|
MixMastaTJ posted:Yes, but imagine if you had a gun. And the old lady behind you had a gun. And the car had a gun... 
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The point is that we could make a few simple changes to reduce the frequency or disastrous consequences of these events. Ban bump stocks. Restrict clip sizes and/or firing rates. Instead of making it easy to shoot a ton of people quickly, make it hard. No, everyone must buy more guns, because truly the gun salesman must make more profits for Democracy to work!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 13:38
|
|
|
Happy Monday everyone. So that shooting in California where 3 people got shot by a distressed person with a gun... wouldn't have been included in the mass shooting statistics we've been chewing on, since it falls short of the magic "4 dead or injured, excluding shooter." So no worries, twodot, hakmashou, Dead Reckoning, Liquid Communism - it doesn't count, right? twodot posted:I mean "need" implies a goal, absent a goal we don't need anything, society existed pre-cars. It's fine to argue that we are better off with cars, but the people who want guns will just say society is better off with guns, so this doesn't get you anywhere. No poo poo, need implies a goal. We can should talk about goals, aims for society, desired outcomes, ideologies. That's what I meant when I said we should talk philosophy first before we get lost in the statistical weeds. You thought that meant, I don't know, consulting Kant to see if trying to stop people from shooting kids was part of the categorical imperative Also, I didn't say "better off" - I said currently need. There's a difference and I'm tired of having to correct your lovely readings. As it happens, I think we are worse off for being a car-centric society, demonstrably so, but that doesn't change the current situation where they are effectively necessary for the majority of the participation in the economy. In life as we know it. Of course pro-gun folks will argue that society is better off. The problem is that their arguments are constructed of nonsense, fallacious arguments and magical thinking. twodot posted:"I know facts won't convince people to agree with me. I still think I can convince people to agree with me using things that aren't facts. No I can't describe the non-fact entities I will use to convince people to agree with me." Yes I see a problem. twodot posted:I've said this before in this very thread, "ban all guns" is a totally coherent position, and if you think that's the best way to improve people's lives then you do you. My only contention is that you were the one claiming there was some interesting philosophical discussion to be had, and now you're stuck making claims like "welp ban all guns, why should we discuss anything?" and calling people monsters or calculators. I haven't said anything about "the best way to improve people's lives." There is absolutely interesting discussion to be had here in non mathematical terms, we can talk about ideologies, value systems, rationale, reasoning, contradictions, first principles, all of which and more is useful to contextualize the numbers that come out of the statistics. A number is just a number, what you think we Should do about it is where we truly diverge. I do want to note though that focusing on, and causing debate to never ever leave, disagreements in statistical methodologies is a favorite tool of the pro-gun side, because they don't need to persuade or do anything constructive, they just need to poo poo in the pool long enough that we all get frustrated and distracted by life. twodot posted:Ok so you're just totally dropping your earlier "I do not understand proxies" position or what? I understand proxy variables just fine, my point is that there can be more than "n number of dead per [time unit]" and "net spend per life saved" that goes into the moral calculus of deciding whether or not we accept school shootings as a facet of society. This is like, the millionth time I've rephrased that to you. That's rhetorical, just in case you saw the number "million" and got excited.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Yes, but imagine if you had a gun. And the old lady behind you had a gun. And the car had a gun... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
It's going to be fuckin hilarious when the court strikes down the age requirement in FL's new law and all we're left with is "Make schools more like prisons." Except prisons don't allow guns inside the wire because it's a terrible idea. Beep boop reasonable gun control wins again. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Mar 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:It's going to be fuckin hilarious when the court strikes down the age requirement in FL's new law and all we're left with is "Make schools more like prisons." Except prisons don't allow guns inside the wire because it's a terrible idea. I agree that the NRA are monsters
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I agree that the NRA are monsters
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I agree that the NRA are monsters Yes, it is definitely the NRA's fault that the Florida legislature passed a bill that may not hold up to judicial scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:Happy Monday everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Yes, it is definitely the NRA's fault that the Florida legislature passed a bill that may not hold up to judicial scrutiny.  twodot posted:It literally doesn't. You're the one who literally made up a category that accounts for <1% of gun deaths, and then said "Oh no! This category that we artificially defined that accounts for <1% of gun deaths is very bad!" You can't make up a category, and then point out that events that don't belong in that category exist as though it's someone else's fault. There's a limited number of positive numbers under 4. If we called a mass shooting anytime 3 people were injured by a shooter would you be making the same post when two people were injured? One? What does your heart say? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCC_b5WHLX0
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Yes, it is definitely the NRA's fault that the Florida legislature passed a bill that may not hold up to judicial scrutiny. Pretty much, yeah
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:It literally doesn't. You're the one who literally made up a category that accounts for <1% of gun deaths, and then said "Oh no! This category that we artificially defined that accounts for <1% of gun deaths is very bad!" You can't make up a category, and then point out that events that don't belong in that category exist as though it's someone else's fault. There's a limited number of positive numbers under 4. If we called a mass shooting anytime 3 people were injured by a shooter would you be making the same post when two people were injured? One? Let me simplify this for you, to prevent you from freaking the gently caress out about numbers in the future: ALL GUN DEATHS ARE BAD Actually, all deaths are bad, but considering we're in the gunchat thread, we're primarily focused on gun deaths, meaning deaths that resulted due to a gun being fired. This includes suicides, accidents, intentional murders, etc. Every single time a gun was fired and a dead person resulted from it, that is a bad thing. Fake Edit: Can't wait for the response of "but what about when a bad guy is killed with a gun?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Let me simplify this for you, to prevent you from freaking the gently caress out about numbers in the future:
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:I agree. Why are we spending any amount of effort focusing on a category that accounts for <1% of gun deaths, the thing we both agree is bad? (a bad guy being killed with a gun still represents a failure of society in creating a situation where a bad guy was killed with a gun) 437 dead from "mass shootings" / 15,577 total "gun related deaths" is closer to 3 percent for 2017.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:437 dead from "mass shootings" / 15,577 total "gun related deaths" is closer to 3 percent for 2017.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:So do you think suicides don't exist or what? (I realize suicides gets you up to 1.2%, but 1) Your numbers are bullshit you couldn't even bother to explain and you're still loving up and 2) If you want to quibble about 0.2% I'll edit my posts to say <1.2% if you want) What really is a "death" anyway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:What really is a "death" anyway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
We were talking about mass shootings because we were making the point that zero per year is the acceptable number. In other words, at any quantity, it's worth doing something about, even if it's numerically a small fraction of total cause of death. Mass shootings alone make gun control worth it. Of course, add in accidents and all other gun related deaths, and the case for strict gun control gets even stronger. I also think that it would probably reduce the net number of suicides, but deciding to take your own life is a fundamentally different discussion. That was never the question, though. I was just wondering why you are able to look at mass shootings and go "meh, not worth it." I think I've been pretty clear about that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:I also think that it would probably reduce the net number of suicides, but deciding to take your own life is a fundamentally different discussion. you dont have to think, the data supports fewer guns reducing total suicides prolly because it's so easy to just have a one second lapse in judgement and eat a gun
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:I agree. Why are we spending any amount of effort focusing on a category that accounts for <1% of gun deaths, the thing we both agree is bad? (a bad guy being killed with a gun still represents a failure of society in creating a situation where a bad guy was killed with a gun) right, we should ban all guns A Good Take
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Don't forget all of the animals that die from guns every year! Oh look now the mass shootings death rate is even lower wow what a coincidence
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
If you want to focus on gun suicides then just say that, a lot of the changes that would reduce the gun suicide rate would reduce the mass shooting rate also so that's great Some changes would only change the mass shooting rate and we should absolutely try to do that even if it's a small fraction of overall deaths.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The point is that we could make a few simple changes to reduce the frequency or disastrous consequences of these events. Ban bump stocks. Restrict clip sizes and/or firing rates. Instead of making it easy to shoot a ton of people quickly, make it hard. r.y.f.s.o. posted:That was never the question, though. I was just wondering why you are able to look at mass shootings and go "meh, not worth it." I think I've been pretty clear about that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I still don't understand this. Putting aside the mass shootings that have been carried out with restricted-capacity magazines and non-"assault weapons", would you consider 17 people being killed in a serious mass shooting instead of 50 to be a sufficient outcome? Would you consider that end state an acceptable state of affairs and not want further restriction? Why should someone not already in favor of gun control support your idea? Why would someone in favor of gun control support your idea over banning all guns (except for those held by the wealthy, and their guards, and the police)? Undeniably, it would be a better outcome to have fewer people killed in a mass shooting. Obviously the goal is to get that down to 0, but if simply banning bump stocks eliminated half of all mass shooting deaths (we're both making up numbers here) then of course we should do that despite it not eliminating all mass shooting deaths. And the mounting evidence suggests that simply making it more difficult to kill a lot of people at once reduces the frequency of mass shootings, so instead of 50 people being killed the maximum likelihood shifts toward 0 by simply making it more difficult to kill groups of people. I don't know of any cause of death that's decidedly "meh, not worth it" when it comes to prevention. Obviously it's still important to convince people to reduce their consumption of alcohol, to eat better, to driver safer, etc. even when we're talking about less likely causes of death. But there's also the matter of infliction; when it comes to their own habits people are more willing to tolerate risks than when it comes to the habits of So while an alcoholic is more likely to die from complications related to alcohol consumption than in a mass shooting, they're still going to place greater concern on mass shootings because they can choose to stop drinking but they don't get to choose whether to be shot. This is an important consideration and it's why smoking in public is usually relegated to specific areas away from building entrances, for instance, but eating fatty foods doesn't receive the same level of scrutiny (e.g. your choice to eat KFC isn't going to kill someone else)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
Are you suggesting the 10,000 people a year that die in drunk driving accidents made a choice to take on that risk?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 02:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:Are you suggesting the 10,000 people a year that die in drunk driving accidents made a choice to take on that risk? have u considered bringing up a relevant point instead of being a moron
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:Are you suggesting the 10,000 people a year that die in drunk driving accidents made a choice to take on that risk? Obviously not, and your feeble attempt at trolling only further illustrates my point. The fact that drunk driving kills thousands is why we socially stigmatize driving while inebriated, implement laws that restrict where/when you can purchase/possess/consume alcohol, etc. Drunk driving was at one point a much larger problem and we decided to do something about it because of how it turns people into victims despite people being killed by drunk drivers only composing small fraction of all fatalities, further illustrating why it's stupid for you to say "oh but what about unrelated thing X killing even more people shouldn't we focus on that instead of guns?" People care much more about risks that they can't already control and that's totally reasonable e: Like you understand that not all alcohol-related deaths are specifically drunk driving related, right? That is why we stigmatize drunk driving but not drinking despite drinking killing an order of magnitude more people yearly! QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Mar 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 06:04
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Obviously not, and that only serves my point. The fact that drunk driving kills thousands is why we socially stigmatize driving while inebriated, implement laws that restrict where/when you can purchase/possess/consume alcohol, etc. Drunk driving was at one point a much larger problem and we decided to do something about it because of how it turns people into victims despite drunk driving deaths being only some small fraction of all fatalities, further illustrating why it's stupid for you to say "oh but what about unrelated thing X killing even more people shouldn't we focus on that instead of guns?" quote:Like you understand that not all alcohol-related deaths are specifically drunk driving related, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, we decided to do something about it, and after deciding to do something about, it's still a problem 20x bigger than mass shootings. And now in 2018, basically no one is arguing for federal regulations about alcohol. The federal government implemented various carrots to get states to implement changes that would reduce drunk driving fatalities. In other words, we decided to do something about the high drunk driving rate and managed to significantly reduce it. That's a win! That's what we need to do with guns!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The federal government implemented various carrots to get states to implement changes that would reduce drunk driving fatalities. In other words, we decided to do something about the high drunk driving rate and managed to significantly reduce it. That's a win! That's what we need to do with guns!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 06:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yeah we did that, and even after doing that drunk driving is still causes 20x more deaths than mass shootings. What does that tell you about how society cares about people dying? Society cares about risk. People have a sense of control when they're behind the wheel, and they can consciously reduce their risk of getting in a drunk driving accident to some extent (such as by not drinking and driving, practicing defensive driving, etc). But how do you reduce your risk of being involved in a mass shooting? Don't go to school? Go live in the mountains?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 06:25
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Society cares about risk. People have a sense of control when they're behind the wheel, and they can consciously reduce their risk of getting in a drunk driving accident to some extent. But how do you reduce your risk of being involved in a mass shooting? Don't go to school? Go live in the mountains? edit: Maybe you walk around outside with super huge rubber bumpers that prevent a car from damaging you? Most people don't do that. edit2: Like the very fact that 20x more people are killed by drunk drivers than mass shooters should tell you something about the ability to avoid those fates. No one wants to be a victim of either, yet victims of drunk drivers are 20x more prevalent than victims of mass shooters. It's almost by definition harder to mitigate. twodot fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Mar 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:What? This is totally absurd. There's no way to mitigate the risk of a drunk rear end in a top hat t-boning me other than "don't go outside". Defensive driving mitigates that risk. You have a greater degree of control in that situation than a children sitting at their desk in a classroom. Don't be intentionally obtuse just for the hell of it People feel like they're in control of their vehicle but they don't feel like they can dodge bullets, I'm sorry that this is hard for you to comprehend twodot posted:edit2: It doesn't, though. Drunk driving accidents are more likely to occur than mass shootings but that doesn't mean that people are magically better at preventing mass shootings, like you're suggesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:What? This is totally absurd. There's no way to mitigate the risk of a drunk rear end in a top hat t-boning me other than "don't go outside". "No way to prevent this" says only nation etc
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yeah we did that, and even after doing that drunk driving is still causing 20x more deaths than mass shootings. What does that tell you about how society cares about people dying? Weird because the NTSB actually has been recommending and pushing for states to lower the BAC level from .08 to .05. Other activist groups also are pushing for this and I would be surprised if there are no congress critters who would like to implement it. Say nothing for the state level groups. Your objection is premised on two false hoods 1) that no one is calling for increased action on DUI stuff 2) that we can only focus on one thing at a time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 08:23
|
|
|
twodot: "why are you requiring lighting rods on buildings, dont you know that lightning strikes are rare. And look how many people die from drunk driving yet alcohol is still legal, obviously our society doesn't "care about" death so stop enforcing safety codes immediately! "
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 13:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I still don't understand this. Putting aside the mass shootings that have been carried out with restricted-capacity magazines and non-"assault weapons", would you consider 17 people being killed in a serious mass shooting instead of 50 to be a sufficient outcome? Would you consider that end state an acceptable state of affairs and not want further restriction? Why should someone not already in favor of gun control support your idea? Check it out: the recent push for gun control wasn't prompted by tweed-wearing university professors who hate you personally for your huge penis. It's been driven by public outrage over the ease with which mass shootings can be accomplished, and the outrage has become so great that public opinion over gun control swung 20 points in just a couple years and even Republicans have started voting for gun control (the only comparable public opinion swing in such a short time was the one over gay marriage, and you saw who was on the losing side of that). If you support reforms that protect your ability to own guns and also reduce the rate of mass shootings, then public outrage will diminish and there will be no will to fight the NRA for even more laws. On the other hand, if gun lovers keep throwing out the same sociopathic "slight inconveniences to me > lives of others" arguments then mass shootings will continue, public outrage will increase, opinion will swing harder against you, and eventually the generation of kids who are growing up being hunted in their schools and movie theaters are going to start getting political power and you will have less leverage then to affect what laws are passed than you do now. If appeals to human decency don't sway you, consider that this supreme court and this moment in history is likely the apex of gun nut power and political influence, and this influence can and will recede and eventually we'll have the same national mood that passed the NFA. So would you rather dictate the laws now when your agreement is essentially required and head off future mass shootings (and therefore future public outrage and future laws), or would you rather wait until the Parkland kids' generation is running the show and they don't have to care what you think (and oh yeah they've had another 20 years of watching their friends and younger siblings needlessly die because people like you enable it.) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Mar 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 14:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:consider that this supreme court and this moment in history is likely the apex of gun nut power and political influence, and this influence can and will recede and eventually we'll have the same national mood that passed the NFA. Inshallah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Defensive driving mitigates that risk. You have a greater degree of control in that situation than a children sitting at their desk in a classroom. Don't be intentionally obtuse just for the hell of it quote:People feel like they're in control of their vehicle but they don't feel like they can dodge bullets, I'm sorry that this is hard for you to comprehend quote:It doesn't, though. Drunk driving accidents are more likely to occur than mass shootings but that doesn't mean that people are magically better at preventing mass shootings, like you're suggesting. Flowers For Algeria posted:"No way to prevent this" says only nation etc
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
Twodot, if you would like to talk about drunk driving, maybe start a different thread for that. This thread is about guns. Please stop trying to shift the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 16:10
|
|