PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

brickhistory 1st Nov 2014 13:47


Until they change or are forced to change that thought process
And there we have it.

A change here, a change there, and pretty soon the government decides it is the basis of power and arbiter of what is 'right.'

Things like free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from warrantless search and seizure, etc, etc, etc, are all things a government - made by men and subject to the whims and foibles of men - would dearly love to control exclusively.

Heck, you could cut a lot of defense dollars if "quartering soldiers" made a comeback. (inserted for sarcasm purposes, mainly)

Those freedoms, like the Second Amendment, are under ferocious assualt.

All of them, whether one 'likes' all of them or not, are worth defending whether in court, in practice, or in an internet forum with people who have absolutely no say in the game.

We are not you, we are not like you, and, most of us, don't want to be like you. We are fine that you are as you are, but shudder at the thought of the near-absolute control that is you.

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Nov 2014 14:16

Brick,

What I actually wrote was

Until the change or are forced to change the slaughter will continue

Recent history shows that folk as completely intransigent as you are wrong. Intransigent folk once thought slavery was right, they were proved wrong, you and others think school massacres and the like are a price worth paying so that you can bear arms unfettered.

The U.S. is to smart to allow this to continue unchecked and at some stage change will happen.

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 16:16


Originally Posted by bcgallacher (Post 8723324)
Dushan - as you do not seem to have much of an idea on how to reduce the mass killing of your fellow citizens are you not open to ideas from outside?

I see what ideas those on the outside have. Total bans, confiscations, government "inspections". No thanks.

PTT 1st Nov 2014 16:31

Not that anyone has actually suggested any of those things, Dushan, but what measures would you find acceptable?

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 16:34


Originally Posted by John Hill (Post 8723443)
I don't think school massacres are seen as really important compared to keeping themselves tooled up and prepared to fend off tyranny and oppression.

Or to have a swimming pool in the back yard in which huge numbers of children drown, annually.

Anyone calling for training and registration for swimming pool ownership?

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 16:37


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8723781)
Not that anyone has actually suggested any of those things, Dushan, but what measures would you find acceptable?

There are plenty of measures I already don't find acceptable, so certainly adding any more would not be acceptable.

PTT 1st Nov 2014 16:52

Dushan - 683 fatal pool drownings per year (public and private). Roughly 20% of all drownings are <15yo, which would equate to ~140 per year.

Yeah, I think people ought to be better trained in the safety of their pools, or should have pool alarms mandated like they are in France (the French experienced a considerable drop in pool drowning mortality after implementing new legislation in 2006 - source).

There are plenty of measures I already don't find acceptable, so certainly adding any more would not be acceptable.
So your stance is that there can be no negotiation. You're already predisposed to reject whatever ideas others have. Seems to me you have no ideas which would help and aren't willing to accept any which might.

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 16:59


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8723808)
Yeah, I think people ought to be better trained in the safety of their pools, or should have pool alarms mandated like they are in France (the French experienced a considerable drop in pool drowning mortality after implementing new legislation in 2006 - source).

No thanks. Less government intrusion, not more...


So your stance is that there can be no negotiation. You're already predisposed to reject whatever ideas others have. Seems to me you have no ideas which would help and aren't willing to accept any which might.
You got that right. Not an inch. From my cold, dead hands...

bcgallacher 1st Nov 2014 17:09

Dushan - we don't have total bans in the UK and we manage to get by without killing each other in large quantities. Gun sports such as deer stalking,grouse and pheasant shooting are a large contributor to the Scottish economy. Foreigners from many countries come here to enjoy the sport - but they do not carry handguns

obgraham 1st Nov 2014 17:20

Looks like we on this side are losing interest in this hamster wheel diatribe.

Knock yourselves out, folks.

PTT 1st Nov 2014 17:35

Dushan

Less government intrusion, not more...
Sacrificing children on the altar of your rights. Wonderful attitude.

Originally Posted by PTT
Seems to me you have no ideas which would help and aren't willing to accept any which might.


Originally Posted by Dushan
You got that right.

This attitude is why change will happen despite you rather than because of you: those who are willing to compromise will just go ahead without you. "Cold dead hands" might well be accurate.

obgraham - It's the desire to polarise this discussion which is causing the issues. When polarisation happens there is no compromise and someone loses. Best you hope it's not you.

galaxy flyer 1st Nov 2014 17:50

As I posted earlier, we Americans strike a different balance between liberties, like gun ownership, regulating and licensing vehicle operators, than you Euros. Yes, we have more deaths that can be reasonably be the result of that societal decision. GET. OVER. IT.

GF

BOING 1st Nov 2014 17:53

PTT
You folks talk as though this problem has never been tackled by the people of the US - you are totally wrong. This has been a topic of discussion and negotiation for many years. The difficulty is that you have a series of suggestions that bump up against an historical and legal "Right" and you do not throw away an important protection in your Nation's founding document to gain a possibly temporary improvement in a situation that could be handled in another way.

The problem is to find the middle way but NEITHER of the extreme viewpoints will consider a middle way since the extreme gun supporters say no restrictions and the antis say only complete confiscation will suffice. In the general population 84% of people WANT changes that will reduce gun related crime and useless deaths but in that same population 65% (of all social groups and viewpoints) DO NOT WANT gun access to be prevented. In case you fail to see the difference there, people do want mis-use of guns controlled but they do not want access to guns controlled. The problem is as stated, the extremes want to control the regulations.

In post 654 Exxb stated:

More guns means more deaths.
This has been a mantra of the gun control crowd forever and it is quite obviously incorrect. There is no direct correlation. You are dealing with a bell curve situation. If there were no guns clearly there would be no gun deaths. If only one person existed on the Earth and he had five million guns there would be no deaths (except possibly a suicide due to boredom). However, when you move into the working part of the curve we see that an increasing number of guns in society does indeed increase the number of gun deaths but the curve flattens and once the peak of the curve is passed an increase in the number of guns ceases to be the determining factor in the number of gun deaths. This is the situation in the US. You can see this by analysing the information available on the number of guns per capita and the number of gun deaths per capita in several countries but you can do this yourself because it is a tedious job.
The probable underlying factor is that in a country with reduced access to guns only the people most likely to use them will own them (including a large proportion of potential criminals with illegal weapons) so you see an apparent correlation between the number of guns and the number of deaths.
In a country like the US where access is fairly simple many people buy guns to have in the home "just in case" and the gun is never touched from one year to another so these are, in effect, dormant guns.
Unfortunately the "home" gun, if it is badly controlled is a factor in many shootings. Misuse of these guns is only a factor in a small number of cases, perhaps 20 incidents per year in 288,000,000 million firearms, but the number still needs to be reduced since it produces damage out of all proportion to its frequency.


.

.

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 17:58


Originally Posted by bcgallacher (Post 8723828)
Dushan - we don't have total bans in the UK and we manage to get by without killing each other in large quantities. Gun sports such as deer stalking,grouse and pheasant shooting are a large contributor to the Scottish economy. Foreigners from many countries come here to enjoy the sport - but they do not carry handguns

I don't consider killing an animal "sport", but that's just me. Knock yourselfs out. I'm more into paper targets and mechanical craftsmanship of my handguns and keeping governments nose out of them.

Freedom to choose, and all that.

PTT 1st Nov 2014 18:00

galaxy flyer

Yes, we have more deaths that can be reasonably be the result of that societal decision.
So what decision will society make about it?
I'm over it, chap, (whatever "it" is) but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it (at least with some people).

BOING

The difficulty is that you have a series of suggestions that bump up against an historical and legal "Right" and you do not throw away an important protection in your Nation's founding document to gain a possibly temporary improvement in a situation that could be handled in another way.
Yes, we see the difficulty. It's with the interpretation of that document which one side sees as unalienable and unchangeable while the other sees as a living document open to interpretation. Both sides are reasonable in their way. You identify the minority who are unreasonable, though, as the issue. Bypass them.

This has been a mantra of the gun control crowd forever and it is quite obviously incorrect. There is no direct correlation. You are dealing with a bell curve situation.
All the data I've seen shows a strong correlation between gun deaths and gun ownership rates when looking at individual nations and when looking at the states individually. When looking at individual states within the US and filtering only for gun murders that breaks down, but that's the only time. I have no idea what bell curve you are talking about. Correlation is not causation, though.

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 18:06


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8723867)
So what decision will society make about it?

When both houses, in 38 states, vote in favour of repealing the 2nd, then that will be the decision the American society makes. Nipping at the ankles by individual antis and furriners won't do squat.

wings folded 1st Nov 2014 18:12

A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it?
 
288,000,000,000,000 guns? Seems rather a lot.

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 18:18


Originally Posted by wings folded (Post 8723876)
288,000,000,000,000 guns? Seems rather a lot.

It's a good start.

brickhistory 1st Nov 2014 18:46

288,000,000?

Do keep up.

It's estimated over 300,000,000 now.

Barry Obama has been the best gun salesman ever.

Estimated 12,000,000 sold last year alone. And nearly the same for every year of his Presidencey.

288,000,000?
Where do I put them all? I have trouble now with my several dozen.

Not to mention all the ammo.

There's your bulk storage problem.

Moving 8,000 rounds earlier this year was not a lot of fun.

But 8,000 trigger pulls is.

An average of one per pointless non-US ppruner trying to tell me how I should act within my own country.

PTT 1st Nov 2014 19:04


When both houses, in 38 states, vote in favour of repealing the 2nd, then that will be the decision the American society makes.
Or the USSC decides to reinterpret it. You seem to keep forgetting that one. You also seem to keep forgetting that there are already restrictions in place: the right to bear arms is not unlimited (USSC Heller case), so limitations can be put in place so long as they are deemed constitutional by the USSC. Given that the 2nd calls for a "well regulated" militia some sort of training requirement would seem to be appropriate. Depends on what the USSC thinks about it, though.

Nipping at the ankles by individual antis and furriners won't do squat.
While we foreigners can do nothing about it (nor do I want to, personally), "individual antis" add up to a lot of opposition.

BOING 1st Nov 2014 19:21

PTT

The bald statement that "more guns equals more deaths" is what is fundamentally incorrect, this implies that, just because more guns are available in a population there will be more deaths. Not only must a gun be available to carry out a "gun" death but so must there be intent on the part of the user. There has never been a serious claim that the mere possession of a firearm drives, by some evil magical influence from a piece of cold machinery, to its use any more than the possession of a hammer would do so.


All the data I've seen shows a strong correlation between gun deaths and gun ownership rates when looking at individual nations and when looking at the states individually.
You are missing the point I am trying to make about the "more guns equal more deaths" statement and it does not take a degree in statistics to see the reality of the argument. Let's discount the low number of truly accidental shootings and look at a possible scenario.

Every shooting will have two components, the firearm and the intent to use it. Now, Bill (sorry Bill) is mentally deranged and he has just been fired from his job and left by his wife, he cracks. Bill, actually owns quite a collection of firearms.
Bill's ownership of the guns is, in fact, illegal but his liberal stress counsellor did not report his mental problems to anyone since she thought this would infringe on Bill's right to privacy (a strongly supported interpretation of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution) - this happens and is one of the reasons the wrong people get firearms.
Bill actually owns a dozen assorted guns. He takes one of his handguns and shoots his old boss and his wife.

Now, tell me why Bill's eleven other guns were a factor in this tragedy? They may have been an indication of his mental problems but equally his perfectly legal hunting activities may have been a therapy. Bill's other guns exist safely in his guncase, totally innocent, as they did before his crime.

The statistics say that there are 9 guns in America for every 10 members of the population. I have never seen the population described any time I see that statistic produced but from the quantity I assume it includes every man, woman, child, grandma, retiree and probably a group of people not allowed to legally own guns. Quite obviously the guns are not distributed at a rate of one gun per person.

So, if you wish to claim that the number of individuals owning guns in a country effects its gun death rate, under objections not relevant here, I may provide limited agreement. However, to claim that the absolute amount of guns in a country, as claimed by antis, effects the death rate is clearly incorrect.

"More guns equals more deaths" is a catchy jingle used to influence the unthinking.

.

BOING 1st Nov 2014 19:35

Note. Said in JEST, get it JEST.

Since we are led to believe that the police will come in overwhelming force to confiscate our guns I think I will select one my Martini collection rifles as the weapon for my last stand (with bayonet of course), totally useless in the long term but at times like this one has to make the grand futile gesture. I may even play "Men of Harlech" on the outside loudspeakers in a loop.

(On the other hand I may choose my .308 HK91 with a bunch of 20 round mags. Depends how I feel on the night - I might be grumpy).

.

BenThere 1st Nov 2014 19:50

One way to decrease gun deaths in America that I could support would be to reform prisons so they required hard labor (enough to make prisons a profitable enterprise) and austere living.

Along with that I would institute new sentencing guidelines that would make use of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime a capital offense, speedily applied.

Do that, and you'll decimate violent gun crime in America. That's real gun control.

con-pilot 1st Nov 2014 19:52

I'm not worried about anyone coming after my guns, none are registered. They don’t have to be in this state.

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 19:55

But you just outed yourself on PPRuNe. The spooks watch this board, I am sure. Better go fishing, con-pilot, and take your guns along.

BOING 1st Nov 2014 20:23

Bet there will be plenty of people on that boat.

.

con-pilot 1st Nov 2014 20:23


But you just outed yourself on PPRuNe. The spooks watch this board, I am sure. Better go fishing, con-pilot, and take your guns along.
Possibly, but, do I have 10 guns, two guns or any amount between?

That is the question. :p

Feds; "Do you have any guns in the house?"

Poor little 'ol me; "Why yes I do, a .22 child's rifle made in 1899, why do you ask?"

Feds; "You have to register it so we can kick in your door and take it away some day."

Poor little 'ol me; "Okay." :E

See, I don't need no stinkin' fishing boat. :ok:

John Hill 1st Nov 2014 20:36


Originally Posted by BOING
The statistics say that there are 9 guns in America for every 10 members of the population. I have never seen the population described any time I see that statistic produced but from the quantity I assume it includes every man, woman, child, grandma, retiree and probably a group of people not allowed to legally own guns. Quite obviously the guns are not distributed at a rate of one gun per person.

I dont know how you could draw that conclusion, are women, children, grandmas and retirees precluded from owning guns?

Is it not the custom, as I have heard, to give guns to infants as christening presents?

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 20:45


Originally Posted by John Hill (Post 8723982)
Is it not the custom, as I have heard, to give guns to infants as christening presents?

Actually, why not? I am sure there are parts of the country where it is. It's a big country, you know, not just two little islands one can spit across.

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Nov 2014 21:38


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8723921)
Let's discount the low number of truly accidental shootings and look at a possible scenario.

Every shooting will have two components, the firearm and the intent to use it. Now, Bill (sorry Bill) is mentally deranged and he has just been fired from his job and left by his wife, he cracks. Bill, actually owns quite a collection of firearms.



Bill's ownership of the guns is, in fact, illegal, but his liberal stress counsellor did not report his mental problems to anyone since she thought this would infringe on Bill's right to privacy (a strongly supported interpretation of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution) - this happens and is one of the reasons the wrong people get firearms.
Bill actually owns a dozen assorted guns. He takes one of his handguns and shoots his old boss and his wife.

Now, tell me why Bill's eleven other guns were a factor in this tragedy? They may have been an indication of his mental problems but equally his perfectly legal hunting activities may have been a therapy. Bill's other guns exist safely in his guncase, totally innocent, as they did before his crime.

The statistics say that there are 9 guns in America for every 10 members of the population. I have never seen the population described any time I see that statistic produced but from the quantity I assume it includes every man, woman, child, grandma, retiree and probably a group of people not allowed to legally own guns. Quite obviously the guns are not distributed at a rate of one gun per person.

So, if you wish to claim that the number of individuals owning guns in a country effects its gun death rate, under objections not relevant here, I may provide limited agreement. However, to claim that the absolute amount of guns in a country, as claimed by antis, effects the death rate is clearly incorrect.

"More guns equals more deaths" is a catchy jingle used to influence the unthinking.

.



Lets try this one


Let's discount the low number of truly accidental shootings and look at a possible scenario.

Every shooting will have two components, the firearm and the intent to use it. Now, Bill (sorry Bill) is a happy go lucky chap with no history of mental illness in himself or his family who just found out that he has just been downsized and left by his wife, he cracks. Bill, actually owns quite a collection of firearms.



Bill's ownership of the guns is, in fact, completely legal and Bill actually owns a dozen assorted guns, also completely legal. He takes one of his handguns and shoots his old boss and his wife.

Now, tell me why Bill's eleven other guns were a factor in this tragedy? They may have been an indication of his happiness but equally his perfectly legal hunting activities may have been a therapy. Bill's other guns exist safely in his guncase, totally innocent, as they did before his crime.

The statistics say that there are 9 guns in America for every 10 members of the population. I have never seen the population described any time I see that statistic produced but from the quantity I assume it includes every man, woman, child, grandma, retiree and probably a group of people not allowed to legally own guns. Quite obviously the guns are not distributed at a rate of one gun per person.

So, if you wish to claim that the number of individuals owning guns in a country effects its gun death rate, under objections not relevant here, I may provide limited agreement. However, to claim that the absolute amount of guns in a country, as claimed by antis, effects the gun death rate is clearly correct.

"More guns equals more gun deaths" is extremely accurate and is a catchy jingle used to try to influence the unthinking as to what guns actually do.



There, reads a bit better like that :ok:


Now do tell us how Mrs Lanza was allowed to own weapons, train her son to use those weapons and inadvertently facilitate him accessing those weapons............................................go on give it your best shot, no pun intended..........

PTT 1st Nov 2014 21:41

BOING

if you wish to claim that the number of individuals owning guns in a country effects its gun death rate, under objections not relevant here, I may provide limited agreement. However, to claim that the absolute amount of guns in a country, as claimed by antis, effects the death rate is clearly incorrect.
Actually it's not.
http://tewksburylab.org/wp-content/u...eath-rates.jpg
Note that's Guns per 100 people, not "percentage of people owning guns", and r=0.752 (which is a strong correlation). If you want to look at percentage of people owning guns within the US then we can do pretty close to that too:
http://www.motherjones.com/files/ownership-death630.png
Again, a pretty good correlation (can't give you an r number without the actual data, but an eyeball and a bit of experience suggests it is a reasonably strong correlation), and source aside it is a fair comparison for the data BenThere linked from Wiki. Where it breaks down is when you start to look at murder rates rather than death rates. Some might call that cherrypicking.

So I am saying that BOTH the number of guns and the gun ownership rate have an effect. I would agree that if one person owned all the guns then things would likely look different, but the fact is that with the distribution as it is even in the US and other gun-owning nations that does not alter the overall correlation.

"More guns equals more deaths" is a catchy jingle used to influence the unthinking.
It's also fairly true within the real world data we have for the distribution of guns within a population.

BenThere - while I don't agree with your capital punishment suggestion I do agree that prison should involve a proper punishment such as real hard labour. It must be accepted, though, that a subsequently proven miscarriage of justice will come with appropriate compensation, too, though.

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Nov 2014 21:45


Originally Posted by John Hill (Post 8723982)
are women, children, grandmas and retirees, precluded from owning guns?



Is there anything in the 2nd that suggests that?..............

BOING 1st Nov 2014 21:49

John, we have various numbers to reconcile.

Many reports repeat the statistic that says there are 288,000,000 guns (which we are informed is now an outdated figure :)) in America.
The population of the country is 320,000,000 people.
To be able to say that there are 9 guns for every 10 members of the population "someone", not me, must have included all segments in the population even though, as you point out, many included in the population cannot legally own guns.
Here is one statement that includes the man/woman/child implication:

More than a third of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun. There are by various estimates anywhere from 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States — close to one firearm for every man, woman and child.
Pew Research.

An accurate statement would be;
There are 288,000,000 guns in America distributed unevenly throughout the population of 320,000,000 million people.

The "more guns equals more death" fallacy is concocted as a snappy one liner by the antis exactly because it implies the distribution is uniform and hence more menacing.


.

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Nov 2014 21:56


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8724043)
More than a third of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun. There are by various estimates anywhere from 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States — close to one firearm for every man, woman and child.


Which would suggest that somewhere in the region of 2 thirds of Americans don't know anyone in their household who owns a gun............


So in fact its only about 33% of you holding the rest of the country to ransom................you guys proud of that?

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 22:08


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8724050)
Which would suggest that somewhere in the region of 2 thirds of Americans don't know anyone in their household who owns a gun............


So in fact its only about 33% of you holding the rest of the country to ransom................you guys proud of that?

False. 100%* of Americans have the right to own guns. Nobody is being held for ransom. 67% choose not to, which is not to say they have anything against them. They have a choice to own or not own, or more likely a choice to tell anyone if they own or don't own. Or went fishing with their firearms in the nearby lake, recently.

Also if such a large (acording to you) percentage was against (as opposed to just not wanting them, but support other peoples' rights) owning gins then they wold get both houses in 38 states to abolish the 2nd amendment.








* Don't start with criminals, minors, mentals, etc. 100% of those that are mainstream of productive society.

BOING 1st Nov 2014 22:11

Seldom,
I do try to be reasonable but your non-humorous changes to my original post are not appreciated. If you are too lazy to come up with a relevant post of your own, or perish the thought facts, then keep your damn hands of mine.


Now do tell us how Mrs Lanza was allowed to own weapons, train her son to use those weapons and inadvertently facilitate him accessing those weapons............................................go on give it your best shot, no pun intended..........
Since I do not know the lady involved I cannot make a definitive statement so I can only guess. It is possible that she thought that she was actually helping her son by introducing him to various hobbies. Parents have been known to give the keys of the car to their children when they have too little experience - you will frequently see groups of teenagers dying while racing the old man's car but since the numbers are distributed over time nobody cares. Your use of the word "inadvertently" really tells us all we need to know.

The numbers of 16- and 17-year-old driver deaths in passenger vehicles in the United States were higher for the first six months of 2012 than in the first six months of 2011, based on preliminary data provided by all states and the
District of Columbia.
Deaths of 16-year-olds increased from 86 to 107 (24%), and deaths of 17-year-olds increased from 116 to 133 (15%). For both ages combined there was a 19% increase in driver deaths.
data from the Fatality analysis reporting System (FarS) for all of 2012 will not be available until the latter part of 2013, but the preliminary data signal that the strong downward trend in 16- and 17-year-old driver deaths that was occurring in recent years has ended, and – in fact – may have reversed course.
.

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Nov 2014 22:17


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8724058)
Seldom,



Since I do not know the lady involved I cannot make a definitive statement so I can only guess. It is possible that she thought that she was actually helping her son by introducing him to various hobbies.


Stripping out the red herrings..........


Do you think she was sensible in introducing him to guns?

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Nov 2014 22:28


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8724055)
Also if such a large (acceding to you) percentage was against (as opposed to just not wanting them, but support other peoples' rights) owning gins then they wold get both houses in 38 states to abolish the 2nd amendmen


Not me Gov, one of your US pals posted that........:p

Dushan 1st Nov 2014 22:33


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8724064)


Do you think she was sensible in introducing him to guns?

In retrospect no, but who are we to decide? The decision was hers, and she may have had valid reasons. She also paid the ultimate price for her stupidity, what more do you want?

PTT 1st Nov 2014 22:38

Dushan

* Don't start with criminals, minors, mentals, etc. 100% of those that are mainstream of productive society.
How very "Athenian democracy" of you ;)

She also paid the ultimate price for her stupidity, what more do you want?
How about the 20 children and 6 staff to not have paid that same price for her stupidity as well?

BOING

The "more guns equals more death" fallacy is concocted as a snappy one liner by the antis exactly because it implies the distribution is uniform and hence more menacing.
Except it's not a fallacy at all, as the figures I posted for you show.


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:40.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.