A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[carpedm9587]

No, its when you see people you ASSUME are jumping to conclusions on the basis of a few stories. Just stop it.

CP - when I ask for the data - and it is not forthcoming - what other conclusion should I draw?

[Cow Poke]

CP - when I ask for the data - and it is not forthcoming - what other conclusion should I draw?

"Data" is not the only factor - some of us actually have a lot of experience in this from both sides of the counter - you don't seem to be interested in that at all.

[carpedm9587]

"Data" is not the only factor - some of us actually have a lot of experience in this from both sides of the counter - you don't seem to be interested in that at all.

I am interested in stories, CP, as stories. And I am sympathetic to someone's experiences. But when I see potentially huge leaps in the conclusions reached because of the lack of adequate data, then I have to call it. I know that many on the right have enormous outrage about the no-fly list, for example. But all I have seen is a handful of stories and personal experiences. We don't know how long the list is, what percentage of that list has had unreasonable problems, etc. Frankly, it strikes me that it should be fairly hard (not unduly impossible) to get off that list, given the purpose of the list. It also strikes me that something put in place to solve a problem will have gaffs at the outset - but then usually the system falls into place. I have seen no data on what the trend line is for the accuracy of the list.

Ergo, I conclude that people are coming to conclusions in the absence of what I would consider to be important evidence. I conclude that because they cannot provide the evidence when I ask for it. You may feel perfectly justified in your conclusions. I am telling you that you have not provided me with enough information for ME to adopt those conclusions, or to see your coonclusions as "justified."

That's how it works, CP. If I made a claim and told you my basis, and you looked at it (as you have, several times) and noted that I had not provided you with adequate basis for either adopting my position OR seeing my position as justified, you would tell me as much. I'm sure you do not think I have an adequate basis for being an atheist. I'm sure you don't think I have an adequate basis for holding to moral relativism/subjectivism. If you did - you would probably be an atheist and a moral relativist/subjectivist.

[Cow Poke]

I am interested in stories, CP, as stories. And I am sympathetic to someone's experiences....

...about which you have asked nothing. You simply jump to conclusions that others are jumping to conclusions, then wordvomit something about "enormous outrage", and how you already 'know' how this whole thing works.

I see no point in further discussion - I think everybody has said what they want to say, and now it's just same ol' same ol' over and over again.

unsubscribing - Carry on!

[carpedm9587]

...about which you have asked nothing. You simply jump to conclusions that others are jumping to conclusions, then wordvomit something about "enormous outrage", and how you already 'know' how this whole thing works.

I see no point in further discussion - I think everybody has said what they want to say, and now it's just same ol' same ol' over and over again.

unsubscribing - Carry on!

Since my interest was in seeing if there was any data to support the claim that the no-fly list was "a mess," I asked about the data. I am sympathetic to Jedidiah's story, but do not accept it as a basis for the conclusion he has drawn.

I have to admit I am a bit flummoxed by what you're objecting to. It seems to me we're all basically doing the same thing: looking at the proferred evidence and seeing if it is adequate to convince. I'm not sure what you would replace that with...?

[Sparko]

When I see people jumping to conclusions on the basis of a few stories - which I know because they cannot produce the data - then I'm going to call them on it, CP. I don't care if they are left, right, or center. It's one of the main problems with our current political climate, that pretty much anyone will swallow a few stories and turn it into a justification for a position.

Other than a few horror stories - there is no data that suggests that the no fly list is "seriously broken." It's a meme. It is, as far as I can tell with the research I've done in the past few hours, largely pushed forward to defend the "you cannot take guns away form people who are on the no fly list" position. But there is no actual data behind it. Just a handful of stories.

But that is exactly what you are doing. Jumping to conclusions on the basis of a few stories. There is no data that suggests the solutions you propose would do anything to stop gun violence. It's a meme.

[carpedm9587]

But that is exactly what you are doing. Jumping to conclusions on the basis of a few stories. There is no data that suggests the solutions you propose would do anything to stop gun violence. It's a meme.

Since I have made no proposals beyond gathering data (except for standardizing background checks, and implementing a centralized gun database, which are positions taken on the basis of their internal consistency - not data), I'm not sure what you are referring to.

[Jedidiah]

Since my interest was in seeing if there was any data to support the claim that the no-fly list was "a mess," I asked about the data. I am sympathetic to Jedidiah's story, but do not accept it as a basis for the conclusion he has drawn.

I have to admit I am a bit flummoxed by what you're objecting to. It seems to me we're all basically doing the same thing: looking at the proferred evidence and seeing if it is adequate to convince. I'm not sure what you would replace that with...?

Data? I don't suppose any of these will phase you.

ACLU sees major problems with the no fly list.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s...-used-restrict
"As we will argue to a federal district court in Oregon this Wednesday, the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error."

https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/polit...wis/index.html
A few of the more egregious goofs

[Jedidiah]

Since I have made no proposals beyond gathering data (except for standardizing background checks, and implementing a centralized gun database, which are positions taken on the basis of their internal consistency - not data), I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Internal consistency? That is pretty meaningless, they are indeed jumping to conclusions.

[Jedidiah]

Yes - my default position is to trust - until I have cause not to. That is, if you think about it, the default position of all of us. It is how society works and what keeps it running. If you don't think so, think carefully the next time you brush your teeth, take a pill, or eat something you bought. The number of people whose hands that material passed through, any of which could kill you by compromising the item you are putting in your mouth, is enormous. You are trusting each and every one of them with that act. Think carefully, the next time you are driving, each and every time aan oncoming car passes you. You are trusting them to stay on their side of the line (probably without a thought), and you don't even know them.

A society runs on trust. It is why eroding that trust is so dangerous to our society. So yes, I trust the millions of people who work in our government. I do not see them as perfect, nor do I agree with how every institution is structured, nor do I agree with every decision made. But I believe the vast majority of my fellow citizens are good people - including everyone I have met here. Some are irritating. Some have annoying habits. But I trust that any of them would run to my aid if I were in sufficient need, and my trust is rewarded far more often than it is not.



Amazing how we can live in the same nation, and see it so differently. Did you know that the highest tax bracket was once over 90%? Taxes have come down, but what we pay has gone up because what we make has gone up. Our GDP has grown progresively, almost unrelentingly. We once had rivers so polluted they burned - but most of that is now gone. While there are wars here and there around the world, we are living in one of the longest periods of protracted peace, without a major conflict, in history. We have seen our legislative leaders tackle racism and promote civil liberties. We are in the midst of an awakening to the degree to which women have been and are being demeaned in our society. We have seen so many good things happen, and we have seen some we are less proud of.

Ironically, I agree that our nation faces a great threat. I don't agree it is "the government." After all, the government is whoever "we the people" elect to power and trust to make good decisions. But "we the people" are not electing people who will go to their jobs, ignore the dollars of special interests and industries, and work for the betterment of all of us. We are electing people who will refuse to compromise, refuse to engage, and hold fast to a partisan position. We the people have decided that our view is the only one that matters, and anyone who disagrees with us is "the enemy" and we are voting for people who think and work the same way. And "we the people" have stopped trusting facts aand started trusting stories. We the people have become suspicious of people with an education. We the people are rapidly learning not to trust one another.

When trust erodes - societies fall. Our country is not going to end because the government is leading us to failure. It is going to end because we are turning on each other, and seeing an enemy in the face of the citizen that has a different point of view, instead of seeing "the loyal opposition."

That is why I hold to trust. That is why I'm trying to break the "bubble" of my world by activtely engaging with those who hold radically different views: so that I am reminded, every day, that the person on the other side of the issue is my fellow citizen - not my enemy.

Trust but verify.

You ignored the main point of my post, the programed death of a system that continues to grow more and more top heavy.

[carpedm9587]

Trust but verify.

You ignored the main point of my post, the programed death of a system that continues to grow more and more top heavy.

I didn't ignore it. I disagreed with it. There is no doubt that our legal system could benefit from a purging - but the purging typically happens through attrition of attention. Did you know, based on a Supreme Court decision from long ago, it is still legally to forcefully sterilize people who's genetic make is something we do not want? In other words, eugenics is perfectly legal in the U.S. But no one has attempted to use that particular law for close to a century, and it is largely forgotten. If anyone were to try, there would quickly be a legislative effort to reverse it and people would be outraged. In at least one state, there is still a prohibition against public kissing. One state has a law on the books requiring someone to walk ahead of your vehicle holding a lattern.

Yes - laws continue to grow and pile up, but the stuff at the bottom of the pile is largely decomposed and not of concern to most of us. Meanwhile, the size of our government is no bigger than the world average size of governments (measured as a function of the number of government employees per 1,000 citizens). Our government is not appreciably more inefficient than most.

Would it be good to get someone into office who is truly focused on doing some clean-up, holding government agencies more accountable, getting big money out of politics, pushing forward term limits, and so forth? Absolutely. So we all need to vote for those kinds of people - and then vote them out when they don't do it.

The problem is not government - it is us.

As for "trust but verify," most of us don't for most of what we do every hour of every day. We brush our teeth, eat our food, drive our cars, and continue to behave as if the society in which we live can be trusted. That society includes our government.

[Roy]

Actually, they all have a hilt - which is simply the handle.

(you're probably referring to the more expanded definition which suggests a pommel and/or a guard?)

Yes: "The handle of a sword, consisting of grip, guard, and pommel, designed to facilitate use of the blade and afford protection to the hand." Hilts are handles, but not all handles are hilts.

[Sparko]

Since I have made no proposals beyond gathering data (except for standardizing background checks, and implementing a centralized gun database, which are positions taken on the basis of their internal consistency - not data), I'm not sure what you are referring to.

exactly that. Claiming we need a national registry and that it will somehow help with gun violence. And claiming that such a solution is needed based on nothing but stories about a few people misusing guns. There is no data that even suggests that having a national registry would have stopped even one of these incidents, yet you are proposing it as a valid action that is needed.

Basically you are doing what everyone else is: seeing the violence, feeling helpless, and saying "we need to do something" and then proposing nonsense to feel like you are helping. It is nothing but wringing your hands in frustration.

[Cow Poke]

Yes: "The handle of a sword, consisting of grip, guard, and pommel, designed to facilitate use of the blade and afford protection to the hand." Hilts are handles, but not all handles are hilts.

HILT
noun
1. the handle of a sword or dagger.
2. the handle of any weapon or tool.
verb (used with object)
3. to furnish with a hilt.
Idioms
4. to the hilt, to the maximum extent or degree; completely; fully:
to play the role to the hilt.
Also, up to the hilt.

[carpedm9587]

exactly that. Claiming we need a national registry and that it will somehow help with gun violence. And claiming that such a solution is needed based on nothing but stories about a few people misusing guns. There is no data that even suggests that having a national registry would have stopped even one of these incidents, yet you are proposing it as a valid action that is needed.

I'm actually not basing it on any stories whatsoever. I am basing it on my knowledge of what can be done with databases. A national gun registry provides a mechanism to search for and flag any number of different characteristics that can be potential red flags for a problem (e.g., association of a gun with someone with a new diagnosis of a mental illness, or a new crime committed, or a large, concentrated collection of guns). This has nothing to do with "stories." It has to do with tracking data and using "big data" for analysis purposes. It also plugs another hole in background checks - when the background changes AFTER the acquisition. It can also be a mechanism for supporting future gun research efforts.

My position about the background checks is likewise based on internal understanding. We apparently have collectively determined that background checks should be done, but current law has them being done for only about 78% of gun acquisitions. That makes no sense to me - we should either do them or not do them. Since doing them is the only way to determined if someone attempting to acquire a gun has a criminal record or a mental diagnosis, etc., doing them appears to be the prudent approach.

Basically you are doing what everyone else is: seeing the violence, feeling helpless, and saying "we need to do something" and then proposing nonsense to feel like you are helping. It is nothing but wringing your hands in frustration.

My only other proposition has been that we need to fund research so we can make decisions about "what to do" with data to support it. Your description, here, simply doesn't apply to me. Yes, I am seeing the violence. Yes, I am feeling helpless - but I have no idea what we should be doing that will actually curb the violence, so I am advocating for us to put some dollars behind researching the issue. Yes, it is frustrating that the gun lobby has successfully squelched doing that kind of information gathering. That's about the only place where I am "wringing my hands," (though I'm not sure I've ever actually felt/done that either.