or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Take all of the guns. All of them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Take all of the guns. All of them. - Page 21

post #301 of 1719
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

The article you posted lists several studies that are unreadable without a subscription. The first study I was able to read attempts to measure gun laws and their impact on firearm fatalities by state. They include suicide, which invariably skews the results (unless you're proposing that gun control be implemented to control suicide). It also ignores the demographic component of firearm deaths within each state, and where in the state those deaths are occurring. It lumps everyone together. You don't need a Poisson regression to figure out what is driving a large portion of gun homicides in the country.

 

Here you go: http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/fulltext

 

Quote:
 ...(unless you're proposing that gun control be implemented to control suicide).

 

I am. It's all part and parcel of citizens keeping guns in the home, etc.

 

I find it hilarious than Americans will condemn smoking as a vice which kills you, but will leave something just as dangerous around the home.

post #302 of 1719
Instead of leaping to the outright prohibition of owning a gun and keeping it in one's home, why not propose stricter gun handling and storage safety training on purchase?

I suspect your personal view as a British nurse (and def if your avatar is really you) is that guns are "needless and offensive" and this is the real driving force behind your prescription for the rest of us. ie an imposition of your personal preferences on everyone else in the unassailable good name of "safety and reducing fatalities", which in truth would rank far lower for you than the simple fact you plain and simple dislike guns.

Certainly if *reducing fatalities* were your selfless goal youd be exponentially more motivated to harp against US fast food according to the stats...though a hamburger probably doesnt strike you personally as anywhere near offensive as a gun, does it?

Hell, you may even actually "own" one from time to time wink.gif
post #303 of 1719
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post

Whats a smoke wagon?
post #304 of 1719
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Oh i get.So it in Texas they are going to go to college campuses find people they don't agree with and start slapping them around and daring them to draw guns. Takes a certain kind of badass to put on a gun and go around threatening unarmed people

post #305 of 1719
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

Oh, how I do love your pseudo-intelligence, Piobaire. Ever wonder that perhaps Sweden's culture makes women feel more empowered to report rapes (seeing as it's one of the most underreported crimes)? Just a theory mind--I'm sure you can pseudo-explain your way out of it, though, so I'm not too worried about you.

I put that out there just because I knew it would twist your little panties. If we don't like the data what do we do? Dismiss the data of course. So predictable.

Now, of course, you only have to dismiss all the other data gathered by the OECD that supports what I said. I'm sure if you try hard enough you can dismiss the entire catalogue of work by the OECD! (Except, of course, data that shows where the US is lacking as no doubt that's valid, right? BAWAHAHHAHA.)

And sadly, if you'd pull your head out of your arse to take a breath that doesn't smell like your own shit, you'd realize that what I've pointed out might support more gun control. However, you're too blinded by your own shit to think about that, which is also typical and predictable.
post #306 of 1719
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

Here you go: http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/fulltext

I find it hilarious than Americans will condemn smoking as a vice which kills you, but will leave something just as dangerous around the home.

I don't want to ban smoking or guns. Smoke whatever you want, and own whatever you want. None of my business.
post #307 of 1719
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

Here you go: http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/fulltext

I find it hilarious than Americans will condemn smoking as a vice which kills you, but will leave something just as dangerous around the home.

I don't want to ban smoking or guns. Smoke whatever you want, and own whatever you want. None of my business.
A Libertarian view. I'm all for it. Do whatever you want to yourself, just dont get me involved.
post #308 of 1719
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

Here you go: http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/fulltext


I am. It's all part and parcel of citizens keeping guns in the home, etc.

I find it hilarious than Americans will condemn smoking as a vice which kills you, but will leave something just as dangerous around the home.

That study still doesn't consider where those deaths are occurring. Most of these studies are attempting to show gun violence as a universal problem within the country, or within specific states. It's not. Create two different states - fill one with every NRA member and the other with random people from poor neighborhoods in Chicago or Baltimore. Both will have a lot of guns, only one is going to have a gun violence problem. You could adjust for income level and you'd have a similar outcome. I don't see continual headlines for 50 people being shot in a trailer park in a single weekend.

http://wgntv.com/2015/09/21/50-shot-5-killed-in-weekend-shootings-across-chicago/
post #309 of 1719
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

That study still doesn't consider where those deaths are occurring. Most of these studies are attempting to show gun violence as a universal problem within the country, or within specific states. It's not. Create two different states - fill one with every NRA member and the other with random people from poor neighborhoods in Chicago or Baltimore. Both will have a lot of guns, only one is going to have a gun violence problem. You could adjust for income level and you'd have a similar outcome. I don't see continual headlines for 50 people being shot in a trailer park in a single weekend.

http://wgntv.com/2015/09/21/50-shot-5-killed-in-weekend-shootings-across-chicago/


To borrow from the Facebook vernacular of our time,

"This."
post #310 of 1719
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

That study still doesn't consider where those deaths are occurring. Most of these studies are attempting to show gun violence as a universal problem within the country, or within specific states. It's not. Create two different states - fill one with every NRA member and the other with random people from poor neighborhoods in Chicago or Baltimore. Both will have a lot of guns, only one is going to have a gun violence problem. You could adjust for income level and you'd have a similar outcome. I don't see continual headlines for 50 people being shot in a trailer park in a single weekend.

http://wgntv.com/2015/09/21/50-shot-5-killed-in-weekend-shootings-across-chicago/

Hundo. Legalize narcotics and Japan would have some truly paltry stats to winge about indeed.

...it's amazing how much white people profoundly liked "The Wire" but none of 'em even so much as entertain the creators' key message.
post #311 of 1719
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirReveller View Post

Instead of leaping to the outright prohibition of owning a gun and keeping it in one's home, why not propose stricter gun handling and storage safety training on purchase?

I suspect your personal view as a British nurse (and def if your avatar is really you) is that guns are "needless and offensive", and this is the real driving force behind your prescription for the rest of us. I.e. an imposition of your personal preferences on everyone else in the unassailable good name of "safety and reducing fatalities" which in truth would rank far lower for you than the simple fact you, plain and simple, dislike guns.

Certainly if *reducing fatalities* were your selfless goal, you'd be exponentially more motivated to harp against US fast food according to the stats. Though, a hamburger probably doesn't strike you personally as anywhere near offensive as a gun, does it?

Hell, you may even actually "own" one from time to time. wink.gif

 

Urgh, I know you're a libertarian and hence an idiot by default, but, come on, a. you're putting words into my mouth, and b. you're so clearly denying all the evidence.

 

Of course, I'd be for better screening--but mental health screening is literally useless, as every single person on the planet's mental health is in constant flux. It's nothing to do with me having an ideology. I try to stay away from ideologies, stereotypes and other 'feelings'. I stick to evidence, history and logic. So, don't try and make out (like many right-wing people do), that this is some sort of ideological attack.

 

Thanks for bringing up the way in which many food manufacturers use ingredients which have been proven to be very unhealthy. I think there should be reform in the health and food sector, too. I doubt it would have been a stretch for anyone here, to imagine me being against corporations harming human health to make a quick buck.

 

Humans need to eat, though; humans do not need a gun. So, your analogy there is phony and dumb.

 

Libertarians don't like other people telling them what to do. So, if every single piece of food you could buy in the supermarket had been injected with something which would 100% give you cancer, would you not be asking the government to reform the industry, or would you be quite happy having cancer? Simplified, yes, but it's fundamental flaw to the libertarian viewpoint.

 

Also, I am not a nurse, and never said I was. I am a deputy manager at a care home for people with autism spectrum disorders, learning disabilities, severe epilepsy, etc.


Edited by JapanAlex01 - 9/25/15 at 1:34am
post #312 of 1719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

Oh, how I do love your pseudo-intelligence, Piobaire. Ever wonder that perhaps Sweden's culture makes women feel more empowered to report rapes (seeing as it's one of the most underreported crimes)? Just a theory mind--I'm sure you can pseudo-explain your way out of it, though, so I'm not too worried about you.

I put that out there just because I knew it would twist your little panties. If we don't like the data what do we do? Dismiss the data of course. So predictable.

Now, of course, you only have to dismiss all the other data gathered by the OECD that supports what I said. I'm sure, if you try hard enough, you can dismiss the entire catalogue of work by the OECD! (Except, of course, data that shows where the US is lacking, as no doubt that's valid, right? BAWAHAHHAHA.)

And sadly, if you'd pull your head out of your arse, to take a breath that doesn't smell like your own shit, you'd realize that what I've pointed out might support more gun control. However, you're too blinded by your own shit to think about that which is also typical and predictable.

 

LOL, every post just completes the image of you being a 12-year-old in a man's body. You dismissed the main summary of the study, and then claimed I did. WTF, are you seriously this fucking stupid?

 

Can I ask all intelligent people in this thread reading this (not many, I know), if someone tries very hard to disprove objective data which suggests gun control is useful in saving lives, would that person be more likely to be pro-gun or anti-gun?

 

If the data is wrong (which it isn't), by all means, talk about how it isn't peer-reviewed or whatever; I totally understand those science-based concerns. I do that myself even with studies I agree with in whole. But, that is clearly not what you're doing. You're just doing what the rest of these right-wing dumbnuts do: Try to discredit objective studies, so that your ill-formed ideologies aren't harmed.

 

Hell, I might be any negative adjective you can throw at me, but you're all wrong about gun control.

post #313 of 1719
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post


Libertarians don't like other people telling them what to do. So, if every single piece of food you could buy in the supermarket had been injected with something which would 100% give you cancer, would you not be asking the government to reform the industry, or would you be quite happy having cancer? Simplified, yes, but it's fundamental flaw to the libertarian viewpoint.

I dont think SirReveller ever said he was libertarian. I simply said what brokencycle said was a fairly libertarian view. But, I think you have a distorted view of the idea system there. Libertarians are more of the "less government" idea to save money. They propose this by lessening government restrictions/laws. But to a point. Suicide is legal, drugs are legal, basically everything that doesnt harm others. However, knowingly serving food that caused cancer would probably get some sort of regulation. You are harming others.
post #314 of 1719
The recent trend to believe in "science" reminds me of the "spiritual but not religious" crowd's belief in "love."
post #315 of 1719
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post


Libertarians don't like other people telling them what to do. So, if every single piece of food you could buy in the supermarket had been injected with something which would 100% give you cancer, would you not be asking the government to reform the industry, or would you be quite happy having cancer? Simplified, yes, but it's fundamental flaw to the libertarian viewpoint.

This is a flawed view for all kinds of reasons.

  1. Libertarians aren't anarchists. We believe that those who cause harm to others are liable for the damages. Libertarians still believe in a criminal code and allowing civil lawsuits for damages.
  2. How would every food item in the supermarket give you cancer? If that was the case, there would be a market for food in the supermarket that didn't give you cancer. In your example, guns are incredibly useful for people to hunt our own food. You're not forced to buy food from the supermarket. There are other options.
  3. Libertarians also believe organizations such as the FDA shouldn't exist. Not because they want everyone to get cancer, but they believe private market solutions are more efficient. Look at Consumer Reports - they are far more effective than any government agency at rating most consumer products.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Take all of the guns. All of them.