StrangeSox

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 19, 2009 -> 09:48 AM) I was thinking this weekend, and wondering what the comments would be. What would the economy look like if there was no governments to run deficits and control it? We talk about how the government has to deficit spend and borrow money, and pay interest, to keep the economy moving. That that mean there can be no long term successful economy without governments? Depends on who you ask. Left-wing anarchists would see it as the ultimate form of communism, where everything is collectively owned and there is no need for government. Right-wing anarchists would see it as a capitalist utopia where no one is forced or compelled to do anything, but society overall flourishes (see Atlas Shrugged for an example). Personally, I think it'd be more like Mad Max, though not because of a lack of deficit spending.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 18, 2009 -> 07:27 PM) How could you project a team coming off a 110-64 stretch to be an 82-80 squad in 2006? Did the computers not watch that season's playoff games? Guess not. Apparently the computers automatically predicted our pitching staff would regress, but with all the talent/money added to payroll, I would have a hard time imagining any HUMAN BEING picking the White Sox for less than 88-90 wins coming off that World Series championship. Results are only as good as your data and model. Apparently, they have a crappy model. "Garbage in, garbage out"

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 6, 2009 -> 02:08 PM) So, anyone else going? The state of MD, never one to miss an opportunity to collect revenue, is getting in on the gouging, round trip commuter train tickets to DC on the 20th are 25 dollars each. That's minor compared to what everyone else is doing though. Based on how bad the commute was from the Inaugural Concert, getting home from the actual inauguration might take several days.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 18, 2009 -> 11:48 AM) About a month ago, I decided I was going to see all of the movies that are getting consideration for Best Picture and Best Actor. The only exception is Revolutionary Road. The preview did absolutely nothing for me, and it looked extremely boring. That's what I thought, too. "Monotonous suburban life can lead to a miserable existence" -- tell me something that isn't blatantly obvious.

There's no quantum physics there, fwiw. That's just basic Newtonian mechanics. edit: Here's the page with quantum physics: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/12043 And a more in-depth explanation from the guy who actually did it: http://msm.grumpybumpers.com/?p=20

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 18, 2009 -> 10:21 PM) Who really runs the world? It's not the UN, or any one "country". Illuminati? Free Masons? Reynolds Tin Foil company?

In addition to widespread corruption, it has also failed to bring about success in places like Darfur or Somalia. Its resolutions can be ignored with little or not consequences. I wouldn't say it's useless or counterproductive, but it needs to do much better than its doing now.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 11:43 AM) Will I be seeing huge sales soon? 50 inch TV for $200 type sale? No. They sold all their merchandise to a liquidation company. These companies come in and jack up the prices x% and then "HUGE discount" them (x-5)%. So while it may be marked 50% off, it's really only 5 or 10% cheaper than it originally was. You can still get a deal, but nothing like 50" HDV for $200

There are definitely two different discussions to have (effective policy [data] vs. morals/ rights), but that doesn't mean we can't have both. Bringing in London stats is relevant because its a real-world example we can study to determine the effectiveness of gun control. There are obvious cultural differences we need to take into account, but it can still be applied. If someone is going to make an argument to ban something based on public safety, they should be able to support their position beyond emotional appeals and fears. Yes, this is a complicated subject, but that doesn't mean it is impossible to quantify and study. Real-world effectiveness of laws isn't determined by philosophical debates and moral arguments. Realistically, either gun bans reduce violent crime or they don't. CCW either makes people safer or it doesn't. As long as people believe some laws are effective, even if they are not, the laws are not a failure? Logical conclusions are never based on incredulity, anecdotes or popularity. By this measure, because enough people believe airport screening makes us safer, we've taken great steps to reduce the threat of airline terrorism. However, this is directly contradicted by real-world studies that repeatedly show the measures failing to do what they are supposed to do -- just like gun control. Someone can't just throw out what has actually happened because it doesn't support their philosophical argument. I reject the idea that the best measure of a law's success or failure is how the majority of people feel about it. There are objective ways to measure success.

QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 09:25 AM) Yes people like you truly do suck, come into stores ask the associates questions about it than leave and buy it online. I cant blame you for wanting to save money but it truly is irritating when you get those customers. I usually will go look at the physical product first, but I won't bother the associates.

That's a shame. I always liked him the most on that show. He wasn't afraid to criticize station management on-air so maybe they just had enough.

Doubt was phenomenal. You could definitely tell it was adapted from a play.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:40 PM) Getting a gun to hopefully prevent yourself from being that 1 in a million that's murdered each year? That's logical? Sigh. Why do you continue to ignore the tens of thousands of other violent crimes? QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:40 PM) You're completely ignoring half of my arguments now. You're just calling it a logical fallacy if you dont have a sufficient answer. And you obviously are not rational if you think drunk people should be given guns. I'm not ignoring any of your arguments. They're just mostly emotional, ad hominem, or strawmen. I don't think "drunk people should be given guns." That's another strawman. I said that there are plenty of states with carry laws that allow people to carry in bars without any problems. QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:41 PM) Can you cite the statistic that shows how often a person carrying a gun prevents a violent crime from ever occurring to them? There's one report out there that says about 2.5M a year, but I'm skeptical. That sort of statistic would be incredibly hard to track. edit: Apparently the DoJ did this study in 1994 and came up with 1.5M crimes prevented by guns. I don't believe it breaks out concealed carry. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf Pertinent quote: So, every day we have millions of people carrying without any of these fantasy Rambo moments you guys are worried about. Can you cite anything that shows gun bans prevent violent crimes? QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:43 PM) There's no proof, it's all conjecture. You can check your NRA brochure for more. NRA is generally a completely self-serving organization. There are plenty of gun owners who hold the NRA in low regard. QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:59 PM) That's not it all. Stats don't overrule logic in all cases, and I don't think they do in this debate. Every "party" is different; different people, different settings, different moods, different contexts. Stats from one have no bearing on another. Its like a poster said earlier; stats showing there's no crime in Boofoo, Hicksville where everyone has guns do not translate to Chicago, Illinois. As to your question; If there was a way of knowing in advance, I'd prefer to attend the party where there are more guns, and the bad guys are offset or outgunned. That's a no brainer. However, there's no way of knowing that ahead of time. In actual society, you won't know who's packing until somebody (the bad guy) draws. Once that happens, a dangerous situation exists, no matter what. The fact that a good guy might be present and able to draw back could reduce the danger or it might enhance it; once again that would depend upon the specific context and the characters. I don't see how that could ever be meaningfully measured or predicted in advance with statistics. Legally, with guns bans, you may not know which thug is packing, but you know that none of the law-abiding citizens are. Criminals generally don't want to be shot. If there's an increased chance of a potential victim shooting back, they'll be less likely to attack in the first place. QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 02:52 AM) for the record, I don't live in chicago. I don't know what your laws are I haven't lived here in 4 years. But, further, no where in my statements did I indicate I needed a lecture that was given in your post. edit: and more for the record, if this thread doesn't convince you that data is almost completely useless on a topic like this I don't know what will. I'm very confused. How is measurement of the effects of policy completely useless when discussing firearm ownership and concealed carry? What if the data show, time and again, that guns bans aren't effective at doing anything but disarming victims; meaningless? Then what is useful? How do we tell if gun bans or concealed carry permits have the outcomes we hope? Half of this thread was a bunch of emotional rants from BigSqwert and Duke. Calling gun owners lunatics and ignoring any crime in Chicago that isn't a murder doesn't convince me that data is meaningless.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:36 PM) Protection from what? I cited the murder rate in Chicago for 2008 which was about 1 in a million. Getting a gun to protect you from a 1 in a million risk seems excessive seeing that it won't necessarily prevent you from being murdered. I cited violent crime, which is in the tens of thousands.

Sigh, still not a logical argument to be found. Again, I don't own a gun and haven't fired one in over ten years (I was maybe 12). People who do own guns aren't looking to be "Mr. Hero." This is a retarded belief held by people with irrational fears of a dangerous but inanimate object. How many attempted violent crimes ever occur in a crowded place, aside from nutjob massacres? None, so you wouldn't have to worry about someone wildly firing into a crowd because they wouldn't be defending themselves from anything. They are still allowed to carry the gun in the station to somewhere else where the potential for danger is higher, though. I said an argument *Could* be made for schools, but I didn't make it because I'm not sure where I stand on that. Again, there are plenty of examples of large cities with CCW. And yes, they're allowed in bars and train stations shootouts don't happen! These insane fantasies of anti-gun nuts just don't happen. It's not reality.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:20 PM) Let's test your rationality. Where do you draw the line on where you can bring a gun? What about courts, schools, bars, crowded train stations? Do you propose just being allowed to carry your death dispenser anywhere you want? More logical fallacy fun! Appeal to emotion! Courts have a reasonable, rational exemption and are secured buildings. Allowing a teacher or principal to carry in an elementary or high school is more of a gray area, but the case can certainly be made. At Columbine, for example, they specifically planned to attack when the one officer who was sometimes at the school, wasn't. This left hundreds of victims unable to defend themselves. Bars and train stations? Sure. Happens every day in numerous states in this country without any issues. Your emotional, irrational fear of guns leads you to believe that anyone who owns one (which is >50% of Americans, I believe) is a lunatic looking to shoot someone, which is absolutely untrue. QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:20 PM) Of course! You never know where someone might want to murder you. More logical fallacy fun! Appeal to ridicule! You attempted to make a flippant, ridiculing response but helped make my point. You cannot rely on police protection because a) they aren't always around and B) you have no Constitutional right to protection.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:13 PM) If you are comfortable carrying a deadly weapon whose sole purpose is to kill a target on your waist you're a deranged lunatic. Resounding "no" to my logic question. The purpose is to defend yourself from a threat. QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:11 PM) What if every country in the world had nuclear weapons, would be comfortable with that? False appeal to analogy. QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:14 PM) This self defense excuse needs to be dropped. Out of the millions of people in Chicago, 509 people were murdered in 2008. I can't imagine a large proportion of those people murdered were just walking down the street minding their own business. The odds of you getting murdered in Chicago are pretty slim. Why does it need to be dropped? Because you cannot provide a rational argument against? Study after study has shown that communities and cities which allow citizens to defend themselves tend to have less crime. Cities with strict gun control (like Chicago and DC) tend to have more. Chicago bucked the national trend and actually saw an increase in violent crimes and, in particular, murder this last year. Furthermore, murder is not the only violent crime. Scroll about halfway down for crime statistics. There are tens of thousands of assaults, robberies and rapes each year in Chicago. Are all of those gang-related? http://www.city-data.com/city/Chicago-Illinois.html

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:07 PM) Because what if you miss? I have a basic right to not get shot by an idiot with a handgun who tried to be the hero and hit me instead. You carrying a loaded gun around everyone is a direct violation of that right. You're not being just responsible for yourself, you're assuming responsibility for everyone. I dont want a deranged gun nut lunatic protecting me. And this happens how often? Virtually never, if not entirely never*? Also, your last sentence is just a poor ad hominem. People who own guns are not gun nuts. People who carry guns are not deranged lunatics. Deranged lunatics are not legally allowed to own guns. Can any anti-gun person here use a valid, logical argument? *This is different from accidental in-home shootings because we're talking about carrying, not home defense. Tragic accidents are rare but they do occur.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:05 PM) To me, it's really this simple. Anything else is canceled out by this piece of logic. I think a caveat needs to be tacked on: If strict gun control actually lead to a significant reduction in crime, it would be a tougher argument to make. It would become an individual liberty/ rights vs. overall societal benefit argument. In reality, even pragmatically gun bans don't make sense.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:59 PM) I've never been persuaded by statistical arguments in gun debates, whether used by either side. I don't think an assertion like yours can be conclusively proven or disproven. My thoughts are based on a certain logic, which I freely admit is overly simplistic. If I go to a party attended by 100 people, none of whom has a gun, my chances of being shot at that party are virtually zero. I think that my chances of getting shot increase if even one person at the party has a gun, regardless of whether that person is a trained and responsible off-duty cop, or a crazed, murderous thug. My chances likely go up even more if both a cop AND a murderous thug are there and both armed. Gun supporters like to believe that the cop and the thug cancel each other out; or that if everyone of the 100 people at the party was armed, everyone would be equally safe. I personally think it would be lot more dangerous. Statistics will never convince me otherwise. I realize, of course, that if society at large is the "party," I have no chance of ever attending a party without guns. I would just prefer to attend a party where there are fewer guns, not more. I'm sorry, but that argument is essentially "I believe this and will continue to do so regardless of how illogical my position is shown to be." Would you prefer to attend a party where only the thugs have guns, or where there are more guns and both the thugs and responsible individuals have guns? QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:00 PM) And whenever I read about a murder in Logan Square it always involves gang retaliation. Since I don't plan on joining a gang in the area or selling drugs anytime soon I'm pretty sure I won't be high on a gangs' hit list. That means you must be safe from all potential violent crimes then.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:57 PM) My house got broken into a year ago and you had best believe if I had been present and armed that there would've been a couple rounds expended. I've got kids. I don't f*** around with that. The last thing I'd ever want to do is shoot someone. As just about anyone who's ever had to do it can tell you, it sticks with you for a long, long time. However, I hope I wouldn't hesitate for a second if they posed a threat to my loved ones or myself.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:53 PM) I guess I don't understand what you're preparing for by carrying a gun. Do random people in your area who are not affiliated with gangs get mugged and shot at on a daily basis? Is there a very high risk that you will be mugged or shot at? Getting a gun in case one of those things were to happen to you seems like overkill. No, I'm pretty sure the murder and crime rates in Logan Square are higher than where I live. You're preparing for a worst-case scenario, and hopefully the increased likelihood of a victim carrying a weapon reduces the likelihood of an attack in the first place. How many times has my kitchen caught in fire in my entire life? Zero, but I still have a fire extinguisher, smoke alarms and home insurance in case something bad were to happen.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:43 PM) Those things have never happened to me at this stage of my life and I won't add extra layers of stress to my life thinking about it. I also haven't bought duct tape and saran wrap in case there's a terrorist attack but maybe I should consider it. Heck, might as well buy a parachute too in case my next flight is involved in a bird strike. More strawmen, and I know you've made this argument in the past. Gun owners do not sit about fretting over potential crimes. They aren't action-hero wannabes with itchy trigger fingers and a gun tapped under the table. These are strawmen caricatures painted by the anti-gun side. Do you take no preventative or preparatory measures in your life? Do you have life insurance, or do you not want the extra stress of worrying about your death? Do you have health insurance, or do you not want to be bothered by the stress of possibly being sick? Do you keep a fire extinguisher or smoke detectors in your house? Why so paranoid about fire?!!?!!?! I'll take the lack of any relevant statistics about the dangers of concealed carry as conceding the point. edit: lostfan brings up the best point of all. I don't advocate giving everyone a gun or making everyone carry. I don't own one myself and have only ever fired a small-caliber rifle over ten years ago in Boy Scouts. My grandfather had a shotgun for hunting, but my parents have never owned a weapon. But I strongly support our ability to exercise our Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights to protect ourselves. If you choose not to, no problem!

I see, thanks for the clarification NSS. I thought I understood the incorporation business but I'm not quite there yet.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:36 PM) And those are the 2 words I'd used to describe the idea of letting more people walk around carrying guns. Please cite statistics or provide a logical argument against. Personal incredulity is not a logical argument. What do you do to defend yourself if a mugger pulls a knife and the police are nowhere to be found? If someone breaks into your home while you're there?