Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
There is no logic, just hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the main feature of the mainstream political parties these days.
See, when Tea Party folks carry guns in public it's to defend their rights. When the Black Panthers did it it was bad because they were a terrorist group.
Or something...
http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/a…
You can't drive a car without a license and you shouldn't be able to own a gun without one either.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-ap…
@6, I fully support your right to go fuck yourself. Next you'll be asking for the government to be buying your guns for you.
The content to clickbait ratio on the stranger is getting pretty bad.
@9: wrong. more false equivalency.
The author used poorly though out rhetoric from the opposing view to seem try to seem more moderate or relevant. It cost him his job.
Since being stupid isn't as politically cool as being gay is right now, no one jumped to save him.
Basically he pulled a David Brooks, and forgot he wasn't rich enough to ride out the fallout.
Boys, boys. You're BOTH right. The US Government is happy to give you not only free training and free guns, but three hots and a cot too!
It's a beautiful day when we can all win. Of course, they've got a "no fuckheads" rule but what responsible gun owner has a problem with that?
Because going Godwin always fixes everything, doesn't it?
Ah. So the reason they rushed to defend the free speech rights of Phil Robertson was because his insights on the anus and the vagina were so fucking intelligent?
It beggars the imagination to wonder what he would have had to say to be too stupid for the wingnuts to be willing to save him.
And ironically, military bases and ships have incredibly strict and overwhelming controls on the possession and use of weapons and ammo within their confines...and for damn good reasons.
No, Dan. No one is infringing on his 1st Amendment rights. He just isn't being paid any more. Do you know what the difference is?
I bet hurling insults on the internet towards someone who had made a statement that contradicts your own views makes you feel like a tough-guy, huh?
First of all, I don't believe in capitalism to begin with. But certainly not as a barrier to access constitutional rights.
Secondly, if capitalism is the way things are going to keep running, I think it makes sense to have to pay for something that requires quality materials, craftsmanship and hard work to create. Teaching a 16 hour class is significantly less taxing, both physically, mentally and in the amount of resources used.
Lastly, I pictured something along the lines of the free hunting-safety classes offered by the government that are required in order to purchase a hunting tag. In any case, it would certainly be better, in the eyes of most gun-control proponents, to offer free classes on gun safety than nothing at all. If we can come up with the funds to buy back hundreds of busted old guns than I'm sure the funds to teach a free gun safety course can be found as well.
In any case, that's how I feel about the subject. You're free to disagree, but can you do so while showing a little more respect/civility? I don't see the reason for all the hostility other than to compensate for lack of actual ability to convey your stance, or to gratify some brave or convicted self-image you have of yourself (on the internet anyway).
Uh -- he lost EVERY source of income -- was completely blackballed. Yet when the DuckF**k was "suspended" from his show, the right wing went ape on the "freedom of speech" rights being curtailed. They didn't get the point you just made.
And don't you think that the gun manufacturers were vicious? and that his employer, who had approved in the editorial process the column, were incredibly cowardly?
"Uh -- he lost EVERY source of income -- was completely blackballed."
So?
http://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei/pos…
"and that his employer, who had approved in the editorial process the column, were incredibly cowardly?"
Whether private individuals or companies were whatever doesn't matter. He's still free to say what he wants and the government is not infringing upon his 1st Amendment rights.
So you're alright when we say loud & proud:
FLUSH RUSH!!!
Peace
With regards to the 2nd amendment. "Well Regulated" refers to the object i.e. the gun not the "Militia" i.e. people, that is until it doesn't. Say like "regulating" cartages or god-forbid safety features.
Militia of course refers to groups of one individual regardless of its of it's more common use in English, That is referring to more then one individual organized in accordance to some set of rules.
Thus being the case the 2nd Amendment is undefinable and thus unenforceable thus we all need to be armed to the teeth and shoot first. Only then will we be fully compliant with the 2nd Amendment.
I think it's time to form gay mutual protection societies in the bile belt.
I think I'll name mine "Gays With AKs".
Dude, you sound like a fucking idiot. You might as well be a fucking fifth grader. The funniest thing is what must be the huge disparity between how you interact with others on the internet vs. real life. You're a fucking chump hiding behind a keyboard and it's pretty obvious to every SLOG commenter.
It is still far too soon for you to come back here after the way you embarrassed yourself in this thread. You say that high rates of gun ownership don't correlate to high suicide rates in this country; if so, how do you explain these data?
Everyone, read through my links if you're thinking of taking f.u seriously. He's a filthy liar who doesn't know a thing about what he's saying. Present him with evidence proving him wrong and his response is to ignore it and claim that he's being personally attacked.
Nulla ignorantia est, scientia est.
I have my own internet stalker now.
How nice.
So the personal attacks are just part of the internet stalking?
Japan's suicide rate is 21.7 per 100,000.
America's suicide rate is 12.0 per 100,000.
Japan's gun ownership rate is 0.6 per 100.
America's gun ownership rate is 89 per 100.
A notable point of interest: Canadian per capita gun ownership is higher than in the USA.
Guns per 100 persons:
USA - 89
Canada - 30.8
And the correlated rate of firearms deaths, per 100,000 population
USA - 10.3 total of which
Homicide - 3.60
Suicide - 6.3
Unintentional - 0.3
Undetermined - 0.1
Canada - 2.38 total of which
Homicide - 0.5
Suicide - 1.79
Unintentional - 0.08
Undetermined - 0.01
Why not compare nations that have very similar cultures but very different rates of gun ownership? Say, the USA and Canada?
Oh look, I already did that @47. The money shot:
The rate of gun ownership in the USA is 2.9 times that in Canada.
The rate of suicide by gun in the USA is 3.5 times that in Canada.
There's a correlation you can hang your hat on.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-study…
This discussion was originally about Dan's lack of understanding of the 1st Amendment.
But since you bring it up, my point in that other thread was that gun ownership has no effect on suicide rates. Neither increasing the suicide rate nor decreasing it.
You are claiming that the suicide rate is based upon culture in Japan.
But then you seem to be claiming that it is not based upon culture in America.
And you used the word "correlation" incorrectly there.
If your point is that "gun ownership has no effect on suicide rates," that point is demonstrably incorrect. Venomlash has shown that time and again. And don't take just his word for it either:
http://www.unicri.eu/documentation_centr…
But please, continue to use statistics from two countries in an attempt to refute statistical evidence from an academic study of eighteen countries. It should be entertaining.
By all means, keep trying to bring up Japan. It doesn't change the facts that you keep trying to ignore.
Maybe you should really read the material you're linking to. Here's the relevant section.
"The reason for the low impact of gun ownership on total suicide rates probably is the generally modest proportion of suicides which are committed with a firearm, the percentage ranging in the 18 countries from 2.4% in the Netherlands to 31.9% in Canada, with the USA (58.7%) being an outlyer."
And you may notice that Japan is not included in those statistics.
And you still have not explained why it is "cultural" in Japan but not "cultural" in America.
I see your Mediaite:
"Author of Gun Control-’Demolishing’ Study Also ‘Proved’ Forced Ultrasound Laws ‘Work’"
Found HERE
Peace
It's so true that there will always be stupid motherfuckers, like K , who aren't man or woman enough to take responsibility for their words and actions, but for every journoterrorist like dipshit, there are countless Human Beings who honestly are exercising their rights and living responsibly.
You can't enforce certain behavior and there will always be extremely subtle ways that make it under the radar.
You cannot fix stupid and some people choose to be an asshole, and when said stupid assholes have money and meddle with people's lives it is more than annoying
Right wing fuckheads and angry atheists are in our midst, and hopefully we can leave them there as we carry on, because these are the same stupid assholes who claim outlawing wrongful discrimination is not being tolerant
"That, for example, the difference in rates of gun suicide"
I'm not talking about "gun suicide".
I'm talking about suicide.
And how gun ownership has no effect on the rate of suicide.
Japan's suicide rate is 21.7 per 100,000.
America's suicide rate is 12.0 per 100,000.
Japan's gun ownership rate is 0.6 per 100.
America's gun ownership rate is 89 per 100.
You want to claim that it is "cultural" in Japan but not "cultural" in America.
My internet stalker, again you keep avoiding the examples of Japan and England.
Because you cannot address the examples of Japan and England.
So you keep avoiding them.
Japan's suicide rate is 21.7 per 100,000.
America's suicide rate is 12.0 per 100,000.
Japan's gun ownership rate is 0.6 per 100.
America's gun ownership rate is 89 per 100.
"No, you do not have your own internet stalker; you're just part of my caseload."
So there is someone assigning you to stalk me? I feel so special now. I understand that you have to stalk others, too.
And this thread was originally about Dan's problem understanding the 1st Amendment.
If so, try to do so with these two ideas:
One factor affecting suicide rates is the availability of guns. For evidence, my link from @52. "Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total suicide and homicide rates."
Another factor affecting suicide rates is local cultural attitudes towards suicide. For evidence, chew on this. "There are large cultural differences in the incidence of suicidal behavior, and culture influences also the methods used for committing suicide and the reasons for doing so.
In the case of countries with significant cultural differences, such as Japan and the USA, the effect of culture outweighs the effect of gun ownership. Hence your two lonely data points.
Where the culture is largely homogeneous, such as between states within the USA, the effect of gun ownership is expressed more clearly. Hence Venomlash's scattergraph.
Two ideas... one brain... try it out.
May I again recommend that you read what you are referencing?
Your quote included "homicide".
This discussion was about how Dan did not understand the 1st Amendment.
Then my internet stalker brought up suicide.
Now you are trying to introduce homicide.
I'll repeat the quote from your link.
"The reason for the low impact of gun ownership on total suicide rates probably is the generally modest proportion of suicides which are committed with a firearm, the percentage ranging in the 18 countries from 2.4% in the Netherlands to 31.9% in Canada, with the USA (58.7%) being an outlyer."
Now you are claiming that America is different from all of those other examples because America just is.
Explain why it is "cultural" in other countries but not "cultural" in America.
So you cannot explain why America is different.
America just is different.
You might want to look up "American Exceptionalism".
Hey, Dan. You might want to read this thread the next time you want to talk about the 1st Amendment.
This has been explained to you several times across several threads. Every time that has happened, you immediately claim that it was not explained to you and that nobody dares explain it to you. I predict that you will respond to this post to the effect that I still don't want to address the (non-)issues of Japan and England.
Shameful display, commit sudoku.
@64: If you look through the threads, it becomes obvious at a certain dendritic point that not only can he not hold two idea in his head at the same time, he doesn't bother to actually read the posts we (venomlash) make explaining things like statistical analysis to him.
According to him America's rate of suicide by gun is "USA (58.7%) being an outlyer." see #63. i.e that is 58.7% of American suicides are committed by gun.
Japan is also an outlyer with an unusually high rate of suicides per 100,000, 21.7 per 100,000. see #61 he doesn't mention how many are committed by gun but seems to imply that Japan too is an "outlier"
Ok maybe there is a logic here. Americans are less culturally prone to suicide then the Japanese. But American's are also less imaginative then the Japanese so we use guns a whole lot more then the rest of the world to commit suicide. Where as the Japanese are much more imaginative and determined then the rest of the world to commit suicide. Ergo we can conclude that while both America and Japan are outliers when it comes to guns and suicide.
The Japaneses are imaginative and kill themselves while American's have guns and kill themselves.
"Shameful display, commit sudoku."
My internet stalker is now making thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself.
Dan, what was your objection in the article that you posted?
"Japan has a long-standing cultural tendency towards suicide; whereas the Abrahamic tradition in which much of the Western world is steeped prohibits self-termination"
The Abrahamic tradition? Such as Judaism and Christianity and Islam?
You might want to look up "9/11".
Anyway, now that you've claimed it is the Abrahamic tradition that determines whether guns are the determining factor in suicide, let's put England's stats into your chart.
England
Guns per capita 6.2
Suicide rate 11.8
Here's your previous claim about the coefficient of correlation.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
But with England added it drops by 2 points (71.83 v 69.32).
And that is per capita and not percent of population owning guns. By percentage the variation would probably be higher.
Or are you now going to claim that the Church of England is not Abrahamic?
From the Hadith:(Sahih al-Bukhari, 2:23:446)
Al-Qaeda also commits mass-murder both against Muslims and non-Muslims, which is also strongly prohibited in Islam's founding scriptures. You see, THEY AREN'T GOOD MUSLIMS.
The United Kingdom has less gun ownership and less suicide than the United States of America. This is evidence IN FAVOR of my claim. (The drop in the coefficient of correlation just means that it's not as strong as the rest of the evidence, numbskull.)
Either admit you're incorrect on this issue and a filthy liar in general, flee from the SLOG to avoid getting your ignorant ass handed to you some more, or continue to face my puckish mockery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9…
"(The drop in the coefficient of correlation just means that it's not as strong as the rest of the evidence, numbskull.)"
So I need to explain statistics to my internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself.
I can do that.
When an example makes the coefficient of correlation go up then it supports your claim.
When an example makes the coefficient of correlation go down then it contradicts your claim.
"The United Kingdom has less gun ownership and less suicide than the United States of America."
That is true. That is why I chose that example. Because it would show your errors.
While the rates are lower, the rate of suicide is not low enough.
When that one example is added to your claims the CoC drops (71.83 v 69.32).
A lower CoC means that it contradicts your claim.
"You see, THEY AREN'T GOOD MUSLIMS."
Were you told that by the people who assign you your "caseload"?
Because if you do the research, you'll find that it happens a lot in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Whether you consider them "good" Muslims or not.
aymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackad
ullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkan
dnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesj
ackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallw
orkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaym
When an example makes the coefficient of correlation go down then it contradicts your claim."
This is not, in fact, true. As I explained in my previous post, the coefficient of correlation declining means ONLY that the evidence added was weaker than the previous evidence. Think of it this way:
You have some numbers averaged together. You add in another number and the average goes down. This doesn't mean that the number you added was negative, just that it was lower than the previous numbers.
"This is not, in fact, true."
My internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself, you are wrong.
If the CoC goes up, then the example supports your claim.
If the CoC stays the same, then the example still supports your claim.
If the CoC goes down, then you claim that that also supports your claim.
"This doesn't mean that the number you added was negative, just that it was lower than the previous numbers."
So you are correct until I can provide an example with negative suicides?
You don't know anything about statistics, do you?
If the CoC goes down that means that the example contradicted your claim.
There are no negative suicides.
Japan's suicide rate is 21.7 per 100,000.
America's suicide rate is 12.0 per 100,000.
Japan's gun ownership rate is 0.6 per 100.
America's gun ownership rate is 89 per 100.
Try as you might, you can't refute the trend clearly shown here. Nobody here will ever take you seriously even for a moment. EVER. Go away and embarrass yourself in public somewhere else!
"You're ENTIRELY WRONG with regard to your claims on the coefficient of correlation, and "
Again, my internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself, I will spell it out for you.
If the CoC goes up, then the example supports your claim.
If the CoC stays the same, then the example still supports your claim.
If the CoC goes down, then you claim that that also supports your claim.
Now you can keep claiming that all three cases (and there are only three cases) confirm your claims but you are wrong.
Even Japan (which you claim is completely different) does not have negative suicides.
I've shown how the CoC drops when England is included (71.83 v 69.32).
There are no such things as negative suicides.
You are an idiot who doesn't understand statistics.
I'm about done here. You've embarrassed yourself nicely in this thread, and I need only link people here in the future in order to demonstrate your inability to read or reason. I believe yo momma has some flap-jacks for me...
"You are an idiot who doesn't understand statistics."
Again, my internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself, there are three and only three cases.
If the CoC goes up, then the example supports your claim.
If the CoC stays the same, then the example still supports your claim.
If the CoC goes down, then you claim that that also supports your claim.
I've shown how the CoC drops when England is included (71.83 v 69.32).
There are no such things as negative suicides.
There is no such thing as a negative suicide, but there is such thing as a negative correlation. To get a correlation, you need multiple data points BY DEFINITION. You can't glean correlation from a single point.
And you still can't explain the trend clearly shown by the numbers I've run and in here. (Bonus points: explain why the UK having lower rates of gun ownership and suicide means that low rates of gun ownership and suicide don't tend to occur together.)
"There is no such thing as a negative suicide, but there is such thing as a negative correlation."
My internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself, you are using that term incorrectly.
A negative correlation in statistics means that as one factor decreases the other factor increases.
It does not mean that they are not correlated.
In this discussion it would mean that as gun ownership increased, suicide decreased.
You were claiming a positive correlation. Guns = suicide.
To contradict that I only have to show that it is not correct.
I do not have to show that more guns = less suicide.
The example of England causes your CoC to drop by 2.51 points (71.83 v 69.32).
You have repeatedly claimed that England supported your claim that guns = suicide.
"You add in another number and the average goes down. This doesn't mean that the number you added was negative,"
There are no negative suicides.
But there is a lower CoC.