Military officers had gathered and studied bullet holes in the aircraft that returned from missions. One early thought was that the planes should have more armor where they had been hit the most— fuselage, fuel system, the rest of the plane— but not on the engines, which had the smallest number of bullet holes per square foot.The commonality is using incomplete evidence and hindsight to determine truth/reality. Masha added more evidence.
Abraham Wald, a leading mathematician, disagreed. Working with the SRG (Statistics Research Group) in Manhattan, he asked an odd question: Where were the missing bullet holes— the ones that would be all over the engine if bullets were equally distributed?
They were on the missing planes, the ones that had been shot down. So the vulnerable place wasn’t where all the bullet holes were on the returning planes. It was where the bullet holes were on the planes that didn’t return.
Restricting your measurements to a final sample, excluding part of the sample that didn’t survive, creates what statisticians call “survivor bias.” It can cause you to come to conclusions that are entirely wrong.
Make sense of a disrupted world Your browser does not support playing this file but you can still download the MP3 file to play locally. A devastating missile and drone attack on Saudi oil installations last week highlighted the vulnerability of global oil supplies to the threat of regional unrest. The attack was claimed by Houthi rebels fighting ...www.ft.com
... to control slave populations.Actually, you have that completely backwards. Gun control is meant to control slave populations ... of all ethnicities. Case in point.
@OsakaAli I’m unsure why you decided to reply with this Sam Adams quote ... a slight towards me or just a clarification of "your counsels". Can you do some clarification for me? This quote is vague in context to my original post.The context, if I recall, @Michael Rupp, is in a letter from Adams to a loyalist before armed hostilities between the separatists and the forces of the crown commenced. It was a "parting ways" message to at least an acquaintance, and probably Adams' friend.
The #2A #Zealots and Status Symbol #GunOwner's make me think of the line, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”Who qualifies as a 2A "Zealot" or a "Status Symbol" gun owner? If the zealot is indeed guilty of the crime of "Zealotry" should their rights of expression, free expression, be somehow limited? Do you recommend that even absent of the application of state controls on their speech, the society should somehow coordinate to 'shun' such "zealots"? Do you think that gun purchasers should be made to prove that their motives for weapon possession exclude any hint of baser motives, such as wanting to "show off" to some audience, or to attain some kind of prestige?
The second amendment isn't a mandate, I reckon. It is an observation.Trivial note: I think for something to become an amendment and stay one it's pretty much a mandate unless we have different definitions of what a mandate is.
The observation is that living beings must have recourse to self-defense in order to live. Without it they won't. Man, as the pinnacle of creation, is even more justified in acknowledging and exercising this right.Wow, this has so much I don't like. You are standing on the soap-box of self-defense while I'm trying to discuss a mass murder problem, which seems very unique to the USA. I will grant you that self-defense in the face of imminent dangers is a must. I don't agree that a person cannot live without guns at the ready. Most people on Earth don't have guns but seem to live long happy lives.
The constitution, to its credit, states a plain fact and a truth of the natural law, a law superior to anything conceivable by mankind.Ugh, natural law? This should be its whole own thread. This only seems like an inarguable fact until you talk to non-like-minded people. Neither did the constitution state a plain fact or a natural law; although I don't know your definition of natural laws, or where you are getting yours from. If it was a plain fact we wouldn't still be arguing about it to this day.
It is not possible to be a zealot on this issue, just as it is not possible for you to be a zealot in asserting your right to prevent me from harming or killing you by anything from your protest to your entirely justifiable application of deadly force to protect your life and property. I think that I am not stating anything in the above sentence that you don't already know or agree with.I'm not sure we agree on what a zealot is. I'm routinely ambivalent on defending myself in the face of real or perceived threats. Typically people who are threatening to me are mentally unstable because of their experiences in life. I'd rather help them fix their thinking than injure them. They've been through enough already.
So then why the questioning of the moral merit and character of gun owners? Do you contest the legal principle of innocence until proven guilt? It seems that you are willing to trade that fundamental part of the foundation of American jurisprudence. And for what: The illusion of public safety? Sorry, but this is sounding to me like essentially the same components of the justification of the notion of "pre-crime" or even "thought-crime".I as a citizen of this country have more apprehension of being shot by a mad-man at random than I do for any other way to die; I don't worry much about death, but a random asshole is the top of my list. This is a statistical thing based on the frequency and randomness of the events plus the pervasive nature of the ideology of the perpetrators. That's why I question the moral merit of the gun owners.
This is why I responded your post and added an * as an addendum to "your arms" (because you claim that you don't possess any). What I see as insidious about your rhetoric is that it is, accidentally or otherwise, muddled. You resort to a textbook example of a "Red Herring" by comparing a law abiding, if distastefully motivated ("deplorable", perhaps?) gun owner to a politician who lies to their constituency. The politician makes a sacred oath upon taking office to serve the public and the founding documents' directives. The gun owner is not required, nor should he (or she) be, to make any similar oath in order to exercise the right I think I have adequately defined above.A red herring is misapplied here, so is the term law-abiding. I'm not discussing the average gun owner who has no plan to kill other human beings. I'm also not discussing in any way removing the second amendment. A red herring is if I said to repeal the second amendment because somebody died by accident. The majority of a herring catch are normal and I'm focusing on one of the millions which is red.
Who qualifies as a 2A "Zealot" or a "Status Symbol" gun owner? If the zealot is indeed guilty of the crime of "Zealotry" should their rights of expression, free expression, be somehow limited? Do you recommend that even absent of the application of state controls on their speech, the society should somehow coordinate to 'shun' such "zealots"? Do you think that gun purchasers should be made to prove that their motives for weapon possession exclude any hint of baser motives, such as wanting to "show off" to some audience, or to attain some kind of prestige?Well, 2A Zealots rush out to make news about unfettered access to any weapon they choose for any reason especially after a mass shooting has just happened. They could also be the type of people who buy themselves a 50 caliber chain gun for personal protection. They could be the type of person that has 2 or more concealed pistols on them at all times just waiting for an excuse to start shooting in public. They could be the type of person who boosts clicks on social media by making short sultry clips with a shiny pistol trying to give foolish boys a boner along with the desire to irresponcibly buy a firearm. It could be a nutty militia type who spends more on guns than they do on food. It could be the border patroll slef-deputized "volunteer" walking around with long range rifels looking for brown people to shoot.
And what’s this Man at the pinnacle talk? That sounds like something you have been told and accepted without much thought. Sure we have opposable thumbs and are able to communicate better across long distances so we are in practice better killers of all other living things, but that’s no reason to think we’re special.This, I believe, points to the heart of the matter. Michael. Which leads me to a simple question: do you believe in God?
I believe these social forums are at a loss for organizing a branching dialogue.I thought that by my last comment, I was not running up a branch or twig, but getting closer to the trunk; Maybe even the taproot. But that is just what I perceive. Others may have it occur for them differently.
This is why discourse often spirals out of control on social media.I agree that this does happen, quite often in fact. Again, by my last comment, I felt that I was lassoing the wild beast of almost free-associative thought and distilling the issues to their most radical, substantive element. I still feel the same while recognizing that others might not agree.
We need some tree branching format instead of a linear long form.I am tending to agree with you on this. Though I can understand the problem and conceive of the solution in sketch form, I lack the skills to solve it on my own. Perhaps that will change in the future, or perhaps someone like-minded guru might come along and provide an alternative before either one of us (you or me) do.
To be direct, I used to be a person of faith (Roman Catholic), but then I thought about it a lot and rejected faith. It’s not something I hide, but I don’t want to shove it in peoples faces either ... I think when I posted it, the server settings for “Public Server” were on which enacts automatic expiration of posts.Well then, perhaps we have something in common in Roman Catholicism, and 'exiting' the church. It is probably safe to say that I zigged where you zagged upon departure. However, there is a framework that I think we have in common that might make future discussions more fluid and fruitful.
I use Google, Facebook, Amazon, Lyft, Uber, Netflix, Hulu, and Spotify. I have two Amazon Echos, a Google Home, an iPhone, a MacBook Air, a Nest thermostat, a Fitbit, and a Roku. I shared the secrets of my genetic makeup by spitting in one vial for 23andMe, another for an ancestry site affiliated with National Geographic, and a third to test my athletic potential.You’re an idiot.