I'm thinking real hard about selling all my serious business firearms. Suddenly tactical assault rifles with high capacity magazines seem a lot less cool. >_>
This is why I don't and wouldn't own modern guns. I might get a Nagant or musket, but nothing that could be associated with "too soon" events (unless there's some retro hipster psychopath on the loose I don't know about).
You know, if I was buying firearms - Which I'm not, too fucking expensive here - I'd be buying primarily bolt-actions, I'd think. I'd rather have an old Lee Enfield SMLE, rather than an AR-15, for a target gun. I wouldn't even bother with a "Home defense" rifle, if I was going for home defense, I'd get a shotgun.
This is why I don't and wouldn't own modern guns. I might get a Nagant or musket, but nothing that could be associated with "too soon" events (unless there's some retro hipster psychopath on the loose I don't know about).
What, because some other people are too stupid to realize that not all gun owners are mentally unstable, ready to snap at any time? Dude, people are already either going to either think nothing of it, or think you're a fuckin' crazy gun nut ready to snap anyway, it doesn't matter if you've got a bolt-action, or a bloody Dillion Minigun. They don't know the difference, or to be more accurate, they don't fucking care. Might as well just do what you like, and forget about the stupid, judgmental jackasses.
If you're a sane, responsible and conscientious firearms owner, you're probably not really part of the problem, and the only people to whom your gun ownership is really a problem are the people who are going to have a problem no matter what you shoot or how you behave, because they're judging you solely on the fact that you own a gun and nothing else.
I'm thinking real hard about selling all my serious business firearms. Suddenly tactical assault rifles with high capacity magazines seem a lot less cool. >_>
This is why I don't and wouldn't own modern guns. I might get a Nagant or musket, but nothing that could be associated with "too soon" events (unless there's some retro hipster psychopath on the loose I don't know about).
That's it I'm buying TWO M4's to make up for your pansy-ass attitude. What Churba said.
As much as he's a really intelligent, switched on and generally smart guy, it honestly breaks my heart to be arguing with a friend, and he's saying "No, no, when comparing the numbers between two vastly different sample sizes, if you use x per 100,000 instead of just the raw "This many people" it's nothing more than obfuscating the facts with numbers" when I point out that using the raw number from such vastly different sample sizes (in the order of hundreds of millions difference between the two), you should be reducing it down to an even comparison.
I actually feel bad trying to explain to him why this isn't really the case, like I'm being condescending when I'm really, really trying hard not to. I don't know if I'm doing a bad job because I'm a bit dumb, particularly when it comes to math, or if it's because I'm vastly off the mark, but either way, it continues.
I didn't get to sleep until 4 AM last night. My chest hurt and my gut was doing back-flips because I couldn't stop worrying about what people think of me and how they treat me. When I finally got to sleep, I had a lot of nightmares about crying. Ffffuck, man. Fuck.
The proper answer is that it depends on what you want to use those numbers for; it's not a matter of what is "even".
To be blunt - the firearm murder rate between two different countries, because of this poster:
I said "That doesn't sound right", to which I was told "The numbers are accurate, look them up" - so I did and they're not, only Finland, Canada and the US are correct(the rest are pretty much made up). Also, only Canada and the US are even from the same year. I also pointed out that not noting that Finland only has 5 million people vs the US's 300 million is kinda dishonest, and it would be more accurate and fair to note those at a per hundred thousand rate.
I understand the reason they didn't - if you break it down that way, the number doesn't look nearly as scary, because 3.16 per 100,000 looks like the price of a cup of coffee, not 9000 deaths a year. That said, it still feels pretty dishonest to me.
I've seen a similar poster that said "Stop handguns before they stop you." Fear mongering and poor representations of statistics aren't the way to get a message across.
Especially because in the other version of that image, it says "West Germany", so is either 25 years old or compiled by an idiot. Either way, pretty worthless.
I've seen a similar poster that said "Stop handguns before they stop you." Fear mongering and poor representations of statistics aren't the way to get a message across.
That was the point I was trying to make to him. Plus, accurate representations of pure fact are a lot harder to argue with.
Especially because in the other version of that image, it says "West Germany", so is either 25 years old or compiled by an idiot. Either way, pretty worthless.
Yeah, it's the Brady Campaign. Anti-gun lobbyists long known for their tenuous relation to anything resembling truth or reality. Being for or against gun control isn't entirely relevant, because no matter your stance on the issue, a steaming pile of bullshit is still a steaming pile of bullshit.
And on that poster, the statistic for Germany (and/or West Germany, if it's the same number) is completely fictional anyway.
Comments
I'll stick with my airsoft guns for tactical foolery.
If you're a sane, responsible and conscientious firearms owner, you're probably not really part of the problem, and the only people to whom your gun ownership is really a problem are the people who are going to have a problem no matter what you shoot or how you behave, because they're judging you solely on the fact that you own a gun and nothing else.
I actually feel bad trying to explain to him why this isn't really the case, like I'm being condescending when I'm really, really trying hard not to. I don't know if I'm doing a bad job because I'm a bit dumb, particularly when it comes to math, or if it's because I'm vastly off the mark, but either way, it continues.
WARNING: don't read the following unless you have VERY bad taste and no morality:
I said "That doesn't sound right", to which I was told "The numbers are accurate, look them up" - so I did and they're not, only Finland, Canada and the US are correct(the rest are pretty much made up). Also, only Canada and the US are even from the same year. I also pointed out that not noting that Finland only has 5 million people vs the US's 300 million is kinda dishonest, and it would be more accurate and fair to note those at a per hundred thousand rate.
I understand the reason they didn't - if you break it down that way, the number doesn't look nearly as scary, because 3.16 per 100,000 looks like the price of a cup of coffee, not 9000 deaths a year. That said, it still feels pretty dishonest to me.
PS. I'm all for maximum gun control.
And on that poster, the statistic for Germany (and/or West Germany, if it's the same number) is completely fictional anyway.