patonthebach posted:

Lol if you think you are going to be able to vote the government,military and police into disarming after they disarm the citizens. Holy gently caress.

patonthebach posted:

BENGHAZI 2 posted:

Realtalk if a things only purpose is causing massive bodily harm it is not a defensive tool period end of story

I can see more of an argument for batons than guns and I hate those too (because it's easy to air wuotes accidentally cause permanent injury with them)

hakimashou posted:

That's what makes them good defensive weapons though.

patonthebach posted:

Hey, its not like all the previous examples of a citizenry being disarmed went poorly. They all led to a new era of peace in that country.

Well, I guess if you are rich and white. Just dont be poor or racialized or a religious minority. Then horrible things to tend to happen right after.

Azuren posted:

I will sincerely never understand the mindset that leads one to reason, "the solution to a power imbalance between two parties is to further exacerbate that power imbalance in favor of the more powerful party."

A sizable fraction of the country believes that we are currently witnessing a fascist takeover of the government, that literal Nazis are marching in the streets, and that the police are full of white supremacists (I'll even grant you that final point)... and that the solution is for the citizenry to disarm themselves and yield all capacity for force to the aforementioned groups. The capability to resist was *literally* the point of the Second Amendment. Doubly so when our nation is at a point where the murder rate has declined 50% in the past 25 years and we are enjoying a broad trend of reduced violent crime for more than half a century, despite the dramatic increased proliferation of firearms both absolutely and per-capita.

The mind reels.

BENGHAZI 2 posted:

Nuclear missiles the greatest defensive tool ever and not absolutely a terrifying weapon of mass destruction

hakimashou posted:

Literal truth though.

hakimashou posted:

Literal truth though.

Stretch Marx posted:

I too have never heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the most rational time we've ever had with nukes. I'm sure the world felt very safe back then.

twodot posted:

This can't possibly be true, there was more than 346 injuries in the Las Vegas shooting by itself so incidents can't include injuries. Shouldn't we just agree that "incidents" is a stupid metric and blame r.y.f.s.o. for bringing them up and instead focus on gun deaths vs mass shooting deaths (which is 0.3%)?

lllllllllllllllllll posted:

Some Highlighs so far:
If we would restrict guns, you would need to restrict everything. Would you like to restrict your computer?
Shots fired in a school does not make a "school shooting", silly. What's a "school" anyway, and how would you define a "shooting"?
Let's all become NRA members and change the system from within.
The good ole guns-are-like-cars razzle-dazzle

That being said, if I was living in a place in the US where the police would take an hour to arrive or would not show up at all, I'd buy a gun too.

QuarkJets posted:

The number of injuries exceeds the number of mass shootings, the number of incidents exceeds the number of injuries; that makes sense. What problem do you see with that?

QuarkJets posted:

But would you want to buy an AR-15 or something like a shotgun? That's where the anti-gun control people completely lose me; even if you want to say that having a gun for self-defense in special circumstances is fine, to them that means that obviously you can't restrict the choice of weapon, nor can you demand a registry, licensing, training, etc

The opposition to mandatory training is especially perplexing because there's no real argument against it, they just don't want to do it. If you own a gun then you need to be trained in its safe usage and storage, full stop.

twodot posted:

This is backwards, the number of injuries exceeds the number of incidents. Why are we spending anytime talking about a metric we both agree is dumb and not worthwhile?

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

Unoriginal Name posted:

Safely using a weapon is some dark loving comedy. A bad joke, if you will

QuarkJets posted:

31,172 is not greater than 61,522. 30,632 is not greater than 58,867. From here you can see that the number of incidents does indeed exceed the number of injuries and the number of deaths:


Your original point was that the number of mass shootings was too small as a percentage of incidents, e.g. 346 mass shootings out of 61,522 firearm incidents is only 0.6%. You were saying that 0.6% is way too small to be a problem. If you want to walk back from that position then I think that's fine because I don't think it's worth worrying much about the ~50% of incidents where no injuries or deaths occurred, at the very least

QuarkJets posted:

.

This kind of mandatory training is like the bare minimum amount of gun control that should be implemented but not enough gun owners give a poo poo about saving lives to support it

Stretch Marx posted:

I too have never heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the most rational time we've ever had with nukes. I'm sure the world felt very safe back then.

hakimashou posted:

I'd take a dozen cuban missile crises over another ww2. It's supposed to be scary is the fear that prevents wars.

twodot posted:

Wait that's tracking shootings and not outcomes of shootings? That's even stupider than I thought. Yeah dividing those numbers doesn't make any sense, we should go back to the thing I was originally making claims about which is what percent of gun deaths are deaths from mass shootings, and that number is 0.3%, a percentage also too small to care about.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

I am in favor if I get grandfathered in.

QuarkJets posted:

According to that chart it's much higher than 0.3%; 15,577 deaths vs 346 mass shootings, so >= 2.2% (exactly 2.2% if every mass shooting resulted in 1 death, but we know the number of deaths caused by mass shootings is probably higher than that)

quote:

Furthermore, even if only 0.3% of all car-related deaths were caused by exploding in a blazing inferno on ignition then we'd want to do something about that despite the number only being 0.3% of deaths. It would be worth making changes to try and reduce that value to, say, 0.2% or 0.1%.

hakimashou posted:

What would make for a good mandatory training program, safe handling/maintenance or also marksmanship?

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

Killed / Injured by mass shootings in 2017, defined as a single incident in which 4 or more people were injured or killed, was 437 / 1802, if you were intellectually honest enough to have actually, you know, found the gun violence archive website and, say with me here, clicked the loving links.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

There's even a spreadsheet for you to download, upon which you could dispassionately gaze, sit back, and say "yeah, I'm OK with this."

twodot posted:

What the gently caress? I found numbers. I posted them. You didn't like those numbers and then spent days failing to provide your own numbers, and I'm the dishonest one?

twodot posted:

What the gently caress? I found numbers. I posted them. You didn't like those numbers and then spent days failing to provide your own numbers, and I'm the dishonest one?

Raldikuk posted:

You've been flailing at the numbers posted giving your suggestions and your feelings towards what they might mean. All the while it is clear you haven't even bothered to look at the data presented. Yeah, that's pretty dishonest.

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

the incredibly easy to google gun violence archive, twodot posted:

GVA began with the goal to provide a database of incidents of gun violence and gun crime. To that end we utilize automated queries, manual research through over 2,000 media sources, aggregates, police blotters, police media outlets and other sources daily. Each incident is verified by both initial researchers and secondary validation processes. Links to each incident are included in the incident report to provide further information on each incident for researchers, advocate groups, media and legislative interests. The incident reports provide a starting point for researchers, media and legislative interests to add texture to our raw data.

Rather than just collecting incidents of death, GVA also catalogs incidents where a victim was injured by shooting or by a victim who was the subject of an armed robber or home invader. Incidents of defensive gun use, home owners who stop a home invasion, store clerks who stop a robbery, individuals who stop an assault or rape with a gun are also collected. The overall goal is to provide information on most types of gun violence, and gun crime, no matter where it is on the political table. The two exceptions to the near real-time collection are suicides by gun which are collected quarterly and annually due to differing distribution methods by government agencies and armed robberies which are collected in aggregate with law enforcement quarterly and annual reports. They are a lagging index, rather than near real time.

quote:

Why are GVA Mass Shooting numbers higher than some other sources?

GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter. GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot.

In that, the criteria are simple…if four or more people are shot or killed in a single incident, not involving the shooter, that incident is categorized as a mass shooting based purely on that numerical threshold.

quote:

Does GVA use Crowdsourcing?

No, we have learned through experience that both Crowdsourcing and "internet bots" provide limited results and cause unreliable statistics. GVA has a dedicated, professional staff which sweeps law enforcement and media resources daily and logs incidents with up to 120 potential incident variables.

Suicides

Because of the way Law Enforcement and Coroners report suicides, they cannot be collected in near real time so they DO NOT appear on our Daily Summary Ledger. They ARE added to our End of Year totals in AGGREGATE when they become available.

quote:

Total Shot or Killed doesn't add up to Total Incident count

GVA collects over 100 variables on gun violence incidents. Some incidents have more than one person shot or killed [a few up to 100] and other incidents do not have injuries - such as negligent discharges, car jackings, domestic violence events, and other incidents where a gun was used improperly but did not injure...they are all documented in their incident reports.

Why GVA numbers differ from FBI and CDC.

GVA numbers are found through 2,000 LEO, government and media sources daily...our numbers are based on provable reported individual incidents. While CDC utilizes death certificates for gun deaths, they, and the FBI rely on a sampling of sources and extrapolate those numbers to provide aggregate totals that reflect the calculations within their methodologies.

twodot posted:

No, that's not right. A mass shooting doesn't imply anyone died. Further their 15,577 number openly ignores suicides for no reason.

I don't understand this analogy at all. In this analogy are cars exploding in a blazing inferno because a human being willed it through some mechanism and you want to regulate the mechanism that allows humans to will cars to explode in an inferno on ignition? (edit: and also that mechanism is also responsible for the other 99.7% of deaths through means other than blazing inferno on ignition, but the blazing inferno on ignition that happens 0.3% of the time is for some reason super important to you)

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:



Also important to note, that our country is unique in many of these numbers, for some absolutely impenetrable reason.

gently caress Whitey posted:

I've never felt safer than when a guy almost hit me with his car the other day and I said something and he got out and had a gun. I'm really glad that gun protected me.