[farrell2k]

Utael, on 28 December 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

No I'm not saying that by choosing not to go over to peoples houses or be around people that choose to own a firearm doesn't reduce the risk, but I think that the reduction in risk is negligible, I've yet to be proven otherwise.

Argument from ignorance. A proposition is not true just because it has not been proven false.

Until you and Craig stop committing logical fallacies in your arguments, I refuse to take either of you seriously.

[jon.kiparsky]

Utael, on 28 December 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

No I'm not saying that by choosing not to go over to peoples houses or be around people that choose to own a firearm doesn't reduce the risk, but I think that the reduction in risk is negligible, I've yet to be proven otherwise.

Law of inverse squares says you lose, sorry. If a gun goes off, for whatever reason, the closer you are to it the more likely you are to be hit by it. Farrell's strategy is perfectly sound.
Even if he doesn't have perfect information, he's still likely to be safer by avoiding houses where he knows guns are kept. Not being around guns makes him less exposed to accidental or otherwise inadvertent injury, and of course being in houses where guns are kept doesn't protect him from assault or robbery, so his strategy makes perfect sense.

Even if you believe that carrying a weapon makes you safer from criminal assault - a dubious proposition, but whatever - the simple fact is that not being around guns is a great way to not be hit by flying bullets.

[Gorian]

farrell2k, on 27 December 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

...
You have obviously bought into this nonsensical, NRA manufactured idea that you're not safe unless you have a loaded gun in your hands 24/7. It is people like you with loaded guns and limited critical thinking skills that I do my best to avoid at all costs. I am grateful for that list. Every city should have one.

I am just pointing out, you are coming across really aggressive, and statements like this make this go from a friendly debate to heated argument. Let's try to avoid the aggressive?

farrell2k, on 28 December 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

Until you and Craig stop committing logical fallacies in your arguments, I refuse to take either of you seriously.

This really comes across like a child in the grocery store, who refused to move until he gets his candy. Let us instead of accusing people of "logical fallacies" for disagreeing with us, or refusing to debate with them as peers, either gracefully conceded from the argument and thread, or present a rebuttal in a respectful way.

Neither side is doing much to present citations, or much more than anecdotes or opinions, which isn't bad, but puts you in a position of "Hey, this is my opinion, and here is a reasonable reason I believe that". Their opinion, and their beliefs on an issue are neither more or less valid, and as neither is citing anything indisputable, let's continue with the civil debate, and drop the aggressive tone. It's what make the caffeine lounge great />
(well, unless supersloth is involved. Then, it is like watching a tornado. Great and terrible to behold. You just get out of path of destruction, and marvel at this beautiful force of nature.)

jon.kiparsky, on 28 December 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

...
the simple fact is that not being around guns is a great way to not be hit by flying bullets.

But then you can't be a badass, and dodge them Neo style. That is surely much cooler

This post has been edited by Gorian: 28 December 2012 - 07:44 AM

[jon.kiparsky]

Gorian, on 28 December 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

This really comes across like a child in the grocery store, who refused to move until he gets his candy. Let us instead of accusing people of "logical fallacies" for disagreeing with us, or refusing to debate with them as peers, either gracefully conceded from the argument and thread, or present a rebuttal in a respectful way.

The trouble is, Farrell's right. "I don't know X to be true" is hardly an argument worth mentioning. And Craig - well, Craig's special. It's fun to watch him try to put together an argument, and to watch the pieces fall off of it as he jogs along. His latest effusion is no different.

[Gorian]

Jon, I don't disagree, but there are better ways to make that point, most other participants are coming across as "hey, this is my position, here is why". I just felt a lot more aggression coming from that (using statements like "you this" and "you that" vs. "I this" and "I that"), and it broke the flow of civil argument

EDIT: compile error; missing parenthesis

This post has been edited by Gorian: 28 December 2012 - 07:54 AM

[jon.kiparsky]

Gorian, on 28 December 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

But then you can't be a badass, and dodge them Neo style. That is surely much cooler />

While streaking and throwing confetti - she's quite talented.

Gorian, on 28 December 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

Jon, I don't disagree, but there are better ways to make that point, most other participants are coming across as "hey, this is my position, here is why". I just felt a lot more aggression coming from that (using statements like "you this" and "you that" vs. "I this" and "I that", and it broke the flow of civil argument />

Ah, civil argument. Are we allowed to do that around here?

[Gorian]

jon.kiparsky, on 28 December 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

Gorian, on 28 December 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

But then you can't be a badass, and dodge them Neo style. That is surely much cooler />/>

While streaking and throwing confetti - she's quite talented.

Yes, but we all already knew that...

jon.kiparsky, on 28 December 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

Gorian, on 28 December 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

Jon, I don't disagree, but there are better ways to make that point, most other participants are coming across as "hey, this is my position, here is why". I just felt a lot more aggression coming from that (using statements like "you this" and "you that" vs. "I this" and "I that", and it broke the flow of civil argument />/>

Ah, civil argument. Are we allowed to do that around here?

Well, we try. Doesn't always happen

[Python_4_President]

Hmm.. I have been shot 0 times. 0 of my friends have been shot.
I've been around something like 500,000 discharging bullets in my lifetime.
Some of those were fired by drunk people.

What's the probability of that?

[jon.kiparsky]

Python_4_President, on 28 December 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

Hmm.. I have been shot 0 times. 0 of my friends have been shot.
I've been around something like 500,000 discharging bullets in my lifetime.
Some of those were fired by drunk people.

What's the probability of that?

Probably pretty good. However, the fact remains that you and your gun-toting friends are much more likely to get hit by bullets than Farrell, all other things being equal. Let's assume you live in Farrell's neighborhood, you work near where he does, and you travel by the same means: all other things being equal, that is. You have about the same odds of being hit by a bullet due to daily circumstances, and nothing about you carrying a weapon changes that. You get extra bonus opportunities to be hit by bullets that Farrell doesn't get. Therefore you have slightly better odds, all other things being equal, of being punctured unexpectedly by a shard of hot metal propelled by a charge of exploding powder. Is that really so hard to grasp?

[supersloth]

Python_4_President, on 28 December 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Hmm.. I have been shot 0 times. 0 of my friends have been shot.
I've been around something like 500,000 discharging bullets in my lifetime.
Some of those were fired by drunk people.

What's the probability of that?

too high, unfortunately.

Gorian, on 28 December 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

I am just pointing out, you are coming across really aggressive, and statements like this make this go from a friendly debate to heated argument. Let's try to avoid the aggressive?

you're not a mod, stop pretending to be. /pats head.

This post has been edited by supersloth: 28 December 2012 - 09:49 AM

[Python_4_President]

No, I got that just fine. If you wanted to reduce things even further, you could just live inside of a sub-terranean steel box your entire life, or just not even exist at all. How can you shoot someone that doesn't exist? Non-existent people don't get the flu, either, or cancer!

I was really just curious as to what the odds are that I could be around firearms all my life and not be shot. I figured you just might be clever enough to "take a shot" at it =)

Clearly the Knuth has not excited you much.

[Atli]

It hasn't happened to me, therefore it doesn't happen.

... Need I say more?

[Gorian]

supersloth, on 28 December 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

Gorian, on 28 December 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

I am just pointing out, you are coming across really aggressive, and statements like this make this go from a friendly debate to heated argument. Let's try to avoid the aggressive?

you're not a mod, stop pretending to be. /pats head.

[jon.kiparsky]

Python_4_President, on 28 December 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

I was really just curious as to what the odds are that I could be around firearms all my life and not be shot. I figured you just might be clever enough to "take a shot" at it =)

Clearly the Knuth has not excited you much.

I'm actually not so excited by probabilities. As it happens, Knuth doesn't spend a lot of time on probability either - I'm not sure how Knuth comes into the picture here, but I don't generally expect you to make sense.

Let's see - to calculate the odds of you not being shot in a lifetime of shooting, I guess it would go something like:
event a = P4P is never shot in a lifetime of handling firearms
p(a) = 1-p(a') // (a' =converse of a, the odds of you getting shot at least once in a lifetime of handling firearms)
To calculate p(a'), I'd probably want to figure out the odds of you getting shot in any given year, and then work it out by the number of years in which you handled firearms. Doing it by year because that's how the statistics are generally available.

And at that point, I lose interest. You can work it from there.

[AnalyticLunatic]

Python_4_President, on 28 December 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

I was really just curious as to what the odds are that I could be around firearms all my life and not be shot.

Probability and Odds mean nothing when you are factoring in (wait for it) :

Spoiler