|
Even as a shootyman, I've never understood the spergs who actually get mad about magazine/clip, doubly so for the people who also go ape if you conflate 'silencer' with 'suppressor' despite those actually being the same thing.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Yardbomb posted:Even as a shootyman, I've never understood the spergs who actually get mad about magazine/clip, doubly so for the people who also go ape if you conflate 'silencer' with 'suppressor' despite those actually being the same thing. Does it count as high capacity if I cram 40 .22 shorts in it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 05:35
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:Even as a shootyman, I've never understood the spergs who actually get mad about magazine/clip, doubly so for the people who also go ape if you conflate 'silencer' with 'suppressor' despite those actually being the same thing. [I know nothing... never fired anything higher than a .22... just thought that was the difference...]
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:Hey if my numbers are wrong, just tell me. You're the one purporting to care about this metric, I just pulled some data off of Mother Jones. I'm willing to use whatever metric you want. I mean, pick that number if you want, just seemed on the narrow side of things to me, but it's not foundational to the idea at this point, because the absolute number of gun deaths is just a part of my overall argument. Let me ask from the other direction. Would you agree that we banned asbestos because we decided, enough of those with power, anyway, that the harm it brought to society outweighed any benefits?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:Would you agree that we banned asbestos because we decided, enough of those with power, anyway, that the harm it brought to society outweighed any benefits? It probably helps that people are able to sue the poo poo out asbestos manufacturers and the organizations that exposed them to asbestos. Meanwhile, gun manufacturers can't be sued in American courts. Weird, huh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
Cable Guy posted:I thought suppressors were more about controlling the flash and recoil... not so much about the sound - quietening it down being more a side effect than an objective. they're synonyms. The first few suppressor/silencers made were actually marketed as "silencers", but gotta sperg out about something I guess quote:American inventor Hiram Percy Maxim, son of Maxim gun inventor Hiram Stevens Maxim, is usually credited with inventing and selling the first commercially successful silencer around 1902, receiving a patent for it on March 30, 1909.[2][3][4] Maxim gave his device the trademarked name Maxim Silencer
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:I mean, pick that number if you want, just seemed on the narrow side of things to me, but it's not foundational to the idea at this point, because the absolute number of gun deaths is just a part of my overall argument. quote:Would you agree that we banned asbestos because we decided, enough of those with power, anyway, that the harm it brought to society outweighed any benefits? twodot fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
twodot posted:You are the one who claims to care about this term! You can't hold me responsible for not understanding what you meant by that term while also refusing to define it. Also how can the absolute number only be a part of your argument? If the absolute number was zero, surely your argument would fail? There has to be a number of deaths for which you would agree that trying to prevent by constructing federal policy is a waste of effort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
It's inconvenient to draft legislation just to save some lives, you have to admit that sending thoughts and prayers is a lot easier
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
twodot posted:You are the one who claims to care about this term! You can't hold me responsible for not understanding what you meant by that term while also refusing to define it. Also how can the absolute number only be a part of your argument? If the absolute number was zero, surely your argument would fail? There has to be a number of deaths for which you would agree that constructing federal policy to prevent is a waste of effort. My definition is immaterial, but if working through this in non-quantitative ways is problematic for you, 4 or more people shot in a single incident (not including shooter) seems a reasonable place to start. I still do think it's worth noting that in a year that featured a single shooting with 58 killed and 500+ injured, you saw a website with the numbers 100 / 600 and thought to yourself, this seems a reasonable place to start. We can use the Gun Violence Archive's numbers if you like, though I suspect you might take issue with their methodology. But it's only part of the argument because I don't find arguments for the utility of mass public gun ownership convincing. There is no defensible reason why we need the way we have them in their current capacity and quantity. So if guns are unnecessary, the arguments for them predicated on fallacies and delusions, then the acceptable number of mass shootings is zero. Either way, it seems clear to me that we should Do Something about it, and it seems plainly obvious that the real divide in the discussion is between those who believe we should do something, and those that do not, which is why I focus the conversation at this level, instead of endlessly wrangling over what the proper statistical threshold of gun deaths is to trigger the need for political action. twodot posted:Who is "those with power"? I have absolutely no reason to think the political class cared about whether stuff was built with asbestos or not. Obviously there were industries that favored asbestos but they just got replaced with equivalent people doing the same thing without asbestos. It's not like we stopped building drywall or whatever. Sufficiently large quantities of motivated voters? The lawmakers theoretically beholden to their constituents? Experts in charge of crafting public policy? Clearly someone cared about SOMETHING to do something about it, maybe it was craven vote pandering, but enough people cared and something got done. The point is that, from a practical standpoint, a collective decision was made that in principle, all else things being equal, the costs outweigh the benefits, and policy was created accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
So I guess we're going to keep pretending that gun control stops only 0.3% of firearm deaths instead of more like 17%, not because we care about evidence or reality, but because it's easier to handwave away 0.3% as "probably too expensive to bother with" and I guess all those other developed countries are just wasting money or something because they're not as fiscally responsible as 'Murica
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Pfft don't try to use your socialist statistics to confuse the issue, guns don't kill people!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Remember in grade school having to do fire drills and possibly bus evacuation drills every now and then? Active shooter drills are now a thing: https://twitter.com/HeatherHintze/status/970834967419736065 At 35s the guy on the PA announces that the hypothetical shooter is black because of course he is. e: Someone posted that in trumpthread, just reposting it here. Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Remember in grade school having to do fire drills and possibly bus evacuation drills every now and then? Active shooter drills are now a thing: Jesus gently caress. What is wrong with Americans that any significant portion of the population thinks, "hmm, yes, this is reasonable, and better than me having to give up my mudertoys?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
At the risk of conjuring Dead Reckoning out of whatever "self-defense" related dream he's currently having, here's some numbers if you like: Also important to note, that our country is unique in many of these numbers, for some absolutely impenetrable reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
It's security theater for a moral panic around unlikely events when the problem lies elsewhere. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/there-is-no-epidemic-of-mass-school-shootings.html quote:By keeping the national spotlight on the mass murder at their high school — and calling on their peers across the country to walk out of their schools, so as to “no longer risk their lives waiting for someone else to take action to stop the epidemic of mass school shootings” in the United States — the theater kids of Marjory Stoneman Douglas have built the broadest public consensus for gun-safety measures that America has seen in a quarter-century.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
What is "it" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG_k5CSYKhg
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Bullfrog posted:It's security theater for a moral panic around unlikely events when the problem lies elsewhere.  see if you can spot where the US is, i know it's hard to see
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Bullfrog posted:It's security theater for a moral panic around unlikely events when the problem lies elsewhere. Having everyone take off their shoes at the airport in response to 1 attempted shoe bombing? Sure that's security theater. But what if there were 300+ shoe bombings per year? That's a high enough incident rate to justify some changes to security practices, such as having people remove their shoes to be scanned We have 300+ mass shootings per year, maybe we should try making some changes? I think that the proposal to arm teachers is loving stupid but it feels like the article is suggesting that any change at all would be security theater, which I don't think is true
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Having everyone take off their shoes at the airport in response to 1 attempted shoe bombing? Sure that's security theater. But what if there were 300+ shoe bombings per year? That's a high enough incident rate to justify some changes to security practices, such as having people remove their shoes to be scanned At least the rest of the world figured out that taking your shoes off at the airport is utter nonsense. God only knows why the US still insists on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
That article makes a salient point about acknowledging the need to prevent draconian measures from disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations. There's also nothing wrong with arguing for an approach which is mindful of mis-identification of problematic attributes and applying needless or harmful practices. But if you use the word epidemic to mean "a problematic widespread occurrence" and then we compare the occurrence worldwide, our problem of school shootings is, inarguably, relatively widespread, compared with other countries. If the relatively low absolute numbers of school shootings as a subset of total shootings is the basis of your objection, I won't argue the semantic of that. I will point out that school shootings are not the only unacceptable ones, that gun violence in general is arguably of epidemic proportions in absolute numbers. PT6A posted:At least the rest of the world figured out that taking your shoes off at the airport is utter nonsense. God only knows why the US still insists on it. I would say, guessing, that the inability to admit errors is a particularly strong suit of ours, and to reverse this policy would be tacit acknowledgement of the mistake. Which we loving hate doing. r.y.f.s.o. fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:At the risk of conjuring Dead Reckoning out of whatever "self-defense" related dream he's currently having, here's some numbers if you like: r.y.f.s.o. posted:Either way, it seems clear to me that we should Do Something about it, and it seems plainly obvious that the real divide in the discussion is between those who believe we should do something, and those that do not, which is why I focus the conversation at this level, instead of endlessly wrangling over what the proper statistical threshold of gun deaths is to trigger the need for political action. quote:Sufficiently large quantities of motivated voters? The lawmakers theoretically beholden to their constituents? Experts in charge of crafting public policy? r.y.f.s.o. posted:Would you agree that we banned asbestos because we decided, enough of those with power, anyway, that the harm it brought to society outweighed any benefits? Elizabethan Error posted:yes, and in the case of children that have died from gunshots, that number should be 0
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:I will point out that school shootings are not the only unacceptable ones loving A. "Well school shootings are only .3% of all shooting deaths, why should we bother?" is a loving ghoulish argument. As if all people killed by guns who weren't at a school don't matter. twodot posted:Finally, jeez. Ok so mass shooting "incidents" are 346 in 2017. Gun violence "incidents" are 61,522 in 2017. I'll just go ahead and concede we should definitely care about "incidents" even though I don't know what that means. That means we're talking about 0.6% of the problem (I would normally argue it's actually less than this, but for this purpose, I'll go ahead and also concede that "gun violence incidents" are a thing we should care about more than "violence incidents"). This is still too small a number to care about. Spending any amount of time talking about 0.6% of the problem is a waste of effort. How is the logical endpoint of this line of thought not "Okay, seems like we should ban all guns" twodot posted:Should's a weird word. Obviously everyone would prefer if no children died. Spending effort crafting policy to reduce 1 kid dying to 0 kids dying is just stupid. There's literally like 10,000 things you would be better off spending time on. How would you feel about this statement if the 1 kid you're talking about was yours? WampaLord fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:Should's a weird word. Obviously everyone would prefer if no children died. 
Elizabethan Error fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:
I offered you the statistics, you choose to ignore them because you don't like it, and no I don't have an answer for how to convince people who have a religious belief that we should ignore statistics we don't personally like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:loving A. quote:How is the logical endpoint of this line of thought "Okay, seems like we should ban all guns"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:They just don't. You're talking about numbers that are similar to fatal lightning strikes. And god knows no one ever does anything to mitigate or prevent deaths from lightning strikes, checkmate health and safety advocates 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:If your plan to reduce violence in America is gun control, then you are pretty much stuck on ban all guns, because anything less will be ineffective, yes. Okay. So we're dead set on "ban all guns" Now cue the tears from the gun side saying that's a ridiculous demand and WHY WON'T YOU BE REASONABLE and just let us gut whatever lovely law you're making so later we can point to it failing and go "gun control doesn't work!" You see the dilemma we're in here, and I really don't appreciate your flippancy with people's loving lives. "Well, seems like the problem is bigger than just school shootings, better ban all guns, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT LOSERS "twodot posted:I don't want to be a gun owner at all loving lmao, like you were forced to be one. Get your loving head examined.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:How would you feel about this statement if the 1 kid you're talking about was yours? WampaLord posted:Okay. So we're dead set on "ban all guns" quote:loving lmao, like you were forced to be one. Get your loving head examined.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Is the end goal to save lives at any cost? I think its a terrible tragedy anytime someone is shot, but is total disarmament something americans would ever accept? I guess it really depends if you think that the right to bear arms is a right or a not. If you believe people should be able to carry a pistol to protect themselves, then banning them outright is never going to be on the table. So the best course of action to prevent shootings is to improve the environment that we live in. Even if you banned all shotguns, assault rifles, semi autos, etc tomorrow, you would have mass shooters use pistols ala virginia tech. So unless you think banning pistols is possible, which I believe will never get done in USA, then we should work on reducing the drug war, improving housing, mental health support, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
counterpoint: repeal the loving 2nd amendment
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:Is the end goal to save lives at any cost? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ogJmp2dMDs patonthebach posted:So unless you think banning pistols is possible, which I believe will never get done in USA, then we should work on reducing the drug war, improving housing, mental health support, etc. "Better things aren't possible" - the refrain of the loving idiot centrist
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:I will never have a child, so I won't pretend to understand how I would behave in that counterfactual, but if your argument is "you would also do insane stuff if you had a kid" that doesn't seem great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
So do you feel the same way about banning swimming? 3500 lives a year we could be saving. What could of a monster leaves a pool in their backyard for some kid to get killed by. Just so some sick adults can have their swimming hobby toy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Just ban schools problem solved
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:So do you feel the same way about banning swimming? 3500 lives a year we could be saving OH NO I AM UNDONE BY THIS ELBOW DROP OF LOGIC BAN ALL SWIMMING, BAN LITERALLY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT CAUSE DEATH! I AM A LIBERAL AND I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE BANNING THINGS!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:So do you feel the same way about banning swimming? 3500 lives a year we could be saving. What could of a monster leaves a pool in their backyard for some kid to get killed by. Just so some sick adults can have their swimming hobby toy? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Seriously, why are we building these murder water pits just so you have somewhere to sit while you drink your margaritas? Just for you sick hobby? People are dying by the thousands each year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
twodot posted:I will never have a child, so I won't pretend to understand how I would behave in that counterfactual, but if your argument is "you would also do insane stuff if you had a kid" that doesn't seem great. Okay, pretend that you are the child in question. Would you like something to be done to prevent your death, or would it just be a waste of time and 10,000 other better things could be done instead? Does your empathy kick in when it's your own rear end on the line? patonthebach posted:Seriously, why are we building these murder water pits just so you have somewhere to sit while you drink your margaritas? Just for you sick hobby? People are dying by the thousands each year. gently caress you. You're being flippant with people's loving lives to score cheap points on a dying forum.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:58
|
|