Monday, October 9, 2017

Don't Need No Stinking Bump Stock


Now This said...

Yep, that's why we got to this:

Steven Satak said...

This is a bogus video.

I tried it with my Mosin Nagant and it DID NOT WORK.

Seriously, though, if you know the principles behind the bump stock, this is common sense. About the only thing separating the two is that the bump stock ensures consistency.

Oh, and you'll go through ammo like shit through a goose. That's the downside of full auto (semi-auto isn't much better). And while 'spray and pray' has its uses, I've always been a fan of 'know what you are shooting at and shoot only that'.

Different strokes...

Stan said...

First off, I don't believe anything VOX says, especially with "data".

Second, there have been a lot of shootings, mostly by Leftocrats. The data doesn't mention the Left-winger pulling the trigger, does it? Except that many of the mass shootings are happening daily in Leftist Chicago, where guns are banned completely, yet blacks shoot blacks by the dozens every weekend, and mostly every weekday too. Why don't the Democrats fix that problem?

Third, world wide the violence is largely from the protected Class:: Muslims. Want to count up the mountains of bodies created under Islam? No, I thought not.

Fourth, the terminology is false: it is not "gun violence" is it. Of course not: guns are passive machines without consciousness, conscience or intent. Nope. The correct terminology is "Mostly Leftist Violence Using Innocent Guns". After all, the Las Vegas shooter was an obvious Pussy Hat Leftist, a fact which is not receiving any attention, is it. No it is not.

Fifth, Leftist gun grabbers salivate for the next shooting so that they can virtue signal their hatred for guns and gun owners. That alone is reason to own guns and ammo and to be proficient with them. The Left ALWAYS marches toward the default state: dictatorship (you know, where everything is always politically correct, due to violent enforcement by Antifa). And they delusionally think that they will be in charge, when they all will actually be dead in a ditch, their Useful Idiocy being no longer required.

But no problem, go ahead with VOX-vids and pretend that guns are the problem, not the Leftists with their fingers on the triggers. Self-delusion must be a benefit in Lefty-Land.

Stan said...

Rebuttal video:

Now This said...

Thanks a lot for sharing that video. Lots of great points. But did you analyze the data? The conclusions are not quite as simple... and what you wrote is mostly non-sequitur...

Stan said...

Declaring a fallacy does not make it so. Just as declaring a statistic does not make it so.

Both assertions must be supportable with real, actual data. You made no attempt to do so, thus the default position is that you cannot refute that which you call non-sequitur.

Finally, believing VOX doesn't make it so.

Now This said...

Yes you're correct, but that was not my question: did you look at the data yourself in order to figure who's right on what?

For instance, when it is said that the USA is far from the worst country regarding gun homicide per capita, did you loom at the source?

No, right? Well, Crowder is right on that one, Vox did not present the full picture. I even tried an Excel sheet myself as I was curious to see any correlation. The partial data he linked to doesn't show any. So great, he was right on that. But is that it? Anything else we should look at to get a better picture?

Next, non-sequitur charges are for your comments Stan, with your first, second, ...

First, you don't believe Vox, because it's Vox. Great, you're biased, no surprise. Non-sequitur.

Second, you mention Leftists. Fine, let's assume all, ALL, gun violence is commited by Leftists. What does it change? Non-sequitur.

Third, Islam. Same thing, nothing to do with the Vox piece about guns. Islam is worse than other religions, so what? Non-sequitur.

Fourth, yes, it is about gun violence. That's the topic here. Should we or should we not make it harder to get guns? Your definition game is a non-sequitur.

Fifth, where does it say that Leftists hate guns? Where is the evidence of pro dictatorship? You're doing identity politics, but this is just about guns. Guns are cool, and fun to use actually in my Leftist opinion. But making them safer is more important. Your comments are nothing lkke that, just... Non-sequitur.

Rick55 said...

Posting a rebuttal video does not make it a valid rebuttal.

Stan said...

Your point is without substance, being obvious but not providing relevant rebuttals yourself.

Most of the deception was with jumping between undefined cohorts in data sets in order to make a point that is invalid in the new cohort. Using correct data incorrectly is just as dishonest as using phony data.

"First, you don't believe Vox, because it's Vox. Great, you're biased, no surprise. Non-sequitur."

So you think that VOX should be believed DESPITE their lengthy history of distortion? I think that non-belief is highly warranted, and thus not non-sequitur. In fact, if it actually were such a fallacy, you would have absolute logic demonstrating why that would be. But you don't.

"Second, you mention Leftists. Fine, let's assume all, ALL, gun violence is commited by Leftists. What does it change? Non-sequitur."

I don't think you know what non-sequitur means.
IF (nearly) all violence is committed by a certain identifiable segment of society, using a specific inanimate object available to all segments of society, most of which do not use it for violence,
THEN the hazard is not from the object; the hazard is from the identifiable segment of society which is responsible for (nearly) all of the violence.

IF violence is the issue at hand, and an identifiable segment of illegal immigrants is from an ideology which makes an icon of violence to the point of special entrance into "heaven" for certain murders, genital mutilation, honor killing of women who were raped, mass murder of homosexuals,
THEN that segment of illegal immigrants cannot be associated with an identity of "peace", goodwill, western values and especially non-violence.

IF a tool is used by an identifiable segment of society,
THEN it is not "tool" violence, it is human violence by an identifiable segment of society with a tool. Which is the constant and which is the variable?

a tool is made safe enough that it can harm no one, THEN it is too encumbered to be a useful tool (a knife too dull to cut and without a point is a useless tool). However, rocks and dirt can be used as weapons, as can paper, water, automobiles, motorcycles, Delivery vans, rulers, scissors, ammonium nitrate, guitar strings, ball bats, kitchen utensils, socks full of nickels, bike locks, sharp sticks, propane fire starters, gasoline, soda bottles, pressure cookers, pepper spray, urine bottles, rope, tires filled with gasoline, bleach, acid, HIV, smart phone earbud cords, etc.

See how everything is "sequitur"?

A gun is a useful tool. Argue against that if you will. I'll still be here.

Or try this: how safe would guns have to be in order to have prevented the Las Vegas massacre? HINT: guns would have to be completely unusable, OR completely confiscated.

And that is what "gun control" is actually all about. Argue against that, if you will.

Now This said...

Stan, are you able to, and interested in, focusing on what was wrong and right with Vox' video?
I asked you what's next after stating that Crowder main point was correct? Is correlation betweeen gun ownership and gun homicide the only thing that matter?

Stan said...

If you wish to defend any VOX points as valid, against Crowder's analysis then go ahead and we'll discuss that. I'm not gonna rehash the entire video though.

And no, correlation is not causation, and machines are not agents. Therefore, any crime or atrocity that involves an ACTUAL agent and a machine is the fault of the agent, not the machine. To insist that the machine is the specific cause of the crime or atrocity is to posit agency in the machine, an hypothesis which goes against Reductio, and which would require much more empirical proof than will ever be forthcoming.

So: NO. The intent to Self-destruction is not the fault of the machine, the poison, the automobile, the high cliff above rocks, the Golden Gate Bridge, or any other material, non-agent of choice. Even in suicide by cop, the destruction is still caused by the actions of the agent who wants to self-destruct.

Will robots become agents? Not if the definition of "agent" includes the term, non-deterministic. Robots will have deterministic choice but not non-deterministic choice as do humans. Non-deterministic choice in a robot would either be random, or would be controlled by pre-programmed decision paths, including fundamentalist types of listed moral constraints. But without any actual empathy - other than specific empathies pre-preprogrammed - all actions would be routine driven, deterministic. The choice to kill or not kill would be either correctly programmed, or incorrectly programmed. So the agent is still the programmer, not the robot.

Stan said...

Which brings the question: are Jihadi killing machines actually killer human robots, preprogrammed by the actual agent? If the actual agent is the Qur'an and its hucksters, then the analogy is interesting.

Now This said...

Crowder's main point, only only point actually, is that the correlation between gun ownership and gun homicide is not relevant. Ever.

Do you agree? How should we go about to figure out whether he's correct?

You gave a partial answer already: "any crime or atrocity that involves an ACTUAL agent and a machine is the fault of the agent, not the machine. To insist that the machine is the specific cause of the crime or atrocity is to posit agency in the machine"
But that's besides the point. Of course the agent is the cause. The question is whether more guns in any situation leads to more homicides by guns and/or more gun violence in general.

Don't you think these are value questions?

I am not getting to the data presented by Vox yet because these are the points that they tried to address. They did so in an imperfect way; not all the stats they presented are relevant nor representative. But if you cannot even discuss the process, how can you discuss the results?