 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2011 9:59 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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
Only if everyone that does so wins the lotto. Otherwise, not so much.
Its also rather fiddly. Some morons will take nearly anything as an
example of "success".
--
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 4:16 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/01/2011 1:59 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> My personal feeling is, if a company has more than 50% of its damn
>> resources, product *or* employees in some other country, and its not
>> *specifically* claiming to be a resaler (which would not have the same
>> "rights" as the rest, including being able to muck with politics *at
>> all*), it can't claim to be an "American company", no matter where their
>> "head office" is located. If we used that logic on something like
>> diplomats, foreign dignitaries could claim to be members of bloody
>> congress, on the grounds that their embassy is on US land, and they do
>> all their work from the embassy office, without ever going back to their
>> own country for visits.
>>
>
> What is the big deal about being American?
>
If its a foreign company, it can't get tax breaks, privileged treatment,
and all the other BS that lets them get by with shit they do. This is
the dream of the Repuglicans, straight from Texas:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/texas_our_bold_leader_into_the.php
This is what they think will "save the country", while whining that
their goal is to do the exact opposite. More money, power, and privilege
to companies, even the ones that outsource 90% of their jobs to some
foreign country, and everyone else gets completely screwed. So.. Its
simple. Stop treating companies that outsource more than 49.9% of their
jobs to China, or the like, as privileged, US, companies, with all the
rights and special treatment that come with it. Apply the same foreign
import taxes, and the like, to them that anyone else that manufactures
outside the US has to. If they won't hire us, they should at least
frakking pay enough taxes to to make up the difference it costs in
keeping the people that can't find work from starving to death.
--
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 9:55 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:11:06 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Yes, well.. Those would be the sports "nuts". My point was, when push
>> comes to shove, among religions, everyone has something they are *nuts*
>> about.
>
> The vast majority of religious people (or people who self-identify as
> such) just go to church on Sunday and get on with their lives. Of course
> you never hear about them, you only hear about the lunatics, because the
> normal people aren't interesting news.
>
> It's been my experience that *most* people who are religious also won't
> get offended by something you say about their religion if you frame it in
> a way that isn't offensive.
>
> If you walk into an LDS wardhouse and start screaming "you're all nuts,
> Jesus never came to the US and you're all LOOZERZ!@!!@!@!@", you'll get a
> strong reaction.
>
> But at the same time, if you sit down with individuals and have a
> rational discussion with them, you may not change their minds, but you'll
> get a respectful discussion.
>
> I know. I've done it. (The latter, not the former).
>
> Jim
Again, depends on the point of discussion. An argument is only rational
if it is *possible* to change someone's mind. If the reason they can't
is religion, then QED, they are not rational about that subject.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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?
I think you need to do more controlled studies. Some places, the crime rate
goes way up. Some places it goes down. If you take two similar areas next
to each other and compare, the place with less gun control has lower crime
rates, but one might argue that's because there's easy pickin's close by.
Gun crime is very low in some countries with lots of guns simply because
there aren't many laws against shooting other people that get enforced or
because most of the violence is the government against the peasants. Gun
crime is very low in some countries that traditionally even the police don't
carry guns, simply because the culture isn't as violent and is much more
uniform, and the crime rate would be equally low if everyone had guns.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Course.. The number "saved" is fairly arbitrary. You have to assume that
> everyone "saved" couldn't have been without the gun,
No. You go to, for example, the FBI violent crime reports, and see how many
times people were mugged who had a knife got hurt. Then how many times
people were mugged who had a gun and got hurt. Then how many times people
who were mugged and had no weapon got hurt. Etc.
It turns out, at least for the years I looked up way back in college, that
it was something like 82% of the people who cooperated were unharmed, 86% of
the people who had a gun (whether they drew it or fired it or not) were
unharmed, and the next higher number was mid-70s. So, basically, having a
gun is the only way when being a victim of a violent crime that's likely to
get you less hurt than just handing over your wallet.
> ignore the problem, and just proclaim, "A gun was there, so they where
> saved by one."?
If they were *saved*, they can tell you what happened.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
