Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[MCMLXXXII]

What is your qualification to disagree with scientific statement ?

- - - Updated - - -



That is where we disagree on that.

Yeah Endus, apparently you had to go on a killing spree, shame on you for not following that logic!

[Doctor Amadeus]

What is your qualification to disagree with scientific statement ?

I don't need one and posting a link doesn't count as a scientific statement here.

[Specialka]

I don't need one and posting a link doesn't count as a scientific statement here.

Yes, you do unless you want to go the anti vaxx way.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yes, you do unless you want to go the anti vaxx way.

Not the same at all Vaccinations are proven science, where as Endus and you Opinion are NOT!

[Endus]

I don't need one and posting a link doesn't count as a scientific statement here.

When it's a proper study following scientific principles, it is.

The HTML of the link isn't what's being referenced. It's the content at the other end​ of that link.

[Specialka]

Not the same at all Vaccinations are proven science, where as Endus and you Opinion are NOT!

My opinion or yours does not matter here. Scientific statement does.

[Endus]

Not the same at all Vaccinations are proven science, where as Endus and you Opinion are NOT!

You literally don't have a counterargument.

My position is based on the science, whereas you're just flagrantly making shit up and demanding we accept your imagination as proof enough.

If you're looking for correlations to blame for gun violence, "being a man" or "drinking alcohol like, ever" are significantly better correlates than "mental health issues". And nobody's arguing those should be seen as warning signs, because their correlations are not strong at all. And the correlation to mental illness is less strong than they are.

Worse, here's the most damning thing about your argument; mental illness can be exculpatory. If mental illness is forcing these people to act in a way they otherwise wouldn't, they do not carry legal blame for the actions in question. They're not criminals, they're sick and need help. Your "mental health" argument acts to lessen their personal responsibility for the heinous crimes they commit, implicitly arguing that it's not really their fault, they just need health care.

[Doctor Amadeus]

When it's a proper study following scientific principles, it is.

The HTML of the link isn't what's being referenced. It's the content at the other end​ of that link.

Yes and either way I reject it and you posting it doesn’t make it scientific or conclusive.

You and a few others should get it through your fucking heads. That isn’t how any of this works. Not even the science you’re trying to suggest.

I’m not going to teach you. I’m not going to play show me your link. I’ll show you mine because you can’t argue.

You want to argue it fine but then break it down and add your thoughts. If you’re here to post me links well you can just click on my links.

- - - Updated - - -

My opinion or yours does not matter here. Scientific statement does.

It does matter. This isn’t a science blog or thread. It’s a debate about gun control.

- - - Updated - - -

You literally don't have a counterargument.

My position is based on the science, whereas you're just flagrantly making shit up and demanding we accept your imagination as proof enough.

If you're looking for correlations to blame for gun violence, "being a man" or "drinking alcohol like, ever" are significantly better correlates than "mental health issues". And nobody's arguing those should be seen as warning signs, because their correlations are not strong at all. And the correlation to mental illness is less strong than they are.

Worse, here's the most damning thing about your argument; mental illness can be exculpatory. If mental illness is forcing these people to act in a way they otherwise wouldn't, they do not carry legal blame for the actions in question. They're not criminals, they're sick and need help. Your "mental health" argument acts to lessen their personal responsibility for the heinous crimes they commit, implicitly arguing that it's not really their fault, they just need health care.

You don’t even have an argument or counter argument. All you do now is just post links and shit and try to misinterpret what people say. You have no fucking grasp of argument and what people say. Why the fuck would I respect or accept your sources for anything.

You lost this argument a long time ago now you’re just trying to pick fights because you’re upset.

No gun control isn’t necessary because some lunatic in my opinion shot up a school. And nobody honestly gives a shit arguing on either side of this issue.

If they were we would be confronting why people want to murder one another like this. Not whatever tool they used. AR-15 or Hertz car rental.

[Endus]

Yes and either way I reject it and you posting it doesn’t make it scientific or conclusive.

Where did I ever suggest my posting it made it somehow valid and useful?

That credit belongs to the original authors, entirely. With whom you do not have any legitimate complaint.

You want to argue it fine but then break it down and add your thoughts. If you’re here to post me links well you can just click on my links.

There's nothing to argue. You made up a whole bunch of ridiculous nonsense hooey, based on nothing but your unthinking emotional prejudices, and when presented with data and evidence that demonstrated you were wrong, you started throwing this hissy fit rather than make even a basic attempt to justify your position.

All the evidence and reasoning we've got is on my side. You've got . . . nothing. You just declared that all mass shooters must be mentally ill, because you declare it to be so, and don't need no stinkin' evidence or justification.

And that's ridiculous. You're wrong, and getting angry about it just makes you look even more silly.

All you do now is just post links and shit and try to misinterpret what people say. You have no fucking grasp of argument and what people say. Why the fuck would I respect or accept your sources for anything.

You lost this argument a long time ago now you’re just trying to pick fights because you’re upset.

Those two lines, one after the other, completely contradicting your own projection. Cute.

If they were we would be confronting why people want to murder one another like this. Not whatever tool they used. AR-15 or Hertz car rental.

Nah. We can talk about gun control, because there aren't really legitimate uses for the kinds of weapons we're talking about.

[Specialka]

Yes and either way I reject it and you posting it doesn’t make it scientific or conclusive.

You and a few others should get it through your fucking heads. That isn’t how any of this works. Not even the science you’re trying to suggest.

I’m not going to teach you. I’m not going to play show me your link. I’ll show you mine because you can’t argue.

You want to argue it fine but then break it down and add your thoughts. If you’re here to post me links well you can just click on my links.

- - - Updated - - -



It does matter. This isn’t a science blog or thread. It’s a debate about gun control.

- - - Updated - - -




You don’t even have an argument or counter argument. All you do now is just post links and shit and try to misinterpret what people say. You have no fucking grasp of argument and what people say. Why the fuck would I respect or accept your sources for anything.

You lost this argument a long time ago now you’re just trying to pick fights because you’re upset.

No gun control isn’t necessary because some lunatic in my opinion shot up a school. And nobody honestly gives a shit arguing on either side of this issue.

If they were we would be confronting why people want to murder one another like this. Not whatever tool they used. AR-15 or Hertz car rental.

Then statistical analysis does not go your way as well about gun control. But I guess you will argue otherwise because you know "better". I feel like I am talking to a plane-earther.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Where did I ever suggest my posting it made it somehow valid and useful?

That credit belongs to the original authors, entirely. With whom you do not have any legitimate complaint.



There's nothing to argue. You made up a whole bunch of ridiculous nonsense hooey, based on nothing but your unthinking emotional prejudices, and when presented with data and evidence that demonstrated you were wrong, you started throwing this hissy fit rather than make even a basic attempt to justify your position.

All the evidence and reasoning we've got is on my side. You've got . . . nothing. You just declared that all mass shooters must be mentally ill, because you declare it to be so, and don't need no stinkin' evidence or justification.

And that's ridiculous. You're wrong, and getting angry about it just makes you look even more silly.



Those two lines, one after the other, completely contradicting your own projection. Cute.



Nah. We can talk about gun control, because there aren't really legitimate uses for the kinds of weapons we're talking about.

Not legitimate to you. But there is no good argument to infringe on anyones rights.

Especially when those who do these masks shooting are a minority and dealing with that requires mental help and resources.

You have no reasoning other than you feel. You’re argument consist of bullshit links.

When you actually fucking argue something I’ll respond otherwise kick rocks.

- - - Updated - - -

Then statistical analysis does not go your way as well about gun control. But I guess you will argue otherwise because you know "better". I feel like I am talking to a plane-earther.

Lol no the science is not conclusive apt or as it’s always presented.

Especially by linkers with no arguments.

[Attackrabbit]

Pretty clear the reason you won't even entertain others point of view on gun control and reasons for mass shootings etc is that you are salivating at the thought of getting to shoot someone.

As for what will I do, trust me you aren't going to repeal the 2nd amendment, so there is no reason to entertain what will I do. I am willing to do what every other law abiding gun owner will do to defend what was fought for to begin with.

[Mayhem]

Pretty clear the reason you won't even entertain others point of view on gun control and reasons for mass shootings etc is that you are salivating at the thought of getting to shoot someone.

Well, he is evil by his own account and thinks there's no good argument to infringe on anyone's rights, like idk for example being a violent criminal or so, you might be onto something.

[Endus]

Not legitimate to you. But there is no good argument to infringe on anyones rights.

"Other people's rights" is a pretty damned good one, actually. Including, say, right to life.

And that's without pointing out that a "right to firearms" is murderously silly in the first place.

Especially when those who do these masks shooting are a minority and dealing with that requires mental help and resources.

Again, not a mental health issue, and mental health resources cannot possibly solve the issue, or even make a meaningful dent. You're talking about issues that affect about 11% of mass shooters, at best, and presuming you can pre-emptively diagnose and handle those issues 100% of the time even then.

You have no reasoning other than you feel. You’re argument consist of bullshit links.

Those links have reams and reams of data, evidence, and analysis. So you're just lying.

When you actually fucking argue something I’ll respond otherwise kick rocks.

What am I supposed to "argue"? You're wrong. I've provided proof that you're wrong. You've provided jack shit to back up your fantasies.

You're wrong, and I don't need to convince you. I just need to convince everyone else.

"Mental health" is a boogeyman that seeks to deflect attention away from gun control as a response, when gun control is well-understood to be highly effective at reducing mass shooting rates (and other firearms violence rates, as well). It's also used to deflect responsibility away from mass shooters, to blame a fictional illness instead, for motives that nobody's ever honest or clear about.

This isn't to say mental health support shouldn't be offered. Just that even if it is, it will have a negligible effect on gun violence, by itself. The one thing we know works is gun control. And that includes revoking the "right" to own firearms, wholesale. Because it's as shitty and poorly-rationalized an idea as the right to own slaves (which was also written into the Constitution, to be clear). Maybe stop worshipping the really shitty takes of 200-year-dead slave-rapers.

Hell, it's not even a different argument. The 2nd Amendment was crafted for two primary reasons; 1> so that the Federal Government didn't need to maintain a standing army, and 2> to ensure slave states could put down slave rebellions; https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/10021...-2nd-amendment

Obviously, the first argument doesn't apply any more, and the second sure shouldn't, but it's no surprise that it's mostly residents of ex-slave-states which still have massive issues with systemic racism who are at the forefront of defending the 2nd Amendment.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Pretty clear the reason you won't even entertain others point of view on gun control and reasons for mass shootings etc is that you are salivating at the thought of getting to shoot someone.

This is pretty hilarious. I enjoy you saying this stupid shit even more if you actually believe it.

- - - Updated - - -

"Other people's rights" is a pretty damned good one, actually. Including, say, right to life.

And that's without pointing out that a "right to firearms" is murderously silly in the first place.



Again, not a mental health issue, and mental health resources cannot possibly solve the issue, or even make a meaningful dent. You're talking about issues that affect about 11% of mass shooters, at best, and presuming you can pre-emptively diagnose and handle those issues 100% of the time even then.



Those links have reams and reams of data, evidence, and analysis. So you're just lying.



What am I supposed to "argue"? You're wrong. I've provided proof that you're wrong. You've provided jack shit to back up your fantasies.

You're wrong, and I don't need to convince you. I just need to convince everyone else.

"Mental health" is a boogeyman that seeks to deflect attention away from gun control as a response, when gun control is well-understood to be highly effective at reducing mass shooting rates (and other firearms violence rates, as well). It's also used to deflect responsibility away from mass shooters, to blame a fictional illness instead, for motives that nobody's ever honest or clear about.

This isn't to say mental health support shouldn't be offered. Just that even if it is, it will have a negligible effect on gun violence, by itself. The one thing we know works is gun control. And that includes revoking the "right" to own firearms, wholesale. Because it's as shitty and poorly-rationalized an idea as the right to own slaves (which was also written into the Constitution, to be clear). Maybe stop worshipping the really shitty takes of 200-year-dead slave-rapers.

Hell, it's not even a different argument. The 2nd Amendment was crafted for two primary reasons; 1> so that the Federal Government didn't need to maintain a standing army, and 2> to ensure slave states could put down slave rebellions; https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/10021...-2nd-amendment

Obviously, the first argument doesn't apply any more, and the second sure shouldn't, but it's no surprise that it's mostly residents of ex-slave-states which still have massive issues with systemic racism who are at the forefront of defending the 2nd Amendment.

Well racist and sexist and homophobic assholes are mentally unwell also.

You provided no evidence that someone who decides to murder kindergarteners isn’t mentally I’ll.

My right to own fire arms shall not be infringed and shouldn’t be neither should anyones without reasonable cause.

You pretending is to save lives is laughable. Nothing compels me you generally give a shit about others at all.

Especially when you make shit up. Accusing people of shit based on merit less accusations.

[Endus]

You provided no evidence that someone who decides to murder kindergarteners isn’t mentally I’ll.

I sure did; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

Gun crime narratives that attribute causality to mental illness also invert the material realities of serious mental illness in the United States. Commentators such as Coulter blame “the mentally ill” for violence, and even psychiatric journals are more likely to publish articles about mentally ill aggression than about victimhood.5 But, in the real world, these persons are far more likely to be assaulted by others or shot by the police than to commit violent crime themselves. In this sense, persons with mental illness might well have more to fear from “us” than we do from “them.” And blaming persons with mental disorders for gun crime overlooks the threats posed to society by a much larger population—the sane.

You just keep refusing to even look at that evidence. Usually gloating about your refusal to do so in the process.

My right to own fire arms shall not be infringed and shouldn’t be neither should anyones without reasonable cause.

Why not?

And don't cite the 2nd Amendment at me, because again, I really don't consider a 230-year-old law intended to violently put down slave rebellions to be a valid counterpoint.

Also, I'll note that "there's a massively disproportional amount of gun crime in the USA as a result of the 2nd Amendment and the lack of gun control" is a pretty damned "reasonable cause".

[MCMLXXXII]

Why you bothering him with all those links? He's a good Christian and doesn't like them science folks. It's his constitutional right to be able to kill kindergartens.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I sure did; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

Gun crime narratives that attribute causality to mental illness also invert the material realities of serious mental illness in the United States. Commentators such as Coulter blame “the mentally ill” for violence, and even psychiatric journals are more likely to publish articles about mentally ill aggression than about victimhood.5 But, in the real world, these persons are far more likely to be assaulted by others or shot by the police than to commit violent crime themselves. In this sense, persons with mental illness might well have more to fear from “us” than we do from “them.” And blaming persons with mental disorders for gun crime overlooks the threats posed to society by a much larger population—the sane.

You just keep refusing to even look at that evidence. Usually gloating about your refusal to do so in the process.



Why not?

And don't cite the 2nd Amendment at me, because again, I really don't consider a 230-year-old law intended to violently put down slave rebellions to be a valid counterpoint.

Also, I'll note that "there's a massively disproportional amount of gun crime in the USA as a result of the 2nd Amendment and the lack of gun control" is a pretty damned "reasonable cause".

The constitution is established law and fact. Your link and copy paste is not. It’s still not your argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Why you bothering him with all those links? He's a good Christian and doesn't like them science folks. It's his constitutional right to be able to kill kindergartens.

Yeah guys I’m not cool. Lol let’s just make up shit and attack people who don’t agree.

[MCMLXXXII]

Throwing gay people head down from a building is also established law in some countries, that doesn't make it right.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Throwing gay people head down from a building is also established law in some countries, that doesn't make it right.

Well some of those places might argue it’s for the children too. Lol