I have a challenge for the gun control crowd. Motivated by discussions like this one, I would like some data. The contention is often made that buying a gun in and of itself increases the odds of one getting shot. "A gun in the home is 22x more likely..." blah blah blah. I reject this argument without reservation, and I have never seen a shred of evidence that supported it. The gun control people are making a fallacy of composition mistake. While it is true that guns are the primary cause of death in some segments of society, that doesn't translate to an increased risk for ME if I purchase a gun. Even if it were true, as they argue, that guns in society general correlates with increased death, that still doesn't necessarily translate to the individual case.
My contention is that the data show very strong demographic trends of gun death rates within our population with regard to age, psychological health, gender, and race, and that these differences along with many others demonstrate that, or at least make it reasonable to presume, that for some segments of the population the risk of buying a gun TO THEM is so negligible as to not warrant a discussion with one's physician, or any other special considerations in their lives. My challenge for the gun control crowd is: show me the data that says otherwise.
These differences are not trivial. Males are 6x as likely to be killed by a gun than females. Blacks are 6x as likely as Asians.
Black males vs Asian females? It's about 33x as high. The death rate also drops dramatically by age. Nonsuicidal death rates by gun for 20 year olds is three times as high as it is for 40 year olds. Compared to 60-year-olds, it's nine times as high. I don't have the data, but I'll bet someone out there does that shows it also correlates negatively with income and education level.
So my argument is that gun ownership does NOT "carry inherent statistical dangers" as some would assert. The data clearly shows that it does so significantly for a 20 year old poor suicidal white male drop out. But does it show any significant risk to a 60 year old retired wealthy college-educated Asian woman? I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't even one of those all year in the US. Show me the data that says otherwise.
Note also that this is not an argument that we should not have any gun control. I think the 2nd amendment should be rewritten to say something like this:
"The right of the people to be armed with weapons capable of successfully firing at, and only at, a single human target, shall not be infringed, without due process..."
I would argue strongly that this is in the spirit of what the founders intended. So I support restricting private gun ownership to nonautomatic small arms (pistols and rifles). My contention in the broader sense, of which this article is but a part, is that we should also, and in some ways more importantly, focus on the demographic facts as well, and make restrictions where morally and constitutionally appropriate. The data is there, we ignore it at our own peril. Telling everyone who buys a gun that it poses a risk to them, in defiance of the facts, wastes time and whittles away credibility where we need it most.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Does McCain Have Alzheimers?
This is not funny at all. It is a series of clips of John McCain making various confused, sometimes completely senseless mistakes, and sometimes just being confused. I've had some medical people take a look at it and they seem convinced the man has serious, mental medical problems.
Let's be clear here and dispense with the knee-jerk retort that everyone makes mistakes. These are not the sorts of flubs we've all made, and we see politicians make, an Obama "57 states", or a Quayle "potatoe". Those are easily dismissable as the sorts of mistakes healthy people will make when under duress, or when having an extreme lack of sleep. McCain goes to a completely different level. He repeatedly refers to Czechoslovakia, which hasn't existed in over a decade. He begins to talk of paying $4 a box for gas, calls himself a conservative liberal Republican, and can't seem to remember whether Al Quaeda is Sunni or Shia.
America can't afford to have a president who is losing his faculties, with a backup VP who is the least qualified in history.
Let's be clear here and dispense with the knee-jerk retort that everyone makes mistakes. These are not the sorts of flubs we've all made, and we see politicians make, an Obama "57 states", or a Quayle "potatoe". Those are easily dismissable as the sorts of mistakes healthy people will make when under duress, or when having an extreme lack of sleep. McCain goes to a completely different level. He repeatedly refers to Czechoslovakia, which hasn't existed in over a decade. He begins to talk of paying $4 a box for gas, calls himself a conservative liberal Republican, and can't seem to remember whether Al Quaeda is Sunni or Shia.
America can't afford to have a president who is losing his faculties, with a backup VP who is the least qualified in history.
Friday, September 5, 2008
That Darned Liberal Bias of Reality
Over at Uncommon Descent, we see a classic example of the common flawed reasoning behind many accusations of bias. Whether it is Intelligent Design or neoconservative politics, the logical flaw is the same: assuming the intellectual legitimacy of ideas without demonstrating them.
Intelligent Design advocates do this constantly with their charges of an unfair bias against them. They assume the legitimacy of their position, and dismiss arbitrarily the possibility that ID and its advocates are reviled in the scientific community simply because the scientists have found ID wanting. Conspiracy is the only option they'll consider.
The same goes for politics. Conservatives can't seem to consider the notion that many of their ideas are dismissed because, as Stephen Colbert so eloquently put it, "reality has a liberal bias". Thus, places like scienceblogs get accused of being politically biased:
"Science is just a cover at scienceblogs.com to give it an air of legitimacy. It was never really about science. It’s all about promoting leftwing politics.
Don’t believe me? I challenge you to show me a single scienceblog.com website that supports anything on the conservative side of the political spectrum."
See the implicit and unjustified assumption? It's not possible all those nutty conservative theories are rejected on their merits, no, no, no, no. There must be some sort of bias. Thus, the near uniform rejection of conservative ideas by those most qualified to judge them is prima facie evidence that they are biased. It is a tight little circle, completely insulating true believers from criticism, from evidence, from reality. The more evidence that mounts up against them, the greater the conspiracy is. Of course, the damning question they can't answer is why there aren't any conservative equivalents of Scienceblogs. Where are all the conservative scientists? Pretty rare are they? Now why do you suppose that is. The answer is obvious, but one has to be willing to deal honestly with the evidence.
Intelligent Design advocates do this constantly with their charges of an unfair bias against them. They assume the legitimacy of their position, and dismiss arbitrarily the possibility that ID and its advocates are reviled in the scientific community simply because the scientists have found ID wanting. Conspiracy is the only option they'll consider.
The same goes for politics. Conservatives can't seem to consider the notion that many of their ideas are dismissed because, as Stephen Colbert so eloquently put it, "reality has a liberal bias". Thus, places like scienceblogs get accused of being politically biased:
"Science is just a cover at scienceblogs.com to give it an air of legitimacy. It was never really about science. It’s all about promoting leftwing politics.
Don’t believe me? I challenge you to show me a single scienceblog.com website that supports anything on the conservative side of the political spectrum."
See the implicit and unjustified assumption? It's not possible all those nutty conservative theories are rejected on their merits, no, no, no, no. There must be some sort of bias. Thus, the near uniform rejection of conservative ideas by those most qualified to judge them is prima facie evidence that they are biased. It is a tight little circle, completely insulating true believers from criticism, from evidence, from reality. The more evidence that mounts up against them, the greater the conspiracy is. Of course, the damning question they can't answer is why there aren't any conservative equivalents of Scienceblogs. Where are all the conservative scientists? Pretty rare are they? Now why do you suppose that is. The answer is obvious, but one has to be willing to deal honestly with the evidence.
They Wouldn't Ask That of a Man? But You Don't Think They Should!
I'm sure you've all heard the claim by Republicans that it is sexist to ask the question of whether Sarah Palin, being the mother of five children, could perform as Vice President given that burdon of motherhood. Yet aren't these the very same people who claim that one way the evil libruls have ruined society is by claiming men and women aren't different, and are interchangable? So which is it Republicans? Can Palin's husband take up the slack? I suspect he can, but your own bronze-age views about parenting say he can't!
I'll understand if that contradiction isn't at the top of your list of ones to sort out, there are after all, so many.
I'll understand if that contradiction isn't at the top of your list of ones to sort out, there are after all, so many.
Prominent Republicans Opine on Women in Politics and Small Town Mayors
Karl Rove: "[This person] has been a governor for 3 years...mayor of the 105th largest city in America...it's smaller than Chula Vista California, Aurora, Colorado, Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona, Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada, it's not a big town. So if you were to pick [this person] it would be an intensely political choice that says I'm really not first and foremost concerned with is this person capable of being president of the United States."
Bill O'Reilly: "On the pinhead front, [this teenage girl] is pregnant...Here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her."
Dick Morris: "When a woman wants to be president, she shouldn't complain based on gender. I'm going to take my toys and go home because the big boys are picking on me. What happens when the boys in the middle east, or the boys who run Russia, or the boys who run China start picking on you. Are we going to have the president of the United States saying "the boys are picking on me". This is what [she] always does. Whenever she gets under fire, she retreats behind the aprin strings.
Nancy Pfotenhaur: "People who think they are helping her by playing this gender card are hurting her. It would be a terrible mistake for her to play this victimology or victimization card, because it's just not what we want in a president."
Sarah Palin: "When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate, with any kind of peceived whine about that excess critcizim or a sharper microscope put on her, I think 'man, that doesn't do us any good'. Work harder, prove yourself to an even greater degree that you're capable, that you are going to be the best candidate"
Watch here to see who and what they were talking about, and how quickly the tune changed when it was their ox getting gored. Shame people, try to have some.
Bill O'Reilly: "On the pinhead front, [this teenage girl] is pregnant...Here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her."
Dick Morris: "When a woman wants to be president, she shouldn't complain based on gender. I'm going to take my toys and go home because the big boys are picking on me. What happens when the boys in the middle east, or the boys who run Russia, or the boys who run China start picking on you. Are we going to have the president of the United States saying "the boys are picking on me". This is what [she] always does. Whenever she gets under fire, she retreats behind the aprin strings.
Nancy Pfotenhaur: "People who think they are helping her by playing this gender card are hurting her. It would be a terrible mistake for her to play this victimology or victimization card, because it's just not what we want in a president."
Sarah Palin: "When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate, with any kind of peceived whine about that excess critcizim or a sharper microscope put on her, I think 'man, that doesn't do us any good'. Work harder, prove yourself to an even greater degree that you're capable, that you are going to be the best candidate"
Watch here to see who and what they were talking about, and how quickly the tune changed when it was their ox getting gored. Shame people, try to have some.
A Few Words on the Republican Convention
Subdued - the commenters used this word over and over again, even the ones on Fox News, although they were quick to ask the people who looked bored how they felt, which prompted them to act more excited. During the major speeches, the applause was so sudden and short, I kept expecting to see a "Clap Now Damnit!" prompter.
Yawn - Right in the middle of telling us how excited and energized the crowd was, we get a shot of a guy yawning for at least 10 seconds. Mike Judge would have been proud.
Redneck - From the national anthem (boy I'll bet they wish they had scheduled Jennifer Hudson right about now) to the introduction, to everything in between, this convention screamed "redneck", when it wasn't screaming:
White - It is truly remarkable in the modern era to see a political party that is THAT white. It became like a treasure hunt for us to try to find any face in the crowd that wasn't lily white. One could easily have mistaken this for the a Swedish national convention, were it not for all the people who were:
Old - I would love to know the average age of attendees, it looked like about 60. From the selections of music (how many voters know "Johnny B. Goode" anymore) it might have been even older than that. McCain didn't help matters with his doddering disjointed speech, and strained fake smiles. When we did find young people, we found:
Dorks - The shots of the white boys trying to dance in the crowd brought howls of laughter from my live audience. They looked like the dork former (or maybe current) frat boys they were. Just think Eddie Murphy's white people dancing routine. The only youg guys there that weren't dorks were:
Military - Few respect military service as I do. If anyone in society deserves to live at the public trough for the rest of their lives, it is those who have seen military combat in defense of this country. Easily the most uplifting segment of the convention was the review of John McCain's service, which should have brought a tear to any American eye. He was a hero, everything a soldier should be. But being a military hero does not automatically translate into political greatness (ask Patton), this is not a nation founded to be based on the military*, and we are not supposed to be constantly at war, heavily armed fanatic Muslim vandals notwithstanding. The founding fathers would NOT be pleased at a major political party that is that much about the military. Eisenhower was right.
Green screen - After this directorial fiasco, one would think McCain's people would have made sure to have an appropriate background. Say what you will about Greek columns, they are better than this. I guess the new Republican philosophy of hiring based on ideology rather than talent applies to production crew as well as the Vice Presidency.
USA!! USA!! - These were easily the creepiest moments I can recall from any political convention. This is contest between Americans, so just who are they shouting at, the Canadians next door? They were, after all, right up there by Canada in Minnesota. Do they somehow think the Democrats are NOT pro-USA? If that isn't approaching the status of a cult, I don't know what would persuade you. The Repblican party has left the real world.
Embarrassed - This is the word that kept coming to my mouth. From the countless goobers in the crowd, to the contentless speeches, to the fact that the Republicans are hiding Palin from the media, "embarrassed" is the only word I could think of, and it was not with amusement or pride that I thought it.
======
*The common use of "commander in chief" in referring to the president is a fairly recent addition to our political vocabulary.
Yawn - Right in the middle of telling us how excited and energized the crowd was, we get a shot of a guy yawning for at least 10 seconds. Mike Judge would have been proud.
Redneck - From the national anthem (boy I'll bet they wish they had scheduled Jennifer Hudson right about now) to the introduction, to everything in between, this convention screamed "redneck", when it wasn't screaming:
White - It is truly remarkable in the modern era to see a political party that is THAT white. It became like a treasure hunt for us to try to find any face in the crowd that wasn't lily white. One could easily have mistaken this for the a Swedish national convention, were it not for all the people who were:
Old - I would love to know the average age of attendees, it looked like about 60. From the selections of music (how many voters know "Johnny B. Goode" anymore) it might have been even older than that. McCain didn't help matters with his doddering disjointed speech, and strained fake smiles. When we did find young people, we found:
Dorks - The shots of the white boys trying to dance in the crowd brought howls of laughter from my live audience. They looked like the dork former (or maybe current) frat boys they were. Just think Eddie Murphy's white people dancing routine. The only youg guys there that weren't dorks were:
Military - Few respect military service as I do. If anyone in society deserves to live at the public trough for the rest of their lives, it is those who have seen military combat in defense of this country. Easily the most uplifting segment of the convention was the review of John McCain's service, which should have brought a tear to any American eye. He was a hero, everything a soldier should be. But being a military hero does not automatically translate into political greatness (ask Patton), this is not a nation founded to be based on the military*, and we are not supposed to be constantly at war, heavily armed fanatic Muslim vandals notwithstanding. The founding fathers would NOT be pleased at a major political party that is that much about the military. Eisenhower was right.
Green screen - After this directorial fiasco, one would think McCain's people would have made sure to have an appropriate background. Say what you will about Greek columns, they are better than this. I guess the new Republican philosophy of hiring based on ideology rather than talent applies to production crew as well as the Vice Presidency.
USA!! USA!! - These were easily the creepiest moments I can recall from any political convention. This is contest between Americans, so just who are they shouting at, the Canadians next door? They were, after all, right up there by Canada in Minnesota. Do they somehow think the Democrats are NOT pro-USA? If that isn't approaching the status of a cult, I don't know what would persuade you. The Repblican party has left the real world.
Embarrassed - This is the word that kept coming to my mouth. From the countless goobers in the crowd, to the contentless speeches, to the fact that the Republicans are hiding Palin from the media, "embarrassed" is the only word I could think of, and it was not with amusement or pride that I thought it.
======
*The common use of "commander in chief" in referring to the president is a fairly recent addition to our political vocabulary.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Tragedy Averted! Nine Year Old Pitcher Banned for being too Good! Save the Children!
Once again our nation shows itself to be raising a bunch of ninnies with this story of a nine-year-old kid who has broken the cardinal rule of modern American life: being better at something than the other kids. He is a great pitcher for his age, and his reward is being banned from the league. I thought his mother summed it up best:
"I think it’s discouraging when you’re telling a 9-year-old you’re too good at something," said his mother, Nicole Scott. "The whole objective in life is to find something you’re good at and stick with it. I’d rather he spend all his time on the baseball field than idolizing someone standing on the street corner."
Sorry lady, this is America, where you aren't allowed to be good at something. Everyone is good, and everyone should get a trophy, and your child is robbing those other children of all their good feelings they are supposed to get from hitting the ball.
And we wonder why our politicians act like children who see nothing but what they want. It starts from the ground up.
"I think it’s discouraging when you’re telling a 9-year-old you’re too good at something," said his mother, Nicole Scott. "The whole objective in life is to find something you’re good at and stick with it. I’d rather he spend all his time on the baseball field than idolizing someone standing on the street corner."
Sorry lady, this is America, where you aren't allowed to be good at something. Everyone is good, and everyone should get a trophy, and your child is robbing those other children of all their good feelings they are supposed to get from hitting the ball.
And we wonder why our politicians act like children who see nothing but what they want. It starts from the ground up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
