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

On February 20 2018 11:20 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with just posting studies like that and acting like its you're whole argument is that the common person can't be expected to understand it with any respectable standard. I'm trying to understand some of the terms its using but I'm struggling a lot with questions that aren't answered (like what some of these numbers mean and how they got them) and a lot of the terminology. They throw out terms like throwing away variables when they decide other variables are better and never really expand past stating that they did that. Most of the thing is just talk about itself instead of actual data and then concluding what they wanted to conclude from the beginning.

I mean unpack "Use of a Poisson rather than a negative binomial model did not alter the results." I have no comprehension on that and I doubt a lot of people do. Theres a reason why academia doesn't have the same standing with the public like it used to.

In the end its not even a good argument to use in a debate. More guns means more homicides used with guns. Its not saying that more guns means more deaths. its not saying that having less guns means less deaths. Its just saying having guns available means its more common that guns are used.

On February 20 2018 06:16 chouithegewy wrote:
Instead of arming teachers (whose job it is to teach, not to use firearms), why not just post two cops at every school? Or hire armed security guards?

On February 20 2018 12:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


What do you mean by "gun control proponents"? The majority of Americans- and even the majority of gun owners- are in favor of some degree of gun control. I think more nuance is needed to describe whoever you wish to describe.

And yes, obviously correlation does not imply causation. However, establishing a causal relationship is absolutely not necessary for evidence to support the need for gun control.

"The countries with high rates of gun violence correlate with low levels of gun ownership."
Except for the United States, of course. Or are you trying to compare the USA to third world countries instead of other first world countries?

On February 20 2018 12:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
I say disarm (or abolish) the police then you'll have cops, and therefore the right, calling to disarm the populace.

On February 20 2018 12:41 Danglars wrote:

It's always worried me how many idiots want the cops to be the only ones legally carrying weapons. I thought everybody was up in arms about these racist bodies terrorizing young black men and the like?

It never made sense.

On February 20 2018 07:14 Zambrah wrote:
It disturbs me how prison like schools would be with armed guards.

On February 20 2018 16:10 chouithegewy wrote:


college campuses already have police. doesn't feel to authoritarian. but yea lol

On February 20 2018 17:52 PoulsenB wrote:

having police on campus is very different from actual teachers packing heat

On February 21 2018 03:51 Slydie wrote:
One solution could be making the gunstores partly responsible for how their guns are used by their customers.

On February 21 2018 05:38 Plansix wrote:
That isn’t really a law that could do that for any product. Unless the person buying the gun was clearly going to commit an active of violence immediately, there is no way to extend the liability to the seller.

The better solution is to provide a path to have someone’s right to own a fire arm temporally suspended if there is reasonable and clear evidence they are likely to commit acts of violence. Full due process for the gun owner, but give law enforcement a way to intervene without the need for criminal charges. The FL case had a ton of people calling and saying there was something wrong with the shooter and that he was going to commit a violent act. A DA, with mental health services and the police should be able to bring an action and get approval to step in.

On February 21 2018 06:16 Danglars wrote:

Temporary restraining order-style laws do have some conservative report. It also stands out among ideas for actually having a shot at stopping the FL shooter.

On February 21 2018 05:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


I think this would be an awful idea tbh, unless the gun store workers neglected to follow the proper protocols, like not doing a background check. If everything comes up as a green light for a buyer though, the gun store should not be held even partially responsible.

On February 21 2018 09:27 Blazinghand wrote:


Yeah, as the case is now, gun stores are required legally to do the correct checks and not allow for straw purchases. Making them liable for the usage of guns by their customers, even if these gun stores followed the law and did everything right, is a nonsense idea.

If you want to make guns less accessible, then make them less accessible using the law. If you want the requirements to be stricter, then pass laws making the requirements stricter. Passing laws making stores liable even when following existing law is definitely not the way to go about this.

Disarming the police would be great, but as things are now, disarming the police entirely would not be a good idea. If this were Japan and criminals didn't have guns, I'd be fine if the police didn't have guns. Since this is America, and tons of people have guns, if I call the police I want them to have the ability to deal with a gun situation.

Of course, this could just mean we need to have extensive gun control first or something, but I think removing police guns first would be like, really really bad.