|
QuarkJets posted:Hunting is a popular pastime in Hawaii, and by area it's a relatively large fraction of rural land compared to most other states, so gun ownership rates are relatively high. Plus the state has a higher-than-average rate of reclusive doomsday-prepper weirdos, and of course they're going to have guns. so the us should be generally more like hawaii, checks out
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 12:40
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
Sans the whole exploding with lava part.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
Hmm, so Hawaii has some of the countries strictest gun laws, but still has fairly high gun ownership. Seems to indicate that gun regulations aren't very effective at lowering gun ownership rates. This implies that if the goal is lower gun ownership, then it would be best to focus efforts on garnering support for at least replacing the 2nd amendment with something that can actually lower gun ownership rates, like allowing the federal government to regulate interstate gun sales and transfers.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Hmm, so Hawaii has some of the countries strictest gun laws, but still has fairly high gun ownership. Seems to indicate that gun regulations aren't very effective at lowering gun ownership rates. This implies that if the goal is lower gun ownership The goal is fewer people being shot.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
Actually the goal is taking the guns of all the Real Americans so we can install a Marxist Totalitarian Government with Sharia Law, like we did in Europe. e: though I mean, if as a side effect less people get shot then that's a nice bonus
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Hmm, so Hawaii has some of the countries strictest gun laws, but still has fairly high gun ownership. Seems to indicate that gun regulations aren't very effective at lowering gun ownership rates. This implies that if the goal is lower gun ownership, then it would be best to focus efforts on garnering support for at least replacing the 2nd amendment with something that can actually lower gun ownership rates, like allowing the federal government to regulate interstate gun sales and transfers. As made evident by Canada and Australia, you can have a fairly high gun ownership with few deaths if you just background check and keep crazy fuckers like DR from touching them.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 19:02
|
|
qkkl posted:Hmm, so Hawaii has some of the countries strictest gun laws, but still has fairly high gun ownership. Seems to indicate that gun regulations aren't very effective at lowering gun ownership rates. This implies that if the goal is lower gun ownership, then it would be best to focus efforts on garnering support for at least replacing the 2nd amendment with something that can actually lower gun ownership rates, like allowing the federal government to regulate interstate gun sales and transfers. Hawaii is unusual because there's a cottage industry of gun tourism from other countries with gun restrictions. People on vacation there from, e.g., Japan, will pay to fire a semiauto in an enclosed range. It got a string of coverage in 2014.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Hmm, so Hawaii has some of the countries strictest gun laws, but still has fairly high gun ownership. Seems to indicate that gun regulations aren't very effective at lowering gun ownership rates. This implies that if the goal is lower gun ownership, then it would be best to focus efforts on garnering support for at least replacing the 2nd amendment with something that can actually lower gun ownership rates, like allowing the federal government to regulate interstate gun sales and transfers. The goal of gun control is not to reduce gun ownership rates, it's to keep guns away from people who should definitely not have them and to restrict firearm capabilities. Hawaii's laws are effective at meeting those goals
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm looking at their dataset and methods you embarrassment, it can be found with the most perfunctory of searches. They're citing to sources from 2010 and 2013 for gun deaths (which, by the way, introduce nonindependence you don't control for in your chart, you absolute genius), and interstate transfers, and their source for laws was up to date at time of publication, and was accurately reflective of gun laws in that year. There was virtually no state-level change in that year, nor was there any anticipated. You'd be able to tell that if you read the freaking article, or their methods or their background, rather than googling "Brady scorecard" and copying values from the first result into excel! stone cold posted:i know you don’t care about any gun related deaths at all because having sex with your guns brings your gross rear end the only pleasure you still feel on this earth, but do you not care about the gun related deaths that aren’t homicides QuarkJets posted:Hypothetical: if you got your girlfriend pregnant the first time that you had sex with a condom, then based on your personal experience condoms are ineffective at preventing pregnancy. From your point of view, people calling for teens to wear condoms when they have sex are not only ignorant of how sex actually works but wear their ignorance as a badge of honor. Also, all the "data" you refer to is based on the idea that "firearms deaths" is a valid metric of public safety outcomes rather than overall homicide rate.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Also, all the "data" you refer to is based on the idea that "firearms deaths" is a valid metric of public safety outcomes rather than overall homicide rate. after all, people who are shot to death *this* way are considerably less dead, and as a result not a threat to public safety
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Except, in this case, the pro control side would be the folks insisting that access to contraception will promote promiscuity, rather than considering what motivates people to do things in the first place. You're missing the point: personal experience does not make for good policy or even really for a good worldview. If you happen to not like the taste of oranges that doesn't mean that no one likes the taste of oranges, this "my personal experience is what really matters" poo poo that Dead Reckoning tried to pedal is total nonsense and you should be ashamed for trying to defend something so profoundly idiotic. When you decrease the firearm homicide rate you also reduce the overall homicide rate. This has been shown over and over and over and over. The NRA argument that gun-users would just use knives or clubs or well-trained venomous snakes to murder people is bullshit in a majority of cases. Some violent crime transitions from guns to other weapons, but a lot of it does not because guns provide an ease-of-murder threshold that is unmatched by other weapons
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
my favorite dead reckoning idiot argument was when he insisted we couldn't compare murder statistics across countries - like, say, the US vs the UK vs Australia - because different countries might have different definitions of murder
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
What, do they consider cops shooting minorities for no reason murder or something? Crazy if true.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
my favorite dead reckoning argument is every single one because he doesn't realize he's defending a position he didn't reason himself into, so demanding people reason him out of it is absurd. DR, you started with the loving answer (Owning a gun is not bad, therefore) and that's why this is an endless loving debate. Don't distort evidence because you want to be a poo poo.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 22:22
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:comparing the Brady campaign's scores to murder rates is a valid way of measuring the effectiveness of gun control in improving public safety. This is false. Understand the multiple reasons why and then we can move on to mocking the other parts of your methodology of googling things and slamming them into charts without reading them.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think suicides are better handled by increased access to mental health services, rather than by the government trying to keep people from having the means to hurt themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:go go gadget mental health distraction! right? both would be good, but we're getting neither. for some odd reason.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think suicides are better handled by increased access to mental health services, rather than by the government trying to keep people from having the means to hurt themselves. Who gives a gently caress what you think? It turns out, this has been studied, and limiting the means reduces suicides.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
no wait but you see "flips to random page in an encyclopedia" it says here that guns are actually cool and good so clearly gun control wouldn't help anyone
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Elizabethan Error posted:go go gadget mental health distraction! love this dr tactic so much
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
*squats next to a huge bookcase full of reports and data showing that gun control works, takes a wet poo poo on some graph paper and begins smearing it around* Look at this, clearly gun control doesn't work!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
Pretty smart article... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/machiavellians-gulling-the-rubes/201805/what-the-texas-school-shooting-suspects-pins-tell-us We need to stop glamorizing these guys.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:Pretty smart article... That's a bogus argument, for it to work you need to globally censor all discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
time from implementation of this rule to the first "THE STORY THE LIBERAL MEDIA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR" article: over or under fifteen seconds
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:time from implementation of this rule to the first "THE STORY THE LIBERAL MEDIA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR" article: over or under fifteen seconds so fast it might violate laws of relativity
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:Pretty smart article... It's effectively impossible to stop what you're describing as glamorization; when a school shooting happens everyone wants to talk about it, and they want to learn the shooter's motivations, because gossip is something that humans have been doing for millenia. It's one of our most common, most natural behaviors. Yes, copycat criminals are real, but we live in a society of people who want to know juicy details and are willing to pay for them, and all it takes is 1 news organization favoring cash over principles for the entire scheme to fail. Maybe this could work, but probably not in modern capitalist society. So instead of fighting our basic instinct to talk to each other about things, perhaps we could focus on reducing the rate that these tragedies occur through other means. Naturally that would not only make copycat crimes more difficult to commit, but fewer people will want to commit them since the rate overall will have decreased. Perhaps we could pass laws that somehow restrict or perhaps control the most commonly used, deadliest weapons in these tragedies? e: fishmech used fewer words to say my first paragraph and he's right. People are too interested and there's so much money on the line so of course details are going to be published. The media has a small share of the blame, but not a significant share. We need other solutions. It seems like nearly every other Western nation managed to get their school shooting rate down to around 0/year without having to censor the media to get there, why don't we try some of those strategies? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 05:08 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
Like the very idea that you can just have The Media shut up about it and so people can't hear it... it's a very 1950s concept and it'd have barely been true then. Much less anytime since chatting online became something most people could do.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
I'll give credit where credit is due, "just censor the media" is much less dumb than the Dead Reckoning canned response of "none of the data points matter unless they agree with my personal experience", and marginally less dumb than the modern conservative responses to school shootings this week which included "schools have too many doors" and "high school girls need to start putting out more" (not referring to anyone in particular here) conservatives have run out of acceptable responses to school shootings so they're fishing around for literally anything and coming up with the most bizarre poo poo imaginable and it'd be funny if it wasn't at the expense of a bunch of dead children QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 05:25 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:Pretty smart article...  e: also that's a blog, not an article. it's just some dude quoting Dr Dietz and a bunch of words fellating him, hardly a credible source
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
gossip, more important than dead kids
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 07:11
|
|
|
banned from Starbucks posted:gossip, more important than dead kids no one is making that argument if you think that there's a simple way of ending humanity's urge to gossip about every little thing then by all means, explain it
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 11:09
|
|
|
Just because it would be difficult to improve how we cover these tragedies doesn't mean it's a waste of time to try. That's about as bad an argument as it's too hard to disarm the American citizenry so why bother trying. Obviously some countries are doing this better than us. Maybe the whole don't show his picture and don't show his last name on television news is a good start. I think we all can agree one of the factors in people wanting to cause these tragedies is being remembered and famous. Shouldn't we also work on that ? This won't solve the issue of mass shooters by itself. But trying to limit the notoriety of the suspect will help. Along with the more important legislation that needs to happen like background checks , safety course, waiting periods , free mental health support for the young and uninsured and stronger laws about having guns locked up properly in people's houses. patonthebach fucked around with this message at 11:54 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 11:50
|
|
|
A lot of the media has a policy of trying to not talk about the shooter's identity (in my country its also policy to leave out as many details as possible when they write about suicides), but that's still less effective than gun regulations.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 12:09
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:Just because it would be difficult to improve how we cover these tragedies doesn't mean it's a waste of time to try. Funny, we keep making the same argument about implementing gun control and your side doesn't seem to buy that reasoning when we use it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 13:22
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Funny, we keep making the same argument about implementing gun control and your side doesn't seem to buy that reasoning when we use it. Don’t virtually all the posters in this thread agree on better background checks and better healthcare etc? Stuff that will actually lower the rate of gun crime? And a few that don’t agree on total disarmament of the citizenry are seen as not giving an inch crazies, right ?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Don’t virtually all the posters in this thread agree on better background checks and better healthcare etc? Stuff that will actually lower the rate of gun crime? When phrased as "better checks" and "better healthcare" but that agreement evaporates them moment you start talking actual policy or in context of a proposal that includes a feature ban of their favorite unnecessary gadget because it is much better we do absolutely nothing than do something that goes an inch over their arbitrary and invisible line.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
DR is for better healthcare in theory when it's a good distraction after a mass shooting, but if you look at his D&D post history he is against every single actual proposal for better healthcare because it costs too much and we're taxed too much already and illegal immigrants might use it and the poor should just work harder and anyway we need to start spending 100% of the federal budget on military-industrial-complex grift (the industry he just so happens to work in) instead of only half of it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 15:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:DR is for better healthcare in theory when it's a good distraction after a mass shooting, but if you look at his D&D post history he is against every single actual proposal for better healthcare because it costs too much and we're taxed too much already and illegal immigrants might use it and the poor should just work harder and anyway we need to start spending 100% of the federal budget on military-industrial-complex grift (the industry he just so happens to work in) instead of only half of it. Also it is an overall distraction from the actual cultural issues that prevent effective utilization of mental healthcare even in the face of availability as well as the fact that it requires preventative approach to mental health that won't be effective for people who are being treated yet still attempt to off themselves or others during a downturn.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
"Better healthcare" as a gun control, loving lol Americans are a broken people
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:"Better healthcare" as a gun control, loving lol large amounts of us despise people like dead reckoning and other gun nuts 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 17:05
|
|