Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Collective punishment is never relevant.

You clearly don't go to the right kind of adult clubs.....

And.... welcome to the quotes club.

[Ors Might]

Collective punishment is never relevant.

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

[Outer Sparta]

To be fair, other countries have had school shootings...

Beslan school siege, Russia <- worst school shooting ever
Dunblane, Scotland

Belsan was a terrorist attack that happened in 2004 and Dunblane happened over 20 years ago. As for the latter, Britain implemented new gun laws after Dunblane and now they hardly have gun violence.

[Len Hyet]

This is relevant...how?

It should be obvious.

Beslan school siege, Russia <- worst school shooting ever
Dunblane, Scotland

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.

In the immortal words of our great acceptable adequate tolerable President wrong.

[Fartsniffage]

It should be obvious.



They do but not as frequently as the US.

At the very least not in recent history.

In the immortal words of our great acceptable adequate tolerable President wrong.

He said frequency. not death rates.

[Len Hyet]

In the immortal words of our great acceptable adequate tolerable President wrong.

He said frequency. not death rates.

Scroll to the second graphic.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It should be obvious.



They do but not as frequently as the US.

At the very least not in recent history.

In the immortal words of our great acceptable adequate tolerable President wrong.

Fishy out of date sauce.

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

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.

[Len Hyet]

In the immortal words of our great acceptable adequate tolerable President wrong.

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]

In the immortal words of our great acceptable adequate tolerable President wrong.

Fishy out of date sauce.

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.

Not an unreasonable thing to want. I’d be on board with you if I weren’t doubtful that any law attempting to do so would refrain from affecting people who aren’t any danger to others.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

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.

Looks like a biased sauce to me.

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.

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.

[Big Jim P]

Collective punishment is never relevant.

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.

Once again , no one is giving anyone guns. Duh.

[Len Hyet]

... 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.

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.

[Ors Might]

... 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.

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.

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.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

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.

Once again , no one is giving anyone guns. Duh.

Giving guns in exchange for money.

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.

A obviously biased sauce does not a good pasta make.

[Len Hyet]

Once again , no one is giving anyone guns. Duh.

Giving guns in exchange for money.

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.

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.

[Valgora]

Once again , no one is giving anyone guns. Duh.

Giving guns in exchange for money.

No
I prefer freedom over money

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

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.

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) then give a request to a judge to temporarily suspend 2A rights.

And we really need to do both of those things.

[Washington Resistance Army]

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.

No.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

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.

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.

[Len Hyet]

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.

Alex Jones doesn't have an editorial board that looks like a who's who of Criminology experts at Ivy League Universities.

[The Two Jerseys]

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.

No.

Denying people a gun for having "intrusive thoughts" is straight-up bullshit, because everyone has them, and the vast majority of people have no problem ignoring them.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

No.

Denying people a gun for having "intrusive thoughts" is straight-up bullshit, because everyone has them, and the vast majority of people have no problem ignoring them.

Not just intrusive thoughts, violent intrusive thoughts.

The kind of shit I had.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

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.

But the same principle applies.

biased sause = not good.

[The Two Jerseys]

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.

So? Ford commercials are biased towards making you buy a Ford, but that doesn't mean that we can dismiss them out of hand when they say that Fords are the most powerful and best-selling trucks, when they have the numbers to prove it.

[Len Hyet]

Alex Jones doesn't have an editorial board that looks like a who's who of Criminology experts at Ivy League Universities.

But the same principle applies.

biased sause = not good.

No. The same principle does not apply.

First of all because there's no such thing as an unbiased source.

Second of all because putting multiple PhDs on the same level as Alex Jones is just asinine.

Refute the central point. If it's such a biased source that it's obviously wrong then it should be a fairly simple matter.