First, thank you for noting that any missing of each other’s points may be due to misunderstanding. Far better (and more accurate, I believe) approach than the “you don’t get it because you’re a sub-human” tack taken by some.

Second, I think CSS is also missing a point being made. That being the relative amounts is exactly why lighting can be considered less dangerous than riding in a car.

Far fewer people spend time in situations where they might get struck by lightning (e.g., playing golf in the rain) than riding in cars. Huge amounts of the population, for example, never set foot on a golf course.

It’s akin to saying there is 1 death per 75 years of car driving time while there are 10 deaths per 75 years of surfing time. Most people don’t surf, so their odds of dying in a surfing accident are nil.

Among the entire population each year you still have 50,000 dead on the road and only 66 dead from lightning.

Similarly, the rates of death per hour of home gun ownership are probably higher than the rates of death per hour of home bathtub ownership. Not only are bathtubs more ubiquitous than guns, any given bathtub will also be used a lot more than the average handgun. Therefore, even though a child is more likely to die by bathtub than by gun, the gun is actually more dangerous as per the rate data.

Commence with your squabbling.

Actually, not all guns are designed to kill. So do I now get to say that “The rest of this section is meaningless since you bungled the basic” description of a gun?

That may very well be. But far fewer people would do the former, so drawing the conclusion that someone is more likely to be killed by lightning than in a car, that lightning is more dangerous than a car, doesn’t follow logically.

But your odds of being being killed in car accident are much better than being killed by a bolt of lightning. Just as the odds of a child drowning in a bathtub or a pool are higher than that of dying from an accidental gunshot wound. Your statement would hold some water if we were debating whether or not guns were safer than swimming pools on their own, but we’re not.

Not is doesn’t, Jay. It means the gun wasn’t being used as it was designed to be used.

Says who? There are .22 pistols that are designed specifically for target shooting. Can they still kill? Sure. But so can the Henckels knives I have my kitchen. It doesn’t mean “knives were designed to kill.” Guns can kill, yes. Buy you’re completely over simplifying the case when making the claim “guns are made to kill.” It’s an emotional tactic, not one based on reason.

Then stop comparing them to pools, bathtubs, or cleaning products.

It’s a contextual comparison CS. The talk was about accidental deaths. You cannot have a discussion about accidental deaths and ONLY talk about guns and make claims like, “Please, more guns in houses. We sure want more of these” to justify a position that makes it harder for a person to obtain a firearm without bringing other examples of accidental deaths into the discussion. You just can’t.

I accused him has making that conclusion, because he said it.

No, you took what he said and twisted it to fit your agenda. Rather than keeping the focus on the issue about accidental deaths, you instead wanted to go off on a tangent about JWG claiming guns are safer than bathtubs.

You can’t just take two numbers and say, “This one is higher, therefore…”

Yes you can. The number of children who die accidentally from drowning is higher than that of those who die from accidental gunshot wounds. Therefore, a child is more likely to die from accidental drowning, be it in a bathtub or pool.

Until you can show the two events are analogous

Why do they have to be analogous? That’s silly. We’re talking about the accidental death of children. Your position is that we should make it more difficult for people to obtain firearms to help prevent the accidental death of children. The goal being — preventing the accidental death of children, correct?

Well, in order for you to justify your position, you would have to show that the number of childhood deaths from firearms is high in proportion to the number of households that have both a child and a firearm. We’ve already shown that a child is more likely to die accidentally from drowning than he is from a firearm discharge. So what your side has to show is that the number of accidental deaths by firearm is higher than that of drownings based upon the number of households that own a firearm. To make it easier, let’s take 100 children and let’s say that out of that 100, 10 died from accidental drowning and only 3 died from an accidental gunshot wound. Now, on the face of it, one would say that it’s riskier for a kid to be around a bathtub as his likelihood of drowning is higher than that of being accidentally killed with a firearm.

However, you’re saying, “TIME OUT!!” because while we can assume that all 100 kids had bathtubs in the house, there might have been only 30 of the kids that had a gun in the house. Therefore, if we said that all 100 kids also had a gun in the house as well as a bathtub, then we’d see the similar amount of accidental deaths from both causes.

We won’t see that. If it were true, we’d have already seen it. Gun control groups would tout such numbers from the mountaintops. Working with data they already have, they could easily show this to be the case. My guess is, they haven’t. That’s the reason why they rely on heavily manipulated statistics and use language like “48 times more likely” or “the chances increase by 347%.” They manipulate the numbers to get the desired results all in an effort to strike fear into the hearts of the average citizen. Guys like you and Oliver fall into that trap and you start clamoring for even more gun control even when the facts don’t support your point of view.

Not is doesn’t, Jay. It means the gun wasn’t being used as it was designed to be used. It was made to kill. Just because you are just practicing, doesn’t mean the gun is poorly designed.

The rest of this section is meaningless since you bungled the basic definition of the word.

“In the sense that they can be deadly, they already are treated differently than pools, bathtubs or cleaning products.”

Then stop comparing them to pools, bathtubs, or cleaning products.

“So my chances of being killed in a car accident are higher than that of being killed by lightning. That doesn’t mean one can reach the conclusion that lightning is therefore safer than cars. Yet, you’re accusing JWG of doing just that just because…”

I accused him has making that conclusion, because he said it.

“Yet you argue that those numbers don’t mean anything because everybody who has a bathtub doesn’t have a gun. You cannot dismiss the numbers because they don’t fit the narrow criteria you have set up.”

You can’t just take two numbers and say, “This one is higher, therefore…”

You have to actually do some thinking. Until you can show the two events are analogous, you can use this statistics to prove your case. No one on your side has even tried to do this. They have simply given the numbers and acted as if they have a concrete case.

Is that what you’re saying? Have I got that right?”

Close. Very close.

Holding a golf club in the air during a thunderstorm is more dangerous than driving a car.

To make the claim “guns are designed to kill” is too much of an umbrella statement. Guns can kill, but to say they’re “designed to kill” means that using a .22 pistol for target practice is to say that the gun was poorly designed because it didn’t kill anything. There are plenty of people that own and fire guns and will never kill anything. I’ve fired guns plenty of times. I’m not a hunter, so I’ve never killed. Were the guns I used designed wrong because I didn’t kill?

In the sense that they can be deadly, they already are treated differently than pools, bathtubs or cleaning products. A person doesn’t need to be 21 to purchase a bathtub. It is suggested that cleaning products are kept away from children, but it is not required as it is with guns in most states. Nobody needs to undergo a background check to purchase a pool. Get the picture?

Can you back that up? I don’t think you can.

Sure I can.

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Odds of being killed in a car accident? 1 in 247

Odds of being killed by lightning? 1 in 81,949

So my chances of being killed in a car accident are higher than that of being killed by lightning. That doesn’t mean one can reach the conclusion that lightning is therefore safer than cars. Yet, you’re accusing JWG of doing just that just because the odds of a child dying as a result of drowning is higher than the odds of them dying from the discharge of a firearm. The odds are what they are.

Yet you argue that those numbers don’t mean anything because everybody who has a bathtub doesn’t have a gun. You cannot dismiss the numbers because they don’t fit the narrow criteria you have set up. The fact of the matter is, with tens of millions of people who have children and own guns, because guns are deadly, wouldn’t it make sense that accidental deaths be higher? But they’re not. What that means is the vast majority of those people are keeping their guns stored safely so children cannot get to them.

Remember, the original story that Oliver links to is about a violent felon who never should have been in possession of a firearm to begin with. The guy has a long rap sheet, with one crime being that the aggravated assault of a pregnant woman. Does this strike you as the kind of person that’s going to run off to Bass Pro Shops or Gander Mountain and pick himself up a gun safe?

So because fewer people engage in the activity the lower number of total deaths actually represent a higher portion of the participating population. Hence lightning is actually a more likely cause of death than car accident.

Is that what you’re saying? Have I got that right?

I only gave my position in the thread already. I gave my position in posts Jay responded to. Yet he claimed I had none.

Position Number One, written nearly at the beginning of the thread…

“However, using the CDC numbers, you are making the exact same argument with guns. And I’m telling you, the CDC doesn’t give you the information needed to argue that claim.”

Is that hard to understand? Was that written in a different language? How can someone claim it doesn’t exist?

I was talking about your quote. You used the term, ‘per capita’ like it meant per gun. You claim you misread Spider’s post, in what way? What did you think he said that makes your response make sense?

I want you to say, “I thought he said XXXXX, which is why I said, ‘That’s what the per 100,000 is for.”

“Yes, and in terms of accidental deaths…”

Which are the only way guns kill people, accidentally.

This is why I make fun of you. You’ve taken a situation with one point of similarity, and equated the two in its entirety. JWG took one type of gun death happening in one tiny slice of the population and used it as if it was indicative as a whole. This is a fallacy.

As I’ve already stated in this thread, guns are designed to kill. That’s there purpose. Because of this, they must be treated differently than other products like swimming pools, bathtubs, cleaning products, etc. (By the way, this is one of my positions I’ve mentioned in this thread. I pointing that little fact out, since you seem to have missed it previously.)

However, JWG jumped into the thread and equated the two, and you and Sean seem to be defending him, if not his position.

Do you get it now?

“Why? Because there is a higher likelihood of me dying in a car accident than being struck by lightning.”

Can you back that up? I don’t think you can.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/004489.html

People spend 100 hours commuting each year and only 50,000 die in car accidents each year.

http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Age adjusted death rates for 113 selected causes by race and sex 2005.html

So that’s an average of 75 years of driving per fatality, and I’m only talking about commuting, not other types of driving.

Lightning, on the other hand, kills 66 people a year, 5% to 10% of those on golf courses…

http://www.dtn.com/news.cfm?content=05news/n_111105&sidenav=sn_innews

The one may seem far higher than the other, but you would be falling for the same fallacy JGW did. Far few people golf than drive to work.

500 million rounds of golf are played…

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=523323

Average round takes 4 hours…

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071014033427AA3YIhW

So people in the United States spend about 10 times more time commuting than golfing. Now we have to figure out how much of that time is during a thunder storm. This is where the statistics break down and the information just isn’t available. People generally don’t play in the rain, never mind thunder storms. Now holding your golf club in the air during a thunder storm is even rarer. Much more rare than driving, especially compared to the deaths.

You see, the evidence tells us that lightening is more dangerous that cars.

“Like I said, only an IDIOT or somebody without a shred of intellectual dishonesty would read into his words any other way.”

Actually, given the context, there’s no other way to read what he wrote. (Especially since he talks about bans right after, which is another fallacy. (Oliver didn’t advocate bans.))

It seems you disagree with him, which is a positive for you, but he said it. Kudos for making sense.

“What positions? You don’t advocate positions. All you do is lob insults. That’s all you do.”

Jay, you are stupid. The fact that you can’t figure out my position only serves as further evidence of your stupidity.

CSS: Still not stating his position. A clear opportunity to do so, and instead it’s always the other guys fault.

I have seen Jay and others here re-state and attempt to clarify theirs. I’ve seen CSS maybe attempt to re-state and clarify, but far more often take the easy path of name calling. I may not often agree with Jay’s opinions, but I can far more easily tell what they are.

Style over Substance, C? Perhaps. But when there isn’t much substance what else is there to comment on?

I already did explain myself:

The likelihood of a child dying in a bathtub is higher than that of a firearm. That’s just a fact. Not all families with children have a gun in the house. But it’s very likely that those with guns in the house, also have bathtubs. Therefore, even if you excluded all the homes in America where there were children and no guns, the numbers would not change.

And I previously said I misread what SPIDER wrote as I was responding to him, NOT YOU. Yet, you’ve continued to harp on that one misstep. So now that I’ve explained it away for the fourth or fifth time, perhaps you’ll stop squealing about it.

“There are many products/activities that are more dangerous to children than parents owning firearms.”

Yes, and in terms of accidental deaths, HE IS RIGHT. What he is NOT saying is, “This proves that guns are safer than bathtubs.” Contrary to what you think, there is a difference. It’s more dangerous for me to drive a car than it is to stand on a golf course with a 5-iron im my hand during a lightning storm. Why? Because there is a higher likelihood of me dying in a car accident than being struck by lightning. Stating that does not equate to me saying, “Lightning is safer than cars!”

Like I said, only an IDIOT or somebody without a shred of intellectual dishonesty would read into his words any other way.

So fuck off yourself idiot. Thankfully, others around here are starting to see through your bullshit.

Jay, you are stupid. The fact that you can’t figure out my position only serves as further evidence of your stupidity.

Me: “and you thought it meant per 100,000 guns and per 100,000 baths.”

Jay: “No, I didn’t. That’s your assumption and only fools make assumptions.”

Then explain yourself and don’t run away from the question when asked. This is what an actual human would do.

“Does this mean that guns are safer than pools or bathtubs? Of course not. And JWG was not making that argument and only a FUCKING IDIOT or somebody without an OUNCE of intellectual honesty would reach such a conclusion.”

This is what JGW said…

“There are many products/activities that are more dangerous to children than parents owning firearms.”

Since you are clearly illiterate, all I have to say to you is, “Fuck off.”

What positions? You don’t advocate positions. All you do is lob insults. That’s all you do.

and you thought it meant per 100,000 guns and per 100,000 baths.

No, I didn’t. That’s your assumption and only fools make assumptions.

So are so fucking stupid, you should be locked up because you are a danger to yourself.

Nothing you say matters. You are fucking subhuman. You are beneath me. You death will increase the total intelligence on the planet.

I guess these are more of your ‘positions.’

No, I think it’s cause you can’t take a bathtub to your work and drown a bunch of people.

We’re not talking about people bringing weapons to work. The conversation has been focused on the accidental deaths of children.

Guns were made to killing. That makes them different than bathtubs, bikes, cleaning supplies.

They are different and must be treated different.

No shit Sherlock. They are different and they ARE treated differently. This still doesn’t address Oliver’s and your original assertion.

I’ve got the facts on my side

WHAT FACTS? YOU HAVEN’T CITED NOR REFUTED A SINGLE FACT!

I’m applauding your balls right now CS. A standing ovation right now for CS’s balls. Because you’ve got some pair to type that nonsense. You haven’t presented a single fact as of yet. Let’s look at two real facts:

FACT: The likelihood of a child dying accidentally in a bathtub or swimming pool is higher than that of a child dying accidentally from a gunshot.

FACT: The rate of accidental deaths by firearms has steadily gone down, while at the same time, the rate of firearms ownership has gone up.

Does this mean that guns are safer than pools or bathtubs? Of course not. And JWG was not making that argument and only a FUCKING IDIOT or somebody without an OUNCE of intellectual honesty would reach such a conclusion. What I am saying and what JWG is saying is that there are everyday things that people do — swim, bathe, ski, ride bikes, eat, drive cars, etc. — that unfortunately results in the accidental loss of life, more so than with firearms. We accept such risks in the face of our right to “pursue happiness.” I’m sure we’d all like to see NO accidental deaths, but that’s simply not a realistic viewpoint.

Congratulations, Sean, you just committed the Style Over Substance fallacy. You can’t attack my positions, so you attack my language. What do you think Asimov would have to say about that?

Face it, Jay said something stupid and you spend the last few days defending what he said. Be a man and admit it.

I think it was Asimov who said “Name calling is the first refuge of the intellectually superior.” Who am I to argue with the good doctor.

It wasn’t a fucking reasonable post.

The chart said, “Rate per 100,000 children age 1 to 7.” I asked for rate per bike and rate per gun. He came back and said, “That’s what the per 100,000 is for.” I asked to explain, several times. He refused.

This is not a one time event. He says something stupid and when he is called on it, he refuses to admit his mistakes and generally prefers to pretend they never happened.

He is simply not a smart person.

“Which I’d say falls into that ramp/hill territory which you won’t even consider since you have a visceral reaction to Jay postings.

OK, time we let this one go, C. We’re getting into that either agree-to-disagree on how we see it or keep talkin’ past each other territory.”

No we are not. I’ve got the facts on my side and you think I’m only acting this way because of some irrational hatred. I can back up my claims, you can’t. We are not talking about the same thing with different words, you just refuse to admit reality.

I’m doing it because it proves you are a fucking idiot. It is 100% proof. The fucking chart said, “Rate per 100,000 children age 1 to 7″ and you thought it meant per 100,000 guns and per 100,000 baths.

I’ll put it in bold for you…

YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID, JAY, AND NOTHING YOU SAY MATTERS.

So are so fucking stupid, you should be locked up because you are a danger to yourself.

Nothing you say matters. You are fucking subhuman. You are beneath me. You death will increase the total intelligence on the planet.

Me: “But he is making the argument that guns are safer than bathtubs and therefore guns are not the problem. This is very clear from what he wrote.”

Jay: “No, he is NOT making that argument.”

Actually, he said that.

“There are many products/activities that are more dangerous to children than parents owning firearms. Yet no one uses those injuries/deaths to advocate bans.”

“Now because it is a FACT that children are more likely to die of accidental drownings (be it a bathtub or swimming pool), is Oliver ready to start pushing for laws where people need to prove they are responsible enough to have a swimming pool or bathtub? Of course not and why not? Because pools and bathtubs aren’t ’scary’ and guns are.”

No, I think it’s cause you can’t take a bathtub to your work and drown a bunch of people.

Guns were made to killing. That makes them different than bathtubs, bikes, cleaning supplies.

They are different and must be treated different.

The reason you don’t understand that, is because you are stupid. It is the same reason you are a conservative.