Bill To Ban Assault Weapons Introduced In Senate

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
Nope, they provide net negative value, at least insofar as protection is concerned. The research is very clear on this.

How did you not know this? I mean this is basic, basic stuff.
It's also flat out lies, made possible by manipulating data, but you knew that.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
It's also flat out lies, made possible by manipulating data, but you knew that.

Ah yes, as always information that tells you things you don't want to hear must be lies. It's funny how often you accuse other people of lying considering we both know you know better and are lying right now.

Tsk, tsk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
Ah yes, as always information that tells you things you don't want to hear must be lies. It's funny how often you accuse other people of lying considering we both know you know better and are lying right now.

Tsk, tsk.
No fskihole, you screwed up when you stated "I find no value in gun ownership for the average person" when there is great value when firearms are used to stop rapes, murders and other crimes and have previously been listed. While you may disagree how often it happens, even you can't honestly say it doesn't happen at all or there is "no value". Tsk tsk.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
No fskihole, you screwed up when you stated "I find no value in gun ownership for the average person" when there is great value when firearms are used to stop rapes, murders and other crimes and have previously been listed. While you may disagree how often it happens, even you can't honestly say it doesn't happen at all or there is "no value". Tsk tsk.

Logic fail. If one believes there is more harm than good, then it is accurate to say "there is no value" so long as you understand that "no value" applies to society as a whole, not to specific individuals.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
No fskihole, you screwed up when you stated "I find no value in gun ownership for the average person" when there is great value when firearms are used to stop rapes, murders and other crimes and have previously been listed. While you may disagree how often it happens, even you can't honestly say it doesn't happen at all or there is "no value". Tsk tsk.


That's like responding to a claim that a lottery ticket isn't good value for the average person by listing cases of people who won.

The argument is as to the probabilities of those outcomes for the average person vs the probability of bad outcomes.

I'm not even assuming what that data says, it's not necessary to do that to note that simply listing cases of 'winners' in the lottery doesn't address the argument at all, hence your doing that suggests you don't understand how arguments work.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
Logic fail. If one believes there is more harm than good, then it is accurate to say "there is no value" so long as you understand that "no value" applies to society as a whole, not to specific individuals.
Nope, then you'd say "there is little value" or some such. No value = no value. Nice try though.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
Nope, then you'd say "there is little value" or some such. No value = no value. Nice try though.

Sheesh, you really don't understand how logical arguments work, do you? The point being made (or claimed) is that the net value is negative.

I don't believe you are dumb. I think it's just that your bias and emotional attachment to a position is so strong that you can't think straight.

It's an expected value calculation, like rolling dice or betting on cards.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
Nope, then you'd say "there is little value" or some such. No value = no value. Nice try though.

Wrong. If there is more harm than good, there is no net value. In fact, the net value is negative, i.e. less than zero.

Let's look at it in reverse. If he meant to say that literally no individual has ever benefitted from gun ownership, then that's the way he would have said it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
Wrong. If there is more harm than good, there is no net value. In fact, the net value is negative, i.e. less than zero.

Let's look at it in reverse. If he meant to say that literally no individual has ever benefitted from gun ownership, then that's the way he would have said it.

Speaking of zero, the odds that be doesn’t know his argument is stupid are approximately zero. Having an honest discussion about this was never his intent and I think we all know this. It’s why him calling other people liars is so amusing.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,673
136
Every time you see a lefty talking about seizing homes and property for a minor crime it's time to start worrying.

First let me make this clear I personally think forfeitures laws are a gross overreach of power.

But it's the law in most states. Read up on it. Its scary what they can do even for minor crimes. Most of the american public is pretty much against them, but $$ talks. Strange the lefties are more opposed to it then the party of personal freedom.

civil-forfeiture.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
Speaking of zero, the odds that be doesn’t know his argument is stupid are approximately zero. Having an honest discussion about this was never his intent and I think we all know this. It’s why him calling other people liars is so amusing.

The interesting thing, to me, is that I believe _he_ doesn't know that. He thinks he's looking to have an honest discussion. He's apparently unable to see what he is doing or to notice the massive logic holes in his arguments.

I wonder how far that situation is the norm in politics (and to what extent it is evenly-distributed across all political allegiances)?
 

Daedalus

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,353
3
76
With miniaturization and cellular and genetic technology guns could be made that record and transmit where they are and when they have been fired and keyed to be used only by the owner.. Guns without such technology could be banned and replaced with this type. Gun ownership could thus be preserved but all older kinds of guns banned. Generations of sever penalties for having one of the older kind would eventually reduce their presence in the population.

Record where and transmit where? That logic assumes that the individual has no clue what is best for him so he needs an obscure overlord in the cloud. My guess is in addition to that regulation, they would add a lifetime use limit resulting in confiscation when you exceed it. The fact remains that those hellbent on carnage don't care about laws.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
First let me make this clear I personally think forfeitures laws are a gross overreach of power.

But it's the law in most states. Read up on it. Its scary what they can do even for minor crimes. Most of the american public is pretty much against them, but $$ talks. Strange the lefties are more opposed to it then the party of personal freedom.

civil-forfeiture.png

You can't confuse him with data.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The interesting thing, to me, is that I believe _he_ doesn't know that. He thinks he's looking to have an honest discussion. He's apparently unable to see what he is doing or to notice the massive logic holes in his arguments.

I wonder how far that situation is the norm in politics (and to what extent it is evenly-distributed across all political allegiances)?

Taj trolls. He diverts into whataboutism every chance he gets. The latest was civil forfeiture which is completely tangential to the topic at hand.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
Wrong. If there is more harm than good, there is no net value. In fact, the net value is negative, i.e. less than zero.

Let's look at it in reverse. If he meant to say that literally no individual has ever benefitted from gun ownership, then that's the way he would have said it.
I'm sure Doctors say "there's NO value in exercising" because some people get injured while exercising also. Wait, no they don't, it's still a benefit.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
I'm sure Doctors say "there's NO value in exercising" because some people get injured while exercising also. Wait, no they don't, it's still a benefit.

You're kidding me, right? Do you understand the concept of net benefit to society? So in your example of exercise, some people may have bad outcomes from exercise, while others have good outcomes from exercise. If there are more good outcomes than bad, it's a net positive. If there are more bad outcomes than good, it's a net negative. I think most people would agree that exercise benefits more people than it hurts. In the case of guns, however, he was saying there was no net benefit to gun ownership because in his opinion there are more bad outcomes than good.

I don't think it can be made any clearer than this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z and pmv

Daedalus

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,353
3
76
You are missing my point, which is that measuring the effects of terrorist attacks (and I do consider these mass murders terrorist attacks!) can't be assessed just in terms of integers (i.e. the number of "lives lost"). That's linear thinking and belies a pitiful lack of imagination. These atrocities affect people, they spread fear, anxiety, create negativity. Everyone understands this. Some deny it. Are you one of them?

And just because the great majority of owners of assault weapons have never killed anyone doesn't justify their having them. They entice unstable people to commit heinous crimes. They are not essential to the well being and happiness of owners. On balance, they should not be out there. Take your "horseshit" invective and shove it up your horse ass, BTW. I do not come here to hurl insults.

Lack of education is a large factor that perpetuates the fear, anxiety, and negativity. An inanimate object cannot entice anyone to do anything. But if everyone was familiar with basic weapon function and had mandatory training, the fear would be less likely focused on guns. Ignorance is a big fear generator and we can at least remove that hurdle with education. The 2a is here to stay so unless you want it repealed. Training and responsible gun ownership would be a good start.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Now it's exercise...

The truth that gun ownership is less safe than not owning them is self evident. It's like saying there's a greater chance of dog bite in your home if you own a dog. It's a no-brainer. For the vast majority of us, the off chance that you might use a gun for self defense is so remote that it doesn't offset that more than a teensy bit. There's no need for the firepower of modern high capacity firearms even if you did.
 
Last edited:
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
You're kidding me, right? Do you understand the concept of net benefit to society? So in your example of exercise, some people may have bad outcomes from exercise, while others have good outcomes from exercise. If there are more good outcomes than bad, it's a net positive. If there are more bad outcomes than good, it's a net negative. I think most people would agree that exercise benefits more people than it hurts. In the case of guns, however, he was saying there was no net benefit to gun ownership because in his opinion there are more bad outcomes than good.

I don't think it can be made any clearer than this.
Except that's not what he said.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
We're in complete agreement here.

First let me make this clear I personally think forfeitures laws are a gross overreach of power.

But it's the law in most states. Read up on it. Its scary what they can do even for minor crimes. Most of the american public is pretty much against them, but $$ talks. Strange the lefties are more opposed to it then the party of personal freedom.

civil-forfeiture.png