Merged An armed society...

[3point14]

...is a polite society.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40461716

Or, perhaps not. Driving dispute ends in someone being shot dead.

 

[William Parcher]

Murderous savages embedded in society alongside good people.

 

[MikeG]

Murderous savages with ready access to guns embedded in society alongside good people.

FTFY. My addition in bold.

 

[Giz]

...is a polite society.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40461716

Or, perhaps not. Driving dispute ends in someone being shot dead.

Wait, is this the International 'cherry picked anecdotes are meaningful' forum?

 

[fagin]

Only a dead raccoon in this one, and a couple of flesh wounds.

http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article158439494.html

"It started with a dead raccoon, and ended with a man shot and hit by truck."

 

[3point14]

Wait, is this the International 'cherry picked anecdotes are meaningful' forum?

Did I claim any statistical significance?

 

[Giz]

Did I claim any statistical significance?

You made a claim about the nature of society based on an anecdote. Are you saying that your anecdote was insignificant (and therefore, also your claim)? In which case, why post?

 

[3point14]

You made a claim about the nature of society based on an anecdote. Are you saying that your anecdote was insignificant (and therefore, also your claim)? In which case, why post?

Because it's a social issue? It's a current event?


You seem to be saying that simply posting a link to a US gun story is cherry picking. given that cherry picking can only occur when someone applies undue statistical significance to one or a small portion of selected events. This is not what I did.


It would seem you wouldn't want anyone, at any time, linking to a story of someone being needlessly shot in the USA because any such link would be subject to your inaccurate characterisation.

 

[Giz]

You seem to be saying that simply posting a link to a US gun story is cherry picking. given that cherry picking can only occur when someone applies undue statistical significance to one or a small portion of selected events. This is not what I did.

Yes, you did. You made a claim about US society based on a single event. That is pretty much the definition of "someone applies undue statistical significance to one or a small portion of selected events".

 

[3point14]

Yes, you did. You made a claim about US society based on a single event. That is pretty much the definition of "someone applies undue statistical significance to one or a small portion of selected events".

Where did I do that?

Did you take the question I asked as a statement?

 

[Stacko]

Because it's a social issue? It's a current event?


You seem to be saying that simply posting a link to a US gun story is cherry picking. given that cherry picking can only occur when someone applies undue statistical significance to one or a small portion of selected events. This is not what I did.


It would seem you wouldn't want anyone, at any time, linking to a story of someone being needlessly shot in the USA because any such link would be subject to your inaccurate characterisation.

If you actually look at the statistics, America has a horrific gun violence problem compared to it's contemporaries.

 

[William Parcher]

He is in the red truck next to her. Then he is way over on the shoulder. What is that about?

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/06/pa_teen_shot_in_head_in_road-r.html

 

[Hungry81]

Yes, you did. You made a claim about US society based on a single event. That is pretty much the definition of "someone applies undue statistical significance to one or a small portion of selected events".

Lolz "Don't pick on the guns, it's just one single incident."

 

[rjh01]

The USA society will either fix this issue or do serious damage to itself.

 

[mgidm86]

Yes, you did. You made a claim about US society based on a single event. That is pretty much the definition of "someone applies undue statistical significance to one or a small portion of selected events".

Agreed.

I do think that an armed society is not a polite one. Hell no.

Is there a bigger point to be made by the OP and the story it links to, or just the fact that someone got shot today? If not then yay, another gun thread.

Hey at least we got a good description of the perp for once.

About wanting to kill people on the road:

I've been putting a lot of miles on my truck lately and I have to say that I "wish death" on idiot drivers almost every time I get on the freeway. It is no exaggeration to say that I have avoided death many times in the past 3 months.

Shooting someone is not a solution, but these people are as dangerous as a nut with a gun. We make fun of this in the gun threads but I'm realizing that this is very true. I'd rather we have safer roads and worry about guns later.

 

[MikeG]

...... I'd rather we have safer roads and worry about guns later.

Why? Is it too difficult to tackle both at the same time?

 

[3point14]

Agreed.

Again: No I didn't. I asked a question. How hard is that to grasp?

 

[theprestige]

Again: No I didn't. I asked a question. How hard is that to grasp?

You asked a rhetorical question, which you then promptly answered.

 

[fuelair]

Only a dead raccoon in this one, and a couple of flesh wounds.

http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article158439494.html

"It started with a dead raccoon, and ended with a man shot and hit by truck."

Did the truck have a license to carry a gun???

 

[Ian Osborne]

Find an example of a needless shooting, and they call it cherry-picking.

Find a statistic that suggests gun violence is higher in countries with a lot of guns, and they say you can't compare differing countries.

Find a statistic that suggests gun violence is reduced when gun ownership is restricted, and they compare it to a different country where they say it didn't.

You can't tell gun-huggers they shouldn't have their guns.