|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:The dickey amendment stops them from using any of the majority of their money for "promoting gun control" which it turna out is a really broad thing that includes doing research I'm fully aware of the Dickey Amendment, which is addressed in my link if you'd taken the time to actually read it. Other federal agencies also track firearms injuries, and the CDC's results just looking at the data are often at odds with these other sources when you look at gun violence. Furthermore, one measure the CDC uses on its own data is effectively a measure of how much they trust their data (conveniently called a "confidence interval"). There is only one data set they are less confident in than firearms injuries, which is drowning - conveniently, that's the only other data set they produce that is also at odds with other data sources tracking injuries at the federal level within the US government. The original statement I responded to was explicitly "allow the CDC to track gun control" which they already do, and the point is that they're bad at it, and they know it. They are not hamstrung from tracking the data - they are hamstrung from advocating policy positions (which really means researching the data and reaching conclusions from said research), which is a different argument entirely.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:56 |
|
|
I think it's funny that Republicans think people care what the CDC says. I mean idiots won't even vaccinate their kids. The CDC could be like "We discovered all guns are possessed by a devil that causes 100% of crimes" and nobody would change their mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I think it's funny that Republicans think people care what the CDC says. I mean idiots won't even vaccinate their kids. The CDC could be like "We discovered all guns are possessed by a devil that causes 100% of crimes" and nobody would change their mind. It's almost as if most people are largely or completely decided on specific issues and will decide on their sources based on which ones most agree with their stance, all but rendering discussion of said issues pointless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:It's almost as if most people are largely or completely decided on specific issues and will decide on their sources based on which ones most agree with their stance, all but rendering discussion of said issues pointless. true, but it is funny to watch the pro-gun cops go silent when someone questions their right to summarily execute people for having the wrong amount of melanin while holding a toy
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:true, but it is funny to watch the pro-gun cops go silent when someone questions their right to summarily execute people for having the wrong amount of melanin while holding a toy I enjoy the "What, do you want cops to potentially risk their life rather than executing people" responses, as if that's not an insane obviously answered question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Don't you realize how incredible hosed up it is to have three mass shootings in one year? And you incredible broken one must be to say that that's positive? BENGHAZI 2 posted:Christ I love to be a pedanric shithead about how actually this group of people being shot to death doesn't count towards a list of people who were shot to death, really blackens the twisted husk that remains of my soul BENGHAZI 2 posted:drat, only one every other month according to this one website that I definitely didn't cherry pick because it's criteria are better for me, that's not firghteningly common at all when compared to the rest of the world BENGHAZI 2 posted:Also he's a liar, they don't use three or more deaths Mother Jones literally in the article posted:Dating back to at least 2005, the FBI and leading criminologists essentially defined a mass shooting as a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed. We adopted that baseline for fatalities when we gathered data in 2012 on three decades worth of cases... In January 2013, a mandate for federal investigation of mass shootings authorized by President Barack Obama lowered that baseline to three or more victims killed. Accordingly, we include attacks dating from January 2013 in which three or more victims were killed. Our original analysis, which covers cases from 1982-2012 with four or more victims killed, follows below.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 01:16
|
|
|
Nah not really. You're still arguing that multiple people being shot doesn't matter unless an arbitrary number of them die, because you don't want to lose your bang bang toys. It's a garbage criteria, and you're only using that list because it being mother Jones gives you a fig lead to hide behind because mother Jones isn't run by gunfuckers like you. Eat poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I mean, I don't think mass shootings are a good thing, but I also don't think anything that kills, on average, less than 100 people nationwide per year (at least according to the MoJo database) is worth curtailing everyone's rights over. Nice rhetorical trick of using the phrase "curtailing everyone's rights" as a much scarier way of saying "implementing some gun control"  WampaLord posted:And yet we have mass shooting events on a regular basis and they don't. And they are uniquely horrifying, they leave a collective scar on the psyche of the nation, and now the next generation is at an all time high level of fear of being killed in school (proven with data earlier itt) despite the beep boop statistical chances of them being shot being low. "Eh, not worth it, my ~rights to own a shooty toy~ are too important!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I mean, I don't think mass shootings are a good thing, but I also don't think anything that kills, on average, less than 100 people nationwide per year (at least according to the MoJo database) is worth curtailing everyone's rights over. How many would need to die to justify "curtailing everyone's rights" Just asking if you had an actual number you wanted to commit to or if this is a weak justification
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:How many would need to die to justify "curtailing everyone's rights" I don't have an exact number in mind, but I know it's at least 88,000. That's how many excess deaths the CDC estimates are caused by alcohol each year. Alcohol has absolutely no redeeming social value, but we tolerate it in spite of its staggering cost to society. I don't think one can coherently be in favor of both strong gun control and legal consumption of alcohol, if your objection is from a public health standpoint. What's your number? Would you have everyone give up the right to vote, or free speech, if it saved a million lives a year?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Nice rhetorical trick of using the phrase "curtailing everyone's rights" as a much scarier way of saying "implementing some gun control" The whole "you guys are so immature just trying to keep your murder toys" argument is so boring. There are tons and tons of vices or toys that we permit in a society that kill innocent people on a regular basis. Why do we continue to allow backyard pools when that kills dozens of kids each year? Why don't we have ignition interlock installed in each new car made when we know how many innocent people die from drinking and driving? Why are we still allowed to sell cigarettes when we understand how many people die of second hand smoke? The answer to all of those is as a society, we permit some risk for peoples vices/hobbies/interests. What is the point where the risk outweighs the public interest? I think we should be able to have pools. Maybe we shouldn't be allowed to sell cigarettes anymore. Maybe we should start to install breathalyzers in each new car. Maybe we should stop selling semi-auto rifles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't have an exact number in mind, but I know it's at least 88,000. That's how many excess deaths the CDC estimates are caused by alcohol each year. Alcohol has absolutely no redeeming social value, but we tolerate it in spite of its staggering cost to society. I don't think one can coherently be in favor of both strong gun control and legal consumption of alcohol, if your objection is from a public health standpoint. I mean we limit it to those over the age of 21, arrest you if using it unsafely (DUIs) and empower sellers to cut people off, so you're down for like 25% of that, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Alcohol has absolutely no redeeming social value Tastes good is fun. Deaths are byproduct of other issues to solve (capitalism/car culture/guns). Like a drunk, America cannot be trusted with guns and heavy machinery. Alcohol is a recreational intoxicant. We regulate it with restrictions on what you can do under it's influence. Your shooty toys are recreational murder weapons and should be regulated as such. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Apr 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Tastes good is fun. The reason for alcohol to be legal is that we tried banning it and everything got worse. If you could make it all disappear from the Earth tomorrow it would be a massive social good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
But freedom of speech is regulated in order to save lives. You're not allow to threaten someone for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 10:30
|
|
|
As much as the proliferation of weapons is a public health disaster in its own right, I'm not really sure that's the ideal avenue of attack. As has been pointed out, contextualised with other major public health issues, guns are only a middling priority even in the US. In general, as part of the social contract, citizens give up the use of force against others to the state. The issue with guns is that they serve no real purpose, yet give individual citizens the power of life and death over complete strangers to what should be (and is considered in most the world) an unreasonable extent in a safe, developed society. It really is a classic case of 'ARE FREEDOMS', and most people feel that the underlying justification for allowing an armed citizenry is pretty thin, and in the case of the US, hinging on something wholly archaic. Pro-gun people can spend all day shooting down statistical arguments and throwing out what-about-isms, but it doesn't change that the fact that really the only reasons people want guns are as cool toys and the fear of other people with guns, both of which are pretty horrible arguments against gun control measures.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 12:34
|
|
|
Jeza posted:As much as the proliferation of weapons is a public health disaster in its own right, I'm not really sure that's the ideal avenue of attack. As has been pointed out, contextualised with other major public health issues, guns are only a middling priority even in the US. Apart from hunting, "cool toys" is the only valid reason to have guns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 12:40
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Ah yes the great social value of "is fun" This is so loving weird. You and DR should start a neo-prohibition thread. It'd be interesting!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
My position is that while I'd like to see some form of gun control laws, I do not trust the policing system that disproportionately extra-judicially murders black people not to cynically use it as another vector of justification for systemic oppression, like they did and still do with the War on Drugs. I don't know if good solutions can ever work unless the police as they currently exist are abolished.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
Here is an interesting thought experiment. Consider a gun with a special attachment around the trigger so that when you throw the gun, as soon as it hits the ground it fires. Now modify the gun so the front of the barrel is sealed with metal, so it explodes when fired. It would still be a gun, just a very bad one. Now make the barrel really short and thick, and make the bullet consist of almost all powder and almost no metal. Now you basically have a grenade. Now make it as heavy as the heaviest legal gun. Now it's a bomb. Should civilians be as free to possess big bombs as they do guns? Completely unlicensed and unregistered? If the answer is "no", then why so? Why are big bombs not allowed, but guns are? It's fun to throw big bombs into lakes and watch them explode and make big waves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 14:01
|
|
|
I want whatever this guy is smoking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Here is an interesting thought experiment. Consider a gun with a special attachment around the trigger so that when you throw the gun, as soon as it hits the ground it fires. Now modify the gun so the front of the barrel is sealed with metal, so it explodes when fired. It would still be a gun, just a very bad one. Now make the barrel really short and thick, and make the bullet consist of almost all powder and almost no metal. Now you basically have a grenade. Now make it as heavy as the heaviest legal gun. Now it's a bomb. imo as long as a reasonable level of public safety can be maintained (ie background check, mandatory explosives handling course) you should be allowed to blow up your old lovely computer on an explosive licensed range (which may or may not be a sufficiently large fenced in part of your own land) instead of just putting bullets into it, because oh boy gently caress that thing i want it gone from this earth
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 14:13
|
|
|
zapplez posted:The whole "you guys are so immature just trying to keep your murder toys" argument is so boring. There are tons and tons of vices or toys that we permit in a society that kill innocent people on a regular basis. Why do we continue to allow backyard pools when that kills dozens of kids each year? Why don't we have ignition interlock installed in each new car made when we know how many innocent people die from drinking and driving? Why are we still allowed to sell cigarettes when we understand how many people die of second hand smoke? Backyard pools aren't designed to hurl a bullet at such speed that it destroys whatever it hits Cars aren't designed to hurl a bullet at such speed that it destroys whatever it hits Cigarettes aren't designed to hurl a bullet at such speed that it destroys whatever it hits Guns are uniquely risky because they are designed to hurl a bullet at such speed that it destroys whatever it hits, thus making them excellent murder tools. We should regulate the gently caress out of these murder tools just like we regulate all of the examples you provided. In before DR says "well my guns haven't murdered anyone, so I don't see the problem"  Zapplez, maybe it's time to log onto your alt to agree with yourself, this is pathetic arguing in defense of your murder toys. Rent-A-Cop posted:I want whatever this guy is smoking. It is absolutely amazing how many people fall for this idiot every time, he's either a troll or a moron and it's hard to tell the difference, but either way he almost never posts anything worthwhile and oftentimes posts extremely horrifying poo poo like: qkkl posted:If cops have to fire the second shot then they better be either behind a bullet-proof barrier or wearing full body armor, including those Spetznas-style helmets. The issue here is simply racism, that the life of an African-American male is not worth the cost of equipping cops with the gear they need to safely diffuse these kinds of situations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 14:13
|
|
|
Blowing poo poo up is indeed the ultimate form of human expression. Very few things in life soothe the soul like a really satisfying explosion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 14:15
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Blowing poo poo up is indeed the ultimate form of human expression. Very few things in life soothe the soul like a really satisfying explosion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7ssUivM-eM
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:imo as long as a reasonable level of public safety can be maintained (ie background check, mandatory explosives handling course) you should be allowed to blow up your old lovely computer on an explosive licensed range (which may or may not be a sufficiently large fenced in part of your own land) instead of just putting bullets into it, because oh boy gently caress that thing i want it gone from this earth Should you be allowed to keep bombs in your home (after a background check, licensing, and completing all mandatory handling courses)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Backyard pools aren't designed to hurl a bullet at such speed that it destroys whatever it hits Jesus christ, call me out in the thunderdome or fyad or whatever if you want to talk about my banned alt some more. I'd rather argue about the actual threads contents. You are being incredibly semantic if you can't understand the parallel between two different recreational activities that kill innocent people in large quantities each year. And no joke, we should actually ban the sale of cigarettes. Pools on the other hand I think are worth it, even with the deaths, to have that freedom. How many lives would be saved if we banned civilian ownership of guns? Would it be 11,000 a year? Or just 1000 a year? We don't know. Is it worth it for that? Maybe. Its probably achievable in our lifetime to ban "assault rifles", but its only 3% of firearm homicidies. The large majority are fromh handguns, but those are inshrined in law . Since the supreme court ruled the 2A protects owning firearms for self defence, so I don't know how you would ever get a ban done on handguns anyways. vincentpricesboner fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Apr 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Jesus christ, call me out in the thunderdome or fyad or whatever if you want to talk about my banned alt some more. I'd rather argue about the actual threads contents. You drop the dumb arguments about anything that isn't gun control and I'll stop bringing up your banned alt, deal? This isn't a thread about cigarettes or pools. It is about guns. I'm sick of doing this same disingenuous dance with every gun nut where we have to go through all the same arguments over and over again. This ain't my first rodeo. zapplez posted:How many lives would be saved if we banned civilian ownership of guns? Would it be 11,000 a year? Or just 1000 a year? We don't know. Is it worth it for that? Maybe. YES IT IS WORTH IT "maybe" lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
In actual gun legislation news, the bump stock thing happened and everyone already forgot about it. Number of cold dead hands so far: 0
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't have an exact number in mind, but I know it's at least 88,000. That's how many excess deaths the CDC estimates are caused by alcohol each year. Alcohol has absolutely no redeeming social value, but we tolerate it in spite of its staggering cost to society. I don't think one can coherently be in favor of both strong gun control and legal consumption of alcohol, if your objection is from a public health standpoint. States and counties are allowed to ban alcohol if they want and some counties still do. They're also allowed to regulate it however they want which is why states have laws that allow them to prosecute the seller if they serve someone alcohol and that person goes out and kills someone. I'm not sure this is the comparison you want to make. But if it is, sure I'm down put that poo poo in the Constitution quote:Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Apr 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:I mean we limit it to those over the age of 21, arrest you if using it unsafely (DUIs) and empower sellers to cut people off, so you're down for like 25% of that, yeah? Rent-A-Cop posted:The reason for alcohol to be legal is that we tried banning it and everything got worse. If you could make it all disappear from the Earth tomorrow it would be a massive social good. Alhazred posted:But freedom of speech is regulated in order to save lives. You're not allow to threaten someone for example. suck my woke dick posted:Apart from hunting, "cool toys" is the only valid reason to have guns. qkkl posted:Here is an interesting thought experiment. Consider a gun with a special attachment around the trigger so that when you throw the gun, as soon as it hits the ground it fires. Now modify the gun so the front of the barrel is sealed with metal, so it explodes when fired. It would still be a gun, just a very bad one. Now make the barrel really short and thick, and make the bullet consist of almost all powder and almost no metal. Now you basically have a grenade. Now make it as heavy as the heaviest legal gun. Now it's a bomb. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Apr 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm not sure I understand your question. You have to be 21 to buy a handgun, and most unsafe things you might do with a gun are already covered by various criminal statutes. There isn't a specific dram shop law for gun stores, but OTOH the cashier at the grocery store doesn't make a phone call to the FBI every time I buy a six pack to make sure I'm allowed to have it, so let's call that a wash. If congress wanted to raise the age to buy semiautomatic center fire rifles to 21, I wouldn't get too bent out of shape. How about defining a gun stored outside a gun safe as unsafe use Because, ya know, ...it is "Guns are inert, bombs are not inert" lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:In actual gun legislation news, the bump stock thing happened and everyone already forgot about it. We knew gun nuts are cowards. That's why they own guns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
Self-defense is not a human right without restrictions, and restrictions are placed on what constitutes reasonable self-defense and the means by which you can apply it. The 'need' to carry a gun for self-defense is completely circular, because the only situation where that could be necessary would be when you're at risk from other citizens with guns. It is literally a self-propagating and artificial arms race. Not only that, but an armed citizenry necessitates an armed and aggressive police force that liberally applies use of force.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Guns are inert. Bombs are not inert and are inherently hazardous. If someone's home burns down with their gun collection and ammunition in it, it generally doesn't pose a hazard to people in the vicinity. If a fireworks factory or bomb storage area catches fire, it poses an inherent hazard, which justifies a higher level of regulation in transport and storage. So if a perfect bomb storage solution were invented that completely eliminated all accidental hazards with 100% certainty, you'd be okay with people having arsenals of OKC-attack level of explosives?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Self-defense is not a human right But the supreme court ruled that it is. See Columbia v Heller. Thats why you can't ban handguns outright, even on a state level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
The supreme court also ruled that owning people was a human right
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:We knew gun nuts are cowards. That's why they own guns. Which we already knew.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
zapplez posted:But the supreme court ruled that it is. See Columbia v Heller. Thats why you can't ban handguns outright, even on a state level. Why just copy and paste the first half of the sentence when it only makes sense in the context of the words that come after it? Literally, it says in what I wrote that self-defense is a right, but with restrictions. Yes, in America keeping a gun for the purposes of self-defense is a right protected under the Constitution. Believe it or not, that doesn't say much in particular about the right of self-defense, just on the legality of owning firearms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:56 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The supreme court also ruled that owning people was a human right  You are right though, holy gently caress was the supreme court filled with garbage people 150 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:29
|
|