COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

If you love the kids, you’ll arm the teachers!

BotanyBoy said:
So are we blaming the people who do this shit yet?


*looks and is not shocked *


Still looks like it's gun owners and NRA's fault.....what a bunch of assholes.
Click to expand...

No, people are responsible for what they do and we need to do better as a society identifying and getting people the help they need. But addressing the amount of guns and ease of access is is a factor in an overall solution.
 
More children have been killed in America's schools this year than American soldiers at war.
 
KimGordon67 said:
I hadn't noticed you had only posted the suicide chart. I don't debate suicide stats in relation to gun control - I don't think guns are the relevant variable. The legislation in Australia was never intended to address suicide. I don't even understand why you're bringing it to the argument, which is about mass shootings. Of which there have been none since this policy in Australia.I
Click to expand...

I included it in the discussion because that particular chart is a glaring example of the failure of the Australian model that everyone touts as the perfect success of gun control.

You want to talk about variables? Ok. Answer this; WHY do all of the studies about GUN DEATHS also include suicides/killings/death from other means?

Take suicides, why are non-gun suicides even included? Could it be because gun suicides are such a small fraction of the total that it's an insignificant statistic comparatively? If so, why not break the category out, all suicides, gun suicides and percentage of suicide deaths by gun? No one does because no one compiles the data that way. WHY?

I believe that the answer is that the numbers don't support the gun control concept without the extraneous "variables' in the category. Those "variables" are being used to cover that up. Except I can't prove it because I can't get to data that doesn't already include the non-gun statistics.

And from there, it's one thing for us to talk about the chart I included in my previous post, but unless you actually go read the linked article then you don't see that the OTHER CHARTS in it are also as blatantly misrepresented.

So, what you're trying to do is have a conversation about something you haven't researched and then trying to pick apart my argument because you don't like the way I presented it due to the limited space in the forum rather than because the argument is incorrect.

Go read the article. LOOK at the data from multiple sources. DO NOT take someone else's word for what the data shows, analyze it yourself. Doing this takes time. A lot of time. But, you'll be surprised at what you discover if you do that and think about what you've read. You may still believe that guns are bad and should be banned or regulated, but you won't say that gun control works based on the studies that have been done. The data doesn't support that conclusion.
 
jomar said:
Good Lord, HisArpy, I don't even know where to begin...

You initially outright dismissed university research saying they were inherently anti-gun and biased, then claimed to look at their data and realized they were biased. Huh?

You claim to only be looking at data and not conclusions in an effort to be intellectually honest, I suppose, which is fine. But then you cling to John Lott's data saying that it's no surprise that anti-gun folk attempt to discredit his research. In fact, John Lott has actually discredited himself - he made shit up, used fuzzy math, misrepresented results and used sock puppets to bolster his fake results and reviews. So, to keep citing him is to actively ignore reality and blindly accept disinformation.

By the way, looking at the raw data will only get you so far. Do you trust a researchers use of statistics? Are they running the right models and formulas?

The Australian suicide chart you posted is pretty meaningless without knowing how many completions used guns...1/10, 5/10, 9/10? You can't make the conclusions you make in your post to KimGordon67 without that information. But again, Wapo still won't let me in, but see the article below which does indicate a significant difference in pre and post law change in suicide by gun.

Then you conflate single man mass gun shootings with ideological terrorist mass killings as if they're the same thing.

Honestly, I think you are experiencing confirmation bias because of your strong pro-gun views, but here's a study you'll like since it concludes that it is not possible to determine whether the change in Australian firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms...because of things...;)

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362

Again, I'm not saying gun control will solve society's ills, but guns are a factor.

ETA: Funny, got in Wapo on a different computer and we both cited the same JAMA research. :)
Click to expand...

So your reply is that I'm looking at the data wrong but the researchers aren't?

That's not much of a rebuttal.
 
HisArpy said:
So your reply is that I'm looking at the data wrong but the researchers aren't?

That's not much of a rebuttal.
Click to expand...

That’s part of it, I suppose, but not at all the whole point. As far as data goes, you posted to KimGordon67 that nobody breaks down gun/non-gun suicide data citing the Wapo article. But the actual study the article was based on (which I linked) does break it down and found a statistically significant decrease in gun suicides after the law...you’ll have to read the study for context...and it breaks down gun/non gun suicides and homicides.

Anyway, this has been fun, but probably time to wind down since there’s not much more to say. Have a good one.
 
Rightguide said:
Bullshit. The kid should be tried as an adult and executed. His parents should be sterilized and made responsible for all damages and wrongful death.
Click to expand...

His dad is the registered gun owner, so it’s not bullshit, you agree.
 
Rightguide said:
Bullshit. The kid should be tried as an adult and executed. His parents should be sterilized and made responsible for all damages and wrongful death.
Click to expand...
You'd cut off the guy's balls before you'd take his guns away?
 
phrodeau said:
What's the REAL problem? That right-winger gun nuts let their children become murderers?
Click to expand...

So then the left wing/progressive ones are ok then?? Or is it just ok when brown/Muslim folks are shooting white folks?


micah-johnson-e1467991093693.jpeg


t1larg.hasan.courtesy.jpg


bestone4ever said:
The registered owners should be held accountable.
Click to expand...

So should the registered owners of stolen cars and any other stolen property.

Brilliant idea, I'm sure there will be no legal issues with that one.
 
Last edited:
People sure are fast to condemn the father without knowing how the kid got his hands on the guns or how they were stored. Not to mention most are saying there was little warning with this kid.
But hey facts don't matter much. No reason to wait and see.
 
SgtSpiderMan said:
His dad is the registered gun owner, so it’s not bullshit, you agree.
Click to expand...

If you could read you'd see he used the plural "owners" as if all gun owners should be made accountable, but you can't, so there's that to contend with as well.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Sy_Snootles said:
People sure are fast to condemn the father without knowing how the kid got his hands on the guns or how they were stored. Not to mention most are saying there was little warning with this kid.
But hey facts don't matter much. No reason to wait and see.
Click to expand...

I was talking more in generalities, but yes, we should wait.

Rightguide said:
You want to try that again in proper English?
Click to expand...

I missed a word due to fat fingers and a small phone. That doesn't make your comprehension skills any better.
 
Sy_Snootles said:
People sure are fast to condemn the father without knowing how the kid got his hands on the guns or how they were stored. Not to mention most are saying there was little warning with this kid.
But hey facts don't matter much. No reason to wait and see.
Click to expand...

You're right, But:

Most, if not all school shootings were done with a family gun.

Many of these kids posted Hate posts or selfies with guns on Social media. Parents had no clue.

Or that Parkland School teen who was allowed by his gun nut parent to post selfies of himself with guns at a shooting range. Thus glamorizing gun macho-ism among teens.
 
jomar said:
That’s part of it, I suppose, but not at all the whole point. As far as data goes, you posted to KimGordon67 that nobody breaks down gun/non-gun suicide data citing the Wapo article. But the actual study the article was based on (which I linked) does break it down and found a statistically significant decrease in gun suicides after the law...you’ll have to read the study for context...and it breaks down gun/non gun suicides and homicides.

Anyway, this has been fun, but probably time to wind down since there’s not much more to say. Have a good one.
Click to expand...

Well DUH!

Without guns they can't USE guns to off themselves. But the stats went up anyway. So, tell me, how did banning guns prevent or reduce suicides?

Look at the other data sets and you'll see the same thing. The numbers don't lie. The NFA did not stop people dying, it only switched the cause to other methods. The fact that the data subsets are designed to occlude this is the point I'm making. And, I have yet to see the data that supports the contention you made - that gun and non-gun events are separated and broken down in the data compilation. The researchers conclusions may say so, but the data presented does not show such a separation.

It may be delineated in some studies like that, but I haven't seen it.
 
bestone4ever said:
I was talking more in generalities, but yes, we should wait.



I missed a word due to fat fingers and a small phone. That doesn't make your comprehension skills any better.
Click to expand...

Words matter son, and I'm not clairvoyant, so learn how to communicate like an adult. :rolleyes:
 
HisArpy said:
Well DUH!

Without guns they can't USE guns to off themselves. But the stats went up anyway. So, tell me, how did banning guns prevent or reduce suicides?
Click to expand...

LOL, that's why I said to read the study for context. And if you read it you'll see that banning guns did have a meaningful effect on gun suicides even though there was already a downward trend.

Look at the other data sets and you'll see the same thing. The numbers don't lie. The NFA did not stop people dying, it only switched the cause to other methods. The fact that the data subsets are designed to occlude this is the point I'm making. And, I have yet to see the data that supports the contention you made - that gun and non-gun events are separated and broken down in the data compilation. The researchers conclusions may say so, but the data presented does not show such a separation.

It may be delineated in some studies like that, but I haven't seen it.
Click to expand...

The JAMA study I linked clearly breaks down data into gun and non-gun suicides and homicides in the results section, so I don't know what you're referring to...maybe the Wapo article that references the JAMA study?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

UnHolyPimpHand
Wings of the Fallen ((UnHolyPimpHand & Curious_Muse))
2 3
Replies
50
Views
7K
UnHolyPimpHand
UnHolyPimpHand
K
Buffalo Beast's 50 Most Loathsome Americans 2013
Replies
22
Views
2K
John Doe
John Doe
Byron In Exile
Why Liberals Should Love the 2nd Amendment
6 7 8
Replies
197
Views
4K
Frizzle_Fry
F
K
Buffalo Beast's "The 50 Most Loathsome Americans of 2010"
Replies
19
Views
1K
Balladeer08
Balladeer08
R
The Caller
Replies
6
Views
437
AsylumSeeker
A
Back
Top