At 3/28/13 11:00 AM, TheMason wrote:
At 3/27/13 11:39 PM, EdyKel wrote:
You mean the heavily stereotyped argument you have been alluding to? I think I have done a much better job in my previous post than you did on it.What are you talking about? Where have I been stereotyping?
And no...you have not articulated any sort of clear argument.
The whole crime and social factor thing, which you summarized in a few sentences, and concluded that the best course of action was to defund gun laws and shift the resources from it to social programs to deal with it. I pointed out how silly and oversimplified this view was, and how trillions have already been spent on this social problem and how it has solved nothing because of the system that is against changing it. I thought it was very clear.
"I have earned my credentials. I have earned the right to claim that I am an authority on this subject. So I ask you: who is showing more hubris? Me for saying I have been around the process of social science and trained in the scientific method as applied to social science? Or you for lecturing me about being more humble, and then proceeding to lecture me about methodological criticisms based on your quick google search?"
That's just arrogance and egotism, man. Come back down to earth. All you are doing is blinding yourself to your self describe superiority, never admitting you may not be infallible.
Son, I made a point about googling my sources to you, because that's how your sources came off to me. It's why I also mentioned my academic background. I also told you I have no real interest in doing any real leg work on doing proper research work for this.
Aside from all this, my biggest problem with your argument, besides the lack of data, and your lack of ability to question what you have, is your refusal to open both your eyes to see the whole picture. It doesnâEUTMt take a genius to see the crux of your argument, something you have continuous failed to address: Why, in all probability against it, does loose, to non-existent, gun laws produce lower gun violence, when probability and human nature, dictates other wise. This is what you continue to fail to answer, which mean you donâEUTMt have all the data, and you are failing to question your own findings.
The other problem IâEUTMm having with your arguments is the conflicting views you have on gun control. You tell me in one part we should get rid of gun laws, and then tell me that you would be open to them for handguns and other such things. I donâEUTMt think you know what you quite want. All I can take from this is that you realize there is a gun problem in this country, but you want to aim it at other types of firearms, away from assault weapons. Of course, I figure this would raise handgun prices, while lowering Assault weapons prices, and pushing them in the same direction as handguns, by making them more common, which would then make this whole line of argument seem pretty moot. And you should realize, by now, that your other argument on moving resources from gun control to social programs seems to have been just a giant waste of time, since you do support gun control. Or have you not made up your mind on what you want, while trying to speak definitively on both those arguments? In either case, youâEUTMre not helping convey solid, or convincing, post to sway my mind.
This reflects poorly on your claims as a professional annalist of data, and immune to emotions and bias.
When I look at crime stats I look at raw data from the government (Census, FBI, etc).
Then save and show them instead of these google links.
It's time to get over your focus on Kleck. The reason I brought-up Kleck was to show that not all of the research out there is done by people who approach it either with no pro-gun feelings at all...
We don't know that, that's just an assumption. I have pointed this out to you. This is a logic fallacy. Not all democrats are for gun control. That is a fact. This has a lot to do with their liberal, or conservative ideology, rather than a political party thing. I'm a Republican, a moderate, which mean I'm for some gun control measures. This sort of logic of yours would dictate that I am against gun control of any sort, and we would not be having this conversation, if you assumed my stance on the political party I belong to.
No...I do not misconstrue your argument at all. I get it. My response is: Then where should that line be drawn...and how, if you do not understand guns, these features, and how they are used in crime how do you know you're drawing the line where it needs to be drawn?
IâEUTMm going to combine both this reply from you and your reply on my accusation that youâEUTMre no different from the NRA.
I may not consider myself that bright, but did you actually think about either of these responses when you made them one after the other?
I canâEUTMt imagine anyone suggesting more regulations on handguns, and I suspect that any talk over them will make the current talk over assault weapons look jovial in comparison. This is what IâEUTMm talking about when IâEUTMm saying youâEUTMre being just as helpful as the NRA over this issue. YouâEUTMre not helping, youâEUTMre stoking the fires, not just on this, but your indecision over gun control and perpetuating a myth that loose gun control leads to less gun violence.
Assault weapons, and high capacity mags, have no place in our society, not for defense, and not for hunting. Everyone knows that, including you. All youâEUTMre indicating to me with your logic is to steer people into buying more dangerous weapons with your argument for tighter handgun laws. That doesnâEUTMt seem to smart, or, as you put it, âEUoeintellectual honestâEU.
As for responsibility...I do take responsibility for my firearms...
I think my point has been quite clear on the subject. Your personnel responsibility to YOUR OWN firearms was never in doubt. I have explained the rest in the above posts.
1) Spree shootings is a very rare event. There are not hundreds or thousands per year.
2) I do not see anything wrong with my methodology because this is a rare event: there have only been about 40 in the past 30 years. There is no need to go to the government, also chances are there are no government databases that would be available for me to use. So I have to create my own database.
3) I am aware that there are attempts that are stopped before they happen. However, this is not as damaging as you would think it is. First of all, something is making these sprees more common.
And when they do happen - and they will continue to happen - they remind us how dangerous firearms can be. People like to think they are safe in public areas, and this shatters their belief and confidence in it. This is what you continue to leave out in you analysis of the problem. You look at it as something that just happens on occasion, and nothing else, but just data, while everyone else acts in the human way to such horrendous events.
You can not treat this like other sciences. The human element does not work the same way as physics, chemistry, or biology, itâEUTMs a lot more unstable. While you can tell with some accuracy what certain groups of people will do at any given time, there is more uncertainty over what any one individual will do. We can say that there will be a hundred massacres attempts this year ( because itâEUTMs not easily forecastable the amount), but because law enforcement, and luck, many of them well be thwarted. Since you have not answered the âEUoewhyâEU question of why more firearms are leading to less violent gun crimes, we have to assume that we helping to enable them to cause grave loss of life with loose gun laws, and because of that, the costs of trying to prevent them will also increase.
So, no, I donâEUTMt believe in your methodology is very accurate.