|
zapplez posted:
Well, private car ownership should't even be allowed except with special dispensation in cases of necessity, so...
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 13:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
Yes we definitely need to be as worried about loving trees as much as we are about actual, literal weapons. A sensible position. That willow in my yard is looking pretty sketchy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 14:23
|
|
|
Crimpolioni posted:Ok, give one good reason why not? Obviously one can't ' ban' the sea, but all of these things could and should be strictly off limits for any purposes that are not vitally necessary. Gathering drinking water, some forms of commercial uses etc, all of which would ideally be heavily regulated and performed by the state. You're sarcastically saying that dumbass kids are drowning but uh, they are drowning. That should supercede the right of fat tourists to roast themselves on the beach. Birth is the leading cause of death it should be banned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Birth is the leading cause of death it should be banned. I think this is too important a topic for you to be trolling about it like this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
Crimpolioni posted:I think this is too important a topic for you to be trolling about it like this. You talked about banning trees like 4 posts ago. Trees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
Well, I wasn't the one who brought up trees in the first place, but to clarify I 100% don't think trees should be banned as in all trees being chopped down. A "ban" in this sense would be the same as with guns, in which they'd still exist due to necessity (national defense / oxygen production ) they'd just be under the control of the government (armies / parks departments), rather than private individuals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
Counterpoint : they're loving trees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Counterpoint : they're loving trees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Anyone loving trees belongs behind bars
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 21:40
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Anyone loving trees belongs behind bars Is it even illegal?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:But don't seem to correlate in frequency at all with ease of access to guns. America has easiest access to guns. America has most frequent mass shootings. Where's the bit that "seems"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:America has easiest access to guns. Percentage of households with a firearm in it has been going down since the 60s. Mass shootings have been on a stark increase since the early 2000s, when at the same time the overall violent crime rate and the homicide rate have been decreasing as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Percentage of households with a firearm in it has been going down since the 60s. Mass shootings have been on a stark increase since the early 2000s, when at the same time the overall violent crime rate and the homicide rate have been decreasing as well. Households seems like an odd stat to choose. How about firearms per capita?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 06:35
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Percentage of households with a firearm in it has been going down since the 60s. Mass shootings have been on a stark increase since the early 2000s, when at the same time the overall violent crime rate and the homicide rate have been decreasing as well. The amount of households that have firearms doesn't need to increase in order for the mass shootings to increase, people can use the guns they already have
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 06:43
|
|
|
But those insidious trees. Just standing there all branchy and immobile. I just can't over that someone really brought up loving natural features in comparison to guns. loving hell. Pro tip : there isn't a factory making ponds. Nor have they been designed to kill. They're just low-lying patches that collect water. What is wrong with you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:But those insidious trees. Just standing there all branchy and immobile. I'm imagining you as a grief counselor. "It's just a loving tree! Why the gently caress are you even sad that your child died, they don't make ponds in factories!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 12:36
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 12:43
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Households seems like an odd stat to choose. How about firearms per capita? Households is a better measure of availability. America has a large amount of collectors that have 10-100+ guns. It skews the stats. In a lot of the cases for mass shootings its the 15-25 year old son that steals a gun from home. So it really just matters if there is or is not a gun there, not that its 2 guns or 50 guns in the house.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 12:51
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Percentage of households with a firearm in it has been going down since the 60s. Interesting factoid that has nothing to do with A) access to firearms B) the subject at hand
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 13:35
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Interesting factoid that has nothing to do with How does % of households with a firearm having nothing to do with access to firearms?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 14:22
|
|
|
Crimpolioni posted:I think this is too important a topic for you to be trolling about it like this. Sorry dude, birth has a 100% death rate, preventing death is more important than anyone's narcissistic desire to propagate their genes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
zapplez posted:How does % of households with a firearm having nothing to do with access to firearms? Because "access" is independent of whether people choose to buy something. It doesn't really matter that gun ownership has been trending down, that didn't stop the parkland shooter from walking out of a store with an ar-15
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because "access" is independent of whether people choose to buy something. And the Newtown shooter used a firearm purchased by his mother. If we're going to talk about the ability to buy a gun, then we need to focus on improving background checks - something I think every (or nearly every) person who's posted in this thread is in favor of. If we're going to use a complete definition of "access" then the number of households with a firearm is absolutely relevant. It's probably a far more difficult topic to come to a consensus on the definition of "access" for the purpose of this thread, and how that should be regulated and limited.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because "access" is independent of whether people choose to buy something. It was just as easy to buy a mag-fed semi auto rifle in 1980 as it is today. That doesn't explain the dramatic increase in mass shootings in the past 15 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
zapplez posted:It was just as easy to buy a mag-fed semi auto rifle in 1980 as it is today. That doesn't explain the dramatic increase in mass shootings in the past 15 years. So what. It was also just as easy to walk into a commercial airplane cockpit in 1961 as it was in 2001. The ability to walk into an unlocked cockpit and hijack the plane doesn't explain why 9/11 happened, that doesn't mean you don't do something about the problem of access to the cockpit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
zapplez posted:How does % of households with a firearm having nothing to do with access to firearms? How does number of firearms have nothing to do with access to firearms Imagine a house with one gun, carefully kept in a gun safe because the owner has a child. Imagine the same house with 100 guns. Are you really stupid enough to say these are the same thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
If you want to talk about access to firearms, you look at access to firearms. If you want to talk about firearm ownership per household - a literally useless statistic - you talk about firearm ownership per household. But rather then do either of those things if you are considering the latter, you should probably poo poo the gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
firearms per household has been going down largely in line with overall urbanization of the country, and partly because hunting is largely a freakish hobby for maladjusted white weirdos. guns per capita is going up because those same maladjusted white weridos are scared of losing their racial hegemony in this country. and because they are insanely cheap now that any the barrier to running a milling/CNC/3D printing machine is so much lower than it was just 10 years ago. there is incredible variety out there, especially around the $250-$400 mark, both in the US and international production it’s all socially-isolated “super collector” lone wolves from here on out
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:firearms per household has been going down largely in line with overall urbanization of the country, and partly because hunting is largely a freakish hobby for maladjusted white weirdos. Even for the most basic metal printers that could plausibly make a functional gun you're looking at a set-up cost of tens of thousands of dollars. More affordable plastic or resin printers produce dumb poo poo like the liberator gun which primarily exists to blast shrapnel at the user's face. CNC mills are a bit cheaper than metal 3d printers but a serviceable model still costs several times more than a basic gun and has substantial running expenses. AFAIK deep accurate bores like for a gun barrel are also hard to do on a basic CNC mill. Niche poo poo like making AR lower receivers to put into an otherwise 95% complete gun kit are probably the extent to which they make sense. Rapid prototyping or small scale manufacturing can't compete with mass produced consumer crap, they're useful when you need something right the gently caress now or with bespoke features. Unless you're willing to put a fuckton of effort into making improvised guns hobby machines have limited use for GUN.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Even for the most basic metal printers that could plausibly make a functional gun you're looking at a set-up cost of tens of thousands of dollars. More affordable plastic or resin printers produce dumb poo poo like the liberator gun which primarily exists to blast shrapnel at the user's face. the size of the market for 80% receivers, tool kits, jigs, and etc is enormous. add on to that the number of cottage industry outfits that have the ability to make semi-custom parts, including formerly “tough” stuff like barrels or fire control bits, and you have an enormous segment of mass produced crap that just wasn’t there a just a few years ago
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Interesting but not terribly surprising finding Well mass shootings aren't statistically significant, so it's not really surprising they don't affect anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It was also just as easy to walk into a commercial airplane cockpit in 1961 as it was in 2001. (it's actually harder in the 60s since there would be more people in the cockpit; at that time there was still a navigator depending on the carrier as well as a flight engineer; having 3 crew members is how the fedex hijacking managed to be foiled in 1994 from a guy wielding hammers and a speargun) some planes still require large crew compliments, Antonovs are usually crewed by 6 from what I remember Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Sep 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:i’m talking about commercial mass production, not end-users making their own junky single shot 9mm out of PLA. A bit old, but a metal sintering 3D printer that can make an odd-shaped "real" metal gun part costs just as much as a 5 axis CNC mill that a machine shop would use to make an odd-shaped "real" metal gun part. I guess the printer could make a long-ish barrel better than a standard CNC mill (i.e. it can make a mediocre one, vs. no long barrel at all) but I don't think inside the actual barrel is where all the tacticlol customisations go. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Sep 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 09:22
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Well mass shootings aren't statistically significant, so it's not really surprising they don't affect anything. this is a nonsensical sentence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Squalid posted:this is a nonsensical sentence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:you’ll find nothing is “significant” to empathy-free hobbyist autists because it’s not happening consistently and personally to them otoh policy should follow statistics more than public outrage ban handguns stop worrying about tacticlol rifle attachments so much
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 09:51
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:otoh policy should follow statistics more than public outrage The damaging effects of mass shootings extend beyond just the physical victims, and beyond even the people with direct relationships to them. Whether or not restrictions on types of guns or characteristics of guns is a necessary part of stopping them I don't know, but 25 people killed all at once is a different kind of crime than 25 people killed in 25 different incidents, and it's not reasonable to just compare bodycounts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 14:20
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:The damaging effects of mass shootings extend beyond just the physical victims, and beyond even the people with direct relationships to them. Whether or not restrictions on types of guns or characteristics of guns is a necessary part of stopping them I don't know, but 25 people killed all at once is a different kind of crime than 25 people killed in 25 different incidents, and it's not reasonable to just compare bodycounts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:otoh policy should follow statistics more than public outrage if you look at my post history itt you can see I'm basically just saying that over and over but "mass shootings aren't statistically significant" doesn't mean that, it doesn't mean anything. I'm not sure the guy who posted it even knows what a statistic is. captainblastum posted:The damaging effects of mass shootings extend beyond just the physical victims, and beyond even the people with direct relationships to them. Whether or not restrictions on types of guns or characteristics of guns is a necessary part of stopping them I don't know, but 25 people killed all at once is a different kind of crime than 25 people killed in 25 different incidents, and it's not reasonable to just compare bodycounts. do you think the effects of dispersed violence don't extend past the physical victims? Not going to check it right now but I recall hearing kids from communities effected by endemic violence frequently suffer symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder. Mass shootings and individual shoots are ultimately different manifestations of the same problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:(it's actually harder in the 60s since there would be more people in the cockpit; at that time there was still a navigator depending on the carrier as well as a flight engineer; having 3 crew members is how the fedex hijacking managed to be foiled in 1994 from a guy wielding hammers and a speargun) Are you trying to argue that hijacking a plane was impossible in the 60s because of the presence of a flight engineer
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 18:43
|
|