- Nov 27, 2012
Correlation =/= causation and appeal to authority.
This.Stop selling assault rifles to every joe schmuck with a thick wallet and mommy/daddy issues = profit
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Correlation =/= causation and appeal to authority.
This.Stop selling assault rifles to every joe schmuck with a thick wallet and mommy/daddy issues = profit
It wasn't an actual authority, he just said they're smarter than us. Which, although true, doesn't make them right.By the way, it's not an appeal to authority when the authority being appealed to is ACTUALLY an authority. I didn't read the article he cited, but just wanted to get that out.
The second part is the one that actually matters, the first is just an explanation as to why. If the 13th amendment said "because of Lincoln's uncontrollable clown fetish, no more slavery", would we still be allowed to have slaves?The second amendment was written for a very different era. Parroting the part of the sentence that makes your argument seem salient while ignoring the rest of it and its intent is not intelligent.
Well golly gee, this issue must be trapped in a mighty singularity of overwhelming coincidences, considering nations like Japan display the exact trends you would expect from massive regulation where a causal relationship exists. Or the exponentially lower firearm and standard homicide rates in Canada, which is about as culturally close to America as it gets, and also has a great deal more regulation (and a great deal less than Japan).Correlation =/= causation
"There's more of a correlation, which means that it is definitely the cause of it!" I admit there's a definite link but that doesn't necessarily mean you're right about guns causing murders.Well golly gee, this issue must be trapped in a mighty singularity of overwhelming coincidences, considering nations like Japan display the exact trends you would expect from massive regulation where a causal relationship exists. Or the exponentially lower firearm and standard homicide rates in Canada, which is about as culturally close to America as it gets, and also has a great deal more regulation (and a great deal less than Japan).
You said the exact same thing but stupid and then smart to make your point look better. "hurr durr your point", as opposed to "intelligently stated my point" doesn't change anything and can really be used with anything.There's a point where things stop being "hur hur correlation" and start being "based on available data, the most logical and presumable inference is ____". There's a whole occupation that revolves around analyzing data and making such inferences.
Actually no, I usually hate it when people list off fallacies and then act like they're so intelligent for copy-pasting from Wikipedia. It's just that yours were pretty blatant and those two get on my nerves.That's cool though just keep citing a blanket counter-argument you probably got off a list of logical fallacies that made the rounds via chain email or whateve
Uh, yeah, and I'm sure that has nothing to do with ineffective enforcement strategies, particularly in a country where the corruptive and violent grip of drug cartels has the federal police that are supposed to be FIGHTING them not only in their employ, but assassinating CIA officers. With guns, to boot!Assuming of course you ignore mexico, where there is very strict gun laws which have done nothing to curb gun crimes or homicides...
How do you know? The language is inspecific. You're making an assumption that happens to support your own perspective but actually has zero basis for inference one way or the other. Maybe this does factor in the availability of illicit firearm ownership -- however, such a broad and generalized study would have very little value, no? Particularly given how difficult it is to empirically measure the available quantity of a commodity whose whole economic raison d'etre is staying off the books.Plus that article specified gun availability which ignores if those guns were supposed to be available or not which makes areas like south america and africa greatly skew the results. They both have gun and homicide problems even though there aren't supposed to be guns in civilians hands.
Where to begin...Another country that contradicts their data is switzerland with extremely high gun ownership and last I checked is the second safest place in the world.
sick of hearing this so just to clear this up, assault rifles are not legal in america. an assault rifle by definition has select fire be it burst or full auto. Both of these are already illegal. The weapon used in this shooting was a "assault type" weapon which roughly translates to, a weapon that kinda looks like an assault rifle...
GunPolicy.org said:In the United States, civilians are not allowed to possess machine-guns, sawn-off shotguns and rifles, silencers, and armour-piercing ammunition without appropriate registration
GunPolicy said:In the United States, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited without appropriate registration
???GunPolicy said:In the United States, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted without a licence in some jurisdictions
In the United States, the private sale and transfer of firearms is permitted in some jurisdictions
????The buyer of a firearm in a private sale in the United States is not obliged to pass official background checks before taking possession
See this is the point where I could just say "Strawman" and not reply to your point. I never said gun availability is THE cause."There's more of a correlation, which means that it is definitely the cause of it!" I admit there's a definite link but that doesn't necessarily mean you're right about guns causing murders.
Alright, fair, but I was annoyed by your "correlation =/= causation" argument and still am. Are you saying that my points about inferences based upon analysis of data aren't true? Are meteorologists, economists, stockbrokers and others just sham artists pulling figures outta their butts?You said the exact same thing but stupid and then smart to make your point look better. "hurr durr your point", as opposed to "intelligently stated my point" doesn't change anything and can really be used with anything.
Well, I could do the same thing for a great many of your posts in this thread thus far, but I have decided to have an actual conversation instead.Actually no, I usually hate it when people list off fallacies and then act like they're so intelligent for copy-pasting from Wikipedia. It's just that yours were pretty blatant and those two get on my nerves.
In that case the people who'd go crazy would just get a pistol. Although, there's no reason why you'd need a military grade sniper rifle to shoot targets.Regulate the hell out of gun ownership and prohibit the ownership of stupid as **** "no really though, who the hell needs an assault rifle with explosive ammunition, seriously, what the ****" weapons. Homicides will decrease. I don't care about hunters, gun hobbyists, paranoid widows, whatever. Not sure if that was clear or not. Hell, I personally really love shootin' guns.
A lot of these people use someone elses gun. If people just put their guns in a numberlocked case where only they can get to it, this wouldn't happen even close to as often.What I should say is that I'm saying that, right now, gun regulation in the U.S.A. is weak as ****, and people that should absolutely not get guns... can get them. There are also guns on the market that just shouldn't damn well be there. Solve these two problems and you have made murderin' -- particularly mass murderin' -- a greatly more difficult task.
It matters. If it didn't, the constitution wouldn't be amendable. The authors of the constitution knew that down the line, things would change, and so they granted future generations the ability to amend the constitution to better fit changing times. Are you arguing that the changes in both the function and form of the military aren't relevant? Why not? I mean, your argument is full of assumptions. You'd have to assume that the reason arms were granted to citizens was unrelated to the first part of the sentence, when in fact it most certainly was. lolThe second part is the one that actually matters, the first is just an explanation as to why. If the 13th amendment said "because of Lincoln's uncontrollable clown fetish, no more slavery", would we still be allowed to have slaves?
I believe this is referring to the second amendment. If that is the case they weren't really just referring to guns with this amendment. At the time arms was referring to general combat tools, meaning guns swords spears and probably even things like cannons. To the best of my knowledge they were really talking things like military tools. Not hunting tools. Got that impression from the whole "a well regulated militia" part.I think it's important to also look at the time period that was said. A gun back then shot one bullet at a time and took like 5 minutes to reload. And it wouldn't be nearly as deadly as a gun is now a days, since the bullets just weren't designed as well.
Gunshots were far worse back in that period when there was no real way to stop the horrible gaping wounds from doing all kinds of terrible things to you. Survivors from direct shots were not exactly common.And it wouldn't be nearly as deadly as a gun is now a days, since the bullets just weren't designed as well.
I think looking at what they said for moral guidance is a mistake in general. They may be correct in saying we should have the right, but the fact that they said it shouldn't make it right.@SFP and Alphicans; are you saying that the second amendment is outdated and shouldn't be there anymore, or that it doesn't give people the right to bare arms?
Your reference to Chicago specifically made me think of this article (I'm going to post the text since I can't link it):All I have to say is Kennesaw, Georgia (U.S.) and Switzerland, and Chicago. Oh Chicago, where just about as many people are killed weekly, yet there isn't so much media coverage.
A life is a life is a life.
A murder is a murder is a murder.
Intent doesn't matter, nor should it ever.
Character witnesses are just stupid justice.
Deaths of children that don’t make news
By VIJAY PRASHAD
Monday, December 17, 2012
NORTHAMPTON — No community easily suffers the death of children. Accidents, violent crimes and illness: the cause is immaterial.
No death of a child is for a reason. All such deaths are senseless.
In his emotional address shortly after news came of the massacre in Newtown, Conn., President Obama pointed to the frequency of such mass crimes and nudged the country to widen our field of vision: “Whether it is an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago — these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children.”
The contrary nudge came in his last destination, the “street corner in Chicago.”
When a singular mass killing occurs in mainly affluent suburbs, it shocks the nation — and rightly so. But it might be a shock to some to know that this year alone 117 children died from handgun violence in Chicago. These deaths do not get discussed, let alone memorialized in the national conversation of tragedy.
There are at least two reasons for this. First, these deaths do not happen in a spectacular fashion. They take place in ones and twos, often in the lonely hours of the night when bullets depart from their targets and settle in the soft tissue of children asleep in their homes, or in the afternoon as they play on the sidewalk.
Take the case of April 12. One-year-old Jayliah Allen was shot while she slept in her bed, the bullet entering the window. Seven-year-old Derrick Robeteau was shot in the leg while playing outside his grandfather’s home and a 7-year-old girl was shot as she stood outside her home. Three children hit by handguns in one day, but in an unspectacular form.
Second, old racist habits linger. These are African-American and Latino kids, whose neighborhoods are considered dangerous. Which is why when Jayliah and Derrick were killed no one called their neighborhoods bucolic or thought that this violence was senseless. There is a hardness that has entered our consciousness, allowing us to avoid the sealed fates of these kids.
No memorials exist as well for the 178 children killed by U.S. drone strikes in the borderlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Noor Aziz, 8, Talha, 8, Najibullah, 13, Adnan, 16, Hizbullah, 10, Wilayat Khan, 11, Asadullah, 9, Sohail, 7: these are some of the names of children killed by the drones. News reports frequently say “three militants killed,” and then a few days later, in the Pakistani press, one hears that amongst the dead were children with no association with the militants. Unlike the street shootings in Chicago, there have been mass killings by drones, which have received only minimal attention. On Oct. 30, 2006, a U.S. drone struck a school in Bajaur, Pakistan, killing 83 people. The New York Times story ran Nov. 10 with the headline, “American Strike in January Missed Al-Qaeda’s No. 2 By a Few Hours.”
The Times noted in the story that the drone hit “a madrasa, or religious school,” but left it at that. It did not mention that only three of those killed were older than 20. The rest were between the ages of 7 and 17.
There was no apology for this strike, authorized by the White House, no call to put an end to this kind of tragedy. One of the more unseemly coincidences of the Newtown massacre is that just down the road from the elementary school is Forecast International, a military intelligence firm that has been bullish on drones.
On Oct. 23, Time’s Joe Klein was on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Host Joe Scarborough spoke passionately against the use of drones, saying “it seems so antiseptic and yet you have 4-year-old girls being blown to bits because we have a policy that now says, ‘You know what? Instead of trying to go in and take the risk and get the terrorists out of hiding in a Karachi suburb, we’re just going to blow up everyone around them.’ ”
Klein, a defender of the Obama record, answered emotionlessly, “The bottom line in the end is — whose 4-year-old gets killed? What we’re doing is limiting the possibility that 4-year-olds here will get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror.”
Such a callous calculation is not Klein’s alone; it is reflected in the general lack of concern for what is being carried out in our name.
No human beings can tolerate to see their children killed. No human beings, not anywhere.
And Obama has increased the amount of drone strikes significantly.Your reference to Chicago specifically made me think of this article (I'm going to post the text since I can't link it):
First off, declaring your opponent ignorant for not agreeing with you is extremely ignorant and you look smug for doing it. Second, you don't need to be 100% adamant about your opinions, you don't need to always be for something that you're usually for. If this were true, they'd be all for this maniac owning a gun, which they obviously aren't. What you're doing is taking their opinion and stretching it to the furthest extreme and then criticizing them for your exaggeration of their opinion, which is both a strawman and an oversimplification, which are both logical fallacies. It's not all black and white.I dont think you quite understand how the world works.
So would this organization be for crazy people having assault rifles? That's what I'm getting from you because you're assuming that they're literally 100% pro gun in all cases.You know what, **** it, im not even going to bother. You clearly are under some odd assumption of what im talking about. Im assuming you think im talking about individuals when im talking about an organization which has some pretty clear and concise ideals.
They were never in favor of killing innocent people.If you honestly think they're going to take a stance that's the complete opposite from what they were founded on then more power to you bizzaro human.