Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

Let's address these one by one:

Handgun regulations, crime, assaults, and homicide. A tale of two cities.

Not a Federal gun control study.

Dramatic reductions in overall firearm related deaths and particularly suicides by firearms
were achieved in the context of the implementation of strong regulatory reform.

Not a study pertaining to the United States.

Gun control and suicide: the impact of state firearm regulations in the United States, 1995-2004.

Not a Federal gun control study.

Male firearm suicide rates declined following the introduction of restrictive firearms regulations in Canada.

Not a study pertaining to the United States.

Our findings provide evidence that the introduction of restrictive firearm legislation effectively
reduced the rates of firearm suicide and reduced the rates of firearm suicide and homicide.

Not a study pertaining to the United States.

Results support the hypothesis that state restrictions on firearms have the potential to reduce the suicide rate.

Not a Federal gun control study.

The authors examine relevant characteristics of the laws and recommend that these laws be mandatory, apply to all guns and ammunition possessed by an abuser, and include clear procedures to enhance implementation.

Study results are not available via this link.

So, yes, please continue until you post a relevant study, because by your own admission:

Localized gun laws are ineffective.

[TZucchini]

Let's address these one by one:

You haven't read a single study, yet you've already made up your mind. Brilliant.

I've just produced seven studies, on command, that show the effectiveness of firearm legislation at reducing homicide/injury/suicide.

Feel free to continue ignoring the science.

[Tinykong]

You haven't read a single study, yet you've already made up your mind. Brilliant.

I've just produced seven studies, on command, that show the effectiveness of firearm legislation at reducing homicide/injury/suicide.

Feel free to continue ignoring the science.

I didn't need to read them, because none of them pertain to the question that was asked. Hence, irrelevant.

This is what you do, exercise some Google-fu, and link a bunch of abstracts you spent 5 seconds reading and then claim people are science deniers when they point out the irrelevance of the results.

[TZucchini]

I didn't need to read them, because none of them pertain to the question that was asked. Hence, irrelevant.

Your question is unnecessarily narrow. That's why you asked it. The entire point is that we should be enacting legislation to affect homicide/injury/suicide.

This is what you do, exercise some Google-fu, and link a bunch of abstracts you spent 5 seconds reading and then claim people are science deniers when they point out the irrelevance of the results.

No need to Google. I have all these studies bookmarked, and I've read through them.

And you're objectively denying the science in these studies. The conclusions are literally "legislation helps reduce homicide/injury/suicide", yet you're unwilling to even read them.

[Tinykong]

Your question is unnecessarily narrow. That's why you asked it. The entire point is that we should be enacting legislation to affect homicide/injury/suicide.

No, it's a direct challenge to your claim that Federal gun control is effective. You aren't producing studies for Federal gun control because you can't produce the results you want.

And you're objectively denying the science in these studies. The conclusions are literally "legislation helps reduce homicide/injury/suicide", yet you're unwilling to even read them.

Wrong again. I'm not denying these studies or questioning their results, they are irrelevant here because they don't pertain to the question that was asked.

[TZucchini]

No, it's a direct challenge to your claim that Federal gun control is effective. You aren't producing studies for Federal gun control because you can't produce the results you want.

How in the fuck are you supposed to determine if Federal gun control is effective if it hasn't been passed?

[Tinykong]

How in the fuck are you supposed to determine if Federal gun control is effective if it hasn't been passed?

So, you admit there is no study that confirms up your claim. Progress.

[TZucchini]

So, you admit there is no study that confirms up your claim. Progress.

That was a legitimate question. How do we determine if a law will be effective before we pass it?

Answer: We look at similar laws that have been passed under similar circumstances. Kind of like how Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare. This is legislation 101. Critical thinking. It's hard stuff, I know.

Point being: All those studies I've linked back up my claim.

[Tinykong]

That was a legitimate question. How do we determine if a law will be effective before we pass it?

Answer: We look at similar laws that have been passed under similar circumstances. Kind of like how Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare. This is legislation 101. Critical thinking. It's hard stuff, I know.

Point being: All those studies I've linked back up my claim.

Nice false equivalency. Healthcare is very similar from location to location. Firearm violence and crime varies wildly from location to location.

So, you misspoke when you said localized firearm legislation was ineffective?

[TZucchini]

Nice false equivalency. Healthcare is very similar from location to location. Firearm violence and crime varies wildly from location to location.

I'm not equating those two things. I'm giving you an example of basing future laws on the failures or successes of old laws. Which is undeniably true in practice. Go ahead and ignore that fact.

So, you misspoke when you said localized firearm legislation was ineffective?

I suppose I did. The correct term would be 'less effective'.

[Tinykong]

I'm not equating those two things. I'm giving you an example of basing future laws on the failures or successes of old laws.

Sure you are. You're saying "the health care law worked, and it was based on local laws, so probably the Federal gun control law will work since it's also based on local laws."

Except, the two things are entirely unrelated. There is nothing to suggest that Federal firearm laws will do what you're claiming they will do. You're using data from other countries ( ) and localized state results and trying to claim that it will be indicative of change nationwide.

It's a nice opinion, but, that's all it is.

[TZucchini]

Sure you are. You're saying "the health care law worked, and it was based on local laws, so probably the Federal gun control law will work since it's also based on local laws."

That's not what I'm saying at all. Let's break it down for the slow people:

Here's the question: How do we determine if a law will be effective before we pass it?

Here's the answer: We look at similar laws that have been passed under similar circumstances.

Here's an example of that occurring: Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare.

At no point did I say or imply that the health care law even worked, nevertheless that a gun control law would work because the healthcare law did or did not.

There is nothing to suggest that Federal firearm laws will do what you're claiming they will do.

Except there is. Suggest being the important word.

[lockedout]

Don't forget you don't care of millions of toddlers die, because freedom!

Millions of toddlers..was this from another scientific study? When did millions of toddlers die I must have missed it.

[Tinykong]

Here's the question: How do we determine if a law will be effective before we pass it?

Here's the answer: We look at similar laws that have been passed under similar circumstances.

So, basically you're saying what you are posting is irrelevant.

Did you post any similar studies or examples of similar laws? Nope. You posted studies from other countries and local laws that are not equivalent to Federal laws.

[TZucchini]

So, basically you're saying what you are posting is irrelevant.

Did you post any similar studies or examples of similar laws? Nope. You posted studies from other countries and local laws that are not equivalent to Federal laws.

A universal background check implemented at the State level is similar to a universal background check implemented at the Federal lever. The law requires the same exact thing: a background check for every single purchase or transfer. The only difference is the application and jurisdiction. Those laws are extremely similar.

Same can be said for other types of State level gun control laws.

[Tinykong]

A universal background check implemented at the State level is similar to a universal background check implemented at the Federal lever. The law requires the same exact thing: a background check for every single purchase or transfer. The only difference is the application and jurisdiction. Those laws are extremely similar.

Same can be said for other types of State level gun control laws.

Let's see the study that shows universal back ground checks reduce firearm crime/theft/violence, then.

[lockedout]

Let's see the study that shows universal back ground checks reduce firearm crime/theft/violence, then.

Don't forget about EVERY other type of homicide as well, firearms show a direct correlation to them.

[TZucchini]

Let's see the study that shows universal back ground checks reduce firearm crime/theft/violence, then.

Why just universal background checks? You're being unnecessarily narrow, once again.

Licensing and registration on the State lever is similar to licensing and registration on a Federal level.

A law authorizing police to remove firearms when responding to a domestic violence complaint at the State level is similar to the same law at the Federal level.

There are differences between a Federal and State law, but the content of the law remains similar.

[Tinykong]

Why just universal background checks? You're being unnecessarily narrow, once again.

Licensing and registration on the State lever is similar to licensing and registration on a Federal level.

A law authorizing police to remove firearms when responding to a domestic violence complaint at the State level is similar to the same law at the Federal level.

There are differences between a Federal and State law, but the content of the law remains similar.

You brought up a legislative measure, let's see you defend it. Considering you claimed there were "literally hundreds" then you ought to be able to produce one for a specific example you bring up.

[lockedout]

Things that never happen.