|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On June 26 2016 04:11 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 03:54 Rebs wrote:On June 26 2016 03:45 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2016 03:38 Rebs wrote:
You provide for points to counter 1 pint.
Lets agree that the number of firearms has nothing to do with it. Lets agree that the CDC is biased.
Lets agree that the CDC fucked up in the first place.
All of this excuses all of the other points I made that you just absolutely ignored ?
As a responsible gun owner, is it not in your interest that things like gun registration and basic regulation on par with maybe like a student drivers license be put in place? Because in every single example of forced registry of firearms in other countries, it has lead to a widespread ban or extreme restriction on firearms. Every, single, time. And extensive research from criminologists who actually study crime have shown that there is no correlation between number of legal firearms and firearm crimes within a country. All of these excuses? I literally refuted every single thing you just stated. Not really you just took one point I made and hammered 5 points to counter it. Like the point I made about how after all these "crusades" you keep talking about there was very little affect. So why be so worried over basic research ? Or even just basic registration. This is a deadly weapon. Not a blender. Also if you have all this research to refute the CDC, then why not let them do their research and refute them. There is so much inconsistency here. Like I said I have no problem with the number of guns, or how and where you want to shoot them even as long as its safe. But everything you keep pointing to is that people who like deadly weapons were treated unfairly at some point (which they havent even) and so therefore now they have a right to be assholes. In other countries the results of banning fire arms are invalid because "USA so different" but the results of enforcing basic rules would mean "lolz USA not so different?" You cant appeal to what happens in other countries as an argument if you will not accept the results of the measures in other countries. Having your gun and shooting it too. You cannot allow a government agency to have biased and non-objective research. That is a colossal waste of millions of dollars of tax payer money. That was one of the reasons why congress implemented the ban in the first place. Also, if you read the language of the rider, the CDC is free to research as much as they want about gun violence and its impact. The only thing they cannot do is advocate for gun control. That is all. 'Or even basic registration.' Because like I said, in every case of full scale nation wide registrations of firearms, they end up being taken away. Australia and the U.K. are prominent examples of this. The example of the study I just posted is merely to show that there is no correlation between number of firearms and violent crimes committed with said firearms. You can extrapolate that based on the data. What you cannot do is take one single country (i.e. Australia which is the most popular one to use) and try and cross compare it with another country and call it a day. That's lazy, non-academic, and dishonest. Trying to say 'well ever since they enacted a ban no mass shootings have taken place' is not honest at all, considering Australia prior to said ban had significantly less crime than the United States did. Those are two totally different comparisons, and you would know that if you have a background in academia.
Yes I am familiar with the language of the rider. Do all the research you want, but the results are useless unless they agree with us.
Its a classic along side the show me proof rhetoric.
Right you can extrapolate based on one set of data and ignore the variables but you cant extrapolate and ignore the other set. Come on dude, your not even trying now.
|
On June 26 2016 07:08 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 04:11 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2016 03:54 Rebs wrote:On June 26 2016 03:45 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2016 03:38 Rebs wrote:
You provide for points to counter 1 pint.
Lets agree that the number of firearms has nothing to do with it. Lets agree that the CDC is biased.
Lets agree that the CDC fucked up in the first place.
All of this excuses all of the other points I made that you just absolutely ignored ?
As a responsible gun owner, is it not in your interest that things like gun registration and basic regulation on par with maybe like a student drivers license be put in place? Because in every single example of forced registry of firearms in other countries, it has lead to a widespread ban or extreme restriction on firearms. Every, single, time. And extensive research from criminologists who actually study crime have shown that there is no correlation between number of legal firearms and firearm crimes within a country. All of these excuses? I literally refuted every single thing you just stated. Not really you just took one point I made and hammered 5 points to counter it. Like the point I made about how after all these "crusades" you keep talking about there was very little affect. So why be so worried over basic research ? Or even just basic registration. This is a deadly weapon. Not a blender. Also if you have all this research to refute the CDC, then why not let them do their research and refute them. There is so much inconsistency here. Like I said I have no problem with the number of guns, or how and where you want to shoot them even as long as its safe. But everything you keep pointing to is that people who like deadly weapons were treated unfairly at some point (which they havent even) and so therefore now they have a right to be assholes. In other countries the results of banning fire arms are invalid because "USA so different" but the results of enforcing basic rules would mean "lolz USA not so different?" You cant appeal to what happens in other countries as an argument if you will not accept the results of the measures in other countries. Having your gun and shooting it too. You cannot allow a government agency to have biased and non-objective research. That is a colossal waste of millions of dollars of tax payer money. That was one of the reasons why congress implemented the ban in the first place. Also, if you read the language of the rider, the CDC is free to research as much as they want about gun violence and its impact. The only thing they cannot do is advocate for gun control. That is all. 'Or even basic registration.' Because like I said, in every case of full scale nation wide registrations of firearms, they end up being taken away. Australia and the U.K. are prominent examples of this. The example of the study I just posted is merely to show that there is no correlation between number of firearms and violent crimes committed with said firearms. You can extrapolate that based on the data. What you cannot do is take one single country (i.e. Australia which is the most popular one to use) and try and cross compare it with another country and call it a day. That's lazy, non-academic, and dishonest. Trying to say 'well ever since they enacted a ban no mass shootings have taken place' is not honest at all, considering Australia prior to said ban had significantly less crime than the United States did. Those are two totally different comparisons, and you would know that if you have a background in academia. Yes I am familiar with the language of the rider. Do all the research you want, but the results are useless unless they agree with us. Its a classic along side the show me proof rhetoric. Right you can extrapolate based on one set of data and ignore the variables but you cant extrapolate and ignore the other set. Come on dude, your not even trying now.
Because one set of data involves a much greater sample size of a multitude of countries with various different ethnic groups, different cultures, different laws, and has a set of controls put into place to get the most accurate results possible. Oh, might I tell you the study I posted to you was researched by someone who actually has an advanced degree.
The other set of 'data' is merely arm chair talk of one guy stating Australia banned all gun laws and has had zero mass shootings, thus the United States should do the same thing, without accounting for the fact that Australia is a far more homogeneous country than the United States, is geographically much smaller (which is a significant factor when you're talking about enforcement of gun control laws), has a different governing system than the United States, has a far different society/culture, etc.
But do tell me how I'm not trying.
No the rider does not say that. The rider merely says the CDC cannot use the funding to advocate for gun control policies or promote them. There's nothing that says the CDC cannot research whether or not there is a correlation between number of firearms and number of homicides in the United States, or whether or not current laws are effective or not. There's nothing within the rider that states any of those things. The reason why the CDC doesn't research anything over gun violence currently is because they got caught red handed trying to promote their agenda with a shoddily done study with more holes in it then Donald Trump's tax records, and then proceeded to get embarrassed in front of congress. The lead research Dr. Kellermann (who at the time was working as the lead researcher for the CDC under a grant) to this day refuses to make the full data set on his research public. Want to know why? Because he royally fucked up and he knows it.
For anyone who wants to see Kellerman's study here it is
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=articleMethods
|
On June 26 2016 06:56 ClanRH.TV wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 09:25 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 09:14 micronesia wrote:
That's not to say the NRA is the voice of reason anymore (long ago they were). Now they robocall people telling them to call their congressmen and say they oppose all new gun restrictions (by default). Both sides sicken me. I think most responsible gun owners actually don't like the NRA, however they feel that it's necessary to support them because of how much bias there is towards legitimate and responsible gun owners. Pretty much every leftist news media outlet shows massive bias against firearms, and continually utilize mass shootings as an opportunity to push their agenda through. I'd be willing to bet if the left would be willing to compromise and stop being totally unreasonable on the issue (and actually do some research) that the NRA would immediately lose many of their more moderate supporters (which actually make up the vast majority of their supporters). But until CNN, NBC, and every other leftist news media outlet, along with the entire left tries to stop trying to paint firearms as the bane of existence, you will have many responsible firearm owners who will continue to support the NRA despite the fact that I believe the NRA are a bunch of assholes. On June 24 2016 09:16 Plansix wrote:
You assume my opinion isn't informed. I grew up on a farm, I have shot may guns. I am well informed up on the subject of fire arms ownership and I am not thrilled with the state of regulation of fire arms sales. You can own all the guns you want, I don't care. You sure haven't shown any kind of informed opinion on this matter. Anecdotes don't show that you're informed. Backing your arguments with statistics, facts, and research shows that you are informed. I think you've done a pretty good job in summing up an intelligent opinion here. I sit independent on most issues, but when it comes to firearms, I can't lean anywhere else but right. Seems so odd to me that people are so emotionally weak that they need to blame an object rather than the true culprit: humans. Throughout the entirety of history people have killed people just as they do now. Lets take accountability for the fact that some humans are giant pieces of crap and see what we can do to help prevent this from happening.
You know what would help piece of crap humans not killing others? The need to register a gun and get background checked. It's not even an intelligent idea, but some people can't even grasp this simple concept. And they talk about intelligent arguments!
The rider merely says the CDC cannot use the funding to advocate for gun control policies or promote them. There's nothing that says the CDC cannot research whether or not there is a correlation between number of firearms and number of homicides in the United States, or whether or not current laws are effective or not
Actually it's exactly what it says.
>cannot advocate for gun control
>research whether you need gun control or not
you don't see how point #1 kinda prevents #2?
|
There's also always the complicated difference between what is said and what is meant. The current impression (for which there is a reasonable basis) is that there is a ban on such research, or rather, that to undertake any such research would imperil their position and funding.
And we want it to be abundantly clear that they should go do some research. and if there's flaws in the research, then those flaws should be addressed, and proper research done.
|
On June 26 2016 08:59 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 06:56 ClanRH.TV wrote:On June 24 2016 09:25 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 09:14 micronesia wrote:
That's not to say the NRA is the voice of reason anymore (long ago they were). Now they robocall people telling them to call their congressmen and say they oppose all new gun restrictions (by default). Both sides sicken me. I think most responsible gun owners actually don't like the NRA, however they feel that it's necessary to support them because of how much bias there is towards legitimate and responsible gun owners. Pretty much every leftist news media outlet shows massive bias against firearms, and continually utilize mass shootings as an opportunity to push their agenda through. I'd be willing to bet if the left would be willing to compromise and stop being totally unreasonable on the issue (and actually do some research) that the NRA would immediately lose many of their more moderate supporters (which actually make up the vast majority of their supporters). But until CNN, NBC, and every other leftist news media outlet, along with the entire left tries to stop trying to paint firearms as the bane of existence, you will have many responsible firearm owners who will continue to support the NRA despite the fact that I believe the NRA are a bunch of assholes. On June 24 2016 09:16 Plansix wrote:
You assume my opinion isn't informed. I grew up on a farm, I have shot may guns. I am well informed up on the subject of fire arms ownership and I am not thrilled with the state of regulation of fire arms sales. You can own all the guns you want, I don't care. You sure haven't shown any kind of informed opinion on this matter. Anecdotes don't show that you're informed. Backing your arguments with statistics, facts, and research shows that you are informed. I think you've done a pretty good job in summing up an intelligent opinion here. I sit independent on most issues, but when it comes to firearms, I can't lean anywhere else but right. Seems so odd to me that people are so emotionally weak that they need to blame an object rather than the true culprit: humans. Throughout the entirety of history people have killed people just as they do now. Lets take accountability for the fact that some humans are giant pieces of crap and see what we can do to help prevent this from happening. You know what would help piece of crap humans not killing others? The need to register a gun and get background checked. It's not even an intelligent idea, but some people can't even grasp this simple concept. And they talk about intelligent arguments! Show nested quote +The rider merely says the CDC cannot use the funding to advocate for gun control policies or promote them. There's nothing that says the CDC cannot research whether or not there is a correlation between number of firearms and number of homicides in the United States, or whether or not current laws are effective or not Actually it's exactly what it says. >cannot advocate for gun control >research whether you need gun control or not you don't see how point #1 kinda prevents #2?
No it doesn't. All you would have to do is prove the statistical correlation and then causation between number of available firearms and number of homicides that occur. Except, no one to date has been able to do so. At least not without an incredibly shoddily and dishonest study.
On June 26 2016 09:13 zlefin wrote:
There's also always the complicated difference between what is said and what is meant. The current impression (for which there is a reasonable basis) is that there is a ban on such research, or rather, that to undertake any such research would imperil their position and funding.
And we want it to be abundantly clear that they should go do some research. and if there's flaws in the research, then those flaws should be addressed, and proper research done.
The ban was put into place because the CDC had an agenda, and was wasting millions of tax payer dollars by building a case around a single conclusion. Their parent agency's (U.S. Department of Health and Human services) goal was to reduce the number of handguns by 25% by the year 2000 (which they failed to do).
The CDC has done two major studies recently. One that they did themselves in 2003, and another one that they also co-worked on with the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council. Both times they found that they could not conclude that gun control laws had any kind of effect on firearm violence. In fact, many of their findings support many of the claims of the right on this particular issue. So this whole idea that the CDC can't do research on gun violence is total hogwash, because they actually have.
|
Hmm, sounds plausible; if the notion is entirely a mistake, most likely started by some anti-gun people that caught on, why hasn't that become better circulated info?
Society really needs better mechanisms for correcting mistakes; the echo chamber effects frequently cause things that are simply untrue and easily disprovable to nonetheless circulate widely.
|
On June 26 2016 09:25 zlefin wrote:
Hmm, sounds plausible; if the notion is entirely a mistake, most likely started by some anti-gun people that caught on, why hasn't that become better circulated info?
Society really needs better mechanisms for correcting mistakes; the echo chamber effects frequently cause things that are simply untrue and easily disprovable to nonetheless circulate widely.
For those who want to see proof here are the studies
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3
I believe more research should be allowed by the NRA; many times they do threaten to go to congress to get those organizations defunded. I don't think they should be doing that anymore, as we should be finding ways to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of someone who may be mentally ill. What I do understand though, is that the NRA and many other organizations do have a healthy amount of skepticism and for very good reasons to. As such, that's why I stated that the left needs to give some ground here, otherwise you're never gonna get the NRA and the gun lobbyist groups to do anything or to come to the table to compromise.
|
Which ground exactly do you wish to be given? and which left groups? The left is a very large and nebulous group, with many different subgroups on varying positions on gun control.
Mostly though, the decisions need to be made by people who've actually carefully and thoughtfully looked over everything, rather than public debate that's so often plagued by misinformation.
also, mental illness is a rather small fraction of the violence. There's also of course all the other categories of preventable gun deaths. well, we need more research, hopefully we can get some sound proposals past.
Hopefully we cna find way to disincentivise politicians lying/misrepresenting reality to get the benefit of some subgroup.
|
On June 26 2016 10:03 zlefin wrote:
Which ground exactly do you wish to be given? and which left groups? The left is a very large and nebulous group, with many different subgroups on varying positions on gun control.
Mostly though, the decisions need to be made by people who've actually carefully and thoughtfully looked over everything, rather than public debate that's so often plagued by misinformation.
also, mental illness is a rather small fraction of the violence. There's also of course all the other categories of preventable gun deaths. well, we need more research, hopefully we can get some sound proposals past.
Hopefully we cna find way to disincentivise politicians lying/misrepresenting reality to get the benefit of some subgroup.
The problem is that the greater majority of all gun violence either attributable to mental illness and/or socioeconomic problems in inner city communities. "preventable gun deaths" is exactly the wrong kind of word to start with on research on this issue with it being so vague.
|
quite right, it is the wrong kind of word to use. Though obviously any kind of gun death that could be determined to be preventable it'd be good to correct.
|
On June 26 2016 10:26 zlefin wrote:
quite right, it is the wrong kind of word to use. Though obviously any kind of gun death that could be determined to be preventable it'd be good to correct.
even if it's not the guns which are the problem, but the mental health issues or the little druggy gangsters? especially since most homicide is committed by people who have already been indicted for something before
<_<
it's so easy to lay the blame where it isn't due because guns are scary. in the mean time most firearm owners in the USA have never been a problem. but fuck those guys right, it's more important to keep firearms out of their hands so that the dumb fucks won't get them either
cf Paris, brussels
|
On June 26 2016 15:55 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 10:26 zlefin wrote:
quite right, it is the wrong kind of word to use. Though obviously any kind of gun death that could be determined to be preventable it'd be good to correct.
even if it's not the guns which are the problem, but the mental health issues or the little druggy gangsters? especially since most homicide is committed by people who have already been indicted for something before <_< it's so easy to lay the blame where it isn't due because guns are scary. in the mean time most firearm owners in the USA have never been a problem. but fuck those guys right, it's more important to keep firearms out of their hands so that the dumb fucks won't get them either cf Paris, brussels
That argument would work a lot better if the same people who are against any control of firearms were not also against helping the mentally ill and for the war on drugs.
|
On June 26 2016 15:55 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 10:26 zlefin wrote:
quite right, it is the wrong kind of word to use. Though obviously any kind of gun death that could be determined to be preventable it'd be good to correct.
even if it's not the guns which are the problem, but the mental health issues or the little druggy gangsters? especially since most homicide is committed by people who have already been indicted for something before <_< it's so easy to lay the blame where it isn't due because guns are scary. in the mean time most firearm owners in the USA have never been a problem. but fuck those guys right, it's more important to keep firearms out of their hands so that the dumb fucks won't get them either cf Paris, brussels
that's not hwat I said. I said if they were preventable that'd be good; I said nothing about how to prevent them; if we can prevent them throug hbetter mental health programs or dealing with the gangsters, that works fine. Whatever works.
|
On June 26 2016 21:35 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 15:55 Incognoto wrote:On June 26 2016 10:26 zlefin wrote:
quite right, it is the wrong kind of word to use. Though obviously any kind of gun death that could be determined to be preventable it'd be good to correct.
even if it's not the guns which are the problem, but the mental health issues or the little druggy gangsters? especially since most homicide is committed by people who have already been indicted for something before <_< it's so easy to lay the blame where it isn't due because guns are scary. in the mean time most firearm owners in the USA have never been a problem. but fuck those guys right, it's more important to keep firearms out of their hands so that the dumb fucks won't get them either cf Paris, brussels That argument would work a lot better if the same people who are against any control of firearms were not also against helping the mentally ill and for the war on drugs.
So you're saying problems are linked? How incredibly mature of you! 
For the record, yes, I am for the decriminalization of drugs, the legalization of weed and I am for proper mental health care problems.
I would also think that the USA would be required to have some better overall social safety nets, so that people aren't backed into a suicide corner; which happens quite a lot in the USA. Suicide takes way more lives than firearms do!
So, to be quite frank, we're in agreement.
|
Suicide takes 43k lives/year, firearms take 33k/year. I'm not sure I'd call it way more, but it's certainly a lot more.
Of course those figures have a lot of overlap, 21k of those suicides are with firearms.
hmm, now that's something we might be able to find a way to cut down on.
|
|
|
|
|
Last night in Dallas, as a response to the recent murders of Alton Sterling (the innocent black man who was hit with a stun gun, pinned to the ground, and executed with 4 shots by police officers) and Philando Castile (the innocent black man in a car the very next day, shot and killed and removed in front of his family by police officers), 2 snipers shot 11 cops, killing 5 of them.
Violence begets violence, and it's another day of tragedy and sorrow in this country. There aren't any reports yet that these 11 new casualties are police officers who have previously committed racially-prejudiced attacks on blacks (or anyone else), so for the time being, all we know is that 5 more American lives were taken, 6 others were injured (and possibly a non-police injury or two), and that the United States really needs to get its shit together. This past week, our country has been anything but United.
Rest in peace <3
|
I find police violence against black people to be absolutely disgusting, but I would never be a cop in the US, much less in a big city. Killing cops to make a stupid fucking point makes damn sure they'll be on their guard and they'll be more eager to pull the trigger, sometimes without cause, because they're constantly worried about getting killed.
Here, the police can reasonably expect that the people they interact with are not going to shoot them.
I read the social media and I see people I know say "500 people have been killed by police in the US so far this year", and I'm just thinking, if they did massive herculean work and reduced it by half, it would still be amazing to see "250 people have been killed by police in the US so far this year". The figure is exactly as stunning and surprising and sad.
I've been one of the first people to be critical of trigger happy cops but holy shit guys let's be real guy, being a police officer in the US would be terrifying. And for every savage white cop who wants to get a rise out of his privilege position of authority, there's 10 dads and moms who just want to get back home at the end of the the day, and their training is not perfect like the rest of us, except when you fuck up your boss gets angry, and when they fuck up they have a gun in their hands and not a keyboard or whatever you work with.
The US is sick and refuses to take its meds 
|
On July 08 2016 23:12 Djzapz wrote:I find police violence against black people to be absolutely disgusting, but I would never be a cop in the US, much less in a big city. Killing cops to make a stupid fucking point makes damn sure they'll be on their guard and they'll be more eager to pull the trigger, sometimes without cause, because they're constantly worried about getting killed. Here, the police can reasonably expect that the people they interact with are not going to shoot them. I read the social media and I see people I know say "500 people have been killed by police in the US so far this year", and I'm just thinking, if they did massive herculean work and reduced it by half, it would still be amazing to see "250 people have been killed by police in the US so far this year". The figure is exactly as stunning and surprising and sad. I've been one of the first people to be critical of trigger happy cops but holy shit guys let's be real guy, being a police officer in the US would be terrifying. And for every savage white cop who wants to get a rise out of his privilege position of authority, there's 10 dads and moms who just want to get back home at the end of the the day, and their training is not perfect like the rest of us, except when you fuck up your boss gets angry, and when they fuck up they have a gun in their hands and not a keyboard or whatever you work with. The US is sick and refuses to take its meds
You do realize that violent crime rates are at 20 year lows, and that being a police officer is not even one of the ten most dangerous jobs in the US, right? The danger that cops are in is vastly overstated. However, police killings of citizens are at one of the highest points it has ever been and police use of force complaints have skyrocketed the past ten years. There is a problem, and it's the police.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
