Report on the news that matters to your community and don't let us miss a beat. Send in your stories and photos.
My Recent Comments
I'm quite disappointed with Mr. McClellan's article and the high rate of factual fallacies and logical fallacies.
The article makes use of multiple buzz-words, however, in the context they are presented, they make for nonsensical gibberish.
By comparison, Ralph Nadar's work “Unsafe at Any Speed” would have been a laughing stock had Nadar claimed that the Corvair's “tire-connector stuff” needed “lots of bars” so that the “car-turney-handle-wheel” moved the car over. But no, Nadar became familiar with the dynamics of the subject and accurately described the geometry of the swing-axle suspension and lack of anti-roll bars. Even if Nadar claimed the Corvair had “solid axle” suspension and other factual mistakes, Nadar wouldn't have had the impact he had even though “solid-axle” is a type of suspension, but was never on the Corvair and therefore was simply not applicable.
In order to have a logical discussion, it is important to be able to give a passing description of the subject matter, the dynamics of what is actually occurring, and then apply logical thinking toward such premises.
The article above builds up multiple factual fallacies, then makes use of logical fallacies.
The concepts presented in the above article are unsupported.6 months ago
“fact vehicles account for more deaths than guns do each year”
The numbers cited are put forth using multiple logical fallacies. As presented, the numbers are non-comparative and end up being nonsensical to logical study.
One example is that for the people that the list includes some people that were in need at the time to be shot. A law enforcement officer that is justifiably shooting a bank robber or a lady that is justifiably shooting a rapist are included in such numbers.
Likewise with suicides as multiple peer-reviewed scholarly works show that the methodology for suicide is not a deciding factor.
Compared to deaths by automobiles, the number in our current society is extremely few that would be considered justified.
Using the presented car/gun/total-numbers methodology one could claim most anything such as the score of tonight's game having a score of 40 points. But without breaking it down that the 49ers scored 27 and the Cards 13, simply adding up the scores in total is a logical fallacy.
Attempting to use such numbers like this for controlling gun owners is either an incompetent attempt at logic or an attempt at lying to people.6 months ago
(hoping my paragraph separation shows up ok...a few times it looks ok in the input box, but looks run together after posting. My apologies if this occurs for this longer read)
This is not a venue where proof is able to be adequately supplied, but citations may be shown.
The FBI raw-data-gathering is far from anything resembling scientific or open-peer-reviewed research. Citing cherry-picked raw data is a logical fallacy and simply more duck-quacking.
Regarding the Census, this is another non-scientific example. An example such is the state ranking as it is a composite and has nothing to do with linear measurement, is based upon a small sampling, is not a true random sampling, is not an academic (let alone open-peer-reviewed) study, is not scientific, includes inherent weighting by definition and not by significance, and is stated in the Census Bureau's own "Cautionary note about rankings" in order to avoid exactly the kind of conversation you attempted
One citation of open-peer-reviewed research is Lott who is a bit more popular due to his book and some news-station talking points. His 1996 work covered 16 years and 100% of the counties in the United States without cherry picking for analysis. His later updates added nearly another decade. Here's a few more, each of which has been open-peer-reviewed, but not even close to a small sampling, but a small variety or author-teams.
Barrow, R. (1999). Women with attitude: Self protection, policy, and the law. Thomas jefferson law review. 21 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 59 (September 1999)
Kleck, G. & Gertz, M. (1995). Armed resistance to crime: The prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun, 86 J. Crim. L & Criminology 150, 153, 180, 182-82.
Lott, J. & Landes, W. (1999). Multiple victim public shootings, bombings, and right-to-carry concealed handgun laws: contrasting private and public law enforcement. (April 1999). University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 73.
Lott, J. & Mustard, D. (1997). Crime, deterrence, and right-to-carry concealed handguns. The Journal of Legal Studies
Vol. 26, No. 1 (January 1997), pp. 1-68
Lott, J. (1996). Does allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed hanguns save lives. Valparaiso university law review. Volume:31 Issue:2 (Spring 1997). pp 355-364.
But there are multiple hundreds of such studies as can be seen by this screenshot from a scholarly search database (and the Google-branded search page-selector where each page = 10 results).
Referencing "gun-deaths" as a categorization is a logical fallacy of selective pre-definition. It does not support any of your points. It is not scientific and is the opposite of such. Yet this has been discussed already; you provided no substantial counter of the usage of this definition in any way. Simply repeating it (combined with multiple ad hominem logical fallacies toward others in the thread and claiming to know what the other people know or don't know, and more) would appear to be troll-type behavior. As such, it would seem there is little possive effect to bother responding further such negative behaviors that you've been exhibiting.Apr 25, 2012
Of course Korwin doesn't mention your tangent side-story. Perhaps it might be because your assertion is non-scientific and is a logical fallacy. Such attempts to use selective cherry-picking have been debunked in the scientific community each time it is attempted.
Without cherry-picking, and using open-peer-reviewed scholarly research, where there are more guns, there are less murders (by all means), less rapes, and less aggravated assaults. In short, contrary to your unsupported assertion, open-peer-reviewed research shows that more guns = safer populace.
Your statements are unsupportable. Your attempt to use non-scientific attempts at terms such as “gun-deaths” is a logical fallacy and does not contribute in a material way to the discussion. Your initial posting would have had the same amount of support had you quacked like duck for six paragraphs.Apr 24, 2012
When our society wants to protect places such as the White House or Palo Verde power plant, we have responsible adults possessing what we consider the tools for the job, which in this day and age is a firearm.
But if we want to feel safe at a college, we put a sign at the property's edge.Mar 28, 2012
I find no references to any peer-reviewed academic studies of that name. I do find a newspaper article without an author in a for-profit paper. However even if the newspaper article does exist, it does not appear to be a "study" based upon the scientific process. If that's the case, then it is an opinion piece right up there with those guys on YouTube that posted their work on Menthos and Diet Coke.
However, there is open-peer-reviewed scholarly research on carrying on campus, from law enforcement, armed guards, and concealed carry. In each of them, the people that were legally carrying did not have a loss of morals once they stepped on campus and they did not get their guns taken away from them. Further open-peer-reviewed scholarly research shows that carrying results in thousands fewer murders, rapes, and violent assaults every year. Being peer reviwed, the peers had varying results, but came up with lower or higher numbers of the net being overwhelmingly positive for life and defending against rapes and assaults.
Currently, we do have our respected law enforcement officers allowed to be armed while on campus, with no increase in accidents or the officers committing crimes. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any chronic issues of students being "on edge and in danger." This is with our respected officers which have a crime rate similar to the general public. By comparison, concealed carry permit holders have a crime rate many times lower.
Your reference to Columbine is an outright red herring logical fallacy and provides zero support to your argument. Mar 19, 2012
In 1987 when states first began with "shall-issue" concealed carry, the outcry and newspaper opinions were that there would be unimaginable fear, blood running in the streets, people shooting each other all the time.
When states stopped infringing on people to carry concealed in public restaurants that were ok with the idea that also serve alcohol, the predictions were again published that it was "very bad" and more.
Now when there's a bill to stop college campuses from these same infringements, the same sky-is-falling claims are made.
The above list is much abreviated. But there has been three commonalities each and every time:
1) There is no open-peer-reviewed research to support the claims of fear and catastrophe
2) There is open-peer-reviewed research to support citizen carry = more safety, fewer murders, fewer rapes, fewer violent assaults
3) The results after the fact proved each time that the fear-claims turned out to be flat out wrong.
We currently allow our respected law enforcement officers on campuses, yet for some reason, the students aren't freaking out at the sight of the officer's sidearm. And as much as we love our respected law enforcement officers, it remains that as a demographic, their crime rate is similar to the general population. Compare this to the crime rate of concealed carry permit holders which is many times lower than that.
Looking at other states, there's about 70 college campuses that are affected in which this same thing of citizen carry is taking place. And among those, there has been zero crimes committed by those citizens.
Last, the proposed legislation might have recently received endorsement from the NRA, but the NRA is a late-comer to this party and was not the originator of this at all.
Mr. Wood, your statements are unsupported.
However, Mr. Wood, I must commend you on your writing above. Sure, you have a passionate feeling on this and we have disagreements on premises, research, and outcomes. But I did not notice any logical fallacies that have been so prevalent in other opinions/commentaries in the news. For that, you have my respect as being honorable in your writings. Mar 19, 2012
Being in District 22, Biggs has been on target for the most part for the majority of the district. If he is off track from the district, then one would hope the votes relate. If I recall correctly, part of the area that District 22 was District 30 in 2000...the same district that voted out the late Jeff Groscost when news of the alt-fuels legislation became more prevalent just weeks before the election.
What you refer to as photo-cops is actually outsourced company employees of an overseas corporation that uses radar unlicensed by the FCC (until they got caught). These are not sworn law enforcement officers.
The photo-cop process bypasses the citizens' right to due process and also the right of the accused to question his or her accuser. Speed-cams, in particular have yet to show any net positive on a peer-reviewed academic study and actually show that there are many more accidents in the areas where cameras are deployed.
The photo-(non)-cop process has been a money-grab that takes money from Arizona citizens and sends it to overseas corporations.Mar 19, 2012
The common practice of citation was used specifically to preempt such things as attempting to recreate the many scores of pages that an open peer reviewed academic study generates to describe the factors, controls, methodologies, and tools in a small news story window such as this.
The short-short version** is that the work did not cherry pick and included all counties in the US for ~2 decades straight and also quantified to the point that would result in:
1,570 less murders
4,177 less rapes
60,000 less aggravated assaults
12,000 less robberies
Even many peer-reviews that did not match on findings still show positive results based upon different quantities.
The misidentified ranking and what methodologies would be best used to measure and quantify leniency notwithstanding, interestingly, you countered with an exceedingly bad concept and application of state ranking. The state ranking is a composite and has nothing to do with linear measurement, is based upon a small sampling, is not a true random sampling, is not an academic (let alone peer-reviewed) study, is not scientific, includes inherent weighting by definition and not by significance, and is stated in the Census Bureau's own "Cautionary note about rankings" in order to avoid exactly the kind of conversation you attempted with your countering question.
** phraseology acknowledgments to Ronny Graham
Mar 8, 2012
We love our respected law enforcement, but it remains that they will always be the second-responders typically well after the event is completed and are often relegated to taking reports. The people on the scene at the time of the event itself are the first-responders.
The various administrators of law enforcement groups claiming that the proposed legislation will cause (as in force?) police to shoot innocent gun owners is without merit and is also a logical fallacy.
Citizens shoot more attempted murderers, attempted rapists, attempted violent felons than law enforcement several times over (Kleck and Gertz) and do so with a much higher accuracy of their shots. This is not a knock against competency, but rather the large difference in how first-responders and second-responders are able to interact with a situation. In addition, it's no wonder why criminals are much more affraid of armed citizens than they are of law enforcement (Wright and Rossi).
If our law enforcement administrators continue to claim that recognizing citizen's rights makes for a difficult job for them, then perhaps it might be time to locate more capable administrators. I have no doubt that these administrators would also have an easier time with their procedures if they were able to ignore such things as...say...the 4th amendment. That 5th amendment also adds extra work as well for our law enforcement administrators to work around. But if we as a society were to give in to the recommendations of these administrators, that would be the epitome of a police state.Mar 7, 2012