Courage not cowardice; balls not bluster

[Vociferous]

So your concern about gun deaths in disingenuous. Got it.

No, wrong direction, that's more irrelevance - there's a thread here, you're trying to bring it around - - -

So you are more concerned about the vastly larger number of deaths from handguns than rifles?
Or you're fear of rifles overrides your concern of handguns?

He invalidated the conclusions of essentially all studies that apply linear regression to State aggregated gun topic data. That's not a red herring from my pov - that's retroactive support for a third of my postings here on gun topic statistics.

Meanwhile, those studies had already been shaded by their obvious flaws, here, anyway. No need for Richards's fancy techniques.

So which studies cited here used linear regression? Still a red herring until you name them.
But way to proclaim victory. That's always a sign of a good argument [/sarc].

Oh, it's way worse than I let on - I had four or five of my past links muddled in a sleep-deprived brain, and one of the researchers in the Science article (Docque) misfiled under "Rand".

And the sun was in your eyes, and you pulled a hammy, huh?

 

[iceaura]

So you are more concerned about the vastly larger number of deaths from handguns than rifles?
Or you're fear of rifles overrides your concern of handguns?

None of that applies. But keep typing - probability theory says you'll hit something relevant sooner or later.

So which studies cited here used linear regression? Still a red herring until you name them.

It never was a red herring. And if you want to refer to your own citations, pages later, that you haven't kept track of, it's your problem, not mine.

But way to proclaim victory. That's always a sign of a good argument [/sarc].

I didn't.
ALOS, the age-old wingnut conundrum.

And the sun was in your eyes, and you pulled a hammy, huh?

And the only thing that restored my focus was another one of those twitmeeps claiming I hadn't posted any links or sources - I get one of those fairly regularly, usually about the time the last one has been buried a page or so back, so I would have to scroll and remember where I left it.

You guys are leaving quite a stench in these threads - my bothsides speculation is rooting like a bur oak.

But restoring the quote - for OP relevance if nothing else:

But if I just keep posting simple and factually accurate stuff from basic principles (the gun research on both sides is crap, and no conclusions can be drawn from it without visible and explicit argument, say) it will all work out.

Meanwhile: cowardice and US gun control, the topic. Bothsides have cowardice to point at - are they equivalently self aware? Do their respective cowardices have the same roots?

 

[sculptor]

The waffle house shooter was said to be naked except for a "green jacket". (which he discarded as he ran away)
Nowhere that I looked was the jacket described.
Anyone know what kind of jacket he wore? (has to do with where he might have had a second clip)

 

[iceaura]

Anyone know what kind of jacket he wore? (has to do with where he might have had a second clip)

The initial reports I saw all mentioned that he discarded ammunition with the jacket, giving the police as source for that info, and at least two separate eyewitnesses said to police that he was interrupted while trying to reload:
https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/04/22/four-dead-waffle-house-shooting-tennessee/

The first guess is that he was wearing the jacket in order to carry ammunition.

 

[sculptor]

The initial reports I saw all mentioned that he discarded ammunition with the jacket, giving the police as source for that info, and at least two separate eyewitnesses said to police that he was interrupted while trying to reload:
https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/04/22/four-dead-waffle-house-shooting-tennessee/

The first guess is that he was wearing the jacket in order to carry ammunition.

That was my guess too. It would then follow that the jacket was not well suited to that purpose which would account for the delay in reloading?

 

[iceaura]

That was my guess too. It would then follow that the jacket was not well suited to that purpose which would account for the delay in reloading?

Makes sense.
All these guys are a couple of bulbs short of a chandelier.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Makes sense.
All these guys are a couple of bulbs short of a chandelier.

Thinking a gun is a solution to their problems would demonstrate that nicely.

 

[Vociferous]

So you are more concerned about the vastly larger number of deaths from handguns than rifles?
Or you're fear of rifles overrides your concern of handguns?

None of that applies. But keep typing - probability theory says you'll hit something relevant sooner or later.

Saying "no, no, no" means very little when you refuse to clarify anything to the contrary.
So either heartless or trolling. Doesn't much matter which.

It never was a red herring. And if you want to refer to your own citations, pages later, that you haven't kept track of, it's your problem, not mine.

Do your own homework. The burden for your own argument is yours.

ALOS, the age-old wingnut conundrum.

"ALOS?"

You guys are leaving quite a stench in these threads - my bothsides speculation is rooting like a bur oak.

Keep congratulating yourself.

 

[iceaura]

Saying "no, no, no" means very little when you refuse to clarify anything to the contrary.

You posted irrelevancy, shit with no visible relationship to my posting, and directed it at me for invisible reasons. I have no explanation for your behavior, I am unable to clarify your posting for you, and there is nothing "contrary" to noise.

"ALOS?"

Are they Lying Or Stupid.
The eternal question that forms in the air around wingnut posting.

Do your own homework. The burden for your own argument is yours.

Already done for my arguments - multiple directly relevant links, arguments from specific observations, repetition of main theses, all that good stuff.
Now - your turn. What's your argument, for starters? You've been hinting at having one - - -

Keep in mind that avoidance - refusal to make an argument when claiming one, say, or acknowledge responses, etc - is one of the symptoms of cowardice. Look at all the examples here - continual personal insults with no other content, continual changes of subject in confrontations, continual twisting and turning around simple matters of fact: there's a cowardice embedded, endemic, constantly present in America, and the various governing issues around firearms illuminate it harshly.

 

[Vociferous]

You posted irrelevancy, shit with no visible relationship to my posting, and directed it at me for invisible reasons. I have no explanation for your behavior, I am unable to clarify your posting for you, and there is nothing "contrary" to noise.

When you want to talk about rate of fire and ignore comparable weapons that cause many more deaths, it seems your argument is dishonest.
And since you haven't been able to clarify otherwise, after many posts, it's pretty clear that that is the case.

Are they Lying Or Stupid.
The eternal question that forms in the air around wingnut posting.

Ah, projection (see above).

Already done for my arguments - multiple directly relevant links, arguments from specific observations, repetition of main theses, all that good stuff.
Now - your turn. What's your argument, for starters? You've been hinting at having one - - -

Keep in mind that avoidance - refusal to make an argument when claiming one, say, or acknowledge responses, etc - is one of the symptoms of cowardice. Look at all the examples here - continual personal insults with no other content, continual changes of subject in confrontations, continual twisting and turning around simple matters of fact: there's a cowardice embedded, endemic, constantly present in America, and the various governing issues around firearms illuminate it harshly.

You're lying again. You haven't shown that any of the studies you've argued against are flawed. Lot of distracting noise, not much substance.
Again, demonstrable ignorance isn't an insult. I would hope it is an invitation to learn.

 

[iceaura]

When you want to talk about rate of fire and ignore comparable weapons that cause many more deaths, it seems your argument is dishonest.

When I post sentences that contain a defined subject and address a given issue, instead of some other issue, my arguments are dishonest?
Odd.
Meanwhile:

What's your argument, for starters? You've been hinting at having one - - -

- - - - -

You're lying again. You haven't shown that any of the studies you've argued against are flawed.

I have: every study I've "argued against", for sure - that would be the argument part.
I haven't argued against many particular studies - most of my arguments have been against the invalid conclusions and claims by posters here.

That one cannot draw very many conclusions from a statistical argument based in gun violence data aggregated by State, for example, is a long familiar observation. That linear regression is often - even normally - an invalid means of obtaining correlations from gun data collected in the US as another, although the recent advance in sophistication via Richards et al is new in the last couple of relevant threads.

In this thread, of course, the focus is on courage and cowardice. So the studies are generally simply taken for granted for what they do show - and the role of cowardice, in particular, seems to me to play significantly on "bothsides" of the gun governance jamb in the US.

 

[Vociferous]

When I post sentences that contain a defined subject and address a given issue, instead of some other issue, my arguments are dishonest?
Odd.

When your defined subject, "rounds per minute", ignores comparable weapons, yes, it's dishonest. Or just a poorly defined subject.

I have: every study I've "argued against", for sure - that would be the argument part.

No, you haven't shown those statistical problems to exist in any specific study. Again, you're lying to claim otherwise.

 

[iceaura]

When your defined subject, "rounds per minute", ignores comparable weapons, yes, it's dishonest. Or just a poorly defined subject.

It doesn't.

No, you haven't shown those statistical problems to exist in any specific study.

That's not true. I have been responding to posts derived from specific flawed studies routinely, often by pointing out that their study does not support their derivations.

Meanwhile: the role of cowardice - takers?

 

[Vociferous]

When your defined subject, "rounds per minute", ignores comparable weapons, yes, it's dishonest. Or just a poorly defined subject.

It doesn't.

Then you're for banned handguns?

That's not true. I have been responding to posts derived from specific flawed studies routinely, often by pointing out that their study does not support their derivations.

No, you just keep lying.
Or prove us wrong and link said refutes of the flawed statistics of specific studies.

 

[iceaura]

Then you're for banned handguns?

Do try to make sense, eh? Follow the argument?

Or prove us wrong and link said refutes of the flawed statistics of specific studies.

Post 5 study here is specifically dismissed with prejudice by me in post 28, without the detail your trolling requires because that was posted at least three times in various threads I simply am not going to bother searching for.

That particular argument - over the linear statistical comparison of bad people killed in self defense vs "innocent" people killed not in self defense - needs no more repetition. It's done.

Bullshit should be extra work for the bullshitter, not honest people - it's your turn from now on.

Or you could address the OP: cowardice clearly plays a large role in US gun policy, and on bothsides.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Or you could address the OP: cowardice clearly plays a large role in US gun policy, and on bothsides

for starters, only the title of the thread actually makes any statement about cowardice

for two: the issue presented in the OP is about the OP's personal beliefs as noted by the final quote here:

I'm sorry, but at the end of the day, the "protect and defend" argument is emptier than a winter rain barrel!

Seems to me gun rights advocates use their mouths to defend their guns and their access to guns far more than they use guns to defend human life.

the OP is nothing more than a rant made by xelor for whatever personal reason.

it is likely the OP is a rant against US law because of limited knowledge -

This member limits who may view their full profile.

- or perhaps simply to troll any gun owner

given that the OP is more to present an ad hominem attack based on personal belief supported by cherry picked data, it can be presented that it is for the purpose of eliciting anger or other emotions and should have been deleted.

-

lastly, there is no "cowardice" in "US gun policy" - you can say there is fanaticism, and there is ignorance.

mostly there is ignorance on the known underreported data points that people want to make arguments on which have absolutely no rational part in the conversation as it's entirely supposition, usually presented as fact

 

[iceaura]

given that the OP is more to present an ad hominem attack based on personal belief supported by cherry picked data,

There's something about wingnut ideology that prevents its victims from using the terms "ad hominem" and "cherry picked" correctly. That, along with irony blindness, is a feature of some interest for an appropriate thread.

For this thread:

lastly, there is no "cowardice" in "US gun policy" - you can say there is fanaticism, and there is ignorance.

US gun policy does not have a personality. The nature of certain specific arguments surrounding it, and the attack on the character or integrity of those supposedly employing those arguments, is the subject of the OP.
My own take on that is the subject of my posts (briefly: visible cowardice on bothsides extremes is significant in creating the jamb that prevents sane gun control in the US: it's a bothsides issue, something I think is almost unique in American politics).
I regard fanaticism and ignorance as less central, because they both appear to be willful: they require explanation themselves. Part of that explanation imho involves the visible cowardice. (Other factors in the explanation include racism, corporate greed, and historical circumstance).

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

)

There's something about wingnut ideology that prevents its victims from using the terms "ad hominem" and "cherry picked" correctly. That, along with irony blindness, is a feature of some interest for an appropriate thread.

there is something about wingnut ideology that prevents it's members from comprehending basic english or reading while they choose to ignore relevant evidence to confirm their bias...

lets break this down for you.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias

this also references

Suppressed Evidence
Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one's own conclusion. Perhaps the arguer is not mentioning that experts have recently objected to one of his premises. The fallacy is a kind of Fallacy of Selective Attention.

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

Since you can't actually see how it applies...

• 2015; Belgium -- Three unarmed individuals stopped a terrorist on a train
• 2018; Antioch, TN -- James Shaw Jr., 29, rushed AR-15 firing Travis Reinking, wrestled him to the ground, and took his weapon. Shaw's hands were severely burned from grabbing the AR-15.

Tennessee's representatives, less than 60 days ago, passed a bill that lessens the penalties for permit-less carry in Tennessee. The bill passed in the state House of Representatives 72-20. Current law makes it a Class C misdemeanor to carry a handgun without a permit. Violators can be fined up to $500 and face possible imprisonment, but the bill would only fine violators $250 on the first offense. A second amendment will allow officers to confiscate the ammunition of an offender, but not necessarily take the gun. (Source)

Tennessee has one of the highest gun ownership rates among the 50 states -- about 40%, maybe more -- and one doesn't need a permit to buy one in TN

• imprisonment, but the bill would only fine violators $250 on the first offense. A second amendment will allow officers to confiscate the ammunition of an offender, but not necessarily take the gun. (Source)
  
  Tennessee has one of the highest gun ownership rates among the 50 states -- about 40%, maybe more -- and one doesn't need a permit to buy one in TN

this selective choice of data (cherry picked because it confirms his bias) leads to the following conclusion

• Gun rights folks constantly claim civilians need guns for defensive purposes. Then when a situation comes about, not one gun carrying person pulls their gun and uses it....not to shoot a gunman, not to lay down covering fire so someone else can shoot or rush an active shooter. Hell, they won't even blindly throw random objects in the general direction of the shooter as a distraction. Brave talk about how one intends to use their guns is not the same as actually using it to defend something or someone.
  FL

data that is ignored: any armed civilian helping police, etc (easily done because it's not "popular" for the media to promote)
see also:
The Pearl High School shooting
The Parker Middle School dance shooting
The Appalachian School of Law shooting
The New Life Church shooting
The Trolley Square shooting
The Golden Market shooting
The New York Mills AT&T store shooting
The Clackamas Town Center shooting
The San Antonio Theater shooting

All easily found by just searching "armed civilian stops shooting" - and I took only the first couple references (About 1,150,000 results
(0.42 seconds) )

so, this is an example of his "cherry picking" (or selective attention/confirmation bias) to present a case for a personal belief - supported furthere by his comment

Pick a shooting incident... I don't recall but one, I think, in which anyone (any potential victim or actual observer) with a gun used it to deter/defeat an active shooter.

this, more than anything, presents a case for him "pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position"

this leads to his belief, which is:

I'm sorry, but at the end of the day, the "protect and defend" argument is emptier than a winter rain barrel!

Seems to me gun rights advocates use their mouths to defend their guns and their access to guns far more than they use guns to defend human life.

now, for the "ad hominem"

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

this is present in the above quotes (especially that last one - his last two lines), but also in the title of the thread

likely the user believes the point strongly enough to make a claim that the facts are evident ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Criticism_as_a_fallacy ) however, this can be directly refuted by a simple search or reading crime reports from police departments (see also ViCAP and National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime data)

perhaps the blindness you profess is actually your refusal to see data, personal bias issues as well as your dislike for certain posters?

My own take on that is the subject of my posts (briefly: visible cowardice on bothsides extremes is significant in creating the jamb that prevents sane gun control in the US: it's a bothsides issue, something I think is almost unique in American politics).
I regard fanaticism and ignorance as less central, because they both appear to be willful: they require explanation themselves

Sorry, but I will disagree slightly: the cowardice is usually due to the fanaticism and ignorance - they are choices, but so is cowardice. IT is more central than you believe, IMHO

When one actively refuses to accept any dissent from their beliefs to ideology then this is a choice to use their ideology to do nothing or disrupt the opposing ideology (or any centrist arguments labelled as opposition, thus immediately classified as the opposing ideology, regardless of content). This is the primary reason that fanatics (on both sides) won't address security issues that will help schools protect their children. They believe, fanatically (and usually due to ignorance), that only their ideological beliefs will help protect children (like banning high capacity magazines and "assault rifles" which are used in 1% of crimes, etc)

 

[iceaura]

now, for the "ad hominem"
"short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument,"
this is present in the above quotes (especially that last one - his last two lines), but also in the title of the thread

No, it isn't. It's genuine (however screwed up) discussion of the topic at hand.
It's just that the topic at hand involves cowardice, which is a character flaw.

data that is ignored: any armed civilian helping police, etc (easily done because it's not "popular" for the media to promote)

You're comparing anecdotes, not data. Anecdotes are not cherrypicking ( they have their own problems, of course ).

Since you can't actually see how it applies...

You changed the subject, to terms I have not even mentioned (confirmation bias, suppressed evidence). Then you claim, on no evidence from me, that I cannot see how they apply. Why did you do that?

perhaps the blindness you profess is actually your refusal to see data, personal bias issues as well as your dislike for certain posters?

It's not refusal to see data - I pay very careful attention to data, much more than you pay.
Data is not the plural of anecdote.

Sorry, but I will disagree slightly: the cowardice is usually due to the fanaticism and ignorance - they are choices, but so is cowardice.

The cowardice is not willful.

so, this is an example of his "cherry picking" (or selective attention/confirmation bias)

Cherry picking is not confirmation bias. It's not anecdotal evidence. These different terms refer to different things.

They believe, fanatically (and usually due to ignorance), that only their ideological beliefs will help protect children (like banning high capacity magazines and "assault rifles" which are used in 1% of crimes, etc)

No, "they" don't. Necessarily.
The inability to acknowledge the actual content of other people's arguments, the habit of instead building strawmen - attributing beliefs and "ideology" born of ignorance to them, for example - is characteristic of both sides of the bothsides jamb. It's a flinch, by the looks of it.

And the cowardice underlying much of this flinching is visible.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

No, it isn't. It's genuine (however screwed up) discussion of the topic at hand.

the topic, per the title, not the same as the topic presented in the post, therefore it's not genuine, relevant or factual in any way
it is an attack on the character of people due to the ignorance of facts with a presentation of cherry picked data to support their agenda, ideology or bias

It's just that the topic at hand involves cowardice, which is a character flaw

then show where that cowardice is in the data
not the cherry picked data presented, but the data as a whole

the OP is a rant targeting gun owners and attacking their integrity while presenting it as cowardice per the title
- the title should be presented as a question if it's a determination of facts and or a presented argument based on genuine discourse to open dialogue

You changed the subject, to terms I have not even mentioned (confirmation bias, suppressed evidence). Then you claim, on no evidence from me, that I cannot see how they apply. Why did you do that?

for starters, it is part of the discussion as presented in reply directly to you, starting here

given that the OP is more to present an ad hominem attack based on personal belief supported by cherry picked data, it can be presented that it is for the purpose of eliciting anger or other emotions and should have been deleted.

There's something about wingnut ideology that prevents its victims from using the terms "ad hominem" and "cherry picked" correctly. That, along with irony blindness, is a feature of some interest for an appropriate thread.

for two: it is not a subject change, its demonstrative of the problem

for three: I presented requisite links

You're comparing anecdotes, not data. Anecdotes are not cherrypicking ( they have their own problems, of course )

the OP anecdotes are refuted by presenting a counter to the established belief directly showing a refusal to accept information that doesn't conform to a belief
all information is readily (and easily) available, therefore it's a choice to refuse to accept counter evidence to an established belief
the cherry picked information of the OP is demonstrative of cherry picking, confirmation bias and establishes a pattern of behaviour which leads to the ad hominem
see links above

The cowardice is not willful.

Again, I disagree: cowardice is the refusal to act on a situation due to a choice of subjugation of fear. If Courage is a choice or willingness to act then cowardice is the choice to refuse to act. It is a choice that is often supported by the cowards own reasons not to act. (You choose to act, flee, or not to act)

however, cowardice is more a description of societal values or cultural training. It is also a subjective term (always a pejorative)

Cherry picking is not confirmation bias. It's not anecdotal evidence. These different terms refer to different things.

re-read the link and points

No, "they" don't. Necessarily.
The inability to acknowledge the actual content of other people's arguments, the habit of instead building strawmen - attributing beliefs and "ideology" born of ignorance to them, for example - is characteristic of both sides of the bothsides jamb. It's a flinch, by the looks of it.

And the cowardice underlying much of this flinching is visible.

this is where we differ in opinion.