Crybabies at my office force a no firearms on-site policy

[FDF12389]

You keep referring to 1/6 or so sources as if it were the only source. Sorry, that doesn't work in reality.

I showed how every stat you posted used a flawed methodology. You are quite literally too ignorant to argue with. Continue thinking you won this one, the rest of us are laughing at you.

 

[shadow9d9]

I showed how every stat you posted used a flawed methodology. You are quite literally too ignorant to argue with. Continue thinking you won this one, the rest of us are laughing at you.

You did 1. I said that that was fine.

You admitted that we have more death, you just said that it was negligent. I said, that counts as death.

You pointed out that there is other fatal violence that don't hit the heart, I pointed back to a 4 sourced statistic that covers all types of fatal violence.

You declare victory and think that your echo chamber friends proves it. Hell, you could find nazi sympathizers on the internet.. it doesn't prove you right, but it does prove you foolish to think so.

 

[shadow9d9]

I really do need to learn the technique. Opponent lists 10 sources. Say you don't like 1. Declare victory over all.

 

[jlee]

You did 1. I said that that was fine.

You admitted that we have more death, you just said that it was negligent. I said, that counts as death.

You pointed out that there is other fatal violence that don't hit the heart, I pointed back to a 4 sourced statistic that covers all types of fatal violence.

You declare victory and think that your echo chamber friends proves it. Hell, you could find nazi sympathizers on the internet.. it doesn't prove you right, but it does prove you foolish to think so.

I find it hard to take someone seriously when they can't even put their replies in the same post and resort to triple-posting instead. :awe:

 

[shadow9d9]

I find it hard to take someone seriously when they can't even put their replies in the same post and resort to triple-posting instead. :awe:

Maybe you don't like my username either. That would be just as good of a reason right? Facts and evidence don't mean much when people only want to hear an echo chamber instead of actual debate.

 

[Xecuter]

i think you meant "for all intensive purposes"

 

[brblx]

too much random thread to read. story in OP does seem silly, as someone pointed out early on, worry about crazy person with the gun you DON'T see, not an armed guard. no, they're not exactly delta force; they're not even KP force. but if they're trained and licensed to carry the gun, assumably in a safe, secure holster (serpa or anything with positive retention and complete coverage of the trigger guard area), it's beyond to retarded for a company to tell them they can't have it around unarmed employees. your coworkers should be smacked for being pansies.

then again i work on cars and at many shops a solid half of my coworkers have a weapon in their car or toolbox. hell, i knew one old guy that had about five.

 

[brblx]

i think you meant "for all intensive purposes"

who are you replying to and also dear god please be being sarcasic

 

[FDF12389]

You did 1. I said that that was fine.

You admitted that we have more death, you just said that it was negligent. I said, that counts as death.

You pointed out that there is other fatal violence that don't hit the heart, I pointed back to a 4 sourced statistic that covers all types of fatal violence.

You declare victory and think that your echo chamber friends proves it. Hell, you could find nazi sympathizers on the internet.. it doesn't prove you right, but it does prove you foolish to think so.

Let's try again. This time I'll dumb it down for your simple mind.

"Robberies committed with guns are three times as likely to result in fatalities compared with robberies where other weapons were used,[48][49][50] with similar patterns in cases of family violence.[51]"

^ a b Cook, Philip J. (1987). "Robbery Violence". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 70 (2). NCJ 108118.
^ Kleck, Gary, K. McElrath (1991). "The Effects of Weaponry on Human Violence". Social Forces (Social Forces, Vol. 69, No. 3) 69 (3): 669–692. doi:10.2307/2579469. JSTOR 2579469. NCJ 134329.
^ a b Zimring, Franklin E. (1972). "The Medium is the Message: Firearm Caliber as a Determinant of Death from Assault". Journal of Legal Studies 1: 97–123. doi:10.1086/467479. NCJ 47874.
^ Saltzman, L., J.A. Mercy, et al. (1992). "Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults". Journal of the American Medical Association 267 (22): 3043–3047. doi:10.1001/jama.267.22.3043. PMID 1588718.

Often the fatality is that of the attacker and not the victim, this statistic is misleading. Of course they will be more death when the criminal has a gun, because then we kill the criminal. This is a good thing.

"The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.[39]"

The heart is 0.5% of the humans body mass on average. You are missing 99.5% of your "Evidence". No worries though I'll still bite. Edge weapon injuries to extremities are far more likely to to kill you. Bullets kill by massive tissue damage, edge weapons by blood loss.

"Remarkably, among the 23 countries studied, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States; 86 % of women killed by firearms were U.S. women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were U.S. children.

Amazing how they don't mention anything about what percentage of capita the US accounts for out of those 23 countries. Maybe you should take a statistics class.

U.S. homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates (as reported in other studies).

Here you are saying we have more homicide. I would like to point out that we classify negligent deaths as homicides whereas other countries do not. This means that you cannot make a fair comparison.

The U.S. unintentional firearm death rate was 5.2 times higher than that of the other high-income countries combined.

How was this "rate" calculated? It seems its not actually a rate but a hard count. This is not a fair comparison as out population is much larger.

Other key statistics included:

For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries.
For U.S. males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for U.S. females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454

For the third time, we have more people here, and more immigrants than any other country, its expected and obvious we will have more incidents. Notice I didn't say higher percentage? That's because your source used a count again, instead of a more fair per capita ratio.

It has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with flawed statistics.

 

[zinfamous]

all of this, and not even one post by neckbeard.

:hmm:

 

[Lithium381]

Let's try again. This time I'll dumb it down for your simple mind.



Often the fatality is that of the attacker and not the victim, this statistic is misleading. Of course they will be more death when the criminal has a gun, because then we kill the criminal. This is a good thing.



The heart is 0.5% of the humans body mass on average. You are missing 99.5% of your "Evidence". No worries though I'll still bite. Edge weapon injuries to extremities are far more likely to to kill you. Bullets kill by massive tissue damage, edge weapons by blood loss.



Amazing how they don't mention anything about what percentage of capita the US accounts for out of those 23 countries. Maybe you should take a statistics class.




Here you are saying we have more homicide. I would like to point out that we classify negligent deaths as homicides whereas other countries do not. This means that you cannot make a fair comparison.



How was this "rate" calculated? It seems its not actually a rate but a hard count. This is not a fair comparison as out population is much larger.




For the third time, we have more people here, and more immigrants than any other country, its expected and obvious we will have more incidents. Notice I didn't say higher percentage? That's because your source used a count again, instead of a more fair per capita ratio.

It has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with flawed statistics.

wrong.

 

[jlee]

Maybe you don't like my username either. That would be just as good of a reason right? Facts and evidence don't mean much when people only want to hear an echo chamber instead of actual debate.

IDGAF. I'm here for the entertainment.

 

[Zargon]

Are you saying that other first world countries do not have inner cities? If we remove their inner cities, they will look better too...

The stats aren't even close. We come out much much worse. Inner cities are not unique to here.

no I am merely pointing out that you are accusing a group of people of causing this problem, that have NOTHING to do with the problem



not to mention you are ignoring other factors. you cant compare gun crime in the US to the UK, britain doesnt have many guns therefore less gun crime, yet with almost no guns they have a higher rate of armed robbery and all other violent crimes

I dont think the guy getting robbed cares if it was a gun or a knife.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-world-armed-robbery-says-security-boss.html

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/robbery-rate-worse-than-us--study-14896827.html


I'm not sure why you would trade a few less murders, especially since I've already shown that a large portion are inner city, and likely gang on gang crime, for a broader violent crime/robbery rate where real innocents are more likely to be the victim, and why you blame the murder rate on guns?

 

[etrigan420]

Jesus Christ did this thread get convoluted or what?

Appears to me as though the management at the OP's place of employment was being receptive and attentive to the concerns of their employees.

They could have gone 2 ways with it:

1. Tell the employees to get the fuck over it.

2. Ban firearms.

They chose the path of least resistance. :shrug:

 

[shortylickens]

Jesus Christ did this thread get convoluted or what?

Appears to me as though the management at the OP's place of employment was being receptive and attentive to the concerns of their employees.

They could have gone 2 ways with it:

1. Tell the employees to get the fuck over it.

2. Ban firearms.

They chose the path of least resistance. :shrug:

Like I just said: Gun threads NEVER go well on Anandtech.
Seriously, I have not seen any of them go past 6 replies without an argument, troll, or flame.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Like I just said: Gun threads NEVER go well on Anandtech.
Seriously, I have not seen any of them go past 6 replies without an argument, troll, or flame.

I know. All these sheeple and there republitard and dumbocrat ideologies they cling to. :awe:

 

[DominionSeraph]

I know what it is and used it correctly.

No, you don't, and no, you didn't.

A conclusion derived from the evidence you present while arguing is not a substitute inference within the argument.

1. All potatoes are mammals.
2. Cats are potatoes.
3. Therefore, cats are mammals.

"Hmmm... based on what you wrote, I conclude that it is likely that you are at least mildly retarded."

This is not an ad hominem, retard. It in fact requires no disagreement with the conclusion at all. You can quite safely be in agreement that cats are mammals (and in agreement that the argument is logically valid) while concluding that the person behind the argument has issues.
And in inductive logic, factors affecting the probability that a conclusion is at a certain truth value are valid to include. Also, one can make judgements as to the allocation of one's time and mental resources without making any firm judgement as to the conclusion presented. (If you are consistently stupid I can dismiss everything you put forth as being a waste of my time to even try to process. Regardless of whether you may happen to be right in any one instance [even a stopped clock is right twice a day] it doesn't make it worth my time to go through every argument you present to separate the wheat from the chaff. Such dismissal based on stupidity is also not an ad hominem.)

Your failure to be previously aware any of this is further support in favor of the conclusion that you are stupid.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Um, guys? Why?

 

[OverVolt]

Why are they comparing gun related crime between a country with lots of guns versus a country with barely any guns? Of course America has more gun related crime, because we have more guns. Although in Britain if someone just kills you with a knife I don't see the difference. Why are flat out crime rates not being compared?

Its just typical statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics bullshit.

 

[Sunbird]

Violent crime is not gun related crime.

0.12 per 100k firearm homicide rate in the UK. 2.97 in the US.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Office_on_Drugs_and_Crime


Oh, and non Firearm homicide is 1.33 in England and Wales vs 4.58 in the US.

You are still wrong even without guns.



Canada is .54 per 100k.

On that list, no other first world country is as high as us, and Mexico is the next most homicidal related to guns.

If I recall correctly about 55 South Africans are murdered a day out of 50 million population. don't know what the figure is on % but thats one Norway shooting death toll every 1.5days.

 

[shadow9d9]

Let's try again. This time I'll dumb it down for your simple mind.



Often the fatality is that of the attacker and not the victim, this statistic is misleading. Of course they will be more death when the criminal has a gun, because then we kill the criminal. This is a good thing.

Ad hominem, so you get +1 to your argument... this is how it works right?

I've already addressed this. Death is death, and that is the whole point of my argument, so thanks for agreeing that we have more death.

The heart is 0.5% of the humans body mass on average. You are missing 99.5% of your "Evidence". No worries though I'll still bite. Edge weapon injuries to extremities are far more likely to to kill you. Bullets kill by massive tissue damage, edge weapons by blood loss.

This was already dropped.

Amazing how they don't mention anything about what percentage of capita the US accounts for out of those 23 countries. Maybe you should take a statistics class.

I already agreed to ignore this one stat.. the same one stat I keep railing on you because you wanted to drop it, I agreed, and then you wouldn't let it go.

Here you are saying we have more homicide. I would like to point out that we classify negligent deaths as homicides whereas other countries do not. This means that you cannot make a fair comparison.

Death is death. You can keep repeating this, and so will I.

How was this "rate" calculated? It seems its not actually a rate but a hard count. This is not a fair comparison as out population is much larger.

You keep trying to reference the one stat I already dropped. You just keep trying to say, "See! I got you to drop one stat out of 7, I win!"

For the third time, we have more people here, and more immigrants than any other country, its expected and obvious we will have more incidents. Notice I didn't say higher percentage? That's because your source used a count again, instead of a more fair per capita ratio.

It has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with flawed statistics.

Few things. One, you need to actually use evidence to prove that "immigrants" cause more firearm related death. Using assumptions and hopes doesn't work.

I simply pointed out that 1/300 of our population immigrate this year.

 

[Zargon]

Why are they comparing gun related crime between a country with lots of guns versus a country with barely any guns? Of course America has more gun related crime, because we have more guns. Although in Britain if someone just kills you with a knife I don't see the difference. Why are flat out crime rates not being compared?

Its just typical statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics bullshit.

yup

 

[shadow9d9]

yup

In reality, the US has higher firearm homicide rate than others with comparable numbers like Japan and Canada.

Besides, the fact that we have so many guns compared to some other first world countries only bolsters my argument that we are obsessed with them.

 

[Zargon]

In reality, the US has higher firearm homicide rate than others with comparable numbers like Japan and Canada.

Besides, the fact that we have so many guns compared to some other first world countries only bolsters my argument that we are obsessed with them.

I fail to see how you can realistically compare Japan to the USA, or canada for that matter, completely different societys.

but if you want, sure, Japan's rape numbers are disgusting, and reports say that many many rapes go unreported, so what about that? should we trade murders for high rape and suicide rates?

guns are less controlled here than in canada, which would also explain us having more of them

anti-gunners seem more obsessed with guns than say, most gun owners.

and I never argued that our firearm homicide rate is higher, I said it DOESNT MATTER.

how much higher is the HOMICIDE RATE?

what you use doesnt matter, at all. what matters for comparison is the homicide rate. anyone with an IQ allowing them to go to public schools should be able to figure out that if you have more guns per capita more people will use them to kill over other means like knifes bats ETC. but cherry picking the stat of firearm homicide rate is silly and biased

 

[FDF12389]

I fail to see how you can realistically compare Japan to the USA, or canada for that matter, completely different societys.

but if you want, sure, Japan's rape numbers are disgusting, and reports say that many many rapes go unreported, so what about that? should we trade murders for high rape and suicide rates?

guns are less controlled here than in canada, which would also explain us having more of them

anti-gunners seem more obsessed with guns than say, most gun owners.

and I never argued that our firearm homicide rate is higher, I said it DOESNT MATTER.

how much higher is the HOMICIDE RATE?

what you use doesnt matter, at all. what matters for comparison is the homicide rate. anyone with an IQ allowing them to go to public schools should be able to figure out that if you have more guns per capita more people will use them to kill over other means like knifes bats ETC. but cherry picking the stat of firearm homicide rate is silly and biased

Plus like I've already tried explaining we have a lot of "negligent homicides" that other countries don't classify as homicides, so the numbers are flawed when you use a general criteria that has different definitions and thresholds in other countries.