Elizabethan Error posted:

bringing a firearm into a situation increases the probability of fatal incident

patonthebach posted:

Woah, thats going a bit far. I might be a bit of a loon when it comes to not think disarmament is the answer, but gently caress if I don't think vaccines are necessary.

I think we should be shooting kids with vaccines with auto rifles if anything.

twodot posted:

I uhh took your numbers and divided them. 61,000 is high enough to care about because there's a limited number of problems at that scale and a limited amount of effort available to spend solving them. There's a ridiculously large number of problems with numbers like 300, and if you attempted to care about all of them you could never succeed. (In terms of crafting federal policy, obviously like a doctor with 300 patients is doing something good even if they aren't personally providing health care to the whole nation)

twodot posted:

I know they work, it's just awkward to openly state "I want to enact policy, people are not being persuaded to enact my policy by factual statistics, therefore I need to trick them into agreeing with my policy". If you get to that stage you should be considering if the other people are right.

twodot posted:

Yes I think there is broad agreement that prior to a ban being passed there was insufficient forces to pass a ban, and post a ban being passed there were sufficient forces for a ban to be passed.

twodot posted:

"The federal government should spend resources on problems proportionate to the extent that they harm the population" - a monster.

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

We were talking about school shootings only to establish that they alone don't qualify, in your estimation, for anything more than easy effort. That's it.

The 61,000 are a problem too. Does that qualify for something beyond "easy?" How much money, how much effort cost?

quote:

It's not deception, friend.

quote:

Would you agree that this shift indicated a belief the harm of widespread asbestos outweighed the utility?

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

Quantity of dead is not the absolute measurement of harm, or at least, if you're at all empathetic, shouldn't be.

I am harmed by the deaths of others. No one is an island.

We have the ability to basically prevent these school shootings from happening, it wouldn't cost very much at all.

Reducing human suffering to individual statistical analysis is an incomplete, and inhuman, way to calculate what is, and is not "worth it."

You're cool with school shootings, and don't see the big deal, because *numbers.*

Monstrous. You should loving feel bad about that.

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

Quantity of dead is not the absolute measurement of harm, or at least, if you're at all empathetic, shouldn't be.

I am harmed by the deaths of others. No one is an island.

We have the ability to basically prevent these school shootings from happening, it wouldn't cost very much at all.

Reducing human suffering to individual statistical analysis is an incomplete, and inhuman, way to calculate what is, and is not "worth it."

You're cool with school shootings, and don't see the big deal, because *numbers.*

Monstrous. You should loving feel bad about that.

patonthebach posted:

What is your specific legislation you think would stop mass shooters?

patonthebach posted:

Yes yes and yes. Happy to hear that?

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

Happy? God no, that's horrible. What the gently caress is wrong with you.

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

Happy? God no, that's horrible. What the gently caress is wrong with you.

patonthebach posted:

Yes yes and yes. Happy to hear that?

I'd rather drive a truck and have a higher chance of the other person in the car dying in a crash then me dying. Is that selfish in itself? Yup

I'd rather drive a car in the city than take a bike. I know that means someone on a bike that gets into a crash with me is more likely to die than I am. I prefer that over the alternative.

patonthebach posted:

If you had to be in a car crash would you rather be in the F-150 or the corolla?

Elizabethan Error posted:

"being able to locate all weapons somehow"

patonthebach posted:

I'm not sure what this even means. What legislation do you propose to stop mass shooters?

patonthebach posted:

I'm not sure what this even means. What legislation do you propose to stop mass shooters?

Boris Galerkin posted:

Isn't it a hallmark of conservative voters that they view life as a zero sum game? Where one side winning must mean that the other side loses, therefore if there must be a winner it should be me?

botany posted:

twodot posted:

I don't know exactly, something similar to what we spend on other 61k class problems, you know like alcohol and car collisions. (Although to be clear, I still don't understand what the 61,000 number represents, so classifying what sort of effort we should spend on a collection of undescribed events is awkward)

twodot posted:

You've decided that facts will not persuade people to agree with you on policy. You still think your policy is important so you've decided to use things other than facts to persuade people your policy is good. How is this not a trick? If they decide that your policy is good, but they do that on something other than that your policy is factually good, you've have tricked them into thinking it's good.

twodot posted:

Seems likely. It would be strange for asbestos bans to not follow people thinking it was net-harmful.

twodot posted:

On average, I'm expecting all preventable deaths to have approximately the same amount of secondary effects, so number of deaths is still a good proxy for total harm done. (edit: This arguably breaks down with tiny numbers like 300, but that's part of the problem with writing policy to address tiny issues) We're crafting policy here, statistical analysis is the only thing that works.

twodot posted:

Do you recall how I was saying there was no philosophical discussion to be had just people saying other people's value systems are bad?

Elizabethan Error posted:

something that enables all guns to be tracked by the relevant law enforcement agencies.

patonthebach posted:

I still don't get what that has to do with stopping mass shooters.

patonthebach posted:

If you had to be in a car crash would you rather be in the F-150 or the corolla?

patonthebach posted:

I'm honest when I say I care about my own life more than others. Im impressed with your selflessness.

Elizabethan Error posted:

sorry about your ignorance? 80% of mass shootings over the past 3 decades have been perpetrated with legally obtained firearms. being able to prevent mentally ill people buying weapons would be a natural outgrowth of such a system.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

In a excellent example of gun control passing a bill almost guaranteed to increase school shootings.

It'll make the olds feel better though

patonthebach posted:

Well a few of the ideas are good, but yeah one of the teachers is going to get their gun taken away from them, or a teacher will go postal.

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

sorry, which car is your demonstrably delusional self-defense fantasy in this car analogy?


Not your *life*, your admittedly incorrect feeling of increased safety.

You value your toy more than their life. Gross.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

In a excellent example of gun control passing a bill almost guaranteed to increase school shootings.

patonthebach posted:

I realize I'm just torpeding actual discussion on current events in this thread with analogies so I'll stop. My point was that many people will take risks to help protect their own life without giving another persons life as much credit.

You feel safer in a truck because its more likely you will live in a crash, the other side of that is if the crash involves a car they have a higher chance of dying. Most people if given the choice would choose their own life and their families lives over another persons.

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

Is there nothing that differentiates, in your mind, school shootings and let's say, automobile deaths? These things are isomorphic enough represent a difference without distinction? Absolutely nothing???

quote:

Facts alone, no. We can look at fact, numbers and data are important. But if we don't have a baseline agreement about the Should and the Ought aspects of our moral valuations then facts aren't poo poo.

What I'm saying is, value systems in humans are inherently emotional, the impetus for action is ultimately emotional too - and it's important to acknowledge and incorporate this into the discussion. I don't see why that's so objectionable... unless you're a sociopathic quant.

quote:

In your estimation, is the current distribution and regulatory structure of guns net harmful?

quote:

Stats, numbers, math, science and reason are the most effective way of implementing a given policy, a policy which has a given intent / aim / desired outcome.

There are many valid non-quantifiable things which can ultimately inform the values that dictate the given intent, aim and outcome. That's the point.

VitalSigns posted:

The Republicans!

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Yup.

Though our dumbshit Democrats were onboard as well. But what do you expect from a state where the former Republican governor is now a Democrat congressman.

VitalSigns posted:

This is not a good analogy for guns, because owning a gun makes you more likely to be injured or die, not less

E: actually nevermind it's a perfect analogy because despite the illusion of safety trucks are actually more dangerous to the driver than cars

VitalSigns posted:

I suspect that putting more guns in schools was something Republicans insisted on, and Democrats had to take it or leave it, so electing more Democrats will mean less stupid policy but idk Florida is a weird place.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

This is a perfect example of the "compromise" liberals love to crank themselves off over. Compromised so good they definitely just made things worse.

There is absolutely no excuse for this poo poo.

GG FL Dems.

VitalSigns posted:

Republicans control the entire government.

Dems are poo poo, but blaming them for things Republicans put in a bill is dumb

Rent-A-Cop posted:

This is a perfect example of the "compromise" liberals love to crank themselves off over. Compromised so good they definitely just made things worse.

There is absolutely no excuse for this poo poo.

GG FL Dems.

patonthebach posted:

Thats actually my specific point. Trucks become a specific hazard for all other drivers because their centre of gravity is so high and they just basically crush any commuter cars. Two cars crashing ends up pretty safe most of the time. A truck vs a car is a death sentence.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada...atal-collisions

Rent-A-Cop posted:

I can and will blame then for voting for more guns in schools.

VitalSigns posted:

OK well enjoy being ruled by the Republicans who insisted on this thing you hate!