Reply #38

In the discussion thread: On guns, and the way the discussions are conducted. [View all]

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:18 PM

38. I think you read my post the wrong way.

Ending the war directly reduced the number of additional people being directly affected by it to zero. Long-term consequences or delayed indirect consequences are another matter, but the cause obviously lied before the end of the war. Ending the war eliminated the cause but of course not the effects.

I actually thought it was clear what I meant

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

69 replies	Author	Time	Post
On guns, and the way the discussions are conducted. [View all]	redgreenandblue	Dec 2012	OP
Thanks for the inane advice	billh58	Dec 2012	#1
The statistics twisting isn't isolated	pipoman	Dec 2012	#2
Still trying to ascribe that chart to Brady, huh?	Scuba	Jan 2013	#46
I can ascribe it to anyone I wish.	pipoman	Jan 2013	#61
Yes, proper use of statistical data is "inane."	Lizzie Poppet	Dec 2012	#28
Your post is a long-winded exercise in willful ignorance.	Robb	Dec 2012	#3
Have you comprehended my post?	redgreenandblue	Dec 2012	#4
plot this?	farminator3000	Jan 2013	#57
Actually, 10,000 gun deaths is 10,000 more than nothing.	Iggo	Dec 2012	#5
Good point, one that the gun culture misses.	Hoyt	Dec 2012	#11
Sometimes absolute numbers are interesting and revealing in and of themselves	Fumesucker	Dec 2012	#6
When something scales up with system size, you need to divide by system size.	redgreenandblue	Dec 2012	#8
You said the numbers always had to divide by population	Fumesucker	Dec 2012	#12
"Argumentum ad Logicam" i.e. "Fallacist's Fallacy"	redgreenandblue	Dec 2012	#16
So you assumed that a group of mostly laymen would have your grasp of statistics immediately	Fumesucker	Dec 2012	#17
Exactly like the NRA assumes	billh58	Dec 2012	#20
There may be a relationship, and I am not in fact claiming that America doesn't have a gun problem.	redgreenandblue	Dec 2012	#21
No...	LP2K12	Dec 2012	#7
Gun huggers hate absolute numbers.	99Forever	Dec 2012	#9
Here's an easy enough rule...IF there were no guns, there could be no gun violence.	jmg257	Dec 2012	#10
The graph you are looking for is this one:	redgreenandblue	Dec 2012	#13
Thanks! nt	jmg257	Dec 2012	#14
I do love that chart	Recursion	Dec 2012	#19
Very interesting.	redgreenandblue	Jan 2013	#55
Linear Corr is too subjective	AldoLeopold	Dec 2012	#29
It can be revealing despite its limitations	Recursion	Jan 2013	#58
Excellent post....	ileus	Dec 2012	#15
What else do guns do to people? nt	Robyn66	Dec 2012	#43
Guns don't do anything to people?	ileus	Dec 2012	#44
So the gun has nothing to do with people being shot?	Robyn66	Jan 2013	#47
OK.	DanTex	Dec 2012	#18
+1000	billh58	Dec 2012	#22
Thanks.	redgreenandblue	Dec 2012	#23
I think the comparison to Vietnam is not entirely valid.	redgreenandblue	Dec 2012	#24
I was there, and you're wrong.	billh58	Dec 2012	#30
I think you read my post the wrong way.	redgreenandblue	Dec 2012	#38
Some fair points, but...	DanTex	Dec 2012	#32
Great post. Thank you. nt	Chorophyll	Dec 2012	#34
that's more than OK!	farminator3000	Jan 2013	#50
I have a problem with this whole discussion	Robyn66	Dec 2012	#25
Statistics are cold, but they are what matters when thinking about policy.	redgreenandblue	Dec 2012	#26
Then why do you need to use statistics	Robyn66	Dec 2012	#33
Because manipulated	billh58	Dec 2012	#35
It is often in a person's best interest to be treated as a statistic.	redgreenandblue	Dec 2012	#39
But you ARE arguing in opposition to	billh58	Dec 2012	#42
Can you argue a point without resorting to ad hominem attacks?	redgreenandblue	Jan 2013	#52
Of course your	billh58	Jan 2013	#56
Because "common sense" can lead to wrong conclusions.	redgreenandblue	Jan 2013	#54
That's great when you arent talking about lives being lost. (nt)	Robyn66	Jan 2013	#60
You are kidding, right?	redgreenandblue	Jan 2013	#64
Ok I give up	Robyn66	Jan 2013	#68
I consider any life lost a tragedy.	redgreenandblue	Jan 2013	#69
Why is per capita so critical, when the U.S. is 10th highest in the world?	DirkGently	Dec 2012	#27
There you go.	billh58	Dec 2012	#31
Among "developed" nations, we are the bottom of the barrel in more ways than one.	Chorophyll	Dec 2012	#36
Unfortunately, too true.	billh58	Dec 2012	#40
I don't think the per capita helps you here	dsc	Dec 2012	#37
I fear the other driver more than any terrorist or gun, plane crash, robber, home invaders, police,	L0oniX	Dec 2012	#41
"The fact that over ten thousand people die from guns each year contains zero usable information."	Scuba	Jan 2013	#45
There is a disturbing trend on this site	Robyn66	Jan 2013	#49
Actually, the 2nd Amendment "has nothing to do with hunting"..n/t	pipoman	Jan 2013	#62
Worst offender: Michael Moore. BULLSHIT	spanone	Jan 2013	#48
Only those supporting control of firearms are under this kind of scrutiny?	Buzz Clik	Jan 2013	#51
No. The arguments in favor of gun posession should face the same scrutiny.	redgreenandblue	Jan 2013	#53
Good! I would love to see....	Buzz Clik	Jan 2013	#59
Or the number of	billh58	Jan 2013	#63
0.0000000008.25 % of US population killed in Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre.	ehrenfeucht games	Jan 2013	#65
No, because this is again an incorrect way to argue with statistics.	redgreenandblue	Jan 2013	#66
We could talk in absolute numbers. 20 children. 6 women.	ehrenfeucht games	Jan 2013	#67

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.