Republicans Gonna Republican

Author: Danielle
Very Surprising

Posts

Total: 146
#31
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Wagyu
That wasn't the argument, guns were designed to kill people, yes, protecting yourself is one of the reason's that it was designed, but the primary reason is that its made for killing people. Unlike say, a knife, that has tons of other utilites, or even a bat, or something like it. Guns are made specifically to kill, do you know how I know that? Because the specific penetration in a gun is made to disrupt organs and stop these functions, hence the type of ammo, something that uses relatively low force to puncture precise openings for killing. If you think that the only reason a gun was made, was to protect yourself, you are sorely mistaken. If someone protecting themself is always the right option, you haven't been to many wars have you? Afterall, if someone is trying to do something bad, and they use a gun, they are just, "protecting themselves" from you. Not to mention, if guns are regulated more harshly (which is my position, which you didn't ask for) then less people will be killed by guns, as the more access you have to guns, the more people will use them, this is a simple marketing strategy used in literally every grocery store whenever they put something at the front counter.
#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Um... how do I think a lot of people who don't source their statistics get their numbers?

So you either don't have the ability to figure out a solution or you're just intellectually lazy. 

Neither is a good trait in a person.
#33
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you.... not read the actual reason.... literally right after?

Either randomly making one up they think is correct, or using a number they saw on a site once, something along those lines. 

I feel that's pretty representative of the people I know of who use stats, did you just... ignore my reasoning? Because if so, you would make for a terrible educator, just reading the first couple of words and ignoring the rest, did you actually read the rest and think they weren't likely?

My reasoning for the first one - "randomly making one up they think is correct" - people often have loads of background knowledge whenever discussing any issue in nearly any capacity, this is especially true in things that they feel passionately about. Therefore, it isn't unjustified to claim that x person would have some sort of knowledge on the general affairs in this or that, and that general knowledge will inform specific opinions about that thing, and even more so whenever someone has already reached a conclusion. Essentially - whenever people A) Already have some sort of broad knowledge on a topic, and B) Have already reached a conclusion, they are more likely to guestimate a number that seems to support that conclusion. This isn't just some willy nilly thing I thought up,

The reasons for the second thing - "using a number they saw on a site once" - I will admit that wasn't really the thing I was trying to get across, more along the lines of, "they heard someone use a stat once, and they parroted it," and, as an educator you should be aware of people just bandwagoning on one thing if enough people use it, and sometimes, once is enough whenever not many people speak of it, though, the entire perspective of online stats isn't entirely warrantless either. One thing for example, could be wiki, which, can be accurate, but one should always double check its sources, to make sure its verified, but it can also not be accurate, and that inaccuracy of nearly any online thing, is what I referring to, there has to be some sort of reasoning for the stat to be accurate with enough verification to deem it true. 

I am thusly, not happy with your assertion of me being, quote, "ability to figure out a solution or you're just intellectually lazy." As you took the statement as if that was my only response and completely ignored mention of my reasoning, the entire point is, you acted on bad faith, with insufficient reasoning to do so.


#34
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Was it not Nancy who originally opposed the stimulus?

When does reality kick in for democrats? AOC was one of the biggest complainers about the bill, and yet voted for it. Trump voted for the revised bill using a constitutional tool that allows the govt. to reject certain parts of the bill based on spending restrictions.

No democrat will explain how a bill that includes ridiculous pork like gender studies for Pakistan could be a good use of American tax dollars. How can anyone who says they love America be FOR this bill?

But the democrats are lined up at the trough to suck up the massive kickbacks that will come from this bill. Calling most Americans sheep should deeply insult sheep.
#35
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
 I am interested in hearing your guesses as to how YOU would go about getting that number.

Did you.... not read the actual reason.... literally right after?
I wasn't exactly impressed with your Kathy Neumann impersonation of what I asked you. Sorry dude.
#36
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
First off, I have no idea who that is, maybe I've heard of something they've said? I have literally no idea. In the second instance, that's just a clear misunderstanding, here's what you asked, specifically:

"As an educator, I am interested in hearing your guesses as to how you would go about getting that number"

From a second glance, I see where the confusion came from, and that's me getting: how would people go about getting that number? And assuming you were referring to what I referred/implied to, a false statistic, therefore my answer was to answer how people got false statistics, which was an error on my part, I'll admit. However, the answers I gave were legitmately reasoned answers to what I thought you had asked, as I showed in my last post, in reference to the ACTUAL question. Which is going about getting the number you provided:

"00992366412% of all American guns were used to kill people last year in America."

Again, this was an off comment, not sure about the accuracy of your stats, as I pointed out, this entire question is misleading due to the difference in nature of the car, thus the entire number cited makes no difference. I will, however, still try my best in going about getting this answer. First of all, well, I'd see if I could find an official source with verified numbers, as I could easily make a mistake in how I look at things.

While I couldn't immediately find a source for this specific question, I did find one that was illuminating in it's perentages:
"Three-quarters of all U.S. murders in 2017 – 14,542 out of 19,510 – involved a firearm. About half (51%) of all suicides that year – 23,854 out of 47,173 – involved a gun"


Another telling statistic I found, stated thusly:
"About 40% of Americans say they own a gun or live in a household with one, according to a 2017 survey, and the rate of murder or manslaughter by firearm is the highest in the developed world. There were almost 11,000 deaths as a result of murder or manslaughter involving a firearm in 2017."

But then I thought, why not, let's just take the numbers of total guns in America, and then take the total number of homicides by guns, and see what what we have. 


"The Small Arms Survey stated that U.S. civilians alone account for 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms.[2]"

Firearm homicides
  • Number of deaths: 13,958

Therefore, even giving myself the most generous, one gun only commits one murder, you get: Only 1 gun per 28,156 guns commit a murder or an even lower number of 0.0035%, but again, I think this number is pretty misleading. Not only should we actually consider the actual use of the thing we're talking about, we should consider the weapon of choice for most murderers, which is clearly, from the stats I used: a gun. As I pointed out, guns are made to kill, they were designed to, and it should come across as no surprise that the vast majority of homicides are committed by people, using a gun. 
#37
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Therefore, even giving myself the most generous, one gun only commits one murder, you get: Only 1 gun per 28,156 guns commit a murder or an even lower number of 0.0035%, but again, I think this number is pretty misleading. Not only should we actually consider the actual use of the thing we're talking about, we should consider the weapon of choice for most murderers, which is clearly, from the stats I used: a gun. As I pointed out, guns are made to kill, they were designed to, and it should come across as no surprise that the vast majority of homicides are committed by people, using a gun. 

Okay, I was using much more conservative numbers than you did which was why mine was a bit higher than yours. (you assumed for convenience 1 gun is one kill, plus I used all deaths, not just homicides)

I just wanted you to see for yourself doing your own analysis that the vast majority of guns in America are not used in fact for killing people, but for other uses.
#38
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
The vast majority of guns aren't used at all, I am more convinced with how they are used criminally, in other words, how many criminals use them for crime,which btw, is much higher than the homicide involving guns:

"Based on the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates(SPI), about 1 in 5 (21%) of all state and federalprisoners reported that they had possessed orcarried a firearm when they committed the offensefor which they were serving time in prison (figure 1).More than 1 in 8 (13%) of all prisoners had useda firearm by showing, pointing, or discharging itduring the offense for which they were imprisoned.Fewer than 1 in 50 (less than 2%) of all prisoners hadobtained a firearm from a retail source and possessed,carried, or used it during the offense for which theywere imprisoned.An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed afirearm during their offense. Among these, more thanhalf (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at thescene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the streetor from the underground market (43%). Most ofthe remainder (25%) had obtained it from a familymember or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent hadpurchased it under their own name from a licensedfirearm dealer."

Therefore your entire metric of "kills by gun" is not actually a good standard of how guns are or aren't used, you have to consider some factors: The fact that the gunman can be unsuccessful with shooting, and the use of modern medicine is a sure testament to that fact, that not all people who are attempted to be murdered by a gun, actually are, and that not all crime done by a gun is murder, and a vast majority is still with the threat or intent of killing. So while you might have a "technical" point here, your point is that they are actually are used for other bad stuff.

Also, never did you take out the guns that, A) Weren't in use, or B) still in manufacturers circles and the like. Not only that, but the vast majority of guns, aren't registered:
"Roughly 100 million civilian firearms were reported as registered, accounting for some 12 per cent of the global total."


Which supports my argument that A) The number used here isn't applied with the correct estimation of actual active guns, and B) It isn't looking at the fact that a majority of guns are used unethically, or simply not in use. 
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
The vast majority of guns aren't used at all.

Sure they are, you just don't see the use. It's illogical to assume most people work hard to make the money to purchase things they never use, not even once.

Take a look at insurance, especially catastrophic insurance. Chances are you won't "use" it as in cashing the insurance in for more than you pay into it, and actuary tables reflect that in the price of insurance. The majority of people work hard to buy insurance for the use of peace of mind and lower life stress. Stress is the number one killer by far of people, usually manifesting itself in heart disease, but it can also adversely affect the health of people in many other areas, including mental health, happiness, and overall well-being. It's been generally known for some time that stress also lowers the immune system, which makes it a bit ironic that the very people who stress out over Covid19 are among the ones most at risk of not being able to fight it off with their immune system. 

There is a real tangible and measurable benefit from owning guns that I don't think you see here. A benefit that the vast majority of guns are used for.
#40
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Uh huh, and you ignored the research here? By "not used" as an earlier statement of mine clarified, "Not used on average" or "Not used very often", therefore dramatically lowering the actual guns being used in any real quantity per year. Not only that, but I already identified guns as one of the top killers in the realm of homicide, period, not only that, but showing that the vast majority of guns aren't even registered (or 88% globally), then taking the fact that we should actually be talking about the total amount of crimes that they are used in, and not murder specifically, the number used is much higher.

Not only that, but is crystal clear, that mass shootings are widely gotten by legal means, https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/, from that perspective, it is clear that they should be regulated. As not every gun is the same in terms of quality, its use, how effective it is at killing, and the ease of it's use. 
#41
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm just taking issue with your obviously false opinion that most guns are not used at all.
#42
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Wagyu
Aiming and pulling the trigger is using a gun....Cracking eggs with it, could perhaps be regarded as misuse.
 
I'm sure that most hardened criminals know how to use a gun.....Aim and pull....Easy Peasy.
#43
Wagyu
Wagyu's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 130
1
2
5
Wagyu's avatar
Wagyu
1
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Just because a criminal misuses a gun, doesn't mean that I should loose my rights to own a gun. 
#44
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Greyparrot
When we go to war we don't ramp up production of Honda Civics.
#45
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Wagyu
Should civilians be able to own and operate nuclear weapons?
#46
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Wagyu
Deary me.....I can't be bothered to explain Homer.
#47
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
A good majority do, unless your willing to concede that all 88% of guns that aren't registered are all be used unethically? Because that's the other one their.
#48
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
It's illogical to assume most people work hard to make the money to purchase things they never use, not even once.

Certainly not 99.99% things.
#49
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
That was never my argument, my argument was that the vast majority of guns either: Aren't in use, or are in the streets illegally being used unethically, either way, it would support my conclusion and not yours.
#50
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Readers are here advised that user Greyparrot requires a safe space on this website, protected from the free speech of some select opposing viewpoints.  At the request of moderation and in spite of my strong objection,  I am withholding a reply to Greyparrot's posts regarding this topic.
#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
 Aren't in use.

Again. This is incredibly false.

It's illogical to assume most people work hard to make the money to purchase things they never use, not even once.

You can say guns have only one use while singing lalala with fingers in your ears but it does not make it true.

Insurance has more than one use of providing peace of mind as well.
#52
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
So... do you have any evidence to back that up? My point is that the vast majority ARENT paid for by legal means, therefore your entire objection makes no sense - as I've been pointing out. What do you think happens with the 88% of unregistered guns? They are either not in use, or they are being used unethically, and I have an official soure verifiyng this number, you have no argument at all. Well, you do have an argument, just not a very good one - it includes continously insisting the same thing (that is actually irrelevent most of the time) dropping 90% of the argument, and then moving on once you see one other thing that catches your eye. So why don't you pull up your big debater pants and actually engage the entire argument this time? I know you can do it.
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Would you be willing to ask people who own guns why they buy guns? It's not hard to do the research needed to discover why someone thinks differently than you instead of automatically assuming all people who do not agree with you are inherently illogical people.

I can tell you this though, it's highly unlikely you are going to find many people who will say they bought a gun only to use it to kill someone. Certainly not most or even all as you suggest. Similarly, you won't likely find a lot of people who will say they only bought fire insurance only for one use. To burn their house down or have it burned down to collect the money.
#54
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
uh huh, and then, all the criminals who use guns, I guess they just want to hunt with the guns they get illegally huh? Again, pointing out something irrelevant to the actual conversation, and dropping 90% of my argument. 

Only 12% of guns owned by civilians are registered, do you know what that means?

"Firearm registration laws require individuals to record their ownership of a firearm with a designated law enforcement agency. These laws enable law enforcement to identify, disarm, and prosecute violent criminals and people illegally in possession of firearms."

So... from that logic, either the 88% of unregistered guns out there are not is use, because they aren't registered; or, they are being used by people who got them through illegal means. That is the argument here, so please actually address - not only the full argument - but the actual argument itself, as you seem to have trouble placing exactly where you rebuttal should go, and I'm actually starting to feel bad that you can't.

You want to attack the bit where I talk about registered guns and the things that happen when they aren't registered. 
#55
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm only addressing your claim that guns have only one use. Please stop arguing other things with the wind. 

Kathy Neumann style straw-manning isn't a productive or a generally desirable trait.
#56
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Um.... I'm addressing the very original argument, I never, not once, said that guns had only one use, just that they were designed for a specific purpose, and they are quite often used for that purpose. You have been the one attacking a single point, and not very well at that. 
#57
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
and they are quite often used for that purpose. 

No, the vast majority of guns in America are not used to kill people.
#58
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Have you just ignored everything spoken? How about this, until you prove this without a doubt, that the vast majority of guns in current use aren't used for crimes, prove it. I've done my due diligience, its your turn now. Prove something beyond that irrelevent statement.
#59
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
You already proved it for me. Didn't you come up with .0035% where I came up with .0099%?
#60
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
No, i proved that the total guns in civilian hands have been used to kill, not the correlation to crime, via the whole unregistered thing, or are you just ignoring all of that?