-
Love the south.
-
Please, more guns in houses. We sure want more of these.
» Breaking News
British Busts Busting Out
Britney Spears Womanizer Pictures Leak
Halle Berry Is ?Sexiest Woman Alive?, Says Esquire
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
» Breaking News
British Busts Busting Out
Britney Spears Womanizer Pictures Leak
Halle Berry Is ?Sexiest Woman Alive?, Says Esquire
The family that says “y’all” together, brawls together!
Yes, nobody says racial slurs in the north. (HUGE EYE ROLL)
It was a joke, Jay.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_03_09-2008_03_15.shtml#1205343824
Does that automatic jerking of your knee cause you any pain?
JWG - I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. The chart you point out only shows evidence of the safety of handguns in the home if as many families in America owned a handgun as they do a bicycle, cleaning products, and a bathtub.
Give every household in America a gun and watch that number go up.
“Does that automatic jerking of your knee cause you any pain?”
Does being that stupid cause you pain? I sure hope so.
Like Spider said, unless you can come up with deaths per bike or deaths per bath, you haven’t proven a thing. After all, I’m sure more kids are killed falling down the stairs than are eaten by crocodiles. It doesn’t make crocodiles a safe pet to have.
What about alligators?
Alligators are too cute to be dangerous.
According to various studies between 1995-2000 cited by several gun control advocacy groups, 30-40% of households with children contain at least one gun.
It’s probably safe to say that there are about 3x as many households with a bathtub than with a gun.
Yet 28x more children die from drowning.
A bathtub in every home doesn’t make up for 28x more deaths than guns.
Linking to a story about a child using a gun to support the comment that we need to limit guns is as logical as linking to a story about cold weather to support a comment ridiculing global warming.
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.
Maybe because bathtubs aren’t designed to inflict injury? Not trying to start something. Just askin’.
Tell you what. If I can go without a gun, you can go without a bath.
Deal?
Well, that hardly seems fair. I mean, it’s not like I’d actually have to change my lifestyle to hold up my end…
“It’s probably safe to say that there are about 3x as many households with a bathtub than with a gun.
Yet 28x more children die from drowning.”
Shut up. Just shut up. You have proven you are a fucking retard and now you are just hurting the world by continuing to talk.
A kid aged 1 - 7 will encounter a bath, swimming pool, etc. more than 28 time more often than they encounter a gun.
I can’t believe I have to explain this to you.
Do yourself and the world a favor and encounter the wrong end of a gun yourself.
JWG is of course right, and everybody else is wrong. Oliver’s comment in relation to the story is silly.
The number of accidental deaths involving firearms in relation to the amount owned in this country is very low. About half of the households in this country have a gun. That’s nearly 50 million, a number that is rising, yet accidental deaths from firearms have been going down.
The chart you point out only shows evidence of the safety of handguns in the home if as many families in America owned a handgun as they do a bicycle, cleaning products, and a bathtub.
That’s what the “per 100,000″ is for.
But CSS brings up a very good point. Does the relevant statistic involve how many households have guns, or how many encounters with a gun?
That is, 50 million households have guns but, say, the residents encounter/use those guns on average about 3 times a month. Compared to 100 million households with bathtubs but the tubs are used 3 times a day. About 30x as often as a gun.
In that view, even with 28x as many children drowning than being shot guns could still be considered more dangerous since the deaths/use would be higher for guns.
Not fully behind this view, but a case can be made.
“JWG is of course right, and everybody else is wrong.”
Wow. That’s proves it, JWG is fucking wrong.
“The chart you point out only shows evidence of the safety of handguns in the home if as many families in America owned a handgun as they do a bicycle, cleaning products, and a bathtub.”
Jay: “That’s what the “per 100,000″ is for.”
Wow, Jay. … You just said something that is dumber than normal. It is completely, 100% factually incorrect. I have no idea how you can possible defend this, and while I’m interested in hearing your defense, it is probably best if you just run away and pretend you never said.
“That is, 50 million households have guns but, say, the residents encounter/use those guns on average about 3 times a month. Compared to 100 million households with bathtubs but the tubs are used 3 times a day. About 30x as often as a gun.”
It’s not just bathtubs, but drowning so swimming pools, lakes, rivers would all count. How many times does the average child age 1 - 7 go swimming, or take a bath, etc.? I have no fucking clue.
How many times does the same child encounter a gun? Under what circumstances would that even happen? Can you think of any where the outcome is positive?
So you admit that even with at least 1/3 of all households with children possessing a gun, the children are very unlikely to have an encounter with the gun.
Thank you.
Oh so now the argument boils down to ‘encounters’ with the gun? Jeebus H. Christmas. Talk about splitting hairs. The fact that there are so many households with children and guns, the lack of more ‘encounters’ merely shows that the overwhelming majority of gun owners store their guns safely so that children cannot get at them.
And CS, the ‘per 100,000′ is used to equalize those numbers. Therefore, even if the same 100,000 people all had guns in the house and all had bathtubs in the house, the risk is still higher that a kid will accidentally drown than be killed by a firearm. Despite the fact that more people own guns now than ever before, accidental deaths by firearms have been on the decline.
Oh and there’s more details to this story. The father wasn’t even legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm because of felony convictions for drug charges and aggravated battery on a pregnant woman. His rap sheet is longer from what I have read. So what we have here is not some average Joe who was sloppy in leaving his gun lying around, but a common thug who doesn’t seem to have any regard for the law anyway (the law in Florida being that guns are not be in reach of a minor).
But of course…the GUNS are to blame.
is as logical as linking to a story about cold weather to support a comment ridiculing global warming.
Which has been done many times on this site.
“And CS, the ‘per 100,000′ is used to equalize those numbers.”
… Oh dear fucking god! You came back and proved you were a fucking moron.
The 100,000 in the per 100,000 people, not 100,000 guns or 100,000 baths.
Jay. Leave this site, forever. You have proven you are a fucking moron and should be locked away in a mental institute for your own protection.
“So you admit that even with at least 1/3 of all households with children possessing a gun, the children are very unlikely to have an encounter with the gun.”
Yes. Children age 1 - 7 are unlikely to ever see a gun compared to the number of times they have a bath, go swimming, etc.
If you think this is a compelling argument, you are beyond help.
1/3 of all households with children possessing a gun,
Now why would anyone let a child possess a gun in the first place?
The 100,000 in the per 100,000 people, not 100,000 guns or 100,000 baths.
Why do you think they use that term? Because just listing the total deaths doesn’t mean anything! That’s why terms ‘per 100,000′ and ‘per capita’ are used. My wording was off, but the principle applies.
Good grief.
Yes. Children age 1 - 7 are unlikely to ever see a gun compared to the number of times they have a bath, go swimming, etc.
If you think this is a compelling argument, you are beyond help.
This has to be one of the most idiotic examples of pretzel logic I have ever seen in my entire life. You’re blaming people being responsible with firearms in their home with the lack of children aged 1-7 not dying from accidental firearm deaths. You’re whining that CDC numbers don’t work to your advantage and that is FREAKING PATHETIC.
JWG:
So you admit that even with at least 1/3 of all households with children possessing a gun, the children are very unlikely to have an encounter with the gun.
Thank you.
Huh? Since when is asking a question equate to agreeing with an answer?
Me: “The 100,000 in the per 100,000 people, not 100,000 guns or 100,000 baths.”
Jay The Fucking Retard: “Why do you think they use that term? Because just listing the total deaths doesn’t mean anything! That’s why terms ‘per 100,000′ and ‘per capita’ are used. My wording was off, but the principle applies.
Good grief.”
Good grief indeed. The only way to explain your posts is to assume you didn’t read what YOU wrote. That’s a special kind of stupid.
This exchange is further proof that you are completely useless as a human being and should not be treated as one.
“This has to be one of the most idiotic examples of pretzel logic I have ever seen in my entire life. You’re blaming people being responsible with firearms in their home with the lack of children aged 1-7 not dying from accidental firearm deaths. You’re whining that CDC numbers don’t work to your advantage and that is FREAKING PATHETIC.”
Jay, fucking shoot yourself. You are a waste of life.
I am saying that the CDC numbers are not compelling to your argument.
What you are saying is…
Since crocodiles kill fewer people than dogs, crocodiles are safe as pets. No one is that fucking stupid. No one.
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. It’s not that the numbers don’t agree with me, the numbers are not applicable to your argument the way you think they are.
It’s like comparing the obesity rates of the USA and Italy and then arguing this proves pizza is a diet food.
Do you get it now?
Jay, fucking shoot yourself. You are a waste of life.
Yawn. You’re so predictable.
I am saying that the CDC numbers are not compelling to your argument.
Ok, let’s make something clear you DUMB FUCK. Neither I, nor JWG made an argument. OLIVER did. His argument? That more guns in homes will lead to more children accidentally being killed with firearms.
The CDC statistics DISPUTE that argument. Why? Because despite the fact that there are tens of millions of households in the country with guns and children, and such numbers are increasing, the number of accidental deaths by firearms has been steadily DECLINING.
You crocodile analogy is horseshit because nobody is saying, “Hey guns are safe to just have lying around the house because not a lot of kids get killed!” What the numbers say is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible owners, making sure that their young children cannot get a hold of their firearms — because there or so few deaths. Unless you’re stupid enough to think it’s all dumb luck.
Got Paypal? Let me know what the address is so I can send you a dollar and you can buy yourself a fucking clue.
Me: “Jay, fucking shoot yourself. You are a waste of life.”
Jay: “Yawn. You’re so predictable.”
So are you. Fucking retarded as always.
Me: “I am saying that the CDC numbers are not compelling to your argument.”
Jay: “Ok, let’s make something clear you DUMB FUCK. Neither I, nor JWG made an argument.”
Yes. He. Did.
He directly compared bathtubs to guns.
Jay: “OLIVER did. His argument? That more guns in homes will lead to more children accidentally being killed with firearms.
The CDC statistics DISPUTE that argument.”
No. They. Don’t.
Jay: “Why? Because despite the fact that there are tens of millions of households in the country with guns and children, and such numbers are increasing, the number of accidental deaths by firearms has been steadily DECLINING.”
Tell me how you came to that conclusion using the CDC numbers. Go for it, I dare you. It’s impossible, because they have no information on the number of guns, nor is there any information on rate of change.
Fucking asshole.
So are you.
What’s next? “I know you are, but what am I?” You’re so childish.
He directly compared bathtubs to guns.
No, he did not bring the bathtubs into the discussion until after. He quoted what Oliver said and linked to a blog that had results of CDC statistics to rebut Oliver’s claim.
When JWG talked specifics, you resorted to the lame comment about ENCOUNTERS as if that means anything. The lack of ENCOUNTERS can be directly correlated to the fact that the majority of firearms owners are responsible. In short, you’re bitching that because guns aren’t left lying around by owners, more kids aren’t killed thereby supporting your contention that less guns would mean less deaths. Your words are right there:
A kid aged 1 - 7 will encounter a bath, swimming pool, etc. more than 28 time more often than they encounter a gun.
and
How many times does the same child encounter a gun? Under what circumstances would that even happen? Can you think of any where the outcome is positive?
All you’re saying here is: “The numbers disprove my point of view, so I will argue that only if more gun owners were irresponsible and left guns lying around for kids to get at them, more kids would die and my viewpoint would be substantiated.”
You can’t call a timeout and bitch that the numbers don’t rebut your argument because it doesn’t fit your perfect little scenario.
Tell me how you came to that conclusion using the CDC numbers. Go for it, I dare you. It’s impossible, because they have no information on the number of guns, nor is there any information on rate of change.
The CDC doesn’t have to know the number of guns. They just have the statistics on the deaths. The numbers on the amount of guns come from other sources. Look it up. I’m not here to cover for your laziness.
Fucking asshole.
Zzzzzzzzzzz……BORRRING!!
“No, he did not bring the bathtubs into the discussion until after. He quoted what Oliver said and linked to a blog that had results of CDC statistics to rebut Oliver’s claim.”
No. They. Don’t. (In fact, JWG’s claim about Oliver’s claim is incorrect.)
The fact that you can’t comprehend this is complete proof that you are fucking Republican… I mean retarded. Not that there’s a difference at this point.
There is nothing on that Blog that directly contradicts what Oliver said. Nothing. (If you think there is, please point it out.)
When told about this, JWG said, ‘Bath tubs cause 28x more deaths than guns, but no one is claiming they should be banned’ (Another fucking stupid argument.)
We said, ‘There’s a huge difference between drowning and getting shot. For instance…’ Several points were made here. The main point being kids ages 1 - 7 have a lot more chances to drown than get shot. You can’t just use raw deaths, which is the only thing the Blog gives.
“When JWG talked specifics, you resorted to the lame comment about ENCOUNTERS as if that means anything. The lack of ENCOUNTERS can be directly correlated to the fact…”
To the fact that the average kid will have 50 baths a year, not to mention going swimming a few times, while there is no actual reason for that same kid to ever see or handle a gun.
Therefore, and you need to read this again, and again, and again till you understand it…
Therefore using raw deaths to determine whether or not guns are more dangerous than bathtubs is spurious reasoning.
Got it?
Of course not…
“Look it up. I’m not here to cover for your laziness.”
It’s your fucking claim, you supply the proof.
New attempt at explaining this to you guys, cause goddamnit, you can’t be this stupid…
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drown.htm
According to the CDC, you are more likely to drown in a pool than drown because of a boating accident. Therefore life jackets are pointless.
No one would buy this argument. No one.
Yet this is exactly what you two are saying. (In fact, the NRA fought against laws that are designed to prevent accidental deaths like gun locks, keeping ammo and guns separate at all times, etc.)
You are doing this because you are stupid, and I’m not saying that as a simple insult, I’m saying that because it is the truth. You can’t comprehend a situation that is more complex than right and wrong.
You can’t comprehend that two things can be dangerous for two different reasons and therefore they have to be treated differently.
You can’t comprehend that there are subtleties in the world and that events that have some similarities can be completely different in other aspect and that these differences are more important than the similarities.
People keep called Obama Hussien. Oliver called Michelle Malkin Michelle Malagang. They both involve names, therefore they are the same.
This does not make you unique; sadly, it doesn’t even make you uncommon.
The initial insinuation was that the mere presence of a gun in a house was likely to result in this sort of accident. The CDC statistics effectively refute that assertion. 30-40% of households have at least one gun, but these sort of incidences are very uncommon.
Bringing up how likely a child is to encounter a firearm that is in the house is largely irrelevant other than explaining why this fearmongering is not reasonable.
According to the CDC, you are more likely to drown in a pool than drown because of a boating accident. Therefore life jackets are pointless.
No one would buy this argument. No one.
Yet this is exactly what you two are saying.
No, CS, that is NOT what we are saying. Let’s spell this out for you, so that your tiny little mind can understand it:
THE CLAIM: More guns in houses with children will mean more accidental child deaths from firearms. Ergo, we’re better off limiting the amount of guns in homes with children.
That’s the claim. Nobody is making the argument that guns are completely safe. You’re arguing against a position that nobody is making. If you and Oliver believe that having more firearms in homes where there are children will lead to more deaths, then you need to substantiate that claim.
The CDC statistics merely point out that a lot more children die each year from accidental deaths that are not firearms related. That is a fact. You cannot dispute it. You just cannot. It does not mean that JWG or I are saying, “Guns are safe!” or that bathtubs are more dangerous than guns. JWG was merely using your twisted logic against you and you’re too blind or stupid to see this.
And again you bring up this stupid factoid that a kid is going to take more baths and go for a swim in the pool more than he’s going to see a gun. The next question has to be: Why?
You’re discounting the CDC numbers because more kids don’t actually ‘encounter’ firearms in the home and that’s why the rate of death is lower. Why don’t they encounter them more often? The logical conclusion is that the vast majority of people who have firearms and children in their home store their guns safely so that their kids cannot get at them.
As of yet, you and Oliver haven’t substantiated your claim. If can prove it, do so.
“The initial insinuation was that the mere presence of a gun in a house was likely to result in this sort of accident.”
No it wasn’t, but that’s for playing along.
“Nobody is making the argument that guns are completely safe.”
Never said they were making that argument. 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.
(On a side note, I believe Oliver’s position here is limiting guns to those who can PROVE they are RESPONSIBLE. Closing loopholes, passing safety classes, etc.)
“You’re arguing against a position that nobody is making.”
And ironies of ironies, this is exactly what you are doing.
I also find it ironic that you insulted my intelligence while getting two basic facts about my position wrong.
By the way, you still haven’t explained you, “That’s what the “per 100,000″ is for.” comment. I’d love to hear you justify it in a reality based way.
But he is making the argument that guns are safer than bathtubs and therefore guns are not the problem.
Bzzt. Not true. He was making the argument that homes with guns have a lower percentage of gun-related accidents than the number of homes with bathtubs have bathtub-related accidents, not that guns are safer than bathtubs.
According to http://www.cpsc.gov/library/drwnstat.pdf, from 1996 through 1999, 292 children under 5 died as a result of drowning in a bathtub.
Using the same time period and age range in WISQARS (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html) shows that 84 children died from firearm accidents.
It’s not known exactly how many households have firearms, but most estimates put it around 40%. Using that ratio, the number of accidental firearm deaths of children under 5 would have had to be 116 in order to match the rate of deaths caused by drowning in bathtubs.
Statistically speaking, houses with guns are were roughly 25% less likely to have a gun accident resulting in the death of a child under 5 over that time period than houses with bathtubs were likely to have child under 5 drown to death in a bathtub.
Me: “But he is making the argument that guns are safer than bathtubs and therefore guns are not the problem.”
Jesse: “Bzzt. Not true.”
Really? What about this…
“There are many products/activities that are more dangerous to children than parents owning firearms.”
“…children under 5…”
And what about children over five? What about the total children?
And again, the stats being used still doesn’t get to the heart of the matter.
C.S.Strowbridge: “By the way, you still haven’t explained you, “That’s what the “per 100,000″ is for.” comment. I’d love to hear you justify it in a reality based way.”
I really am confounded as to what you don’t get about that “per 100,000″, CSS. You keep bringing it up as if it was some way out of left field comment that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny rather than an essential (and common) way to compare two items.
Is it not clear that, when comparing two items (such as bathtubs and guns) you need to get the two onto a comparable basis? That’s why we have things in analysis like “per capita” and “per 100,000″.
To say something like “500 people were killed by widgets and 100 people were killed by dunsels” is meaningless until you know how many homes contained each. Widgets look a lot more dangerous until you realize a million homes contain widgets and only 200 contain dunsels. To be able to see which is actually more dangerous to have in the home you have to get the denominator the same.
“500/1000000 vs 100/200? Um, hard to tell which is worse. But that’s the same as 50/100000 vs 50000/100000. Ah, great. Now that they have both been stated in “per 100,000″ I can see that dunsels are in fact 1000x more dangerous.”
C.S.Strowbridge: “And what about children over five? What about the total children?”
What about them? To my ear this sounds like someone who has not been able to adequately refute the evidence, so has started to change the subject.
Vastly more often than not I find myself on the other side of a discussion than Jay. But the way you’re presenting yourself and your arguments isn’t very convincing.
“I really am confounded as to what you don’t get about that “per 100,000″, CSS. You keep bringing it up as if it was some way out of left field comment that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny rather than an essential (and common) way to compare two items.
Is it not clear that, when comparing two items (such as bathtubs and guns) you need to get the two onto a comparable basis? That’s why we have things in analysis like “per capita” and ‘per 100,000′.”
I think you missed what the 100,000 was talking about. It was talking about 100,000 people. Not 100,000 guns or bathtubs.
“To say something like “500 people were killed by widgets and 100 people were killed by dunsels” is meaningless until you know how many homes contained each.”
Right. And how does knowing the deaths per 100,000 people help in this case?
“Widgets look a lot more dangerous until you realize a million homes contain widgets and only 200 contain dunsels.”
Except that’s not what the per 100,000 means. Per capita only matters if you are comparing two different populations while here we are comparing two different methods of death within one population.
So again I am asking for Jay to explain his, “That’s what the ‘per 100,000′ is for.” comment.
C.S.Strowbridge: “And what about children over five? What about the total children?”
Sean: “What about them? To my ear this sounds like someone who has not been able to adequately refute the evidence, so has started to change the subject.”
How? The subject is gun deaths, the other side keeps bringing up tiny slices of evidence and are using that for their side. It sounds to me like they are trying to cherry pick the data that supports their side while ignoring the overall picture.
Sean: To say something like “500 people were killed by widgets and 100 people were killed by dunsels” is meaningless until you know how many homes contained each.”
CSS: Right. And how does knowing the deaths per 100,000 people help in this case?
OK, one of us is just missing something here. To me this exchange is seeming like “2 2 = 4.” “Right. But how do you know it isn’t 5?” I just don’t know how to reply to the reply since the original statement seems to clear and obvious to me.
Ages ago I spent a long time waiting to be picked up at a suburban train station because my Mom and I, despite painstakingly detailed descriptions by both of us as to where we would meet, had simply not understood each other. Whenever I referred to a particular location as a “ramp” she used the word “hill”, and whenever one of us used our word the other heard theirs. And it turned out we were actually not referring to the same place.
We got a ramp/hill situation going on here? ‘Cause I think both of us are sitting here saying “What IS it you don’t get about this?”
sigh (For some reason the plus sign didn’t show in that previous message. Hope nobody actually thinks I’m trying to say 22 = 4….
“OK, one of us is just missing something here. To me this exchange is seeming like “2 2 = 4.” “Right. But how do you know it isn’t 5?” I just don’t know how to reply to the reply since the original statement seems to clear and obvious to me.”
1.) I said to Jay, “Without knowing how many guns / baths there are, you can’t use the CDC numbers to compare how dangerous they are.” You and I agree on that point.
2.) He said, “That’s what the per 100,000 is for.”
3.) However, the per 100,000 is per 100,000 people, not per 100,000 guns and per 100,000 baths. It does not answer the dilemma from #1.
4.) I want him to explain his point in #2 because either I’m missing something, or he is stupid.
CSS: “because either I’m missing something, or he is stupid”
See, THAT’s why you make it really painful to agree with you sometimes. Yeah, I’ve seen what Jay’s written here at OW, and I’ve had my own exchanges with him here and elsewhere where I’ve had difficulty at times with his views and ways of expressing them. But never to the extent that I felt it necessary to knee-jerk reaction resort to calling him sub-human, moron or idiot.
It is at all possible that (like me and like YOU) he also is just missing something?
CSS: ““Without knowing how many guns / baths there are, you can’t use the CDC numbers to compare how dangerous they are.””
The numbers in that chart linked to way back when shows the rate of accidental death for kids age 1 to 7 from various causes. For every 100,000 kids that died in accidents, for 2 it was by drowning, for 1.1 it was a housefire, for .1 it was a firearm.
That’s per death. Now, if you want to know how many per gun or per bathtub then that is actually a different question and you’d have to find different data. But based on the chart originally referenced a kid (age 1-7) who died in an accident is 20 times more likely to have done so by drowning than being shot. And based on that chart, it sure seems to me that pose a greater danger.
You want to change the conditions being discussed, more power to ya. Find the data that shows what you want. Don’t just says his doesn’t.
“But never to the extent that I felt it necessary to knee-jerk reaction resort to calling him sub-human, moron or idiot.”
It’s not a knee-jerk reaction. It is based on his repeated behavior here.
“That’s per death.”
No. It was per capita and not per death. And that doesn’t even matter in this case, as you agree with below.
“Now, if you want to know how many per gun or per bathtub then that is actually a different question and you’d have to find different data.”
Right. And I asked for that data and he said, “That’s what the ‘per 100,000′ is for.”
Again. What he said makes no fucking sense.
CSS: “It’s not a knee-jerk reaction. It is based on his repeated behavior here.”
Regardless of what may have been said before, when a reasonable post is made and the response is “you’re stupid”, that isn’t a response to the message but to the person posting it. It’s an immediate, one might even say knee-jerk, reaction.
CSS: “Right. And I asked for that data and he said, “That’s what the ‘per 100,000′ is for.”
Again. What he said makes no fucking sense.”
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.
CS is harping on this “per 100,000″ thing as though it is the crux of my argument. 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.
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.
No, he is NOT making that argument. Not even close. He’s using your logic against you. Let’s go back to what Oliver wrote:
Please, more guns in houses. We sure want more of these.
There is nothing that I can take from that statement other than the absurd notion that simply having more guns in homes is going to result in more deaths of children. That’s it. The statement is cut and dried. If Oliver meant different, he would have clarified by now.
CS then writes:
On a side note, I believe Oliver’s position here is limiting guns to those who can PROVE they are RESPONSIBLE. Closing loopholes, passing safety classes, etc.
So here CS is trying to gloss over what Oliver said, but what he ‘believes’ is irrelevant. Oliver wrote what he did and did not clarify in any way what he meant.
But let’s assume for one moment that is what he meant. We’re going to limit guns to those who can ‘prove’ they are responsible. Once again however, it brings us back to the many more accidental deaths that occur under circumstances where a parent is not obligated to prove how responsible they are. I just read a story recently of a child that nearly drowned in the bathtub because her mother was caught up watching ‘American Idol.’
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.
It has nothing to do with what is more dangerous and claiming that me or JWG are claiming guns are safer than bathtubs is a total nonsense. What it does show is that the small amount of firearm deaths in relation to the amount of people who own firearms and have children is that that overwhelming majority of firearms owners are responsible.
“CS is harping on this “per 100,000″ thing as though it is the crux of my argument.”
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.
Sean: “Regardless of what may have been said before, when a reasonable post is made and the response is “you’re stupid”,”
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.
Well, ya gots me there, C. I mean, who can possibly doubt the superior intellect of someone who brings out such unassailable positions as calling those who disagree with him “fucking subhumans”? Your maturity oozes from every pore.
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.
“Well, ya gots me there, C. I mean, who can possibly doubt the superior intellect of someone who brings out such unassailable positions as calling those who disagree with him “fucking subhumans”? Your maturity oozes from every pore.”
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.
You can’t attack my positions, so you attack my language.
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.
“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.
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.”
Then explain yourself and don’t run away from the question when asked. This is what an actual human would do.
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.
CSS:
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:”
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.
“CSS: Still not stating his position. A clear opportunity to do so, and instead it’s always the other guys fault.”
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?”
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.”
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.
Holding a golf club in the air during a thunderstorm is more dangerous than driving a car.
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.
CSS: Holding a golf club in the air during a thunderstorm is more dangerous than driving a car.
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.
CSS: 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.
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?
CSS points out something important that I don’t think that Sean and Jay are understanding. Yes, you’re more likely to die in a car accident than by being struck by lightning. However, this is a product of the relative amounts of time that you do those respective activities. If we looked at rate data, the rate of deaths per hour of driving would likely be less than the rate of deaths per hour of holding a golf club in the air during lightning storms. The latter is likely far more dangerous than the former.
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.
mambochicken23: “CSS points out something important that I don’t think that Sean and Jay are understanding. Yes, you’re more likely to die in a car accident than by being struck by lightning. However, this is a product of the relative amounts of time that you do those respective activities.”
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.
HOW MANY POEPLE DIE SURFING EACH YEAR?