Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Anyone Want Piers Back?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Anyone Want Piers Back?

Closed Thread

Old 28th Dec 2012, 14:59
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 15,004
I do like the cut of Lyman's Jib!
SASless is online now  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 15:01
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 556
PTT...But apart from missing all that highly relevant detail in order to enable a suitable narrative spin on the real stats (which it didn't link anywhere, presumably because they actually contradict the author's story when given in full) then yeah, great article...
So then what your're saying is that the side of the argument that says gun control/confiscation works in the UK, while pointing to the "stats", can't, because of the same reason?

I'll buy that.
Desert185 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 15:46
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 65
Posts: 3,330
Well, when your guns are confiscated, there's always using the subway. In NYC, with the most draconian gun laws, twice in the past month deranged persons have pushed the unsuspecting onto the tracks.

Subway Killer

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 16:03
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 572
Well, when your guns are confiscated, there's always using the subway.
I was just about to bring this up.

Obviously, the subway must be shut down. We in rural America insist on it. Too many innocents are dying there.
obgraham is online now  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 16:09
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 54
Posts: 664
And Chicago, that notoriously anti-gun city, just hit the 500 murder, nearly all by illegal guns.

Fatal Overnight Shooting Marks 500 Homicides in Chicago | NBC Chicago


Illegally acquired, illegally used.


I encourage Temp Spike to start his confiscation there before taking on the lawful and law-abiding gun owners.

Although, I suspect should he get his way, a fair number won't be so law-abiding.

Of course, he won't be the one willing to get his hands dirty. That's for the workers.


Who most likely own guns themselves.

Rough and ready justice dispenses out ol' Temp Spike. Well, he proclaims it; the execution is for lessers.
brickhistory is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 16:18
  #266 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
That's a fantastic idea!

Temp Spike, I'll contribute to your expenses as you break down the crack house doors of Chicago, relieving potential killers of their filthy guns. You get your guns and we all get safer. Win-win.

Why didn't I think of that before? Gettin' old I 'spose.
BenThere is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 16:33
  #267 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by BenThere View Post
That's a fantastic idea!

Temp Spike, I'll contribute to your expenses as you break down the crack house doors of Chicago, relieving potential killers of their filthy guns. You get your guns and we all get safer. Win-win.

Why didn't I think of that before? Gettin' old I 'spose.
The only expenses our friend will have, after that stunt, would be funeral expenses.
 
Old 28th Dec 2012, 16:39
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 60
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post
Well, when your guns are confiscated, there's always using the subway. In NYC, with the most draconian gun laws, twice in the past month deranged persons have pushed the unsuspecting onto the tracks.

Subway Killer

GF
The report I read said the guy was stood innocently on the platform waiting for a train when his attacker rose from a seat behind, shoved him in the back and onto the track to his death.

Now even I know guns are useful tools but how one would have helped this poor chap is beyond me

Unless you are suggesting that a fellow traveler on the platform could have whipped his sidearm out in true Raylan Givens style and put a couple into his assailant, nah even you would not be suggesting something so preposterous
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 16:40
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 556
Gertrude...You've got me really puzzled now. I was distinctly under the impression from our (UK) media that the USA executed criminals from time to time. Is that unconstitutional, then?
We're already so off topic, so what the heck...

Punishment for crimes committed, especially heinous crimes, is justified in a civil society. Execution of babies by means of abortion, to include partial birth abortion also seems to be permissible. There are many more abortions than those occasional executions of criminals, so I have to ask, why the double standard, and why is it OK to kill innocent babies and not murderers and rapists?

With the exception of the partial birth technique, I am not entirely against abortion, but why is taking life with one method acceptable where another is not?

If capital punishment were abolished throughout the world, we would be down to killing the innocents and not the guilty. How can one be justified and not the other?

I find it curious that those who volunteer in animal shelters throughout much of the US are adamantly against terminating the life of the animals under their care, yet think nothing of having an abortion. Why wouldn't that thought process of adoption and care be prioritized towards humans?
Desert185 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 16:42
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 60
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by brickhistory View Post
nearly all by illegal guns.
The dilemma for you guys is how to remove the need for the word nearly
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 16:46
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 65
Posts: 3,330
SFFP

I like Raylan, but he might have been done in on the platform, too. The point being that it's a dangerous world, murder doesn't require a gun, not that a gun would have saved this poor chap.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 16:49
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
And your problem seems to be a delusion of perfection, made by man.

Our problem together is to mitigate, that is all people of moral makeup can do.
Lyman is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 17:15
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 54
Posts: 664
The dilemma for you guys is how to remove the need for the word nearly
No dilemma. Laws have already been passed against murder, against injuring/killing someone not in self-defense, etc, etc, etc. That should do it.


As for me, I'll carry discreetly and frequently as well as carrying on.
brickhistory is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 17:20
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
This is a fun thread - its almost word for word the last one we had about guns, but the names have changed slightly (I already recognise two seperate points that I made last time!)
Mr Chips is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 18:32
  #275 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by Desert185
Originally Posted by PTT
...But apart from missing all that highly relevant detail in order to enable a suitable narrative spin on the real stats (which it didn't link anywhere, presumably because they actually contradict the author's story when given in full) then yeah, great article...
So then what your're saying is that the side of the argument that says gun control/confiscation works in the UK, while pointing to the "stats", can't, because of the same reason?

I'll buy that.
Not entirely true.
What the change in data gathering gives us is effectively two datasets. The first dataset is up to Apr 2002, and the second is post Apr 2002.
The first dataset can be further subdivided into sections pre-1997 (the gun ban beginning) and pre-1998 (the change in data gathering which gave an estimated 28-29% increase in recorded crime), with the post-98 subset being a further subset of the post-97 subset. Anything within that pre-2002 dataset can be compared with anything else within that dataset so long as appropriate adjustments (such as reducing post-1998 data by 28-29%) or real-world contexts (realising that it would take 5-6 years for a handgun ban to fully take effect due to the length of FACs) are considered.
Anything within the second dataset can also be compared with anything within that same second dataset (although it would take some study to look at some of the post-2008 data in the same light due to crime reclassifications).
Each dataset itself has its own set of characteristics, and those can be compared between datasets. One of those characteristics is the trend over time, and if you compare the two datasets you can see that the earlier dataset has a strongly increasing trend over time, with the later dataset having a strongly decreasing trend over time.

Now, if I were to be unscrupulous (as per the author of the article you linked to) I could quite reasonably say "after the gun ban came into full effect the strong upward trend in handgun crime was reversed". There's nothing implicitly wrong with that statement, but it would leave you with a false impression that the handgun ban is the sole reason for it. And therein lies the rub with reporters using statistics: they try to attribute cause, and the cause invariably will fit the desired narrative and will be, at first blush, statistically plausible to the layman, even though they are patently a pile of bull the moment you even scrape the surface:

Statistics can't attribute cause on their own: they can only give correlations. That is what we have here: a correlation between the implementation and taking full effect of a handgun ban and a change in the trend of gun crime. The correlation is strong, but that does not mean that the ban caused the change in trend. It certainly doesn't mean it didn't have an effect, though, but without a full and rigorous study of all the factors involved it is impossible to say what the effect was.

As an example of strong correlation, this article, by someone who certainly appears to understand statistics, is a good place to start: Gun Deaths vs. Gun Ownership ← Inductio Ex Machina

Last edited by PTT; 28th Dec 2012 at 18:50.
PTT is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 19:20
  #276 (permalink)  
bnt
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland. (No, I just live here.)
Posts: 704
Piers is at it again: maybe he's trying to get deported, since he's pretty much alienated the "guns & religion" crowd by now: Now Piers Morgan says the Bible is 'flawed' | Mail Online
I mean: why else interview Rick Warren if not to court controversy?
bnt is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 19:40
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Chat show host in controversial statement shock
Mr Chips is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 19:41
  #278 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 882
The more this threads diverts from track, the more you realise that, in fact, Piers is indeed surrounded by kindred spirits...in his current location.

Last edited by Krystal n chips; 28th Dec 2012 at 19:43.
Krystal n chips is online now  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 19:43
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 60
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by brickhistory View Post

As for me, I'll carry discreetly and frequently as well as carrying on.
And so you should do!

A polite question but when you are not carrying it where does it reside?
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2012, 23:19
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 56
Posts: 211
Forget about the failed USAF officers.

Get your arse down to the Cronck gym.


Caco
Cacophonix is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service