|
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 February 22 2018 13:28 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 13:10 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 22 2018 12:56 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:38 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups. No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee. Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles? Would the Vegas shooting happened if the person in question went through a rigorous mental health screening check every 6 months? Anyone can use that logic. Yes, the Vegas shooting happened. Yes, he utilized semi-automatic long rifle weapons converted with a bumpfire stock. Do you truly believe though that removing access to the AR-15 would have prevented him from committing that same kind of crime with another type of weapon/tool?That's the honest question we should be asking ourselves here. This guy meticulously planned his attack on those people, and made many efforts in order to conceal his effort to harm others. Just like the Florida shooter knew how to defeat standard school lockdown protocol by pulling the fire alarm to force students and staff out into the open, and he chose the perfect time to do it (towards the end of school) to cause mass confusion. These people planned these things out, and it's not like they just decided one day I'm going to pick up an AR-15 and just go kill some people. Not to mention, you conveniently leave out the fact that the Virgina Tech shooter utilized pistols to inflict 33 fatalities (including himself), and not an AR-15. Not only do I think that, the vast majority of law-enforcement thinks it to. Of course, it would have been different. He didn't choose the AR-15 because he likes the way it smells. He picked it because it was the best tool for the job. And the job was long-distance murder. Now, other things can murder. But at that range? That effectively? No. just: No. See: I answer questions. What if he chose to drive a car through the crowd? What if he got a bomb into that crowd? You're assuming that he stays at the same range if he has a different tool. There are other tools that can be used to kill more people quickly. We saw that happened when someone ran through a crowd with a vehicle. All evidence that I have seen points to the idea that an assault weapons ban/firearm ban in general does nothing to curtail the homicide rate within a country. Why people keep insisting on one makes no sense to me. Are you familiar with the existence of a continent called Europe? Ever since the firearm bans in UK homicide rates (total homicide not firearm homicide rates) have been essentially the same. But I guess arguing with facts is not a thing anymore. Firearm bans SHOULD have a dramatic effect on homicide rates if we are to believe the 'liberal' side of the argument, especially after a decade. However, the truth is that they have almost no effect on the overall homicide rate within a country. https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
A glance at the left side bar (actually, the right one too) suggests that it's not the most neutral of sources.
Here's a huge meta analysis/ review of the then-existing research on firearm legislation and correlation with firearm-related injuries.
Firearms account for a substantial proportion of external causes of death, injury, and disability across the world. Legislation to regulate firearms has often been passed with the intent of reducing problems related to their use. However, lack of clarity around which interventions are effective remains a major challenge for policy development. Aiming to meet this challenge, we systematically reviewed studies exploring the associations between firearm-related laws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries/deaths. We restricted our search to studies published from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively. Limitations of studies include challenges inherent to their ecological design, their execution, and the lack of robustness of findings to model specifications. High quality research on the association between the implementation or repeal of firearm legislation (rather than the evaluation of existing laws) and firearm injuries would lead to a better understanding of what interventions are likely to work given local contexts. This information is key to move this field forward and for the development of effective policies that may counteract the burden that firearm injuries pose on populations.
Also, a quick look at the Wiki article on UK firearms laws shows a decline in firearms used in crimes as well as firearm-caused fatalities, even without adjustment per capita for population growth.
|
On February 22 2018 13:59 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 13:49 DucK- wrote:
Ay arming teachers make no sense. Arming security personnel in schools I could understand, given the stupid culture you guys have. Teachers? Come on these people roles are to educate and nurture, not to fight. The biggest thing here is that teacher's are not trained professionals on how to handle a firearm in a tense situation, especially in a highly crowded building. People do not understand how poor some people handle certain situations when put under immense stress.
You can basically replace "teacher's" here with everyone, save for military personnel. And sometimes not even them.
|
On February 22 2018 15:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 13:59 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 13:49 DucK- wrote:
Ay arming teachers make no sense. Arming security personnel in schools I could understand, given the stupid culture you guys have. Teachers? Come on these people roles are to educate and nurture, not to fight. The biggest thing here is that teacher's are not trained professionals on how to handle a firearm in a tense situation, especially in a highly crowded building. People do not understand how poor some people handle certain situations when put under immense stress. You can basically replace "teacher's" here with everyone, save for military personnel. And sometimes not even them.
Remember now - more guns equals more safety.
|
Northern Ireland22207 Posts
On February 22 2018 15:41 Plansix wrote:
I look forward to the police shooting the armed teachers defending the students. Because that is how smart this idea is. And students getting their hands on the gun, because more fire arms means more opportunities to obtain them through thief.
Wouldn’t it be great if listened to people in education in the manner we are supposed to listen to gun owners?
if there was an active shooter in a school, the following would happen:
no police and no armed teachers = loads of people die. the consequences of waiting for the police = slightly less people die, some by stray shots; having a teacher open fire earlier, less people die, some by stray shots. pertaining to a probabilistic view of the universe I know under which model I would prefer to operate.
|
On February 22 2018 18:13 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 15:41 Plansix wrote:
I look forward to the police shooting the armed teachers defending the students. Because that is how smart this idea is. And students getting their hands on the gun, because more fire arms means more opportunities to obtain them through thief.
Wouldn’t it be great if listened to people in education in the manner we are supposed to listen to gun owners? if there was an active shooter in a school, the following would happen: no police and no armed teachers = loads of people die. the consequences of waiting for the police = slightly less people die, some by stray shots; having a teacher open fire earlier, less people die, some by stray shots. pertaining to a probabilistic view of the universe I know under which model I would prefer to operate.
you are really good at choosing certain scenarios while ignoring everything else. keep it up
|
Northern Ireland22207 Posts
i don't understand why having some armed teachers will significantly increase the risk of the gun falling into the wrong hands. gun retention should be part of ccw training. teachers will have the gun holstered and concealed, it's not like they're going to wave it around or leave it lying on their desk while they teach.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On February 22 2018 18:33 ahswtini wrote:
i don't understand why having some armed teachers will significantly increase the risk of the gun falling into the wrong hands. gun retention should be part of ccw training. teachers will have the gun holstered and concealed, it's not like they're going to wave it around or leave it lying on their desk while they teach.
It will increase the risk from zero. Like, I'm not saying that every teacher is gonna hand his guns to students for funsies. But anyone who has been around guns knows you need to be supremely cautious. And anyone who owns guns that are around children in the house knows that there's no 100% reliable way to keep them from ever setting hands on one, so you teach your kids gun safety. This is basic stuff.
Look, if you are a part of gun culture, surely you know that most gun owners are responsible and thoughtful people. But don't tell me you've never been down at the range and seen some absolute fuck-up waste of human life flagging people or breaking gun safety rules or doing something like that. This WILL happen.
But mass shootings aren't even a major cause of gun deaths anyways, so the main thing arming a bunch of teachers to stop school shootings would do is
1) best case scenario, school shootings never happen again and every shooter is taken down before he can kill anyone, causing a negligible decrease in gun deaths since school shootings do very little
2) vastly increase the chance of gun mishaps at school
|
On February 22 2018 18:33 ahswtini wrote:
i don't understand why having some armed teachers will significantly increase the risk of the gun falling into the wrong hands. gun retention should be part of ccw training. teachers will have the gun holstered and concealed, it's not like they're going to wave it around or leave it lying on their desk while they teach.
A remarkable number of gun deaths are a result of unsecured weapons. The idea that teachers are going to magically be better with their guns (not included in any of the pitched legislation btw) than cops is part of the problem.
For me it's almost as simple as not wanting yet another union covering for killing unarmed black children with bullshit excuses and a heavy dose of American racism.
After a few days of this, I'm confident disarming/abolishing the police is the best way to get the right (absent libertarians) on board with more strict gun regulations. Here's the best part, cops don't have a constitutional right to exist (as cops, obviously as humans they do) or carry guns, so this is something Democrat run cities can do without Republicans.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On February 22 2018 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 18:33 ahswtini wrote:
i don't understand why having some armed teachers will significantly increase the risk of the gun falling into the wrong hands. gun retention should be part of ccw training. teachers will have the gun holstered and concealed, it's not like they're going to wave it around or leave it lying on their desk while they teach. A remarkable number of gun deaths are a result of unsecured weapons. The idea that teachers are going to magically be better with their guns (not included in any of the pitched legislation btw) than cops is part of the problem. For me it's almost as simple as not wanting yet another union covering for killing unarmed black children with bullshit excuses and a heavy dose of American racism. After a few days of this, I'm confident disarming/abolishing the police is the best way to get the right (absent libertarians) on board with more strict gun regulations. Here's the best part, cops don't have a constitutional right to exist (as cops, obviously as humans they do) or carry guns, so this is something Democrat run cities can do without Republicans.
Ok but like, as a person who lives inside a city that contains violent, sometimes-armed criminals who at times need to be apprehended and dealt with by armed police, I would really prefer that the police have guns. I am highly suspicious of the police in general. I don't like the awful brutality and racism of police, or their high willingness to use violence. But at the same time, when I call the cops, there are times when it really really matters that the guy who shows up has a gun. Get guns out of criminal hands, and I'm all for disarming the cops. Maybe if I lived in a super fancy town where crime never happened, I'd be all for disarming the cops. But like... in the meantime, some of us need a society to live in.
|
On February 22 2018 18:43 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 22 2018 18:33 ahswtini wrote:
i don't understand why having some armed teachers will significantly increase the risk of the gun falling into the wrong hands. gun retention should be part of ccw training. teachers will have the gun holstered and concealed, it's not like they're going to wave it around or leave it lying on their desk while they teach. A remarkable number of gun deaths are a result of unsecured weapons. The idea that teachers are going to magically be better with their guns (not included in any of the pitched legislation btw) than cops is part of the problem. For me it's almost as simple as not wanting yet another union covering for killing unarmed black children with bullshit excuses and a heavy dose of American racism. After a few days of this, I'm confident disarming/abolishing the police is the best way to get the right (absent libertarians) on board with more strict gun regulations. Here's the best part, cops don't have a constitutional right to exist (as cops, obviously as humans they do) or carry guns, so this is something Democrat run cities can do without Republicans. Ok but like, as a person who lives inside a city that contains violent, sometimes-armed criminals who at times need to be apprehended and dealt with by armed police, I would really prefer that the police have guns. I am highly suspicious of the police in general. I don't like the awful brutality and racism of police, or their high willingness to use violence. But at the same time, when I call the cops, there are times when it really really matters that the guy who shows up has a gun. Get guns out of criminal hands, and I'm all for disarming the cops. Maybe if I lived in a super fancy town where crime never happened, I'd be all for disarming the cops. But like... in the meantime, some of us need a society to live in.
I've never, not once in my life, called the police for help or been made to feel more comfortable by the fact that they had a gun. So I concede I don't know that feeling you describe. I've been shot at/had guns pointed at me in anger several times in my life too (not in the military).
Interactions with police present are always more stressful for me than if they weren't there and offer me no feeling of security.
Feelings aside, we should probably address the whole society falling apart without armed patrols by gangs thing, which isn't happening so long as people think armed gangs/police and personal gun ownership are the solutions.
|
On February 22 2018 15:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 13:28 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 13:10 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 22 2018 12:56 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:38 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups. No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee. Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles? Would the Vegas shooting happened if the person in question went through a rigorous mental health screening check every 6 months? Anyone can use that logic. Yes, the Vegas shooting happened. Yes, he utilized semi-automatic long rifle weapons converted with a bumpfire stock. Do you truly believe though that removing access to the AR-15 would have prevented him from committing that same kind of crime with another type of weapon/tool?That's the honest question we should be asking ourselves here. This guy meticulously planned his attack on those people, and made many efforts in order to conceal his effort to harm others. Just like the Florida shooter knew how to defeat standard school lockdown protocol by pulling the fire alarm to force students and staff out into the open, and he chose the perfect time to do it (towards the end of school) to cause mass confusion. These people planned these things out, and it's not like they just decided one day I'm going to pick up an AR-15 and just go kill some people. Not to mention, you conveniently leave out the fact that the Virgina Tech shooter utilized pistols to inflict 33 fatalities (including himself), and not an AR-15. Not only do I think that, the vast majority of law-enforcement thinks it to. Of course, it would have been different. He didn't choose the AR-15 because he likes the way it smells. He picked it because it was the best tool for the job. And the job was long-distance murder. Now, other things can murder. But at that range? That effectively? No. just: No. See: I answer questions. What if he chose to drive a car through the crowd? What if he got a bomb into that crowd? You're assuming that he stays at the same range if he has a different tool. There are other tools that can be used to kill more people quickly. We saw that happened when someone ran through a crowd with a vehicle. All evidence that I have seen points to the idea that an assault weapons ban/firearm ban in general does nothing to curtail the homicide rate within a country. Why people keep insisting on one makes no sense to me. Are you familiar with the existence of a continent called Europe? Ever since the firearm bans in UK homicide rates (total homicide not firearm homicide rates) have been essentially the same. But I guess arguing with facts is not a thing anymore. Firearm bans SHOULD have a dramatic effect on homicide rates if we are to believe the 'liberal' side of the argument, especially after a decade. However, the truth is that they have almost no effect on the overall homicide rate within a country. https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ A glance at the left side bar (actually, the right one too) suggests that it's not the most neutral of sources. Here's a huge meta analysis/ review of the then-existing research on firearm legislation and correlation with firearm-related injuries. Show nested quote +Firearms account for a substantial proportion of external causes of death, injury, and disability across the world. Legislation to regulate firearms has often been passed with the intent of reducing problems related to their use. However, lack of clarity around which interventions are effective remains a major challenge for policy development. Aiming to meet this challenge, we systematically reviewed studies exploring the associations between firearm-related laws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries/deaths. We restricted our search to studies published from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively. Limitations of studies include challenges inherent to their ecological design, their execution, and the lack of robustness of findings to model specifications. High quality research on the association between the implementation or repeal of firearm legislation (rather than the evaluation of existing laws) and firearm injuries would lead to a better understanding of what interventions are likely to work given local contexts. This information is key to move this field forward and for the development of effective policies that may counteract the burden that firearm injuries pose on populations. Also, a quick look at the Wiki article on UK firearms laws shows a decline in firearms used in crimes as well as firearm-caused fatalities, even without adjustment per capita for population growth.
superstartran thinks Wiki info is pretty much the worst ever- his strong reaction to it previously was one of the reasons he was banned in the first place- so that might not be a strong selling point to him. (Of course, that entry has over 100 citations and looks to be reasonable overall. Thanks for sharing it.)
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On February 22 2018 18:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 18:43 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 22 2018 18:33 ahswtini wrote:
i don't understand why having some armed teachers will significantly increase the risk of the gun falling into the wrong hands. gun retention should be part of ccw training. teachers will have the gun holstered and concealed, it's not like they're going to wave it around or leave it lying on their desk while they teach. A remarkable number of gun deaths are a result of unsecured weapons. The idea that teachers are going to magically be better with their guns (not included in any of the pitched legislation btw) than cops is part of the problem. For me it's almost as simple as not wanting yet another union covering for killing unarmed black children with bullshit excuses and a heavy dose of American racism. After a few days of this, I'm confident disarming/abolishing the police is the best way to get the right (absent libertarians) on board with more strict gun regulations. Here's the best part, cops don't have a constitutional right to exist (as cops, obviously as humans they do) or carry guns, so this is something Democrat run cities can do without Republicans. Ok but like, as a person who lives inside a city that contains violent, sometimes-armed criminals who at times need to be apprehended and dealt with by armed police, I would really prefer that the police have guns. I am highly suspicious of the police in general. I don't like the awful brutality and racism of police, or their high willingness to use violence. But at the same time, when I call the cops, there are times when it really really matters that the guy who shows up has a gun. Get guns out of criminal hands, and I'm all for disarming the cops. Maybe if I lived in a super fancy town where crime never happened, I'd be all for disarming the cops. But like... in the meantime, some of us need a society to live in. I've never, not once in my life, called the police for help or been made to feel more comfortable by the fact that they had a gun. So I concede I don't know that feeling you describe. I've been shot at/had guns pointed at me in anger several times in my life too (not in the military). Interactions with police present are always more stressful for me than if they weren't there and offer me no feeling of security. Feelings aside, we should probably address the whole society falling apart without armed patrols by gangs thing, which isn't happening so long as people think armed gangs/police and personal gun ownership are the solutions.
Society relies on monopolization of the use of force by the state. If you view the police as an armed gang patrolling (which is not entirely inaccurate) then surely you could understand how replacing one dominant armed gang with several competing ones would be a problem? After all, the competition might well take the form of firing said guns.
When asking "should we disarm police?", the question isn't "should we remove armed patrol by a group" but rather "should we have many competing armed groups patrolling" since the plan doesn't first involve disarming criminals. Disarmed police do just fine in the UK, for example, with only some of them having guns, but this is because UK has strong and well run gun control.
It seems very obvious to me that this must come first.
|
GH, is the US some kind of Mad Max societiy? Because you for sure make it sound like it is...
Police are (racist) gangs roaming the streets.
Politicians are all corrupt (and also racist).
White people are all privileged (and obviously also racist).
Citizens like him need guns so these other groups won't exploit them (even more).
.
.
I don't think you made it sound that bad ~2-3 years ago, something broke during the last election. I totally get why everyone even a tiny bit conservative would vote for anything but "your" candidate.
Your "performance" here is most likely actively hurting your agenda, all you do is alienate people that even mildly disagree with you while your actual political opponents just won every branch of goverment...
|
On February 22 2018 20:27 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 18:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 22 2018 18:43 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 22 2018 18:33 ahswtini wrote:
i don't understand why having some armed teachers will significantly increase the risk of the gun falling into the wrong hands. gun retention should be part of ccw training. teachers will have the gun holstered and concealed, it's not like they're going to wave it around or leave it lying on their desk while they teach. A remarkable number of gun deaths are a result of unsecured weapons. The idea that teachers are going to magically be better with their guns (not included in any of the pitched legislation btw) than cops is part of the problem. For me it's almost as simple as not wanting yet another union covering for killing unarmed black children with bullshit excuses and a heavy dose of American racism. After a few days of this, I'm confident disarming/abolishing the police is the best way to get the right (absent libertarians) on board with more strict gun regulations. Here's the best part, cops don't have a constitutional right to exist (as cops, obviously as humans they do) or carry guns, so this is something Democrat run cities can do without Republicans. Ok but like, as a person who lives inside a city that contains violent, sometimes-armed criminals who at times need to be apprehended and dealt with by armed police, I would really prefer that the police have guns. I am highly suspicious of the police in general. I don't like the awful brutality and racism of police, or their high willingness to use violence. But at the same time, when I call the cops, there are times when it really really matters that the guy who shows up has a gun. Get guns out of criminal hands, and I'm all for disarming the cops. Maybe if I lived in a super fancy town where crime never happened, I'd be all for disarming the cops. But like... in the meantime, some of us need a society to live in. I've never, not once in my life, called the police for help or been made to feel more comfortable by the fact that they had a gun. So I concede I don't know that feeling you describe. I've been shot at/had guns pointed at me in anger several times in my life too (not in the military). Interactions with police present are always more stressful for me than if they weren't there and offer me no feeling of security. Feelings aside, we should probably address the whole society falling apart without armed patrols by gangs thing, which isn't happening so long as people think armed gangs/police and personal gun ownership are the solutions. Society relies on monopolization of the use of force by the state. If you view the police as an armed gang patrolling (which is not entirely inaccurate) then surely you could understand how replacing one dominant armed gang with several competing ones would be a problem? After all, the competition might well take the form of firing said guns. When asking "should we disarm police?", the question isn't "should we remove armed patrol by a group" but rather "should we have many competing armed groups patrolling" since the plan doesn't first involve disarming criminals. Disarmed police do just fine in the UK, for example, with only some of them having guns, but this is because UK has strong and well run gun control. It seems very obvious to me that this must come first.
Well if a pile of kids bodies couldn't get it done with a Democratic president, it ain't happenin. Disarming police is something you can do without needing federal sign-off. You could do it without the state being on board for that matter (though you couldn't stop state officers from patrolling their jurisdictions as easily).
Without guns cops would be forced to train in deescalation and other techniques to deal with armed and unarmed people. So would communities. Addressing the underlying issues would take priority when they can't simply terrify communities into compliance with societies desires.
I'm being somewhat facetious if that wasn't clear, but I'm confident they'll be another mass shooting before congress gets anything done. I won't be surprised if Republicans end up putting this on Democrats by putting some liberal poison in whatever they may bring forward on bump stocks and blaming them when it doesn't pass.
On February 22 2018 20:46 Velr wrote:
GH, is the US some kind of Mad Max societiy? Because you for sure make it sound like it is...
Police are (racist) gangs roaming the streets.
Politicians are all corrupt (and also racist).
White people are all privileged (and obviously also racist).
Citizens like him need guns so these other groups won't exploit them (even more).
.
.
I don't think you made it sound that bad ~2-3 years ago, something broke during the last election. I totally get why everyone even a tiny bit conservative would vote for anything but "your" candidate.
Your "performance" here is most likely actively hurting your agenda, all you do is alienate people that even mildly disagree with you while your actual political opponents just won every branch of goverment...
Not yet, but this is what it looks like when you're on the way.
While generally I'd be fine with your characterizations of my positions you laid out, I feel this thread has some participants that aren't familiar with the details on those so I'd be inclined to take any of them individually and clarify if you want to dispute them (which will likely boil down to semantics) but I don't think this is quite the right venue.
In the US we are rapidly stacking up parallel precursors for both The Great Depression and the racial tension of the 60's/70's. Doesn't mean they can't be avoided, but I'm reasonably confident they can't be with our current (enduring) political climate.
Radical changes are needed or it's going to get a lot worse pretty quickly (who would have imagined President Trump 3 years ago). As such you have noticed a marked change in my worldview regarding the US political/social situation and what passes for reasonable discourse or plans of action.
|
On February 22 2018 19:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 15:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 22 2018 13:28 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 13:10 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 22 2018 12:56 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:38 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups. No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee. Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles? Would the Vegas shooting happened if the person in question went through a rigorous mental health screening check every 6 months? Anyone can use that logic. Yes, the Vegas shooting happened. Yes, he utilized semi-automatic long rifle weapons converted with a bumpfire stock. Do you truly believe though that removing access to the AR-15 would have prevented him from committing that same kind of crime with another type of weapon/tool?That's the honest question we should be asking ourselves here. This guy meticulously planned his attack on those people, and made many efforts in order to conceal his effort to harm others. Just like the Florida shooter knew how to defeat standard school lockdown protocol by pulling the fire alarm to force students and staff out into the open, and he chose the perfect time to do it (towards the end of school) to cause mass confusion. These people planned these things out, and it's not like they just decided one day I'm going to pick up an AR-15 and just go kill some people. Not to mention, you conveniently leave out the fact that the Virgina Tech shooter utilized pistols to inflict 33 fatalities (including himself), and not an AR-15. Not only do I think that, the vast majority of law-enforcement thinks it to. Of course, it would have been different. He didn't choose the AR-15 because he likes the way it smells. He picked it because it was the best tool for the job. And the job was long-distance murder. Now, other things can murder. But at that range? That effectively? No. just: No. See: I answer questions. What if he chose to drive a car through the crowd? What if he got a bomb into that crowd? You're assuming that he stays at the same range if he has a different tool. There are other tools that can be used to kill more people quickly. We saw that happened when someone ran through a crowd with a vehicle. All evidence that I have seen points to the idea that an assault weapons ban/firearm ban in general does nothing to curtail the homicide rate within a country. Why people keep insisting on one makes no sense to me. Are you familiar with the existence of a continent called Europe? Ever since the firearm bans in UK homicide rates (total homicide not firearm homicide rates) have been essentially the same. But I guess arguing with facts is not a thing anymore. Firearm bans SHOULD have a dramatic effect on homicide rates if we are to believe the 'liberal' side of the argument, especially after a decade. However, the truth is that they have almost no effect on the overall homicide rate within a country. https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ A glance at the left side bar (actually, the right one too) suggests that it's not the most neutral of sources. Here's a huge meta analysis/ review of the then-existing research on firearm legislation and correlation with firearm-related injuries. Firearms account for a substantial proportion of external causes of death, injury, and disability across the world. Legislation to regulate firearms has often been passed with the intent of reducing problems related to their use. However, lack of clarity around which interventions are effective remains a major challenge for policy development. Aiming to meet this challenge, we systematically reviewed studies exploring the associations between firearm-related laws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries/deaths. We restricted our search to studies published from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively. Limitations of studies include challenges inherent to their ecological design, their execution, and the lack of robustness of findings to model specifications. High quality research on the association between the implementation or repeal of firearm legislation (rather than the evaluation of existing laws) and firearm injuries would lead to a better understanding of what interventions are likely to work given local contexts. This information is key to move this field forward and for the development of effective policies that may counteract the burden that firearm injuries pose on populations. Also, a quick look at the Wiki article on UK firearms laws shows a decline in firearms used in crimes as well as firearm-caused fatalities, even without adjustment per capita for population growth. superstartran thinks Wiki info is pretty much the worst ever- his strong reaction to it previously was one of the reasons he was banned in the first place- so that might not be a strong selling point to him. (Of course, that entry has over 100 citations and looks to be reasonable overall. Thanks for sharing it.)
I like how you were so up all on that one study that uses the wrong data for a negative binomial regression, which is a pretty amateurish mistake to do (or you do it on purpose to push an agenda). So, like I said, are you going to respond why that study used rate data instead of count data?
Not to mention their final model had a laughable 6 variables.
So instead of personally attacking me, how about you respond to actual arguments?
On February 22 2018 15:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 13:28 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 13:10 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 22 2018 12:56 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:38 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups. No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee. Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles? Would the Vegas shooting happened if the person in question went through a rigorous mental health screening check every 6 months? Anyone can use that logic. Yes, the Vegas shooting happened. Yes, he utilized semi-automatic long rifle weapons converted with a bumpfire stock. Do you truly believe though that removing access to the AR-15 would have prevented him from committing that same kind of crime with another type of weapon/tool?That's the honest question we should be asking ourselves here. This guy meticulously planned his attack on those people, and made many efforts in order to conceal his effort to harm others. Just like the Florida shooter knew how to defeat standard school lockdown protocol by pulling the fire alarm to force students and staff out into the open, and he chose the perfect time to do it (towards the end of school) to cause mass confusion. These people planned these things out, and it's not like they just decided one day I'm going to pick up an AR-15 and just go kill some people. Not to mention, you conveniently leave out the fact that the Virgina Tech shooter utilized pistols to inflict 33 fatalities (including himself), and not an AR-15. Not only do I think that, the vast majority of law-enforcement thinks it to. Of course, it would have been different. He didn't choose the AR-15 because he likes the way it smells. He picked it because it was the best tool for the job. And the job was long-distance murder. Now, other things can murder. But at that range? That effectively? No. just: No. See: I answer questions. What if he chose to drive a car through the crowd? What if he got a bomb into that crowd? You're assuming that he stays at the same range if he has a different tool. There are other tools that can be used to kill more people quickly. We saw that happened when someone ran through a crowd with a vehicle. All evidence that I have seen points to the idea that an assault weapons ban/firearm ban in general does nothing to curtail the homicide rate within a country. Why people keep insisting on one makes no sense to me. Are you familiar with the existence of a continent called Europe? Ever since the firearm bans in UK homicide rates (total homicide not firearm homicide rates) have been essentially the same. But I guess arguing with facts is not a thing anymore. Firearm bans SHOULD have a dramatic effect on homicide rates if we are to believe the 'liberal' side of the argument, especially after a decade. However, the truth is that they have almost no effect on the overall homicide rate within a country. https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ A glance at the left side bar (actually, the right one too) suggests that it's not the most neutral of sources. Here's a huge meta analysis/ review of the then-existing research on firearm legislation and correlation with firearm-related injuries. Show nested quote +Firearms account for a substantial proportion of external causes of death, injury, and disability across the world. Legislation to regulate firearms has often been passed with the intent of reducing problems related to their use. However, lack of clarity around which interventions are effective remains a major challenge for policy development. Aiming to meet this challenge, we systematically reviewed studies exploring the associations between firearm-related laws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries/deaths. We restricted our search to studies published from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively. Limitations of studies include challenges inherent to their ecological design, their execution, and the lack of robustness of findings to model specifications. High quality research on the association between the implementation or repeal of firearm legislation (rather than the evaluation of existing laws) and firearm injuries would lead to a better understanding of what interventions are likely to work given local contexts. This information is key to move this field forward and for the development of effective policies that may counteract the burden that firearm injuries pose on populations. Also, a quick look at the Wiki article on UK firearms laws shows a decline in firearms used in crimes as well as firearm-caused fatalities, even without adjustment per capita for population growth.
That site uses statics gathered from each respective countries government websites; you can gather the information and run the numbers for yourself; firearm bans had no discernible effect on total homicide rates.
The idea that the liberal side always pushes is that a ban on firearms should lead to less deaths in general, which is not true. Even if you have reduced firearm violence, all you've really done is displaced that violence into another category, and really have not solved much.
|
Since last week's school shooting in Parkland, Fla., the number of threats of violence against schools across the country has increased.
Educators School Safety Network says it recorded about 50 threats a day on average since the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where 17 people died.
The Ohio-based national organization that tracks school threats says that compares to about 10 threats a day on average.
Violent incidents or threats have occurred in 48 of the 50 states so far this school year, according to the network, with 10 states accounting for 48 percent of all the threats and incidents that have occurred so far.
The organization says California leads the list of schools that have had an increase in threats. Pennsylvania, New York, Florida and Illinois round out the top five.
The latest data comes as President Trump, Congress, state and local officials are grappling with how to stop school shootings.
Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell, who heads the nation's largest sheriff's department, says there is a "need to take every potential threat seriously."
Last week, two days after the Florida shooting, a school security officer overheard a student threatening to open fire at El Camino High School in Whittier, Calif.
Marino Chavez said he heard a 17-year-old male student say he was "going to shoot up the school sometime in the next three weeks."
Source
|
well that's very unsurprising and just what i'd expect. Though I wish the article had a link to the underlying distribution of threats over time, it didn't even seem to have a link to that cited safety network group.
|
On February 22 2018 20:48 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 19:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 22 2018 15:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 22 2018 13:28 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 13:10 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 22 2018 12:56 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:38 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups. No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee. Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles? Would the Vegas shooting happened if the person in question went through a rigorous mental health screening check every 6 months? Anyone can use that logic. Yes, the Vegas shooting happened. Yes, he utilized semi-automatic long rifle weapons converted with a bumpfire stock. Do you truly believe though that removing access to the AR-15 would have prevented him from committing that same kind of crime with another type of weapon/tool?That's the honest question we should be asking ourselves here. This guy meticulously planned his attack on those people, and made many efforts in order to conceal his effort to harm others. Just like the Florida shooter knew how to defeat standard school lockdown protocol by pulling the fire alarm to force students and staff out into the open, and he chose the perfect time to do it (towards the end of school) to cause mass confusion. These people planned these things out, and it's not like they just decided one day I'm going to pick up an AR-15 and just go kill some people. Not to mention, you conveniently leave out the fact that the Virgina Tech shooter utilized pistols to inflict 33 fatalities (including himself), and not an AR-15. Not only do I think that, the vast majority of law-enforcement thinks it to. Of course, it would have been different. He didn't choose the AR-15 because he likes the way it smells. He picked it because it was the best tool for the job. And the job was long-distance murder. Now, other things can murder. But at that range? That effectively? No. just: No. See: I answer questions. What if he chose to drive a car through the crowd? What if he got a bomb into that crowd? You're assuming that he stays at the same range if he has a different tool. There are other tools that can be used to kill more people quickly. We saw that happened when someone ran through a crowd with a vehicle. All evidence that I have seen points to the idea that an assault weapons ban/firearm ban in general does nothing to curtail the homicide rate within a country. Why people keep insisting on one makes no sense to me. Are you familiar with the existence of a continent called Europe? Ever since the firearm bans in UK homicide rates (total homicide not firearm homicide rates) have been essentially the same. But I guess arguing with facts is not a thing anymore. Firearm bans SHOULD have a dramatic effect on homicide rates if we are to believe the 'liberal' side of the argument, especially after a decade. However, the truth is that they have almost no effect on the overall homicide rate within a country. https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ A glance at the left side bar (actually, the right one too) suggests that it's not the most neutral of sources. Here's a huge meta analysis/ review of the then-existing research on firearm legislation and correlation with firearm-related injuries. Firearms account for a substantial proportion of external causes of death, injury, and disability across the world. Legislation to regulate firearms has often been passed with the intent of reducing problems related to their use. However, lack of clarity around which interventions are effective remains a major challenge for policy development. Aiming to meet this challenge, we systematically reviewed studies exploring the associations between firearm-related laws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries/deaths. We restricted our search to studies published from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively. Limitations of studies include challenges inherent to their ecological design, their execution, and the lack of robustness of findings to model specifications. High quality research on the association between the implementation or repeal of firearm legislation (rather than the evaluation of existing laws) and firearm injuries would lead to a better understanding of what interventions are likely to work given local contexts. This information is key to move this field forward and for the development of effective policies that may counteract the burden that firearm injuries pose on populations. Also, a quick look at the Wiki article on UK firearms laws shows a decline in firearms used in crimes as well as firearm-caused fatalities, even without adjustment per capita for population growth. superstartran thinks Wiki info is pretty much the worst ever- his strong reaction to it previously was one of the reasons he was banned in the first place- so that might not be a strong selling point to him. (Of course, that entry has over 100 citations and looks to be reasonable overall. Thanks for sharing it.) I like how you were so up all on that one study that uses the wrong data for a negative binomial regression, which is a pretty amateurish mistake to do (or you do it on purpose to push an agenda). So, like I said, are you going to respond why that study used rate data instead of count data?
Not to mention their final model had a laughable 6 variables.So instead of personally attacking me, how about you respond to actual arguments? Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 15:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 22 2018 13:28 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 13:10 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 22 2018 12:56 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:38 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups. No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee. Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles? Would the Vegas shooting happened if the person in question went through a rigorous mental health screening check every 6 months? Anyone can use that logic. Yes, the Vegas shooting happened. Yes, he utilized semi-automatic long rifle weapons converted with a bumpfire stock. Do you truly believe though that removing access to the AR-15 would have prevented him from committing that same kind of crime with another type of weapon/tool?That's the honest question we should be asking ourselves here. This guy meticulously planned his attack on those people, and made many efforts in order to conceal his effort to harm others. Just like the Florida shooter knew how to defeat standard school lockdown protocol by pulling the fire alarm to force students and staff out into the open, and he chose the perfect time to do it (towards the end of school) to cause mass confusion. These people planned these things out, and it's not like they just decided one day I'm going to pick up an AR-15 and just go kill some people. Not to mention, you conveniently leave out the fact that the Virgina Tech shooter utilized pistols to inflict 33 fatalities (including himself), and not an AR-15. Not only do I think that, the vast majority of law-enforcement thinks it to. Of course, it would have been different. He didn't choose the AR-15 because he likes the way it smells. He picked it because it was the best tool for the job. And the job was long-distance murder. Now, other things can murder. But at that range? That effectively? No. just: No. See: I answer questions. What if he chose to drive a car through the crowd? What if he got a bomb into that crowd? You're assuming that he stays at the same range if he has a different tool. There are other tools that can be used to kill more people quickly. We saw that happened when someone ran through a crowd with a vehicle. All evidence that I have seen points to the idea that an assault weapons ban/firearm ban in general does nothing to curtail the homicide rate within a country. Why people keep insisting on one makes no sense to me. Are you familiar with the existence of a continent called Europe? Ever since the firearm bans in UK homicide rates (total homicide not firearm homicide rates) have been essentially the same. But I guess arguing with facts is not a thing anymore. Firearm bans SHOULD have a dramatic effect on homicide rates if we are to believe the 'liberal' side of the argument, especially after a decade. However, the truth is that they have almost no effect on the overall homicide rate within a country. https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ A glance at the left side bar (actually, the right one too) suggests that it's not the most neutral of sources. Here's a huge meta analysis/ review of the then-existing research on firearm legislation and correlation with firearm-related injuries. Firearms account for a substantial proportion of external causes of death, injury, and disability across the world. Legislation to regulate firearms has often been passed with the intent of reducing problems related to their use. However, lack of clarity around which interventions are effective remains a major challenge for policy development. Aiming to meet this challenge, we systematically reviewed studies exploring the associations between firearm-related laws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries/deaths. We restricted our search to studies published from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively. Limitations of studies include challenges inherent to their ecological design, their execution, and the lack of robustness of findings to model specifications. High quality research on the association between the implementation or repeal of firearm legislation (rather than the evaluation of existing laws) and firearm injuries would lead to a better understanding of what interventions are likely to work given local contexts. This information is key to move this field forward and for the development of effective policies that may counteract the burden that firearm injuries pose on populations. Also, a quick look at the Wiki article on UK firearms laws shows a decline in firearms used in crimes as well as firearm-caused fatalities, even without adjustment per capita for population growth. That site uses statics gathered from each respective countries government websites; you can gather the information and run the numbers for yourself; firearm bans had no discernible effect on total homicide rates.The idea that the liberal side always pushes is that a ban on firearms should lead to less deaths in general, which is not true. Even if you have reduced firearm violence, all you've really done is displaced that violence into another category, and really have not solved much.
Could you explain in layman's terms what exactly you mean by this talk about data? I'm not that versed in statistics, especially in English, but I'm curious.
|
On February 22 2018 20:48 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 19:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 22 2018 15:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 22 2018 13:28 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 13:10 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 22 2018 12:56 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:38 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups. No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee. Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles? Would the Vegas shooting happened if the person in question went through a rigorous mental health screening check every 6 months? Anyone can use that logic. Yes, the Vegas shooting happened. Yes, he utilized semi-automatic long rifle weapons converted with a bumpfire stock. Do you truly believe though that removing access to the AR-15 would have prevented him from committing that same kind of crime with another type of weapon/tool?That's the honest question we should be asking ourselves here. This guy meticulously planned his attack on those people, and made many efforts in order to conceal his effort to harm others. Just like the Florida shooter knew how to defeat standard school lockdown protocol by pulling the fire alarm to force students and staff out into the open, and he chose the perfect time to do it (towards the end of school) to cause mass confusion. These people planned these things out, and it's not like they just decided one day I'm going to pick up an AR-15 and just go kill some people. Not to mention, you conveniently leave out the fact that the Virgina Tech shooter utilized pistols to inflict 33 fatalities (including himself), and not an AR-15. Not only do I think that, the vast majority of law-enforcement thinks it to. Of course, it would have been different. He didn't choose the AR-15 because he likes the way it smells. He picked it because it was the best tool for the job. And the job was long-distance murder. Now, other things can murder. But at that range? That effectively? No. just: No. See: I answer questions. What if he chose to drive a car through the crowd? What if he got a bomb into that crowd? You're assuming that he stays at the same range if he has a different tool. There are other tools that can be used to kill more people quickly. We saw that happened when someone ran through a crowd with a vehicle. All evidence that I have seen points to the idea that an assault weapons ban/firearm ban in general does nothing to curtail the homicide rate within a country. Why people keep insisting on one makes no sense to me. Are you familiar with the existence of a continent called Europe? Ever since the firearm bans in UK homicide rates (total homicide not firearm homicide rates) have been essentially the same. But I guess arguing with facts is not a thing anymore. Firearm bans SHOULD have a dramatic effect on homicide rates if we are to believe the 'liberal' side of the argument, especially after a decade. However, the truth is that they have almost no effect on the overall homicide rate within a country. https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ A glance at the left side bar (actually, the right one too) suggests that it's not the most neutral of sources. Here's a huge meta analysis/ review of the then-existing research on firearm legislation and correlation with firearm-related injuries. Firearms account for a substantial proportion of external causes of death, injury, and disability across the world. Legislation to regulate firearms has often been passed with the intent of reducing problems related to their use. However, lack of clarity around which interventions are effective remains a major challenge for policy development. Aiming to meet this challenge, we systematically reviewed studies exploring the associations between firearm-related laws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries/deaths. We restricted our search to studies published from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively. Limitations of studies include challenges inherent to their ecological design, their execution, and the lack of robustness of findings to model specifications. High quality research on the association between the implementation or repeal of firearm legislation (rather than the evaluation of existing laws) and firearm injuries would lead to a better understanding of what interventions are likely to work given local contexts. This information is key to move this field forward and for the development of effective policies that may counteract the burden that firearm injuries pose on populations. Also, a quick look at the Wiki article on UK firearms laws shows a decline in firearms used in crimes as well as firearm-caused fatalities, even without adjustment per capita for population growth. superstartran thinks Wiki info is pretty much the worst ever- his strong reaction to it previously was one of the reasons he was banned in the first place- so that might not be a strong selling point to him. (Of course, that entry has over 100 citations and looks to be reasonable overall. Thanks for sharing it.) I like how you were so up all on that one study that uses the wrong data for a negative binomial regression, which is a pretty amateurish mistake to do (or you do it on purpose to push an agenda). So, like I said, are you going to respond why that study used rate data instead of count data?
Are you referring to MLL's post? This one?
+ Show Spoiler +On February 20 2018 07:49 MyLovelyLurker wrote:I guess I'm a bit late on the whole 'let's dl wikipedia into a Jupyter notebook and correlate away' thing I was planning to do this morning, and happy that American stats exceptionalism is alive and well. I want to share this study www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov that rigorously establishes correlation between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates within the 50 States. It's based on 2012 data. I didn't see anything fundamentally wrong with its scientific methodology. Interestingly enough, looking at the bibliography shows a grand total of eighty references, many of them pointing in a similar direction. Sharing the discussion / conclusion as : 'To the best of our knowledge, ours is the most up-to-date and comprehensive analysis of the relationship between firearm ownership and gun-related homicide rates within the 50 states. Our study encompassed a 30-year period, with data through 2010, and accounted for 18 possible confounders of the relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide. We found a robust relationship between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates that was not explained by any of these potential confounders and was not sensitive to model specification. Our work expanded on previous studies not only by analyzing more recent data, but also by adjusting for clustering by year and state and controlling for factors, such as the rate of nonfirearm homicides, that likely capture unspecified variables that may be associated with both gun ownership levels and firearm homicide rates. The correlation of gun ownership with firearm homicide rates was substantial. Results from our model showed that a 1-SD difference in the gun ownership proxy measure, FS/S, was associated with a 12.9% difference in firearm homicide rates. All other factors being equal, our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower. Because of our use of a proxy measure for gun ownership, we could not conclude that the magnitude of the association between actual household gun ownership rates and homicide rates was the same. However, in a model that incorporated only survey-derived measures of household gun ownership (for 2001, 2002, and 2004), we found that each 1-SD difference in gun ownership was associated with a 24.9% difference in firearm homicide rates. 'Our study substantially advances previous work by analyzing recent data, examining the longest and most comprehensive panel of state-specific data to date, and accounting for year and state clustering and for a wide range of potential confounders. We found a robust relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates, a finding that held whether firearm ownership was assessed through a proxy or a survey measure, whether state clustering was accounted for by GEEs or by fixed effects, and whether or not gun ownership was lagged, by up to 2 years. The observed relationship was specific to firearm-related homicide. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher levels of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.'
What evidence do you have that they used the wrong data? Why do you think that rate data can't be used and that count data must be used?
And I don't know what you mean by "all up on that one study". I merely said it looked solid and I was interested in hearing your response to it (although you were temp banned at the time). You just laughed it off though, which I had seen you do before. That was what prompted me to reply to your comment in the first place. Here was our conversation:
On February 19 2018 10:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 07:05 superstartran wrote:On February 19 2018 06:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2018 05:30 superstartran wrote:On February 19 2018 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2018 04:00 superstartran wrote:On February 19 2018 02:58 ragnasaur wrote:
Those graphs are dumb. USA is a first world country & the comparative countries like Jamacia and Honduras are third world.
Apples & Oranges That is my exact point. You and I can throw any graph out there, without actually controlling for several variables you don't get an accurate picture But your response to a graph that *did* control for that variable (OECD countries) was a graph that was purposely less accurate and *didn't* control for it. Those two graphs are not both equally inaccurate, and just because you can find a bad graph doesn't mean the good graph should be ignored. The fact that you really think that OECD graph is actually an accurate representative and can be used as evidence for correlation between number of firearms and firearm related violence is laughable at best. The author himself said that you cannot use his graphs as evidence for anything because the dude got his fucking statistics from wikipedia.There's a MUCH stronger correlation of income disparity and poverty with firearm related violence more than anything, but no one wants to talk about that. It's all about guns bro. 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. Are you seriously trying to use outdated data that doesn't control for various different variables as a reliable source to claim that the data shown shows a strong correlation? "Well Sourced" lmao.Wikipedia 'likely to be legitimate' Sometimes I wonder if you guys actually graduated from a university and were taught basic scientific method or you are just talking out of your own ass. User was temp banned for this post. This is the last post I'll make about sourcing, as I see you're temp banned and I'm not sure if it borders on off-topic, but encyclopedias are generally good starting points for when people want to start researching topics, since they often times have an extensive bibliography for more information. And Wikipedia is no different, in that most long entries have dozens- if not hundreds- of works that are cited, and you'll immediately know if any pages aren't well-sourced. Keep in mind that it was established back in 2005 that Wikipedia's accuracy was comparable to Encyclopedia Britannica's ( https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/ ) and Wikipedia has only become more reliable over the past 13 years (despite the taboo that comes with public editors). When doing real research, of course you're going to double-check your sources against other sources, but starting at a Wiki entry for basic overviews and looking through the bibliography is actually a pretty good informational springboard. In other words, it's completely inappropriate to automatically dismiss statements just because they exist on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I'm well aware of the mathematics and statistics references you're making (e.g., correlation), considering I teach high school and college math and statistics. You're not the only one who understands confounding variables. And I'm trying to have a dialogue with you- not get into a dick-swinging contest.
The reason I had responded in the first place to your rebuttal of someone else's post was that you had tried refuting a study that attempted to control for certain variables with your own graph that specifically didn't, and you tried saying that since you found a meaningless graph, that someone else's graph was automatically equally meaningless. I found that to be disingenuous, along with your "lol Wiki is auto-wrong and anyone who uses Wiki is stupid" philosophy, and then other people ended up citing even more studies.
I don't feel like your one-liner dismissive responses to some of these studies are really all that convincing, and calling people "amateurish" or saying that you are "talking out of your own ass" isn't really strengthening your arguments.
firearm bans had no discernible effect on total homicide rates.
This statement that you made to ticklishmusic is controversial, as there is plenty of research that disagrees with your claim:
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49: 985-88.
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
The correlations here seem to indicate:
1. As the number of guns increases, so does the number of gun deaths;
2. As the number of guns increases, so does the number of overall deaths;
3. The number of guns doesn't seem to affect the number of non-firearm deaths (i.e., deaths due to other weapons aren't increasing as the number of guns changes, disputing the idea that people will just kill with other weapons if they can't get their hands on a gun).
|
On February 22 2018 22:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
3. The number of guns doesn't seem to affect the number of non-firearm deaths (i.e., deaths due to other weapons aren't increasing as the number of guns changes, disputing the idea that people will just kill with other weapons if they can't get their hands on a gun).
I actually want to expound on this one a little bit, because it's absolutely true and touches on something a lot of the pro-gun arguments base themselves on, the idea that regardless of whether regulations are introduced, and even regardless of whether they're effective, everyone who ever got a gun for the purpose of shooting someone would have still gotten a gun, or would have used something else in its place. It assumes, right from the start, that all gunmen, and all would-be gunmen, are perfectly rational actors, 100% determined to obtain a gun and use it for violent ends, or do whatever it takes in the event they can't get one. Now, for some people that's true, and maybe for our mass-shooters that's pretty close, but that's giving a lot of credit to every single person who got a gun from someone they knew, or just walked into a shop and bought one, sight-unseen, to do who-knows-what with it.
Not enough credence is lent to the very real phenomenon that for every regulation you introduce, every inconvenience you place on doing something, no matter how small, it will dissuade a non-zero number of people from doing it who were doing it before. It's a game of margins, for most people there is a point at which they'll say "fuck it, this shit ain't worth it", and there is always a group of people that are on either side of that margin. A simple regulation or ban might not stop someone who is myopically focused on the task of committing a mass murder, but it will stop a considerable number of people who would've been smaller offenders*, and those are the ones that make up most of the gun-related deaths.
*I use this term loosely, this can also include anyone who shot someone for less insidious reasons, who nonetheless died when they wouldn't have before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
