because you have PROVEN yourself irresponsible, just because you got caught and did time, does not magically make you a responsible person.SenorToenails wrote:
Once you've paid your debt, why should you be forced to continue paying for the rest of your life?lowing wrote:
It isn't that hard to stay out of jail in the USA, not with all of the social programs in place. If someone can not manage to stay legal in any other aspect in society I do not trust them with a firearm.
Guess you missed where I listed my bio previously. I am in the last semester of my electrical engineering degree.presidentsheep wrote:
I'll go back to studying for my physics exam, I suggest you look up something like millikan's measurement on the charge of an electron.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's like talking to a brick wall. Go back to playing with your Barbie dolls.presidentsheep wrote:
So if a value remained wrong because of this then it would have no effect on anything?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No one changed any results, they just repeated the experiment until they got values closer to the accepted norm.Turquoise wrote:
Um... again, changing your results without having the proof to back it up is fabrication and fraud.presidentsheep wrote:
It's not faking, it's being pressured by outside sources into thinking they were wrong. Not exactly subjective but it proves it can be affected by peoples opinion.JohnG@lt wrote:
How is that in any way subjective? That's merely faking data in order to conform to previous data out of fear of being wrong.
You have to go back to the starting point in an experiment or survey when your results differ from the norm. A difference isn't even necessarily wrong -- you could have stumbled across an exceptional case or found evidence for a previously unknown factor.
In the end, what matters is the ability to repeat the results using a sound methodology, and identifying the reasoning behind variances in results.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
You don't have to be responsible to have "rights".
You can be a smug dick i suppose, can't you? Go read Gary Kleck's stuff. Prof at FSU who set out to prove gun were bad found the opposite.Shahter wrote:
you can read i suppose, can't you? i did not ask for permits issued / guns misused statistics, but thank you for your trouble.DBBrinson1 wrote:
1.9 million CWP's issued in the last 20+ years in Florida's history... Of those individuals issued permits on 168 fucker misused them. That's .00842%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck
FACT: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 per day.
* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.
Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminals) is shed.
FACT: Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually ever fired.
* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.
FACT: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2011-01-13 12:59:07)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
But my point was that science often involves humans, therefore is pretty prone to our mistakes.SenorToenails wrote:
Dude, changing your data to agree with the status quo is weak, and an entirely HUMAN flaw. It is NOT a flaw of science or the scientific method. And yes, you are talking to a physicist.presidentsheep wrote:
I'll go back to studying for my physics exam, I suggest you look up something like millikan's measurement on the charge of an electron.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
gotta disagree, I do not want felons having a voice in the course of our nation. and as I said, doing time does not magically make you responsible.Turquoise wrote:
Time served is time served. If a person commits a felony and completes their sentence and is deemed mentally stable enough to not pose a threat to society, then they should not be denied their voting or gun rights.lowing wrote:
with all due respect Turquoise, you are high.Turquoise wrote:
I more or less agree. I believe a felon, in most cases, should be allowed to have a firearm, just as I support voting rights for felons.
Mental stability is of the utmost importance though.
Whether you care about them or not is completely and utterly irrelevant.lowing wrote:
and when you are spouting off about murder rates you are not accounting for criminal on criminal drug deals gone bad gang violence etc....which if you haven;t guess,ed I don't care how many criminals off each other.Bertster7 wrote:
And how many were stolen and used in crime?DBBrinson1 wrote:
No isn't. I live in a State that is prone to hurricanes. Remember Katrina? Again -Your lack of imagination is my reality.
You want stats? Here ya go:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
1.9 million CWP's issued in the last 20+ years in Florida's history... Of those individuals issued permits on 168 fucker misused them. That's .00842%
Responsible gun ownership isn't the problem.
You haven't accounted for that. One of the main sources of guns illegally used by criminals in most countries is stealing them from responsible gun owners.
It's subjective, not objective.
A violent felon shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. A nonviolent felon should be.
They should both be allowed to vote though.
They should both be allowed to vote though.
with freedom and rights comes responsibility. could not disagree with you more.DrunkFace wrote:
You don't have to be responsible to have "rights".
Oh? Bad things only happen to bad people I guess. I sure am glad that all those non-violent, white-collar felons are denied their constitutionally guaranteed rights because people like you are too quick to pass judgement on them.lowing wrote:
because you have PROVEN yourself irresponsible, just because you got caught and did time, does not magically make you a responsible person.SenorToenails wrote:
Once you've paid your debt, why should you be forced to continue paying for the rest of your life?lowing wrote:
It isn't that hard to stay out of jail in the USA, not with all of the social programs in place. If someone can not manage to stay legal in any other aspect in society I do not trust them with a firearm.
Humans can be influenced, news at 11!presidentsheep wrote:
But my point was that science often involves humans, therefore is pretty prone to our mistakes.
life happens to everyone.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
you should be more concerned for stats on how many people prevented themselves from becoming victims not how many crackheads shot their dealers.Bertster7 wrote:
Whether you care about them or not is completely and utterly irrelevant.lowing wrote:
and when you are spouting off about murder rates you are not accounting for criminal on criminal drug deals gone bad gang violence etc....which if you haven;t guess,ed I don't care how many criminals off each other.Bertster7 wrote:
And how many were stolen and used in crime?
You haven't accounted for that. One of the main sources of guns illegally used by criminals in most countries is stealing them from responsible gun owners.
It's subjective, not objective.
Yet you still believe science is concrete?JohnG@lt wrote:
Guess you missed where I listed my bio previously. I am in the last semester of my electrical engineering degree.presidentsheep wrote:
I'll go back to studying for my physics exam, I suggest you look up something like millikan's measurement on the charge of an electron.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's like talking to a brick wall. Go back to playing with your Barbie dolls.
Well done. Something can be influenced, therefore something is not concrete. Concrete implies unchanging/unadaptable/everything science isn't.SenorToenails wrote:
Humans can be influenced, news at 11!presidentsheep wrote:
But my point was that science often involves humans, therefore is pretty prone to our mistakes.
Last edited by presidentsheep (2011-01-13 13:02:02)
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Statistics can be used to prove a lot of things if they are improperly used. For example, I could argue that black people are naturally more criminal by nature if I solely looked at the proportion of blacks in prison vs. the proportion of whites.Shahter wrote:
how so? government records every case it gets involved in - that could be just about anything. some of those cases involve guns. some of those are owned legitimately. some of those are misused. i don't see which step would really screw the picture. if surveys are any indication there are several millions gun uses a year by legitimate owners in usa - even if only coupla percents were being registered by the police you'd have a pretty good picture, no?
This argument is clearly false for reasons that go beyond statistics, and I believe the same applies to the merits of self-defense if you used statistics on crimes using legally owned weapons.
More than anything, gun registries are a logical method of gun control that make it possible to respect people's gun rights while also aiding law enforcement in the event of a crime.
I don't think you can statistically back up banning guns, however.
While disparity of gun laws across states are part of the problem, it also shows that stricter gun control doesn't equal less crime. It shows that a lot of factors outside of gun control affect crime rates.Shahter wrote:
how many states are there in us? and how many have different guns regulations? and how different are the crime rates? that's not even close to the data you'd need for any conclusion.
Hey, sheep. Since you're posting....Pug wrote:
And does the average law abiding citizen shoot a congresswoman?presidentsheep wrote:
undoubtedly, not your average law abiding citizen though.Pug wrote:
And do you think some people carry them around illegally?
With privileges comes responsibility. A "right" is something you will always have and can never be taken away. And is precisely why gun "rights" is absolutely absurd.lowing wrote:
with freedom and rights comes responsibility. could not disagree with you more.DrunkFace wrote:
You don't have to be responsible to have "rights".
Only recidivism and mental instability should prove irresponsibility beyond serving your sentence.lowing wrote:
because you have PROVEN yourself irresponsible, just because you got caught and did time, does not magically make you a responsible person.SenorToenails wrote:
Once you've paid your debt, why should you be forced to continue paying for the rest of your life?lowing wrote:
It isn't that hard to stay out of jail in the USA, not with all of the social programs in place. If someone can not manage to stay legal in any other aspect in society I do not trust them with a firearm.
By continuing to punish someone beyond their sentence, that negates the point of releasing someone from prison.
i read most of that stuff already, prior to asking for actual statistics. i already explained how those "FACTS" you posted are based on what people say about themselves using guns and situations that, supposedly, called for it. sorry, but that doesn't fly.DBBrinson1 wrote:
You can be a smug dick i suppose, can't you? Go read Gary Kleck's stuff. Prof at FSU who set out to prove gun were bad found the opposite.Shahter wrote:
you can read i suppose, can't you? i did not ask for permits issued / guns misused statistics, but thank you for your trouble.DBBrinson1 wrote:
1.9 million CWP's issued in the last 20+ years in Florida's history... Of those individuals issued permits on 168 fucker misused them. That's .00842%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck
FACT: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 per day.
* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.
Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminals) is shed.
FACT: Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually ever fired.
* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.
FACT: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
ummm no, bad things do happen to good people. However good people do not shoot the bank teller when trying to rob a bank.SenorToenails wrote:
Oh? Bad things only happen to bad people I guess. I sure am glad that all those non-violent, white-collar felons are denied their constitutionally guaranteed rights because people like you are too quick to pass judgement on them.lowing wrote:
because you have PROVEN yourself irresponsible, just because you got caught and did time, does not magically make you a responsible person.SenorToenails wrote:
Once you've paid your debt, why should you be forced to continue paying for the rest of your life?
Good I am glad as well, because all of those non violent white collar felons probably stole the money from honest hard working people forcing them to work even harder to make ends meet.
no, the average citizen doesn't shoot anyone.Pug wrote:
Hey, sheep. Since you're posting....Pug wrote:
And does the average law abiding citizen shoot a congresswoman?presidentsheep wrote:
undoubtedly, not your average law abiding citizen though.
Therefore the average citizen does not need a gun. That's pretty much what i've been trying to say over the last however many pages.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Certain things within science, things that are governed, by laws, are about as concrete as you get. Are there variations and deviations? Yes. Almost all can be accounted for. I'm not talking about bleeding edge Quantum Mechanics here, I'm talking about things where there is enough empirical evidence that has been repeated enough times that it passes for fact. If I drop an object in a vacuum on earth it will fall at a rate of 9.81 m/s. If I mix a certain number of moles of one substance with another, I expect to get a certain result. Again, I'm not talking theoretical physics here. None of that stuff is constant because most of it is still unknown.presidentsheep wrote:
Yet you still believe science is concrete?JohnG@lt wrote:
Guess you missed where I listed my bio previously. I am in the last semester of my electrical engineering degree.presidentsheep wrote:
I'll go back to studying for my physics exam, I suggest you look up something like millikan's measurement on the charge of an electron.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2011-01-13 13:04:39)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
People don't change, right? An 18 year old who gets convicted of assault for a bar fight wouldn't be able to hunt when he's 50 because he can't legally own a rifle. That's justice for sure!Macbeth wrote:
A violent felon shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. A nonviolent felon should be.
They should both be allowed to vote though.
I understand what you're getting at, but matching a norm is not what science is about. Figuring out the cause of variances from the norm is.presidentsheep wrote:
No one changed any results, they just repeated the experiment until they got values closer to the accepted norm.Turquoise wrote:
Um... again, changing your results without having the proof to back it up is fabrication and fraud.presidentsheep wrote:
It's not faking, it's being pressured by outside sources into thinking they were wrong. Not exactly subjective but it proves it can be affected by peoples opinion.
You have to go back to the starting point in an experiment or survey when your results differ from the norm. A difference isn't even necessarily wrong -- you could have stumbled across an exceptional case or found evidence for a previously unknown factor.
In the end, what matters is the ability to repeat the results using a sound methodology, and identifying the reasoning behind variances in results.