Guns

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

310 comments

I can't look up data that doesn't exist.
- https://duckduckgo.com/?q=percent+of+americans+carry+guns&ia=web
  Since you evidentially are unaware of the existence of search engines I'll provide this helpful link.
  Now, if you just wholly reject the concept of estimates (lol but you do you) you can go with the raw "has CCW" number which is tracked, though low (due to constitutional carry/open carry), and would benefit my argument. Again IDGAF, 34% ain't that bad of a percentage for how few people carry whether you believe it or not, and you're clearly dead set on your preconceived notions that misrepresented data is good and estimates are bad (though there is the 8% of americans with verifiable CCW permits, that ain't no estimate), so again I must bid thee adeu.
  
  Sorry, that doesn't prove that there were no armed people in the majority of those situations. That's not how statistics work. It is not an even distribution and I don't think you're stupid enough to believe it is. You made an unprovable assertion.
  
  Ok pal.
  
  That's certainly one way to weasel out of the uncomfortable truth that statistics about owning any consumer good over a broad population in a capitalist system is not evenly distributed.
  
  You're the one who doesn't want to engage, you can't then claim I'm "weaseling out." You've put forth no counter argument to argue further, this is your doing not mine, I'm just refusing to play your silly game.
  
  I'm engaging with you this entire time and "that is not an even distribution" is literally a counter-argument. You just don't like it.
  
  If it helps to use the 8% verifiable "CCW holders" then fine, there's still a low likelihood that any given person there has a gun to respond. The fact that you don't believe in "probability" isn't really my issue, everyone else understands it just fine.
  
  Are you "refusing to play my silly game" or are you accepting that I am engaging with you and making a counter-argument and will continue to discuss this with me?
  Because it can't be both.
  
  I'm refusing to play by reiterating my original point and elaborating on said silly game of "nuh uh estimations and mathematical probability are fake news." Check your house for gas leaks.
  
  And now that you've decided to hurl insults, we're done here.
  Incidentally, a gas leak is one of the options I'm looking into in four to five years depending on the laws in Canada or certain other countries. Shall I let you know?

310 comments