The laws of Probability and guns

[jet57]

you are lying/ lots of people have criminal records before they engage in a crime involving a firearm. you confuse the truth that PEOPLE can be criminals not guns

No - you are running from a fact.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, I'm following a fact. And let me ask you; was that Kid in Florida who shot three in the library a criminal with a gun - or not?

that isn't the issue. The issue is the moronic claim that more guns=more crime. Guns have been increasing in American society for years. Yet crime is going down

tell us why

 

[Lutherf]

no I am not. you are claiming more guns =more gun crimes

that is bs because you mix legally owned guns with illegally possessed guns. you labor under the delusion that your dreamed of gun laws will decrease crime

You're missing the whole point.

Guns = Crime. That's why we give them to cops and government agencies so that they can stop crime. You see, cops and other government officials are different than people. People = Bad. Cops and government officials = Good.

Except for Republicans.

And bad cops.

It's all very simple and logical.

 

[TurtleDude]

No - you are running from a fact.

what fact-I have yet to see any from you.

your claim that someone isn't a criminal with a gun until they use a gun in a crime has to be one of the hall of fame stupid comments of all time in the history of this board

 

[TurtleDude]

You're missing the whole point.

Guns = Crime. That's why we give them to cops and government agencies so that they can stop crime. You see, cops and other government officials are different than people. People = Bad. Cops and government officials = Good.

Except for Republicans.

And bad cops.

It's all very simple and logical.

:lamo

 

[jet57]

LOL. Well, hopefully someone with a kind heart will explain your epic fail here. I'm laughing too hard to.

You're so fixated in your politics that you're just allowing a very simple truth the size of a bull Moose go right by you without noticing it.

It's really ME who is doing the laughing: really.

 

[Master PO]

You're missing the whole point.

Guns = Crime. That's why we give them to cops and government agencies so that they can stop crime. You see, cops and other government officials are different than people. People = Bad. Cops and government officials = Good.

Except for Republicans.

And bad cops.

It's all very simple and logical.

this is why you are on my Friends list....still love the swinging the dead cat post

 

[KevinKohler]

I am not advocating removal of guns from American society. Never have. All I simply want is to dispel the ridiculous idea that there is not a high negative cost to the proliferation of guns in our society that is being paid by many people. And I was not referring to gun costs but the price other innocents pay for misuse of guns.

I further would add that when some want to intentionally limit the damage from guns to intentional criminal acts - that is only part of the picture and not the entire picture as it conveniently omits accidents, suicides, and just plain bad choices that people are making because they are afraid to live in a society where the choice is painted in an oversimplification - either be well armed or be killed.

And these these negative things pop up over and over again in the views of the radical right who then pretend to be in denial about their impact.

Now I feel like we can have a civil discussion.

You are saying that fewer guns would equal fewer gun related accidents and suicides, and the like. That I'll agree with. 100%. Put a gun into every hand in this country, and **** yeah, gun related accidents will go way up. But I guess that's why we have laws against having guns in the hands of everyone in this country. I mean, suicides would remain the same...no guns won't change that, IMO. But I DO believe we would have fewer accidental deaths IN GENERAL, if we had ZERO guns. It's a lot harder to accidentally kill yourself with your dad's old baseball bat than his revolver in his sock drawer.

But to call that a high cost? How many accidental gun deaths are there per year? Just how many kids accidentally shoot themselves with dad's pistol?

 

[KevinKohler]

No, I'm following a fact. And let me ask you; was that Kid in Florida who shot three in the library a criminal with a gun - or not?

How old was he? Did he have his CCW? Was it his gun?

 

[TurtleDude]

You're so fixated in your politics that you're just allowing a very simple truth the size of a bull Moose go right by you without noticing it.

It's really ME who is doing the laughing: really.

you have yet to post a simple truth-you simply avoid it

 

[KevinKohler]

Lets flesh out his moronic argument. Joe Thuggins has 4 convictions for B&E, five for Fraud, and after getting out of the state Pen, he decides to rob a bank so he trades four stolen watches to Vinny the Midnight Armorer for a stolen Glock. according to Jet57, at this point Joe Thuggins becomes a criminal.

Even aside from that, he's admitting that only criminals commit crimes with guns, which invalidates the OP and his own argument that more guns = more crime. But I think the debate has changed, at least it has between me and hay.

 

[jet57]

You're missing the whole point.

Guns = Crime. That's why we give them to cops and government agencies so that they can stop crime. You see, cops and other government officials are different than people. People = Bad. Cops and government officials = Good.

Except for Republicans.

And bad cops.

It's all very simple and logical.

(chuckle)

I guess you're not the brains of the outfit either. What happens to the probability of gun violence if there are no guns? Knives you say? Well at leat a knife isn't a gun. How many of those 5 high school kids would have been killed by their friend in Washington state, had their friend walked into the cafeteria with a knife? 4? 1? A bullet travels much faster than a kinfe doesn't it? well, at least that's the rumor. Now, was that 15 year old boy a criminal before he shot and killed those kinds?

See, you guys are just so fixated on your poltical idealogy that you can't see the forest for the trees. You guys keep overlooking the obvious, that's what's so funny to me about this.

 

[jet57]

Even aside from that, he's admitting that only criminals commit crimes with guns, which invalidates the OP and his own argument that more guns = more crime. But I think the debate has changed, at least it has between me and hay.

Where did I say that only criminals commit crimes with guns?

 

[TurtleDude]

Even aside from that, he's admitting that only criminals commit crimes with guns, which invalidates the OP and his own argument that more guns = more crime. But I think the debate has changed, at least it has between me and hay.

I was dealing with Jet's silly claim that someone doesn't become a "criminal with a gun" until the gun is used illegally. That is false two different ways

 

[KevinKohler]

Where did I say that only criminals commit crimes with guns?

Post 36.

 

[jet57]

that isn't the issue. The issue is the moronic claim that more guns=more crime. Guns have been increasing in American society for years. Yet crime is going down

tell us why

Oh, but that IS the issue: you're just dancing around it - hell; you brought it up. And yet again, you're taking a simple fact and trying to blow it into a shape that fits your political perspective. Ya'gotta think about it first - then address it.

 

[AGENT J]

One of the first things you notice on your first trip to Las Vegas in the amazing display of money that the famous strip provides. Mile after mile of lavish giant buildings of such size and scope and amazing detail that few other places have - let alone one after the other each trying to outdo the previous one in sheer balls to the walls ostentation. You can go to a restaurant where you are surrounded by actual Picasso originals and eat a meal that is the food budget for an average family of four for a week. Throw in wine and make it a month or a year for most families.

What built Las Vegas is mathematics. They understand the basic laws of probabilities and the machines and games are run strictly on that principle. The house will always win in the end.

One of my favorite films is THE DEERHUNTER. One of the scenes that first got it a lot of attention was the infamous Russian Roulette scene in which two American prisoners take turns nearly blowing their brains out. One of the prisoner - played by Robert De Niro - shocks his captors by insisting he will play with two bullets instead of one. This is a shock because this game is also based on mathematics and he just doubles the odds that he will die.

So tell me something please. Why is it that we all can understand the laws of probability and how they apply to things in our world but people on the far right of the gun issue somehow live in the delusion that they do not apply to the number of firearms owned in our nation?

To pretend there is not a cost for 300 million guns in our nation is to play ostrich and live in denial.

If there were half of that number - say only 150 million guns in America - would we have the same murder rate and same suicide rate and same accident with guns rate?

What about if there were only 50 guns in the entire land. Would the stats change?

What if there were only a single gun in our nation - would the stats change?

Anybody who says NO is obviously either lying preferring to live in denial or is just plain ignorant of how probabilities work.

If the subject of guns is too close to your own personal politics or values and you cannot be objective about it giving an honest answer - lets use cars. If there is an island of fifty square miles with 25,000 people on it and there is one motor vehicle on that island - what do you think are the chances of that motor vehicle being in an accident which harms a person?

Now change that situation to fifty motor vehicles. Now change it to 1,000 motor vehicles. Now change it to 10,000? What happens to the chances of a motor vehicle being in an accident which harming a person?


So tell me why a nation which now has an estimated 300 million or more guns also does not have both the attached benefits of the ownership and use of firearms as well as the negative aspects of it as well like its misuse, criminal use and accidental tragedies? Why is there not a price we pay for the proliferation of guns in our society?

Why can gun supporters go to Vegas and understand the laws of mathematics when they play the slots at Caesars Palace but are blind to the same reality when it comes to discussing guns?

you math fails for one simply reason, the odds dont stay the same like in vegas.
if a machine hits 1 out of 10,000 plays thats the same odds that it will have tomorrow.

heres somethign that simply destroys your failed theory.

lets take your 50 guns example.

it will be different if 50 cops have those guns, 50 law abiding citizens have those guns or 50 criminals.

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh, but that IS the issue: you're just dancing around it - hell; you brought it up. And yet again, you're taking a simple fact and trying to blow it into a shape that fits your political perspective. Ya'gotta think about it first - then address it.

but there are more guns and gun crime has gone down

that sort of bitch slaps your silly argument doesn't it?

 

[jet57]

I was dealing with Jet's silly claim that someone doesn't become a "criminal with a gun" until the gun is used illegally. That is false two different ways

Was that 15 year old in Washington a "criminal with a gun" before he shot his 5 friends? And how about the kid at the Florida college yesterday?

Yes? No? Maybe? Kinda sortta? Was that shooter at the Aurora theater a criminal with a gun before he opened up on a hundred people? How about those two at Columbine? What about that wife who shoots "the other woman"?

 

[haymarket]

Now I feel like we can have a civil discussion.

You are saying that fewer guns would equal fewer gun related accidents and suicides, and the like. That I'll agree with. 100%. Put a gun into every hand in this country, and **** yeah, gun related accidents will go way up. But I guess that's why we have laws against having guns in the hands of everyone in this country. I mean, suicides would remain the same...no guns won't change that, IMO. But I DO believe we would have fewer accidental deaths IN GENERAL, if we had ZERO guns. It's a lot harder to accidentally kill yourself with your dad's old baseball bat than his revolver in his sock drawer.

But to call that a high cost? How many accidental gun deaths are there per year? Just how many kids accidentally shoot themselves with dad's pistol?

I am glad to see we have some common ground. I agree with much that you have said here.

I guess we can have an honest difference of opinion about what is "a high cost". And I could not put a number on it nor would I want to say that 1,000 gun accidents is acceptable but one over that arbitrary number is high and thus unacceptable. I would guess that the people involved in things like gun accidents, suicides and misuse may feel differently however.

What I think we need to do is to stop romanticizing the gun as an object of reverence and begin to turn around the attitude that we need a gun centric society or else our individual safety and collective freedoms are doomed. This will take time and it will be done in fits and starts - some successful and some not so successful.

But we have to ask ourselves about the price that others are paying and if our own indifference to it contributes to even more paying the price down the road.

I hope this link can answer some of your questions about the numbers

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

 

[jet57]

Post 36.

Post #36; yeah, reading is fundamental. GO baack and reread my reply to Turtledude's point that only criminals use guns for criminal purposes, and - then - comment.

Take your time.

 

[haymarket]

but there are more guns and gun crime has gone down

that sort of bitch slaps your silly argument doesn't it?

Actually it does nothing of the kind since those more guns appear to be in the hands of a smaller percentage of people. So unless your claim is that a person with a gun in each hand and another on the hip or back can be shown to decrease crime while more and more people go without firearms - the only thing being "bitch slapped" is your own contention.

 

[jet57]

but there are more guns and gun crime has gone down

that sort of bitch slaps your silly argument doesn't it?

No, you keeep changing the subject because the facts are kind of bitch slapping your silly posts around.

 

[haymarket]

you math fails for one simply reason, the odds dont stay the same like in vegas.
if a machine hits 1 out of 10,000 plays thats the same odds that it will have tomorrow.

heres somethign that simply destroys your failed theory.

lets take your 50 guns example.

it will be different if 50 cops have those guns, 50 law abiding citizens have those guns or 50 criminals.

NO. My numbers are based on the assumption that the spread stays more or less pretty much the same.

And why did you not speak to the specific central question: To pretend there is not a cost for 300 million guns in our nation is to play ostrich and live in denial.

If there were half of that number - say only 150 million guns in America - would we have the same murder rate and same suicide rate and same accident with guns rate?

What about if there were only 50 guns in the entire land. Would the stats change?

What if there were only a single gun in our nation - would the stats change?

Can you answer that?

 

[KevinKohler]

Post #36; yeah, reading is fundamental. GO baack and reread my reply to Turtledude's point that only criminals use guns for criminal purposes, and - then - comment.

Take your time.

Are you saying that someone who has committed a crime with a gun is not a criminal?


You're still not seeing how you have destroyed the original argument about probability, here, are you?