Shouldn’t people be free to value things as they see fit? Why would you dictate what people should value?
Our economy would restructure with no cars. Instead of people living in suburban houses they would live in giant dystopian high rises. They could walk to work or use public transportation. It seems you value the freedom of driving your car more than human life. That is if we are going to apply the logic consistently.
How does he speak disingenuously, i.e., he explains his methodolgy forthrightly in response to his critics in the interview I posted?josie_L:
He speaks, but he is caught speaking disingenuously. Now what.
And what about the small number statsitics problem?
I believe in reasonable exceptions, such as the uses you mentioned and others like it.LeafByNiggle:
That would be true except at the extremes. If, say, most medical expenses are incurred by people over the age of 65 (which is true) we could, with certainty, greatly decrease the national expenditure for medical services by simply killing all people over the age of 65. But that’s something this society is not (yet?) willing to do.
With guns, we simply have a debate, in which both sides have plausible arguments. On the one hand, some argue that getting rid of guns will reduce the murder rate by some unknown factor. There is a certain plausibility to that, since guns are pretty effective instruments. On the other hand, we have the fact that some number of potentially deadly or injurious criminal acts are prevented by citizens who have guns. And we have no idea whatever of the number of lives saved or serious injuries prevented by, say, my enhanced ability with an AR-15 to prevent armadillos from digging holes in a pasture that I or someone else might drop a tractor tire into. We do have some idea of the economic loss due to feral hogs, by way of example. A quick search shows that it was $74 million in Louisiana alone in 2013. Semi-automatic rifles are extremely useful in killing them. So, do we make exceptions for semi-automatic rifle suppression, but only in areas where they’re common, or do we also allow enhanced access as well in places where they’re present but not yet well established?
If that change took place over a long enough time period, that might be true. Although the fact that you call it a dystopia shows that you agree with me about cars quite a bit. And in fact we might some day eliminate the use of cars just as we have essentially eliminated the used of horses in cites. (Except for parades and a few mounted police.) Even now they are talking about how all cars will eventually become self-driving for safety. So the scenario you paint is not that far-fetched.
To my best understanding, I am allowed to speak about what I wish and in the way I wish. If that seems nonchalant to you, then so be it. You didn’t answer my question, preferring to challenge me to identify those who favor gun bans, and you’re free to do that as well. You could have just said you don’t want to respond.
He is disingenuous in the manner that he discounts his opponents, as noted and highlighted in my post on the matter. This is bad; it is not what a scientist who has the facts does.
But why not ban them now? How many have to die until we give up car freedom? How can we accept that?
When you play rhetorical tricks to disguise an outlandish claim as something more innocuous on a forum, don’t expect it to go without notice by all of the people all of the time.
Because many more would die of starvation if we banned cars instantly.LeafByNiggle:
But why not ban them now? How many have to die until we give up car freedom? How can we accept that?
Probably. But we could have a ten year plan to ban them. Why not do that? And likewise frying pans. Only allow restaurants, which are licensed, to have frying pans. Again we have a ten year plan. That way people can adjust.
No, he is not discounting his opponents but refuting them. In fact, a study from the Journal of Harvard Law corroborates his findings:josie_L:
He is disingenous in the manner that he discounts his opponents, as noted and highlighted in my post on the matter. This is bad; it is not what a scientists who has the facts does.
It took more than 10 years to transition from horses to cars. But this is getting just silly, and you know it.LeafByNiggle:
Probably. But we could have a ten year plan to ban them. Why not do that? And likewise frying pans. Only allow restaurants, which are licensed, to have frying pans. Again we have a ten year plan. That way people can adjust.
Five minutes on google would disabuse you of that belief.
Statistically, your weapon is as likely to cause harm to your family as it would protect them. As far as physically powerful, what makes you think that you would be better with a gun than them? I find many gun owners seem to think a gun is a great equalizer. It’s not. There are people that are good with guns and people that are not.
No, it just shows that people don’t want to remove all dangers to human life. They only want to remove the dangers to human life they don’t personally like or use.
I’m not a social scientist or criminologist, either one, but I think we would need to know more about the Australia situation in order to conclude that banning semi-automatic weapons was the cause of a reduction in suicides and homicides. For one thing, since most gun suicides are not done with rifles, was the ban also on semi-automatic pistols? And what is considered a semi-automatic pistol? It is difficult for me to picture how a pistol being semi-automatic would increase the likelihood of suicide over, say, a revolver or even a single-shot pistol.
This gets said a lot, but what exactly is the evidence for this claim? Gun accidents do occur. But I don’t know that it is more likely you harm a family member accidentally than use it for self defense.
Looks to me like it is trying to compare apples and oranges. It does not use the same criteria for both graphs.