Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

Conspiracy theories not allowed here.

There's nothing to cover up, so it really can't be a conspiracy.

[Zoranon]

There's truth to this too... that's fair enough also.

It is very simple actually. Guns are a hot button issue in the US. So the mods have 3 choices, either they can contain the often toxic discussion into one thread, or have new thread popping up every few weeks. The only to way to get rid of it would be to add guns to the list of forbidden topics.

[TZucchini]

There's nothing to cover up, so it really can't be a conspiracy.

Definition: Conspiracy Theory: A theory that explains ("Mods agree with gun control arguments") an event or situation("lack of infraction for infractable offenses") as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups("forum mods").

It's literally the definition of a conspiracy theory. lockedout is saying that the mods are not infracting people for infractable offenses because they agree with gun control. How could you even argue this?

[Tinykong]

Definition: Conspiracy Theory: A theory that explains ("Mods agree with gun control arguments") an event or situation("lack of infraction for infractable offenses") as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups("forum mods").

It's literally the definition of a conspiracy theory. lockedout is saying that the mods are not infracting people for infractable offenses because they agree with gun control. How could you even argue this?

Sure, that's the definition. You're missing how this isn't a secret, you can clearly see which moderators infract which posters.

[PhaelixWW]

It's really sad that unqualified people think causation is necessary to 1) establish a relationship and 2) make reasonable adjustments to variable A to get the desired outcome to variable B, even if the intermediate steps are unknown. If this were the case, psychiatry would have ground to a halt long ago.

It's really sad that unqualified people think that 1) anybody is making the claim that causation is necessary to establish a correlative relationship, and 2) that a system where changing variable A leads to a change in variable B is not a causative relationship, regardless of intermediate steps.

Protip: If you change variable A and variable B changes with it, that's not just a correlative relationship, that's a causal relationship.

For example, fire trucks correlate with fires. Without any artificial outside interference, an area with more fires will have more fire trucks. Lowering the number of fire trucks in an area, however, will not lower the number of fires, because the causality is reversed.

Similarly, windshield wiper use correlates with slippery roads. There's no causal relationship between the two, however, because both are caused by a third factor, rain.

1) If A causes B, then changing A will change B because A has a causal relationship to B.
2) If B causes A, then changing A will not change B because A has only a correlative relationship with B (or a reactive relationship).
3) If A causes C which causes B, then A causes B and rule 1 applies.
4) If C causes A and also causes B, then changing A will not change B because A has only a correlative relationship with B.

So when you claim that lowering A should lower B, then you're inferring and implying a causal relationship between A and B.

[Rukentuts]

It's really sad that unqualified people think that 1) anybody is making the claim that causation is necessary to establish a correlative relationship, and 2) that a system where changing variable A leads to a change in variable B is not a causative relationship, regardless of intermediate steps.

Protip: If you change variable A and variable B changes with it, that's not just a correlative relationship, that's a causal relationship.

For example, fire trucks correlate with fires. Without any artificial outside interference, an area with more fires will have more fire trucks. Lowering the number of fire trucks in an area, however, will not lower the number of fires, because the causality is reversed.

Similarly, windshield wiper use correlates with slippery roads. There's no causal relationship between the two, however, because both are caused by a third factor, rain.

1) If A causes B, then changing A will change B because A has a causal relationship to B.
2) If B causes A, then changing A will not change B because A has only a correlative relationship with B (or a reactive relationship).
3) If A causes C which causes B, then A causes B and rule 1 applies.
4) If C causes A and also causes B, then changing A will not change B because A has only a correlative relationship with B.

So when you claim that lowering A should lower B, then you're inferring and implying a causal relationship between A and B.

Then how can you explain the correlative coefficients in the copious studies you handwaved?

Edit: Because your example is flawed, you know why? Because "rain" was controlled, and yet still A correlated with B.

[Invrlose]

So your question wasn´t a joke? oh

No it wasn't a joke. It was to see how stupid anti-gunners are both are semi automatic .308 rifles with similar barrel length.

[DeulonUS]

Anything that gives the government more power over the people I am against.

Just like this recent move to try to classify the internet as a utility so it can be regulated by the government.

No.. Just no.

I'm sure a lot of the people that voted YES, they would support an assault weapons ban also support gay marriage as well. Just take a look at our government and see how that is working out. Sure, there are some states that are all for gay marriages, but then take a look at states like Alabama. Why are we letting the government tell us who we can and cannot marry? You give the government an inch and they will take a mile.

[lockedout]

Then how can you explain the correlative coefficients in the copious studies you handwaved?

Edit: Because your example is flawed, you know why? Because "rain" was controlled, and yet still A correlated with B.

You made 0 sense.

[Eroginous]

Anything that gives the government more power over the people I am against.

Just like this recent move to try to classify the internet as a utility so it can be regulated by the government.

No.. Just no.

Title 2 reclassification of the internet makes it so that the FCC can punish ISPs for doing the shit they've been doing for years. It's the best thing to happen to Internet since... the internet.

[THE Bigzoman]

I would disagree. There's new topics that pop up from time to time. New legislation that gets introduced from time to time. New shooting incidents occurring as well.

Sure. Some of the discussion gets re-hashed, but people can simply stop posting if they do not wish to discuss this further.

It's certainly better than a new relationship thread being posted every day. Or a new abortion thread. Racism thread. This entire forum is just a re-hash of daily topics.

- - - Updated - - -



Conspiracy theories not allowed here.

I'm kind of disappointed you didn't mention gender topics.

[jugzilla]

They really should just kill this thread. Whenever a new firearms thread pops up, the new thread gets shut down and gets thrown in here. And then we get do hear about how owning firearms means you are ignorant science denier. Also lectures on how you conduct scientific studies, and science. This thread also likes to discuss word-theory, correlative coefficients and copious studies. Not only is it the longest thread, but the most boring and dumbfounding.

[Deleted]

It's really sad that unqualified people think that 1) anybody is making the claim that causation is necessary to establish a correlative relationship, and 2) that a system where changing variable A leads to a change in variable B is not a causative relationship, regardless of intermediate steps.

Protip: If you change variable A and variable B changes with it, that's not just a correlative relationship, that's a causal relationship.

For example, fire trucks correlate with fires. Without any artificial outside interference, an area with more fires will have more fire trucks. Lowering the number of fire trucks in an area, however, will not lower the number of fires, because the causality is reversed.

Similarly, windshield wiper use correlates with slippery roads. There's no causal relationship between the two, however, because both are caused by a third factor, rain.

1) If A causes B, then changing A will change B because A has a causal relationship to B.
2) If B causes A, then changing A will not change B because A has only a correlative relationship with B (or a reactive relationship).
3) If A causes C which causes B, then A causes B and rule 1 applies.
4) If C causes A and also causes B, then changing A will not change B because A has only a correlative relationship with B.

So when you claim that lowering A should lower B, then you're inferring and implying a causal relationship between A and B.

The correlation stick kinda fails when factor A is a prequisite for factor B.

You cant abuse something that you dont have access to.

[PhaelixWW]

The correlation stick kinda fails when factor A is a prequisite for factor B.

Firearms are not a prerequisite for murderous intent, sorry.

You cant abuse something that you dont have access to.

Tell that to the war on drugs.

[Deleted]

Firearms are not a prerequisite for murderous intent, sorry.

So it makes virtually no difference, if you combine said intent with any number of possible force multiplyers?

It takes a high qualitative one to make it possible for a toddler to almost kill two adult humans while being supervised.

Tell that to the war on drugs

So you say its virtually impossible to restrict acces to firearms?

Harder to hide than drugs, harder to produce, the supply is domestic and the object in question
is non addictive.

[Mayhem]

No it wasn't a joke. It was to see how stupid anti-gunners are both are semi automatic .308 rifles with similar barrel length.

Worked great didn´t it?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure a lot of the people that voted YES, they would support an assault weapons ban also support gay marriage as well. Just take a look at our government and see how that is working out. Sure, there are some states that are all for gay marriages, but then take a look at states like Alabama. Why are we letting the government tell us who we can and cannot marry? You give the government an inch and they will take a mile.

Can someone explain this to me? I read it as if he means to say gay marriage is bad and then comes around raging against government telling people who they can and cannot marry. Totally confused.

[PhaelixWW]

So you say its virtually impossible to restrict acces to firearms?

Yup.

Harder to hide than drugs...

The 4th amendment disagrees.

...harder to produce...

Are you kidding me?

...the supply is domestic...

Not having to smuggle them across a border makes them harder to get?

...and the object in question is non addictive.

Drugs aren't addictive until the user chooses to use them. And drugs being an addictive, consumable item means that there's more chance of being caught due to constant and habitual transactions.

[Mayhem]

Are you kidding me?

your argument against "harder to produce" is a product that would be illegal to sell?

[Rukentuts]

Yeah, because there's such vast organized crime in all those western Europe an countries because gun control. Handwave studies, argue fantasy.

- - - Updated - - -

The correlation stick kinda fails when factor A is a prequisite for factor B.

You cant abuse something that you dont have access to.

His examples fail because he forgot studies control variables.

[TZucchini]

Just a PSA for all the criminals and convicted violent felons in Washington State.

If you'd like to purchase a firearm for future criminal activities, this gun show is for you!!!!

"If you’re an FFL and you’d like to sell firearms at the expo, please understand this: No unconstitutional gun sales will be permitted. That means no background checks, no paperwork, no infringement."