Cowardice very often guides or motivates or underlies patterns of action: telling lies, hiding, fortifying, flailing of various kinds, defensive overreactions to clearly exaggerated or imaginary threats, easily triggered panic, etc. People can be raised cowards - look at the racist aspects of the foundations of gun culture in the US - but they also vary by nature. And then I repeat the comment. You brought in two new terms not formerly present, when the subject was specifically two specific terms present. That does exemplify a problem, but not one you seem to be aware of. You can't "refute" an anecdote. You throw these words around, and they become useless in short order - all coherence and sense gets lost. And that is necessary for you, in avoiding some stuff. Hiding. That's gibberish, technically. Anecdotes are not cherry picking (yours aren't either, btw, although they are equivalently weak evidence). Information does not demonstrate confirmation bias. A pattern of behavior does not "lead" to "an ad hominem" - "an ad hominem" is an informal illiteracy, which only makes sense if one infers "an argument ad hominem" from confidence in the author's competence. No such confidence is available here. Seems that way, yes - once we puzzle out the various references you seem to imply (gun owners are not the target, the "integrity" of gun owners is not what is being presented as cowardice, etc). So? There aren't any data presented, and "the data as a whole" is nowhere to be found here. It would be unfair to make assumptions about what either of you think "the data as a whole" would be. To repeat: "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote". All opinions are not created equal.
Btw - not relevant to this thread, but an illustration of the general issue: What it looks like you did is post a list of nine supposed examples you got from Buzzfeed, which had done your selecting and sifting of the "data" for you. https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatest...by-someone-wit?utm_term=.scRX9vDxk#.hokOP0A78 I walked through the nine examples, the referenced anecdotal evidence, and noticed they illustrated four things: First, the bullshit quotient. This list was presented as "armed civilian helping police", "armed civilian stops shooting", etc - seven of the nine incidents presented were of police working as security, off duty police, retired police acting as denominated security, retired and reserve military with a gun in their vehicle, and so forth. One was a shooter committing suicide in a stairwell, with a gun owner taking credit for threatening him earlier. In one, the witnesses said the shooter was stopped by an unarmed civilian - and then two military reserve guys who had retrieved weapons from their vehicles ran up and got credit. Exactly one incident, of the nine, was of an apparently untrained civilian with a firearm stopping a shooting or helping police stop a shooting - and he wasn't carrying, he was a bartender who had a shotgun behind his bar. 1) Apparently, the known presence of armed civilians, even armed guards, does not prevent attempted mass shootings. It can - sometimes, apparently - reduce the death toll, especially if the armed civilian has had formal training (retired police officer with a lifetime's experience, military training, etc), but that's not the same as prevention, is it. 2) In most cases, unarmed civilians played key roles - and armed civilians with only civilian training mentioned played a confirmed role in exactly one of the nine: a bar owner who kept a shotgun behind the bar. All the others were military and police trained, a couple of them were working and armed on the job. 3) In none of the cases did an armed civilian help the police - even the off duty police received help from unarmed civilians only. Armed civilians helping police are not illustrated. 4) In the worst of the nine cases, the shooter having to reload was a significant factor that seemed to have saved lives. The shooter running out of ammunition, fumbling with magazines, etc, was a key factor in several of those accounts, in particular the worst shootings. In no case did the size of the "armed civilian" good guy magazine play a role. Large magazines helped the bad guys only. Add in the fact that the more civilian of the armed good guys in that list were not carrying their weapons - they retrieved them from cars, from behind the bar, etc - and the most striking thing about that list is what's missing. With the number of actual untrained civilians supposedly carrying in this country, you'd think they'd have showed up once or twice in a list of nine top examples of good guy with gun, no? And this kind of evidence, argument, etc - this carousel of mutually conflicting and invariably misrepresented anecdotes as the issue bounces from one focus to another - is completely typical, standard, bothsides noise.
Anybody remember when an unarmed cowboy took on a guy with an AK and whooped him? "Man fires on White House" is your bread crumbs.
true. however, it is also a choice. you can justify it with all the underlying patterns of action all you want, but it doesn't mean it isn't a choice It was prevalent in more than just gun culture in the US (and other nations) so it cannot be labeled a foundational aspect of gun culture, given it's widespread nature explained in the links and posts regarding the first part: refute - reference linked if an anecdote is used in an argument (cherry picked or otherwise), and the reply takes steps "To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof", which is what happened, then you can be said to have refuted the argument, anecdote or information. therefore, you can "refute" an anecdote regarding the last accusation: it's not hiding. this topic is sensitive and emotional and requires attention to details, IMHO it's also deomonstrative of the problems with policy and interpretation. all posters are using English, but the communication of information is interpreted and therein lies a huge problem, especially with agenda driven arguments not based upon rational or logical points see what I mean about communication? it doesn't matter if one is pedantic or glib, you will choose to interpret what is said based upon your own bias or interpretations perhaps I should have stated it establishes a pattern of behaviour (MO) that allows one to determine the nature of the comment? regardless of how I present the argument, it still "leads" a reader to "a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself" 1- the integrity of gun owners is targeted in the last two lines, therefore gun owners are a target of the OP in point of fact, from the first set of bullet questions the OP attacks the integrity and establishes the "cowardice" of the gun owner 2- re: so? Made the point already already made that point here and here never said it was. howver, just so you know, anecdotes and opinion article links may contain data I think this has already been established here and elsewhere.
actually, I read the first two pages that came up. Then verified an existing list from another user using different search engines. That specific list came from input and I found it to be representative of the first 2 pages of links when searched, so I chose to use it as it was already written (copy/pasted). It may well be that the user I got the list from is using the buzzfeed link, however, that is irrelevant. The first two pages of links held 8 of the 9 shootings I presented. well, regarding your link, It is presented as so, it really is "armed civilian stops shooting", eh? that isn't the same thing as "armed civilian helping police". so? seems to me that your "bullshit quotient" is the problem with your own link... it appears to me that those off duty cops, retired cops or military were stopping a shooting with a personally owned firearm, as noted by your own link. you do realise they'er all citizens too, right? being a cop/military/etc means you're always on call for the job. It doesn't mean you're not a law-abiding citizen when off duty. so? is your argument that only the bartender is a "law abiding citizen" then? again: so? so? why make this argument? - ah, I see now. because you missed the "etc" in my post [bolding by me] that specifically means that armed civilians helping police, or armed civilians stopping a shooting, or any other relevant armed civilian related argument This should be clear to you as I specifically stated I searched for "armed civilian stops shooting", and not "armed civilian helps police" I'll try to bold it and call more attention to those points in the future. maybe change the font colour? this would have been a good point had you actually read my post insteand of ignoring the relevant parts, as noted above.
No. Because you posted that list of nine examples and their bullshit description as evidence. You didn't post any "etc" evidence, just the bs. No. Policemen and military reservists and professionally trained armed guards at churches and malls are all law abiding citizens. No, it isn't. The only possible example of an armed person with no professional weapons training stopping a shooting by using a weapon in that entire list was the bartender with the shotgun - and he wasn't carrying the thing, and the only reason he might be such an example is that his background was not mentioned. For all we know he was in the National Guard, or a military reservist, or something. That would make it nine for nine. So your posted evidence was bullshit. It refutes nothing, and illustrates the invalidity of your criticism of other people's bs, which is more or less equivalent to yours (his is a little better, since it matches his description of it) but on the "other side" of the bothsides jamb. It speaks directly to my point: you can't tell bs from evidence for your own argument, and that illustrates my point about the bothsides noise. Which in turn lends weight to the emphasis of the inexplicability of all this - this needs explanation, this bothsides jamb. And by the evidence, cowardice is a likely aspect of that explanation.
That makes no sense. Racism is a foundational aspect of US gun culture, regardless of how it influences other cultures. And that's an obvious entry port for cowardice and its influences. You can "explain" your error or deliberate deflection or whatever you were trying to pull all you want - the fact is you posted it. The term at issue was "cherry picking", not "confirmation bias". No, you can't. Why are posting this gibberish? It isn't even making sense on your terms: Nothing you posted has anything to do with any anecdotes being false or erroneous, and you can't "overthrow" a factual and accurate anecdote by "argument or proof". Surely that is obvious, even to you? I see what you post, and it makes no sense. The question is why you seem to think it does. Because that is what you are communicating: the fact that this kind of stuff makes sense to you, your opinions come from this kind of verbal splashing around, and there is an entire "side" of gun rights enthusiasts that you can go to for support - Buzzfeed speaks your language. It's a bothsides issue, a bothsides jamb.
...except you're intentionally misrepresenting the post. and the conversation. ETC. the point was that "data that is ignored: any armed civilian helping police, etc" - which, in normal English conversation means: the data that is ignored is the armed civilians helping police, or armed civilians stopping a shooting, and any other relevant armed civilian related argument stopping a crime (hence the "etc" addition to the comment) the fact that you specifically chose to interpret the list as the first mentioned "armed civilian helping police" while ignoring contextual quoted material in my specific callout in the search demonstrates your bias either against the poster or the information. It's plain English. When you choose to ignore relevant information like that all coherence and sense gets lost. Is that necessary for you, in avoiding some stuff? and I didn't post bullsh*t descriptions. you did. I specifically said This means, in normal parlance, that he has specifically chosen to ignore readily available information that armed civilians have stopped shootings while making an argument that armed civilians: "use their mouths to defend their guns and their access to guns far more than they use guns to defend human life" and "at the end of the day, the "protect and defend" argument is emptier than a winter rain barrel!" so... the question I have is: why would you attribute your own "bullshit description as evidence" to me? thank you for clarifying. Off duty specifically means they're civilians acting on their own behalf (with certain exceptions for the active duty military member - they can act on their own behalf as a normal citizen but are required to maintain a code of conduct as well as specifically called out to abide by UCMJ and local laws under legal order with certain conditions. technically, they are not "civilians" but unless specfically in uniform, they're treated as civilians until they've legally establishing their credentials as being active duty - which can only be established by local military or DOD contact. See: UCMJ) yes, it is. You're assuming that weapons training and a specific job change your legal status. it doesn't (except under special circumstance called out in local, state and federal law). When you're not in uniform (or acting specifically for the local, state, or federal government, under special condition, in civilian attire) you're considered a civilian or resident and not a person of authority, unless specific legal conditions are met (as in specifically calling out and establishing your authority by presentation of credentials that are active and legal - a retired cop has absolutely no authority to utilise a badge under these circumstances). Those off-duty cops or military are no different than any other citizen except for their previous training, which the training argument can only be used conditionally and under special circumstance in court, such as a circumstantial argument to establish motivation, etc. so when not in uniform, a police officer has the same limited rights as any other citizen when it comes to personal responsibility and behavior. and when not on a military installation, an off duty military cop is the same excepting his authority is typically limited to the military branch and installation assigned, yet can act to assist local authority once recognized and allowed. military members in general, not assigned to LE or similar status, are also the same. The only exception to the rule in the military is medical, first responder and fire department personnel assisting or providing medical aid in a medical emergency (special federal considerations and legal protection are involved - see UCMJ) again, see above. you're intentionally misrepresenting the post. and the conversation. ETC. 1- it actually validates my point about bias 2- this subject needs people who will challenge each point and piece of evidence, just like any good criminal investigator, to validate the evidence and present a coherent detailed analysis of the situation in order to make sound decisions. Thus far, you've presented evidence that you attribute to me, ignored the argument and projected your beliefs onto my specific statements that are contrary to your statement of belief, then misrepresent the argument and conversation for your purpose of "bothsides jam" to demonstrate your refusal to accept dissention - which is one of my points about bias and refusal to accept refutation 3- the "inexplicability of all this" comes directly from "cherry picking" (or selective attention/confirmation bias) to present a case for a personal belief" and my other points, which are explained above and in this post, again, for your intentional bias to ignore, distort, misattribute, or conflate. please demonstrate how it's a "foundational aspect". the "foundational aspect" is due to local and national belief and not limited to US gun culture, therefore it can be stated as a "foundational aspect" for the culture, society or national image, but not specific just to gun culture, as it has widespread influence even among the non-racist population (such as: legal limitations by law to race) to use your own words: "You can "explain" your error or deliberate deflection or whatever you were trying to pull all you want", it doesn't change the facts presented, linked, referenced and repeatedly explained for you no point in repeating it because you will still refuse to accept the facts presented the problem seems to be more your intentional refusal to accept information that directly contradicts you that is demonstrated more than once - in this post alone like above, or this comment: your assumption that clearly stated comments are irrational, nonsensical or some other descriptor you've used, then a personal attack about my specific abilities (verbal splashing around) followed by an inferred attack using Buzzfeed as your pejorative, regardless of presented information repeatedly misattributed and intentionally misinterpreted, etc, by you. . for more information other than the already linked above, should you require additional help regarding the legal status of off duty LEO's (etc), you can look here, or at State, Local law.
There is no data in any of your posts here. To repeat: data is not the plural of anecdote. I did not. I included that with other stuff, because that - among the other factors I also included - illustrated the bullshit content of your links. He did not cherry pick. He argued from anecdote - same as you did. Only your anecdotes were even weaker evidence - unlike his, they did not match your description and use of them. It means they are weapons-trained professionals. Well duh. I never mentioned or referred to legal status, or made a single argument here that depended on legal status. And I never mentioned confirmation bias, selective attention, or half the rest of the crap you keep throwing into replies to my posts. You have insufficient basis in reality for perceiving bias, let alone evaluating it. You do not, for example, know what my range of possible bias is regarding gun control. Yep. For instance, I actually went through all nine of your examples above, and checked out all your links - something you obviously did not do. Now you're being silly. It comes - explicitly, in the posts above, read them - from the obvious nature of the bizarre reasoning and evidence you (and that other poster, on the other side ) keep posting here. It's completely typical of the sides in the bothsides jamb - neither side has any problem finding links to garbage like Buzzfeed's compendiums - and that needs explanation. Racism - and its attendant cowardice - is a foundational aspect of US gun culture. That's just a fact - deal with it. (Evidence? The bugeyed panic among the gun nuts when Obama won in 2008.) How would you know? As far as I can tell, you have little idea what I've been posting in the first place - let alone what information that "contradicts" me would look like. You haven't posted any, btw. Let's add "assumption" to the list of words you cannot use and make reliable sense. I made no assumptions about any of your comments. That weird inability to use language meaningfully is characteristic of the bothsides jamb. It also characterizes people who are hiding, avoiding something, etc.
So Oliver North claims that it is the violent culture of teens, in particular males, that is inspiring the school shootings. Video games, and other media etc. However what North fails to appreciate is that a gun, any gun, either used for defence, deterrent or offence is always a weapon of violence. Never can a gun be considered otherwise. The violent culture he and many others speak of, has it's roots in gun culture and those who seek to promote it and manifests in the violent behaviour historically demonstrated. It takes courage to acknowledge these basic truths. (M)
repeating this doesn't make it truer it still makes them civilians legally and otherwise, regardless of training being off duty means: acting as an individual, which means: a civilian (see special circumstance note above for military) - that is a legal status. Being a citizen is also a legal status if you're using the terms you should be aware of the connotation in the discourse as it's relevant to this particular topic never mentioning doesn't mean you're not demonstrating repeating this doesn't make it truer either sigh.... do I need to repeat the above line? need I point out the problem with your subjective beliefs? 1- you may say you're reading links, but you have just demonstrated you're not reading posts. thanks. 2- it may well be a reason for a bothsidesjamb, however, when you assign terms like "bizarre reasoning and evidence" you're doing exactly what I stated the other poster did (repeat behaviour). Just because your bias doesn't let you see certain evidence doesn't mean it's not real, there or evidence. no, it's not. The gun culture was evident long before our nation existed, including in England, Germany and other places. Racism is taught. You can say the nation had racism as a foundational aspect, but you can't designate the gun culture as it's not specific to the gun culture. it would be like saying that christianity was a foundational aspect of the scientific principles. it wasn't. it was an influence in science, and it was a cultural norm, but it wasn't foundational in science. It may well be the reason science was repressed or evolved into what it is today, but it has nothing to do with the foundations of science at all. it was a cultural aspect that had influence in the area of science. Racism is a lerned cultural or social prejudice with long reaching influences. prejudice being the keyword... like the following example of prejudice: this is a prejudiced statement because it completely ignores historical record and political tactics already explained that one - no need to keep explaining it just so you can continue to post "You have insufficient basis in reality", "illustrated the bullshit content of", "That weird inability to use language meaningfully", "Let's add "assumption" to the list of words you cannot use" or some other random pejorative explanation for your refusal to actually see, read and understand the links, explanations, posts or reference material except that I've already demonstrated that you have made assumptions about my comments in more than one thread
sorry, but no. Violence is a choice and action. a gun is inanimate. it's a tool. it can rust it can function it can fail but it cannot commit violence without human interaction violence comes from the human, not the inanimate tool It takes courage to acknowledge these basic truths. erm... no. the violence is inherent in the species and exists regardless of the tool used. See: Australia, Roman empire, Mongols, Indian wars, British empire and many, many, many more examples. the culture of guns, historically speaking, is relatively new. Violence existed, culturally, for millenia before the gun was ever invented. The gun is a tool that is used to commit violence. that last part is important as it states that violence requires human use of a tool (or none, really, considering the crime stats. evident in your country as well as mine)
A gun is a weapon of violence.... it is a device that is used to perpetrate violence. so emm yes I was correct in stating what I stated...: your inability to read posts with out jumping on your pro-gun/pro- violence agenda is utterly amazing...
and also through out history mankind has struggled to manage his violent tendencies always deeming them to be a significant demonstration of weakness and lacking of self restraint, anger management and his desire to power over others. Hence the evolution of the "rule of law". ( as distinct from vigilante or mob rule) Violence can be seen as an act of suicide, whereby striking at your reflection in others is a way of destroying that which you do not like about your self. ( blame game) Suicide is often deemed cowardly, and so too is violence. Pro -gun lobbying is thus an act of lobbying for violence, therefore an act of cowardice. ...and you Stumpy are promoting violence by justifying and lobbying for guns and thus acts of cowardice. Does the pro- gun lobby have the courage to deal with it's inherent cowardice?
You're going to hide behind that? Really? I don't think the technical and legalistically defined status of who is a "civilian" - when professionals and military are off duty or on leave, say - is relevant to this topic, and I'm absolutely certain it's not the intended implication of its use in gun power claims of "armed civilians". Vociferous, for example, made a central point of the lack of need for training armed teachers. So did you, less explicitly. The specific discussion was specifically about two specific terms. You introduced two other, different terms as if I were discussing them as well. I was not, I had not mentioned them, and you have been clearly and repeatedly reminded of that. ASOL. The US gun culture is unique, in several respects: its roots in racism, the invention and role of handguns, the extraordinary pervasiveness of gun ownership due to the prosperity of ordinary Americans, the recent influence of a frontier without law or organized banditry either one, and so forth. It does not. It includes them - "both sides" of them. As described, we saw panic: bugeyed, hysterical, undignified, flamboyantly racist and paranoid, and quite comical in retrospect (once the immediate hazard of a bunch of armed adult men having completely lost their shit in public faded). That's very strange, that bizarre level of confusion. You have lost the ability to reason, right out in public. One common cause of that kind of breakdown is cowardice - inherent, endemic, fundamental cowardice. There are others, but that's a common one. And along about here, remember when we were told that rural adult men in the US needed 30 round magazines to feel safe when confronting "predators"?
Or the anti-gun lobby. It's a bothsides issue. There is no safe repository of political power among cowards of any ideological or political persuasion.
What you have posted, as have many other posters amounts to what I call "contextual fraud". It does not aid your agenda but renders it impotent. If you wish to constantly claim opposing sides exist then they will always be in opposition. To me there are those who are proponents for violence and those that are muted in their despair. The context you have distorted: regarding the dualism you are promoting The pro-gun lobby is promoting violence and the anti gun lobby is not. Pro-gun lobby = promotion of violent solutions. Anti-gun lobby = promotion of non-violent solutions. It really couldn't be any clearer.... Remember I am essentially talking about the promotion of violence. ( and it's implicated cowardliness) As such the pro-gun lobby is acting cowardly in doing so, as the violence being promoted by the gun lobby and NOT the anti-gun lobby, is intrinsically and act of cowardice. It takes great courage to take a stand against the utilization of right to bear arms. ( note: not the right to bear arms per see) Contextual fraud = Disingenuous or other wise manipulative posting. iceaura why destroy the power of your posts and therefore your credibility by doing so?
It's more the "there are two extremes and I'm a moderate" fallacy. Someone who supports Nazis (or NAMBLA, or Stormfront, or Earth First, or climate change denial) will often not come out and support such organizations/positions; they realize such positions are untenable. Instead, they will create a false middle ground to inhabit. "Look, I'm not an extremist on either side; I don't really support the tactics of the Nazis, and I don't believe the claims that the mainstream press makes about the Holocaust. I'm a moderate who will look at both sides of the story and then decide what to believe."
