Gun sales and safety both at all time high

[Syne]

These two guys actually went to get their carry permits, and were just talking about what happened. They aren't anti-gun or anything.
http://dissonancepod.com/episode-306-5-concealed-carry-breakfast-club/

Hearsay -

unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge
an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor​

Hearsay and anecdotal evidence is not determined by motive. These guys relating unverified info doesn't magically grant your unverified info credibility. That's about as much support for a claim as a handful of people claiming to have witnessed a UFO, ghost, werewolf, aliens, etc.. Unless you're MR, that usually isn't compelling.

 

[spidergoat]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ordinary claims, like some laws aren't strictly enforced to the letter, do not. Take it for what it's worth, I don't care.

 

[iceaura]

Still denying facts?

This matches a pattern we've seen plenty of times in the past: tragedy, followed by calls for gun control, followed by surging firearm sales.

I'm denying that Obama's "speeches on gun control" (?) were even involved, let alone primary triggers as you claimed.

It was his election, and re-election, that triggered the Obama-associated spikes you document there. Look at them, their timing, and the actual content of the speeches Obama made immediately prior.

If you look at the breakdown and distribution of the gun sales and permit requests, if you go back and review the public discussion, the primary feature of his election that drove the gun spike was his race. Obama never held gun control to be a high priority, and none of his few and seldom mentioned gun control measures were unusually threatening or restrictive. But he was black, and a Democrat. That created panic - was used to create panic by the Republican media operations.

 

[Oystein]

Hearsay -​

Your facts fall into this. Obama had nothing to do with soaring gun sales -- that's the paranoia of the NRA right-wing Nazi wingnuts. Cowards, really. Afraid to be without a gun for the time it takes for them to drain their tiny penises.​

 

[iceaura]

Another factor in the lower accident rate is the concentration of guns in fewer hands - a smaller percentage of people own guns, those who do own more. That lowers the accident rate in a couple of different ways.

It also points to an incoming saturation of the US market. Firearms tend to be durable goods.

 

[Randwolf]

"Fact: Only 2% of gun deaths are from accidents, and some insurance investigations indicate that many of these may not be accidents after all." - http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/accidental-deaths/#note-83-5So as gun deaths plummet, so would those potentially misreported as accidents.
And just like every Obama speech about gun control boosted both guns sales and carry permits, the '94 assault weapons ban galvanized many people into exercising their rights.

Nothing to disagree with here.

For one, those don't have mutually exclusive solutions. Choosing between them is a false dilemma.

Asking one to rank the severity does not present a false dilemma - there you go again...

Apparently I live in a state with higher training requirements.

Such as New Hampshire or North Dakota, perhaps?

 

[Syne]

Constitutional Carry states are trivially not comparable.

Your facts fall into this. Obama had nothing to do with soaring gun sales -- that's the paranoia of the NRA right-wing Nazi wingnuts. Cowards, really. Afraid to be without a gun for the time it takes for them to drain their tiny penises.​

Ignoring clear facts with copious ad hominems.

 

[Oystein]

Constitutional Carry states are trivially not comparable.

Ignoring clear facts with copious ad hominems.

Relax there. The ad homs weren't directed at you. Unless you consider yourself an "NRA right-wing Nazi wingnut".

 

[Syne]

Relax there. The ad homs weren't directed at you. Unless you consider yourself an "NRA right-wing Nazi wingnut".

Never assumed they were directed at me, but they were bigoted ad hominems nonetheless.
Not much different than saying "all blacks are lazy".

 

[Oystein]

Never assumed they were directed at me, but they were bigoted ad hominems nonetheless.

So?

 

[Syne]

So?

"Hate speech and stereotyping
I6. Hate speech, defined as the vilification of groups of people based on their race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation etc. is not tolerated on sciforums."​

 

[Oystein]

Jeez. Keep your pantyhose on there Syne. You must really align yourself with the NRA crowd to take it so hard. In other words, take your meds and relax.

Besides, all those dastardly things I said about the NRA crowd are true. You didn't know that?

 

[iceaura]

Ignoring clear facts with copious ad hominems.

When are you going to look up "ad hominem" in a dictionary?
Thing is, you don't have to use big words because you're on a science forum. Your real sciencey-type folks will appreciate simple, accurate, honest, prose.

Never assumed they were directed at me, but they were bigoted ad hominems nonetheless.
Not much different than saying "all blacks are lazy".

Insulting people for their bad behavior is more or less the opposite of ascribing bad behavior to people as an insult. And neither is an ad hominem argument.

Constitutional Carry states are trivially not comparable.

Sure they are - with each other, and with other States. Why not?
Although State aggregated statistics in this and other matters are notoriously misleading, if more carefully broken down and carefully handled they can lead to regional comparisons and circumstantial comparisons of different legal regimes, which may be informative. The States are after all the organizational structure of much of American law.

One thing you can learn by doing that is that there is little if any correlation between "gun" prevalence in a given area (lumping all guns together, because that's what people do for some reason) and the rate of non-suicide gun violence in that area. No correlation means no positive or negative correlation. Beyond the obvious requirement for some minimum number of "guns" to have gun violence at all - a minimum long ago swamped everywhere in the US - the mere presence of greater or lesser numbers of generic firearms of some kind in the general vicinity does not seem to establish either risk or safety.

And neither do wrinkles like carry permits, etc. This may be because the key numbers are likely to be the percentage of gun owners with carry permits, and the percentage of guns accessible only to such a gun owner.

So much as anyone would celebrate any sign of adult responsibility and due diligence in the modern American gun owner, carry permits with their concomitant registrations and requirements and so forth don't seem to be a significant factor one way or the other.

 

[Oystein]

. . . they were bigoted ad hominems. Not much different than saying "all blacks are lazy".

Poking fun of the behavior of the NRA crowd (which is what I did) and making a racially bigoted statement are two completely different things -- not even in the same ballpark. The first is poking fun at the behavior of members of a club, the second is an awful racist thing to say.

Now here is an ad hom you can take to the bank: You are an idiot.

 

[Syne]

When are you going to look up "ad hominem" in a dictionary?
Thing is, you don't have to use big words because you're on a science forum. Your real sciencey-type folks will appreciate simple, accurate, honest, prose.

Apparently you need to.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. - wiki​

And if any of those are "big words", we can all see why you need to consult a dictionary.

Insulting people for their bad behavior is more or less the opposite of ascribing bad behavior to people as an insult. And neither is an ad hominem argument.

There was no bad behavior mentioned other than those implied by the ad hominem ascribing Nazi association. Go look. So what specific bad behavior as you claiming?

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

Poking fun of the behavior of the NRA crowd (which is what I did) and making a racially bigoted statement are two completely different things -- not even in the same ballpark. The first is poking fun at the behavior of members of a club, the second is an awful racist thing to say.

Now here is an ad hom you can take to the bank: You are an idiot.

We get it. Believe me, we do.

But please refrain from calling others "idiot".

And Syne.. Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop making everything about you and claiming offense at things that were clearly aimed at "NRA right-wing Nazi wingnut"..

 

[iceaura]

is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument,

You use the word for insults that have nothing to do with any argument, or rebuttal. There's no argument involved, hence no ad hominem argument. And if there were, it still wouldn't refer to the terms themselves - words are not "ad hominems", logically fallacious arguments are.

There was no bad behavior mentioned other than those implied by the ad hominem ascribing Nazi association. Go look. So what specific bad behavior as you claiming?

Here's my post: " Insulting people for their bad behavior is more or less the opposite of ascribing bad behavior to people as an insult. And neither is an ad hominem argument. "

Laziness is bad behavior you ascribed to black people in your analogy. The insult from others for observed bad behavior, the "ad hominems" you were reacting to? You have to see that for yourself. But the absence of ad hominem argument remains, perfectly clear.

 

[Syne]

And Syne.. Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop making everything about you and claiming offense at things that were clearly aimed at "NRA right-wing Nazi wingnut"..

You're being a bit obtuse or disingenuous if you don't read that as an association of all "NRA right-wing" with "Nazi wingnut", but whatever....I'm sure you'll never see anything against the right as a violation.

You use the word for insults that have nothing to do with any argument, or rebuttal. There's no argument involved, hence no ad hominem argument. And if there were, it still wouldn't refer to the terms themselves - words are not "ad hominems", logically fallacious arguments are.

I guess you missed the preceding "Your facts fall into this. Obama had nothing to do with soaring gun sales..." because ad hominem.

Here's my post: " Insulting people for their bad behavior is more or less the opposite of ascribing bad behavior to people as an insult. And neither is an ad hominem argument. "

Laziness is bad behavior you ascribed to black people in your analogy. The insult from others for observed bad behavior, the "ad hominems" you were reacting to? You have to see that for yourself. But the absence of ad hominem argument remains, perfectly clear.

The full post was:

Your facts fall into this. Obama had nothing to do with soaring gun sales -- that's the paranoia of the NRA right-wing Nazi wingnuts. Cowards, really. Afraid to be without a gun for the time it takes for them to drain their tiny penises.

He's clearly trying to refute the argument by claiming it is "paranoia" of "cowards"...directly inferring those ad hominems to arguer as a way to poison the well...also a psychogenetic fallacy.

 

[iceaura]

I guess you missed the preceding "Your facts fall into this. Obama had nothing to do with soaring gun sales..." because ad hominem.

I don't see an argument or a rebuttal of an argument.

He's clearly trying to refute the argument by claiming it is "paranoia" of "cowards"

You ascribed the gun sale spikes to Obama's speeches, he ascribed them to paranoia and the people suffering from the paranoia as Nazis, rightwing, wingnuts, and cowards. No ad hominem argument appears. And his evidence is as good as yours, btw.

as a way to poison the well...also a psychogenetic fallacy

Dictionary time again. That's not well-poisoning, errors are not fallacies, and nobody knows what a psychogenetic fallacy is.

 

[Syne]

... and nobody knows what a psychogenetic fallacy is.

It's called Google. Use it.