If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On February 19 2018 06:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


So now, well sourced encyclopedias aren't good enough references? You realize that "lol Wikipedia" wasn't even a valid rebuttal a decade ago, right? I mean, it's fine to discuss additional variables one should control for when having this discussion, but you're acting really smug for a person invoking strawman graphs and dismissing sources that are likely to be legitimate.

On February 19 2018 08:04 Simberto wrote:
Wikipedia is obviously not a source you would use in a scientific paper. Wikipedia is a very good source to be used in casual conversation, like for example in a forum. In fact, you did use wikipedia yourself as a source when talking about swiss arms laws, you just didn't point that out.

Random information on wikipedia has a very high likelyhood of being correct. I would guess at above 99%. That is pretty good. You can not expect the same rigor of sourcing in a random only debate as in a scientific paper, as you should be very well aware of. But of course, you can just be smug and criticize everyones methods to avoid talking about the actual thematic, that seems to be working very well for you.

The only person here that does not seem to know how different sets of data can have different uses seems to be you. The data was not supposed to be data that ends a discussion, but data that starts one. Even data which does not control for every possible variable can be used to start a discussion or figure out stuff that could warrant further study.

You are basically here in a forum discussion demanding that someone write a masters thesis for you before you even start to think about a position. But you do not seem to demand the same amount of scientific rigor from stuff that supports your position. That onesided demand for rigor of proof makes it very easy for you to dismiss anything other people say.

An African American male is more likely to commit firearm homicide more than any other ethnicity/gender combination you can think of. By your ridiculous logic, I can claim that the real problem of firearm homicide falls squarely on African American males, and as such we should legally not allow them to buy firearms.

On February 19 2018 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
I haven't really followed the thread vs superstartran but he stumbled on what concerns me about bipartisan agreement on gun control.


While that's a crass and over the top way of putting it, the more PC version of that is absolutely something I could see folks like Manchin leading a bipartisan group to accomplish.

Congress's inability to pass virtually anything that isn't in the interest of their major corporate donors (or naming something) and utter incompetence in general is pretty much my only hope.

On February 19 2018 09:11 superstartran wrote:



I put out a crass and highly controversial statement on purpose. Most people would know that making such a correlation from such statistics would be incredibly stupid. So why people think it's ok to make such statements about firearm statistics when cross comparing two completely different countries makes no fucking sense at all.

The only thing I can think of is that the vast majority of Europeans/Non Americans/Americans that are arguing for gun control are arguing from an emotional standpoint and are just trying to push their agenda without actually having a real conversation on what can and cannot be done, and what realistically can help the United States move forward and prevent future deaths.

Because the same people arguing for gun control are the same people who are completely silent when nothing else is going on; they don't push for handgun bans or handgun controls despite the fact that handguns in fact are involved in the vast majority of firearm homicides. They don't look into the suicide statistics with firearms; they flat out ignore it and only point out things like school shootings and other things.


I mean shit, this is what people send to me in PMs.






I'm not naming names, but this really only solidifies the idea that one side of the argument actually isn't reasonable at all.

On February 19 2018 09:22 Jockmcplop wrote:
So how would you address the issue of murder rates and suicide rates?
There's so many ways of tackling these issues and they are all incremental, but nothing ever seems to actually get done.

imo a 28 day waiting period for guns would be hands down the most effective way to prevent suicides and single murders. Quite often these things boil down to mental health and committed in a moment of agitation. Someone's having the worst day of their life so there's nothing to stop them just buying a gun and shooting themselves. It may have all blown over in 2 weeks time.

The waiting period would save lives and the only damage it would do would be inconvenience (and financial damage to gun sellers).

On February 19 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm reasonably confident that PM is from zlefin.

I agree that liberals typically go at our gun problems in entirely uninformed and reactionary ways. One problem is that because of our history of racism and economic conditions, most proposed regulations mostly just have the effect of criminalizing black gun owners and reducing black gun ownership by making it more prohibitively expensive/complicated for a demographic already disadvantaged.

A no questions asked, gun buyback program sponsored by the UN is probably one of the most realistic ways to make it so we have less guns out there. Less guns should mean less access to ma or pa's gun that's sitting in the living room and other similar situations that lead to mass shootings or more frequently, successful suicides. Waiting periods could be a little helpful too for the people that go out and buy the gun days before committing the act.

On February 19 2018 09:32 superstartran wrote:




In terms of murder and suicide rates, there needs to be an overhaul on handgun regulations and a bigger push to solve poverty in urban areas, especially among the African American demographic. Mental health also needs to become a more prominent thing in the United States of America.


I'd agree a waiting period would help; at bare minimum a week or two for a semi-automatic rifle. Like I said, it's a multi faceted problem that you have to accomplish in a multitude of ways; even if you could slightly reduce gun violence, you'd just shift that into something else (see the UK where firearm violence turned into other forms of violence). You really haven't solved anything, just moved the problem to something else.





I'd argue with how prohibitively expensive firearms can become (particularly semi-automatic rifles and all the attachments that you can put on an AR-15 based system), that it's not a problem to make them more expensive. We don't outlaw sports cars for example despite the fact that logically there's no real reason to having a car that has 600+ bhp other than to go fast and have fun. They are however very expensive due to various different reasons such as taxes, cost of materials, etc.

On February 19 2018 09:32 superstartran wrote:




In terms of murder and suicide rates, there needs to be an overhaul on handgun regulations and a bigger push to solve poverty in urban areas, especially among the African American demographic. Mental health also needs to become a more prominent thing in the United States of America.

If we're talking strictly firearm related laws

1) Age requirements on long arm rifles; long waiting periods; restrictions on bullet types that can be bought (I cannot really justify being able to buy FMJ rounds to be honest despite that old out of use military ammunition is super cheap)

2) Handguns definitely need some sort of national/state registry system (some states already have one) because of how prevalent they are in the utilization of firearm crimes. Combine with requirements for permit that would help a ton. I'd argue that you can include long rifles too, however the NRA would argue that would increase the cost on 'poor' gun owners. I'd argue that the pros outweigh the cons in this instance, as firearms as a hobby is expensive anyways.

3) Banning of bumpstocks, there's no actual reason to have these.


I'd agree a waiting period would help; at bare minimum a week or two for a semi-automatic rifle. Like I said, it's a multi faceted problem that you have to accomplish in a multitude of ways; even if you could slightly reduce gun violence, you'd just shift that into something else (see the UK where firearm violence turned into other forms of violence). You really haven't solved anything, just moved the problem to something else.





I'd argue with how prohibitively expensive firearms can become (particularly semi-automatic rifles and all the attachments that you can put on an AR-15 based system), that it's not a problem to make them more expensive. We don't outlaw sports cars for example despite the fact that logically there's no real reason to having a car that has 600+ bhp other than to go fast and have fun. They are however very expensive due to various different reasons such as taxes, cost of materials, etc.

On February 19 2018 11:53 Danglars wrote:

Nuanced post, and thanks for adding. If we could have a clean bill on some of the things you mentioned, that would be great.

And come back soon.

On February 19 2018 12:03 GreenHorizons wrote:


Not bad really, though gl with a handgun registry.

I would note to the "you've just moved the problem elsewhere" that there are a significant number of deaths attributed to kids accidentally shooting people/themselves (thousands a year). By removing guns from an equation like that, you are going to have a notable reduction in kids killed/killing by accident with guns.

It's a reasonably common occurrence that simply doesn't fall under the "well they'll just do it with knives, bombs, etc" argument.

On February 19 2018 12:17 Danglars wrote:

Yeah that ones another topic. It’s not like the usual trolls see an accidental injury and want to ban guns everywhere. It’s the mass shootings and suddenly it doesn’t matter the deaths from handguns. It’s all about big black scary rifles and comparing the second amendment to European norms. And blood on their hands, just do something, magically wish away all guns. It’s like an American political pastime.

On February 19 2018 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote:


My posts here and otherwise clearly show I'm no fan of liberals on this subject or many others for just those reasons. But you also know I see it quite clearly on the right too.

On February 19 2018 12:40 Danglars wrote:

Yeah I hoped to convey you’re an exception to the normal hunts-style liberal orthodoxy on the subject. Not towards agreement but towards free-thinking.

On February 19 2018 12:59 GreenHorizons wrote:


I appreciate you taking notice. While I'd love to take a free shot at hunts... *deletes part of this sentence several times* I won't. I would like to take this opportunity request you to tell us some of what you see on the right that is similar (even if not equivalent in your eyes) among your political allies.

Care to indulge us?

On February 19 2018 13:15 Danglars wrote:

I have a diverse group of allies on the right on various matters of gun control and civil rights, so I don't really know what avenues of similarity you're interested in.