This must be faked...

Guns don't kill threads; Ratz kill threads!
User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: This must be faked...

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Wed Oct 07, 2015 10:49 pm

Seth wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Seth wrote: That's hardly a rational conclusion. If "availability" were the causative link then the rate of gun crime in the US would be millions of times higher than it is now, but it's not.
I see you are confused by the difference between causation and correlation.
Gosh sometimes you make the most elementary errors.

Read this: http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-dif ... lation.htm

Perhaps you might learn something.
Maybe you ought to read it first. It says exactly what I claim. The "availability" of guns to the law-abiding general public has not been shown to be causative of higher gun crime rates. It only appears that there are more gun crimes in the US because there are more guns in the US, but as my statement shows, the correlation made by people here is specious and false. This is proven by the fact that as the number of guns in the US population increases dramatically, the incidence of gun crime goes down.

If there is any causation suggested by this fact it's that, well...more guns, less crime.
The USA already has more guns in private ownership than it has citizens. 1.126 guns for every man, woman and child in the country.

How many more until your gun-death and gun-crime figures come down to something remotely close to the UK? 2 each? 7 each?

And just how many guns can you carry at once anyway? And how many guns will it take until the weight and encumbrance actually begins to make you less safe?
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: This must be faked...

Post by Seth » Wed Oct 07, 2015 10:50 pm

Hermit wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Seth wrote:That's hardly a rational conclusion. If "availability" were the causative link then the rate of gun crime in the US would be millions of times higher than it is now, but it's not.
I see you are confused by the difference between causation and correlation.
Bullshit. Seth has a perfectly clear idea anout the difference between correlation and causation. The criterion issimple. If a relationship supports the "more guns, less crime" mantra, it is causal. If it contradicts it, it's merely correlative.
Not quite. The claim that "more guns = more crime" shows causation is specious because the facts don't bear out that claim.
Take the relationship between the number of guns and incidence of crime, for instance. Here is a graph of crime rates in the USA for the past 50 years.

Image

Isn't it perfectly obvious that the rise in crime between 1960 and 1992 is only correlative to the rise in the rise of the number of firearms in private ownership, while the drop in subsequent years is equally obviously a cause of the rise of the number of firearms in private ownership? Going by Seth's criterion at least, it indubitably is.
How can one take anything you say about the subject as being credible when you post a crime-rate graph that has absolutely zero information about the number of guns in the US?

You'll note that the drop in crime begins about 1992, which interestingly enough is about the time that states began authorizing legal concealed carry. Florida started the process in about 1985, but it took several years for other states to examine the results of Florida's "experiment" and conclude that it is a simple fact that when more law-abiding citizens arm themselves, crime goes down.

This is not correlation, it's causation and it's been examined and reviewed by more than 40 state legislatures, which have found that more guns does indeed equal less crime, and just as importantly, more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens does not result in more crimes, more gun crimes, more dead policemen or more gun accidents.

In other words, over the last 30 years the United States has proven conclusively that everything you are saying is factually untrue. But it's the Marxist/Progressive doctrine to keep telling Big Lies again and again and again in hopes that by doing so it will somehow enter the psyche of the public and become the perceived reality.

In this case, it's not working.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: This must be faked...

Post by Seth » Wed Oct 07, 2015 11:01 pm

Xamonas Chegwé wrote:
The USA already has more guns in private ownership than it has citizens. 1.126 guns for every man, woman and child in the country.
Yup. And violent crime continues to go down and down and down...another 4 percent last year.
How many more until your gun-death and gun-crime figures come down to something remotely close to the UK? 2 each? 7 each?


Well, it's estimated that only about 5 percent of citizens actually get concealed carry permits and regularly carry, although that number is imprecise at best. I suspect that things will continue to improve as the percentage of law-abiding citizens who carry in public increases. I'd like to see 100% of qualified, licensed, law-abiding citizens do so, but that's pretty unrealistic because carrying a gun full time is, well, a literal pain in the ass.

However, it's not the number of guns per capita that's important, it's the number of guns that any law-abiding citizen can carry whenever and wherever they choose, and so long as that number exceeds one, it's all good.

I'm not able to predict when the violent crime rate in the US might increase to UK levels, but it appears that the UK violent crime rate is going to continue to increase and continue to surpass ours, because ours continues to go down and the UK's continues to go up.
And just how many guns can you carry at once anyway? And how many guns will it take until the weight and encumbrance actually begins to make you less safe?
Depends on the day and the mission. When driving for Uber I carry two: an H&K USP Compact .45 in a strong-side concealment holster and a Ruger LCR .38 in my left pants cargo pocket, where I can reach it easily while seated in the driver's seat and use it to shoot into the passenger seats effectively left-handed.

And then there's the OC foam spray in the driver's door pocket for less than lethal use.

If I'm in the back country, I usually carry an H&K USP Tactical and a rifle. The rifle design and caliber depends on the mission.

And no number of guns exceeding one will make me "less safe" because guns are inanimate objects that do nothing without a human being operating them. What makes me "less safe" is when I'm banned from carrying even one gun, as many millions of people are, in direct violation of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: This must be faked...

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Wed Oct 07, 2015 11:26 pm

Now here was me thinking I'd asked a facetious, surrealistic kind of a question. But you surpassed me elegantly with your answer, Seth. I doubt I have ever seen a similar pile of ex recto garbage presented as fact since Mark Dreher was around!

I bow to a master of bullshit. :tiphat:
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: This must be faked...

Post by Hermit » Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:54 am

Seth wrote:
Hermit wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Seth wrote:That's hardly a rational conclusion. If "availability" were the causative link then the rate of gun crime in the US would be millions of times higher than it is now, but it's not.
I see you are confused by the difference between causation and correlation.
Bullshit. Seth has a perfectly clear idea anout the difference between correlation and causation. The criterion issimple. If a relationship supports the "more guns, less crime" mantra, it is causal. If it contradicts it, it's merely correlative.
Not quite. The claim that "more guns = more crime" shows causation is specious because the facts don't bear out that claim.
Please point to a post where I claimed that more guns = more crime. Just one will do.

Seth wrote:
Hermit wrote:Take the relationship between the number of guns and incidence of crime, for instance. Here is a graph of crime rates in the USA for the past 50 years.

Image

Isn't it perfectly obvious that the rise in crime between 1960 and 1992 is only correlative to the rise in the rise of the number of firearms in private ownership, while the drop in subsequent years is equally obviously a cause of the rise of the number of firearms in private ownership? Going by Seth's criterion at least, it indubitably is.
How can one take anything you say about the subject as being credible when you post a crime-rate graph that has absolutely zero information about the number of guns in the US?

You'll note that the drop in crime begins about 1992, which interestingly enough is about the time that states began authorizing legal concealed carry.
Are you seriously suggesting a causal link between crime rates and open carry permits? Please explain the rise in crime rates between 1960 and 1992 in those terms.

Also, the gun control opponent, Alex Jones has this graph on his web site:

Image

He claims it proves the more guns less crime mantra. I can't even see a correlation.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: This must be faked...

Post by Seth » Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:07 am

Hermit wrote:Please point to a post where I claimed that more guns = more crime. Just one will do.
I didn't say it was your claim.
Hermit wrote:Are you seriously suggesting a causal link between crime rates and open carry permits?
No, I'm seriously suggesting a causal link between crime rates and concealed carry permits.
Please explain the rise in crime rates between 1960 and 1992 in those terms.
I did so already. It has to do with social inertia. Crime does not necessarily drop in direct temporal relationship to the number of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. It begins to drop when a critical mass of armed citizens exists and begins having an effect on criminality by killing criminals. As this continues to happen and more people become armed, criminals get the message and start running scared because they don't want to get killed by the grandma they intended to rob, so they take up other avenues of income generation such as property crime (cold burglary) where their chances of encountering an armed citizen are dramatically reduced.

You see, the raw number of guns in society does not accurately track with the number of guns being lawfully carried (and used) for self-defense.

But equally important is the fact that as the number of guns in our society increases, radically, the number of gun crimes, gun deaths and accidents have not increased. Not just "have not increased in proportion to the number of guns in society" but have not increased and have in fact decreased steadily.

This puts paid to any argument that more guns in society means more danger to society.
Hermit wrote:Also, the gun control opponent, Alex Jones has this graph on his web site:

Image

He claims it proves the more guns less crime mantra. I can't even see a correlation.
You can't? It's obvious. The upwards gradient of the number of guns versus the downwards gradient of crime.

If the specious notions of gun control advocates were true the curves would look entirely different, with crime shooting upwards as the number of guns in society increases. It doesn't.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: This must be faked...

Post by JimC » Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:18 am

Seth wrote:

...The upwards gradient of the number of guns versus the downwards gradient of crime...
Referring to Hermit's graph, from '70 to '95, increase in guns with no overall change in crime. From '95 to now, a smaller rate of increase in guns, and a plunge in crime rates down to a range of other demographic factors.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: This must be faked...

Post by Hermit » Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:12 am

Seth wrote:
Hermit wrote:Also, the gun control opponent, Alex Jones has this graph on his web site:

Image

He claims it proves the more guns less crime mantra. I can't even see a correlation.
You can't? It's obvious. The upwards gradient of the number of guns versus the downwards gradient of crime.
There is not even a correlation, let alone causation, evident between rising gun ownership and falling crime rates during the period spanning 1970 to 1992 in Jones's graph. If anything, it's the opposite. In that time both rose.

Your mention of social inertia is an ad hoc embellishment to save your more guns = less crime theory.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: This must be faked...

Post by mistermack » Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:24 pm

Seth wrote:
mistermack wrote:The self-defence argument that everyone should carry guns to be safe can be made clearer, if you exchange the guns for dogshit, in the argument.

Imagine that some dirty people take to carrying dogshit in bags, and smearing people with it.
According to the gun argument, the intelligent response is for everybody to carry their own dogshit, so that if someone tries to smear you, you can smear them first.
No, the gun argument says that you should carry a gun or other defensive weapon, like OC spray or a Taser to use against someone who tries to smear you with dogshit, or who tries to rob and murder you.

The principle is that the victim should always have superior defensive capabilities to his or her potential attacker in order to enhance the probability that it will the the shit-smearer who gets fucked up rather than the intended victim. The more potentially lethal the shit-smearer's weapon of choice, the more necessary that all potential victims carry guns with which to shoot the shit=smearers dead if necessary.

Now, about all that shit you've been smearing about guns and gun owners...
Guns are just guns. Gun owners are pathetic twats. (even though some of my friends are pathetic twats)

And your argument just means that everyone should be carrying high powered assault machine guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Which of course, means that then, they should all travel in armoured cars with bigger guns.
Which of course, means that then, they all need tanks. Minimum.
With nerve gas shells. Which of course means that we all need tactical nuclear weapons.

It all makes sense, now you put it like that.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: This must be faked...

Post by Seth » Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:39 pm

JimC wrote:
Seth wrote:

...The upwards gradient of the number of guns versus the downwards gradient of crime...
Referring to Hermit's graph, from '70 to '95, increase in guns with no overall change in crime. From '95 to now, a smaller rate of increase in guns, and a plunge in crime rates down to a range of other demographic factors.
Well, for one thing, the data on guns has only four data points whereas the crime line data has at least eight and it looks like many more. I think if you reduce the data points in the crime data to four, you will see the slope of the line is distinctly downwards beginning just over 3.5 and ending just over 1.5. If you view that data properly, by drawing an approximately straight line between 1970 and 2003 you find that the lines cross right about 1980. Yes, there were crime spikes in the 80s and 90s, but the reasons for those spikes do not appear to be related to gun ownership.

In any event, as the graph shows, after about 1992, an increase in guns did not correlate with an increase in crime, in fact exactly opposite happened. And that's a few years after concealed carry became much more widespread than it used to be, which makes sense because criminals have to get the message and that takes a while, and citizens have to begin carrying in large numbers, which also takes time.



Now, if some math doge here wants to adjust the crime curve as I've suggested, I think the results will be pretty obvious.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: This must be faked...

Post by Seth » Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:44 pm

mistermack wrote: Guns are just guns. Gun owners are pathetic twats. (even though some of my friends are pathetic twats)
No, non-gun owners are pathetic twats who will die pissing and shitting their pants if someone attacks them, and they are cowards who depend on others to put their lives at risk just to protect their pathetic asses. All non-gun owners should be required to wear a bright orange sash saying "I am a proud, unarmed non-gun owner" at all times in public.
And your argument just means that everyone should be carrying high powered assault machine guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Hyperbole. More guns is not always better insofar as on-the-street personal security is involved, but it's never worse. The extra ones just sit in the gun safe doing absolutely nothing because, well, they are inanimate objects.
Which of course, means that then, they should all travel in armoured cars with bigger guns.
Depends on where you live. Armored cars are all the rage in Mexico City for example because yes, they are necessary. Having one in Chicago, as the mayor most certainly does...along with armed guards, is probably a good idea too.
Which of course, means that then, they all need tanks. Minimum.
With nerve gas shells. Which of course means that we all need tactical nuclear weapons.

It all makes sense, now you put it like that.
[/quote]

Take a pill and try to relax, you're going to burst a blood vessel.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests