|
Dead Reckoning posted:LOL, you complain about questionable research then post that nonsense, which still uses the "GUN DEATHS" slight-of-hand to lump in suicides. Here's what that data actually looks like if you're honest and use gun laws vs overall homicide rate instead of firearm homicides plus accidents plus suicides to puff up your numbers: this scatterplot doesn't tell you that. it doesn't tell you anything, really, except that somebody ran two variables through the grinder and called it a day. comparing brady scores with homicide rates in this manner is such an obviously dumb idea that any first year statistics student could tell you that this is meaningless. brady scores could be high because the gun control laws are the results of a high homicide rate, or low because the state in question is mostly empty land and doesn't have a crime rate that would call for gun control laws. you would also want to look at the rate of change after gun control laws have been passed, rather than looking at one instant in time. the focus on homicides but not accidents and suicides is also nonsensical.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
khwarezm posted:Holy moley, could someone explain this? Why did it rocket downwards in the 30s, then explode back up in the 60s? A period of unbridled economic prosperity with a strong middle class that got gutted when rich people decided they wanted all of the money instead of just most of it
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Wakko posted:It doesn't need to be affirmed as perfect and unyielding truth, it just needs to be acknowledged as the limits to an otherwise maximalist political strategy. Acknowledge a right to individual and collective self-defense and there's room for broad agreement on limiting access to guns for those who are at high-risk of using them in a way that's dangerous to society.  1) It turns out beneath the thin veneer of civilisation everywhere on Earth is just 2) Because the US is not taking that poo poo seriously. The only just war is total war etc., so the US should get on with it and carpet-nuke every underdeveloped desert shithole on the planet that even a single VitalSigns posted:Let's just take this argument to its logical conclusion and repeal laws against murder because a corpse has the same chemical composition as a living human so is anything really lost when you shoot someone. I fully support this line of reasoning, death is certain, kill all humans, etc. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Feb 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 23:41
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
While I support more gun control, I don't think much of it will stick until we alter or eliminate the second amendment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
Personally, I was just hoping to see a mature discussion on reasonable compromise leading to something actionable, rather than the same tired platitudes that both sides have learned to either cherry-pick or tune out. Tiered Licensing is the obvious middle-ground. Personally, Id like to see something along the lines of: Class I: Universal access. Requires only a background check (no violent felonies) and a basic mental health exam. Small caliber handguns - .22s or under. (Low lethality) Bolt-action rifles .308 or under. (Effective against targets, deer, and the British). Pump-action shotguns 20+ gauge, small capacity. Crossbows Class II: Qualified access analogous to a drivers license. Take a few safety and maintenance classes, pass a marksmanship exam. Could probably be packaged together with the classes you already have to take for hunting licenses in most states. Bolt-action rifles .45 or under. Pump-action shotguns all gauges. Class III: Specialist access analogous to a motorcycle license. Have to take an extended series of classes for that exact weapon type. Length/qualification bars can be varied per-weapon. Much more intensive mental health exam and background check. Semi-automatic rifles (AR-15) Medium caliber handguns your typical 9mm or .45. No high-capacity or fire-rate modifications. Still no grenades. Class IV: Restricted access. An insane amount of qualification, requiring you to be a hobbyist, instructor, or ex-military/cop. Automatic actions. Suppressors. Bump Stocks. The BIG rifles. Unfortunately, this kind of idea has been kicked around before and was shot down by both the NRA* and gun control interests alike. The former for having any regulations, and the latter for having any guns (and just not knowing what calibers/parts actually make guns more dangerous). Once you have an initial compromise, you can fine-tune/tweak regulations to be more restrictive or lenient as needed I believe we call this process an AMMENDMENT.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Personally, I was just hoping to see a mature discussion on reasonable compromise leading to something actionable, rather than the same tired platitudes that both sides have learned to either cherry-pick or tune out. Yeah this is actually a good proposal. I'd probably fold some of I into II except for the comically-useless-as-an-actual-weapon stuff like crossbows (sure, you could theoretically murder the gently caress out of people with a crossbow, but it's 2018 and unless you're ambushing them around a corner they'll see the one weirdo loading a crossbow in the whole town coming).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted: Small caliber handguns - .22s or under. (Low lethality) There are no handguns being made in calibres lower than .22LR. There are old handguns made in .22 short/long and there are rifles in .17HMR (but no handguns afaik)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
Here's a list of policy positions that may be related to the discussion: - Pass/Don't Pass/Modify Manchin-Toomey - Repeal/Don't Repeal/Modify the Dickey Amendment - Implement safe storage laws and subsidize the purchase of trigger locks, lockboxes, and safes for underprivileged families - Perform a root cause analysis for violent crime trends and attack source causes (Atmospheric lead, Women's rights, Gun ownership rates, etc...) Here is an omnibus platform that seeks to make a tradeoff between minimizing violent crime and property crime and minimizing additional gun controls taken after a long round of debate on TFR (please let me poo poo up TFR on your behalf instead of posting there if you are anti gun control and don't want to compromise): Jehde posted:What if tomorrow a bill was tabled in the United States that included the following: I'd like to open by asking how everyone feels about the 4 individual measures I listed above and how everyone feels about the omnibus plan listed above. Hopefully we can use this as a reference point for discussion moving forward instead of inchoate yelling and infographics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
Bring back .32 auto
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
I went shooting my evil black assault rifle today, somehow managed to not kill any kids while also not supporting the NRA in any way shape or form. ama
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 02:54
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Personally, I was just hoping to see a mature discussion on reasonable compromise leading to something actionable, rather than the same tired platitudes that both sides have learned to either cherry-pick or tune out. Classes 1 and 3 cover 90%+ of crime weapons and are the most accessible. Your system is backwards. Nobody commits crimes with a $9,000, 30lb, 6' long anti-materiel rifle. They are toys for rich people. The vast majority of crimes commited with guns are handguns of .22-9mm caliber. Long arms, of all types, represent only a small fractions, and crimes with high-caliber rifles are basically nonexistent. If you want to impact crime small caliber handguns should be the most restricted items. Because contrary to what media portrays criminals do not roll around with M60s and antitank rifles. They rock whatever cheap garbage they can find and not feel too bad about throwing down a storm drain when the cops show up. Edit: Although the mental image of someone straining and sweating profusely as he tries to stick you up with a Barret M82 is pretty funny. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
RE: Mental health exams. Just how conclusive are they? Most people can probably fake it long enough to get through an interview. How difficult is it to identify someone as a threat with limited information? A lot of people with mood disorders go untreated thanks to a variety of reasons, I'm just curious how this might work in practice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 03:03
|
|
|
Admiral Bosch posted:I went shooting my evil black assault rifle today, somehow managed to not kill any kids while also not supporting the NRA in any way shape or form. ama Man if only it were a wood stock I would not be advocating for gun control in any way, I'm terribly triggered by how a gun looks instead of features. Kibbles n Shits posted:RE: Mental health exams. Just how conclusive are they? Most people can probably fake it long enough to get through an interview. How difficult is it to identify someone as a threat with limited information? A lot of people with mood disorders go untreated thanks to a variety of reasons, I'm just curious how this might work in practice. People with mental health issues are far more likely to be the victims of gun violence than the perpetrators. Making the conversation about mental health is a red herring. The US doesn't have any higher rate of mental health issues than any other developed nation but we sure do have regular mass shootings in schools and such.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
Kibbles n Shits posted:RE: Mental health exams. Just how conclusive are they? Most people can probably fake it long enough to get through an interview. How difficult is it to identify someone as a threat with limited information? A lot of people with mood disorders go untreated thanks to a variety of reasons, I'm just curious how this might work in practice. Jaxyon posted:People with mental health issues are far more likely to be the victims of gun violence than the perpetrators. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:People with mental health issues are far more likely to be the victims of gun violence than the perpetrators. I don't disagree with that. People are calling for it, and I want to know how effective they think it would be and why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, there is no way to do a "mental health exam" in a way that adequately respects the applicant's rights. I don't think any respectable clinician is going to be willing to diagnose an otherwise healthy person with a psychiatric illness without multiple hours of face-to-face evaluation, and that's really the standard to start depriving people of their rights. They're also going to want any previous psychiatric treatment records, which will absolutely discourage the people you want to seek appropriate counseling from doing that. Past that, what sort of standard could they use? If a person is not mentally ill, what would the basis for denial be?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
Maybe instead of focus on "mental health" which encompasses a wide range of different causes that have many different effects, we should instead focus on which behaviors are predictors of someone that will commit a violent crime or spree shooting. Would anyone care to postulate what those predictors might be? The primary relationship between gun owners and mental health is that if someone with mental issues has a gun in their residence, they are significantly more likely to successfully commit suicide. This is different from homicide and spree shootings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Would anyone care to postulate what those predictors might be? Wearing a red hat that says "Make America Great Again"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
Kibbles n Shits posted:Wearing a red hat that says "Make America Great Again"? Not gonna lie that probably has a higher correlation coefficient than pretty much anything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Not gonna lie that probably has a higher correlation coefficient than pretty much anything else. Childhood poverty has a ridiculously strong correlation. Rich people don't
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:With violent crime? good point, I should clarify that maga hats are probably a much better predictor of spree shootings, especially moving forward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
Make all guns illegal. Hunt animals with a spear and murder people with knives as God intended.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
Jethro posted:Violent Crime  I think the best solution to reducing everyday violent crime, gun crime included, is to build robust social safety nets that provide education and basic needs like housing, food, healthcare, and childcare. Notorious R.I.M. posted:I'd like to open by asking how everyone feels about the 4 individual measures I listed above and how everyone feels about the omnibus plan listed above. Gun Violence Restraining Orders, where a mechanism exists to explicitly assess and address the risk of someone becoming violent even when their actions don't rise to the level of committing a crime, are the most promising solution to stopping shooting sprees before they happen. Cruz's Youtube comment about becoming a professional school shooter probably wasn't at the level of making a terroristic threat, but if someone reported that, someone else gave the court the video of him playing around with a gun and shooting it in a residential area, and classmates reported his violent white supremacist rhetoric, a judge could look it over and reasonably conclude that it was in the public interest to seize his guns. Same goes for perpetrators of domestic violence and abuse. Someone being controlled and/or attacked by a partner might not be able to prove a crime beyond reasonable doubt, especially when it's he said/she said with no witnesses, but taking the perpetrator's guns for a limited amount of time while a case worker monitors their situation can both protect the victim and give them a chance to escape the situation without fear of being shot on the way out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
DV restraining orders already include a ban on the restrained individual possessing firearms. Also, the basis for issuing a restraining order is not "in the public interest." Notorious R.I.M. posted:Maybe instead of focus on "mental health" which encompasses a wide range of different causes that have many different effects, we should instead focus on which behaviors are predictors of someone that will commit a violent crime or spree shooting. I'm not even sure psych screening would be effective. The Pulse shooter was a security guard. The Navy Yard shooter was cleared to work on a military base. Every peace officer and firefighter in CA is required to be psychologically assessed for fitness for duty, but the Oakland PD still had a massive underage prostitute scandal, and deputies of the SF Sheriff's Department were accused of making inmates fight for their amusement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:DV restraining orders already include a ban on the restrained individual possessing firearms. Also, the basis for issuing a restraining order is not "in the public interest." good call, we should just take away all the guns
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:At this point: We know it works in pretty much any form. Its kinda like people who decry Chicago gun regs as a "failure" while ignoring they largely fail because Indiana next door has very lax gun regs and there is no state border enforcement over importing firearms. It 'pretty much works in every form' if you excuse every point of failure as not its fault. Clearly gun control cannot fail, it can only be failed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
Now that we got rid of the atmospheric lead and gave women better contraceptive and abortion access, the remaining difference in violent crime between us and other OECD countries is our trash healthcare and classist, racist infrastructure. What would happen if we fixed that and the violent crime rate fell to other OECD countries while we still had guns?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Now that we got rid of the atmospheric lead and gave women better contraceptive and abortion access, the remaining difference in violent crime between us and other OECD countries is our trash healthcare and classist, racist infrastructure. Somehow even gun control sounds more realistic than these policies
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 07:56
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:... - why do you think .22lr is low lethality compared to other handguns and how do you justify distinguishing it from centerfire pistol cartridges? -Why does one need extended training to use an AR-15, but not a 10/22? Basically, on what criteria are you sorting guns into category 1/2/3/4? Why does this justify a more extensive background check, who adjudicates these, and who pays for them? -Why am I, as an ex military person, a better and more trustworthy class of citizen than non-veterans? Is the only purpose of Cat IV to make certain weapons you find scary impossible to obtain in practice?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 08:18
|
|
|
Yeah, DR is right, given the high rates of suicide amongst American veterans, giving them more access to firearms is pretty bad policy. Class IV weapons should simply not be made available to the public. Class III firearms should also be restricted to people on the basis of their belonging and regularly going to a gun club. Preferably they should be stored there, too. There is simply no valid reason to keep such a weapon in one's home, and only downsides.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:- Pass/Don't Pass/Modify Manchin-Toomey I think we should keep the Dickey amendment. It bans advocacy, and I am suspicious of anyone who thinks it needs to be repealed because a ban on using federal money for advocacy is hampering their research. I'm on board 100% with the last two. Notorious R.I.M. posted:Here is an omnibus platform that seeks to make a tradeoff between minimizing violent crime and property crime and minimizing additional gun controls taken after a long round of debate on TFR (please let me poo poo up TFR on your behalf instead of posting there if you are anti gun control and don't want to compromise) Here's the big stumbling block I see: universal background checks would be really hard to enforce without either a federal database of gun owners and their guns, or requiring every gun owner to have a FFL-style bound book. I'm OK with having a difficult-to-enforce law where the state would be required to prove that the private seller didn't run a background check, but I'm not sure the pro control side would agree to that. That said, I think a voluntary background check system would actually accomplish 99% of the same goal. UBC helps prevent people who didn't know they were selling to a prohibited possessor and care about not selling to a prohibited possessor from doing that. People who don't give a poo poo will keep selling guns to felons irrespective of UBC; they're already committing a federal crime as the law stands now. Flowers For Algeria posted:Class III firearms should also be restricted to people on the basis of their belonging and regularly going to a gun club. Preferably they should be stored there, too. There is simply no valid reason to keep such a weapon in one's home, and only downsides.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 08:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yes, there are, and that is not something you should get to decide for other people. People don't have to justify their choices to the government. No, there objectively aren't, and what the hell of course the government is legitimate in dictating conditions for access to firearms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
stone cold posted:good call, we should just take away all the guns *gets shot by MAGA chud who blew a gasket when Trump got Muellered after taking away all the assault rifles* Dead Reckoning posted:-Why am I, as an ex military person, a better and more trustworthy class of citizen than non-veterans? Is the only purpose of Cat IV to make certain weapons you find scary impossible to obtain in practice? suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 08:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:A couple of questions here: Most people calling for these ridiculous rules get all their gun knowledge from Call of Duty or how they think a gun should work in a RPG "I maxed up my ranks in 9mm now i get to unlock the 45" "This AR is black instead of tan that gives it +5 towards killing children!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 08:51
|
|
|
The government decides numerous things "for" its citizens, including which things require special training, certification, handling and storage before licensing for the ability to have them. Especially things which empower a person to kill a bunch of people quickly, for some weird rear end reason. There we go with more "guns are a magic given right" poo poo. Also, don't respond to DR, they are not interested in preventing future kid murder, they are here to tire you out and confuse debate so that nothing happens to their previous freedom totems. r.y.f.s.o. fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 08:57
|
|
|
banned from Starbucks posted:Most people calling for these ridiculous rules get all their gun knowledge from Call of Duty or how they think a gun should work in a RPG Yeah that's a good point. The bigger a gun is the less likely it's to be used by the average murderer. Dudes rocking anti materiel poo poo and huge .50 cal sniper rifles around are probably rich, definitely pretty obvious, and they'll be useless in confined spaces or for more than a single shot even outdoors without a bunch of supporting goons with more normal guns to help them not get fragged immediately by trigger happy cops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 09:02
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:The government decides numerous things "for" its citizens, including which things require special training, certification, handling and storage before licensing for the ability to have them. Especially things which empower a person to kill a bunch of people quickly, for some weird rear end reason. I mean the less insane gun control argument isn't "guns are special, why do you hate freedom", it's "by default everyone should be able to own anything, with restrictions for special cases for the public good, and guns aren't special enough for X reason".
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 09:03
|
|
|
Pretty much my argument, and they aren't special enough because no one on the pro control side is willing to apply the same utility calculus they claim justifies banning some or all guns to literally anything else.Flowers For Algeria posted:No, there objectively aren't, and what the hell of course the government is legitimate in dictating conditions for access to firearms. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Pretty much my argument, and they aren't special enough because no one on the pro control side is willing to apply the same utility calculus they claim justifies banning some or all guns to literally anything else. i thought your argument was that gun control doesn't work based on a really bad scatterplot lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
Seriously, DR, call your statistics teacher, and demand an explanation for how they could have failed you so badly.suck my woke dick posted:I mean the less insane gun control argument isn't "guns are special, why do you hate freedom", it's "by default everyone should be able to own anything, with restrictions for special cases for the public good, and guns aren't special enough for X reason". All the reasons offered so far for X have still been, in sum or in part, insane, so that is not compelling. Anyway, typically, mostly, pro-gun interlocutors aren't here to help craft effective legislation or advance the debate, they are here to gaslight, obfuscate, deflect and confuse, and they shouldn't be considered to be participating in the discussion in good faith. r.y.f.s.o. fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 09:31
|
|