And.... welcome to the quotes club.
Advertisement
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:05 pm
by Ors Might » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:08 pm
by Outer Sparta » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:14 pm
by Len Hyet » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:14 pm
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Kernen wrote:This is relevant...how?
It should be obvious.Gig em Aggies wrote:Beslan school siege, Russia <- worst school shooting ever
Dunblane, ScotlandNew Emeline wrote:To be fair, other countries have had school shootings...
They do but not as frequently as the US.
At the very least not in recent history.
by Fartsniffage » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:17 pm
by Len Hyet » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:19 pm
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:23 pm
Ors Might wrote:The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Trying to prevent mass shootings by being more selective about giving guns to people is bad how?
Honestly if it were up to me, guns would be privilege not a right.
No offense mate but I’m glad it ain’t up to you. I’m open to some forms of gun control but the right to gain access to the most effective form of self defense shouldn’t be a privilege, imho
by Len Hyet » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:27 pm
by Ors Might » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:47 pm
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Fishy out of date sauce.Ors Might wrote:No offense mate but I’m glad it ain’t up to you. I’m open to some forms of gun control but the right to gain access to the most effective form of self defense shouldn’t be a privilege, imho
I'm all for self defence, and tbh, that's my opinion at my most extreme.
I just want added gun control so that lunatics are less likely to get a gun.
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:08 pm
Len Hyet wrote:The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Fishy out of date sauce.
... it's an academic source run by professors from places like the University of Chicago Law School, the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard Medical School, Texas A&M, and UCLA who's data collection ended in 2015 and was updated in 2016.
I don't know what kind of bleeding edge fieldwork you're used to but in Criminology information from the 80s is still considered worth referencing, data from less than two years ago is so damn new it's practically still shining.
Ors Might wrote:The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Fishy out of date sauce.
I'm all for self defence, and tbh, that's my opinion at my most extreme.
I just want added gun control so that lunatics are less likely to get a gun.
Not an unreasonable thing to want. I’d be on board with you if I weren’t doubtful of any law attempting to do so would refrain from affecting people who aren’t any danger to others.
by Len Hyet » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:39 pm
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Len Hyet wrote:... it's an academic source run by professors from places like the University of Chicago Law School, the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard Medical School, Texas A&M, and UCLA who's data collection ended in 2015 and was updated in 2016.
I don't know what kind of bleeding edge fieldwork you're used to but in Criminology information from the 80s is still considered worth referencing, data from less than two years ago is so damn new it's practically still shining.
Looks like a biased sauce to me.
by Ors Might » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:45 pm
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Len Hyet wrote:... it's an academic source run by professors from places like the University of Chicago Law School, the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard Medical School, Texas A&M, and UCLA who's data collection ended in 2015 and was updated in 2016.
I don't know what kind of bleeding edge fieldwork you're used to but in Criminology information from the 80s is still considered worth referencing, data from less than two years ago is so damn new it's practically still shining.
Looks like a biased sauce to me.Ors Might wrote:Not an unreasonable thing to want. I’d be on board with you if I weren’t doubtful of any law attempting to do so would refrain from affecting people who aren’t any danger to others.
The thing is, most people would be able to go get a gun.
Just that I want to stop the crazies from getting guns.
As I can speak from experience, suffering from OCD in silence for 5+ years of my life, we need a new way to openly talk about mental health sp that the crazies can get help, not guns.
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:45 pm
Len Hyet wrote:The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Looks like a biased sauce to me.
Your point being? Just because the analysis doesn't support your chosen opinion doesn't make it wrong. In fact, generally when the analysis doesn't support an opinion it's the opinion that's considered wrong. I dunno, maybe I've spent too much time in academia, but that's how I'm used to things working.
by Len Hyet » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:47 pm
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Big Jim P wrote:
Once again , no one is giving anyone guns. Duh.
Giving guns in exchange for money.Len Hyet wrote:Your point being? Just because the analysis doesn't support your chosen opinion doesn't make it wrong. In fact, generally when the analysis doesn't support an opinion it's the opinion that's considered wrong. I dunno, maybe I've spent too much time in academia, but that's how I'm used to things working.
A obviously biased sauce does not a good pasta make.
by Valgora » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:52 pm
MT+FanT+some PMT
Multi-species.
Current gov't:
Founded 2023
Currently 2027
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:59 pm
Ors Might wrote:The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Looks like a biased sauce to me.
The thing is, most people would be able to go get a gun.
Just that I want to stop the crazies from getting guns.
As I can speak from experience, suffering from OCD in silence for 5+ years of my life, we need a new way to openly talk about mental health sp that the crazies can get help, not guns.
I’d decide it on a case by case basis and by “I”, I mean the individual in question’s psychiatrist and a judge. Not comfortable with restricting someone’s rights without due process. Before we get even that far, though, we have to reduce the stigma and cost for seeking psychiatric help in the first place.
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:00 pm
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Ors Might wrote:I’d decide it on a case by case basis and by “I”, I mean the individual in question’s psychiatrist and a judge. Not comfortable with restricting someone’s rights without due process. Before we get even that far, though, we have to reduce the stigma and cost for seeking psychiatric help in the first place.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Every first time gun buyer should be given an examination by a psychiatrist. If they find violent tendencies (Ie intrusive thoughts ect)
And we really need to do both of those things.
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:14 pm
Len Hyet wrote:The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Giving guns in exchange for money.
A obviously biased sauce does not a good pasta make.
So refute it. With a source that has done the leg work and found the number of mass shooting incidents in European nations and compared it to the rate in the US.
You not liking who is telling you something does not invalidate it.
by Len Hyet » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:16 pm
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Len Hyet wrote:So refute it. With a source that has done the leg work and found the number of mass shooting incidents in European nations and compared it to the rate in the US.
You not liking who is telling you something does not invalidate it.
It's not that "I don't like it" if the source is clearly biased towards one point of view, that will harm there credibility.
Example: Alex Jones BS.
by The Two Jerseys » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:20 pm
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:26 pm
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:29 pm
Len Hyet wrote:The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
It's not that "I don't like it" if the source is clearly biased towards one point of view, that will harm there credibility.
Example: Alex Jones BS.
Alex Jones doesn't have an editorial board that looks like a who's who of Criminology experts at Ivy League Universities.
by The Two Jerseys » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:30 pm
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Len Hyet wrote:So refute it. With a source that has done the leg work and found the number of mass shooting incidents in European nations and compared it to the rate in the US.
You not liking who is telling you something does not invalidate it.
It's not that "I don't like it" if the source is clearly biased towards one point of view, that will harm there credibility.
Example: Alex Jones BS.
by Len Hyet » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:30 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Aggicificicerous, Ancientania, Cyptopir, Gun Manufacturers, Hidrandia, Kostane, Kreushia, Luziyca, Neanderthaland, Omphalos, Plan Neonie, Talibanada, The Vooperian Union, Tungstan
Advertisement