Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Linkedblade]

cooooool, good for you.

now address why the second amendment isn't a fossil that in no way properly addresses gun violence in modern society, and isn't in fact an active stop block in doing anything about it.

Address why the first amendment isnt a fossil that in no way properly addresses hate speech in modern society.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that this gets presented as "a start" and a thing to be applauded, when it's gonna be immediately also presented as "several steps too far" by its political enemies, and it's gonna get clawed back as soon as the political capital is there.

Like the '90s assault weapon ban was.

Because the goal, again, is to foster a society in which these mass shootings occur, at these kinds of insane rates. It isn't an accident.

Because the 90s "assault weapon" ban created a piss-poor definition of what an assault weapon is and could not be enforced because of how ambiguous it was.

[Endus]

Because the 90s "assault weapon" ban created a piss-poor definition of what an assault weapon is and could not be enforced because of how ambiguous it was.

Except it was enforced.

And it reduced mass shootings, determinable both in reduced prevalence during its 10-year span, and the sudden rise in such attacks after its expiry; https://newhampshirebulletin.com/202...gs-commentary/

So what's your excuse for opposing effective legislation?

[Linkedblade]

Except it was enforced.

And it reduced mass shootings, determinable both in reduced prevalence during its 10-year span, and the sudden rise in such attacks after its expiry; https://newhampshirebulletin.com/202...gs-commentary/

So what's your excuse for opposing effective legislation?

It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings.

Nothing else social or economic that occurred in the 90s that separates it from the 80s or 00s.

[Endus]

Nothing else social or economic that occurred in the 90s that separates it from the 80s or 00s.

Deflection, all to protect the status quo of mass shootings. Hard to see you having any other possible purpose.

[Linkedblade]

Deflection, all to protect the status quo of mass shootings. Hard to see you having any other possible purpose.

You're own source says it's not enough information to claim that the AWB caused the drop. You're deflecting and ad hom.

[Endus]

You're own source says it's not enough information to claim that the AWB caused the drop. You're deflecting and ad hom.

No, it said it wasn't enough to conclusively determine. That's not remotely the same thing.

We can also point to every other developed country, which has vastly lower gun crime and much stricter gun control. The one common factor is always gun control. If you're opposed to gun control, it's because you prefer the current high firearms homicide rates to any meaningful action against them, including the high rate of school shootings. That's not ad hominem, it's inductive reasoning.

[Linkedblade]

No, it said it wasn't enough to conclusively determine. That's not remotely the same thing.

We can also point to every other developed country, which has vastly lower gun crime and much stricter gun control. The one common factor is always gun control. If you're opposed to gun control, it's because you prefer the current high firearms homicide rates to any meaningful action against them, including the high rate of school shootings. That's not ad hominem, it's inductive reasoning.

No saying "your only purpose is to protect the status quo of school shootings" is ad hominem.

Are you ever going to show that gun restrictions would work? Or come up with something that isn't already in place?

[Breccia]

An armed man was seen trying to break into an Alabama school.

The principal saw and ordered a lockdown, all the doors were locked, and as he went door to door trying to get in, the police showed up and shot him.

The end.

Incidentally, this happened Thursday after all the kids had left, but I'm not sure it would have been different if they'd been there, from the textbook way this unfolded.

They should all be this simple.

[Endus]

No saying "your only purpose is to protect the status quo of school shootings" is ad hominem.

That's induction, not ad hominem. Ad hominem is turning a character attack into a premise in some greater argument. What you're citing is a conclusion.

Are you ever going to show that gun restrictions would work? Or come up with something that isn't already in place?

Again, "the entire developed world outside the USA".

You're willfully ignoring all the evidence in the world to prop up unchecked sale and use of militaristic mass-shooter weaponry that's banned for civilian use in most of the world.

[Cinnamilk]

No saying "your only purpose is to protect the status quo of school shootings" is ad hominem.

Are you ever going to show that gun restrictions would work? Or come up with something that isn't already in place?

Is it really? When you look at every other developed country, whether their rates of gun ownership are high or low if there's robust gun control present there's a stark lack of mass shooting events.

When you look at not just the present but the history of countries that had mass shootings and regulated them away, it's pretty clear that the US could do the same if it had the political cojones. It's a deliberate choice that those endorsed by the NRA refuse to make, thus they refuse to eliminate the cause of mass shootings and ensure that they continue.

The price they're willing to pay is sacrificing the lives of children for their pew pews. More blood for the gun god.

[Linkedblade]

That's induction, not ad hominem. Ad hominem is turning a character attack into a premise in some greater argument. What you're citing is a conclusion.



Again, "the entire developed world outside the USA".

You're willfully ignoring all the evidence in the world to prop up unchecked sale and use of militaristic mass-shooter weaponry that's banned for civilian use in most of the world.

That's just bad statistics. There are no countries in the world with comparable statistics to even begin proving your claim. You would need to find a similarly populated and similarly armed country.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it really? When you look at every other developed country, whether their rates of gun ownership are high or low if there's robust gun control present there's a stark lack of mass shooting events.

When you look at not just the present but the history of countries that had mass shootings and regulated them away, it's pretty clear that the US could do the same if it had the political cojones. It's a deliberate choice that those endorsed by the NRA refuse to make, thus they refuse to eliminate the cause of mass shootings and ensure that they continue.

The price they're willing to pay is sacrificing the lives of children for their pew pews. More blood for the gun god.

The NRA is a terrible organization. They don't do anything, let alone what you think they do.

The line in bold is ad hominem.

[Endus]

That's just bad statistics. There are no countries in the world with comparable statistics to even begin proving your claim. You would need to find a similarly populated and similarly armed country.

That's intentionally dishonest. That's not how comparisons work. You're demanding a tautological comparison, which is nonsense. Population levels don't even factor in, since we can compare figures on a per-capita basis; that's how statistical analyses work, and pretending otherwise is also intentionally dishonest. And as for "similarly armed"; you're pointing to the exact differing factor that's being discussed; that's the variable in question, itself.

You are not approaching this discussion with any honesty whatsoever. This isn't just you being wrong, this is deliberate smoke and mirrors.

[Cinnamilk]

That's just bad statistics. There are no countries in the world with comparable statistics to even begin proving your claim. You would need to find a similarly populated and similarly armed country.

- - - Updated - - -



The NRA is a terrible organization. They don't do anything, let alone what you think they do.

The line in bold is ad hominem.

Besides lobby against any sort of common sense gun reform and pay politicians accordingly.

Where's a digitalized federal database of firearm registrations so whenever something crosses state lines people don't have to look up the actual paper records that could very well be deteriorated?

What about the ban on CDC studies of gun related incidents?

It has a direct objective of making sure our heads are stuck in the sand to limit the evidence for enacting gun control measures.

Similar to what Endus said, it's not an ad hominem, it's a conclusion from inductive reasoning. The evidence of how to prevent tragedies like the US is clear as day, and refusal to do so is a blatant disregard for human life.

[Endus]

Similar to what Endus said, it's not an ad hominem, it's a conclusion from inductive reasoning.

For the sake of information, and for some hypothetical "you";

1> You're a jerk
2> You have Opinion A
Therefore;
Conclusion; Opinion A is wrong.

That's an ad hominem, due to premise #1.

However;

1> You like hurting puppies
2> You steal candy from children
Therefore:
Conclusion; you're an enormous asshole.

That's not an ad hominem, assuming both the premises are true. The conclusion's just crass and insulting, but accurate. No logical failings at all, if the premises are true.

Not all negative conclusions are ad hominems. It's how we can tell some people really are behaving badly. I know you're not confused, but this shit's constantly misstated.

[Linkedblade]

That's intentionally dishonest. That's not how comparisons work. You're demanding a tautological comparison, which is nonsense. Population levels don't even factor in, since we can compare figures on a per-capita basis; that's how statistical analyses work, and pretending otherwise is also intentionally dishonest. And as for "similarly armed"; you're pointing to the exact differing factor that's being discussed; that's the variable in question, itself.

You are not approaching this discussion with any honesty whatsoever. This isn't just you being wrong, this is deliberate smoke and mirrors.

It's not a tautology, at all. That doesn't even apply here in any sense of the word. You don't have a similar nation to compare the US to. Even if you take a statistic per capita, it wouldn't matter because there are no other nations with similar gun laws. Even if there were one, you'd claim cherry picking.

You're trying to claim because the US has guns, we have high gun homicide. Well, sure we do, just by nature of having them. Similar to how most accidents happen at home and work. And similar to how we have more car accidents because we have more people driving more cars. All of those things are said proportionally.

But gun laws and gun homicides don't have a strong relationship. I showed that a few times now. So, saying that gun laws will make anything better is a lie.

Even if you wanted a complete gun confiscation to have the US even remotely close to the next nation in guns per capita, you would have to commit an insane amount of searches and seizures. You'd have to confiscate about 2/3 of the guns in this country. No way something even that drastic would ever make it to pass in congress or by the SCOTUS.

So, less drastic right?

Red flag laws? They violate the fourth and fifth amendments.
National registry? Violates the fourth.
Changing the age to purchase firearms? Violates the second amendment, but you would have to change the definition of adult, too.
Require mental health check? Violates HIPAA, but again mental health isn't the issue, as argued by others.

Ban Certain makes models? Other companies will create compatible platforms.
Create a vaguely defined class of firearms and ban them? They will be retrofitted.

What options do you have to accomplish gun control, that isn't outright illegal or without causing chaos?

- - - Updated - - -

Besides lobby against any sort of common sense gun reform and pay politicians accordingly.

Where's a digitalized federal database of firearm registrations so whenever something crosses state lines people don't have to look up the actual paper records that could very well be deteriorated?

What about the ban on CDC studies of gun related incidents?

It has a direct objective of making sure our heads are stuck in the sand to limit the evidence for enacting gun control measures.

Similar to what Endus said, it's not an ad hominem, it's a conclusion from inductive reasoning. The evidence of how to prevent tragedies like the US is clear as day, and refusal to do so is a blatant disregard for human life.

It's not induction. This isn't a thread on logical calculus, but what's he saying isn't that.

- - - Updated - - -

For the sake of information, and for some hypothetical "you";

1> You're a jerk
2> You have Opinion A
Therefore;
Conclusion; Opinion A is wrong.

That's an ad hominem, due to premise #1.

However;

1> You like hurting puppies
2> You steal candy from children
Therefore:
Conclusion; you're an enormous asshole.

That's not an ad hominem, assuming both the premises are true. The conclusion's just crass and insulting, but accurate. No logical failings at all, if the premises are true.

Not all negative conclusions are ad hominems. It's how we can tell some people really are behaving badly. I know you're not confused, but this shit's constantly misstated.

What if I'm a veterinarian and a good father? You know hurt puppies and take cany from children?

Hilariously wrong attempt at anything logical.

[Endus]

It's not a tautology, at all. That doesn't even apply here in any sense of the word. You don't have a similar nation to compare the US to.

Wanting a nation so "similar" is, precisely, what tautological arguments are. It's an attempt to build a circular argument. The entire point here is that there is a visible difference in outcomes, between nations, and we're looking at factors that vary to determine which factor(s) contribute to that variation.

There is not only no need for such "similarity", it's entirely antithetical to the process. You are simply lying about how comparisons like this work.

Even if you take a statistic per capita, it wouldn't matter because there are no other nations with similar gun laws. Even if there were one, you'd claim cherry picking.

If you tried to pick out one nation, maybe, because you'd be doing so to exclude all the other data sources, dishonestly.

Admitting you won't even bother with a different dishonest tactic isn't defending your argument, however.

You're trying to claim because the US has guns, we have high gun homicide. Well, sure we do, just by nature of having them. Similar to how most accidents happen at home and work. And similar to how we have more car accidents because we have more people driving more cars. All of those things are said proportionally.

Literally admitting that I'm right, and pretending otherwise. Fascinating.

But gun laws and gun homicides don't have a strong relationship. I showed that a few times now. So, saying that gun laws will make anything better is a lie.

This statement is trivially false. You're making shit up.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11130511/
https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/do...PH.2013.301409
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-...cide-2011.html
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/1661390
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1921965117
https://academic.oup.com/epirev/arti...68?login=false

Pretty much every reputable study finds a direct correlation between tighter gun control legislation and lower firearms homicide rates. You're lying about the facts.

Even if you wanted a complete gun confiscation to have the US even remotely close to the next nation in guns per capita, you would have to commit an insane amount of searches and seizures. You'd have to confiscate about 2/3 of the guns in this country. No way something even that drastic would ever make it to pass in congress or by the SCOTUS.

Hey, look, a straw man. Nobody's suggested confiscations. Criminalizing unlicensed ownership is plenty. People will largely divest voluntarily if ownership is criminalized.

Red flag laws? They violate the fourth and fifth amendments.
National registry? Violates the fourth.
Changing the age to purchase firearms? Violates the second amendment, but you would have to change the definition of adult, too.
Require mental health check? Violates HIPAA, but again mental health isn't the issue, as argued by others.

We're literally talking about changing the law. Pointing to existing law is not an argument. It's just the rhetorical equivalent of going "neener-neener".

What options do you have to accomplish gun control, that isn't outright illegal or without causing chaos?

Take a glance at literally any other developing nation. They've all figured out how to fuck this particular issue up less than the USA.

[Deus Mortis]

An armed man was seen trying to break into an Alabama school.

The principal saw and ordered a lockdown, all the doors were locked, and as he went door to door trying to get in, the police showed up and shot him.

The end.

Incidentally, this happened Thursday after all the kids had left, but I'm not sure it would have been different if they'd been there, from the textbook way this unfolded.

They should all be this simple.

Happened in Texas as well.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/quick-thin...003412829.html
Quick-thinking staffers save camp children from suspected gunman in Texas

Police shot and killed a suspect Monday morning after he entered an athletic complex where summer camp was taking place in Duncanville, Texas, allegedly armed with a handgun, authorities said.

No children were harmed after camp staffers ushered them to safety when the man entered the building.

Police exchanged gunfire with the suspect at the Duncanville Fieldhouse within minutes of arriving at the scene, Duncanville Mayor Barry Gordon said, according to ABC Dallas affiliate WFAA.

"Our officers did not hesitate," Gordon said. "They did what they were trained to do and saved lives."

The summer camp for 4- to 14-year-olds has an average attendance of more than 250 campers and staff, the Duncanville Police Department said in a statement.

Quick-thinking staffers save camp children from suspected gunman in Texas
Police shot and killed a suspect Monday morning after he entered an athletic complex where summer camp was taking place in Duncanville, Texas, allegedly armed with a handgun, authorities said.

No children were harmed after camp staffers ushered them to safety when the man entered the building.

Police exchanged gunfire with the suspect at the Duncanville Fieldhouse within minutes of arriving at the scene, Duncanville Mayor Barry Gordon said, according to ABC Dallas affiliate WFAA.

"Our officers did not hesitate," Gordon said. "They did what they were trained to do and saved lives."

The summer camp for 4- to 14-year-olds has an average attendance of more than 250 campers and staff, the Duncanville Police Department said in a statement.

Families of kids wounded in Uvalde school shooting sue suspected gunman's estate

A camp counselor confronted the suspected gunman in the lobby of the indoor sports and fitness center.

Upon hearing the gunshots in the lobby, staff members moved the kids to a safe area and locked the doors, preventing the suspected gunman from getting inside, Duncanville Assistant Police Chief Matthew Stogner said.

"[He] did fire one round inside the classroom where there were children inside," Stogner said. "Fortunately, no one was injured."

Police arrived on the scene at 8:45 a.m. -- two minutes after receiving calls -- and began a search, locating the suspect "quickly" and exchanging gunfire, authorities said. The suspect, who has not been identified, was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The camp and Fieldhouse followed lockdown procedures, police said, adding: "Due to the clear-headed actions of staff and the quick response time of law enforcement, there were no additional injuries."

Stogner praised the police officers for quickly dealing with the situation and utilizing their active shooter training.

Glad to see other officers not wanting to be like the chickens in Uvalde.

[Breccia]

Glad to see other officers not wanting to be like the chickens in Uvalde.

Yeah, this is probably the standard, but it's good to see success stories for a while.

[Linkedblade]

Wanting a nation so "similar" is, precisely, what tautological arguments are. It's an attempt to build a circular argument. The entire point here is that there is a visible difference in outcomes, between nations, and we're looking at factors that vary to determine which factor(s) contribute to that variation.

There is not only no need for such "similarity", it's entirely antithetical to the process. You are simply lying about how comparisons like this work.



If you tried to pick out one nation, maybe, because you'd be doing so to exclude all the other data sources, dishonestly.

Admitting you won't even bother with a different dishonest tactic isn't defending your argument, however.



Literally admitting that I'm right, and pretending otherwise. Fascinating.



This statement is trivially false. You're making shit up.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11130511/
https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/do...PH.2013.301409
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-...cide-2011.html
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/1661390
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1921965117
https://academic.oup.com/epirev/arti...68?login=false

Pretty much every reputable study finds a direct correlation between tighter gun control legislation and lower firearms homicide rates. You're lying about the facts.



Hey, look, a straw man. Nobody's suggested confiscations. Criminalizing unlicensed ownership is plenty. People will largely divest voluntarily if ownership is criminalized.



We're literally talking about changing the law. Pointing to existing law is not an argument. It's just the rhetorical equivalent of going "neener-neener".



Take a glance at literally any other developing nation. They've all figured out how to fuck this particular issue up less than the USA.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11130511/
"Conclusion: Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides."

https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/
-.68265 Correlation coefficient. Definitely not a gotcha, by any means. Definitely implies there are other things at play.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/do...PH.2013.301409
This was an analysis of which factors are more likely to determine who would commit a gun homicide. You may want to actually read it.

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-...cide-2011.html
This is a great break down of homicide worldwide, don't really think that supports what you're saying at all.

Honestly, it's quite evident you didn't do anything more than just google random titles and link them here. You didn't read these.

[Edge-]

That's just bad statistics. There are no countries in the world with comparable statistics to even begin proving your claim. You would need to find a similarly populated and similarly armed country.

Ignoring that this "you can't compare" stuff is absolutely nonsense, but to the bolded in particular.

Has it ever been a thought that maybe that is the point if we're looking at causes of the astronomically high levels of gun violence and frequency of mass shootings in the US?