Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Moadar]

Also, school hardening works both ways. If it's harder to get in, it's harder for anyone in the middle of a shooting incident to get out. It's harder for police to get in. It's easier for the active shooter to barricade and fortify themselves. It's like arming teachers; it sounds like a great idea, until the attacker kills the teacher, and now has an additional weapon.

This is shit we worked out 1000 years ago in building fortifications; if you build a tower, and the enemy captures that tower, they now have a strong point to use against you. That's why castle construction developed tiers of walls, so the enemy capturing the outer walls would now how to deal with the taller, thicker inner walls that still held the advantage. It's why redoubts, small "extra" outside forts, would not have crenellations or protections on the sides facing the main fortifications, and later no means to shift the cannon and such to aim back at those fortifications. If you create a strong point, it's only a benefit as long as you control it. Once an enemy takes control, it's now their strong point.

It's the absolute fuckin' stupidest take.

It's also willfully ignoring the problem; that if you eliminate the threat, you don't have to fortify against that threat. It's like you've got a problem at your daycare because one toddler found a stick and is hitting other kids with that stick. If your approach to handling that is to put armor and helmets on the toddlers so they don't get hurt, rather than just taking the stick away, you're an idiot. And to take on the "good guy with a gun" argument, the solution isn't to make sure all the toddlers have sticks, either. That's stupid as fuck, too.

It's idiotic to use an example of taking a stick away. One it's too simplistic and two it's not even correct. The stick isn't the threat it's the tool used to carry out the violence. You take the stick the child uses a rock. The threat is the violent person who will use any means to harm or kill.

Again wrong with your example of using forts. Hardened buildings having multiple entries and exits but the doors are controlled remotely. You have to be allowed in. Multiple control points in a building mean once inside you still don't have unfettered access to the entire place. A shooter can be cordoned off. This isn't a civil war fort, it's how modern protected buildings work.

[Gabriel]

It's idiotic to use an example of taking a stick away. One it's too simplistic and two it's not even correct. The stick isn't the threat it's the tool used to carry out the violence. You take the stick the child uses a rock. The threat is the violent person who will use any means to harm or kill.

Again wrong with your example of using forts. Hardened buildings having multiple entries and exits but the doors are controlled remotely. You have to be allowed in. Multiple control points in a building mean once inside you still don't have unfettered access to the entire place. A shooter can be cordoned off. This isn't a civil war fort, it's how modern protected buildings work.

What the fuck is the kid going to use after you take away the guns?

[Captain N]

What the fuck is the kid going to use after you take away the guns?

Prepare for the logic that he'll kill just as many people with a knife before being stopped as he would using a gun

[Shadowferal]

I'm very harsh in my judgement, but I think that's fair given what's at stake.

C'mon down and show us. As everyone else here knows you're full of shit.
Make an appointment to teach the Philadelphia Council that the murder rate in their city is unacceptable and that you know how to stop it all.
O..gee, but you can't. Because you don't anything.
Your "judgement," your little opinion doesn't matter at all.

[Ivanstone]

Again wrong with your example of using forts. Hardened buildings having multiple entries and exits but the doors are controlled remotely. You have to be allowed in. Multiple control points in a building mean once inside you still don't have unfettered access to the entire place. A shooter can be cordoned off. This isn't a civil war fort, it's how modern protected buildings work.

Or the shooter just decides that he doesn't need to break into the building to do damage.

Schools largely open and close at set times every day. There's nothing stopping the shooter from opening up on the main entrance when school lets out. Or during lunch break. Or during recess. Or shooting up a school bus. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Growing up I think I saw a cop maybe twice at school. Once was during elementary school and gave one of those "Don't do crime because prison sucks" speeches. I vaguely recall a second time. Certainly it was never to arrest a student. The schools weren't hardened. There were multiple entry points. There were also multiple fire exit only doors. Cops weren't a regular feature at school till University and the campus cops were there to mostly write parking tickets.

[Breccia]

How about before I start gathering information on tangetial points, that you provide evidence for any claim you've made thus far? You know evidence that proves the claim, not comes to the conclusion that there is minimal correlation?

Huh. So, let's review.

If gun control worked, it would not correlate to population distribution. In fact it would correlate to where less gun control measures are taken. QED.

I then provided direct CDC evidence linking gun deaths to weak gun laws.

The chart doesnt prove my point wrong. That chart shows gun deaths, not murder, proportional to population, not locations of mass shootings.

I then provided direct evidence linking homicides to weak gun laws.

That's homicide, not firearm homicide. My post #1125 has the firearm homicide rates.

Okay, so ignoring the fact that most homicides in the US are gun homicides, I then posted direct evidence linking firearm homicides to states with weak gun control laws.

That's very similar to the one i posted. CA and TX are similar rates, with opposing laws. NJ and CO as well. In fact Louisianna has pretty average gun laws, but the highest rate of any of them.

That's you ignoring that evidence to cherry-pick about TX and CA, and you lying about LA. Which I then directly refuted.

I then went overboard by posting multiple other strong sources, including a highly-cited study from 2022. These studies also linked gun assaults and gun robberies to states with weak gun laws.

Try finding the data on a city basis for firearm homicides. Guess what? Most top cities are democrat led.

I then found data on a city basis. Then you did...this, for some reason.

Most schools have man traps at all entrances.

It was at this point where you took all the directly-posted evidence, which I know you saw because you quoted it, and handwaved it all as "minimal correllation".

First of all, several of the studies I cited posted p-values. So, you don't know what "minimal correllation" is.

But more importantly, after providing strong evidence that was exactly what you asked for, I then asked you two things:
1) any source that showed that "most" schools have man traps, and
2) since you were the one calling out cities, I also asked you to show any city that had both stronger gun laws than the state they were in, and also the ability to enforce it. You asked for cities, after all, which means you think it's relevant.

How about before I start gathering information on tangetial points, that you provide evidence for any claim you've made thus far? You know evidence that proves the claim, not comes to the conclusion that there is minimal correlation?

This is you refusing to do either.

I had already provided that evidence, you saw it, you quoted it. The states with the weakest gun laws routinely had the most gun problems (crimes, injuries, deaths and murders), and the cities in those states were the worst cities. Meanwhile, states with the strongest gun laws, most notably NYState, had lower of those, and the cities in them had lower gun homicide rates -- information you specifically asked for, I'll remind you. Again.
@Flarelaine asked this discussion be taken here, so this is where you will provide the evidence you were asked to provide. But bear in mind, even if you provide that, you've already dismissed state-by-state gun deaths, homicide rates, gun homicide rates, city gun homicide rates, gun assault rates and gun robbery rates as "minimal correllation" which just proves you don't know what that is, and also, you dismissed the request as "tangential" when you were the one who brought up schools, and you were the one who brought up cities. If they were tangential, why did you bring them up? If cities were tangential, why did you demand their info?

You will now provide the evidence I asked for. I went above and beyond what you asked for, and the only responses you've made were to ask for more info (which I also provided), handwave studies by the CDC and other strong research organizations, throw in anecdotal info you yourself called tangential, and of course, cherry-pick.

Put up, or shut up. Either provide as much evidence as you've personally asked for which was provided, or admit you have no genuine claim here.

[Moadar]

Prepare for the logic that he'll kill just as many people with a knife before being stopped as he would using a gun

So in your opinion how many kids have to be killed in an attack to reach the threshold of needing to do something about it?

[Endus]

It's idiotic to use an example of taking a stick away. One it's too simplistic and two it's not even correct. The stick isn't the threat it's the tool used to carry out the violence. You take the stick the child uses a rock. The threat is the violent person who will use any means to harm or kill.

If the kid finds a rock and throws it at another kid, you take away the rock, too.

Why are you pretending gun control has to fix every problem 100% and immediately or it doesn't do anything at all?

As for the threat being the "violent person"; are you suggesting we imprison people pre-emptively because some people think they might get violent? And I'll note you're ignoring the constant refrain after these attacks that the attacker was a "good boy, no signs of violence, etc etc".

Again wrong with your example of using forts. Hardened buildings having multiple entries and exits but the doors are controlled remotely. You have to be allowed in. Multiple control points in a building mean once inside you still don't have unfettered access to the entire place. A shooter can be cordoned off. This isn't a civil war fort, it's how modern protected buildings work.

Know how I know you've never looked at fortification from an architectural perspective?

We're describing fortifying the schools. They're the same principles. Doors may be controlled remotely, but doors can also be interfered with, or malfunction and the school has no money to repair, or they may be opened because they don't immediately see the individual as a threat. The attacker may have whatever the staff use to enter the school, a stolen keycard or the like.

Control points don't provide the limitations you think, since the bigger factor to the rampage is gonna be how much ammo the shooter carried in.

You're also still ignoring that this hardening locks students and teachers into the school as much as it tries to keep the shooter out, and that all that hardening works against police entering the school to confront the shooter, too, making it far easier for the shooter to barricade themselves.

Modern protected buildings don't work for situations like this. Most of those measures are fairly trivial to bypass for anyone dedicated to doing so. They're disincentives more than they're intended to actually prevent a focused attack/penetration. For instance, say your building is like the DOD building I used to work at and needed Top Secret clearance to get access to; I needed a keycard to swipe at gates at the entrances, and those gates had armed guards. Literally all it takes to penetrate that is someone stealing my keycard or cloning it, somehow, and then they can walk in about as quickly as you would into any non-protected building. Or anyone's card. You have an entire building of staff you can exploit for this. And if it's personal, like your dad works there, it's very easy, and you'll quite possibly have a good handle on the security measures. Same as any kid committing a shooting at their current or prior school; they know the security and how it works and how to access the school and bypass those systems. The door that's propped open by the pot smokers so they can sneak out/in. How to get someone to open the doors like they would if you were late to class. Etc.

Schools aren't prisons or vaults, and can't function that way. Armoring is a stupid response, that costs a freaking fortune all to avoid dealing with the real problem; ready access to high-power mass-shooter-style weaponry.

[Linkedblade]

Huh. So, let's review.

Sure, let's.

I then provided direct CDC evidence linking gun deaths to weak gun laws.

This is intentionally misleading. Because gun deaths don't imply murder. There's quite the bit of suicide and justified cases of self defense. I'm not saying those are the majority, but they are significant

I then provided direct evidence linking homicides to weak gun laws.

Which used similar data that I supplied as well.

Okay, so ignoring the fact that most homicides in the US are gun homicides, I then posted direct evidence linking firearm homicides to states with weak gun control laws.

Not most, but definitely more than 50%.

That's you ignoring that evidence to cherry-pick about TX and CA, and you lying about LA. Which I then directly refuted.

I didn't cherry pick TX and CA. I was just picking them as an example because of their similar statistics like actual population and per capita gun homicides. I posited CO and NJ in a similar. And this data leads to a poor correlation coefficient, which i found to be 0.07, i didn't compute the confidence interval on that though, I'd imagine it to be poor.

I then went overboard by posting multiple other strong sources, including a highly-cited study from 2022. These studies also linked gun assaults and gun robberies to states with weak gun laws.

And those studies had moderate correlation with large intervals.

I then found data on a city basis. Then you did...this, for some reason.

Because cities are where most of the crimes occur.

It was at this point where you took all the directly-posted evidence, which I know you saw because you quoted it, and handwaved it all as "minimal correllation".

From the analysis they provided.

First of all, several of the studies I cited posted p-values. So, you don't know what "minimal correllation" is.

I'd say a coefficent on -0.2 to 0.2. But they claimed intervals about 0.5 to 0.6 which means there may be some connection.

Over the 4-year study period, there were 121,084 firearm fatalities. The average state-based firearm fatality rates varied from a high of 17.9 (Louisiana) to a low of 2.9 (Hawaii) per 100,000 individuals per year. Annual firearm legislative strength scores ranged from 0 (Utah) to 24 (Massachusetts) of 28 possible points. States in the highest quartile of legislative strength (scores of ≥9) had a lower overall firearm fatality rate than those in the lowest quartile (scores of ≤2) (absolute rate difference, 6.64 deaths/100,000/y; age-adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92). Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100,000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100,000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).

But more importantly, after providing strong evidence that was exactly what you asked for, I then asked you two things:
1) any source that showed that "most" schools have man traps, and
2) since you were the one calling out cities, I also asked you to show any city that had both stronger gun laws than the state they were in, and also the ability to enforce it. You asked for cities, after all, which means you think it's relevant.

Yes, man traps, where there is usually two sets of doors. Quite common place.

This is you refusing to do either.

Need more antecdents.

I had already provided that evidence, you saw it, you quoted it. The states with the weakest gun laws routinely had the most gun problems (crimes, injuries, deaths and murders), and the cities in those states were the worst cities. Meanwhile, states with the strongest gun laws, most notably NYState, had lower of those, and the cities in them had lower gun homicide rates -- information you specifically asked for, I'll remind you. Again.
@Flarelaine asked this discussion be taken here, so this is where you will provide the evidence you were asked to provide. But bear in mind, even if you provide that, you've already dismissed state-by-state gun deaths, homicide rates, gun homicide rates, city gun homicide rates, gun assault rates and gun robbery rates as "minimal correllation" which just proves you don't know what that is, and also, you dismissed the request as "tangential" when you were the one who brought up schools, and you were the one who brought up cities. If they were tangential, why did you bring them up? If cities were tangential, why did you demand their info?

You will now provide the evidence I asked for. I went above and beyond what you asked for, and the only responses you've made were to ask for more info (which I also provided), handwave studies by the CDC and other strong research organizations, throw in anecdotal info you yourself called tangential, and of course, cherry-pick.

Put up, or shut up. Either provide as much evidence as you've personally asked for which was provided, or admit you have no genuine claim here.

So obfuscate gun homicide with all "gun problems."

I didn't bring up schools, the topic was the shooting in Uvalde, which happened at a school.

Yes, I mentioned cities, because that's where most crime, disproportionally, occurs. This paired with that minimal correlation implies there are other factors in play other than guns being involved or the laws affecting gun ownership.

[Edge-]

Yes, I mentioned cities, because that's where most crime, disproportionally, occurs. This paired with that minimal correlation implies there are other factors in play other than guns being involved or the laws affecting gun ownership.

"It's clearly not the guns!" says someone about the only developed nation with an enshrined right to own guns - without mandatory military service/training like some other nations with high rates of gun ownership that still tightly regulate their firearms and ammunition - also being the only nation in the developed world with rates of gun violence more closely mirroring third world nations, and with regular "mass shootings" and "school shootings" being a uniquely American feature.

I'm still waiting to hear what America has that no other developed nation has that's the cause of this. Violent videogames? Not really, those are global. Porn? Again, global. Abandoning faith? Global. The family unit changing? Global. Wealth inequality? Well we might be onto something here, but again this is hardly unique to America amongst developed nations.

[Linkedblade]

Why are you pretending gun control has to fix every problem 100% and immediately or it doesn't do anything at all?

Because law abiding citizens are just that. And gun control only makes things worse for law abiding gun owners. Doesn't do anything to a criminal.

If someone illegally owns a gun, there's no way track them or to enforce new laws upon them. Even with background checks or a registry, it wouldn't do anything. And if such a registry were to occur, I would highly doubt it's ability to protect the right to privacy of those registrants.

- - - Updated - - -

"It's clearly not the guns!" says someone about the only developed nation with an enshrined right to own guns - without mandatory military service/training like some other nations with high rates of gun ownership that still tightly regulate their firearms and ammunition - also being the only nation in the developed world with rates of gun violence more closely mirroring third world nations, and with regular "mass shootings" and "school shootings" being a uniquely American feature.

I'm still waiting to hear what America has that no other developed nation has that's the cause of this. Violent videogames? Not really, those are global. Porn? Again, global. Abandoning faith? Global. The family unit changing? Global. Wealth inequality? Well we might be onto something here, but again this is hardly unique to America amongst developed nations.

I'm okay with enforcing mandatory military service or firearm training. That's quite a fascist position to take though, interesting.

If you consider mass shootings as acts of terror, then by no means is that uniquely american.

I'd say wealth inequality, and gang sub-culture would be the two biggest contributing factors.

[Edge-]

Because law abiding citizens are just that. And gun control only makes things worse for law abiding gun owners. Doesn't do anything to a criminal.

Literally no laws stop all the behavior they're intended to. That's simply not how laws work.

How does gun control make things worse for law abiding gun owners? They may have to wait a bit longer, they may have to get periodic safety training, they may have to "endure" more thorough background checks, but if they're a law abiding, responsible gun owner there's no reason they shouldn't have access to plenty of practical weaponry for civilian use.

If someone illegally owns a gun, there's no way track them or to enforce new laws upon them.

If someone illegally owns a car it's hard to track or enforce new laws upon them, too. That doesn't stop us from passing regulations and laws related to car ownership and use.

Even with background checks or a registry, it wouldn't do anything.

Background checks are PART of a comprehensive solution, not "the solution", and they work - https://www.npr.org/2016/01/09/46225...not-everything

Similarly, so does licensing and registration - https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/3/184

Even more, yes gun control laws do work. They're not perfect, but CA is a fairly good example - https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic....-Do-they-work

And if such a registry were to occur, I would highly doubt it's ability to protect the right to privacy of those registrants.

Why should registrants have any more right to privacy than folks registering vehicles? Vehicle registrations are public records so I'm not sure why a gun registration wouldn't be? Especially if, you know, gun owners are securing their weapons so that people who might want to target them to steal their gun wouldn't be able to. Similar to making sure your car is locked and whatnot.

[Breccia]

I'd say a coefficent on -0.2 to 0.2.

Hmm. Negative p-value, you say. Interesting. See me after class.

Also, I can't help but notice you still provided no new info. You even said man-traps were common...again...while providing no evidence.

Also also, you keep going on about TX and CA while claiming you're not cherry-picking. Bear in mind, for each time you do that, I can compare two other states, such as NY vs MS, and directly refute your point. And since gun violence is provably linked to gun laws, I do that longer than you can. You're cherry-picking.

Also also also, if you're such a big fan of city violence, why did you ignore what I said about Los Angeles? Oh, wait, when faced with NYC and L.A.'s low gun homicide rate, you moved the goalposts even further to boroughs.

Because you're a disingenuous poster who can't back up anything they say, other than the aforementioned cherry picking. Even directly asked, multiple times, you've not only refused, you've said the very data you asked for was irrelevant.

You, sir, have proven you're not here to have a meaningful debate. You asked for info and then handwaved the very info you asked for, then mentioned things you think are important but refused to show that they were when asked.

Disingenuous posters are not welcome on these forums. Please post constructively. This thread is loaded with people I disagree with, but at least they can back up their arguments. They've earned a response. You had your chance.

[Edge-]

I'm okay with enforcing mandatory military service or firearm training. That's quite a fascist position to take though, interesting.

That's cool, it's not my take. I'm just heading off the, "But Switzerland and Israel!" type nonsense that always comes up.

If you consider mass shootings as acts of terror, then by no means is that uniquely american.

Not all are, so I'm not. I'm saying they remain uniquely American in the developed world, and they are. There is no analog in similarly developed nations.

I'd say wealth inequality, and gang sub-culture would be the two biggest contributing factors.

Except that again -

- Wealth inequality isn't unique to America.

- Gang violence is not the primary driver of gun related crimes/violence - https://www.gvpedia.org/gun-myths/gangs/

You continue to come here with every bad, debunked talking point.

[Endus]

Because law abiding citizens are just that. And gun control only makes things worse for law abiding gun owners. Doesn't do anything to a criminal.

1> Everyone is a "law abiding citizen" until they aren't; it's a functionally useless term, and can't be applied predictively, by nature.
2> Your definition of "worse" has no meaning. It's like arguing that civil rights laws make things "worse" for racist employers. Or that child abuse laws make it "worse" for parents who use strong corporal punishment. The types of people it's made "worse" for aren't the decent people the law seeks to protect. They're the bad actors who have justified the restrictions being made.
3> It absolutely does things to criminals, by criminalizing their gun ownership. Laws are punitive after-the-fact devices, they aren't expected to prevent crimes, but to punish wrongdoers.

If someone illegally owns a gun, there's no way track them or to enforce new laws upon them. Even with background checks or a registry, it wouldn't do anything. And if such a registry were to occur, I would highly doubt it's ability to protect the right to privacy of those registrants.

Same arguments apply to making/selling methamphetamines, or child pornography, or any of a thousand other things.

Doesn't mean the laws against them are wrong.

I'm okay with enforcing mandatory military service or firearm training. That's quite a fascist position to take though, interesting.

Not what Edge- was saying, though it's unsurprising as hell that you just confessed to being a fascist, yourself. In your own words.

If you consider mass shootings as acts of terror, then by no means is that uniquely american.

That they're acts of terror, no.

But the USA is a particular breeding ground for exactly that kind of terrorism.

I'd say wealth inequality, and gang sub-culture would be the two biggest contributing factors.

And you'd be wrong. And you have absolutely no evidence to back that claim up.

[Linkedblade]

snipped

Again it's not cherry picking because I did a correlation coefficient using data from all 50 states.

- - - Updated - - -

And you'd be wrong. And you have absolutely no evidence to back that claim up.

You're right that's conjecture. But again Ive shown and others have shared data that shows quantity/quality of gun laws have no meaningful impact on gun homicide. I agree that the prevalence of firearms leads to more incidents involving firearms. But again that's to be expected.

But you all keep repeating the same thing without any evidence to the corroborate or an alternative.

[Edge-]

But again Ive shown and others have shared data that shows quantity/quality of gun laws have no meaningful impact on gun homicide.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic....-Do-they-work

*waves arms about wildly*

https://apnews.com/article/fact-chec...s-306468736022

*keeps waving arms about wildly*

And that's not getting into the difficulty of some of these cities/states enforcing all laws given more relaxed limitations out of county/state, as we've similarly already covered.

I agree that the prevalence of firearms leads to more incidents involving firearms. But again that's to be expected.

Sounds like a good reason to maybe...consider limiting access to firearms in order to reduce gun-related violence and death, including suicides?

But you all keep repeating the same thing without any evidence to the corroborate or an alternative.

No, you just keep rejecting the evidence or moving the goalposts as you've done in this and the Uvalde thread.

[Endus]

You're right that's conjecture. But again Ive shown and others have shared data that shows quantity/quality of gun laws have no meaningful impact on gun homicide.

Literally the only source you cited that stated any opinion on the subject contradicted you and acknowledged gun control works and is necessary.

You are openly, blatantly, and unashamedly lying.

Edit: Here's you providing that source; https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53796229

Here's my response, pointing out your dishonest misrepresentation of its conclusions; https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53796239

Linked here since it was in the Texas shooting thread where that all occurred.

[Breccia]

No, you just keep rejecting the evidence or moving the goalposts as you've done in this and the Uvalde thread.

it takes a special kind of creature to ask for information linking gun violence and crimes to weak gun laws by state and city, then to dismiss it all while making anecdotal statements about school man-traps.

[Edge-]

it takes a special kind of creature to ask for information linking gun violence and crimes to weak gun laws by state and city, then to dismiss it all while making anecdotal statements about school man-traps.

I'm still curious how these kids are supposed to avoid all these booby traps at schools that are supposed to stop shooters...like...will they always be active? Will the kids be told about them so they can avoid them? Do the proponents honestly not expect kids to attempt to trigger the booby traps constantly, even at a risk to themselves? Do they honestly expect that kids won't accidentally trigger them, what with them being fucking kids and all that? Or will the be inactive until a teacher activates them? Will the keep the activation method secret/secure? What if the shooter has already entered the building, do the traps now pose a danger to law enforcement responders?

I mean, how many other developed nations are using/proposing huge investments in heavily fortified schools, with armed security guards and booby traps?

I swear, these lines of logic are like a 5 kilometer race but the people proposing it go about 100 meters into the thought process before they're all tuckered out and ready for a nap.