpose. So we get a really clear tragedy of the commons, where its better for a person to have a gun than not to, but it's worse for her if everyone has a gun than if no one does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:I uhh took your numbers and divided them. 61,000 is high enough to care about because there's a limited number of problems at that scale and a limited amount of effort available to spend solving them. There's a ridiculously large number of problems with numbers like 300, and if you attempted to care about all of them you could never succeed. (In terms of crafting federal policy, obviously like a doctor with 300 patients is doing something good even if they aren't personally providing health care to the whole nation) quote:
quote:Like if you want me to say "the secret service is an absurdly bloated organization and needs to be scaled down by like a factor of 1000" I will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:where its better for a person to have a gun than not to This part is never going to be true no matter how many times you say it. E: VVV LMAO
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:Would you agree to these statements? Yes yes and yes. Happy to hear that? I'd rather drive a truck and have a higher chance of the other person in the car dying in a crash then me dying. Is that selfish in itself? Yup I'd rather drive a car in the city than take a bike. I know that means someone on a bike that gets into a crash with me is more likely to die than I am. I prefer that over the alternative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:In the US people have the right to kill someone else in self-defense, and the supreme court has ruled that everyone has the right to own a handgun for that purpose. No it's still more likely that she's injured or killed with her own gun than it is that the gun will save her from injury or death. For the average person having a gun for self-defense is more harmful than not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:Yes yes and yes. Happy to hear that? Unlike driving versus biking, owning the gun versus not owning makes you more likely to die, not less.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it's still more likely that she's injured or killed with her own gun than it is that the gun will save her from injury or death. Do you think there are certain people who would be objectively safer if they carried a concealed pistol? Certain undersized or under strength people? People that are witnesses to a serious crime? Visible minorities? Etc Or you think no matter the persons ability to defend themselves or not stand out, it will always be more dangerous if they have a gun?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This part is never going to be true no matter how many times you say it. It's very hard to convince people of that, because they will worry about a time when they would be better off with a gun than without one, and it's that thinking that motivates people to buy a gun in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:Do you think there are certain people who would be objectively safer if they carried a concealed pistol? Certain undersized or under strength people? People that are witnesses to a serious crime? Visible minorities? Etc "But what about the outliers. What about them?!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah the anti-vaxxer argument. Woah, thats going a bit far. I might be a bit of a loon when it comes to not think disarmament is the answer, but gently caress if I don't think vaccines are necessary. I think we should be shooting kids with vaccines with auto rifles if anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
patonthebach posted:Or you think no matter the persons ability to defend themselves or not stand out, it will always be more dangerous if they have a gun? Elizabethan Error fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:46
|
|