Neil deGrasse Tyson

Status
Not open for further replies.

DMF38

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
91
Location
Massachusetts
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson made this great statement about the recent shootings:

"In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings," Tyson wrote Sunday afternoon. He then compared the "average" number of people who die in other ways across "any 48hrs."

"On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose… 500 to Medical errors, 300 to the Flu, 250 to Suicide, 200 to Car Accidents, 40 to Homicide via Handgun," he reasoned. "Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data."

And now he's being attacked and accused of being insensitive. It's nice to see him put things in perspective, and try to educate the Lemming public.
 
Facts are inconvenient for some folks.

"Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data." Neil deGrasse Tyson, from the tweet.

A lot of people don't like being called out.

To keep this gun related, my girlfriend and I were planning on a little range outing this afternoon. After two and half hours on the water this morning though, we decided to pass. Fortunately, no boating accidents. One thing about firearms, it's a good thing to know when to say when.
 
I’m not familiar with this Tyson fellow, but we lose, on average, 28 people per day in the US to DUI-related car crashes. A mass shooting every day due to alcohol. Nobody is calling Anheuser-Busch and their lobbyists terrorist organizations or calling for a ban on alcohol.

Guess those 28 people are somehow worth less than the ones killed in a mass shooting.
 
I think we should see the tragedy in emotional terms, but we should lay blame squarely on the person who committee this horrendous crime .

IMHO there is no other way to see this. While Tyson is correct it is cold comfort to the families that lost so much .
 
While his recent comments illustrate that other things cause death besides firearms, he has in the past made comments that could be taken as anti gun, specifically on Nov 9 2015 on Twitter.
 
There is a difference between data backed assertions and opinions. He was addressing data, and I don't think we should assume his opinion on the topic is the same. I need to read more of his comments though. Emotions play too much of a role in opinions for them to be a good source of information. Data is a good source of information.

There are two types of people also, those who understand the importance, meaning, and relevance of statistics and sample size. And those who do not. Typically my observations are that gun banners are thinking emotionally and not analytically, and understand nothing about stats, or are so emotionally entangled they have forgotten.

Clearly Neil deGrasse Tyson understands the importance and meaning of stats.
That being said, Samuel Clemens also understood their meaning when he popularized the saying "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

It doesn't surprise me in the least that he is being demonized for his comments. That's what irrational people who blame inanimate objects for the actions of people do, they lash out at anyone who disagrees with them.
 
Outstanding point by Dr. Tyson from a truly logical standpoint.

If I was going to argue against the point I would do it based on the growth rate of incidence. It would be more along the lines of: this has the potential to be a substantial problem and we should be proactive about preventing that.

In general though I am forced to agree with Dr. Tyson that we have bigger problems that people are much less interested in solving. I find the CDC cause of death charts give you a very unbiased way to present the facts to people.

leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2017_1100w850h (1).jpg

But again, even given these facts I think that it's good to be proactive in solving problems.
 
That's an interesting chart. . . it would be even more interesting if you could somehow filter out the homicide victims who choose to engage in criminal activity antecedent to becoming deceased. I suspect that homicide would vanish.

I mean it's not quite what you were going for, but they break down injury deaths quite a bit in this one.

leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_unintentional_2017_1100w850h.jpg
 
I never hear it mentioned, but the hard truth is that some victims of gun violence deserve it. The antis assume that any gun murder is a sad tragedy, and I feel as bad as anyone about the innocent victims. But there are plenty of gang members and various predators and thugs who deserve what they get. If some of them shoot each other to death, that's a happy bonus for the rest of us.
 
I never hear it mentioned, but the hard truth is that some victims of gun violence deserve it. The antis assume that any gun murder is a sad tragedy, and I feel as bad as anyone about the innocent victims. But there are plenty of gang members and various predators and thugs who deserve what they get. If some of them shoot each other to death, that's a happy bonus for the rest of us.

That is about 80% of the "gun violence" deaths in this country.
 
I never hear it mentioned, but the hard truth is that some victims of gun violence deserve it. The antis assume that any gun murder is a sad tragedy, and I feel as bad as anyone about the innocent victims. But there are plenty of gang members and various predators and thugs who deserve what they get. If some of them shoot each other to death, that's a happy bonus for the rest of us.
I don’t agree that death of criminals by gun violence is a bonus of any kind because it puts bystanders in danger, but you do make a good point that many gun deaths in this country are criminal on criminal murders, and only a portion of the total gun deaths are criminal on law abiding citizen murders.
 
Comparing one category of preventable deaths to another simply to deflect discussion on the first is not an effective debate technique, and will not lead to a solution. Shouldn't each category of tragedy merit its own discussion? If there are ways to reduce the frequency or severity of mass shootings, they will not be discovered by shouting back "but.. but.. cars/drunks/doctors...!" at anyone who wants to look for them.
 
I take the Umbrageous/PC bullies on electronic social media as being the equivalent of a 21st Century mob.

In the late 18th Century, Paris had major problems with their mob.

As I recall Napoleon solved the issue by treating them to "a whiff of grapeshot".

Sad thing is, the only power/influence that these Bullies have is that which is handed to them by pusillanimous people.

Just a thought ... :)
 
The scary thing is, this proves we are no longer free. If you can’t speak your mind, backed up by facts because a bunch of pansies on social media whine about it, then we are no longer a free society, yet rather ruled by the mob. The US will be VZ in short order. I don’t know why anyone with facts would recant!!!! Pansy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top