SF declares NRA a terrorist organization

[Chernoslavia]

You can make tinfoil hat jokes all you like. You wouldn't trust a Christian science center. Neither do I, I just also tend to look at liberal academia with the same scepticism.

See, the thing is, they’re not directly comparable. There’s this thing, it’s called peer review. You should try learning about it.

The Stanford study is made by Donahue, who has a tendency to try to dress up liberal stances as science. Not an uncommon problem. I was talking about the second one. Where they use suicides by firearm as a standin for firearm ownership statistics.

“In this paper we exploit a new well-validated proxy for local gun-ownership prevalence -- the proportion of suicides that involve firearms -- together with newly available geo-coded data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, to produce the first systematic estimates of the net effects of gun prevalence on residential burglary patterns.”
It’s almost like there are multiple tools being used.

Done so. Well, chucked money to people who do so. Gun Advocacy groups are great.

I await your inevitable loss.

I'd almost say look it up yourself, but I feel like you would find some crackpot study claiming all crime is gun crime. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-america gun crime makes up 7-8 Percent of gun crime.

Thank you. However, there’s a small problem with this data. See, they cite the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey, for the claim of 8%, but don’t actually link to it. The links provided within the article are circular. But somehow, every single other claim made actually has a working link. Funny how that works.

Linking entire studies is kinda shitty behavior. I'm not going to keep reading propaganda. Mark Duggan also seems to have that pesky issue where his entire career is lending scientific credibility to liberal stances.

Oh, I didn’t expect you to read it. My point was just that I have the data, and you don’t. Furthermore, that it is consistent data, across multiple studies.

This is a thing that happens. Get over thinking that just because it was published by a dude With a degree it's fact.

Good thing peer reviews exist, then.

No. The national debate is about rifles.

That’s great. I’m talking about guns.

. Most people, even liberals like owning guns.

30% of people and 15% of Democrats is not “most people.”

EDIT: Fixed URL tag.

Do you even have anything that counters the NIJ's claims?

[Chernoslavia]

I wouldn't put much stock in a gallup poll on firearm ownership, not many are going to answer in the affirmative that they own firearms as it really isn't of anyone's business, poll or not. In the past I've answered no or will give contradictory answers, I am sure I am not alone in doing so.

Same here. Why I don't trust polls especially Fartsnifagge's (don't know how to spell his name) poll claiming over 90 percent of America wants stricter background checks.

[Telconi]

I wouldn't put much stock in a gallup poll on firearm ownership, not many are going to answer in the affirmative that they own firearms as it really isn't of anyone's business, poll or not. In the past I've answered no or will give contradictory answers, I am sure I am not alone in doing so.

Fucking hospital asks all the damned time, answer is always no.

[The Alma Mater]

I wouldn't put much stock in a gallup poll on firearm ownership, not many are going to answer in the affirmative that they own firearms as it really isn't of anyone's business, poll or not. In the past I've answered no or will give contradictory answers, I am sure I am not alone in doing so.

Well, if people are going to base policy on such polls that' s rather dumb of you. I am sure the "gungrabbers" thank you for aiding them.

[Telconi]

I wouldn't put much stock in a gallup poll on firearm ownership, not many are going to answer in the affirmative that they own firearms as it really isn't of anyone's business, poll or not. In the past I've answered no or will give contradictory answers, I am sure I am not alone in doing so.

Well, if people are going to base policy on such polls that' s rather dumb of you. I am sure the "gungrabbers" thank you for aiding them.

They don't base policy on such polls.

[Grinning Dragon]

I wouldn't put much stock in a gallup poll on firearm ownership, not many are going to answer in the affirmative that they own firearms as it really isn't of anyone's business, poll or not. In the past I've answered no or will give contradictory answers, I am sure I am not alone in doing so.

Same here. Why I don't trust polls especially Fartsnifagge's (don't know how to spell his name) poll claiming over 90 percent of America wants stricter background checks.

If I remember correctly the pollsters asked the question about whether they wanted to keep criminals from getting guns, not about a particular piece of legislation.
The pollsters also asked a vague question with no information on how the current system works, all of it was paid for by bloomberg to conduct said poll.

[Grinning Dragon]

I wouldn't put much stock in a gallup poll on firearm ownership, not many are going to answer in the affirmative that they own firearms as it really isn't of anyone's business, poll or not. In the past I've answered no or will give contradictory answers, I am sure I am not alone in doing so.

Well, if people are going to base policy on such polls that' s rather dumb of you. I am sure the "gungrabbers" thank you for aiding them.

Perhaps people shouldn't base policy on polls, considering polls can be manipulated or as in this case inaccurate.

[Grinning Dragon]

I wouldn't put much stock in a gallup poll on firearm ownership, not many are going to answer in the affirmative that they own firearms as it really isn't of anyone's business, poll or not. In the past I've answered no or will give contradictory answers, I am sure I am not alone in doing so.

Fucking hospital asks all the damned time, answer is always no.

I have friends that get asked all the time, I have never been asked, same with my wife and kids.
Wife and kids would answer no if they were asked.

[The Alma Mater]

Well, if people are going to base policy on such polls that' s rather dumb of you. I am sure the "gungrabbers" thank you for aiding them.

They don't base policy on such polls.

Of course they do. "90% says this" certainly influences decisionmaking.

[The Alma Mater]

Well, if people are going to base policy on such polls that' s rather dumb of you. I am sure the "gungrabbers" thank you for aiding them.

Perhaps people shouldn't base policy on polls, considering polls can be manipulated or as in this case inaccurate.

Or perhaps people who want guns should not be dishonest and subsequently try to shift responsibility. It shows a sort of character that should not have guns.

[Telconi]

They don't base policy on such polls.

Of course they do. "90% says this" certainly influences decisionmaking.

I don't think this is going anywhere...

[Telconi]

Perhaps people shouldn't base policy on polls, considering polls can be manipulated or as in this case inaccurate.

Or perhaps people who want guns should not be dishonest and subsequently try to shift responsibility. It shows a sort of character that should not have guns.

Why be honest?

[Grinning Dragon]

Perhaps people shouldn't base policy on polls, considering polls can be manipulated or as in this case inaccurate.

Or perhaps people who want guns should not be dishonest and subsequently try to shift responsibility. It shows a sort of character that should not have guns.

Good thing morality isn't a prerequisite to exercise a negative right.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

Your "minority" is 43% of American households. I have to say that is almost have of American households, and I know for a fact half of America is not dead.

There’s a sizable difference between owning a gun and being in a household with one. Because you see, not only is 43% technically a minority, it also happens to be that the number of people who actually own guns is 30%.

Your sources have been biased.

Nice allegation with no proof.

Your own sources say crime decreased after gun ownership increased. "City officials tout that a year after the law was implemented, burglaries in Kennesaw dropped by more than half; by 1985 they were down by 80 percent."

Literally the next paragraph: “But while burglary numbers did drastically decline in Kennesaw after 1981, those statistics can be misleading. McDowall took a closer look at the numbers and noticed that 1981 was an anomaly—there were 75 percent more burglaries that year than there were, on average, in the previous five years. It is no surprise that the subsequent years looked great by comparison. McDowall studied before-and-after burglary numbers using 1978, 1979 or 1980 as starting points instead of 1981 and, as he reported in a 1989 paper, the purported crime drop disappeared. ”

And the minute you take guns away from law-abiding citizens, is the minute the bad guys with illegal guns will take advantage. If you ban guns, only bad guys will have guns.

You know what? No. At this point, you’re going to have to bring up some actual data, because I’m tired of arguing unsubstantiated points.

Short of a wall, which you most likely oppose, guns will flow though this country like never before.

Drugs flow through the entry points now. Guns wouldn’t be any different. Stop with the red herrings.

Saying that people should have guns because people are not infallible? Is this a joke? I hate violence as much as the next guy, but at the least I am real. Are you saying we should not have an armed police force because they are not infallible?

I mean, it definitely shouldn’t be as militarized as it is today.

That we should have an unarmed military because they are not infallible.

’You know what you should have? Less military.

Yes they make human mistakes, but they are all needed to protect this great country.

Best way to do that is economic interdependence, not military superiority.

It is crazy to suggest that. Cause if America did that, Russia and China surely wouldn't follow suit.

I don’t think you quite understand the current situation between the US and those countries.

I wish for would peace too, but be real, that isn't the truth in present day. We as a people do what we need to defend ourselves.

Except that a massively armed populace doesn’t contribute to that at all.

Your own source once again refutes some of your claims. By your own logic, that 4 people are killed per one person having a gun, the population of America should be around -222,496,000. And there is no way for a population to go into the negatives, so that is bullshit.

That’s not what it says… It says that for every 1 life saved by a gun, 4 innocent ones are lost. That is a very different claim.

You point out uprisings where there was no violation of those people's rights.

…Nat Turner was literally a slave.

The government preserves people's rights though order, and there is no need for violence. But you are quite wrong however, ever heard of the Civil War?

Yes. How’d that work out for the rebels?

Yeah you try to undermine America's victory - not cool. We fought the greater portion of the war WITHOUT French support.

Sigh. Let’s begin.
Military hostilities begin at Lexington and Concord, in 1775. Now, France had been covertly aiding the Americans before that, sending thousands of pounds of war supplies. France doesn’t officially enter the war until 1777, after Saratoga, but the Revolutionary War doesn’t end until 1783. So, yeah. You fought 2 years without open French support, 0 on your own, and the other 6 with.

And you point to Spain and Germany. Sure Spain was an enemy of England, but Germany was fucking sending mercenaries to fight the colonist so learn your history.

Baron Von Steuben trained literally your entire army. You don’t win without him.

You are disrespecting every man, woman, and child who died bravely in the Revolutionary War, and all the wars protecting YOUR RIGHTS since. It is shameful you would say such a thing. You are disrespecting our troops who give their lives so you can shit on their name.

No? I’m pointing out that they alone weren’t responsible for their success.

You talking about WWI has no relevance. I was saying remember why we aren't a British colony right now. They tried to take our weapons, and we fought back.

…How did you manage to miss the point that badly?

I mean, if you hate America so much, like you don't have to stay here. Simple as that. Japan is very strict in gun laws, you could go there, where even your kitchen knifes are border line illegal.

“If you hate slavery, just move to Massachusetts!”
-John Calhoun, probably.

One, even 30% is a significant number out a population of way over 300 million. And also note, "Gun ownership surveys always contain a degree of inaccuracy. As long as Americans can still legally purchase guns in many states without a permit or license, there doesn’t seem to be a systematic method of tracking the population of US gun owners."

That the sources you use are biased? You pick opinion papers form scientist. Yeah I don't know if you didn't know this, but an opinion is something someone has on a subject that is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Then you say "No. At this point, you’re going to have to bring up some actual data, because I’m tired of arguing unsubstantiated points." After I said if you take away guns, then only the bad guys would have guns. How stupid are you? I mean this is common sense. But I will spell it out for you. If Bob has a gun. And then you take it away, Bob does not have a gun. 1-1=0. God. I would think people should learn this in preschool. But I will find a source to prove only the bad guys would have guns. Illegal guns flow through the country.

Funny thing is right after this you prove me right with "Drugs flow through the entry points now. Guns wouldn’t be any different." Ok so you agree if we ban guns, people will still get the illegally. So all you want to do is make sure it is easier for the bad guys to kill innocent civilians. For example, A very brave civilian; an NRA arms instructor, took out the Sutherland Springs shooter with his own AR-15. Think about that.

Our police force is great and the need for rifles, shotguns, and pistols is to stop these shootings.Cite your source why we shouldn't have a strong police force.

Why should we have less military, cite your sources. A strong military is important to deter our enemies. I think most people here would agree with that. America faces different fronts and needs a large force to do that. We have possible and current enemies such as Taliban, China, Russia, the crazy leadership of Iran, and others such as Syria, ISIS, Al-Queda, and other foreign terrorist organizations.

Your other points, are beyond addressing.

You seem to not be much of a patriot, and speak as if you aren't even American.

America had French support, but who took the brunt of the war?

And you are giving all the glory to one PRUSSIAN not German general. Sure he may have trained them. But what good is a general without troops willing to fight. The Baron all he did was teach them formal European battle tactics. As cool as hundreds of men in rows look, think about why we don't fight wars this way anymore. I'm sure you don't know jack about how wars are fought now days, let alone use a gun you want to ban, but if our military was just in rows and marched today, we would have lost every war including the Revolution. The Americans used gurreilla warfare to win, not marching in rows. I cite every battle we won.

You clearly are anti-american, our troops, and the country. Sweden would be a good place to go.

[Kowani]

It's possible to like something you yourself do not care to participate in, or cannot participate in right?

I mean, yes, but there’s a difference between “like guns” and “like owning guns.”
The second requires participation.

I wouldn't put much stock in a gallup poll on firearm ownership, not many are going to answer in the affirmative that they own firearms as it really isn't of anyone's business, poll or not. In the past I've answered no or will give contradictory answers, I am sure I am not alone in doing so.

Sure, and that’s a fair criticism. But unless you’re about to argue that 21% of the population (the amount needed to become a majority), and 36% of democrats are all lying to the pollsters, then we can trust the approximate range of the data. Of course, this also goes both ways-people answering that they do when they don’t.

Do you even have anything that counters the NIJ's claims?

So, there’s two things to account for here. The first is that yes. About 25% of federal and state inmates had firearms when committing their crime. Of course, there are two gaping holes in this data-those who did not use the firearm, and unreported crimes.
Thankfully, table 1 solves the first problem-it’s 13% of crimes where the firearm was actually used. (Table 2 is interesting, because it helps diminish the argument that only bad guys would get guns, but that’s for later.) So, now we turn to the much stickier problem. So, 52% of violent crime over a 4 year period. That’s really bad. (We shall discount property crime because it’s not really relevant to the discussion.) 38% of the victims had a firearm. Not a majority, but a sizable number nonetheless. However, of those, table 7 shows us that 2.8% of the offenders had a firearm.
So, that’s 2.8% of 52% of crimes, but 21/13% of the other 48%. (However, that that 52% doesn’t include homicide, of which firearms constitute 68%, according to the source he posted.)

[Telconi]

It's possible to like something you yourself do not care to participate in, or cannot participate in right?

I mean, yes, but there’s a difference between “like guns” and “like owning guns.”
The second requires participation.

I wouldn't put much stock in a gallup poll on firearm ownership, not many are going to answer in the affirmative that they own firearms as it really isn't of anyone's business, poll or not. In the past I've answered no or will give contradictory answers, I am sure I am not alone in doing so.

Sure, and that’s a fair criticism. But unless you’re about to argue that 21% of the population (the amount needed to become a majority), and 36% of democrats are all lying to the pollsters, then we can trust the approximate range of the data. Of course, this also goes both ways-people answering that they do when they don’t.

Do you even have anything that counters the NIJ's claims?

So, there’s two things to account for here. The first is that yes. About 25% of federal and state inmates had firearms when committing their crime. Of course, there are two gaping holes in this data-those who did not use the firearm, and unreported crimes.
Thankfully, table 1 solves the first problem-it’s 13% of crimes where the firearm was actually used. (Table 2 is interesting, because it helps diminish the argument that only bad guys would get guns, but that’s for later.) So, now we turn to the much stickier problem. So, 52% of violent crime over a 4 year period. That’s really bad. (We shall discount property crime because it’s not really relevant to the discussion.) 38% of the victims had a firearm. Not a majority, but a sizable number nonetheless. However, of those, table 7 shows us that 2.8% of the offenders had a firearm.
So, that’s 2.8% of 52% of crimes, but 21/13% of the other 48%. (However, that that 52% doesn’t include homicide, of which firearms constitute 68%, according to the source he posted.)

It doesn't tho, it's possible to like a thing you're not doing.

[Grand Britannia]

I suppose its a good thing most people want a focus on mental health than banning weapons.

[Kowani]

It doesn't tho, it's possible to like a thing you're not doing.

“I like playing football.”
Doesn’t really work if I don’t play football, now does it?

[Telconi]

It doesn't tho, it's possible to like a thing you're not doing.

“I like playing football.”
Doesn’t really work if I don’t play football, now does it?

Assuming you have the capacity to form memories, or feel empathy for other people, it does.

[Kowani]

One, even 30% is a significant number out a population of way over 300 million.

I said that gun owners were a minority. 30%, regardless of how large it is in absolute numbers, is still a fucking minority.

And also note, https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-charts"Gun ownership surveys always contain a degree of inaccuracy. As long as Americans can still legally purchase guns in many states without a permit or license, there doesn’t seem to be a systematic method of tracking the population of US gun owners."

Yes, a degree. A degree is not 21%.

That the sources you use are biased? You pick opinion papers form scientist. Yeah I don't know if you didn't know this, but an opinion is something someone has on a subject that is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

It’s a good thing that’s not what I picked, then, considering that all my sources cited their data.

Then you say "No. At this point, you’re going to have to bring up some actual data, because I’m tired of arguing unsubstantiated points." After I said if you take away guns, then only the bad guys would have guns. How stupid are you? I mean this is common sense. But I will spell it out for you. If Bob has a gun. And then you take it away, Bob does not have a gun. 1-1=0. God. I would think people should learn this in preschool. But I will find a source to prove only the bad guys would have guns. Illegal guns flow through the country.

Dear God, this is simplistic. So, let’s begin. Firstly, as you so helpfully pointed out, because there’s no gun register, it’s very hard to tell who actually has them. So, it’s not that simple. Now, there’s the secondary problem that only 19% obtained their firearm in order to commit crimes, so clearly, it’s not as of its just the simplistic idea of”bad people.” Beyond that, even your own article points out that 1 of every 2 people in Chicago have illegal guns. Unless half the population of the entire city are criminals, you need better sources.

Funny thing is right after this you prove me right with "Drugs flow through the entry points now. Guns wouldn’t be any different." Ok so you agree if we ban guns, people will still get the illegally. So all you want to do is make sure it is easier for the bad guys to kill innocent civilians.

No? Not only have I cited a paper showing that easy access to guns is directly collaborated with an increase in crime, I then went on to point out that the deterrence argument is bullshit. So regardless of what common sense may say, it turns out that reality is more complicated.

For example, A very brave civilian; an NRA arms instructor, took out the Sutherland Springs shooter with his own AR-15. Think about that.

This is what we call a statistical outlier.

Our police force is great

I cannot tell if you’re serious or not.

and the need for rifles, shotguns, and pistols is to stop these shootings.

Well it doesn’t fucking work, now does it?

Cite your source why we shouldn't have a strong police force.

There’s a difference between a weaker police force and a less militarized one.

Why should we have less military, cite your sources. A strong military is important to deter our enemies. I think most people here would agree with that. America faces different fronts and needs a large force to do that. We have possible and current enemies such as Taliban, China, Russia, the crazy leadership of Iran, and others such as Syria, ISIS, Al-Queda, and other foreign terrorist organizations.

None of the terrorist organizations are an actual threat to the country. (Besides, America created them, and that’s a strong argument against a strong military). As for China and Russia…well, your chances of being invaded are nonexistent. See, Russia’s Navy is shit, their army isn’t large enough, their infrastructure is shit, and their economy can’t support a war. China’s Navy? Wrong kind of navy. Great for coastal defense, shit at ocean wars. So what’s this mean? Keep your Navy and Air Force. The Army? Fuck that.
Iran? Invading them would be an absolute disaster.

Your other points, are beyond addressing.

You seem to not be much of a patriot, and speak as if you aren't even American.

Congratulations, I’m Spanish.

America had French support, but who took the brunt of the war?

This was neither the argument, nor relevant. See, America may have taken the Brunt of the war. But without France, the Revolution would’ve been lost.

And you are giving all the glory to one PRUSSIAN not German general.

Of fucking course you don’t know where Prussia is.

Sure he may have trained them. But what good is a general without troops willing to fight. The Baron all he did was teach them formal European battle tactics.

No? Like, not at all.

As cool as hundreds of men in rows look, think about why we don't fight wars this way anymore. I'm sure you don't know jack about how wars are fought now days, let alone use a gun you want to ban, but if our military was just in rows and marched today, we would have lost every war including the Revolution. The Americans used gurreilla warfare to win, not marching in rows. I cite every battle we won.

You know what? Let’s just copy from the Wikipedia article, because I don’t think you know the first thing about what you’re talking about. “He is credited with being one of the fathers of the Continental Army in teaching them the essentials of military drills, tactics, and disciplines.[1] He wrote Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, the book that served as the standard United States drill manual until the War of 1812. Washington appointed von Steuben as temporary inspector general. He went out into the camp to talk with the officers and men, inspect their huts, and scrutinize their equipment. Steuben established standards of sanitation and camp layouts that would still be standard a century and a half later. There had previously been no set arrangement of tents and huts. Men relieved themselves where they wished, and when an animal died it was stripped of its meat and the rest was left to rot where it lay. Steuben laid out a plan to have rows for command, officers, and enlisted men. Kitchens and latrines were on opposite sides of the camp, with latrines on the downhill side. There was the familiar arrangement of company and regimental streets. He enforced the keeping of exact records and strict inspections. His inspections saved the army an estimated loss of five to eight thousand muskets.“
Of course, there’s more, about how effective his tactics were, and the victories they secured, but I think you get the point.

You clearly are anti-american, our troops, and the country. Sweden would be a good place to go.

If being Anti-American means wanting to improve the country, then I am proudly anti-American.

[Kowani]

“I like playing football.”
Doesn’t really work if I don’t play football, now does it?

Assuming you have the capacity to form memories, or feel empathy for other people, it does.

No. I can like that other people play football. But unless I actually play football, I don’t like playing football.

[Galloism]

See, the thing is, they’re not directly comparable. There’s this thing, it’s called peer review. You should try learning about it.

I truly enjoyed that peer reviewed study about rape culture of dogs in a dog park.

[Pannerstone]

There top candidates all advocate very extreme positions

I think they are off the deep end by now.

also what did people expect? SF and places like it are basically left-wing separatist movements.

[Grand Britannia]

Assuming you have the capacity to form memories, or feel empathy for other people, it does.

No. I can like that other people play football. But unless I actually play football, I don’t like playing football.

I love eating shrimp.

I can't eat it, because I developed an allergy to it, so I don't eat it anymore, but it is delicious.

[Telconi]

Assuming you have the capacity to form memories, or feel empathy for other people, it does.

No. I can like that other people play football. But unless I actually play football, I don’t like playing football.

Other people who play football don't play football? You're pushing a point that doesn't exist.