Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Applying the Scientific Method...
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 08:55:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <vbn9mo$2g0b8$4@dont-email.me>
References: <sdljdjt50v45qk3nrpiq0s3he6mjumooae@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 19:02:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6d1ff76b5dbb2cd3751a5435ba8b7968";
	logging-data="2621800"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18MdcLZCEFKhsDuCfDx4Nue"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FtG7rFQNy8b+USvewV15GDWY9tA=
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <sdljdjt50v45qk3nrpiq0s3he6mjumooae@4ax.com>
Bytes: 3396
X-Original-Lines: 1



"X, formerly known as "!Jones"" <x@y.com> wrote in message 
news:sdljdjt50v45qk3nrpiq0s3he6mjumooae@4ax.com...
> To apply the scientific thought process to a question, the intelligent
> person forms a hypothesis (H), an example of which might be:
> "Obtaining a gun will positively effect my personal safety and that of
> my family."  The next step is to form the *null hypothesis* (H-0)
> which is the compliment of H: "It cannot be shown that owning a gun
> will positively effect my personal safety..."  I should point out here
> that H-0 does not contradict H because H-0 includes a null (unknown)
> component.

Let's stop here and point out that for the most part this is based on the 
false notion that a firearm is obtained ONLY for personal/family protection.

It's like saying you would buy a car only to drive an injured family member 
to the hospital.

Indeed about the only guns I can see that this simplistic analysis would 
apply to are those few obtained, and used, only with the intent of self 
defense. The primary example of these would be those purchased for solely 
for personal carry.

Further, you attempt to assert what others do with THEIR guns.. should in 
any manner govern whether society should allow someone with no criminal 
history to legally buy a gun primarily for self defense.

It's like saying you shouldn't own matches or a lighter because they are 
used by arsonists.

Or you buy a car just to transport illegal drugs with it...

No, sir, you can not transpose crimes by others onto the intended legal 
possession and use of something.

Otherwise, we might as well censor your speech because some people use it 
for criminal activities.

In short.. Should a criminal's activities dictate what law abiding adults 
can legally do?

So while your 'logic tree' sounds nice, it's all based on the pile of horse 
shit at it's roots.

Otherwise, I have a ankle monitor and 24 hour home surveillance for you.. I 
mean if it stops just one criminal.. then isn't it worth it for you to give 
up all your personal freedoms and privacy and live stream your every 
activity to the world?

that is the essence of your whole argument.