Vigilante

[Seth]

Once more, Seth, you show your total inability to think in terms of statistics and probability. A gun will kill 1 in 5 times a person receives a bullet (or 1 in 9 if you discount suicides). A punch will kill perhaps once in 10,000 times that a punch is landed (my estimate, since I have not seen the figures).

If you are capable of thinking with modern ideas of stats and probability, you will understand that this is a major, major difference.

Actually, the problem is that you're trying to apply probability and statistics to a situation that does not admit such analysis.

It doesn't matter if the probability is one in ten million if you're the one who gets killed. Since it's utterly impossible to predict which specific unlawful punch will kill you and which one won't, a reasonable fear exists that a single unlawful punch can cause death or serious bodily harm (which is extremely common), which justifies the use of deadly force if the other requirements of the deadly force law are met.

The key to avoid getting shot for trying to punch someone is not to try to punch someone. Ridiculously simple, really....

[Blind groper]

Talk about proving my point!!!

Seth, your appreciation of statistics and probability is crap.

For those of us with a modicom of intelligence and education, statistics and probability are principles to be applied throughout our lives. The example given most definitely applies.

[Seth]

Talk about proving my point!!!

Seth, your appreciation of statistics and probability is crap.

For those of us with a modicom of intelligence and education, statistics and probability are principles to be applied throughout our lives. The example given most definitely applies.

Not even a little. Your methodology reduces the individual to nothing more than a data point in a statistical analysis. That's arrogant beyond all understanding.

If I came to you and said, as I was injecting you with high velocity lead, "Our statistical analysis reveals that killing you will lead to a 0.0000432 percent decrease in the overall crime rate, so it doesn't matter that you're not a criminal because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" I rather imagine you would vigorously object to being objectified and reduced to a data point and then erased from existence. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think you're an arrogant, ignorant hypocrite, not an idiot who would accept that fate in sheep-like subservience...although I'm beginning to wonder.

Me, I'm nobody's data point. I'm a living human being and my right to stay alive no matter what, until I decide to die, is not a matter of statistical analysis or determination by anyone, including the government. My right to effective self defense is not parceled out to me on a percentage basis based on some fuckwitted calculation of the statistical probability that I will or will not be victimized. Unless you propose to issue me at least three full-time, trained, armed bodyguards who will ensure my personal safety at every moment of the day and night at YOUR expense, then go fuck yourself because I'm going to determine what I need and when to use the defensive tools I choose in order to protect myself, not you, not Obama, not Holder, not anybody at all. If you don't like that, then come try to disarm me and we'll see who lives through the encounter.

Of course you haven't the courage to actually put YOUR sorry, cowardly ass on the line to either protect me or to try to disarm me, you'll just bloviate from the safety of your mommy's basement and try to convince someone else to put themselves at risk in order to make you feel less afraid.

[Hermit]

For those of us with a modicom of intelligence and education, statistics and probability are principles to be applied throughout our lives.

Not even a little. Your methodology reduces the individual to nothing more than a data point in a statistical analysis.

Of course you are an individual - just like the other 320 million individuals in your country. As one of those citizens, you also exist as a data point. It is not a sign of arrogance to realise that. It is the inescapable fact that you exist as part of the fabric that constitutes the social, political and economic entity known as the USA. That is precisely what makes you a data point. Pretending you exist as an individual only could be described as arrogance, but more accurately as an ideologically blinkered and delusion - which is another facet of you as a data point.

[JimC]

For those of us with a modicom of intelligence and education, statistics and probability are principles to be applied throughout our lives.

Not even a little. Your methodology reduces the individual to nothing more than a data point in a statistical analysis.

Of course you are an individual - just like the other 320 million individuals in your country. As one of those citizens, you also exist as a data point. It is not a sign of arrogance to realise that. It is the inescapable fact that you exist as part of the fabric that constitutes the social, political and economic entity known as the USA. That is precisely what makes you a data point. Pretending you exist as an individual only could be described as arrogance, but more accurately as an ideologically blinkered and delusion - which is another facet of you as a data point.

[Seth]

For those of us with a modicom of intelligence and education, statistics and probability are principles to be applied throughout our lives.

Not even a little. Your methodology reduces the individual to nothing more than a data point in a statistical analysis.

Of course you are an individual - just like the other 320 million individuals in your country. As one of those citizens, you also exist as a data point. It is not a sign of arrogance to realise that. It is the inescapable fact that you exist as part of the fabric that constitutes the social, political and economic entity known as the USA. That is precisely what makes you a data point. Pretending you exist as an individual only could be described as arrogance, but more accurately as an ideologically blinkered and delusion - which is another facet of you as a data point.

If MY possession of a weapon were a direct threat to society I'd feel differently, but it's not, nor are 99.9996 percent of all the firearms in the US. What's ridiculous is the implicit argument that because 0.0004 percent of guns are used for criminal purposes it is necessary to ban or restrict the other 99.9996 percent.

It is simply not rational to lay any blame whatsoever on gun owners who never use, or allow their guns to be used wrongfully, for the wrongful actions of a very, very small proportion of the public.

I say it and say it and say it and none of you seem to get it. If we use that reasoning, then it's more necessary to ban five gallon plastic buckets, kitchen knives, ladders, swimming pools and automobiles than it is to ban guns because each of those is responsible for more deaths and injuries each year than all firearms combined are.

The classic evasive and emotive rebuttal to this apt analogy is "but guns are designed to do nothing but kill," as if this somehow (even if it were factually true, which it's not) changes the balance of the equation in determining what should or should not be banned. Yes, guns are great at killing people, but the fact is that sometimes people need to be killed in order to protect the innocent, and that is a perfectly valid use and purpose for owning a gun in spite of the fact that some other gun may be used to unlawfully harm another.

[Hermit]

For those of us with a modicom of intelligence and education, statistics and probability are principles to be applied throughout our lives.

Not even a little. Your methodology reduces the individual to nothing more than a data point in a statistical analysis.

Of course you are an individual - just like the other 320 million individuals in your country. As one of those citizens, you also exist as a data point. It is not a sign of arrogance to realise that. It is the inescapable fact that you exist as part of the fabric that constitutes the social, political and economic entity known as the USA. That is precisely what makes you a data point. Pretending you exist as an individual only could be described as arrogance, but more accurately as an ideologically blinkered and delusion - which is another facet of you as a data point.

If MY possession of a weapon were a direct threat to society I'd feel differently, but it's not, nor are 99.9996 percent of all the firearms in the US. What's ridiculous is the implicit argument that because 0.0004 percent of guns are used for criminal purposes it is necessary to ban or restrict the other 99.9996 percent.

Nice about-face, that post. How many data points are involved in your assertion? Does that methodology not reduce the individual to nothing more than a data point in a statistical analysis - a methodology you rejected in your previous post because you are an individual, and cannot be reduced to a mere data point?

[Seth]

For those of us with a modicom of intelligence and education, statistics and probability are principles to be applied throughout our lives.

Not even a little. Your methodology reduces the individual to nothing more than a data point in a statistical analysis.

Of course you are an individual - just like the other 320 million individuals in your country. As one of those citizens, you also exist as a data point. It is not a sign of arrogance to realise that. It is the inescapable fact that you exist as part of the fabric that constitutes the social, political and economic entity known as the USA. That is precisely what makes you a data point. Pretending you exist as an individual only could be described as arrogance, but more accurately as an ideologically blinkered and delusion - which is another facet of you as a data point.

If MY possession of a weapon were a direct threat to society I'd feel differently, but it's not, nor are 99.9996 percent of all the firearms in the US. What's ridiculous is the implicit argument that because 0.0004 percent of guns are used for criminal purposes it is necessary to ban or restrict the other 99.9996 percent.

Nice about-face, that post. How many data points are involved in your assertion? Does that methodology not reduce the individual to nothing more than a data point in a statistical analysis - a methodology you rejected in your previous post because you are an individual, and cannot be reduced to a mere data point?

The difference is that your analysis REDUCES the LIFE of the individual, his personal safety and security, and his right to effective self defense, to a statistic and it does so for the express purpose of denigrating all of the above and rendering him helpless against criminal attack.

On the other hand, mine demonstrates why yours is such an asinine proposal by PROTECTING the life, personal safety, security and liberty of the individual against lawless intrusion.

Using statistics as a lever to advance gun bans and using statistics to support gun rights are not morally equivalent. The former is immoral and unethical. The latter is not.

[Hermit]

For those of us with a modicom of intelligence and education, statistics and probability are principles to be applied throughout our lives.

Not even a little. Your methodology reduces the individual to nothing more than a data point in a statistical analysis.

Of course you are an individual - just like the other 320 million individuals in your country. As one of those citizens, you also exist as a data point. It is not a sign of arrogance to realise that. It is the inescapable fact that you exist as part of the fabric that constitutes the social, political and economic entity known as the USA. That is precisely what makes you a data point. Pretending you exist as an individual only could be described as arrogance, but more accurately as an ideologically blinkered and delusion - which is another facet of you as a data point.

If MY possession of a weapon were a direct threat to society I'd feel differently, but it's not, nor are 99.9996 percent of all the firearms in the US. What's ridiculous is the implicit argument that because 0.0004 percent of guns are used for criminal purposes it is necessary to ban or restrict the other 99.9996 percent.

Nice about-face, that post. How many data points are involved in your assertion? Does that methodology not reduce the individual to nothing more than a data point in a statistical analysis - a methodology you rejected in your previous post because you are an individual, and cannot be reduced to a mere data point?

The difference is that your analysis REDUCES the LIFE of the individual, his personal safety and security, and his right to effective self defense, to a statistic and it does so for the express purpose of denigrating all of the above and rendering him helpless against criminal attack.

On the other hand, mine demonstrates why yours is such an asinine proposal by PROTECTING the life, personal safety, security and liberty of the individual against lawless intrusion.

Using statistics as a lever to advance gun bans and using statistics to support gun rights are not morally equivalent. The former is immoral and unethical. The latter is not.

What you just said reduces to no more nor less than this: Statistics that support gun ownership are valid usage of statistics. Those that are used to oppose it, are not.

[Blind groper]

Or to put it another way, Seth's unsupported opinion, snatched out of thin air, defeats all the careful data gathering and analysis of the genuine experts.

[Hermit]

Or to put it another way, Seth's unsupported opinion, snatched out of thin air, defeats all the careful data gathering and analysis of the genuine experts.

Putting what another way? Which planet might you be hailing from?

[SnowLeopard]

For those of us with a modicom of intelligence and education, statistics and probability are principles to be applied throughout our lives.

Not even a little. Your methodology reduces the individual to nothing more than a data point in a statistical analysis.

Of course you are an individual - just like the other 320 million individuals in your country. As one of those citizens, you also exist as a data point. It is not a sign of arrogance to realise that. It is the inescapable fact that you exist as part of the fabric that constitutes the social, political and economic entity known as the USA. That is precisely what makes you a data point. Pretending you exist as an individual only could be described as arrogance, but more accurately as an ideologically blinkered and delusion - which is another facet of you as a data point.

I AM NOT A NUMBER!!!! I AM A MAAAAAAN! gobble gobble gobble.

[SnowLeopard]

Using statistics as a lever to advance gun bans and using statistics to support gun rights are not morally equivalent. The former is immoral and unethical. The latter is not.

That's not even trolling. That's just retarded.

[Seth]

What you just said reduces to no more nor less than this: Statistics that support gun ownership are valid usage of statistics. Those that are used to oppose it, are not.

Keerect! Statistics used to justify violations of human rights are not valid.

[Seth]

Or to put it another way, Seth's unsupported opinion, snatched out of thin air, defeats all the careful data gathering and analysis of the genuine experts.

No, human rights trump asshats who are afraid of guns.