View Poll Results: What do you think?

Voters
49. You may not vote on this poll
  • Both sides have made compromise difficult/impossible.

    19 38.78%
  • Only one side has made compromise difficult/impossible.

    22 44.90%
  • Neither side has made compromise difficult/impossible.

    1 2.04%
  • Undecided / Don't Care

    7 14.29%
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
  1. #101
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Giscoicus View Post
    As far as the first link goes...
    While I can appreciate your zeal for analyzing these studies, nothing you've pointed out has any appreciable effect on the conclusion of the study. It remains the same: Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.

    Most importantly of all, however, is that the study talks about a correlation between ACCESSIBILITY of firearms and suicide or homicide in the home when the entire analysis is about ownership. It is misleading to suggest that accessibility has an impact when nothing about how accessible guns are is analyzed.
    What? This is most important? A rather subtle distinction between owning a firearm and having access to that firearm? This is an argument of semantics, not substance.

    Im reading the 2nd link now, there isnt much with the 3rd link but "no control variables" and "strong and statistically significant" do not belong in the same statement.
    Here's the full copy of the 3rd study, since you seem so inclined. Once you're done with your analysis, I have about 100 other studies I can link, which all come to the same conclusion.

    That's a pretty important point. The results have been duplicated time after time after time. In different locations. With different people. During different time periods.
    Eat yo vegetables

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    While I can appreciate your zeal for analyzing these studies, nothing you've pointed out has any appreciable effect on the conclusion of the study. It remains the same: Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.



    What? This is most important? A rather subtle distinction between owning a firearm and having access to that firearm? This is an argument of semantics, not substance.



    Here's the full copy of the 3rd study, since you seem so inclined. Once you're done with your analysis, I have about 100 other studies I can link, which all come to the same conclusion.

    That's a pretty important point. The results have been duplicated time after time after time. In different locations. With different people. During different time periods.
    A conclusion about accessibility from a meta-study on ownership is not something that you should be citing. Its not an argument of semantics, when people talk about accessibility of guns they mean how easy it is for a person to get a gun, not if it is in your reach because you already have one in your home. One of the studies cited, I believe number 10, even explains how they quantify the "accessibility" of guns; its not the same as gun ownership.

    Furthermore, if you are going to define accessibility as "having access to that firearm", then dont link that 3rd study, as it defines it differently and you shouldn't have linked the first as the studies that it cited focused on gun ownership and not accessibility.

    You should at least seek consistency between your definition of accessibility and accessibility as defined by one of your citations, especially in the sort of meta study they conducted. Yes, it is a significant difference because gun ownership and gun accessibility are different in terms of gun control. Gun ownership would relate to who is a victim or perpetrator of a violent crime, gun accessibility would be in relation to the frequency of violent crime.

    Maybe read the studies before you link them. Anybody can google and copy a link that looks official. Or make a rebuttal that's more than "nothing you said is valid" because Im pretty sure that citing one study that talks about people living alone then turning around and making a statement about domestic violence is evidence of obvious bias.

  3. #103
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Giscoicus View Post
    A conclusion about accessibility from a meta-study on ownership is not something that you should be citing.
    There's absolutely no reason not to cite it. A scientific study published in a peer reviewed paper is fair game. It's conclusion is valid and relevant to the discussion. Your inability to distinguish between accessibility/availability/ownership has no bearing on the facts.

    when people talk about accessibility of guns they mean how easy it is for a person to get a gun, not if it is in your reach because you already have one in your home.
    Citation required. No really. Who are these "people" you're referring to?

    Accessibility, ownership, availability; these are all essentially the same thing. Point being? Strong correlations are observed between increases in accessibility/ownership/availability and increases in homicide/suicide rates.

    We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

    Shall I keep going?
    Eat yo vegetables

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Those are all very interesting points that have absolutely nothing to do with the relationship between firearms and homicide/suicide/crime. You're taking two raw data points and implying that there's some relationship there. You need to control for several variables to eliminate any confounders.

    When this is done, you find robust, significant correlations between access to firearms and increases in homicide/suicide.
    Of course there are thousands of different factors involved from the economy (i.e. poor neighborhoods have more violence), culture, education, etc. that can all contribute to something. I think that is something we can all agree on. I mention it, because too often it seems like political figures are pointing to Britain (Piers Morgan) and Australia (Barack Obama) as "examples of reducing violence," when it's questionable at best what sort of impact the gun control laws in those nations have had.

  5. #105
    The NRA and the far right have no interest in public safety for them it is all about running up the fear and sell more guns.

  6. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post



    Accessibility, ownership, availability; these are all essentially the same thing.
    Didn't know if I had access to something I owned it, man so many lost opportunities.
    Socialism is the only economic system that requires billionaires to exist.
    https://i.redditmedia.com/P8UE8DAGeB...c1ef120404fdbd
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    This term isn't far off, though it would need the word "scientific" in front of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Accessibility, ownership, availability; these are all essentially the same thing.

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by The Batman View Post
    My point was that when their gun crime was already ridiculously small to begin with due to stringent gun control laws already in place, another wave of new laws or buybacks (which is what the Aussie one was) isn't going to have any noticeable affect.
    Fair enough, but if that's the case, then surely there would be no need for anyone to advocate going as far as to have a buyback like Australia? Why would American politicians say "let's follow Australia's model," instead of "let's follow Sweden's [example] model?

  8. #108
    The Lightbringer stabetha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    middle of the desert U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,517
    Quote Originally Posted by araine View Post
    The NRA and the far right have no interest in public safety for them it is all about running up the fear and sell more guns.
    I thought conspiracy theory posts weren't allowed here.
    you can't make this shit up
    Quote Originally Posted by Elba View Post
    Third-wave feminism or Choice feminism is actually extremely egalitarian
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    I hate America
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    I don't read/watch any of these but to rank them:Actual news agency (mostly factual):CNN MSNBC NPR

  9. #109
    I think that the side that is afraid of the other side is the one who is afraid to compromise.

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Giscoicus View Post
    But the improvements of guns as technology has improved is something the founding fathers would have considered. While it was not really used as its design was not perfected until later, the puckle gun existed prior to the writing of the constitution by more than 50 years, and while we may have been using muskets in the revolutionary war, the fact that such a gun existed and was capable of firing at a rate of nearly 10 times that of the "minutemen" was something they were aware of. The evolution of technology did not sway them from protecting the right to bear arms.

    A gun existed that could fire nearly 10 times faster than what they were using. Guns now can fire ten times faster than the puckle gun. Increased killing capacity does not justify revision of the 2nd amendment as increased killing capacity was a known inevitability when the constitution was written.
    An interesting example, I haven't seen anyone really bring this up before. Upon doing some digging, it appears that there were also multichambered revolvers (somewhat similar to semi-automatic firearms) as early as the 1500s. Yet there doesn't seem to be any mention by even a single Founding Father about wanting to ban or exclude the Puckle gun, multichambered guns or other such inventions from protection under the Second Amendment. There are also several American Revolutionary War veterans who lived well into the 1860s and 1870s, living to see the invention of the lever action rifle and the volley gun, agar gun and gatling gun, yet they don't appear to have been opposed to civilians owning them.

    During the American Revolution there was purportedly a prototype firearm developed by Joseph Belton that fired "20 rounds in 5 seconds." Far from being "appalled" at the Belton gun, the Continental Congress appears to have appreciated the idea.

  11. #111
    Void Lord Aeluron Lightsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jaina Proudmoore's side. Always and forever.
    Posts
    40,875
    Would the the great god Founding Fathers have known? I can't say because I don't presume to know what they talk about. It made sense back then. All that reloading time. Now, well it's everywhere and not a lot of reloading time.



    Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
    #TeamLegion #UnderEarthofAzerothexpansion plz #Arathor4Alliance

    Warrior-Magi at your service! My Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/Aeluron

  12. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeluron Lightsong View Post
    Would the the great god Founding Fathers have known? I can't say because I don't presume to know what they talk about. It made sense back then. All that reloading time. Now, well it's everywhere and not a lot of reloading time.



    Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
    See my above post and the post I quoted by Giscoicus.

  13. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.
    Firearm ownership rate proxy calculated by dividing firearm suicides by all suicides...

    At some point here, we're just going to get to the point where it's scientifically accepted that owning a firearm kills you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •