Senators reach deal on gun background checks

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

I think this shows the polls have been wrong about how many people in the US are for more gun laws as if they were, more Senators would have voted for the measure. The people have spoken; get use to it.

That's a possibility, certainly. Maybe the polls were inaccurate...

In scientific methodology when you get a result that doesn't align with your expectations you go back and check to see if you messed up something in your initial expectations. If you find that mistake (in this case it'd be the '90% of people' bits then you can run with the result you've got... You could probably say 'see - Government works!'

However if you go back and check and find out that that the polls WERE accurate, what then? What if 90% of the people are for more stringent controls but the system that's in place allows for Senators to be cajoled, bribed, blackmailed, forced, persuaded or otherwise convinced to act against those indicators for political expediency - what then?

We have a disparity between expectations and results. Something is wrong somewhere in the system... We should probably find out what.

If 90% of people polled said that they wanted "whatever it is that gets proposed in the Senate, pass it, I'm sure it's fine," then that would be highly disconcerting, and it would make the results of this senate vote quite alarming indeed, but I don't think that's what polls show.

[kallend 2,121]

Quote

second, i believe there are already laws removing the right to felons from owning arms, or are you that ignorant?

Well, it was YOU that wrote:

"every legal citizen of the us should have the same rights, and responsibilities, as every other legal citizen. "

So what part of "every" is it that you don't understand.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Until you can find the Zombie Franklin and ask him,

best to keep an axe, or fire, handy in that case. his gun won't be a very good defensive weapon against the undead

This is why you practice head shots. Though it never hurts to have the axe as well.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It is silly to blindly believe that a person could not change his ideas in 220 years.

It's silly, and evidence of your failure that you want us to presume that he would change his ideas. Somehow we're supposed to debate a hypothetical that has no definition or support. In short, you're bankrupt.

Be just as lame to argue that the 1st doesn't apply to the Internet.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

What if 90% of the people are for more stringent controls

That number came from a summary of a summary of a poll.

The original poll question was about supporting more background checks. 84% of the respondents (a little over 1000 people) said yes. Someone summarized that to about 85% and someone else summarized that to 90%.

So when you say 90% of those polled support more stringent controls, you're using a bad number and the wrong poll question. 84% of those polled supported more background checks.

There is also a gallup poll that shows that only 4% of those polled (again, a little over 1000) felt that gun control was the most important issue facing the country. That's a very specifically written question. So while the two numbers may appear to be diametrically opposed, they really can not be compared.

The poll question authors are the best liars.

--
Rob

[yoink 321]

Quote

Quote

What if 90% of the people are for more stringent controls

That number came from a summary of a summary of a poll.

The original poll question was about supporting more background checks. 84% of the respondents (a little over 1000 people) said yes. Someone summarized that to about 85% and someone else summarized that to 90%.

So when you say 90% of those polled support more stringent controls, you're using a bad number and the wrong poll question. 84% of those polled supported more background checks.

There is also a gallup poll that shows that only 4% of those polled (again, a little over 1000) felt that gun control was the most important issue facing the country. That's a very specifically written question. So while the two numbers may appear to be diametrically opposed, they really can not be compared.

The poll question authors are the best liars.

You can make statistics fit almost anything if you try hard enough. That's one of the drawbacks of any sort of analysis like this.

However, 84%, and 90%? They're still 'most' in my view and is a reasonably fair rounding. Even if they rounded DOWN to 80%... so be it. It's still 'most'.
I'm not going to get into an argument over statistically insignificant percentage points. Doing that in this case will only hurt your argument.

The gallup poll information is interesting... I haven't heard that before. While it's deplorable that we don't tackle every problem in precisely the most important order as defined by opinion poll, the reality of the situation is that THIS is the issue on the table right now, rightly or wrongly. It's been brought about by actual events and political pressure, so that's what we're questioning...

The same type of shifting arguments are made by people who say 'but cars kill more people than guns!' and my answer is the same - why pick and choose what we have to target first. Put resources into both...
It's irrelevant if only 4% of the polled people think it's the most important issue at the moment. It's the issue on the table... and given that, if 80% of those then polled are in favor of more control and that isn't realized in policy then I suggest that there is a problem.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Yes

man nature has not changed. Look at rwanda. look at yugoslavia. look at chechnya. look at things going on in south america every day. look at north korea.

no. human nature has not changed. yugoslavia was a developed country ranked among the tops in the world, hosted the olympics, only to be torn asunder.

no human nature has not changed.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

However, 84%, and 90%? They're still 'most' in my view and is a reasonably fair rounding. Even if they rounded DOWN to 80%... so be it. It's still 'most'.
I'm not going to get into an argument over statistically insignificant percentage points. Doing that in this case will only hurt your argument.

The difference between 80 and 90 isn't insignificant. It's the difference between 9:1 and 4:1. 84% would be just over 5:1.

Cheating a bit by rounding doesn't markedly change the For side, but it has a huge effect on the Against side.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

so to repeat: "sorry, dekker, stick to facts actually in evidence."

Until you can find the Zombie Franklin and ask him, or supply some actual support for your claim he might propose a different viewpoint, it's a waste of our time to make such a banal statement that 'maybe he would change his mind.'

I actually said the opposite. But let's not have facts stand in the way.

It is silly to blindly believe that a person could not change his ideas in 220 years. Specially when the technology that fueled the idea has drastically changed.

I also understand that to an American the idea of a founding father changing his mind is akin to a catholic being told there might not be a jesus.

just as likely that hitler and stalin and mao would change their minds and come out more forcefully and evilly malevalent than they were in the first place. Hitler might have won if he'd pressed on to the west and left russia be...

Making up stories about people 'might' change their minds is the ultimate in ridiculous...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

Human Nature has not changed.

Will you please stop saying this?

'Human Nature' is not equivalent to one mans opinions, ideals or beliefs. If it were 'Human Nature' then we'd all (or the vast majority) share that trait...

You're using a term that implies fait accompli to bolster an argument that is ENTIRELY based on beliefs. Franklins BELIEFS on safety vs freedom, and your BELIEF that it is impossible that this might have changed over the course of a quarter of a century.

and you seem to be doing exactly the same thing. Are you implying that coco's beliefs are only 'one man's beliefs'? human nature has remained the same, many many humans still believe they are entitled to defend themselves against abuse from gov't or from criminals, and just because you don't doesn't mean that you can simply discount the beliefs of millions of americans to suit your own fancy.

These polls of 90 % are a fallacy. It may be that a majority of americans want better laws, but it is also obvious that laws these people offered were not what the majority wanted.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What if 90% of the people are for more stringent controls

That number came from a summary of a summary of a poll.

The original poll question was about supporting more background checks. 84% of the respondents (a little over 1000 people) said yes. Someone summarized that to about 85% and someone else summarized that to 90%.

So when you say 90% of those polled support more stringent controls, you're using a bad number and the wrong poll question. 84% of those polled supported more background checks.

There is also a gallup poll that shows that only 4% of those polled (again, a little over 1000) felt that gun control was the most important issue facing the country. That's a very specifically written question. So while the two numbers may appear to be diametrically opposed, they really can not be compared.

The poll question authors are the best liars.

You can make statistics fit almost anything if you try hard enough. That's one of the drawbacks of any sort of analysis like this.

However, 84%, and 90%? They're still 'most' in my view and is a reasonably fair rounding. Even if they rounded DOWN to 80%... so be it. It's still 'most'.
I'm not going to get into an argument over statistically insignificant percentage points. Doing that in this case will only hurt your argument.

The gallup poll information is interesting... I haven't heard that before. While it's deplorable that we don't tackle every problem in precisely the most important order as defined by opinion poll, the reality of the situation is that THIS is the issue on the table right now, rightly or wrongly. It's been brought about by actual events and political pressure, so that's what we're questioning...

The same type of shifting arguments are made by people who say 'but cars kill more people than guns!' and my answer is the same - why pick and choose what we have to target first. Put resources into both...
It's irrelevant if only 4% of the polled people think it's the most important issue at the moment. It's the issue on the table... and given that, if 80% of those then polled are in favor of more control and that isn't realized in policy then I suggest that there is a problem.

yup, and again the problem you have is that the bill the senate voted on didn't answer most of the concerns of the people in the poll. and infringed a lot on the rights of many people who weren't asked.

answer the question about how mentally insane people are allowed to remain in society when they are known to be a danger to themselves and others, as it seem loughner, holmes and lanza at least were, and then you'll start to find an answer to how to stop mass killings. But of course that would go against the policy of turning all the crazies loose from the insane asylum as happened in the 80's and 90's.

After all, crazies have rights too.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[yoink 321]

Quote

Quote

However, 84%, and 90%? They're still 'most' in my view and is a reasonably fair rounding. Even if they rounded DOWN to 80%... so be it. It's still 'most'.
I'm not going to get into an argument over statistically insignificant percentage points. Doing that in this case will only hurt your argument.

The difference between 80 and 90 isn't insignificant. It's the difference between 9:1 and 4:1. 84% would be just over 5:1.

Cheating a bit by rounding doesn't markedly change the For side, but it has a huge effect on the Against side.

It's still SIGNIFICANTLY canted to one side... 5:1. 4:1 even 3:1... imagine an argument you were on the other side of. Where you were on the 3 side of the 3:1 - what argument would YOU be making?

[yoink 321]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Human Nature has not changed.

Will you please stop saying this?

'Human Nature' is not equivalent to one mans opinions, ideals or beliefs. If it were 'Human Nature' then we'd all (or the vast majority) share that trait...

You're using a term that implies fait accompli to bolster an argument that is ENTIRELY based on beliefs. Franklins BELIEFS on safety vs freedom, and your BELIEF that it is impossible that this might have changed over the course of a quarter of a century.

and you seem to be doing exactly the same thing. Are you implying that coco's beliefs are only 'one man's beliefs'? human nature has remained the same, many many humans still believe they are entitled to defend themselves against abuse from gov't or from criminals, and just because you don't doesn't mean that you can simply discount the beliefs of millions of americans to suit your own fancy.

These polls of 90 % are a fallacy. It may be that a majority of americans want better laws, but it is also obvious that laws these people offered were not what the majority wanted.

I don't know what you mean by 'coco', so can't answer this properly.

My point was that you can't trot out the phrase 'Human Nature' for something that is a belief of a particular subset of humanity.
Something like empathy? I'd go for yes, that's part of Human Nature that is separate from most experiences or upbringings. The need to provide for ones offspring to see that they succeed? Yes - I think that is human nature.

A belief of HOW humanity should behave in a particular civilization? No. That's learned through experiences, not human nature.

Quote

the psychological and social qualities that characterize humankind, especially in contrast with other living things.

Applying the moniker of 'Human Nature' to these specific parts of the constitution is, I believe, intellectually dishonest.


edit: definition of Human Nature taken from dictionary.com