On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:29:44 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 
>>> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
>>> already happened.
>> 
>> Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation of
>> guns in the US.  "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death is
>> involved.
> 
> The problem is that it works both ways. You're just arguing that
> defenders should die instead of attackers. If there's tight regulation
> on gun control, you're letting those who ignore those regulations kill
> those who obey them, without that same "undo" you're trying to control.

Well, yes.

But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by 
guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the US.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> We do this on a regular basis for "companies" that are even as small as
> a mom and pop outfit, where they have to be actually *selling* what they
> claim, and it has to work as advertised.

And if someone uses something like Tarot and gets an outcome that matches 
what they were aiming for, then it could be said to be "working as 
advertised".  Yes, you and I both know that correlation is not causation, 
but the fact of the matter is that someone calling in to Miss Cleo gets 
their fortune told that they're going to (say) win the lottery, and they 
win the lottery, hey, it worked as advertised.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by 
> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the US.

That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved by 
guns in there somewhere.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>> US.
> 
> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
> by guns in there somewhere.

Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of 
intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be 
relevant statistics to include.

So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should be 
included.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27-1-2011 20:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>> US.
>>
>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
>> by guns in there somewhere.
>
> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
> relevant statistics to include.

Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter 
gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?

> So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should be
> included.
>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:07:32 +0100, andrel wrote:

>> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
>> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
>> relevant statistics to include.
> 
> Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter
> gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?

Sure, why not?  I'm not compiling the statistics, but that'd be useful 
information too.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>> US.
>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
>> by guns in there somewhere.
> 
> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of 
> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be 
> relevant statistics to include.

Sure.

> So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should be 
> included.

Which would be ... wrong. ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:26:31 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally
>>>> by guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in
>>>> the US.
>>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people
>>> saved by guns in there somewhere.
>> 
>> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
>> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
>> relevant statistics to include.
> 
> Sure.
> 
>> So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should
>> be included.
> 
> Which would be ... wrong. ;-)

Well, it would be more properly said to be "incomplete". ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1/27/2011 12:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>> US.
>>
>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
>> by guns in there somewhere.
>
> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
> relevant statistics to include.
>
> So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should be
> included.
>
> Jim
Course.. The number "saved" is fairly arbitrary. You have to assume that 
everyone "saved" couldn't have been without the gun, or even that some 
that died in the same situation would have died anyway, had no gun been 
involved. Precisely how do you quantify that, other than to flat out 
ignore the problem, and just proclaim, "A gun was there, so they where 
saved by one."?

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/27/2011 3:07 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 27-1-2011 20:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>>> US.
>>>
>>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
>>> by guns in there somewhere.
>>
>> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
>> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
>> relevant statistics to include.
>
> Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter
> gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?
>
Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased, 
and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other 
part of the country? Like that sort of thing?

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message