Olathe shooting
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
may be everyone should have a gun,
There are a few cities in the US where it is required by law to own a gun. Of course, they don't enforce that law.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Of course: owning a weapon should still be subjected to choice, otherwise it could really prove dangerous. Lucky the ones that hve that choice, in Europe they're trying to take it away from us - and look how well it served to France, as of now the nation with the longest streak of armed attacks towards the citizens cattle.
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF * GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X * Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game. * I'm a puny punmaker.
-
Your analogy fails, but I think you know that. ;)
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
No analogy is 100% perfect, you can either accept the spirit of it, or if the analogy proves you wrong you can focus on why the analogy isn't perfect and focus on that as an argument instead. But I think you know that :)
-
No analogy is 100% perfect, you can either accept the spirit of it, or if the analogy proves you wrong you can focus on why the analogy isn't perfect and focus on that as an argument instead. But I think you know that :)
OK, so you won't admit that it was wrong? And now you're going to force me to spend all this time explaining to you and all of posterity why it is wrong? You owe me a Snickers bar. ;) Real simple. If you own a gun you can be in control of what happens to it. I.E. lock it in a safe that only you have access to. Therefore, you are in complete control of what happens. However, when you are driving, you are not in control of what happens to you. There, done. Geesh. :-D
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
OK, so you won't admit that it was wrong? And now you're going to force me to spend all this time explaining to you and all of posterity why it is wrong? You owe me a Snickers bar. ;) Real simple. If you own a gun you can be in control of what happens to it. I.E. lock it in a safe that only you have access to. Therefore, you are in complete control of what happens. However, when you are driving, you are not in control of what happens to you. There, done. Geesh. :-D
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Why would I admit it was wrong? If it was wrong I wouldn't have used it. However as I have already said you are focusing on where the analogy differs rather than the concept I was drawing attention to as you can construct a straw man argument from that.
-
Why would I admit it was wrong? If it was wrong I wouldn't have used it. However as I have already said you are focusing on where the analogy differs rather than the concept I was drawing attention to as you can construct a straw man argument from that.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
you are focusing on where the analogy differs rather than the concept I was drawing attention to
What concept are you drawing attention to?
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
you are focusing on where the analogy differs rather than the concept I was drawing attention to
What concept are you drawing attention to?
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
That an individual's self-reporting that there is no way they will come foul of a problem because they simply consider themselves "different" carries no weight at all in the general scheme of things and most certainly does not invalidate the general principal that a problem does indeed exist. Anyway, I'll leave you to your belief that "proof by example" is not a fallacious argument.
-
That an individual's self-reporting that there is no way they will come foul of a problem because they simply consider themselves "different" carries no weight at all in the general scheme of things and most certainly does not invalidate the general principal that a problem does indeed exist. Anyway, I'll leave you to your belief that "proof by example" is not a fallacious argument.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
because they simply consider themselves "different" carries no weight at all in the general scheme of things
I disagree. If you actually look into the details of those surveys you'll find that most often the gun was not locked up. So, you are misrepresenting the studies. So, what you should say, is that studies show that if you do not keep your gun safe, then you are at more risk by having the gun in your home than you are of intruders. That is the crucial part you are missing.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
because they simply consider themselves "different" carries no weight at all in the general scheme of things
I disagree. If you actually look into the details of those surveys you'll find that most often the gun was not locked up. So, you are misrepresenting the studies. So, what you should say, is that studies show that if you do not keep your gun safe, then you are at more risk by having the gun in your home than you are of intruders. That is the crucial part you are missing.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Yeah that's why I don't wear a seatbelt. Those studies that show it's safer only cover those who have a crash. I don't crash my car so I don't need to wear one. See, me simply stating that I am not affected invalidates all scientific studies and means you can not use their results.
-
Yeah that's why I don't wear a seatbelt. Those studies that show it's safer only cover those who have a crash. I don't crash my car so I don't need to wear one. See, me simply stating that I am not affected invalidates all scientific studies and means you can not use their results.
I'm not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding or just not getting it. But either way, we're going in circles and I hate circles. They're pointless. Have a good day.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
I'm not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding or just not getting it. But either way, we're going in circles and I hate circles. They're pointless. Have a good day.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Oh no, I do understand what you're saying, it's perfectly clear. I'm simply pointing out that proof by example is a fallacious argument. Saying that one person saying their gun is safe (you have no evidence of this by the way but I'll let that slide, even the most diligent of people are lax sometimes much like how even the most careful of drivers still sometimes has a crash...a concept I see you still struggle to understand) does not negate the fact that statistically speaking having a gun in your home is more dangerous for those inside it.
-
Oh no, I do understand what you're saying, it's perfectly clear. I'm simply pointing out that proof by example is a fallacious argument. Saying that one person saying their gun is safe (you have no evidence of this by the way but I'll let that slide, even the most diligent of people are lax sometimes much like how even the most careful of drivers still sometimes has a crash...a concept I see you still struggle to understand) does not negate the fact that statistically speaking having a gun in your home is more dangerous for those inside it.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
proof by example is a fallacious argument.
Depends. But I'm not interested anymore in arguing this.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
you have no evidence of this
Why not? I know plenty of people who have guns and I know where they keep them.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
even the most careful of drivers still sometimes has a crash...a concept I see you still struggle to understand
I see. Personal attacks. :zzz:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
proof by example is a fallacious argument.
Depends. But I'm not interested anymore in arguing this.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
you have no evidence of this
Why not? I know plenty of people who have guns and I know where they keep them.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
even the most careful of drivers still sometimes has a crash...a concept I see you still struggle to understand
I see. Personal attacks. :zzz:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
I don't want to get into the debate about why guns for defense are wrong or not. My question is that if I shoot an intruder in my house the USA how do I prove this person was an intruder and it was not murder or manslaughter? Does he/she also have to be carrying a gun too, or will any weapon do, including fists? Is it always OK to shoot first and ask questions later? Genuine question, not really trying to cause an argument (honest :-) )
-
I don't want to get into the debate about why guns for defense are wrong or not. My question is that if I shoot an intruder in my house the USA how do I prove this person was an intruder and it was not murder or manslaughter? Does he/she also have to be carrying a gun too, or will any weapon do, including fists? Is it always OK to shoot first and ask questions later? Genuine question, not really trying to cause an argument (honest :-) )
55378008 wrote:
Genuine question
It depends on the area. For example, Florida has a much more lenient law that allows you to protect yourself so it is easier to "prove" you were in danger. Each area will be different so there is no one answer.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
proof by example is a fallacious argument.
Depends. But I'm not interested anymore in arguing this.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
you have no evidence of this
Why not? I know plenty of people who have guns and I know where they keep them.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
even the most careful of drivers still sometimes has a crash...a concept I see you still struggle to understand
I see. Personal attacks. :zzz:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
But I'm not interested anymore in arguing this.
That's unfortunate as it is the basis of your whole argument. Me: Having a gun is statistically more dangerous You: No it's not because this one person will be safe with it You are using a single example (that you can't verify, how do you know this person is a safe gun owner?) to counter my statement that it is statistically more dangerous. If you are using a single specific example to disproof a general study then that is proof-by-example fallacy.
RyanDev wrote:
I see. Personal attacks.
Apologies, let me rephrase that; I'm not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding or just not getting it. :)
-
55378008 wrote:
Genuine question
It depends on the area. For example, Florida has a much more lenient law that allows you to protect yourself so it is easier to "prove" you were in danger. Each area will be different so there is no one answer.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
RyanDev wrote:
But I'm not interested anymore in arguing this.
That's unfortunate as it is the basis of your whole argument. Me: Having a gun is statistically more dangerous You: No it's not because this one person will be safe with it You are using a single example (that you can't verify, how do you know this person is a safe gun owner?) to counter my statement that it is statistically more dangerous. If you are using a single specific example to disproof a general study then that is proof-by-example fallacy.
RyanDev wrote:
I see. Personal attacks.
Apologies, let me rephrase that; I'm not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding or just not getting it. :)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
That's unfortunate as it is the basis of your whole argument.
No, it wasn't at all. I guess that leads us back to earlier when I surmised that you were not understanding my point, and this now proves it.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
to counter my statement that it is statistically more dangerous
I never even countered your statement. I clarified and quantified it. So, again, it's clear you misunderstood. Perhaps I didn't explain it well, doesn't matter who is at fault, but we've not been on the same page of communication.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
I'm not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding or just not getting it.
Much better. :thumbsup:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
I don't want to get into the debate about why guns for defense are wrong or not. My question is that if I shoot an intruder in my house the USA how do I prove this person was an intruder and it was not murder or manslaughter? Does he/she also have to be carrying a gun too, or will any weapon do, including fists? Is it always OK to shoot first and ask questions later? Genuine question, not really trying to cause an argument (honest :-) )
55378008 wrote:
not really trying to cause an argument (honest :) )
Then you should be kicked out of the Soapbox and banned from internet forums. :-D
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
55378008 wrote:
not really trying to cause an argument (honest :) )
Then you should be kicked out of the Soapbox and banned from internet forums. :-D
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Well, these guys are apparently new, so they don't know that a) I'm probably the most heartlessly sarcastic person here, and b) I don't give a flyin' rat f*ck about their over-developed lady-boy sensitivities. The more experienced users have no f*ckin excuse. They know how I am.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Ohhkkkay, then. It was a *nice* post you made back there. :rolleyes: You see, ^ *that* line was sarcasm. I think you and den2k have got the meaning of "sarcasm" confused with "pachydermatous insensitive indurate jokey jokes wannabe". Why? Because the incident is one where an educated man murdered his countryman due to hatred, and went on to gravely injure two more (including one from his own race). Not the best topic for an adult to make jokes about their inability to distinguish between races. No, that's NOT sarcasm.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Y'all look the same to us.
By "us", are you referring to the European immigrants (or their descendants) in the US? The joke's on you: A Chinese man walks into a bar in America late one night and he saw Steven Spielberg. As he was a great fan of his movies, he rushes over to him,and asks for his autograph. Instead, Spielberg gives him a slap and says, "You Chinese people bombed our Pearl Habour, get outta here. "The astonished Chinese man replied, "It was not the Chinese who bombed your Pearl Harbour, it was the Japanese". "Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, you're all the same," replied Spielberg. In return, the Chinese gives Spielberg two slaps and says, "You sank the Titanic, my forefathers were on that ship. "Shocked, Spielberg replies, "It was the iceberg that sank the ship, not me." The Chinese replies, "Iceberg, Spielberg, Carlsberg, you're all the same."
Troll. You know the type, big ego, <small>dick</small>, macho online where nobody can kick him in his puny testicles. Don't dignify this shît with a reply next time.
